NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

International Space Flight (ESA, Russia, China and others) => ESA Launchers - Ariane, Soyuz at CSG, Vega => Topic started by: russianhalo117 on 03/29/2013 12:30 pm

Title: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 03/29/2013 12:30 pm
Welcome to the Ariane 6 discussion thread. Please place your Ariane 6 discussions here.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 03/29/2013 03:41 pm
First, please note that "Ariane 6" is NOT an official name.
The only official name of this project is "NGL" (Next-Gen Launcher).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/29/2013 03:45 pm
First, please note that "Ariane 6" is NOT an official name.
The only official name of this project is "NGL" (Next-Gen Launcher).

Well CNES naming it the Ariane 6 on their website, materials and even events didn't help with the situation.  ;)

Honestly, the emerging of the common solid motor for the first and second stages for the proposed configuration has pushed me somewhat from strong opposition to almost neutral. Let's hope that it will be a cost effective launcher.....  :-\
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 03/29/2013 04:49 pm
From this (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1031705#msg1031705) and this (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1032077#msg1032077) post I've got a question:

So, they'll have a mobile integration tower, that will also enclose a fixed service tower (for H2, auxiliary gases, etc.). They did stated that they would integrate the lower three solids on a separate building. So I'm assuming it will have some sort of mobile bed? Or will the service tower and bed be integrated like the Atlas V's MLP?
BTW, I still don't see how will they scale down performance. Unless they can do a PPH with a single solid at the base.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: sdsds on 03/30/2013 02:13 am
I still don't see how will they scale down performance. Unless they can do a PPH with a single solid at the base.

They're proposing 3xP135 + 1xP135 + a Vinci-based hydrolox stage as the highest performance configuration, right? And for lower performance they can instead fly with only 2xP135 as the first stage?

Then the only question is how to fill the gap between that configuration and the current Vega. An up-rated Vega using a single P135 seems possible.

Enrico Saggese [head of Italian space agency ASI] says moving [Vega] to the more robust P135 could be a greater challenge, requiring a larger diameter for the stage, a new payload adapter and changes to existing tooling and production processes.

“But if we have a P135 for the Ariane 6, this could be worked”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_15_2012_p26-505016.xml&p=3
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 03/30/2013 03:06 pm

Something tells me this "thing" will never be built.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 03/30/2013 05:36 pm

Something tells me this "thing" will never be built.

Hopefully!!!

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spaceStalker on 03/30/2013 06:20 pm
Let assume that they don't build NGL.
Then what? Ariane 5 stays or new rocket? What rocket?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 03/30/2013 07:07 pm
First, please note that "Ariane 6" is NOT an official name.
The only official name of this project is "NGL" (Next-Gen Launcher).

Hello Nicolas,

Analogy: the space shuttle was officially known as the space transportation system (STS). Yet everyone, including NASA referred to it primarily as "the space shuttle".

Technically, you are correct. This launcher is the NGL, and ESA is not (yet) officially referring to this as Ariane 6. Although.... Both CNES and the ESA director-general have, on multiple public occassions and interviews, referred to this launcher as Ariane 6.

So, Ariane 6 may not (yet) be the official name, it will eventually become the official name because everyone is already using that name.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 03/30/2013 07:10 pm

Something tells me this "thing" will never be built.

Unsubstantiated. CNES is now in full gear behind it. This "thing"  as you call it, has a very high chance of becoming a reality. And despite the somewhat unconventional 'look' of the first stage it is still a rocket, not a "thing".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 03/30/2013 07:11 pm
Let assume that they don't build NGL.
Then what? Ariane 5 stays or new rocket? What rocket?

New rocket. CNES won't settle for staying with Ariane 5 indefinitely.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 03/30/2013 09:14 pm
Quote from: woods170
Unsubstantiated. CNES is now in full gear behind it. This "thing"  as you call it, has a very high chance of becoming a reality. And despite the somewhat unconventional 'look' of the first stage it is still a rocket, not a "thing".

Sure, CNES is fully behind it. I think this speaks volumes (from http://www.senat.fr/rap/r12-114/r12-1143.html, November last year):

Quote
D'après le CNES, le coût de production du lanceur Ariane 6 pourrait être très inférieur au coût d'un Ariane 5ME (70 M€ pour le premier - pour un lancement simple - contre 170 M€ pour le second - pour un lancement double).

D'après les auditions réalisées par vos rapporteurs, l'estimation des coûts et délais respectifs des deux lanceurs varie selon que l'on s'adresse aux partisans d'Ariane 5ME (Astrium, Safran) ou à ceux d'Ariane 6 (CNES, Arianespace).

Pour les premiers, Ariane 5ME entrerait en service assez rapidement (2017) et son coût de développement pourrait être limité à 1,2 Md€. En revanche, Ariane 6 ne pourrait être fiabilisée avant 2024 et son coût de développement serait de l'ordre de 5,5 Mds€.

Pour les seconds, Ariane 5ME arriverait en 2018 pour un coût d'environ 2 Mds€ ; et Ariane 6 en 2021 pour « seulement » le double (4 Mds€) mais apporterait une réponse durable aux questions posées par le marché, ce qui ne serait pas le cas du projet ME.

En septembre dernier, le CNES et les industriels (Astrium, Safran) ont élaboré une position commune, en vue de la réunion ministérielle de l'ESA de novembre. Cet accord suggère de poursuivre les programmes de développement des deux lanceurs en 2013 et 2014, d'ici à une prochaine réunion ministérielle de l'ESA, qui pourrait avoir lieu en 2014.

In english, CNES thinks 70m euros per launch is doable (vs. 170m for Ariane 5), wasn't the initial goal 40% less?

My interpretation: Arianespace thinks SpaceX and others can offer 6.5t to GTO at 70m euros in 2020+, so they need a launcher who can do that. Whether its doable remains to be seen.

Then it says cost estimates depend on who you ask. If you ask the industry (astrium, safran) dev. costs will be 5.5bn for Ariane 6, 1.2bn for Ariane 5 ME. If you ask CNES its 4bn for Ariane 6 and 2bn for Ariane 5 ME.

So why did they pick solids? IMO its because Arianespace/CNES want to control as much from the supply chain as possible, they don't trust the industry to deliver at low cost.

The problem is, CNES won't win a fight against the industry and the germans. Players like EuroCryoSpace will tell politicans how the loss of cryo knowhow will not only threaten space-related tech but also ITER, CERN (http://www.astrowatch.net/2012/09/air-liquide-worried-ariane-6-could.html) etc.

Maybe my interpretations are silly, maybe they are not. I don't see it happening (except they reach that 70m cost target).


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/02/2013 08:25 am
Sure, CNES is fully behind it. I think this speaks volumes (from http://www.senat.fr/rap/r12-114/r12-1143.html, November last year):

Quote
D'après le CNES, le coût de production du lanceur Ariane 6 pourrait être très inférieur au coût d'un Ariane 5ME (70 M€ pour le premier - pour un lancement simple - contre 170 M€ pour le second - pour un lancement double).

D'après les auditions réalisées par vos rapporteurs, l'estimation des coûts et délais respectifs des deux lanceurs varie selon que l'on s'adresse aux partisans d'Ariane 5ME (Astrium, Safran) ou à ceux d'Ariane 6 (CNES, Arianespace).

Pour les premiers, Ariane 5ME entrerait en service assez rapidement (2017) et son coût de développement pourrait être limité à 1,2 Md€. En revanche, Ariane 6 ne pourrait être fiabilisée avant 2024 et son coût de développement serait de l'ordre de 5,5 Mds€.

Pour les seconds, Ariane 5ME arriverait en 2018 pour un coût d'environ 2 Mds€ ; et Ariane 6 en 2021 pour « seulement » le double (4 Mds€) mais apporterait une réponse durable aux questions posées par le marché, ce qui ne serait pas le cas du projet ME.

En septembre dernier, le CNES et les industriels (Astrium, Safran) ont élaboré une position commune, en vue de la réunion ministérielle de l'ESA de novembre. Cet accord suggère de poursuivre les programmes de développement des deux lanceurs en 2013 et 2014, d'ici à une prochaine réunion ministérielle de l'ESA, qui pourrait avoir lieu en 2014.

In english, CNES thinks 70m euros per launch is doable (vs. 170m for Ariane 5), wasn't the initial goal 40% less?

My interpretation: Arianespace thinks SpaceX and others can offer 6.5t to GTO at 70m euros in 2020+, so they need a launcher who can do that. Whether its doable remains to be seen.

Then it says cost estimates depend on who you ask. If you ask the industry (astrium, safran) dev. costs will be 5.5bn for Ariane 6, 1.2bn for Ariane 5 ME. If you ask CNES its 4bn for Ariane 6 and 2bn for Ariane 5 ME.

So why did they pick solids? IMO its because Arianespace/CNES want to control as much from the supply chain as possible, they don't trust the industry to deliver at low cost.

The problem is, CNES won't win a fight against the industry and the germans. Players like EuroCryoSpace will tell politicans how the loss of cryo knowhow will not only threaten space-related tech but also ITER, CERN (http://www.astrowatch.net/2012/09/air-liquide-worried-ariane-6-could.html) etc.

Maybe my interpretations are silly, maybe they are not. I don't see it happening (except they reach that 70m cost target).

Your interpretations are not silly, they are however somewhat out-of-touch with reality.

First:
Many launchers in-development have become more expensive once the people involved really started cracking the numbers. For example: Ariane 5 originally was not supposed to need any subsidies. But currently it needs 110 million Euros each year in subsidies. Another example is the SpaceX Falcon Heavy booster: the price-tag for that has increased sharply since the announcement in 2011. The price-tag for the regular Falcon 9 has increased as well. We won't even bother looking at Vega as that little critter has become MUCH more expensive than once projected.
Pulling this trend forward into the future; it's safe to say that Ariane 6 will become more expensive, per flight, than the 70 million Euro's projected by CNES and ESA today. But then again: the promise of industry that Ariane 5 ME will no longer need subsidies is just as invalid. Once it becomes operational it definitely will still need subsidies.

Second:
Asking industry to give best-estimate figures about the costs to complete development of Ariane 5 ME and Ariane 6 is just as ridiculous as asking ESA and CNES to give best-estimate figures  for the same. In the end, both parties will be way off. If there is one constant, in launcher development in Europe, it is that the launchers always become (much) more expensive (both in development cost as well as cost-per-flight) than initially calculated. Fighting petty wars over the difference in figures between industry and ESA/CNES is therefore an utter waste of effort.

Third:
Solids were not picked because CNES and ESA wish to be in control of the supply chain. I'm baffled as to how you came to that conclusion. Almost all components of the current Ariane 5 launcher are made by a limited number of large Euorpean companies, with EADS/Astrium being the biggest by far (and prime-contractor as well). But, EADS/Astrium will also become the prime development-contractor for Ariane 6, simply because there is no other European company with the experience to lead development. For development and production of the solids both ESA/CNES and the prime contractor will rely on the companies that currently preduce the solids for Ariane 5 and Vega. ESA and CNES are NOT production companies. They are (cross-)state-level agencies. They initiate development and provide the funds for development. But development, design, test and construction is always done by industry, under auspices from ESA/CNES. That MO applies to both liquid- and solid launchers. Ariane 6 will be no different.

Fourth:
EuroCryoSpace crying foul over Ariane 6 not being a liquid launcher has one, and one reason only: When Ariane 5 (ME) stops flying in the late 2020's, they are set to loose roughly 50% of their business. A company that, for it's business, is so much dependant on a single revenue source (Ariane 5) ought to be ashamed of itself. Them suggesting that ITER and CERN will suffer when cryogenic propulsion technology disappears from ESA launchers is even more shamefull. EuroCryoSpace seems to think that they, and only they, can supply cryogenics-technology to ITER and CERN. Well, there are at least 10 other cryogenics technology companies in Europe. There will always be someone willing to jump into the hole that the (potential) demise of EuroCryoSpace would create. That's called competition and free-market enterprise. ITER and CERN willl not be in trouble at all. The article on astrowatch.net you reffered to is simply fear mongering by EuroCryoSpace.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Proponent on 04/02/2013 04:24 pm
<snip>

So why did they pick solids? IMO its because Arianespace/CNES want to control as much from the supply chain as possible, they don't trust the industry to deliver at low cost.

The problem is, CNES won't win a fight against the industry and the germans. Players like EuroCryoSpace will tell politicans how the loss of cryo knowhow will not only threaten space-related tech but also ITER, CERN (http://www.astrowatch.net/2012/09/air-liquide-worried-ariane-6-could.html (http://www.astrowatch.net/2012/09/air-liquide-worried-ariane-6-could.html)) etc.

Your interpretations are not silly, they are however somewhat out-of-touch with reality.

First:
Many launchers in-development have become more expensive once the people involved really started cracking the numbers. For example: Ariane 5 originally was not supposed to need any subsidies. But currently it needs 110 million Euros each year in subsidies. Another example is the SpaceX Falcon Heavy booster: the price-tag for that has increased sharply since the announcement in 2011. The price-tag for the regular Falcon 9 has increased as well. We won't even bother looking at Vega as that little critter has become MUCH more expensive than once projected.
Pulling this trend forward into the future; it's safe to say that Ariane 6 will become more expensive, per flight, than the 70 million Euro's projected by CNES and ESA today. But then again: the promise of industry that Ariane 5 ME will no longer need subsidies is just as invalid. Once it becomes operational it definitely will still need subsidies.

I agree.  Europe will want to retain a space-launch industry.  It will fly its own government payloads on it and likely subsidize Ariane 6 as much as needed to keep at least a trickle of commercial payloads flying on it.

Quote
<snip>

Third:
Solids were not picked because CNES and ESA wish to be in control of the supply chain. I'm baffled as to how you came to that conclusion. Almost all components of the current Ariane 5 launcher are made by a limited number of large Euorpean companies, with EADS/Astrium being the biggest by far (and prime-contractor as well). But, EADS/Astrium will also become the prime development-contractor for Ariane 6, simply because there is no other European company with the experience to lead development. For development and production of the solids both ESA/CNES and the prime contractor will rely on the companies that currently preduce the solids for Ariane 5 and Vega. ESA and CNES are NOT production companies. They are (cross-)state-level agencies. They initiate development and provide the funds for development. But development, design, test and construction is always done by industry, under auspices from ESA/CNES. That MO applies to both liquid- and solid launchers. Ariane 6 will be no different.

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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/02/2013 05:45 pm
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.
Vulcain 2 is LOX/LH2, Aestus (Ariane 5 ES upper stage engine) is storable propellants and HM-7B (Ariane 5 ECA upper stage engine) is LOX/LH2.\

Knowledge of the use of cryogenic engines will likely not disappear entirely with Ariane 6. The current idea is to use a common-technology upper stage for both Ariane 5 ME and Ariane 6. That is to be the ESC-B upper stage, driven by the Vinci engine. It runs on LOX/LH2.
It's just that the use of LOX/LH2 will be scaled down (literally), but the basic knowledge will be retained.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Patchouli on 04/02/2013 05:46 pm
<snip>

So why did they pick solids? IMO its because Arianespace/CNES want to control as much from the supply chain as possible, they don't trust the industry to deliver at low cost.

The problem is, CNES won't win a fight against the industry and the germans. Players like EuroCryoSpace will tell politicans how the loss of cryo knowhow will not only threaten space-related tech but also ITER, CERN (http://www.astrowatch.net/2012/09/air-liquide-worried-ariane-6-could.html (http://www.astrowatch.net/2012/09/air-liquide-worried-ariane-6-could.html)) etc.

Your interpretations are not silly, they are however somewhat out-of-touch with reality.

First:
Many launchers in-development have become more expensive once the people involved really started cracking the numbers. For example: Ariane 5 originally was not supposed to need any subsidies. But currently it needs 110 million Euros each year in subsidies. Another example is the SpaceX Falcon Heavy booster: the price-tag for that has increased sharply since the announcement in 2011. The price-tag for the regular Falcon 9 has increased as well. We won't even bother looking at Vega as that little critter has become MUCH more expensive than once projected.
Pulling this trend forward into the future; it's safe to say that Ariane 6 will become more expensive, per flight, than the 70 million Euro's projected by CNES and ESA today. But then again: the promise of industry that Ariane 5 ME will no longer need subsidies is just as invalid. Once it becomes operational it definitely will still need subsidies.

I agree.  Europe will want to retain a space-launch industry.  It will fly its own government payloads on it and likely subsidize Ariane 6 as much as needed to keep at least a trickle of commercial payloads flying on it.

Quote
<snip>

Third:
Solids were not picked because CNES and ESA wish to be in control of the supply chain. I'm baffled as to how you came to that conclusion. Almost all components of the current Ariane 5 launcher are made by a limited number of large Euorpean companies, with EADS/Astrium being the biggest by far (and prime-contractor as well). But, EADS/Astrium will also become the prime development-contractor for Ariane 6, simply because there is no other European company with the experience to lead development. For development and production of the solids both ESA/CNES and the prime contractor will rely on the companies that currently preduce the solids for Ariane 5 and Vega. ESA and CNES are NOT production companies. They are (cross-)state-level agencies. They initiate development and provide the funds for development. But development, design, test and construction is always done by industry, under auspices from ESA/CNES. That MO applies to both liquid- and solid launchers. Ariane 6 will be no different.

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.

On Falcon 9 and similar I think the ESA needs to look into RLV technology if they wish to remain relevant.

Even semi reusable systems may be enough to remain competitive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 04/03/2013 02:20 am
Quote from: woods170
Many launchers in-development have become more expensive once the people involved really started cracking the numbers.


Yes, but at least the projected cost should be around 70m, afaik this is not yet guaranteed, its the goal.

Quote from: woods170
In the end, both parties will be way off.

There must be a consensus on a budget. If in the end costs exceed projected ones, industry is usually held responsible and must pay for parts of cost overruns.

Quote from: woods170
Solids were not picked because CNES and ESA wish to be in control of the supply chain. I'm baffled as to how you came to that conclusion.

The conclusion was maybe a bit off, but the booster infrastructure in guaiana will likely be a significant cost factor for the all-solid solution, and it is under control of CNES/Arianespace.

Quote from: woods170
EuroCryoSpace crying foul over Ariane 6 not being a liquid launcher has one, and one reason only

Not saying their motives are honourable.

Quote from: Patchouli
On Falcon 9 and similar I think the ESA needs to look into RLV technology if they wish to remain relevant.

While I like what spacex does I think people are overly optimistic when it comes to their RLV plans. Reusable boosters, that's what spacex' first stage is in principle, have been on the drawing board around the world for a long time, never turned into reality due to low launch rates.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/03/2013 11:05 am
Quote from: woods170
In the end, both parties will be way off.
There must be a consensus on a budget. If in the end costs exceed projected ones, industry is usually held responsible and must pay for parts of cost overruns.

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.

Quote from: woods170
Solids were not picked because CNES and ESA wish to be in control of the supply chain. I'm baffled as to how you came to that conclusion.
The conclusion was maybe a bit off, but the booster infrastructure in guaiana will likely be a significant cost factor for the all-solid solution, and it is under control of CNES/Arianespace.

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.

There are more facilities at CSG that are not under direct control from CNES/Arianespace. One example is the Soyuz infrastructure at CSG. That infrastructure is operated on behalf of Arianespace, but it is under control of Roskosmos, the Russian space agency.


Quote from: Patchouli
On Falcon 9 and similar I think the ESA needs to look into RLV technology if they wish to remain relevant.
While I like what spacex does I think people are overly optimistic when it comes to their RLV plans. Reusable boosters, that's what spacex' first stage is in principle, have been on the drawing board around the world for a long time, never turned into reality due to low launch rates.
For the time being it remains to be seen whether a (partly) reusable RLV will have any signifant impact on lowering launch cost. SpaceX is doing impressive work, but it will be some time before it becomes clear if re-usability enhances SpaceX' business-case.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Proponent on 04/03/2013 02:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/03/2013 03:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 04/03/2013 05:39 pm
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.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 04/04/2013 10:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: arkaska on 04/04/2013 10:29 pm
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?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: R7 on 04/05/2013 04:48 pm
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!)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simonbp on 04/05/2013 05:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 04/05/2013 09:31 pm
Quote from: simonbp
Ignoring politics...

I stopped there, politics is the only reason europe has a space program beyond science.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simonbp on 04/06/2013 07:46 am
Which apparently hasn't stopped them from buying Soyuzes...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: arkaska on 04/06/2013 01:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 04/06/2013 01:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Proponent on 04/06/2013 03:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simonbp on 04/06/2013 09:10 pm
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...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 04/06/2013 10:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: arkaska on 04/06/2013 10:45 pm

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?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 04/07/2013 12:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 04/07/2013 12:32 am
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 04/07/2013 01:45 am
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) ;)


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 04/07/2013 07:08 pm

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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: arkaska on 04/07/2013 08:23 pm
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'
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 04/07/2013 08:41 pm
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 .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 04/09/2013 04:27 pm
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?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/09/2013 08:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/23/2013 05:50 pm
Wait..... they are thinking of using the Soyuz pad for the Ariane 6!? (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1042853#msg1042853)  :o (reasonable thought, but still weird)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/23/2013 06:04 pm
Wait..... they are thinking of using the Soyuz pad for the Ariane 6!? (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1042853#msg1042853)  :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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/23/2013 06:14 pm
Wait..... they are thinking of using the Soyuz pad for the Ariane 6!? (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1042853#msg1042853)  :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.)  ???
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/23/2013 09:05 pm
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?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/24/2013 06:46 am
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/24/2013 07:02 am
Wait..... they are thinking of using the Soyuz pad for the Ariane 6!? (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1042853#msg1042853)  :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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/24/2013 03:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/25/2013 06:35 am
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?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars_J on 04/26/2013 09:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/27/2013 01:40 am
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.)  ???
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/27/2013 08:38 am
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"...  ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/27/2013 08:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 04/28/2013 10:42 pm

Nobody commented on my 25 vinci first stage... :'(
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/29/2013 07:33 am

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

We were just being polite by not confirming the sillyness of that post.  ;) ;) ;) ;D
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 04/29/2013 10:03 pm
^

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.

 :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lobo on 04/29/2013 10:11 pm
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...

;-)

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RocketmanUS on 05/01/2013 05:13 am
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/01/2013 07:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/01/2013 07:07 am
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/01/2013 10:18 am
^

Which is unfortunate.

Not so long ago the concepts PPH, HHSC, HHGG, CH were seen as having less than 10% difference in recurrent costs. See attached pdf page 63.

Further the HHSC variant was considered to be the most promising solution also long-term (page 65). With a first stage propellant mass of 150t it would have been less of a beast than Delta IV (204t). Thanks to its efficient engines (first stage SC and vinci).

I understand that RLVs are probably still a generation away, but why invest in technology that will never have the chance to be reusable? For me it doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Patchouli on 05/01/2013 03:24 pm
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.

But they might be able to get ATK to share part of the R&D.

For LEO missions it might be cheaper then Ariane V but for GTO it will still need an upper stage.

Interesting note it would allow an easier path to future HLVs when the economic and political climate changes.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/01/2013 07:42 pm
^

Which is unfortunate.

Not so long ago the concepts PPH, HHSC, HHGG, CH were seen as having less than 10% difference in recurrent costs. See attached pdf page 63.

Further the HHSC variant was considered to be the most promising solution also long-term (page 65). With a first stage propellant mass of 150t it would have been less of a beast than Delta IV (204t). Thanks to its efficient engines (first stage SC and vinci).

I understand that RLVs are probably still a generation away, but why invest in technology that will never have the chance to be reusable? For me it doesn't make sense.


Not to you perhaps, but it does to me. At least four decades of research into reusable launch vehicles have turned up exactly ZERO reusable launch vehicles. Space Shuttle does not count as such as it was only partially reusable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RocketmanUS on 05/01/2013 08:07 pm
I don't see how Ariane 6 will be cheaper than Ariane 5.
They will loose lift capacity with Ariane 6.
It would seem to be cheaper to just do small upgrades to Ariane 5 over time to lower it's cost while keeping ESA's medium lift capacity.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/01/2013 11:12 pm
Quote from: woods170
Not to you perhaps, but it does to me. At least four decades of research into reusable launch vehicles have turned up exactly ZERO reusable launch vehicles. Space Shuttle does not count as such as it was only partially reusable.

Well maybe not fully reusable, but a flyback first stage (or boost back a al spacex) for a medium sized system, why not? Not Ariane 6 which will be expendable anyway, but Ariane 7, which is 30 years away.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/02/2013 06:29 am
They will loose lift capacity with Ariane 6.
It would seem to be cheaper to just do small upgrades to Ariane 5 over time to lower it's cost while keeping ESA's medium lift capacity.
This has been answered a number of times now in the Ariane 6 discussion threads: ESA and Arianespace have no further need for the big lifting capacity of Ariane 5 after ATV stops flying. Dual-launch of comm-sats is, in the long term, not a valid reason to keep Ariane 5 going. Single launch is deemed to be more cost-effective. With the necessity (of launching 20+ metric tons to LEO and 10+ metric tons to GTO) gone, the next launcher will be smaller in terms of lifting capacity.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RocketmanUS on 05/02/2013 07:29 pm
They will loose lift capacity with Ariane 6.
It would seem to be cheaper to just do small upgrades to Ariane 5 over time to lower it's cost while keeping ESA's medium lift capacity.
This has been answered a number of times now in the Ariane 6 discussion threads: ESA and Arianespace have no further need for the big lifting capacity of Ariane 5 after ATV stops flying. Dual-launch of comm-sats is, in the long term, not a valid reason to keep Ariane 5 going. Single launch is deemed to be more cost-effective. With the necessity (of launching 20+ metric tons to LEO and 10+ metric tons to GTO) gone, the next launcher will be smaller in terms of lifting capacity.
I know they want to go down to a single payload per launch. However this may not lower cost and would remove their med lift for future use.

They should be looking into ways to lower the cost of the Ariane 5. Ariane 5 ME is said it could lower cost by 20% and also increase it's payload mass to orbit.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/11/a-closer-look-at-ariane-6/

After Ariane 5 ME they should be looking into fly back boosters and reusable throttleable Vulcain engines.

By the time Ariane 6 is to fly they could find that they need to Ariane 5 lift capacity and that Ariane 6 would not have lowered the costs.

They can launch single primary payloads on Ariane 5 and with the extra capacity launch secondary payloads. Secondary payloads would have to meet the launch requirements of the primary payload ( launch date and orbit ).

 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/03/2013 01:13 pm
Have you even read the first lines? Ariane is about assuring access to space to European national missions. That does includes GTO because of military comm and weather satellites. But it's mostly on Soyuz range to LEO and escape. Buying Soyuz is not assuring access to space. thus Ariane 6. Nothing else.
Is very basic really and can't understand why you can't follow the logical consequence of a stated policy. Do you want to put into question the logic of such policy? Great, start a thread on "Does ESA really needs to assure european mission access to space or should it work on a RLV instead?", or whatever you want to question.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RocketmanUS on 05/03/2013 05:21 pm
Have you even read the first lines? Ariane is about assuring access to space to European national missions. That does includes GTO because of military comm and weather satellites. But it's mostly on Soyuz range to LEO and escape. Buying Soyuz is not assuring access to space. thus Ariane 6. Nothing else.
Is very basic really and can't understand why you can't follow the logical consequence of a stated policy. Do you want to put into question the logic of such policy? Great, start a thread on "Does ESA really needs to assure european mission access to space or should it work on a RLV instead?", or whatever you want to question.
Ariane 5 ME is were they are headed now and should be. As the single payloads grow in mass they will need more than Ariane 6 could provide. Ariane 5 could be made to launch as cheap as Ariane 6 was expected to.

If they want a Soyuz payload class vehicle of their own then they only need to replace the SRB's and core with a new core. Three Vulcain engines on the 1st stage should do the job with two of them to drop off in flight like the Atlas rocket did with it's engines. This would have no SRB's however still use the same US, fairing and Vulcain engine. Would need a taller 1st stage for the added propellants. The engine mount would flare out like the Atlas did with the two extra engines. Same personnel could handle this launch vehicle too on a new pad.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/04/2013 06:34 am
Have you even read the first lines? Ariane is about assuring access to space to European national missions. That does includes GTO because of military comm and weather satellites. But it's mostly on Soyuz range to LEO and escape. Buying Soyuz is not assuring access to space. thus Ariane 6. Nothing else.
Is very basic really and can't understand why you can't follow the logical consequence of a stated policy. Do you want to put into question the logic of such policy? Great, start a thread on "Does ESA really needs to assure european mission access to space or should it work on a RLV instead?", or whatever you want to question.
Ariane 5 ME is were they are headed now and should be. As the single payloads grow in mass they will need more than Ariane 6 could provide. Ariane 5 could be made to launch as cheap as Ariane 6 was expected to.

If they want a Soyuz payload class vehicle of their own then they only need to replace the SRB's and core with a new core. Three Vulcain engines on the 1st stage should do the job with two of them to drop off in flight like the Atlas rocket did with it's engines. This would have no SRB's however still use the same US, fairing and Vulcain engine. Would need a taller 1st stage for the added propellants. The engine mount would flare out like the Atlas did with the two extra engines. Same personnel could handle this launch vehicle too on a new pad.

Single payload mass is still growing, but only barely. Within this decade most comm-sats (the primary 'secondary' payloads for Ariane) will almost all switch to ion drives. The result will be rather substantial decreases in payload mass. As a result: within 10 to 12 years there will be no further need for an ESA-sponsored big-lift launcher like Ariane 5.

You can shower this thread with hypothetical Ariane-5 derived launcher concepts, but that will be a wasted effort. ESA, the agency supplying the money for Ariane development, has it's course firmly set towards Ariane 5 ME (the final version of Ariane 5) and Ariane 6. What you think of that is of no interest to the people running the show in Paris. So, any further discussion about what ESA/CNES/Arianespace should do or should not do is futile.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: koroljow on 05/04/2013 07:41 am
Sorry if I missed this point in the ongoing discussion:
Ariane 5 is doing 5 to 6 launches per year. Launching approx. 10 ComSats to GEO. How do they want to keep this market share with Ariane 6 single launch capacity? 10 Ariane launches per year + Soyuz + Vega?! They would need much shorter turn around times. And there were reports that the CSG range takes to much time to be reconfigured for one of those different rockets. Maybe two Ariane 6 launchpads? Kourou has seen some busy years with Ariane 4 (up to 11 launches per year). But can they do this again with the new mixed fleet?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 05/04/2013 01:15 pm
Sorry if I missed this point in the ongoing discussion:
Ariane 5 is doing 5 to 6 launches per year. Launching approx. 10 ComSats to GEO. How do they want to keep this market share with Ariane 6 single launch capacity?

They don't, as securing this market share in the future will be impossible due to increased competition. As has been repeated many times above the whole point of this exercise is that Ariane 5 will no longer be viable in such a crowded marketplace, and so indigenous European access to space for payloads larger than Vega can provide will be at risk. Ariane 6 can survive on much smaller market share.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: koroljow on 05/04/2013 02:08 pm
Quote
Ariane 6 can survive on much smaller market share.
So they won't even try to compete with SpaceX, CGWIC, ILS...? They take what they can get because of their good reputation. If this is Europe's strategy Ariane will end like Delta and Atlas. Out of competition. Home carrier for governmental / institutional payloads. That's even worse than I thought.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: arkaska on 05/04/2013 06:35 pm
So they won't even try to compete with SpaceX, CGWIC, ILS...? They take what they can get because of their good reputation. If this is Europe's strategy Ariane will end like Delta and Atlas. Out of competition. Home carrier for governmental / institutional payloads. That's even worse than I thought.

Who said they won't try? They are just being realistic and know they won't be able to keep a 50% market-share.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: koroljow on 05/04/2013 08:37 pm
Quote
Who said they won't try? They are just being realistic and know they won't be able to keep a 50% market-share.
Sorry, but my English isn't good enough to discuss this in detail.

I think the current situation is such that Arianespace has problems to find matching payloads for their Ariane 5 double launch strategy. And in the future? If they get more payloads than anticipated they will have a problem to launch them. Recent Proton and Zenit failures, development issues with the new CZ-5. And Falcon 9 v1.1 still has to show it's commercial potential. It's anything but safe that Ariane's market-share will decline so much.
That said I hope that even with Ariane 6 they will be a strong competitor. But I have my doubts.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/06/2013 07:45 am
Quote
Ariane 6 can survive on much smaller market share.
So they won't even try to compete with SpaceX, CGWIC, ILS...? They take what they can get because of their good reputation. If this is Europe's strategy Ariane will end like Delta and Atlas. Out of competition. Home carrier for governmental / institutional payloads. That's even worse than I thought.
No, it isn't. You seem to be forgetting that the first - and foremost - reason for existence for Ariane is guaranteed independent European access to space. This is leading. Even if Ariane was not performing commercial launches, the launcher infrastructure and industrial organization would still be maintained by the ESA member states. Launching comm-sats in a competitive market is only a means to reduce the amount of money that ESA has to pour into maintaining the launcher infrastructure and industry.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/06/2013 08:09 am
Quote
Who said they won't try? They are just being realistic and know they won't be able to keep a 50% market-share.
Sorry, but my English isn't good enough to discuss this in detail.

I think the current situation is such that Arianespace has problems to find matching payloads for their Ariane 5 double launch strategy. And in the future? If they get more payloads than anticipated they will have a problem to launch them. Recent Proton and Zenit failures, development issues with the new CZ-5. And Falcon 9 v1.1 still has to show it's commercial potential. It's anything but safe that Ariane's market-share will decline so much.
That said I hope that even with Ariane 6 they will be a strong competitor. But I have my doubts.
This may sound a little strange, but customers usually do not run away from their launch provider if the latter has a failure every now-and-then. If the customers would run away to the competition as soon as a launch provider has a failure, then Arianespace would have no customers at all. Remember that the inaugural launches of both Ariane 5G and Ariane 5ECA were catastrophic failures. Yet, Ariane 5 now holds a near 50% market share.
And customers do not run away in masses from ILS because Proton suffers an occasional failure. One would imagine that SeaLaunch is the rare exception. Well, it isn't. It was not so much the launch failures at SeaLaunch, but the fact that it went thru bankruptcy.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: koroljow on 05/06/2013 08:09 pm
@woods170
I know you have far more insight and information on this topic than I will ever have. But the future is always difficult to see. Of course most ComSat companies do prefer one ore another launch provider and don't run away after each mishap. But on the other side they have to get their birds launched on time. If Ariane or Proton would be out of business, let's say for more than a year, some customers would think about alternatives. And if there is no Ariane 6 launch opportunity for many month some could do the same. Especially if the competitor is offering the launch for less and is gaining reputation (probably the case with SpaceX and/or CGWIC). But you are right - it's unlikely that Arianespace will suffer from a to long backlog. I was only wondering if this could become a problem.

On the other hand I'm not convinced that the ESA members are willing to support the independent European access to space at any cost. Since the beginning of ELDO and Ariane there have been voices saying that it would be more economical to let others do the job. Even the US DoD is doing their communication via Chinese satellites. Provocative question: does Europe really need it's own launcher (I think yes, but...)?
France is trying to secure jobs in it's national aerospace industry. Germany, too. But if we can't get out of the current economic crisis some politicians could start thinking about cutting all those highly subsidized aerospace programs (like Britain axed it's aerospace industry in the 60ies). And than the Ariane program could be in danger of starving to death.

Again - I'm a great supporter of all European spaceflight activities. But I fear that Arianespace will see difficult times. And the Ariane 5 vs. Ariane 6 decision could be crucial. Ariane 4 has been the key to success. What Ariane 6 will be remembered?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 05/17/2013 05:21 pm
So they won't even try to compete with SpaceX, CGWIC, ILS...? They take what they can get because of their good reputation. If this is Europe's strategy Ariane will end like Delta and Atlas. Out of competition. Home carrier for governmental / institutional payloads. That's even worse than I thought.

Who said they won't try? They are just being realistic and know they won't be able to keep a 50% market-share.

Real time satellite reconnaissance next is the big thing .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Proponent on 05/19/2013 10:44 am
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.

I agree.  I suspect the reason they've chosen to rely heavily on monolithic solids for Ariane 6 is to maximize synergies with missiles, the infrastructure for which they're going to be paying for anyway.  Ariane 6 will probably have a low flight rate, and this is likely the cheapest way to maintain a medium-lift capability under those conditions.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: bolun on 05/24/2013 07:59 pm
With Ariane 6 Launch Site Selected, CNES Expects To Freeze Design of the New Rocket in July

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-expects-to-freeze-design-of-the#.UZ_Fwx6bvMw
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: jacqmans on 05/25/2013 10:15 am
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/25/2013 08:39 pm
Quote from: Proponent
I agree.  I suspect the reason they've chosen to rely heavily on monolithic solids for Ariane 6 is to maximize synergies with missiles, the infrastructure for which they're going to be paying for anyway.

There is no significant synergy with missiles, AFAIK.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 05/26/2013 04:06 pm
The stick rises again :-\
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/27/2013 06:31 pm
So, they went with Soyuz style pads because they had that quarry that made it "cheap" and fast? I could see how that could give a big advantage tu such a pad design.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: antriksh on 05/28/2013 03:11 am
Excerpt from an interview of Jean-Yves Le Gall given to Indian newspaper

At CNES what innovations are you looking at in terms of low-cost access to space — which is a common concern of space agencies — and technologies related to spacecraft?

I think low-cost is the new frontier of space technology. Until now most of our projects were technology driven. There is clamour worldwide in favour of projects which are cost driven. This is why France started to think about the next generation of Ariane launch vehicles [to address this need].

We are now working on the next launch vehicle, the Ariane 6. The first flight is slated for 2020. This launcher will be defined as a low-cost approach whereas Ariane 5 is defined as technology driven.

Ariane 6 will be smaller than Ariane 5 and will launch six-tonne payloads to the GTO [geostationary transfer orbit] — which is about half of Ariane-5’s capability.

We hope the price tag will be less than half of Ariane 5. We plan to decrease launch price by 20 to 50 per cent compared to current launch prices.

On the satellite side, in Europe (European space agencies) and France we are investing a lot in electrical propulsion in order to have three communication satellites which will be smaller, less expensive to launch and with better performance. The programme is called NEOSAT. The huge R&D programme was decided at the gathering of European Ministers which took place in Naples last November.

source: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/isrocnes-taking-the-next-steps-together/article4757036.ece
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/28/2013 06:02 am
And there you have it: confirmation from the horse's mouth: ESA and CNES expect the weight of satellites to go down, thanks to electrical propulsion. Not in the least because they are actively steering in that direction themselves with the mentioned R&D program. And hence the reason why a 10+ metric tons to GTO launcher is no longer needed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 05/28/2013 06:14 am
Yea, and that of course makes it worthwhile to spend more money than you could ever spend on flying the 10+ metric tons launcher for the development of a smaller one.

When will you ever understand that the stuff these people say in interviews has absolutely nothing to do with their real motivations?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/28/2013 05:08 pm
The stick rises again :-\
Ariane 6 and Ares I/Liberty are substantially different.  The main difference is the use of two serial solid stages rather than only one.  That shrinks the required mass of the rocket, and especially of the cryogenic upper stage, reducing upper stage thrust requirements and therefore cost.  Other differences include the use of monolithic rather then segmented solid motors, composites rather than steel casings, and more efficient propellant. 

An Ares I designed like an Ariane 6 would have been a much better rocket.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/28/2013 05:46 pm
Technically, I think that the move to electric propulsion will reset the weight growth trend, but it won't stop it. What I mean, is that we'll see more birds with closer to 100 transponders, and they'll try to make them 200W. Also, the total power of the satellites is growing, too. What happens is that SEP allow to do a one time elimination of about 40% of the launch weight.
Thus, the move to SEP might move current 6t birds to 3.5t, but they'll will keep growing till 6t SEP in the next 15 years. You know those GSO slots are more crowded than ever and smaller CPE is a marketing need.
Thus, the overall strategy of ESA wrt GSO industry development (both sats and launchers) seems consistent and reasonable. It does make a bet, that SEP will be standard. But it would appear that it has very good odds.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/28/2013 07:59 pm
Yea, and that of course makes it worthwhile to spend more money than you could ever spend on flying the 10+ metric tons launcher for the development of a smaller one.

When will you ever understand that the stuff these people say in interviews has absolutely nothing to do with their real motivations?

It was expected that the weight-of-comsats-is-going-down argument would eventually be used by ESA and CNES officials to justify the rationale behind Ariane 6. And that is exactly what has now happened. That however does not mean that these are the REAL reasons behind the choice for Ariane 6. And I never stated as such.

Other than that I think you are slightly paranoid.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/28/2013 08:03 pm
The stick rises again :-\
Ariane 6 and Ares I/Liberty are substantially different.  The main difference is the use of two serial solid stages rather than only one.  That shrinks the required mass of the rocket, and especially of the cryogenic upper stage, reducing upper stage thrust requirements and therefore cost.  Other differences include the use of monolithic rather then segmented solid motors, composites rather than steel casings, and more efficient propellant. 

An Ares I designed like an Ariane 6 would have been a much better rocket.

 - Ed Kyle

It should be obvious to even floss that Ariane 6 and Ares I have absolutely nothing in common. Kudos to Ed for helping floss see the light.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 05/28/2013 08:28 pm
I don't think I'm paranoid just because I don't think there are economic reasons for Ariane 6. Granted, I would not rule out those decision makers even BELIEVE they would have economic reasons for it because it you are exposed to this bureaucratic reasoning for long enough it kind of starts to make sense to you.

All my friends who work for these useless EU money sinks actually think what they do has any value, too....
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/29/2013 07:06 am
I don't think I'm paranoid just because I don't think there are economic reasons for Ariane 6. Granted, I would not rule out those decision makers even BELIEVE they would have economic reasons for it because it IF you are exposed to this bureaucratic reasoning for long enough it kind of starts to make sense to you.
<snip>

There... fixed that for ya.
One of my sources tells me that there are people inside both ESA and CNES that do not actually believe in the economic rationale for Ariane 6.  ::)

Quote
We hope the price tag will be less than half of Ariane 5.

Nice slip-of-the-tongue there by mr. Le Gall.
In short: nothing is set in stone with respect to the cost and pricing of Ariane 6. ESA and CNES are aiming at cutting cost in half but there is no guarantee that such goal will actually be met.

On a side note (and I'm starting to sound like a broken record by now): the main reason for Ariane 6 existence is not economic, but political. The economic argument is more-or-less a smoke screen.
With political reasons being the main driver behind the existence of Ariane 6 (and every other Ariane version before it), it is illogical to waste time discussing the economics of any Ariane version.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spectre9 on 05/29/2013 10:14 am
LH2 core stages are going out of fashion.

Solids and kerosene are taking over. Better fuel density, less tank, warmer temps.

Less tank seems to be a very good thing.

LH2 is still the best upper stage propellant.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/29/2013 04:26 pm
Quote
With political reasons being the main driver behind the existence of Ariane 6 (and every other Ariane version before it), it is illogical to waste time discussing the economics of any Ariane version.

Umm...what? ESA members have to finance the Ariane 6 program, and whether that happens is still uncertain and likely depends on cost estimates. It could very well be that A5 ME gets the go-ahead and A6 is postponed.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/29/2013 05:57 pm
Quote
With political reasons being the main driver behind the existence of Ariane 6 (and every other Ariane version before it), it is illogical to waste time discussing the economics of any Ariane version.

Umm...what? ESA members have to finance the Ariane 6 program, and whether that happens is still uncertain and likely depends on cost estimates. It could very well be that A5 ME gets the go-ahead and A6 is postponed.



Yeah, that is a possible scenario. And it will have nothing to do with Ariane 6 exploitation economics, but everything with politics and, at best, Ariane 6 development economics. Even if in 2014 the ESA member states decide not to go into full development of Ariane 6 just yet, it will at the next ministerial conference after that. CNES and France are simply too powerful for the rest of ESA to block them off. Ariane 6 has gotten a preliminary "GO" in the last ministerial conference. With the full weight of France (not the mention the involved industries) behind Ariane 6, the "GO" for full development will mostly be a formality, regardless of what development is gonna cost.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/31/2013 06:38 am
The discussion about solid versus liquid has entered a new chapter with this most recent development:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35546europe-urged-to-halt-work-on-%E2%80%98dead-end-ariane-6-design#.UahCkJFrMrs (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35546europe-urged-to-halt-work-on-%E2%80%98dead-end-ariane-6-design#.UahCkJFrMrs)

Quote
Europe Urged To Halt Work on ‘Dead End' Ariane 6 Design

Europe’s Air & Space Academy says the French and European space agencies are moving in the wrong direction on the future Ariane 6 rocket and should delay development in favor of a redesign that provides more growth potential.

The academy is urging the agencies to stop work on the Ariane 6 they approved in November with a view to beginning full development in 2014. The academy-favored rocket would use liquid propulsion instead of solid, and would face four more years of preparatory work before moving to full development in 2018.

In the meantime, the academy says, Europe should focus on an upgraded heavy-lift Ariane 5 that would fly for a decade before both it and the Europeanized version of Russia’s medium-lift Soyuz rocket are replaced by the all-liquid Ariane 6 in 2027. This rocket, called Ariane 5 ME, has been in design for several years. Continued work on it was approved, alongside Ariane 6, at the November meeting of European Space Agency (ESA) governments.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spectre9 on 05/31/2013 09:00 am
"Solids it is"  ;D

"But liquids are better"  ???

"Who cares?"  ::)

Where have I heard this story before?  :P
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 05/31/2013 09:21 am
The important part of this call is not the "solid vs. liquid" thing, it's the "wait" aspect.

I'm not convinced that that Ariane 6 _design_ is necessarily bad. However, to start the development _now_ is a completely ridiculous move. If they do 5ME (and that looks more or less like a given), they will be fine in the market for the next 10 years.
During that time, the market will change, we do already know that now. However, what we don't know is how successful NewSpace will be, what their price point will be and whether they have an impact on payload size growth/non-growth.

ESA is in no position to have to immediately react, Arianespace won't lose all market share at and instant and the current portfolio gives them all assured access they could ever want.
After the big changes settle down a bit you know what you've got to shoot for and can make an informed decision, they can afford to wait for that.

Shooting for a new launcher right now, however, will almost certainly leave you in a situation where, having developed it, you will see that one or the other development has been different than you expected. While you can never completely avoid that, right now looks like an especially bad time to make a decision.

SpaceX have had to revise their strategy a few times and are not yet in the market, if and how other entrants follow remains to be seen, this is not the time to start a completely new development.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/31/2013 09:52 am
"Solids it is"  ;D

"But liquids are better"  ???

"Who cares?"  ::)

Where have I heard this story before?  :P

Nice recap! Basically says it all.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/31/2013 10:02 am
The important part of this call is not the "solid vs. liquid" thing, it's the "wait" aspect.

I'm not convinced that that Ariane 6 _design_ is necessarily bad. However, to start the development _now_ is a completely ridiculous move. If they do 5ME (and that looks more or less like a given), they will be fine in the market for the next 10 years.
During that time, the market will change, we do already know that now. However, what we don't know is how successful NewSpace will be, what their price point will be and whether they have an impact on payload size growth/non-growth.

ESA is in no position to have to immediately react, Arianespace won't lose all market share at and instant and the current portfolio gives them all assured access they could ever want.
After the big changes settle down a bit you know what you've got to shoot for and can make an informed decision, they can afford to wait for that.

Shooting for a new launcher right now, however, will almost certainly leave you in a situation where, having developed it, you will see that one or the other development has been different than you expected. While you can never completely avoid that, right now looks like an especially bad time to make a decision.

SpaceX have had to revise their strategy a few times and are not yet in the market, if and how other entrants follow remains to be seen, this is not the time to start a completely new development.

Hmmm, not entirely convinced by this reasoning. You see, ESA and CNES started orienting themselves towards a new launcher as early as 2004, with the kick-off of the FLPP. It's customary to start looking towards future vehicles while your current vehicle has only just begun to fly. For instance: the first outlooks for Ariane 5 were developed when ESA had only barely begun to fly Ariane 2 and Ariane 3.

And then there is the other thing: development time. I'll give an example. Just suppose you postpone development of Ariane 6 for 5 years to see where the market is going. And just suppose you then choose a heavy launcher because satellites stay big and heavy. OK, you then begin development of a heavy launcher. By the time it becomes operational (7 to 10 years after start of development) it turns out the market has changed and now every commsat manufacturer has switched to electric propulsion and satellite weight is steadily going down.

In this example (and an example it is) ESA would still wind up with the wrong launch vehicle. Point is: development times for agency-developed launch vehicles are so long, that there is no guarantee that the resulting vehicle will 'fit' the market. Regardless of it being solid or liquid, or it having been developed now or 5 years from now.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 05/31/2013 02:21 pm
Well, as I said: you will never be able to completely avoid uncertainty.
But right now, during the next 3 or 4 years we will see whether there are more fundamental changes in the business model in the market place. I'm not talking about comsat sizes but the question whether SpaceX and the other NewSpace entrants really find ways to change the cost structure by a factor of more than, say, 1/5th or so.

I doubt it, but if they succeed you will definitely want to learn some lessons from them, also on the processes side (for example, it might result in even more payloads being able to be horizontally integrated; yes, I know most comsats already allow that....). It might also have an impact on payload sizes.

And if they don't succeed, well, then you didn't lose anything else because you just stay competitive.

That you have already started thinking about a new launcher a few years ago doesn't change the fact that right now is a bad moment for decisions.

And here again: regarding development times I believe everybody has already seen that in _this_ respect NewSpace is not faster than everybody else but maybe even slower so that doesn't add any hurry, A5ME will be competitive for quite a while.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/31/2013 04:15 pm
We know the French are in favor of the Ariane 6. What does the Germans think of this new launcher, especially since they will fund most of it. Does the Bundestag get a veto on new launcher development if they refuse to put up the cash?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kch on 05/31/2013 04:28 pm
"Solids it is"  ;D

"But liquids are better"  ???

"Who cares?"  ::)

Where have I heard this story before?  :P

Nice recap! Basically says it all.

'Twere ever thus ...


... you will never be able to completely avoid uncertainty.

That much is certain.   ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 05/31/2013 05:15 pm
We know the French are in favor of the Ariane 6. What does the Germans think of this new launcher, especially since they will fund most of it. Does the Bundestag get a veto on new launcher development if they refuse to put up the cash?

It has been more or less a complete non-issue so far in German media. On the technical side, the Germans traditionally haven't been much in favor of solids.

Regarding the funding: all funds going to ESA have to be approved per purpose so yes, each parliament in countries paying for this will have to agree.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 05/31/2013 06:32 pm
The French will probably foot half the bill so they can call it a French rocket.

Otherwise it is up to the commissioners.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/01/2013 10:19 pm
Attached is an interesting new document I found. To quote from the intro:

"..concept dubbed ANGELA (A New GEneration LAuncher) is a study financed with funds of the German Ministry of Economics and managed by the DLR Space Administration. The project, which started in the summer of 2012 aims at designing a low cost versatile launcher able to place payloads between 2 and 5 tons into GTO."

There are 3 concepts (numbers denote mass in tons), upper stage with Vinci:

H110 with 2-6 P36 - H29
Core stage with two Vulcain 2 and up to 6 boosters attached.

H90 with 2-6 P34 - H24
Core stage with new 1800kN (vac) staged combustion engine and up to 6 boosters.

2-3 P120 - P120 - H23
Resembles the CNES Ariane 6 design, but P120 instead of P135. Just like in the CNES design, solids will be "strictly identical" (which was new to me, I thought they may have different nozzles and/or thrust profiles).


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 06/02/2013 02:04 am
What a ridiculous name
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/02/2013 05:22 pm
What a ridiculous name

The current German Chancellor might be in favor of the name.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 06/02/2013 05:42 pm
She's a scientist, I'm pretty sure she'll find that kind of "naming for compliments" ridiculous, too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/02/2013 06:06 pm

Must be german humor, at least they didn't name it Adolf.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 06/02/2013 06:13 pm
THAT would have been English humor then, nowadays ;)
And Germans don't have any humor.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 06/02/2013 06:13 pm
The stick rises again :-\
Ariane 6 and Ares I/Liberty are substantially different.  The main difference is the use of two serial solid stages rather than only one.  That shrinks the required mass of the rocket, and especially of the cryogenic upper stage, reducing upper stage thrust requirements and therefore cost.  Other differences include the use of monolithic rather then segmented solid motors, composites rather than steel casings, and more efficient propellant. 

An Ares I designed like an Ariane 6 would have been a much better rocket.

 - Ed Kyle

Thanks Ed KYLE that was just my point bet the same engineers worked on both.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/03/2013 01:36 am

So I looked at the H-IIA design and I find that quite interesting actually.

The first stage SC engine could be replaced with a scaled down Vulcain 2 engine, hopefully at lower cost.

The boosters could be scaled down P80s from vega.

The upper stage would be powered by vinci, naturally.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: cheesybagel on 06/03/2013 02:25 am
So basically the head of Arianespace hopes Ariane 6 will have less than half the cost per launch of Ariane 5. But the thing is Ariane 6 is supposed to have half the payload of Ariane 5. I would be willing to bet Ariane 6 will not cost less per pound than Ariane 5. Quite the opposite. Especially after the R&D costs and launch pad construction costs are included into the price. If there is one constant in this sector is that the launch costs are never as cheap as originally advertised.

Also their justification for canning Ariane 5 is that dual-launch is no longer possible because comsats are too getting too heavy for dual launch. But for Ariane 6 they claim that 6.5t payload makes sense because comsats will be getting lighter because of solar-electric propulsion. What?

I would just keep the current Ariane 5 improvement program, work on a heavier version of Vega to replace Soyuz, and put the rest of the money into R&D for a staged combustion first-stage engine. This way liquid engine know-how would be supported for the foreseeable future and the technology could eventually be reused for a future RLV.

The other option is to do like the Japanese and work on expander-bleed cycle engines for the first stage. Those should also have fairly good reusability characteristics and high ISP.

It seems the head of Arianespace got the wrong idea from SpaceX and Orbital. He seems to think they are not technologically driven. However the reality is that SpaceX uses much more modern stage construction techniques than Ariane 5 while Orbital uses staged-combustion engines in Antares.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 06/03/2013 09:17 pm
With Vega to prototype solid rocket improvements cost effectively Ariane 6 makes a lot of sense . Ariane 5 would need a lot of money to progress any further .
A launcher launching 15 to 20 times a year is a lot more cost effective than than one launching 6 times a year.(As mentioned here years ago).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/04/2013 10:59 am
You are at it again. Your post is full of incorrect. I'll attempt to enlighten you.

So basically the head of Arianespace hopes Ariane 6 will have less than half the cost per launch of Ariane 5.
Mr. Le Gall is no longer the head of Arianespace. He has been promoted and is now the head of CNES (the French space agency)

But the thing is Ariane 6 is supposed to have half the payload of Ariane 5. I would be willing to bet Ariane 6 will not cost less per pound than Ariane 5. Quite the opposite. Especially after the R&D costs and launch pad construction costs are included into the price.
Emphasis mine. That's not any different from Ariane 5 and the previous versions. You do not need to highlight that set of costs. They are sunk and not entered in the launch cost. R&D cost, along with infrastructure creation costs have never been factored into the launch price for Ariane. That money is coughed up by ESA member states and is considered sunk by the time the vehicle starts flying.

If there is one constant in this sector is that the launch costs are never as cheap as originally advertised.
Everybody knows that. Why kick in the wide open door?

Also their justification for canning Ariane 5 is that dual-launch is no longer possible because comsats are too getting too heavy for dual launch. But for Ariane 6 they claim that 6.5t payload makes sense because comsats will be getting lighter because of solar-electric propulsion. What?
It's not that black and white. A number of reasons is listed for terminating Ariane 5 use past 2025. Dual-launch (or the impending impossibility thereof) is only one of them. Other reasons are parts obsolescence, aging technology, decreasing competitiveness and the need for constant subsidies. Indeed, one of reasons heavily pushed by ESA and CNES is their 'displeasure' with the fact that Ariane 5 cannot fly with a profit below 7 launches per year.
Ariane 6 will be single-payload launches, meaning it could potentially fly twice as often given the same market numbers. That makes for increased economy-of-scale for the rocket components. The 6.5 ton performance number provides adequate performance margin, that will actually grow as comsats become lighter. But the latter is an (expected) future development, and it is not clear just how strong this development will be by the time Ariane 6 is set to fly for the first time.

I would just keep the current Ariane 5 improvement program, work on a heavier version of Vega to replace Soyuz, and put the rest of the money into R&D for a staged combustion first-stage engine. This way liquid engine know-how would be supported for the foreseeable future and the technology could eventually be reused for a future RLV.
Soyuz has only just begun to fly from Kourou. Why would you wanna do away with it so soon? And Vega would have to be scaled up very substantially to be able to replace Soyuz. It would be an altogether completely new rocket. Such an effort would be a waste of money right now.
RLV? As in Reusable Launch Vehicle? Ahum... ESA and CNES don't do RLV's. First ol' Elon will have to show that RLV's will do anything to revolutionize the launcher market. Not until after that might ESA and CNES do something with RLV's. Every effort right now is on expendable launchers.

It seems the head of Arianespace got the wrong idea from SpaceX and Orbital. He seems to think they are not technologically driven. However the reality is that SpaceX uses much more modern stage construction techniques than Ariane 5 while Orbital uses staged-combustion engines in Antares.
For someone who has never spoken to mr. Le Gall in person you seem to have a remarkable insight into his mistakes.  ::)
Ariane 5 was designed in the early 1990's. Naturally it's stage construction techniques are not as advanced as those employed by SpaceX. And staged combustion engines were not in fashion either when ESA developed Vulcain and Vulcain 2. Linking the technology choices of SpaceX and Orbital to Ariane en then calling the technology behind Ariane 5 antiquated is ridiculous. You are again kicking open a wide open door. Ariane 5 has been flying for 15 years. Falcon 9 and Antares have only just begun. What is even more ridiculous is blaming the current head of CNES for it. Was he supposed to have some magic crystal ball 25 years ago, to see into the present what is being done today? Nuts!

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 06/04/2013 01:17 pm
BTW, SpaceX didn't used significantly more advanced techniques, since Ariane 5 already uses FSW. And they even changed the F9 v1.1 construction method to use the same techniques as the rest. And upto the Merlin 1C, they still used tube wall for the rocket and nozzle, low temperature gas generator and a pintle injector. Everything no more sophisticated than a Vulcain or H7B, but with way easier fuel and some 15 to 20 years later.
In the Antares case, they used a 40 years old Russian engine. You appear to forget that the Ariane program requires it to be developed in Europe. There must be a reason why not everybody uses stage combustion. Specially if you wanted to make your first human rated vehicle. The failure mores of the SC engines are quick and nasty. Gas generator is much better behaved. Not to mention that you don't want to mix first handling of a fuel like H2 with your first staged combustion development.
Have you even read a little about Ariane to make this blanket statements?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 06/04/2013 03:13 pm

Have you even read a little about Ariane to make this blanket statements?
[/quote]

Please tell could you give some good English book references I would greatly appreciate it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 06/04/2013 03:41 pm
Well, and now you are doing it again :) Don't justify the nonsense these people speak, whether they are head of something or not.

A number of reasons is listed for terminating Ariane 5 use past 2025. ... Other reasons are ... competitiveness and the need for constant subsidies. Indeed, one of reasons heavily pushed by ESA and CNES is their 'displeasure' with the fact that Ariane 5 cannot fly with a profit below 7 launches per year.

Yes, of course these kinds of arguments are being brought forward. But hey, it must be allowed (at least for me, who is paying all this nonsense with his taxes) to point out that these are completely ridiculous and - again- nonsensical arguments.

"Hey, let's spend another 4 or 5 billion Euros, maybe it allows us to get rid of these 120 million Euros of subsidies we'd have to spend each year. Heck, after a little more than 40 years that will already have paid off!"

And we both know they won't succeed with their goal.

They are saying these kind of things because a) the bureaucracies in Europe really think like that ("That's different money... one is an investment and the other is a subsidy". I've seen it in other places, too) and because they believe people are dumb enough to believe them. WRT mass media they are probably correct with the latter statement.

Oh, and I don't believe the likes of Mr. Le Gall actually _believe_ this. The real reaosns for their action are simply not the ones being brought forward publicly.
They want to develop that rocket and now they look for arguments to justify it, it's as simple as that. You don't even have to read, even less reiterate all these statements they make, they aren't worth the bytes they are stored in.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/04/2013 08:36 pm
Quote from: cheesybagel
However the reality is that SpaceX uses much more modern stage construction techniques than Ariane 5 while Orbital uses staged-combustion engines in Antares.

Vulcain 2 is basically a second stage engine. Staged combustion is worth it when the engine must deliver high efficiency at low altitudes.

For the liquid version of Ariane 6 a new first stage engine would be staged combustion.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 06/04/2013 09:27 pm
Ariane 5 is limited to 12 tons to Geo without an expensive new core and new boosters .Hence the development of a 7 ton Geo launcher .
A new launchpad built by Guyanese workers  which helps the french hold onto their colony is always a good idea.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/05/2013 07:41 am
Well, and now you are doing it again :) Don't justify the nonsense these people speak, whether they are head of something or not.

I refer to an earlier statement with regards to that attitude of yours. Some of the justifications that people like mr. Le Gall use are indeed smoke screens. But some others are actually, believe it or not, valid reasons.
You wishing not to believe that, says a lot more about you, than it does about people like mr. Le Gall.

A number of reasons is listed for terminating Ariane 5 use past 2025. ... Other reasons are ... competitiveness and the need for constant subsidies. Indeed, one of reasons heavily pushed by ESA and CNES is their 'displeasure' with the fact that Ariane 5 cannot fly with a profit below 7 launches per year.

Yes, of course these kinds of arguments are being brought forward. But hey, it must be allowed (at least for me, who is paying all this nonsense with his taxes) to point out that these are completely ridiculous and - again- nonsensical arguments.

"Hey, let's spend another 4 or 5 billion Euros, maybe it allows us to get rid of these 120 million Euros of subsidies we'd have to spend each year. Heck, after a little more than 40 years that will already have paid off!"

And we both know they won't succeed with their goal.

They are saying these kind of things because a) the bureaucracies in Europe really think like that ("That's different money... one is an investment and the other is a subsidy". I've seen it in other places, too) and because they believe people are dumb enough to believe them. WRT mass media they are probably correct with the latter statement.

Oh, and I don't believe the likes of Mr. Le Gall actually _believe_ this. The real reaosns for their action are simply not the ones being brought forward publicly.
They want to develop that rocket and now they look for arguments to justify it, it's as simple as that. You don't even have to read, even less reiterate all these statements they make, they aren't worth the bytes they are stored in.

Emphasis mine.
Yes, they actuallly are. You see, only a handfull of people really care about this business. You and I are two examples of such people. The vast majority of people in the ESA member states couldn't care less about launchers. Yet, all of them pay their share for financing the Ariane series of launchers (thru taxes). So, the reasons & justifications that are made public by CNES and ESA are of importance, regardless of them being the truth or a smoke screen. They are of importance simply because the vast majority of people will blindly accept those reasons as being the truth. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that you cannot simply dismiss those reasons - given by ESA and CNES - as being (possibly) false.
Truth is relative. Truth is what the vast majority of people believe to be the truth.

But this has gotten off-topic. I suggest we return to discussing Ariane 6, before the off-topic sherrif rears it's (unseen) head here.  8)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 06/05/2013 02:02 pm
Le Gall use are indeed smoke screens. But some others are actually, believe it or not, valid reasons.
You wishing not to believe that, says a lot more about you, than it does about people like mr. Le Gall.

Well, I never meant to say that _all_ the reasons Mr. Le Gall and others put forward are just smoke and mirrors but since not in all cases the wrong ones are as obvious as the money argument you never really know. So you have to take all their statements with a grain of salt and not believe that something is eternal truth, just because somebody in an official position has said this and that.

Quote
They are of importance simply because the vast majority of people will blindly accept those reasons as being the truth.
...
Truth is what the vast majority of people believe to be the truth.
No, I don't think that's the case. The majority of the people, at least here in Germany, nowadays thinks that everybody in an official position in a European organization is either corrupt or a liar or a slacker or all of the above. There is zero trust in European institutions left which is a serious issue because they are important (and because obviously not everybody in these institutions really is that bad). And behavior like holding up smoke and mirrors about the reasons why you want to spend billions of Euros of other people's money is exactly the reason for that attitude among people. Why it is so bad they do it.
Officials often underestimate the damage they do to their profession with that behavior because they only see their tactical rationale and no longer see what strategic impacts it has.

I don't know Mr. Le Gall in person but I know others in similar positions and they often simply don't see why people don't understand what they do because the whole circle they move in - including the media surrounding them - is so removed from the rest of the world.

Quote
But this has gotten off-topic. I suggest we return to discussing Ariane 6, before the off-topic sherrif rears it's (unseen) head here.  8)
Well, it is very much on topic for Ariane 6. Because _I_ honestly believe that the main reason for the existence of the Ariane 6 program is that CNES and Mr. Le Gall want a nice launch vehicle development program. There is even some validity in that reasoning, me thinks, because _one_ goal of the whole European space program is to develop and keep technological expertise and you don't do that (in all areas) by just flying existing vehicles, you also have to keep development programs or one day the last person actually having developed a new launcher has left and then a lot of competencies go to the bin.
But that's not yet a real issue, we still have the 5ME program so we could as well wait until that's done before starting a new full-scale development.
And you know what? I bet that's exactly what we will eventually see.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simonbp on 06/06/2013 03:35 pm
But that's not yet a real issue, we still have the 5ME program so we could as well wait until that's done before starting a new full-scale development.
And you know what? I bet that's exactly what we will eventually see.

Of course, by the time 5ME is ready, the entire launch market may look radically different.

If I were investing money in a development program, I'd be spending it on a two-stage-to-GEO rocket with a reusable first stage. That seems to be the design that the commercial development programs are converging towards, both SpaceX, Blue Origin, and probably several others that are in stealth mode. Those are the vehicles that Ariane 6 will be competing against, and a giant flying tire fire is going to look rather primitive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/06/2013 05:28 pm
^

Ok, reality check:

NASA/DoD have given up RLV plans (the latest victim being the Reusable Booster System), Russia has too, at least for now. The only serious contender with reusability plans is SpaceX, but they are still at the very beginning and whether they succeed technically and economically is uncertain, to put it mildly.

In any case I think its sensible to just wait a few years. A5 ME will do fine.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/06/2013 05:40 pm
A new launchpad built by Guyanese workers  which helps the french hold onto their colony is always a good idea.

French Guyana is not a French colony. It is a part of our country.

The launch pads built in CSG are essentially NOT built by Guyanese workers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 06/06/2013 05:58 pm
But that's not yet a real issue, we still have the 5ME program so we could as well wait until that's done before starting a new full-scale development.
And you know what? I bet that's exactly what we will eventually see.

Of course, by the time 5ME is ready, the entire launch market may look radically different.

If I were investing money in a development program, I'd be spending it on a two-stage-to-GEO rocket with a reusable first stage. That seems to be the design that the commercial development programs are converging towards, both SpaceX, Blue Origin, and probably several others that are in stealth mode. Those are the vehicles that Ariane 6 will be competing against, and a giant flying tire fire is going to look rather primitive.

Well, most importantly: we don't know that, yet.
SpaceX doesn't exactly look promising in the commercial market so far, with their endless delays, underperformance and cost increases. They still have to launch their first GEO Comsat, it will certainly not happen this year and I have strong doubts about next year, too.
And technically, the likes of SpaceX and Blue Origin could not be further apart, Orbital still plans to burn a lot of tires, so I don't see any "convergence" towards a single concept.
Others who are still in stealth mode are mainly irrelevant, they won't show up on the market within the next decade.

But that's the point: right now, Ariane 5 is very competitive and 5ME will keep that advantage. And if one of the NewSpace entrants manages to find the holy grail of better efficiency you'd better wait and see what that actually is.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/07/2013 06:25 am
But that's the point: right now, Ariane 5 is very competitive and 5ME will keep that advantage. And if one of the NewSpace entrants manages to find the holy grail of better efficiency you'd better wait and see what that actually is.

Ariane 5 is competative only because it is supported with an average of 120 million Euros in taxpayers money... each year.
Ariane 5 offers good value for money (not VERY good, because it is an expensive launcher, even with the subsidies), and very good reliability. That's why it is so popular. Take the subsidy away and value-to-money ratio becomes less attractive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 06/07/2013 07:57 am
But that's the point: right now, Ariane 5 is very competitive and 5ME will keep that advantage. And if one of the NewSpace entrants manages to find the holy grail of better efficiency you'd better wait and see what that actually is.

Ariane 5 is competative only because it is supported with an average of 120 million Euros in taxpayers money... each year.
Ariane 5 offers good value for money (not VERY good, because it is an expensive launcher, even with the subsidies), and very good reliability. That's why it is so popular. Take the subsidy away and value-to-money ratio becomes less attractive.

Name a launcher that is not in any way subsidized please...
Ariane just does not try to lie about it. That's the only difference.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: R7 on 06/07/2013 11:04 am
Name a launcher that is not in any way subsidized please...

BA-2 !

Oh wait...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 06/07/2013 12:27 pm
Ariane 5 is competative only because it is supported with an average of 120 million Euros in taxpayers money... each year.
Which probably isn't more than anybody else in the business is getting. Including SpaceX.
Quote
Ariane 5 offers good value for money (not VERY good, because it is an expensive launcher, even with the subsidies), and very good reliability. That's why it is so popular. Take the subsidy away and value-to-money ratio becomes less attractive.
Well, it's got 50% market share so the value for money can't be tooo bad.
120 mil. a year makes roughly 10 mil per sat, that's not a lot compared to their launch prices.

And compare all that with a 4-5bn€ development program. THAT's a hefty subsidy/cost burden to the tax payer.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 06/07/2013 12:28 pm

Name a launcher that is not in any way subsidized please...
Ariane just does not try to lie about it. That's the only difference.


Bingo.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/07/2013 05:32 pm
Ariane 5 is competative only because it is supported with an average of 120 million Euros in taxpayers money... each year.

But these subventions are decreasing year after year.
In 2012, French government (which is the only one who gives subventions to AR5) had to give only 90M€.

This decreasing is due to the reliability of AR5, which implies low insurances. With low insurance prices, Arianespace can increase the launch price without disturbing the customer.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: cheesybagel on 06/08/2013 10:51 pm
Quote from: cheesybagel
However the reality is that SpaceX uses much more modern stage construction techniques than Ariane 5 while Orbital uses staged-combustion engines in Antares.

Vulcain 2 is basically a second stage engine. Staged combustion is worth it when the engine must deliver high efficiency at low altitudes.

For the liquid version of Ariane 6 a new first stage engine would be staged combustion.

This is not 100% true since Ariane 5 uses parallel staging. Vulcain is ignited at liftoff. So low altitude performance actually matters to a degree.
Similar launch systems like the Shuttle, Energia, H-IIA used staged combustion LOX/LH2 engines in a similar configuration. ESA decided against it for Ariane 5 because ESA is really design conservative. In their opinion Europe did not have the technology back then to develop staged combustion engines so they went for a low risk approach. There is nothing wrong with that. Even Delta IV which was developed much later uses gas-generator LOX/LH2. But if you are going to develop a new rocket in Europe with billions of funding in 2013 you better use the best known engine technology currently available. That is staged combustion.

Honestly I do not see the point in providing billions of funding to develop an all solid rocket which provides next to no new technological capabilities to improve access to space.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: cheesybagel on 06/08/2013 11:08 pm
BTW, SpaceX didn't used significantly more advanced techniques, since Ariane 5 already uses FSW. And they even changed the F9 v1.1 construction method to use the same techniques as the rest. And upto the Merlin 1C, they still used tube wall for the rocket and nozzle, low temperature gas generator and a pintle injector. Everything no more sophisticated than a Vulcain or H7B, but with way easier fuel and some 15 to 20 years later.
In the Antares case, they used a 40 years old Russian engine. You appear to forget that the Ariane program requires it to be developed in Europe. There must be a reason why not everybody uses stage combustion. Specially if you wanted to make your first human rated vehicle. The failure mores of the SC engines are quick and nasty. Gas generator is much better behaved. Not to mention that you don't want to mix first handling of a fuel like H2 with your first staged combustion development.
Have you even read a little about Ariane to make this blanket statements?

Its not just about using FSW. SpaceX stage design is a lot lighter improving payload mass fraction. That is the reason SpaceX can have such cheap launch prices using gas-generator LOX/Kerosene engines. The Merlin-1D engine will indeed be further advanced since it uses channel wall nozzle but that is in addition to their existing advantages in stage design.

It is easy to diss the NK-33 engine for being a 40 years old design. But the reality is it is much more technologically advanced than any engine ESA currently has at its disposal. There is nothing "easy" about oxygen rich staged combustion LOX/Kerosene. Why do you think the US, the currently leading space power, bought from Russia licenses to manufacture both the RD-180 and the NK-33?

There has been investment in staged combustion in Europe at the demonstrator or concept design level. There is currently no investment in actual prototype or launcher designs. In my opinion there should be.

I have nothing against the Ariane 5 design. It was great back then and contrary to what the people at CNES and elsewhere seem to believe I think it can fly for another 1-2 decades. I am just pointing out that if a new launcher is to be developed it should use leading edge liquid engine technology. The argument for solids is that it will be cheaper but the numbers being bandied around for developing an all solid Ariane 6 are certainly not cheap. Especially taking into consideration the money the US paid to develop either EELV or SpaceX took to develop the Falcon 9.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: R7 on 06/09/2013 11:35 am
Honestly I do not see the point in providing billions of funding to develop an all solid rocket which provides next to no new technological capabilities to improve access to space.

It provides funding and respectable reason to maintain and improve the capability to build large all solid rockets. *wink wink nod nod*
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/09/2013 03:51 pm
Honestly I do not see the point in providing billions of funding to develop an all solid rocket which provides next to no new technological capabilities to improve access to space.

That is exactly what happened when ESA developed Ariane 5. LOX/LH2 driven core and solid boosters was hardly state-of-the-art back when ESA selected them in the late 1980's for Ariane 5. What ESA did with Ariane 5 offered next to no new technological capabilities to improve access to space. Yet ESA spent many billions of AU (accounting units - they didn't have Euros back then) to do just that. ESA and CNES are in no different position today with Ariane 6.
So, your point is pointless.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/09/2013 03:54 pm
Ariane 5 is competative only because it is supported with an average of 120 million Euros in taxpayers money... each year.

But these subventions are decreasing year after year.
In 2012, French government (which is the only one who gives subventions to AR5) had to give only 90M€.

This decreasing is due to the reliability of AR5, which implies low insurances. With low insurance prices, Arianespace can increase the launch price without disturbing the customer.

Agreed, but those subventions will not disappear entirely. Not even with AR 5 ME, regardless of what Astrium tells ESA and CNES.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/09/2013 05:47 pm
Quote from: cheesybagel
This is not 100% true since Ariane 5 uses parallel staging. Vulcain is ignited at liftoff. So low altitude performance actually matters to a degree.

It burns for 650 seconds, almost to orbit, the thrust at low altitudes is tiny compared to the boosters. Igniting the engine on the pad has other advantages.

Quote from: cheesybagel
Similar launch systems like the Shuttle, Energia, H-IIA used staged combustion LOX/LH2 engines in a similar configuration.

Somewhat similar, but also utterly expensive. I'm not saying ESA wouldn't have chosen staged combustion if they had the experience and know-how, but its probably better they did not.

Quote from: cheesybagel
But if you are going to develop a new rocket in Europe with billions of funding in 2013 you better use the best known engine technology currently available. That is staged combustion.

The best and the most expensive. Not sure whether its worth it for an expendable rocket, but its certainly useful know-how for the future, so I would agree with you.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/10/2013 07:28 am
As was to be expected, here is the ESA response to the recent call for a pause in Ariane 6 development:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35678ignoring-call-for-strategic-pause-esa-intends-to-stay-the-course-on (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35678ignoring-call-for-strategic-pause-esa-intends-to-stay-the-course-on)

Quote
Ignoring Call for Strategic Pause, ESA Intends To Stay the Course on Ariane 6

The European Space Agency (ESA) has no intention of changing course for its future Ariane 6 rocket despite pointed criticism of the selected design by former ESA and European industry launch-vehicle experts, ESA Launch Vehicle Director Antonio Fabrizi said June 7.

Fabrizi said the current design, using two solid-fueled stages topped by a cryogenic upper stage, received the specific endorsement of ESA’s governments last November and cannot simply be set aside. He said the vehicle’s final design — both a single-block first stage and a multiblock cluster are being discussed — will be settled by early July.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 06/10/2013 08:50 am
BTW, SpaceX didn't used significantly more advanced techniques, since Ariane 5 already uses FSW.

There is no FSW used for Ariane 5.
It's all TIG welded!

Possibly in A5ME a few seams will be in FSW but that is not yet sure.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/10/2013 09:07 am
^

I don't know about the production technique, but the empty weight of the A5 ECA core stage is 14.1 tons (incl. engine), with a length of 30.5m, 5.4m diameter and total mass of 185.5 tons when full.

Pretty good I would say, at least comared to Falcon 9 1.1 where the first stage is estimated to weight around 28 tons. The ECA upper stage kind of sucks though.

Quote from: cheesybagel
The argument for solids is that it will be cheaper but the numbers being bandied around for developing an all solid Ariane 6 are certainly not cheap. Especially taking into consideration the money the US paid to develop either EELV or SpaceX took to develop the Falcon 9.

Not a good comparison. The space industry is huge in the US, and SpaceX builds upon that knowledge.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 06/10/2013 12:59 pm
^

I don't know about the production technique, but the empty weight of the A5 ECA core stage is 14.1 tons (incl. engine), with a length of 30.5m, 5.4m diameter and total mass of 185.5 tons when full.

The low empty mass of the ESC stage is often reffered to "good engineering" or something, but the truth is that the flight loads on the stage are very low in comparison to other launchers!

The axial booster loads are introduced in the front skirt at the upper end of the stage, so the core stage literally "hangs" between the two boosters. The high g-loads of up to 4,5g occur during booster operation. 

After booster separation the loads are very low, therefore the axial flux loads for the core stage are so low that a thin smooth wall without any reinforcements is sufficient.

Something the "Liberty" designers will have to learn...:-)

In all liquid launcher designs the loads are introduced at the rear end of the first stage which will therefore have to withstand all the flight loads.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/10/2013 01:57 pm
^

Which makes we wonder why other designs don't "transfer" some of the load to the top, by other means than increasing the thickness of the tank walls.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/11/2013 06:55 am
^

I don't know about the production technique, but the empty weight of the A5 ECA core stage is 14.1 tons (incl. engine), with a length of 30.5m, 5.4m diameter and total mass of 185.5 tons when full.

The low empty mass of the ESC stage is often reffered to "good engineering" or something, but the truth is that the flight loads on the stage are very low in comparison to other launchers!

The axial booster loads are introduced in the front skirt at the upper end of the stage, so the core stage literally "hangs" between the two boosters. The high g-loads of up to 4,5g occur during booster operation. 

After booster separation the loads are very low, therefore the axial flux loads for the core stage are so low that a thin smooth wall without any reinforcements is sufficient.

Something the "Liberty" designers will have to learn...:-)

They did. The EPC wall for the Liberty upper stage is well over 50% thicker than the standard EPC wall. On Liberty, al the loads, including the massive thrust from the 5-segment SRB are transferred to the EPC from below.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 06/11/2013 09:32 am
^

Which makes we wonder why other designs don't "transfer" some of the load to the top, by other means than increasing the thickness of the tank walls.

They do!
Sometimes the tank walls are reinforced by orthogrid (e.g. shuttle ET) or by stringers.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/11/2013 01:13 pm
^

I know rocket tanks usually have an internal structure, i.e. they are a semi-monocoque. But they must still increase the thickness of the skin because it carries some of the stress, right?

Anyway, I just thought there could be another way, more resembling a truss design, maybe just 2 truss poles on the sides which transfer the load to the top or something  :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Remes on 06/11/2013 04:55 pm
The concept makes some sense to me.

If you launch on a Atlas/Delta/any single payload launcher you know the maximum weight and you optimize your system to get the most of it. Put as many transponders on the satellite as possible, increase the fuel, ... to get the most payload for the launch costs.

On an Ariane with dual payloads its a completely different story. You need someone who has a payload with the weight 12t-<your own payload>. Find someone, who will launch in the same time frame. No party should delay the start. Looking at the development times for satellites it seems hard to plan that far. Also weight increase is always a risk, and that would would render all planing moot.

Regarding the first stage for an Ariane 6: There are mainly two alternatives: Make the existing Ariane 5 smaller, which means create a smaller tank, and especially: develop a smaller vulcain 2. I think it is absolutely unattractive to spend a lot of money developing a new cryogenic engine just to make it smaller and less powerful.

The other alternative is taking the technically most evolved booster (P80: carbon fillament housing, e-tvc) and make it bigger. Sounds much better if you spend your money on making something bigger than spending the same money to make something smaller. Also it seems to be very attractive that this strengthened booster could be used for an evolved Vega. As more parts are build, as cheaper it gets. Maybe even one day 4xP120 can replace the currently used 2x230t on the Ariane 5.

The european state, which is willing to pay a lot of money will also get a lot of work packages. Retaining the space industry and knowledge might be be the main factor. Maybe the French government sees a need to support its industry, has some money left. Look at Vega, paid to 65% by Italy. There is no harm if e.g. Germany wouldn't be a part of the Ariane 6 development. So if the French have the feeling, they need to do something for their space industry, let them do it.

Even if I don't like solids, imho the concept is sound. I don't see a big step coming in terms of rlv, so lets pimp some existing equipment and build a single payload launcher.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 06/14/2013 06:14 pm
Ariane 5 is competative only because it is supported with an average of 120 million Euros in taxpayers money... each year.

But these subventions are decreasing year after year.
In 2012, French government (which is the only one who gives subventions to AR5) had to give only 90M€.

This decreasing is due to the reliability of AR5, which implies low insurances. With low insurance prices, Arianespace can increase the launch price without disturbing the customer.

Agreed, but those subventions will not disappear entirely. Not even with AR 5 ME, regardless of what Astrium tells ESA and CNES.

The current 120 M€ per year are the direct subventions, indirect subventions (e.g. the cost of the launch site) come on top. As said in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1061563#msg1061563) all launchers are subsidized one way or another. And 120 M€ per year is actually really not too bad. The US Air Force seem to have running costs of a billion $ per year only for the launch ranges.

But the European governments have experienced a "golden age" in the 80ies, when there was no launch service market, the US put all their stakes on the space shuttle system, had mothballed their expendables, no Russian or Chinese launchers available for western comsats, no Indian launch vehicles existed and the Japanese launchers were way too small for comsats. Ariane had no competitors and could be sold for "luxury" prices. Now Europe, esp. the CNES of France, is chasing this idea to develop a launch vehicle that can be exploited without subventions, to have the "golden age" come back.

And it isn't just France paying the subventions, each country has to pay its share according to their percentage of industrial turnover for Ariane production.

And it isn't Astrium who claims that the subventions will disappear with Ariane 6, it is the claim and goal of CNES, that subventions will disappear.

In fact, Astrium is more in favor of A5ME and didn't just play along, raking in the money for Ariane 6 development. But right from the start they stated that they can't meet the foreseen recurrent cost target. Esp. not with the PPH design proposed by CNES.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/06/2013 02:24 pm
I've been playing catchup on the Ariane 6 plans. Apologies is this concept was already suggested, but out of curiosity:
- could the EAPs be replaced with the Vega's P80s?
- could enhancements to the Vulcain's TVC allow deletion of TVC from the SRBs?
- could combinations of 2, 4, or 6 P80s in place of the current EAPs be used to tailor the launcher to different sizes of payload?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Remes on 07/06/2013 08:46 pm
I've been playing catchup on the Ariane 6 plans. Apologies is this concept was already suggested, but out of curiosity:
- could the EAPs be replaced with the Vega's P80s?
- could combinations of 2, 4, or 6 P80s in place of the current EAPs be used to tailor the launcher to different sizes of payload?
EAP are 230t each. Vega's is 80t. Also the EAP deliver their thrust in the forward section of the EPC. If you add shorter P80, you would have to stiffen the cryogenic tank.

Quote
- could enhancements to the Vulcain's TVC allow deletion of TVC from the SRBs?
The SRB deliver about 90% of the thrust. I think the cryogenic stage itself wouldn't have enough steering power (as long as srb are attached).

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/06/2013 08:56 pm
The low empty mass of the ESC stage is often reffered to "good engineering" or something, but the truth is that the flight loads on the stage are very low in comparison to other launchers!

You are talking about EAP, not ESC, right?
ESC has neither of "low mass" or "good engineering" (structurally speaking), especially not ESC-A (the current one). It's one mess of a design created out of the wish to keep development efforts down and similarities with other stuff high and not caring about the structural efficiency.

ESC-A has probably the worst upper stage design ever flown. On any launcher. (again: WRT it's structure).

ME will be a bit better but just a bit.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/06/2013 11:18 pm
I've been playing catchup on the Ariane 6 plans. Apologies is this concept was already suggested, but out of curiosity:
- could the EAPs be replaced with the Vega's P80s?
- could combinations of 2, 4, or 6 P80s in place of the current EAPs be used to tailor the launcher to different sizes of payload?
EAP are 230t each. Vega's is 80t. Also the EAP deliver their thrust in the forward section of the EPC. If you add shorter P80, you would have to stiffen the cryogenic tank.
Yes, I'm aware of the difference in size between EAP and P80. The point of the exercise would be to make the launcher smaller (and cheaper). From the numbers I've found it seems the T:W at launch would be fine, and staging would occur only a little earlier than normal so I presume the low T:W of the remainder of the stack would not be a show stopper.
The structural issues are perhaps insurmountable, however. It sounds as though the EPC structure is similar to the STS stack?


Quote
- could enhancements to the Vulcain's TVC allow deletion of TVC from the SRBs?
The SRB deliver about 90% of the thrust. I think the cryogenic stage itself wouldn't have enough steering power (as long as srb are attached).[/quote]

The EAPs deliver 90% of the thrust of the existing stack. A P80 powered stack would see the Vulcain providing about 17% of the thrust at launch. Obviously this is not a lot, but I have no idea of what is realistic or not. And of course I am suggesting that the TVC on the Vulcain could be enhanced, perhaps (e.g. greater gimbal range, faster response time).

Just wanted to throw the idea out there, as to me it seems to offer an immediate way of downsizing the existing Ariane V stack, whilst creating commonality with Vega, and perhaps providing for greater flexibility. I would be curious to know if anything at all similar was proposed in the trades before the current Ariane 6 design was selected.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/06/2013 11:29 pm
^

page 6.

Quote
However, aerodynamic analysis and general
loads computations revealed that the loads on
the main core were much higher than A5,
penalizing the obtained performance and
reducing the communality with existing subsystem.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/07/2013 08:26 am
Thanks for that- not precisely what I had in mind, but covers the same basic idea.

As a slight drift, it looks from the cutaway that the EPC has a common bulkhead- if so, how is the thrust from the EAPs transmitted? I am aware that STS has a beam in the intertank area.


EDIT: just looked again and I think the EAPs are long enough to reach the top of the stage, so may have answered my own question.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 07/08/2013 08:26 am
The low empty mass of the ESC stage is often reffered to "good engineering" or something, but the truth is that the flight loads on the stage are very low in comparison to other launchers!

You are talking about EAP, not ESC, right?
ESC has neither of "low mass" or "good engineering" (structurally speaking), especially not ESC-A (the current one). It's one mess of a design created out of the wish to keep development efforts down and similarities with other stuff high and not caring about the structural efficiency.

ESC-A has probably the worst upper stage design ever flown. On any launcher. (again: WRT it's structure).

ME will be a bit better but just a bit.

Sorry, my bad...
Of course I reffered to the EPC, the core stage, not the ESC upper stage. And also not the EAP which are indeed the solid boosters...

The Upper stage is indeed an extremely bad design as it was meant only as a quick an dirty interims solution. But I fear that the new A5-ME upper stage is not that much better.

As I always say:
A5-ME is the attempt to replace the worst upper stage of spaceflight history with the second worst upper stage of spaceflight history...:-)

Yes, it's a bit of a provocation, but I'm working in the A5-ME project myself and the high inert mass It is not because of bad engineering in the details. It's the overall concept of the stage that has its flaws!

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2013 09:51 am
Now that the design is final (see updates thread), discuss.

Looks cheap to me. Development of one solid motor of which probably 40+ will be produced a year and an upper stage.

Interestingly they dropped the version with 2 boosters as a first stage and the solids' diameter is now certainly more than 3 meters (in contrast to the previous "in line" version). In terms of propellant its a ~50% increase from Vega's 88t P80.

I think A5 ME is dead.



Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/09/2013 10:38 am
It is not because of bad engineering in the details. It's the overall concept of the stage that has its flaws!

Sigh. And that's the one part that should then be shared with Ariane 6, too.

This is what happens when you want to save too much on development cost when you do things the first time. Kludges have a tendency to stay around....
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2013 11:10 am
Quote from: spacediver
The Upper stage is indeed an extremely bad design as it was meant only as a quick an dirty interims solution. But I fear that the new A5-ME upper stage is not that much better.

Well to be fair, a better one was/is not really needed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 07/09/2013 11:15 am
Quote from: spacediver
The Upper stage is indeed an extremely bad design as it was meant only as a quick an dirty interims solution. But I fear that the new A5-ME upper stage is not that much better.

Well to be fair, a better one was/is not really needed.

Better is always needed. With this mindset we wouldn't even have invented the wheel. Why should we, feet work fine!
Arianespace still launches the A5 with a loss, more improvements could make them brake even. Even more improvements could generate a profit, even more improvements than that could generate even more profit.
Capitalism 101.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2013 11:37 am
^

Um really? Show me your market analysis.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/09/2013 11:42 am
Well to be fair, a better one was/is not really needed.

Not really.
If ESC-A had a mass ratio like the similarly sized Centaur the whole 5ME program might not be needed, at least not to reach 11.5-12t to GTO.
ESC-B with a similar mass ratio could reach 14t or so to GTO theoreticall allowing dual launches of 6t spacecraft (OK, you probably won't fit these into SYLDA so maybe not).

And for Ariane 6 they don't stop to tell us that it should become more cost efficient... A better upper stage would allow for much smaller and cheaper lower stages so this _is_ important.

But then, I don't get tired to point out that the reasons for the Ariane 6 program have nothing to do with all this so it's probably indeed a moot point....
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 07/09/2013 11:47 am
Good article from the BBC covering this, but then Jonathan Amos always does good articles on space.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23241158

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/09/2013 11:52 am
Now that the design is final (see updates thread), discuss.

Not "design is final". The baseline configuration is (more-or-less) final. The design will see quite a few more alterations before this thing is even remotely close to PDR.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/09/2013 11:58 am
Better is always needed.

Then why is that the Russians still launch their Soyuz spacecraft (with a base design of 4 decades old) on Soyuz boosters (again with a base design of 4 decades old)?

Answer: Better is NOT always needed. The wheel is still here, simply because something 'better' is not needed.

"Better is always needed" is a fallacy. Replace "always" with "sometimes" and then you just might have a point.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2013 12:07 pm
Quote from: pippin
And for Ariane 6 they don't stop to tell us that it should become more cost efficient... A better upper stage would allow for much smaller and cheaper lower stages so this _is_ important.

Well I agree the ECB could have been useful if done earlier.

I doubt the same inefficient upper stage will be used on the A6, since  synergies with EPC are not that relevant anymore.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/09/2013 12:09 pm
And for Ariane 6 they don't stop to tell us that it should become more cost efficient... A better upper stage would allow for much smaller and cheaper lower stages so this _is_ important.
Yes. But a better upper stage for Ariane 5ME / 6 would require a near complete re-design. And that is expensive and time consuming.
You can get to smaller and cheaper lower stages by designing an all-new upper stage (expensive).
Or you can do with the (near)-existing less efficient upper stage design (less expensive) with larger more expensive lower stages.
That's a draw basically.
What tipped the scales in favour the now defined baseline is time-to-market IMO.
Regardless of what upper stage, CNES and ESA still have to design new solids for the lower stages.
So, it comes down to development work needed for the upper stage. The Vinci-propelled, ESC-A-derived upper stage has the advantage here. It has been in the works for some 7 years now. A more efficient upper stage starts from scratch.

Choice is simple. It now looks like CNES and ESA made that simple choice.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2013 12:13 pm
^

Who said it will be the same US, apart from Vinci?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/09/2013 12:14 pm
Yes. But a better upper stage for Ariane 5ME / 6 would require a near complete re-design. And that is expensive and time consuming.

Of course. From where we are it makes sense.
But we were discussing the point that if they had done ESC-A right the first time instead of deciding that it's too expensive and time-consuming then we would not need ESC-B and even Ariane 6 might become somewhat smaller and cheaper. They might not even have had to develop Vonci (woued be a pity about the engine, but it's been expensive and time-consuming...)

So even "saving" some money can be pretty expensive in the long run.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 07/09/2013 12:58 pm
Better is always needed.

Then why is that the Russians still launch their Soyuz spacecraft (with a base design of 4 decades old) on Soyuz boosters (again with a base design of 4 decades old)?

Answer: Better is NOT always needed. The wheel is still here, simply because something 'better' is not needed.

"Better is always needed" is a fallacy. Replace "always" with "sometimes" and then you just might have a point.

Better is always needed, it is just not always attainable to the extent that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Sometimes the development costs are too high for the result in performance gain. The original statement was better is not needed, that's the fallacy. It's not because you have a design that beats your competitors that you do not want to improve it anymore.

The cost of getting better sometimes outweighs the profit of being better. That's how the original statement should have read :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/09/2013 01:04 pm
^

Who said it will be the same US, apart from Vinci?

Not me. But people seem to be forgetting that, apart from the development work on Vinci, the stage structure for (what once was called ESC-B) has been in development (at a slow pace) for years now. The driver was that the stage structure was restricted to certain absolute defined maximum dimensions, as dictated by the available 'working space' on top of the Ariane 5 EPC.
Similar restrictions led to the kludge that is now known as ESC-A. For the time being, those restrictions remain in place, as the plan is to complete development of the Vinci upper stage (and associated structures) in such a way that the stage has as much commonality as possible between Ariane 5 ME and Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/09/2013 01:08 pm
Better is always needed.

Then why is that the Russians still launch their Soyuz spacecraft (with a base design of 4 decades old) on Soyuz boosters (again with a base design of 4 decades old)?

Answer: Better is NOT always needed. The wheel is still here, simply because something 'better' is not needed.

"Better is always needed" is a fallacy. Replace "always" with "sometimes" and then you just might have a point.

Better is always needed, it is just not always attainable to the extent that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Sometimes the development costs are too high for the result in performance gain. The original statement was better is not needed, that's the fallacy. It's not because you have a design that beats your competitors that you do not want to improve it anymore.

The cost of getting better sometimes outweighs the profit of being better. That's how the original statement should have read :)

Thanks for clarifying.

Per your reasoning: In a financial reality that is increasingly cost-driven (or better said: cost-reduction-driven) the need for better is slowly decreasing, as evidenced by the choice by ESA and CNES for the current Ariane 6 baseline configuration.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 07/09/2013 02:13 pm
Now that the design is final (see updates thread), discuss.


It's a bad day for Europe!

This bullsh.. thing is the beginning of the end of European access to space!
Once A5 is retired we will have lost the large liquid engine technology forever. It's a technological dead end!


Obviously cost and risk was a main driver for the concept choice, and CNES was verry sucessful in finding the most expensive and most risky launcher concept.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/09/2013 02:58 pm
The driver was that the stage structure was restricted to certain absolute defined maximum dimensions, as dictated by the available 'working space' on top of the Ariane 5 EPC.
Similar restrictions led to the kludge that is now known as ESC-A. For the time being, those restrictions remain in place, as the plan is to complete development of the Vinci upper stage (and associated structures) in such a way that the stage has as much commonality as possible between Ariane 5 ME and Ariane 6.

Err... C'mon. You know that's not true.
The dominant reason for the current design is not physical size restrictions or anything, it's been to re-use as much as possible and keep development costs down.
The upper tank dome is a re-use from EPC - which makes sense from a financial POV on Ariane 5 but no longer on 6 - and the LOX tank of ESC-A was a carryover part from Ariane 4. All of this resulted in a really bad structural design.

_NOW_ the idea is to keep as much of that current compromise design as possible and only change the LOX tank (and stretch the LX2 tank) but do no more changes to the structure.

While this is all reasonable and acceptable for 5ME, it's not helpful for A6, there the carryover tank dome, for example, will actually _add_ to the recurring cost instead of lowering it.

And it just adds to the fact that the whole A6 program doesn't make sense, it doesn't even have any inner logic.
The whole program runs on the premise of spending an ridiculous amount of money (that will never ever be recouped) to develop a launcher that should then have a somewhat lower recurring cost. But now for the most critical part of the whole design they use a carryover part to save development costs that will add significantly to the recurring cost even though they'd have the chance to amortize the (development) cost of a better design over even TWO programs instead of just one and the added (recurring) cost on 5ME should not be as significant since it's only supposed to fly a limited number of times anyway.

This is all weird, eurocratic nonsense and will - here I agree with spacediver - drive Europe into a similar position the US are in with ULA just with the slight difference that Europe itself will buy much fewer launches, especially once ISS goes away.

And then we'll see them subsidize the whole mess again, probably with a higher amount per flight than they have to do today.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2013 04:46 pm
^

You realize Ariane ME development was estimated to cost around 1.5-2bn, this Ariane 6 will be between 2.5 and 3.5bn. Given the design that is more than credible.

IMO there is no reason to continue with A5 ME, I would try to introduce A6 earlier.

Or drop A6 and wait, but certainly not both.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/09/2013 05:44 pm
Well, A6 will never make the 3.5bn, more likely it will end up somewhere in the range of 4-5bn. Without ME you'd have to add an upperstage development in probably a 1-2.5bn € range so you are at 5-6bn.

And all of that to develop a less capable launcher that will require the same or even more subsidies than A5. It's not ME that doesn't make sense. But we had that discussion before, read it up...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2013 07:14 pm
^

First of all, Ariane ME US does not equal A6 US, I have no idea where this idea comes from, there are only commonalities, like Vinci.

Pretty sure the 2.5-3.5 does NOT include A5 ME development because A5 ME development is not decided yet.

Further, development of Vega was 710m euros, plus 410m for qualification flights. Hence development of P80 was rather cheap.

P135 is 50% scale up from P80 (88t), with the same technology (remember, it was new for Vega!). I don't believe it will cost more to develop. In particular because production rate for flights will be high anyway.

Then you have upper stage development, which is probably in the A5 ME range. So yes, 2.5-3.5bn is absolutely credible!


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 07/09/2013 08:25 pm
The driver was that the stage structure was restricted to certain absolute defined maximum dimensions, as dictated by the available 'working space' on top of the Ariane 5 EPC.
Similar restrictions led to the kludge that is now known as ESC-A. For the time being, those restrictions remain in place, as the plan is to complete development of the Vinci upper stage (and associated structures) in such a way that the stage has as much commonality as possible between Ariane 5 ME and Ariane 6.

Err... C'mon. You know that's not true.
Believe it or not, it IS true, the available space between Fairing and EPC is VERY limited and it is required to make A5ME US fit into this 'working space'.
Quote
The dominant reason for the current design is not physical size restrictions or anything, it's been to re-use as much as possible and keep development costs down.
The upper tank dome is a re-use from EPC - which makes sense from a financial POV on Ariane 5 but no longer on 6 - and the LOX tank of ESC-A was a carryover part from Ariane 4. All of this resulted in a really bad structural design.

_NOW_ the idea is to keep as much of that current compromise design as possible and only change the LOX tank (and stretch the LX2 tank) but do no more changes to the structure.

While this is all reasonable and acceptable for 5ME, it's not helpful for A6, there the carryover tank dome, for example, will actually _add_ to the recurring cost instead of lowering it.
Yes, for ESC-A the carry-over from EPC (and Ariane 4 US) was to save time and costs, for A5ME the carry-over fro EPC is necessary to achieve 28t of propellant loading in a tank of mere 5.3m length.
For Ariane 6 common elements have been identified, the tank diameter of 5.4m is NOT considered as such a commonality, thus Ariane 6 has a chance to have a different, more mass efficient tank design/lay-out.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 07/09/2013 08:49 pm
^

You realize Ariane ME development was estimated to cost around 1.5-2bn, this Ariane 6 will be between 2.5 and 3.5bn. Given the design that is more than credible.

IMO there is no reason to continue with A5 ME, I would try to introduce A6 earlier.

Or drop A6 and wait, but certainly not both.

Why don't they just keep evolving the A5 & as well as looking to increase performance but also find a way to decrease costs? To me the A6 looks like a step back in a lot of ways over the A5.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/09/2013 08:51 pm
Why don't they just keep evolving the A5 & as well as looking to increase performance but also find a way to decrease costs?

They are doing that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Remes on 07/09/2013 09:10 pm
It's a bad day for Europe!

This bullsh.. thing is the beginning of the end of European access to space!
For sure it is not a rocket to impress anyone or anything. But maybe that is a decision which will be a first step to a more economical approach in space. Trying to find the super alloy, the ultimate production technology, the perfect computer equipment, ..., that was always somehow linked to the space sector and all this super technology was in series production and everything was so expensive.

Now ESA seems to be saying:"No, we are not looking for the perfect wonder for endless money. We are looking for a solid concept, for proven (up to simple technologies) and we try to make it more economically efficient".

This comments about improving efficiency, carrying more payload and becoming cheaper: c'mon, Where is that going to happen? Price of technology rises much faster then the price you get for the additional amount of payload.

In regards of the ESC-B: Well, a little bit newer technology might easily reduce the dry weight without too much risk or cost.

I like the idea of 40+ P135 produced per year. A space vehicle in series production.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/09/2013 09:50 pm
The driver was that the stage structure was restricted to certain absolute defined maximum dimensions, as dictated by the available 'working space' on top of the Ariane 5 EPC.
Similar restrictions led to the kludge that is now known as ESC-A. For the time being, those restrictions remain in place, as the plan is to complete development of the Vinci upper stage (and associated structures) in such a way that the stage has as much commonality as possible between Ariane 5 ME and Ariane 6.

Err... C'mon. You know that's not true.
Believe it or not, it IS true, the available space between Fairing and EPC is VERY limited and it is required to make A5ME US fit into this 'working space'.

And you can trust spacejulien on his word. He is intimately involved in the development of A5ME / A6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/09/2013 09:57 pm
Believe it or not, it IS true, the available space between Fairing and EPC is VERY limited and it is required to make A5ME US fit into this 'working space'.

And you can trust spacejulien on his word. He is intimately involved in the development of A5ME / A6.

Might be that the space is limited, but the horrible ESC-A design actually wastes a lot of space by using the undersized LOX tank. A more structurally efficient design would have been both shorter AND lighter.
And the same is probably true for ESC-B, too: make it lighter and you can go with a smaller stage (less fuel) so it can be shorter as well....
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/09/2013 10:01 pm
Now ESA seems to be saying:"No, we are not looking for the perfect wonder for endless money. We are looking for a solid concept, for proven (up to simple technologies) and we try to make it more economically efficient".
But that's not what they are doing. They talk about it but in reality they are spending billions to develop a launcher that even by their own predictions as of now will not be cheaper per sat launched than the current Ariane 5!

They plan to SPEND BILLIONS to KEEP the cost level they are at today!!!! And that's only the plan!

Quote
In regards of the ESC-B: Well, a little bit newer technology might easily reduce the dry weight without too much risk or cost.
Bingo. Well, it's probably not just "a bit" but for half the money they plan to spend on A6 you could easily tweak quite a bit out of the overall A5 design over the years and be perfectly fine for the next 15-20 years.

But we had all that in this thread before, didn't we?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2013 10:20 pm
Quote from: woods170
And you can trust spacejulien on his word. He is intimately involved in the development of A5ME / A6.

So what does our insider spacejulien think of the A6 in its current configuration? ;D
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 07/09/2013 10:53 pm
Believe it or not, it IS true, the available space between Fairing and EPC is VERY limited and it is required to make A5ME US fit into this 'working space'.

And you can trust spacejulien on his word. He is intimately involved in the development of A5ME / A6.

Might be that the space is limited, but the horrible ESC-A design actually wastes a lot of space by using the undersized LOX tank. A more structurally efficient design would have been both shorter AND lighter.
And the same is probably true for ESC-B, too: make it lighter and you can go with a smaller stage (less fuel) so it can be shorter as well....

ESC-A was an interim step towards ESC-B which is today A5ME US, so design choices for ESC-A were made in view of ESC-B with a foreseen loading of 28 t and corresponding thrust of the engine of 180 kN. A stage with a lower-thrust engine would have a corresponding lower optimum loading. With 5.4 m diameter interfaces to EPC and Fairing and less than 7 m stage height (on the outer cylinder) between EPC and Fairing the wide, short tank design with common bulkhead at reduced (4m) diameter was the best compromise. And we have run trade studies for almost a decade on the ESC-B design. The result is an ugly, non-elegant, heavyweight (wrt its dry mass) but the best compromise attainable under the imposed requirements.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2013 11:06 pm
Quote from: pippin
They plan to SPEND BILLIONS to KEEP the cost level they are at today!!!! And that's only the plan!

You forget that A6 will also serve the institutional market well. You know, galileo, earth observation, space science stuff that nowadays mostly ends up on soyuz or proton. Money for the russians. A5 is an efficient GTO launcher, but basically Europe's present to the comsat industry.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/09/2013 11:09 pm
I didn't dispute that both stages are optimum designs given their requirements.

But I'd assume ESC-A would not have been designed as it is if it had been known that it would be used for so long.
And A5ME US _could_ be further optimized, if that was needed, right?

Now I agree that on A5 it will probably not be needed so if the A6 upperstage is indeed different then there's no reason to add expensive optimizations.
I was under the impression, the upperstage would be reused from ME, it's been widely reported in the press here but then that's probably just a confusion due to the similar engine.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/09/2013 11:10 pm
You forget that A6 will also serve the institutional market well. You know, galileo, earth observation, space science stuff that nowadays mostly ends up on soyuz or proton.

No it's not because it's much more expensive than Soyuz.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 07/09/2013 11:21 pm
Quote from: woods170
And you can trust spacejulien on his word. He is intimately involved in the development of A5ME / A6.

So what does our insider spacejulien think of the A6 in its current configuration? ;D

I have heard all the arguments mentioned in this thread (and before in other threads) also in my professional context over and over again. There are strong arguments for each development, A5ME and A6. There are also good arguments against each of them. No one could make an absolute ranking of all those pros and cons, the result depends on how each one weighs these arguments.
Fortunately for me, my job is not the decision-making on on political level  but to implement what has been decided. So my opinion doesn't really matter, in fact I shall not favor one over the other. But, between A5ME and A6, I am more convinced of the A5ME concept, technically as well as economically.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/10/2013 08:41 am
Quote from: pippin
No it's not because it's much more expensive than Soyuz.

I heard Arianespace offers Soyuz for 70m. It doesn't have to be equally cheap, just not 2-3 times as much as A5.

Fact is a Soyuz replacement is wanted. So you can build a launcher which replaces A5 and Soyuz, or only a Soyuz replacement. The former, IMO, is overall economically more attractive and does not warrant an absurdly high market share like today.

Quote from: spacejulien
But, between A5ME and A6, I am more convinced of the A5ME concept, technically as well as economically.

A6 questions :):

Did they consider composite tanks for the liquid concepts? You know similar to the ones Boeing develops for SLS.

Which design do you think would have to lowest recurrent cost if development costs are not considered (up to a certain limit, say 5bn)? The HHSC maybe? (of all the solid/hydrogen/methane SC or GG concepts).


By the way, I found this very interesting 4xVinci - Vinci Design in a Herakles document. See below. That would have been a funny launcher (this and the quadri-vulcain didn't make the final round).


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: newpylong on 07/10/2013 01:59 pm
I am by no means an expert on the Ariane line but this seems like it certainly is a step backwards. Spend a lot of money to develop a launcher with less capability in hopes of it being cheaper? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep developing the A5 with the same goals?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/10/2013 02:49 pm
I am by no means an expert on the Ariane line but this seems like it certainly is a step backwards. Spend a lot of money to develop a launcher with less capability in hopes of it being cheaper? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep developing the A5 with the same goals?

Ariane 1 thru 4 all constituted more-or-less linear increases in mass performance to orbit. With Ariane 4 this increase was initially so large that 'dual' launch was fairly much the default option for the Ariane 4 'heavy' versions. But as time progressed, even the heaviest version of Ariane 4 became increasingly incapable of dual launch. Reason: satellites kept growing in weight.
Initially, Ariane 5 was to be just another enlargement of the Ariane 1-4 lineage. But then enter Hermes in the picture. This proposed mini-shuttle was so heavy that a simple enlargement of Ariane 4 would not do.
Hence one of the drivers to do a completely new design for Ariane 5.
' 5' was very substantially more powerful then ' 4', not in the least because of those massive EAP's. When Hermes went off the stage, the baseline design for Ariane 5 had been set firmly, meaning that this launcher was suddenly way too capable for "single" launch. Thus, dual launch became (again) standard practice for the newest addition to the Ariane lineage. But not so much by design, but by accident (so to speak).

Dual launch however has it's drawbacks. A major one is that there is constant jugling of payloads to match the launcher performance to a certain orbit type. It is this jugling that ESA and CNES want to do away with. Hence it being one of the drivers behind Ariane 6 being a less capable (mass to orbit) launcher than Ariane 5.
But make no mistake: proposed performance of Ariane 6, for a standard GEO transfer orbit, is still 1,600 kg more than that of the most powerful version of Ariane 4.
As such, Ariane 5 can be considered to be "the stranger in our midst":
The growth in mass performance to orbit is more-or-less linear from Ariane 1 to 6, with Ariane 5 being the major exception. But, as explained earlier, there was a reason why Ariane 5 is such an exceptionally large launcher.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 07/10/2013 05:21 pm
Why don't they just keep evolving the A5 & as well as looking to increase performance but also find a way to decrease costs?

They are doing that.

Therefore what's the point of the A6?

Would they A6 even be capable of dealing with some of the less run of the mill payloads like JWST, JUICE or ATV?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/10/2013 05:52 pm
Why don't they just keep evolving the A5 & as well as looking to increase performance but also find a way to decrease costs?

They are doing that.

Therefore what's the point of the A6?

Would they A6 even be capable of dealing with some of the less run of the mill payloads like JWST, JUICE or ATV?

None of those payloads is scheduled to be lifted by Ariane 6. That makes your theoretical exercise superfluous.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 07/10/2013 06:04 pm
Why don't they just keep evolving the A5 & as well as looking to increase performance but also find a way to decrease costs?

They are doing that.

Therefore what's the point of the A6?

Would they A6 even be capable of dealing with some of the less run of the mill payloads like JWST, JUICE or ATV?

None of those payloads is scheduled to be lifted by Ariane 6. That makes your theoretical exercise superfluous.

I am aware of that, that is why I said like them, or do you think ESA are not going to develop any one off or out of the ordinary payloads in the future.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/10/2013 10:11 pm
Well, so far ESA didn't really develop a lot of these payloads, didn't they?
ATV was developed with the size it has simply because that's what the size of a payload on A5 was. It's going away and should ESA ever want something similar in the future, it would simply be sized smaller. Progress, Dragon and Cygnus are all smaller and work just fine.

And other than that, ESA to my knowledge has never ever built a payload that required a full A5 launch. JWST was a barter agreement and NASA's problem (that they could probably have solved by throwing a lot of money at DIVH.

No, the size is not the problem with A6, the problem is the fact that it eats a lot of development €s without really bringing any advantage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/10/2013 11:16 pm
Now that the design is final (see updates thread), discuss.
It's a bad day for Europe!
As an American, I'm admiring this Ariane 6 design.  I see it as a bold engineering step toward simplicity and cost efficiency.  It is a design that is already showing signs of becoming the "new normal" (see "Pegasus 2" for one example). 

I can imagine seeing Ariane 6 rockets stacked and flown in metronome fashion while Mr. Musk struggles to get his complex, leaky, many-engined liquid rockets off of their multiple, costly launch pads and while others battle to get access to the Russian rocket engine monopoly.   

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Silmfeanor on 07/11/2013 02:15 am
Now that the design is final (see updates thread), discuss.
It's a bad day for Europe!
As an American, I'm admiring this Ariane 6 design.  I see it as a bold engineering step toward simplicity and cost efficiency.  It is a design that is already showing signs of becoming the "new normal" (see "Pegasus 2" for one example). 

I can imagine seeing Ariane 6 rockets stacked and flown in metronome fashion while Mr. Musk struggles to get his complex, leaky, many-engined liquid rockets off of their multiple, costly launch pads and while others battle to get access to the Russian rocket engine monopoly.   

 - Ed Kyle
Then again, you saw something in the stick  ;)
Solids are a branch of fireworks. Mass producing them for lower stages- interesting. But the project as a whole is a kludge. It is mass-limited and not very elegant.
Also, no human rating. Institutional launcher.
I'm happy they'll have A5 till atleast 2018-2019. We'll see after that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/11/2013 02:56 am
Then again, you saw something in the stick  ;)
I always acknowledged that Ares I was less than ideal.  What I supported was the program to land astronauts on the Moon.  The plan included Ares I.
Quote
Solids are a branch of fireworks. Mass producing them for lower stages- interesting. But the project as a whole is a kludge. It is mass-limited and not very elegant.
I see plenty of elegance.  Here is a rocket that will launch on the thrust of the world's largest, most advanced, most efficient monolithic composite case solid motors, combined in multiples to cut costs, topped by a highly efficient upper stage powered by the world's most efficient rocket engine. 

Every rocket is "mass limited".  The more mass it can lift, the more it will cost, but how many massive payloads exist?  Cutting costs is perfectly elegant.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/11/2013 06:39 am

Solids are a branch of fireworks. Mass producing them for lower stages- interesting. But the project as a whole is a kludge. It is mass-limited and not very elegant.
Also, no human rating. Institutional launcher.
I'm happy they'll have A5 till atleast 2018-2019. We'll see after that.

Emphasis mine.
ESA is not interested in human rating any of their launchers. Reason is simple: ESA has no intention to stick a manned spacecraft on top of their launchers. Man rating Ariane 6 would be just as ridiculous as continuing man rating of Ariane 5 after Hermes went away. However, ESA did the logical thing back then: the minute Hermes went off the stage, they dropped all man rating requirements for Ariane 5.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spectre9 on 07/11/2013 06:43 am
How many solids can you cluster?

Seems like this launch vehicle isn't good enough.

The latest spacecraft buses are 6600kg+

Perhaps I'm just confused.

Does ESA have no ambitions for manned spaceflight? Are they putting those eggs in the SLS basket now?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars_J on 07/11/2013 07:49 am
I can imagine seeing Ariane 6 rockets stacked and flown in metronome fashion while Mr. Musk struggles to get his complex, leaky, many-engined liquid rockets off of their multiple, costly launch pads and while others battle to get access to the Russian rocket engine monopoly.   

 - Ed Kyle

Time will tell, I suppose. But perhaps this will be yet another nail In the coffin for the "cheap solids" argument instead.

And regarding your SpaceX comment - props to you for finally putting your real feelings on them out there for all to see. Leaky?  ???
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kch on 07/11/2013 08:05 am
I can imagine seeing Ariane 6 rockets stacked and flown in metronome fashion while Mr. Musk struggles to get his complex, leaky, many-engined liquid rockets off of their multiple, costly launch pads and while others battle to get access to the Russian rocket engine monopoly.   

 - Ed Kyle

Time will tell, I suppose. But perhaps this will be yet another nail In the coffin for the "cheap solids" argument instead.

And regarding your SpaceX comment - props to you for finally putting your real feelings on them out there for all to see. Leaky?  ???

That was ... enlightening.  ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/11/2013 08:47 am
How many solids can you cluster?

There is not a set limit and will depend on the motors used.
Design studies for A6 have envisioned using up to 6 solid boosters to lift heavier masses.

Does ESA have no ambitions for manned spaceflight? Are they putting those eggs in the SLS basket now?
No ESA has no plans or any deep ambition for indigenous manned launches.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spectre9 on 07/11/2013 09:50 am
Does ESA have no ambitions for manned spaceflight? Are they putting those eggs in the SLS basket now?
No ESA has no plans or any deep ambition for indigenous manned launches.

ATV has nothing to do with manned launches. It supports astronauts on orbit.

Is disbanding the ESA astronaut corps really an option?

I thought they would just be throwing them on SLS missions.

In which case I assert building service modules isn't enough of a contribution.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/11/2013 10:08 am
I wonder, why not use a solid A6 für manned launches? When it comes to safety, A5 has solids, Atlas V for crew will have solids, Ares-I had solids...

So the problem must be vibrations, but I'm sure there are ways to dampen them for the capsule.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/11/2013 10:47 am
I wonder, why not use a solid A6 für manned launches? When it comes to safety, A5 has solids, Atlas V for crew will have solids, Ares-I had solids...

So the problem must be vibrations, but I'm sure there are ways to dampen them for the capsule.
Any manned spacecraft for ESA purposes (and mind you, any of those are entirely theoretical) will likely exceed the 6.5 metric tons lift capacity of Ariane 6. So your question is moot.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Verio Fryar on 07/11/2013 10:54 am
Any manned spacecraft for ESA purposes (and mind you, any of those are entirely theoretical) will likely exceed the 6.5 metric tons lift capacity of Ariane 6. So your question is moot.

Ariane 6 will be able to launch 6.5 tons to GTO. How much will be able to launch to LEO?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Skyrocket on 07/11/2013 10:55 am
I wonder, why not use a solid A6 für manned launches? When it comes to safety, A5 has solids, Atlas V for crew will have solids, Ares-I had solids...

So the problem must be vibrations, but I'm sure there are ways to dampen them for the capsule.
Any manned spacecraft for ESA purposes (and mind you, any of those are entirely theoretical) will likely exceed the 6.5 metric tons lift capacity of Ariane 6. So your question is moot.

The 6.5 t capacity is for GTO, not for LEO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/11/2013 10:58 am
Does ESA have no ambitions for manned spaceflight? Are they putting those eggs in the SLS basket now?
No ESA has no plans or any deep ambition for indigenous manned launches.

ATV has nothing to do with manned launches. It supports astronauts on orbit.

Is disbanding the ESA astronaut corps really an option?

I thought they would just be throwing them on SLS missions.

In which case I assert building service modules isn't enough of a contribution.

I wasn't talking about the ATV. What little will there was to get involved in manned spaceflight hardware was the Orion service module itself. Remember the French, who are lead with A6, merely wanted to use ATV technologies for a satellite servicing tug.

No one is saying the astronaut corps will go, because as we've seen with Orion bartering seats is about politics rather than a logical measure of contribution.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/11/2013 11:32 am
ESA to my knowledge has never ever built a payload that required a full A5 launch.

The heaviest ESA payload combination (other than ATV) that ever launched on Ariane 5 was the very first: Cluster 1. It came in at a launch weight of a little under 5 metric tons.
If you count the adaptor for dual launch as well, then the heaviest ESA payload combination on Ariane 5 was the Herschel/Planck launch at roughly 5.5 metric tons.
From there it is a (very) long jump to the 20 metric tons for ATV or 21 metric tons for the once planned Hermes shuttle.

Note: for simplicity I left orbit-types out of this. I'm purely talking launch mass now.

So, for ESA launches (the prime driver behind the development of any Ariane version) 6.5 metric tons launch capacity is more than enough, particularly since none of the planned ESA missions exceeds a launch mass of 4.5 metric tons.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/11/2013 11:54 am
I entered some reasonable numbers in Schilling's calculator and got 17.1t for LEO (185/185/45°), 6.8t for GTO and 4.8t for escape trajectory.

Probably the upper limit.

JUICE (4.8t) will probably be too heavy.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/11/2013 12:00 pm
The question is what the structural limit for LEO would be
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 07/11/2013 12:14 pm
I wonder if there's any back paper calculations for the performance of an A6 with just one P135 on the first and second stages (possibly T/W <1?) or a cluster of 5 P135s on the first stage?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/11/2013 12:46 pm
I now got 6.9t to GTO in the baseline version, weird, maybe "triple seven" was meant literally ;)


With 1xP135:
2.7t to GTO (quite a lot  ???, 9t to LEO)

With 5xP135:
10t to GTO (and 23.2t to LEO, same as A5 ME  ;D).

Of course as Jim would say, "rockets are not legos" ;)

Maybe I should give numbers :)

GTO: 35943/250/6° (from Kourou, see A5 user manual).
LEO: 185/185/45° (from Kourou)

Dry mass of boosters: 10% of propellant (slightly more than P80).
Upper stage fuel: 31t (known, read it somewhere).
Upper stage dry mass: 5t (just a guess).
Booster isp: 285 (a guess, must enter vacuum number).
Booster thrust: 4500kn (1.5x P80, pure guess)
Fairing: 2t, jettison at 200s.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/11/2013 01:49 pm
Of course as Jim would say, "rockets are not legos" ;)

Paper rockets are.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: R7 on 07/11/2013 02:37 pm
Manned S/Cs for Ariane 6 can be made lighter than for other LVs. LAS is not needed ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/11/2013 03:08 pm
And regarding your SpaceX comment - props to you for finally putting your real feelings on them out there for all to see. Leaky?  ???
I would like to see SpaceX, and all of the other launch providers, succeed, but "leaky" is what happened when they initially fueled v1.1 at McGregor, several months ago now, causing delays.  I was illustrating one advantage of monolithic solids.

Remember also that Falcon 9 v1.1 won't be able to match Ariane 6 lift capability.  Only Falcon Heavy could do that, a machine that would require perfect performance from twenty eight turbopumps, liquid valve sets, temperature sensor sets, thrust vector controller sets, propellant feed line sets, and so on.  Even Atlas V has to fly in a 551 variant to match Ariane 6 GTO performance, and Delta IV has to go as a Heavy to better Ariane 6.  So yes, Ariane 6 looks pretty elegant by comparison.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/11/2013 04:06 pm
^

531 ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/11/2013 04:16 pm
^

531 ;)
Not on an equivalent delta-v to GEO basis.  Atlas V 531 can only lift about 5.65 tonnes to a GTO that is 1,500 m/s short of GEO, which is the Ariane baseline.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/11/2013 04:34 pm
^

I see, I must learn.

According to this article:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2013/07/09/01008-20130709ARTFIG00464-la-configuration-definitive-d-ariane-6-enfin-devoilee.php

thrust of two lateral P135 is 760 tons at takeoff (the central one is ignited 10s into flight, for whatever reason).

Unfortunately the rocket's mass is 660t, 28t more than I expected, which kind of ruins the estimation (closer to 5t than 6.5t). If I blame the additional mass on the first stage and increase ISP to 295 (I think one must insert isp with vacuum nozzle, at least it says in the description, not sure), Zefiro 9 with 295s is my justification ;D, I get 6.57t to GTO.

2.7t for the 1xP135 and ~9.4t for 5xP135 are still within reach.

Anyway, this is pointless, I give up ;)



Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars_J on 07/11/2013 05:56 pm
And regarding your SpaceX comment - props to you for finally putting your real feelings on them out there for all to see. Leaky?  ???
I would like to see SpaceX, and all of the other launch providers, succeed, but "leaky" is what happened when they initially fueled v1.1 at McGregor, several months ago now, causing delays.  I was illustrating one advantage of monolithic solids.

If it leaked while sitting on the pad I might excuse your comment - but not in an early test in a testing facility designed to ... you know ... test things. Do you think solid development and testing is always trouble free? Shall we drag up every small scale issue that ATK or other solid manufacturer into every solid vs liquid discussion??

No, your comment was out of line and highly informative of your bias.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Stephan on 07/11/2013 06:46 pm
ESA to my knowledge has never ever built a payload that required a full A5 launch.

The heaviest ESA payload combination (other than ATV) that ever launched on Ariane 5 was the very first: Cluster 1. It came in at a launch weight of a little under 5 metric tons.
If you count the adaptor for dual launch as well, then the heaviest ESA payload combination on Ariane 5 was the Herschel/Planck launch at roughly 5.5 metric tons.
From there it is a (very) long jump to the 20 metric tons for ATV or 21 metric tons for the once planned Hermes shuttle.

Note: for simplicity I left orbit-types out of this. I'm purely talking launch mass now.

So, for ESA launches (the prime driver behind the development of any Ariane version) 6.5 metric tons launch capacity is more than enough, particularly since none of the planned ESA missions exceeds a launch mass of 4.5 metric tons.
Don't forget Envisat, ~8 metric tons. But it's unlikely to happen again, even with Ariane 5.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/11/2013 06:52 pm
^

Envisat was not in GEO, 800km.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 07/11/2013 07:09 pm
When you consider PPH, you have to consider a P135 Vega. That's where it will make economic and strategic sense for ESA. May be they could have donde it better another way. I loved MT proposal, btw. But you gotta take the whole launch needs of Europe as a group. How many SSO of more than 3.5tonnes have you seen? And how many are planned? What if a P135 Vega can do a single Galileo? That's optimal for fleet maintenance, for example.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Stephan on 07/11/2013 07:48 pm
^

Envisat was not in GEO, 800km.
Didn't say it was.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 07/11/2013 08:48 pm
I entered some reasonable numbers in Schilling's calculator and got 17.1t for LEO (185/185/45°), 6.8t for GTO and 4.8t for escape trajectory.

Probably the upper limit.

JUICE (4.8t) will probably be too heavy.

Isn't JUICE slated to be launched on an A5.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/12/2013 03:09 am
And regarding your SpaceX comment - props to you for finally putting your real feelings on them out there for all to see. Leaky?  ???
I would like to see SpaceX, and all of the other launch providers, succeed, but "leaky" is what happened when they initially fueled v1.1 at McGregor, several months ago now, causing delays.  I was illustrating one advantage of monolithic solids.

If it leaked while sitting on the pad I might excuse your comment - but not in an early test in a testing facility designed to ... you know ... test things. Do you think solid development and testing is always trouble free? Shall we drag up every small scale issue that ATK or other solid manufacturer into every solid vs liquid discussion??

No, your comment was out of line and highly informative of your bias.
If I have a bias, it is toward success.  If this is a bias, it is a hard-learned bias because I personally witnessed STS-51L when I worked at KSC. 

But when I examine the statistics for big-throat solids over the years, I count something like 328 total launches of big solid Titans, Ariane 5, and STS.  Of those, 22 suffered failures.  Of those failures, only three involved solid motor propulsion failures. 

Or consider Arianespace over the years, which has dealt with 11 failures of Ariane 1 through 5 - none of which involved a solid motor.

Or compare contemporary missiles like Titan 2 versus Minuteman 1, or Redstone versus Pershing, or UR-100 versus Topol, or even Falcon 1 or Rokot versus Vega.  In each case the solid missile failed far less frequently than the liquid missile.

That is not to say that liquids can't be successful; R-7, CZ, and the Ariane 5 and Atlas 5 core stages being prime examples.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/12/2013 11:00 am
If I have a bias, it is toward success.  If this is a bias, it is a hard-learned bias because I personally witnessed STS-51L when I worked at KSC. 

But when I examine the statistics for big-throat solids over the years, I count something like 328 total launches of big solid Titans, Ariane 5, and STS.  Of those, 22 suffered failures.  Of those failures, only three involved solid motor propulsion failures. 

Or consider Arianespace over the years, which has dealt with 11 failures of Ariane 1 through 5 - none of which involved a solid motor.

Or compare contemporary missiles like Titan 2 versus Minuteman 1, or Redstone versus Pershing, or UR-100 versus Topol, or even Falcon 1 or Rokot versus Vega.  In each case the solid missile failed far less frequently than the liquid missile.

That is not to say that liquids can't be successful; R-7, CZ, and the Ariane 5 and Atlas 5 core stages being prime examples.

 - Ed Kyle

So, this whole thing is coming down to one thing: KISS
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: R7 on 07/12/2013 01:18 pm
Or compare contemporary missiles like Titan 2 versus Minuteman 1, or Redstone versus Pershing, or UR-100 versus Topol, or even Falcon 1 or Rokot versus Vega.  In each case the solid missile failed far less frequently than the liquid missile.

By astronautix numbers Minuteman 1A ( 85.37%) wasn't more reliable than Titan II (92.59%) and 1B (93.29%) was only slightly. Calling Redstone and Pershing contemporary is a stretch, developed almost decade apart during times when rocketry was advancing by leaps and bounds. Same thing with UR-100 (60s) and Topol (80s). And Rokot vs Vega... Rokot is UR-100N with Briz-stage, so comparing something with CCCP painted over against another thing developed in 21st century produces a bit lopsided results.

Falcon-1 failures prove only that SpaceX doesn't get a free pass in physics. Things rust, liquids slosh and thrust decay matters, even with X on the skin.


Having said that, congratulations to the French and Safran Herakles for Ariane 6. Well lobbied.


edit: springing to Ed's defense; astronautix (and wiki) numbers for Titan II probably aren't correct, they combine N and B series launches but seem report only B series failures.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/12/2013 01:39 pm
Quote from: R7
Having said that, congratulations to the French and Safran Herakles for Ariane 6. Well lobbied.

I hope in the case a liquid design would have won, you would have said "congratulations to the French and Safran Snecma, Air Liquide and co., well lobbied."

Not? Does that show your bias towards liquids?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: R7 on 07/12/2013 02:01 pm
"congratulations to the French and Safran Snecma, Air Liquide and co., well lobbied."

Forgot to say that, they did manage to cling to liquid US so well lobbied! :)

Quote
Not? Does that show your bias towards liquids?

I can show my bias towards liquids by saying that I'm definitely biased towards liquids in civilian space efforts.  :D
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/12/2013 02:01 pm
By astronautix numbers Minuteman 1A ( 85.37%) wasn't more reliable than Titan II (92.59%) and 1B (93.29%) was only slightly.
I'm not sure which Titan II the Astronautix numbers are describing.  Titan II ICBM test flights actually only succeeded a bit more than 80% of the time (81 flights with 16 failures). 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/12/2013 05:28 pm
Woerner said most studies suggest that satellites, on average, are getting heavier — not lighter, and that a capacity limited to 6,500 kilograms for a launcher to enter service in the 2020s is insufficient.
Only two rockets in the world right now can lift more than 6.5 tonnes to GEO - 1,500 m/s (the Ariane GTO).  Those are Atlas V 551 and Delta IV Heavy, neither of which is commercially competitive.  The U.S. Government has only been able to afford to launch these two configurations a combined total of nine times during the past 11 years.

Of course Ariane 5 can lift more than 6.5 tonnes, but it is designed to lift two payloads at once.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spectre9 on 07/12/2013 05:48 pm
Go Germany lol

Can Ariane 5 ME lift Orion?

Perhaps a composite version?

I like how they say "Italy can pay and France can pay" "Don't want to spend all our money on launchers". Good on them. Spaceflight is more about the payload. A service module is not enough of a contribution to the SLS stack to get a seat. Not when the U.S. is paying somewhere around $30-40b+ for development.

I want to see them make a DSH. It will cost billions yes but it will help NASA go to a NEA and it will ensure Europeon astronauts go along for the ride.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/12/2013 05:54 pm
Argh. A lot of strawman arguments to defuse pro-Ariane 6 strawman arguments. This is what makes European space policy so annoying.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/12/2013 06:00 pm

As the post was removed, for whatever reason, I will post only the link to the article.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/36225dlr%E2%80%99s-woerner-remains-unconvinced-just-unveiled-ariane-6-design-is-right#.UeA0mG1tb9t

Hope that is allowed  ???
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/12/2013 08:11 pm
The "whatever reason" will be quoting copyrighted material which is a violation of the author's copyright and could potentially get Chris into trouble, so it was right to remove it.
Posting the link is the correct way to report it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: sdsds on 07/13/2013 03:56 am
The quote from the Le Gall interview got me thinking. “If we’re launching 15 times per year, that’s 60 identical boosters because we have a single design for the vehicle. This is how we can keep costs down.” What if the liquid advocates accepted A6, and proposed replacing A5 with a vehicle that used some number (maybe four?) of these boosters around a Vulcain-2 powered core/sustainer stage? By using even more boosters, wouldn't that vehicle "keep costs down" even more, while maintaining the industrial base that builds Vulcain engines?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/13/2013 09:51 am
Why maintain Vulcain? Vega evolutions are looking at a LOX/methane upper stage so something based on LOX/methane could have more synergy.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/13/2013 11:15 am
Quote from: sdsds
What if the liquid advocates accepted A6, and proposed replacing A5 with a vehicle that used some number (maybe four?) of these boosters around a Vulcain-2 powered core/sustainer stage? By using even more boosters, wouldn't that vehicle "keep costs down" even more, while maintaining the industrial base that builds Vulcain engines?

If most of the thrust at launch comes form solids, they must have TVC, which is expensive. I guess that is why the A6 liquid version has two Vulcain 3 (which should be 30% less expensive than Vulcain 2 and provide slightly higher thrust with 1500kn) to provide most of the thrust, plus "simple", small boosters with fixed nozzles.

So its either big fat solids with TVC (and potentially discarding liquid first stage altogether), or a strong liquid core.

Quote from: mmeijeri
Why maintain Vulcain? Vega evolutions are looking at a LOX/methane upper stage so something based on LOX/methane could have more synergy.

From what I can tell they looked into methane, but the resulting rockets were heavy, requiring strong engines (for example 2 engines with 2650kn each, the document is posted on NSF in this or past threads).

Below is an image of the engines in study at Snecma in 2009.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 07/13/2013 08:51 pm
The quote from the Le Gall interview got me thinking. “If we’re launching 15 times per year, that’s 60 identical boosters because we have a single design for the vehicle. This is how we can keep costs down.” What if the liquid advocates accepted A6, and proposed replacing A5 with a vehicle that used some number (maybe four?) of these boosters around a Vulcain-2 powered core/sustainer stage? By using even more boosters, wouldn't that vehicle "keep costs down" even more, while maintaining the industrial base that builds Vulcain engines?


There seems to be a wrong view of serial production impact out there....

The current A6 configuration uses 4 solid stages plus one cryogenic upper stage. According to our NELS results this configuration is more expensive that a "simple" three stage PPH in line configuratiopn using a P340 in the first and a P110 in the second stage. Chopping the first stage into small pieces does add complexity and cost.

The most important thing I learned during the NELS study is that reducing the number of "propulsive modules" is the way to go and the current A6 configuration is going in the opposite way.

Our HH configuration with three Vulcain 3 (the cost optimized version of the Vulcain 2) resulted in practically the same cost as the now chosen "Multi-P" configuration.

There is absolutely no cost argument for sticking with the ugly solids!

And there is still the option for a smaller version for the 3,5 ton GTO target by omitting the center engine of the first stage and fueling of that stage to 65% only. A feature that the multi-P Ariane 6 configuration doesn't offer!

Also there is still the door open for a heavy CCB version with three bundled core stages, the outer with 3 engines, the center with two, that could bring up to 40 tons to LEO should there ever be a need for such a payload capacity in Europe.

For me the most important feature is that we could maintain the large liquid engine technology that I assume as crucial for anything beyond Ariane 6!

It's good to hear that DLR head Woerner is tending to the right side...!

It's time to destroy that myth of "cheap solid propulsion"!
It is not cheaper than liquid propulsion from the launcher systems point of view.

Spacediver
 
 
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/13/2013 10:19 pm
Quote from: spacediver
There seems to be a wrong view of serial production impact out there....

Did you really do such an in depth economic analysis? I mean I don't see why they should pick the 3xP135-P135 version over the P180/strapons -P110 if not for economic reasons (Afaik the latter would offer superior capacity, up to 8t). Also Woerner doesn't seem to disagree with the potential of economics of scale of 60+ identical solids produced in one factory.

And did you consider synergies with Vega?

Quote from: spacediver
Our HH configuration with three Vulcain 3 (the cost optimized version of the Vulcain 2) resulted in practically the same cost as the now chosen "Multi-P" configuration.

Vulcain 3 has a sea level thrust of 1066kn, to my knowledge. Three Vulcains means 3198kn. Don't you think the T/W ratio at takeoff would be rather pathetic? A few pages back in this thread there is a pic of a quadri-vulcain concept. Wouldn't that reduce gravity losses and tank size significantly?

Also, adding 20t boosters or similar with fixed nozzle would reduce number of engines to 2, hence increasing reliability, and again reduce tank size. With less tank diameter one could also use common bulkhead with the upper stage without making it a terrible design (i.e. heavy).

Just some thoughts from a layman  :)

Edit: Did you say P340? There is no way for such a booster to be monolithic, right?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kch on 07/13/2013 10:58 pm

Edit: Did you say P340? There is no way for such a booster to be monolithic, right?


Well, of course not -- that'd be huge!  Who would be crazy enough to even build something like that, let alone test-fire it?

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm

 ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/13/2013 11:11 pm
^

Not composite and terrible ISP  ;)

Besides, development costs matter too. That thing looks rather crazy indeed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 07/14/2013 12:33 am

Did you really do such an in depth economic analysis?


Yes, we did!
Complete Business case analysis and cost estimate for each concept.


And did you consider synergies with Vega?


No, was not a NELS requirement.


Vulcain 3 has a sea level thrust of 1066kn, to my knowledge.


Sorry, forgot to mention that it's a Vulcain with reduced expansion ratio of about 30. S/L thrust was 1295 kN per Engine.


Also, adding 20t boosters or similar with fixed nozzle would reduce number of engines to 2, hence increasing reliability, and again reduce tank size.


We investigated such a concept but the additional solid boosters are much more expensive than the third Vulcain!


Edit: Did you say P340? There is no way for such a booster to be monolithic, right?


Yes it would need to be segmented and therefore most likely metallic. We investigated this concept more as a benchmark than a real world concept.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/14/2013 01:12 am
^

Ok I guess 3 Vulcains is enough then. What do you think of a higher expansion ratio, thus higher vaccum isp, but one more engine?

You seem not very much concerned with tank size. Is that a non-issue with regard to manufacturing cost?

I guess you're from OHB and the concepts below are the ones you looked into.

Clearly the H2 only version is huge, while the version with strap-ons is relatively small (ok it has a single SC engine, but the ISP of Vulcains is not bad, so probably would not be much bigger with 2 Vulcains).

Btw., did you consider composite H2 tanks?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: cheesybagel on 07/14/2013 07:54 am
Quote from: mmeijeri
Why maintain Vulcain? Vega evolutions are looking at a LOX/methane upper stage so something based on LOX/methane could have more synergy.

For upper stage applications they have Vinci. Probably overpowered for a Vega upper stage but it should work fine on the larger Ariane 4 class rocket.

From what I can tell they looked into methane, but the resulting rockets were heavy, requiring strong engines (for example 2 engines with 2650kn each, the document is posted on NSF in this or past threads).

Below is an image of the engines in study at Snecma in 2009.

Right. My favorite between those two (Veda and Volga) is the LOX/Methane Volga with staged combustion that was supposed to be designed with Russian input. I guess they had those two concept designs because the idea back then was to make an European version of the US Space Launch Initiative TSTO launcher proposal. Remember the RS-83 and RS-84? Heh. Like I said ESA isn't really creative with these things. One big proof is how they persist with this all solid Ariane 6 after the US itself dropped work on the "stick" i.e. Ares-I.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/14/2013 08:53 am
And did you consider synergies with Vega?

Not to mention nuclear missiles. As far as I know a Trident replacement has still to be decided.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/14/2013 08:55 am
For upper stage applications they have Vinci. Probably overpowered for a Vega upper stage but it should work fine on the larger Ariane 4 class rocket.

Sure, I meant as a second and perhaps eventually first stage. But first it would have to start as a third stage for Vega and then "work its way down".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/14/2013 10:51 am
Quote from: cheesybagel
Right. My favorite between those two (Veda and Volga) is the LOX/Methane Volga with staged combustion that was supposed to be designed with Russian input.

Problem with SC engines, they're bloody expensive. I think Volga was considered for a reusable booster system. On the other hand, GG kerosene engines with vinci US, probably too bad isp. They would need to stage earlier and use a more powerful US engine. Something a la F9.

I wonder, are there any high-thrust (1000kn+) GG kerosene engines except the F-1?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: aga on 07/14/2013 11:21 am
I wonder, are there any high-thrust (1000kn+) GG kerosene engines except the F-1?
rd-117? just barely over 1000 kN
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/14/2013 11:39 am
^

Sorry, >1100kn  :), not Soyuz' engine and RS-27A.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: cheesybagel on 07/14/2013 04:59 pm
Quote from: cheesybagel
Right. My favorite between those two (Veda and Volga) is the LOX/Methane Volga with staged combustion that was supposed to be designed with Russian input.

Problem with SC engines, they're bloody expensive. I think Volga was considered for a reusable booster system. On the other hand, GG kerosene engines with vinci US, probably too bad isp. They would need to stage earlier and use a more powerful US engine. Something a la F9.

I wonder, are there any high-thrust (1000kn+) GG kerosene engines except the F-1?


According to the Russians they are not that expensive to manufacture. Sure they cost more but in return you get more payload.

The Russians are going to use staged combustion in Angara. They have been switching the Soyuz engines to use staged combustion as well (e.g. RD-0124). RD-180 is used in Atlas V in the US. The Chinese are going to use the technology in Long March 5. Finally SpaceX is supposedly developing a LOX/Methane staged combustion engine named the Raptor.

I remember reading the status reports on the LOX/Methane collaboration of the French with the Russians. Allegedly the choice of LOX/Methane over LOX/Kerosene was done in order to mitigate the risk required to design a staged combustion engine. Allegedly a LOX/LH2 staged combustion engine is not that hard to design and a LOX/Methane version is only slightly more difficult. The main issue is when you attempt to design a LOX rich LOX/Kerosene staged combustion engine. That is when all the insane metallurgical problems start creeping up.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/14/2013 06:11 pm
Quote from: cheesybagel
According to the Russians they are not that expensive to manufacture.

Nominal wages in Russia are on average still maybe a third of those in the west. Also, the russians already know how to manufacture them.

Quote from: cheesybagel
The Russians are going to use staged combustion in Angara.

...and keep Proton until 2030, no plans to retire Soyuz. Although Proton uses SC engines too, but with hypergolics, probably a lot simpler.

Quote from: cheesybagel
They have been switching the Soyuz engines to use staged combustion as well (e.g. RD-0124).

Only upper stage.

Quote from: cheesybagel
Finally SpaceX is supposedly developing a LOX/Methane staged combustion engine named the Raptor.

Would make sense given their plans.

Quote from: cheesybagel
Allegedly a LOX/LH2 staged combustion engine is not that hard to design and a LOX/Methane version is only slightly more difficult.

The expendable version of RS-25 is supposed to cost $40m (reusable more than $70m). Awful lot of money for an engine which offers slightly bigger ISP and better mixture ratio than GG (at least when looking at H2).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/15/2013 07:05 am
Our HH configuration with three Vulcain 3 (the cost optimized version of the Vulcain 2) resulted in practically the same cost as the now chosen "Multi-P" configuration.

There is absolutely no cost argument for sticking with the ugly solids!
Turning that around: There is absolutely no cost argument for sticking with the highly complicated liquids.

If you wish to define solids as 'ugly', then support that definition with arguments.


Also there is still the door open for a heavy CCB version with three bundled core stages, the outer with 3 engines, the center with two, that could bring up to 40 tons to LEO should there ever be a need for such a payload capacity in Europe.
You're missing the point. No such need exists today. And should the need ever arise, ESA will have a very good reason to develop Ariane 7. After all, the main driver behind the Ariane series of launchers is to keep the European launcher industry at work.

It's time to destroy that myth of "cheap solid propulsion"!
It is not cheaper than liquid propulsion from the launcher systems point of view.
And again you fail to address the real issue at hand. Why is liquid propulsion to be preferred above solids? Cost is clearly not the point. Then what is it?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/16/2013 03:19 pm

Seeing to what extent ESA endorses REL's SABRE engine (see Skylon thread), I wonder whether ESA simply does not see a future for liquid engine development beyond SABRE.

Maybe Ariane 6 is designed as a launcher which should close the gap to a future RLV with SABRE as cheap as possible, with as much synergies as possible with the existing Vega. Also its the last opportunity to improve on solid rocket motor technology.

I'm not kidding  ;D
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: cheesybagel on 07/18/2013 04:23 am

Seeing to what extent ESA endorses REL's SABRE engine (see Skylon thread), I wonder whether ESA simply does not see a future for liquid engine development beyond SABRE.

Maybe Ariane 6 is designed as a launcher which should close the gap to a future RLV with SABRE as cheap as possible, with as much synergies as possible with the existing Vega. Also its the last opportunity to improve on solid rocket motor technology.

I'm not kidding  ;D


ESA is not going to fund Skylon. Most programs are done on a workshare basis where the countries which provide the most funding to ESA get more of the work. Skylon is a British project and that country has not been interested in funding space launch technology since like the 1970s. Some minor funding for studies is being provided sure. But not the funding required to develop an actual launch vehicle.

The "new" solids for Ariane 6 aren't that exciting. Basically they changed the casing to use filament wound carbon instead of metal casings. It still uses the same propellants. If this was a hybrid rocket instead that could have been interesting. This way it is not IMO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/18/2013 05:34 am
Quote from: cheesybagel
ESA is not going to fund Skylon. Most programs are done on a workshare basis where the countries which provide the most funding to ESA get more of the work. Skylon is a British project and that country has not been interested in funding space launch technology since like the 1970s. Some minor funding for studies is being provided sure. But not the funding required to develop an actual launch vehicle.

Today's aerospace industry does not stop at national borders anymore. Skylon would offer plenty of work for companies in Europe and abroad, and hence development costs would be shared. Critical technology like the heat exchangers could still fully remain inside Britain. Of course I don't believe we'll see anything like Skylon before 2030. But as a successor to A6, I see at least a slight chance :)

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 07/18/2013 04:43 pm
Skylon is already being funded by ESA and the British space agency. REL isn't going to build Skylon itself, they are just going to produce the engines with the planes being made by a different factory. If SpaceX can get rockets reusable and they can out compete ESA, I'm pretty sure ESA would be interested in increasing the funding for Skylon and a company in a different European country would start producing it (EADS, perhaps?).

Also, Britain has started to increase it's space spending since last year, it's fairly possible that they would be very interested in funding Skylon if the SABRE tests are successful.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/19/2013 08:38 am
If SpaceX can get rockets reusable and they can out compete ESA Arianespace, I'm pretty sure ...

Fixed that for ya. And welcome to the forum.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 07/19/2013 09:53 am
Oh damnit, missed that. And thank you :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 08/24/2013 09:02 pm
Recently, I've thought about a possible merger of Ariane 5 and 6 into one heavy lift launch vehicle. The first stage would consist of 5x P135, the second stage would be the Ariane 5 core and the optional upper stage would be the same as the A5ME upper stage. Plugging the numbers from astronautix.com into the LV calculator and I got about 40 tons to LEO and 21 tons to GTO. It might not be necessary for the near future, but say ESA suddenly wanted Heavy lift performance for whoever knows what reason. Would a design like that be feasible?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 08/26/2013 02:00 pm
^

The A5 core is not designed to withstand that load, Vulcain is not air-startable. Keeping production lines for cores and vulcains open only for a rarely (if at all) used heavy version would be too expensive anyway.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 08/26/2013 02:06 pm
^

The A5 core is not designed to withstand that load, Vulcain is not air-startable. Keeping production lines for cores and vulcains open only for a rarely (if at all) used heavy version would be too expensive anyway.

I was already afraid that the physical loads would make the design unworkable. It's not really that I think a Heavy launcher is necessary but I was thinking about possible Ariane 6 derived HLV's. You know, in case it's necessary. And with that I mean I like big rockets.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 08/26/2013 03:21 pm
The piece in the last Spaceflight magazine appeared to be indicating that this isn't a done deal, that it's more a French project than anything else and the German's were far less keen on it?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Patchouli on 08/26/2013 05:39 pm
Woerner said most studies suggest that satellites, on average, are getting heavier — not lighter, and that a capacity limited to 6,500 kilograms for a launcher to enter service in the 2020s is insufficient.
Only two rockets in the world right now can lift more than 6.5 tonnes to GEO - 1,500 m/s (the Ariane GTO).  Those are Atlas V 551 and Delta IV Heavy, neither of which is commercially competitive.  The U.S. Government has only been able to afford to launch these two configurations a combined total of nine times during the past 11 years.

Of course Ariane 5 can lift more than 6.5 tonnes, but it is designed to lift two payloads at once.

 - Ed Kyle

The move to 4 and 8K HDTV will require higher data rates and thus need a stronger signal.
There are two ways to address this larger dishes on the receiving end "which is not going to happen after the market has gotten used to small dishes" or you jack up your transmitter power.

Then there's emerging markets such as multispot beam sats for high speed internet such as  Skyterra.

This will likely cause increases in mass that will greatly outstrip anything saved with ion engines being used for orbit refinement.

Then there's the issue of Europe being left without a HSF capable launcher and having to depend on the Russians and Americans.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 08/26/2013 05:48 pm

Then there's the issue of Europe being left without a HSF capable launcher and having to depend on the Russians and Americans.

I'm pretty sure ESA isn't interested in an independent human space program. If they were, they still have a few options open.

Should they want to build a scaled up version of the Pride-ISV in a similar fashion to the X-37C they could build a dual or triple Vulcain version of Ariane 5 without the SRB's, which should be capable of about 13 tons to LEO. The reason they didn't do that for Ariane 6 was that the current Vulcain was too expensive and developing a new one wouldn't have any synergies with Vega. Should the need arrive for a manned launcher when Ariane 5 is still flying they could develop it for relatively little. Should the need arrive after Ariane 5 has stopped flying they'll have a good reason to develop Ariane 7.

And of course, ESA is supporting Skylon and currently doing an economical analysis to see wether it could replace Ariane as their primary launcher. If they decide to fully support it ESA will have manned capability anyway, regardless of the kind of Ariane that replaces Ariane 5.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Patchouli on 08/26/2013 06:01 pm
Skylon seems like something they should be supporting as a long term project.
If the ESA doesn't back it I think NASA should partner with the UK on it.

As for a near term crew launch vehicle Araine 5 originally was designed for such a role.

A human rated version of Araine 5 paired with a modern crew vehicle would likely be safer then Ares I and Soyuz.
The LV has a near perfect record and the one nasty failure would have been just a LOM vs LOC had there been a crew vehicle with some sort of LAS on top.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 08/26/2013 06:05 pm
Then there's the issue of Europe being left without a HSF capable launcher and having to depend on the Russians and Americans.

Invalid argument. Europe has never had possession of an HSF capable launcher. Ariane 5 as we know it never had HSF capabilities. Those were thrown out when Hermes was cancelled.
Europe has always had to depend on the Russians or Americans to transport their astro's to space.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 08/26/2013 06:17 pm
The move to 4 and 8K HDTV will require higher data rates and thus need a stronger signal.
There are two ways to address this larger dishes on the receiving end "which is not going to happen after the market has gotten used to small dishes" or you jack up your transmitter power.
If you switch to SEP for GSO circularization, I think you'll first get volume limited rather than payload limited on most cargo. At least antoine has stated that when they were volume limited on a Proton they quoted a SEP version of their sat. Customer chose a more expensive launcher, though.
Ariane 6 will probably have a huge payload volume for its performance. And I still think that developing more efficient space rated solar cells would be cheaper than a more powerful LV development. That and the need for more powerful TWT, a market for which Europe also has a 50% share. I think, thus, that if I had to chose between a bigger LV and better solar cells and TWT, I would go with the latter.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 08/28/2013 06:48 pm
Skylon seems like something they should be supporting as a long term project.
If the ESA doesn't back it I think NASA should partner with the UK on it.

As for a near term crew launch vehicle Araine 5 originally was designed for such a role.

A human rated version of Araine 5 paired with a modern crew vehicle would likely be safer then Ares I and Soyuz.
The LV has a near perfect record and the one nasty failure would have been just a LOM vs LOC had there been a crew vehicle with some sort of LAS on top.

People should be biting their hands off to partner on Skylon as it must be the program with the greatest potential to alter our access to space in fifty years.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 08/31/2013 12:53 pm
Skylon seems like something they should be supporting as a long term project.
If the ESA doesn't back it I think NASA should partner with the UK on it.

As for a near term crew launch vehicle Araine 5 originally was designed for such a role.

A human rated version of Araine 5 paired with a modern crew vehicle would likely be safer then Ares I and Soyuz.
The LV has a near perfect record and the one nasty failure would have been just a LOM vs LOC had there been a crew vehicle with some sort of LAS on top.

People should be biting their hands off to partner on Skylon as it must be the program with the greatest potential to alter our access to space in fifty years.

Skylon is the great dream maybe in 20 years it might become a reality .Right now an Ariane with a reusable core, the high thrust engine and two of the most powerful boosters possible would make more sense and be cheaper.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Patchouli on 09/01/2013 03:51 am
Then there's the issue of Europe being left without a HSF capable launcher and having to depend on the Russians and Americans.

Invalid argument. Europe has never had possession of an HSF capable launcher. Ariane 5 as we know it never had HSF capabilities. Those were thrown out when Hermes was cancelled.
Europe has always had to depend on the Russians or Americans to transport their astro's to space.

Killing Hermes was one of the dumber mistakes made in European space flight though it never had full ESA backing.
The times when the shuttle was grounded would have been a lot less painful had it been flying.
OT but it might have even been able to rescue the crew of Columbia.

Interesting note it seems Araine 6 should have similar LEO payload to Falcon 9 v1.1 which means the ATV's functionality could be fully replicated using a reusable tug and a dumb cargo container like the Russian Parom concept.
This also means a Dragon or Dream chaser class spacecraft is possible if you don't mind riding on a vehicle with a solid first stage.

Bad thing though it can launch cargo and capsules but falls short of what you need for station modules and many flagship class space missions.

Ion propulsion on science missions and use of a tug for space station construction can compensate some of the deficiency.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/01/2013 08:37 pm
Then there's the issue of Europe being left without a HSF capable launcher and having to depend on the Russians and Americans.

Invalid argument. Europe has never had possession of an HSF capable launcher. Ariane 5 as we know it never had HSF capabilities. Those were thrown out when Hermes was cancelled.
Europe has always had to depend on the Russians or Americans to transport their astro's to space.

Killing Hermes was one of the dumber mistakes made in European space flight though it never had full ESA backing.
The times when the shuttle was grounded would have been a lot less painful had it been flying.
OT but it might have even been able to rescue the crew of Columbia.

Interesting note it seems Araine 6 should have similar LEO payload to Falcon 9 v1.1 which means the ATV's functionality could be fully replicated using a reusable tug and a dumb cargo container like the Russian Parom concept.
This also means a Dragon or Dream chaser class spacecraft is possible if you don't mind riding on a vehicle with a solid first stage.

Bad thing though it can launch cargo and capsules but falls short of what you need for station modules and many flagship class space missions.

Ion propulsion on science missions and use of a tug for space station construction can compensate some of the deficiency.

You're all over the place. When will you finally grasp that Ariane 6 is NOT meant to launch:
- Recreated ATV functionality
- Reusable tugs
- Station modules
- Flagship class space missions

Ariane 6 is meant to launch:
- small and medium class robotic space missions
- Weather satellites
- Earth observation satellites
- Navsats
- Comsats

And that's about it. There are no plans, by ESA, for recreated ATV functionality, tugs, station modules, European manned spacecraft etc, etc. Your rot about how Ariane 6 cannot do this and cannot do that and that such is all a big mistake made by ESA is becoming boring.
Also, you are in no position to judge the cancellation of Hermes as "one of the dumber mistakes made in European space flight". Never mind your suggestion that Hermes could have saved the Columbia crew. The latter is bordering on ridiculous.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spectre9 on 09/01/2013 10:11 pm
If ESA wants to outsource all their manned spaceflight activities to the United States they can do so. Hopefully it's worth it.

Throwing away a brilliant and capable launcher like the Ariane 5 just to pour money into a new development seems foolhardy to me.

They should at least figure out what they want to do post ISS first.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/02/2013 09:56 am
If ESA wants to outsource all their manned spaceflight activities to the United States they can do so. Hopefully it's worth it.

Throwing away a brilliant and capable launcher like the Ariane 5 just to pour money into a new development seems foolhardy to me.

They should at least figure out what they want to do post ISS first.

All manned ESA spaceflight activities were never 'home-grown' to begin with. So you can't really say that ESA is outsourcing it's HSF activities. They have relied upon the Americans (Spacelab, shuttle-MIR, ISS) and the Russians (Mir, ISS) from the very beginning.

The fact that every ESA attempt, to produce an European HSF system, ended in cancellation, shows that the current HSF situation (rely on Americans and Russians) is working just fine for ESA.

Ariane 5 is neither brilliant, nor capable enough for HSF.
It's reliable however. But at a cost.
The technology behind Ariane 5 is outdated, with much of it's design going back to the 1980's. Even if it had been fully manrated it probably could only barely launch a manned spacecraft.
The CNES study into 'Orion on Ariane 5' showed that there was little-to-no margin for mass-growth of the spacecraft, without requiring significant performance improvements being made to the launcher.
On a side note: the study also showed that modification of the launcher and the CSG infrastructure was "cost-prohibitive".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spectre9 on 09/02/2013 11:25 am
Outdated? Relevance?

Launch technology doesn't change much. As long as you can still supply the parts there shouldn't be a problem.

How can Ariancespace justify a new launcher on the basis of price when any new launcher needs to amortize launch development costs before it can even begin to undercut the Ariane 5. By that time the alternatives might have won enough business to make Ariane 6 unprofitable.

Ariane 5 can't launch Orion. DIV-H can't launch Orion. Orion is the most bloated capsule ever designed. It's a concrete block.... on second thoughts perhaps that's unfair to the block.  :)

If SpaceX can build a small capsule spacecraft for not much money why can't ESA?

If they can't compete with SpaceX might as well just shut up shop and buy their services.

Trying to develop a new launcher when the world is already flush with launchers seems to be hiding an ulterior motive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/02/2013 02:43 pm
Outdated? Relevance?
Manufacturing technology, materials and parts obsolescence, pad ops optimized for different requirements, etc.

Quote
How can Ariancespace justify a new launcher on the basis of price when any new launcher needs to amortize launch development costs before it can even begin to undercut the Ariane 5. By that time the alternatives might have won enough business to make Ariane 6 unprofitable.
Totally uninformed. ESA pays for development, Astrium charges mft and maintenance costs. Most of the changes for Ariane 6 will be on lowering the overhead.

Quote
Ariane 5 can't launch Orion. DIV-H can't launch Orion. Orion is the most bloated capsule ever designed. It's a concrete block.... on second thoughts perhaps that's unfair to the block.  :)
That's so wrong. No capsule has had the requirements of Orion (500 days in deep space, plus a ridiculous amount of delta-v, for four crew). I challenge you to design to the same requirements for significantly less mass. The Russians for their lunar capable capsule are also around 23tonnes or so. And DIVH can launch Orion, just not to TLI. But they could do EOR pretty easily. In fact, they have better performance than the ill fated Ares I to any orbit.

Quote
If SpaceX can build a small capsule spacecraft for not much money why can't ESA?
Ask ESA. As why the ATV-R study contract was €80M. Ask why ATV was so over engineered when it could have used the Progress ops. Yet, is upto ESA to decide why they like big, over-engineered and expensive projects on the HSF side of things. Whatever you or me would like to spend that money on is of no concern. That's why they are the elected officials and we are simple citizens (and not even pay said officials).

Quote
If they can't compete with SpaceX might as well just shut up shop and buy their services.
What part of "Assured European access to space" don't you get? Really, how many times do we have to go over this?

Quote
Trying to develop a new launcher when the world is already flush with launchers seems to be hiding an ulterior motive.
Read the previous answer, is just two lines above. It's no secret and within that logic, it is a reasonable good decision.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 09/02/2013 03:32 pm
Outdated? Relevance?
Manufacturing technology, materials and parts obsolescence, pad ops optimized for different requirements, etc.

Oh really? That is an eternal problem. Look at any launcher of this world, they all have to properly adress obsolecence. Just to stay with European launchers, by the time VEGA made its maiden flight, there were already obsolecence problems around. You will not get rid of the topic by developping a new launcher.

Look at Soyuz, should have been out of business for long according to your line of argument.

If you prefer to look west instead of east, wondered about the renaissance of "old" engines: J2-X, RS-25, F-1B
Not 100% the original w.r.t. each and every design & manufacturing aspect, but still based on a supposedly "outdated" design?!?

If they can't compete with SpaceX might as well just shut up shop and buy their services.
What part of "Assured European access to space" don't you get? Really, how many times do we have to go over this?

Trying to develop a new launcher when the world is already flush with launchers seems to be hiding an ulterior motive.
Read the previous answer, is just two lines above. It's no secret and within that logic, it is a reasonable good decision.

Or this "reasonable good logic" is at least what some interested parties try to proclaim. Only time will tell if Ariane 6 (in its current form and designed for current market hypothesis) is indeed the better answer for "assured European access to space". Depends a lot if the ambitious goals can all be met.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/02/2013 05:01 pm
Outdated? Relevance?
Manufacturing technology, materials and parts obsolescence, pad ops optimized for different requirements, etc.

Oh really? That is an eternal problem. Look at any launcher of this world, they all have to properly adress obsolecence. Just to stay with European launchers, by the time VEGA made its maiden flight, there were already obsolecence problems around. You will not get rid of the topic by developping a new launcher.

Look at Soyuz, should have been out of business for long according to your line of argument.

If you prefer to look west instead of east, wondered about the renaissance of "old" engines: J2-X, RS-25, F-1B
Not 100% the original w.r.t. each and every design & manufacturing aspect, but still based on a supposedly "outdated" design?!?
Please, read what I wrote carefully. You're trying to address just one of the factors, and assuming that engines cycles is the only relevant technology.
BTW, Russian manufacturing base has different technology cycles to European and American. Yet, the Soyuz-2 program is exactly done for that. So were the -U, the -FG, etc.

Quote
Or this "reasonable good logic" is at least what some interested parties try to proclaim. Only time will tell if Ariane 6 (in its current form and designed for current market hypothesis) is indeed the better answer for "assured European access to space". Depends a lot if the ambitious goals can all be met.
Again, read where I'm from. Very little interest here. Look at all the requirements, their projection of the markets and see if it's obviously flawed. Of course in ex post it could be a monumental mistake. It could also be a brilliant strategy. And it's obvious that even the best strategy has little chances on poor execution. Yet, the argument that always come back is that Ariane 6 won't cover the requirements that the poster wants it to cover (e.g. HSF, space station modules, etc.). You don't like the requirements, go vote a different party so they change your MP on the EU Ministry Council. Or better yet, start a lobby campaign for your desired requirements. Else, just sit and discuss it from the sidelines like the rest of us.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/02/2013 06:03 pm
Quote from: spectre9
Outdated? Relevance?

If SpaceX can build a small capsule spacecraft for not much money why can't ESA?

If they can't compete with SpaceX might as well just shut up shop and buy their services.

1. Upgrading a launcher is often done by increasing its payload with weight savings and engine enhancements. There are many ways how you could upgrade A5, composite casings for boosters, higher thrust (Vulcain 3) for first stage engine (Vulcain 2 is no ideal for A5, around 1700kn would be optimal), less heavy second stage etc. But A5 is already too powerful, for single-launch anyway.

Upgrading an existing launcher is not necessarily cheap btw. The A5 ME upgrade is projected to cost 1.5bn, A6 around 3bn.

2. Apart from that little return mass ATV wipes the floor with Dragon when it comes to capability.

3. If SpaceX were a european company, would you say ULA/NASA should just shut up and buy their services? And why should Europe not buy from the Russians, from which Arianespace already purchases Soyuz? Its  SpaceX who has to prove it can compete.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 09/03/2013 06:29 am
Outdated? Relevance?
Manufacturing technology, materials and parts obsolescence, pad ops optimized for different requirements, etc.

Oh really? That is an eternal problem. Look at any launcher of this world, they all have to properly adress obsolecence. Just to stay with European launchers, by the time VEGA made its maiden flight, there were already obsolecence problems around. You will not get rid of the topic by developping a new launcher.

Look at Soyuz, should have been out of business for long according to your line of argument.

If you prefer to look west instead of east, wondered about the renaissance of "old" engines: J2-X, RS-25, F-1B
Not 100% the original w.r.t. each and every design & manufacturing aspect, but still based on a supposedly "outdated" design?!?
Please, read what I wrote carefully. You're trying to address just one of the factors, and assuming that engines cycles is the only relevant technology.
BTW, Russian manufacturing base has different technology cycles to European and American. Yet, the Soyuz-2 program is exactly done for that. So were the -U, the -FG, etc.

Sorry, I have not been explicit enough. I used "obsolecence" in the wider meaning encompassing the whole set of your list. I will be more verbose this time and give examples.

Manufacturing technologies (a European example):
Friction Stir Welding (FSW) instead of TIG is (partially) introduced in the current A5ME development.

Materials (an US example):
The external tank was "upgraded" from classical Al-alloy to Al-Li-alloy.

parts obsolescence
adressed already in the first reply. An every day issue of any launcher

All those issues can be adressed for existing launchers and are not limited to rocket motors (and I never claimed that). You cite yourself the venerable Soyuz which has its roots in the R-7 design dating back to the middle of last century. Each and every of the above mentioned "problems" has been properly addressed by the Russians. Obviously, each change requires a delta development and delta qualification, but there is no principal show stopper.

I do not agree that the Russians have a different technology cycle, I would rather say they have a different development philosophy (but it is getting philosophical here  ;)).

Only "pad ops optimized for different requirements" is usually not addressed with an existing design (but there again, if there is a hard requirement, could be done for a considerable amount of money to build the new infrastructure (and if it is limited to where to stack the launcher (difference between Ariane 5 case and Ariane 6 (which goes back to the Ariane 4 philosphopy, though with two pads)), not when you go from vertical integration to horizontal integration, which would have a major impact on the structural design of the launcher).




Quote
Quote
Or this "reasonable good logic" is at least what some interested parties try to proclaim. Only time will tell if Ariane 6 (in its current form and designed for current market hypothesis) is indeed the better answer for "assured European access to space". Depends a lot if the ambitious goals can all be met.
Again, read where I'm from. Very little interest here. Look at all the requirements, their projection of the markets and see if it's obviously flawed. Of course in ex post it could be a monumental mistake. It could also be a brilliant strategy. And it's obvious that even the best strategy has little chances on poor execution. Yet, the argument that always come back is that Ariane 6 won't cover the requirements that the poster wants it to cover (e.g. HSF, space station modules, etc.). You don't like the requirements, go vote a different party so they change your MP on the EU Ministry Council. Or better yet, start a lobby campaign for your desired requirements. Else, just sit and discuss it from the sidelines like the rest of us.

Again sorry for not being clear enough. I never claimed that Europe should go for an own HSF-capability. Only very few people push into that direction, but within any foreseeable future, there will not be enough political support throughout Europe to support such an endeavour!

My line of argument is limited to the guaranteed access to space for institutional payloads!

Your reasons for Ariane 6 are only second or third order arguments in the "official" debate. The Ariane 6 supporters argue that Ariane 5 is not adapted to the current and future commercial satellite market and will see its launch rate sharply reduced with in addition no more double launches. They deny that Ariane 5 can be adapted to their forecasted market expectations (That is said more or less explicitly in the press statements of ESA and CNES).

Ariane 6, at the same time, is expected to be successfull and to continue Europes current "market dominance", thus being in the position to deliver the ~10-12 Ariane 5 payloads per year in single launch plus doing the ~2-4 Soyuz@Kourou launches. The resulting ~15 launches per year are there to keep the hopes of industry alive to achieve similar turn-overs as today. And to be honest, me being a European, I would be happy to see that come true, but I am realistic enough to have serious doubts about the chances of that ever happening.

That would require that the much smaller Ariane 6 has considerable lower specific (not just absolute!) launch costs than Ariane 5. I see unfortunately no lever to achieve that: Not new materials, not new technologies, not the streamlining of the industry (considering the multitude of countries and their individual interests involved) and not even the sum of all above!

However, the current Ariane 6 design is building on that assumption. The chosen design is non-modular (i.e. only one version with a 6.5 t GTO performance) and the infrastructure shall be designed for a high launch rate. If Ariane 6 fails to achieve the ambitious cost goals, Europe will end up with a launcher which is designed for an unachievable high launch rate and which is oversized (and therefore unnecessarily expensive) for the majority of European institutional payloads (which are in the Vega and Soyuz class). That is the major flaw of the programm, designing a launcher for an use case, which IMHO will never be achievable!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 09/03/2013 08:10 pm
Quote from: Notaris

That would require that the much smaller Ariane 6 has considerable lower specific (not just absolute!) launch costs than Ariane 5. I see unfortunately no lever to achieve that: Not new materials, not new technologies, not the streamlining of the industry (considering the multitude of countries and their individual interests involved) and not even the sum of all above!


I guess composite booster casings and a new cryogenic engine that blows RL10 out of the water are not, in any way, considered new? I can see how mass producing solid boosters that have far superior performance to the current P240 allows a launch vehicle with superior payload per dollar. But maybe I'm alone in that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/03/2013 08:33 pm
I don't seriously think that Ariane 6 will significantly lower the cost from Ariane 5 to GTO. What it will allow EU members, is to have a family of launchers for their actual needs. Ariane might be able to keep with the market. It's quite probably that the next batch of ECA will include enough improvements to offer a bigger fairing, in line with the current SEP transition. And ME will fit them quite nicely. Until 2024, probably.
But how many planned institutional payloads will be able to fly on Ariane 5? Remember that ATV and Envisar are no more. Only the military comm and GEO meteorological satellites and and the initial deployment of Galileo. But once they place the fleet, replenishment is done in much smaller batches. If ES can put 4 birds, it's quite probable that ME will be able to do 5 if not 6. But each plane is just 8 birds. And replenishment is usually done in one or two birds per launch.
Ariane 6 and the evolved Vega will cover them nicely.
Remember that Ariane 6 implies a P135 based Vega. If they can keep doing 7 GTO launches, plus 6 Vegas per year, that's 32 P135 per year, which, for this type of solids, is unheard of rate of production and will offer a low cost. The upper stage will have a similar rate to current Ariane 5, and if they can simplify the Vega with the MIRA stage, they'll also have a nice and cheap combo. For a government led European project, that is.
In other words, Ariane 5 replacement with 6 is more about actually covering the institutional payload's range. If they want to "assure access to space", they beter develop something in the range that they need. Regrettably, to keep Ariane 5 competitive in the GTO market, they have to push it farther and farther. Because with Ariane 5 you can only offer better performance at same price, rather than overall lower price for the same performance.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/04/2013 12:01 am
Quote from: Notaris
However, the current Ariane 6 design is building on that assumption.

Nope.

The rocket and the launch installation are being designed to operate Ariane 6 at least eight times per year, with a mission goal of 12 flights annually to keep production and operations costs within the targeted 70 million euros ($91 million) per launch.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-aims-to-freeze-design-of-the-new#.UaL3EpFrOHN
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 09/04/2013 05:56 am
Quote from: Notaris
However, the current Ariane 6 design is building on that assumption.

Nope.

The rocket and the launch installation are being designed to operate Ariane 6 at least eight times per year, with a mission goal of 12 flights annually to keep production and operations costs within the targeted 70 million euros ($91 million) per launch.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-aims-to-freeze-design-of-the-new#.UaL3EpFrOHN

Do not assume that the press is always 100% on target. The Mission Requirements Document specifies that Ariane 6 shall be designed for a launch rate of 12. The cost target of 70 Million Euros shall be reached at launch rate of 9.

Unfortunately, you stop short with the citation, the following sentence reads:

At somewhere between eight and 12 flights per year, including three or four European government missions, Ariane 6 would no longer need the annual price supports [...]

... and that is not necessarily current status of industrial estimations!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 09/04/2013 06:30 am
I don't seriously think that Ariane 6 will significantly lower the cost from Ariane 5 to GTO. What it will allow EU members, is to have a family of launchers for their actual needs. Ariane might be able to keep with the market. It's quite probably that the next batch of ECA will include enough improvements to offer a bigger fairing, in line with the current SEP transition. And ME will fit them quite nicely. Until 2024, probably.
But how many planned institutional payloads will be able to fly on Ariane 5? Remember that ATV and Envisar are no more. Only the military comm and GEO meteorological satellites and and the initial deployment of Galileo. But once they place the fleet, replenishment is done in much smaller batches. If ES can put 4 birds, it's quite probable that ME will be able to do 5 if not 6. But each plane is just 8 birds. And replenishment is usually done in one or two birds per launch.

It is off-topic here, but the original Galileo design had 3 orbital planes with 10 S/C each (9 active and 1 in-orbit-spare). Only two launches per orbital plane were foreseen: 1 Ariane 5 ECB with 8 S/C and 1 Soyuz with 2 S/C. A5ME being basically the ESC-B design, should come close to the 8 S/C per mission (but might miss that goal). However, as you write correctly, it is quite unlikely that a replenishment would ever be 8 S/C in one orbital plane at a time!



Quote
Ariane 6 and the evolved Vega will cover them nicely.
Remember that Ariane 6 implies a P135 based Vega.

That (or to be exact, rather the other way around: The Vega Evolution P120 shall be the common motor element for A6!) currently is and was the sine qua non of Italy for its Ariane 6 participation due to their severely strapped budget. There are ongoing studies with industry to work on synergies of Vega evolution and Ariane 6, but launchers ain't LEGO (which you are aware of)!

Staying a moment with the casings: Vega Evolution is based on continued use of the existing facilities and tools in Colleferro. Therefore the diameter remains fixed and the stage will become longer (within the limits of the existing machine). Such a design is unfavorable for A6 due to too low volume (not enough propellant loading) and undesirable long and thin stages (structural and controllability issues).
Coming from A6 side, you end up with a shorter stage with higher diameter, which is in turn incompatible with existing machines.
Furthermore, also the requirements for the propellant grain (thrust profile) are antagonist and a common motor with common casting mandrel seems out of question. The ideal Vega-E thrust profile is not acceptable for A6 and vice versa. A compromise solution is not in sight.
Most likely, the synergies will be restrained to same materials and processes, but not much more than that.


Quote
If they can keep doing 7 GTO launches, plus 6 Vegas per year, that's 32 P135 per year, which, for this type of solids, is unheard of rate of production and will offer a low cost. The upper stage will have a similar rate to current Ariane 5, and if they can simplify the Vega with the MIRA stage, they'll also have a nice and cheap combo. For a government led European project, that is.

Only time will tell. But I fear that 6 Vega per year is way on the high side (I assume rather 2-4 Vega p.a.). If A6 failes to reach the ambitious cost goals, we will rather see "only" 5-6 launches per year to limit the required subventions. The number of upper stages might remain the same as today, but the cost base will be different, because the synergies with today's still existing lower cryo stage is no more. I do not dare to tell today how effective Europe would be to rationalize and streamline the industry, but most likely the per item costs will be higher than today due to the sharply reduced turn-over for the concerned players.


Quote
In other words, Ariane 5 replacement with 6 is more about actually covering the institutional payload's range. If they want to "assure access to space", they beter develop something in the range that they need. Regrettably, to keep Ariane 5 competitive in the GTO market, they have to push it farther and farther. Because with Ariane 5 you can only offer better performance at same price, rather than overall lower price for the same performance.

I fully share your point that A5 is not really tailored to the institutional need. Nevertheless, with its capabilities it could do (and did) also LEO missions (at an unattractive cost). It is this lever arm where it boils down to! Do not forget that we have for the time being Soyuz in Kourou (which is strictly speaking not an ESA launcher and does not create turn-over in western European industry) which serves well the gap between Vega and Ariane. The Russians are good business men (you see that if you compare the prices that the Russian state is paying for federal missions and what they charge Arianespace), therefore as long as we have our lever arm and Russia does not stop Soyuz production (and I do not see that coming for the foreseeable future), I have no doubts concerning the availability of Soyuz in Kourou.

The quest for Europe is the guaranteed access to space at the most affordable cost - and I strongly believe that the current set-up is under current and future market conditions more affordable (i.e. less cotsly) than the A6/Vega set-up. Is there a guarantee for that statement? No! Obviously there are too many unknowns (for every one!), so it will always remain a question of probabilities and the personal judgment how likely different trends will be.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/04/2013 08:10 am
Quote from: Notaris
However, the current Ariane 6 design is building on that assumption.

Nope.

The rocket and the launch installation are being designed to operate Ariane 6 at least eight times per year, with a mission goal of 12 flights annually to keep production and operations costs within the targeted 70 million euros ($91 million) per launch.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-aims-to-freeze-design-of-the-new#.UaL3EpFrOHN

Do not assume that the press is always 100% on target. The Mission Requirements Document specifies that Ariane 6 shall be designed for a launch rate of 12. The cost target of 70 Million Euros shall be reached at launch rate of 9.

Unfortunately, you stop short with the citation, the following sentence reads:

At somewhere between eight and 12 flights per year, including three or four European government missions, Ariane 6 would no longer need the annual price supports [...]

... and that is not necessarily current status of industrial estimations!

That is of no importance. What is important is what ESA, as the governing- and funding agency thinks. Compare this to the situation concerning Ariane 5 ME.
Industry (that is: the main contractor for Ariane 5) thinks that replacing Ariane 5 ECA with Ariane 5 ME will do away with the annual price supports.
ESA is not convinced that this will actually be the case and expects that, even with Ariane 5 ME, annual price supports will be required.
With Ariane 6 the situation is exactly reverse. ESA expects the launcher to not need annual price supports (when above a certain yearly launch rate), and industry thinks Ariane 6 will never be able to achieve that goal.

Lesson in this: don't take the word of ESA as a given. Don't take the word of industry as a given. Only time will tell which of the parties had it right.
The only plus ESA has above industry is the fact that they are paying the bills and are steering the ship (so to say). So, in the end, only their opinion on Ariane counts.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 09/04/2013 09:28 am
Quote from: Notaris
However, the current Ariane 6 design is building on that assumption.

Nope.

The rocket and the launch installation are being designed to operate Ariane 6 at least eight times per year, with a mission goal of 12 flights annually to keep production and operations costs within the targeted 70 million euros ($91 million) per launch.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-aims-to-freeze-design-of-the-new#.UaL3EpFrOHN

Do not assume that the press is always 100% on target. The Mission Requirements Document specifies that Ariane 6 shall be designed for a launch rate of 12. The cost target of 70 Million Euros shall be reached at launch rate of 9.

Unfortunately, you stop short with the citation, the following sentence reads:

At somewhere between eight and 12 flights per year, including three or four European government missions, Ariane 6 would no longer need the annual price supports [...]

... and that is not necessarily current status of industrial estimations!

That is of no importance. What is important is what ESA, as the governing- and funding agency thinks. Compare this to the situation concerning Ariane 5 ME.
Industry (that is: the main contractor for Ariane 5) thinks that replacing Ariane 5 ECA with Ariane 5 ME will do away with the annual price supports.
ESA is not convinced that this will actually be the case and expects that, even with Ariane 5 ME, annual price supports will be required.
With Ariane 6 the situation is exactly reverse. ESA expects the launcher to not need annual price supports (when above a certain yearly launch rate), and industry thinks Ariane 6 will never be able to achieve that goal.

Lesson in this: don't take the word of ESA as a given. Don't take the word of industry as a given. Only time will tell which of the parties had it right.
Full agreement to this last sentence of yours!


Quote
The only plus ESA has above industry is the fact that they are paying the bills and are steering the ship (so to say). So, in the end, only their opinion on Ariane counts.
No agreement on this point. To be nitpicky, it is the Member States who pay and who steer, not ESA. ESA might have an own opinion and try to steer the discusssions between Member States in the one or the other direction, but it is not up to ESA to decide.

...and more importantly, it is industry who writes out the bills (that ESA pays for development work and Arianespace pays for production work). If there is no industry producing a launcher for a price tag that ESA desires than there is no launcher. It is as simple as that!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Proponent on 09/04/2013 01:04 pm
No capsule has had the requirements of Orion (500 days in deep space, plus a ridiculous amount of delta-v, for four crew).

Minor point: the Apollo CSM had a larger delta-V than Orion.  The Apollo CSM performed LOI for the entire CSM/LM stack, whereas Orion is designed to rely on the lunar lander for this maneuver.  Even without a lander, Orion lacks the delta-V to place itself into LLO and then return to earth.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/04/2013 01:35 pm
Lesson in this: don't take the word of ESA as a given. Don't take the word of industry as a given. Only time will tell which of the parties had it right.
Full agreement to this last sentence of yours!


Quote
The only plus ESA has above industry is the fact that they are paying the bills and are steering the ship (so to say). So, in the end, only their opinion on Ariane counts.
No agreement on this point. To be nitpicky, it is the Member States who pay and who steer, not ESA. ESA might have an own opinion and try to steer the discusssions between Member States in the one or the other direction, but it is not up to ESA to decide.
To be nitpicky: the member states govern ESA and tell ESA what to do in broad perspective. ESA then governs programmes, to achieve the goals set by the member states. Example: ESA governs the Ariane programme.

Member states do not govern the Ariane programme directly. The agency is there to do that for them. As such, ESA steers the industrial partners and ESA pays the bills, on behalf of the member states.

...and more importantly, it is industry who writes out the bills (that ESA pays for development work and Arianespace pays for production work).
Why kick in a wide open door? ESA has always relied on industrial partners to do the work for them. Naturally industry will write out a bill for the work performed. That does not change the fact that industry performs work per ESA's wishes and then serves ESA with a bill for the work done, which then get's paid by ESA.

If there is no industry producing a launcher for a price tag that ESA desires than there is no launcher. It is as simple as that!
Invalid argument. No such situation exists. Back when the Europa program came online, European industry was jumping to get on the train. Despite the failure of the Europa launcher, industry stuck in place and were all too happy when a second chance (the Ariane programme) came along. With Ariane 6, industry is again jumping to get on the train. Money spent by ESA on a new launcher is keeping them busy and occupied, not to mention well paid.
Oh, you will here complains from a certain liquids contractor that gets shut out because Ariane 6 will be nearly all-solid. But you sure as h*ll will not hear the solids contractor complain.
The industry is there, and even if they cannot build Ariane 6 at the price level that ESA desires, they will still build Ariane 6. Like with all previous versions, Ariane 6 will go over-budget. And like all previous versions ESA will pay the extra bills, after a lot of moaning by the member states.
Things on agency-run programs never change.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/04/2013 02:30 pm
I know about the thrust law problem on the P135. Let's not forget that they have to do the first and second stage. I'm wondering if the thrust law of the first stage will be equal for all three cores. And why couldn't it be used on the Vega. I would assume that the second stage would need a different thrust law, though. But if they keep the same casing for all, the same mixers, formula, etc, and only change the mandrels for the grain, the cost might be basically the same as having all the same. After all, the main cost would be initial development, but marginal cost would use mostly common tooling and exactly same personnel and factory. They could even build in batches, if it would save money, since they surely will launch at least 4 of each. So batches of 8 or even 10 won't be a logistical problem.
The EAP has the top segment cast in France and the lower segments cast at Kourou, right? Vega casts the P80 at Kourou and the Z23 and Z9 in Italy? How will they negotiate who will cast what where?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/04/2013 05:04 pm
Quote from: Notaris
Unfortunately, you stop short with the citation, the following sentence reads:

I apologize ;)

Quote from: Notaris
... and that is not necessarily current status of industrial estimations!

True, that remains to be seen. So far they only finalized the design.

Quote from: woods170
The industry is there, and even if they cannot build Ariane 6 at the price level that ESA desires, they will still build Ariane 6. Like with all previous versions, Ariane 6 will go over-budget.

The difference this time: There is an alternative called Ariane 5 ME. And I guess whether A6 will go over budget depends on the contracting model. A6 does not seem to be a technological leap like A5 or previous versions.

Quote from: Notaris
A compromise solution is not in sight.
Most likely, the synergies will be restrained to same materials and processes, but not much more than that.

Do you have any info on this? I cannot imagine they'll keep the 3m diameter solids, otherwise they'd need the infrastructure to cast solids with 2 different diameters in Kourou. What about not filling the P135 completely for Vega? I heard that can be done with solids..(?)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/04/2013 07:51 pm
Quote from: woods170
The industry is there, and even if they cannot build Ariane 6 at the price level that ESA desires, they will still build Ariane 6. Like with all previous versions, Ariane 6 will go over-budget.

The difference this time: There is an alternative called Ariane 5 ME. And I guess whether A6 will go over budget depends on the contracting model. A6 does not seem to be a technological leap like A5 or previous versions.

The same was the case with the switch from A4 to A5. There was an alternative: Ariane 4.
And A6 is a technological leap. Reason: fundamentally different propulsion.
A4 was liquids, self igniting (hypergolics). A5 was a technological leap as it introduced large scale use of Hydrolox and metal casing solids.
A6/VEGA evolution is a technological leap because of the very advanced solids being introduced.

And regardless of the contracting model involved, A6 will go over budget. You're talking about European industry and ESA rules and regulations here. Those combined will guarantee an over-budget situation.
Not a single major launcher program initiated by ESA or ELDO has ever come in on time or on budget. None. Ever. A6 will continue that tradition.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/04/2013 08:04 pm
Quote from: woods170
The same was the case with the switch from A4 to A5. There was an alternative: Ariane 4.
And A6 is a technological leap. Reason: fundamentally different propulsion.

No, Ariane 4 was not an alternative. It was becoming too small for sats and was inadequate for launching Hermes.

Ariane 5 has still big potential for upgrading.

The A6 propulsion is not a leap over Vega.

Apparently anyone expect CNES sees A5 ME as an alternative. And A6 needs definitely more than just the approval of CNES.

Quote from: woods170
You're talking about European industry and ESA rules and regulations here. Those combined will guarantee an over-budget situation.

That's hardly an argument. How do those rules look like for A6, how will they guarantee over-budget?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 09/05/2013 08:04 am
Lesson in this: don't take the word of ESA as a given. Don't take the word of industry as a given. Only time will tell which of the parties had it right.
Full agreement to this last sentence of yours!


Quote
The only plus ESA has above industry is the fact that they are paying the bills and are steering the ship (so to say). So, in the end, only their opinion on Ariane counts.
No agreement on this point. To be nitpicky, it is the Member States who pay and who steer, not ESA. ESA might have an own opinion and try to steer the discusssions between Member States in the one or the other direction, but it is not up to ESA to decide.
To be nitpicky: the member states govern ESA and tell ESA what to do in broad perspective. ESA then governs programmes, to achieve the goals set by the member states. Example: ESA governs the Ariane programme.

Member states do not govern the Ariane programme directly. The agency is there to do that for them. As such, ESA steers the industrial partners and ESA pays the bills, on behalf of the member states.

Correct. ESA places the contracts and is responsible for the day to day management of the program. I do not know what you understand under "govern the [...] programm directly", but I can reassure you that the ESA Member States do exactly that under my (and I claim the generic) understanding of this term.

The Member States agree on a Programme Proposal and a Declaration, defining the main objectives of the programme. They (usually) agree on implementing rules, which describe how ESA shall implement the programme. During the course of the programme, there is at least four times a year a Programme Board where ESA reports progress of the ongoing programmes and where Member States take relevant decisions for the execution of the programme. The procurements are dealt with in the IPC (which meets ~6 times a year), a board where, again, the Member States decide. An these are only the official meetings. Inbetween, there are many, many bi-lateral discussions and meetings with the major stake holders of the programme.

In the specific case of Ariane programmes, I can reassure you that CNES is sitting every other day on the lap of the ESA Launcher Director to make sure that he stays on track.

Quote
...and more importantly, it is industry who writes out the bills (that ESA pays for development work and Arianespace pays for production work).
Why kick in a wide open door? ESA has always relied on industrial partners to do the work for them. Naturally industry will write out a bill for the work performed. That does not change the fact that industry performs work per ESA's wishes and then serves ESA with a bill for the work done, which then get's paid by ESA.

Noone (at least not me) claimed that ESA would do the actual work! But maybe you misunderstood me? Please read below.

Quote
If there is no industry producing a launcher for a price tag that ESA desires than there is no launcher. It is as simple as that!
Invalid argument. No such situation exists. Back when the Europa program came online, European industry was jumping to get on the train. Despite the failure of the Europa launcher, industry stuck in place and were all too happy when a second chance (the Ariane programme) came along. With Ariane 6, industry is again jumping to get on the train. Money spent by ESA on a new launcher is keeping them busy and occupied, not to mention well paid.
Oh, you will here complains from a certain liquids contractor that gets shut out because Ariane 6 will be nearly all-solid. But you sure as h*ll will not hear the solids contractor complain.
The industry is there, and even if they cannot build Ariane 6 at the price level that ESA desires, they will still build Ariane 6. Like with all previous versions, Ariane 6 will go over-budget. And like all previous versions ESA will pay the extra bills, after a lot of moaning by the member states.
Things on agency-run programs never change.

I fully share your point that industry will always run where the money is. If there is no more cash for A5ME and only A6, industry will happily move on (at least the ones who are still on board). But that was not my point.

My point was that it is not because ESA wants a launcher that costs 70 Million € a flight (including launcher manufacturing, launch operations, maintenance of installations and sampling as well as marketing and sales) that they will get it. In a certain way, you seem to agree as you state (unfortunately correctly) that the usual business is that the development will go over-budget and that the exploitation will be more expensive than desired. And last but not least, Member States will pay the deficit if they have no alternative by then (which is unfortunately also a likely case). But again, and this is what I insist on, it is not sufficient that ESA writes a number in the Mission Requirements Document. That number is largely irrelevant! You have to look at what industry promises that they can do (and than you should put probably at least 20% on top to have a reasonable good idea of what could be reality in the end).

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 09/05/2013 08:25 am
I know about the thrust law problem on the P135. Let's not forget that they have to do the first and second stage. I'm wondering if the thrust law of the first stage will be equal for all three cores. And why couldn't it be used on the Vega. I would assume that the second stage would need a different thrust law, though. But if they keep the same casing for all, the same mixers, formula, etc, and only change the mandrels for the grain, the cost might be basically the same as having all the same. After all, the main cost would be initial development, but marginal cost would use mostly common tooling and exactly same personnel and factory. They could even build in batches, if it would save money, since they surely will launch at least 4 of each. So batches of 8 or even 10 won't be a logistical problem.
The EAP has the top segment cast in France and the lower segments cast at Kourou, right? Vega casts the P80 at Kourou and the Z23 and Z9 in Italy? How will they negotiate who will cast what where?

First of all, the choosen Ariane 6 concept will separate all 3 first stage motors as a common block. There is no lateral separation as you have it with the EAPs of A5. Under this assumption, different thrust profiles of the center motor and the lateral motors do not make much sense.
From a system engineering point of view, just looking at technical aspects, you would certainly look for different thrust laws for first and second stage. Furthermore, you would use a nozzle with higher aera ratio for the second stage. However, the current axiom requires that all motors are strictly identical to achieve (globally, not just on motor level where it is obvious) minimum cost. I am personnaly not fully convinced that this leads indead to global minimum cost. Even if they start out with that, it is not granted that this will still be the case at the end of the development. We might well see that adaptations will be made to recover performance which was lost during the course of the development (fearing that the current project margins are not sufficient).

The problem of a common thrust law for Vega and A6 is given by the fact that they are largely different launchers (lift-off mass). You need lots of thrust at the beginning (to minimize losses) but less thrust afterwards (to limit aerodynamic loads). A thrust law which fits the "heavy" A6 is just not compatibel with Vega. You can tweak the flight profile of Vega in that case, but you will more or less loose all the performance gain that you theoretically could have had.  :( Doing it the other way round is not much better, as you will incur more losses during the ascent flight of A6 than ideal/inevitable/necessary.

Your knowledge on solid motor casting is almost correct. The forward segment of the EAP (the S1 segment) is cast in Colleferro, Italy (as the Zefiro 23 and 9). No motor casting for big civilian motors is done in France.

Casting of P135 will be done in Kourou due to European safety regulations. According to my knowledge even the transport of the loaded Zefiro 23 from Italy to Kourou required a waiver.

In contrast, I think that the Shuttle Boosters were cast in Utah and transported to the Cape by rail. Seems the US is more relaxed about transporting big solids than we here in Europe.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 09/05/2013 08:34 am
Quote from: Notaris
A compromise solution is not in sight.
Most likely, the synergies will be restrained to same materials and processes, but not much more than that.

Do you have any info on this? I cannot imagine they'll keep the 3m diameter solids, otherwise they'd need the infrastructure to cast solids with 2 different diameters in Kourou. What about not filling the P135 completely for Vega? I heard that can be done with solids..(?)


I am not sure that I understood your question completely! The limiting factor for reusing the existing casting pits in Kourou is the maximum diameter and the maximum length. As long as the motor casing fits within these limits, you can cast them in the existing casting pits. The diameter of the casings can be different. The P135 design respects the limits of the existing casting pits.

"Not filling a motor completely" does not sound very convincing to me. You would have an additional free surface where the propellant would burn and regress, most probably not leading to a desirable thrust profile. It is more likely that you would use the same casing, but a different casting mandrel to tune for two different uses (but risk likewise that the nozzle will not be compatibel for both thrust profiles).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/05/2013 10:29 am
Quote from: woods170
The same was the case with the switch from A4 to A5. There was an alternative: Ariane 4.
And A6 is a technological leap. Reason: fundamentally different propulsion.
No, Ariane 4 was not an alternative. It was becoming too small for sats and was inadequate for launching Hermes.
Hermes was cancelled several years before development of A5 was done. As such, it was no factor in the equation of A4 being an alternative to A5.
And A4 was becoming incapable of dual-launch. It still had many years of usefull service left as a single-lauch vehicle, and as such was very much an alternative to A5, both for comsats and most institutional payloads. That situation only changed when the need for launching super-heavy loads (like Envisat and ATV) arose.

Ariane 5 has still big potential for upgrading.
Not quite. You can ask Spacejulien. With what they are doing for Ariane 5 ME they are reaching the upper limits of possible changes without also requiring significant changes to Ariane 5 core (meaning EAP and EPC). Changing the core of the vehicle carries performance upgrades from 'expensive, and barely affordable' to 'unaffordable'.

The A6 propulsion is not a leap over Vega.
I said technological leap within the context of A5 and A6.

Apparently anyone expect CNES sees A5 ME as an alternative. And A6 needs definitely more than just the approval of CNES.
Correct. The decision to proceed to full development and production of A6 requires approval of the ESA member states. Right now, only the first phases of A6 development have been approved. A final decision is expected in the next ESA ministerial council (scheduled for 2014).

Quote from: woods170
You're talking about European industry and ESA rules and regulations here. Those combined will guarantee an over-budget situation.

That's hardly an argument. How do those rules look like for A6, how will they guarantee over-budget?
Because it is an agency program. The industries I mentioned have been doing primarily agency programs. They are not used to aberrant situations. And since the modus operandi of ESA has not significantly changed over the years, one can make an educated guess to what the outcome of the A6 program will be (budget wise). But I will clarify by stating that an over-budget situation for A6 is my interpretation of what I think will happen.
History will eventually tell if I was right or wrong.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 09/05/2013 10:41 am


Ariane 5 has still big potential for upgrading.
Not quite. You can ask Spacejulien. With what they are doing for Ariane 5 ME they are reaching the upper limits of possible changes without also requiring significant changes to Ariane 5 core (meaning EAP and EPC). Changing the core of the vehicle carries performance upgrades from 'expensive, and barely affordable' to 'unaffordable'.

But any such a number of those upgrades would still be a bargain compared to the A6 development, therefore I do not share the "unaffordable" statement. Admittedly, none of those upgrades is currently up for choice due to the general political constellation, but things may change (not claiming that this is a likely scenario).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/05/2013 01:59 pm
..
The problem of a common thrust law for Vega and A6 is given by the fact that they are largely different launchers (lift-off mass). You need lots of thrust at the beginning (to minimize losses) but less thrust afterwards (to limit aerodynamic loads). A thrust law which fits the "heavy" A6 is just not compatibel with Vega. You can tweak the flight profile of Vega in that case, but you will more or less loose all the performance gain that you theoretically could have had.  :( Doing it the other way round is not much better, as you will incur more losses during the ascent flight of A6 than ideal/inevitable/necessary.
...
Well, I think that if they originally were thinking of a P120, they could get a P135 with a non optimal thrust law and eat the performance margin. In fact, I believe that the S1 vs S2 thrust law problem is more critical. For a start you need to design a "dip" in thrust around MaxQ on S1, but you don't need that on S2. And even if the stack on top of S2 were to be, proportionally, the same as that on top of S1 (which is doubtful since the payload fraction gives more variance), you don't have drag and have better isp.
For Vega, you might have to tweak the trajectory, but you already have an 85% bigger first stage. And you have the same isp, you have to pass through maxq, and they might get the stack on top of the P135 to be a similar fraction of the S1. Specially when you consider that the P135 on Vega will include at least one new stage (at least an AVUM replacement).
But in any case, correct me if I'm wrong, but the basic difference if they only tweaked a new thrust law, could be a different mandrel for casting. Thus, the bulk of costs would be pretty much shared and only the development money would be an issue. Specially since Italy is in very tight fiscal situation.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 09/05/2013 02:24 pm
..
The problem of a common thrust law for Vega and A6 is given by the fact that they are largely different launchers (lift-off mass). You need lots of thrust at the beginning (to minimize losses) but less thrust afterwards (to limit aerodynamic loads). A thrust law which fits the "heavy" A6 is just not compatibel with Vega. You can tweak the flight profile of Vega in that case, but you will more or less loose all the performance gain that you theoretically could have had.  :( Doing it the other way round is not much better, as you will incur more losses during the ascent flight of A6 than ideal/inevitable/necessary.
...
Well, I think that if they originally were thinking of a P120, they could get a P135 with a non optimal thrust law and eat the performance margin. In fact, I believe that the S1 vs S2 thrust law problem is more critical. For a start you need to design a "dip" in thrust around MaxQ on S1, but you don't need that on S2. And even if the stack on top of S2 were to be, proportionally, the same as that on top of S1 (which is doubtful since the payload fraction gives more variance), you don't have drag and have better isp.
For Vega, you might have to tweak the trajectory, but you already have an 85% bigger first stage. And you have the same isp, you have to pass through maxq, and they might get the stack on top of the P135 to be a similar fraction of the S1. Specially when you consider that the P135 on Vega will include at least one new stage (at least an AVUM replacement).
But in any case, correct me if I'm wrong, but the basic difference if they only tweaked a new thrust law, could be a different mandrel for casting. Thus, the bulk of costs would be pretty much shared and only the development money would be an issue. Specially since Italy is in very tight fiscal situation.

I am no die-hard solid propulsion specialist, so please do not nail me down on too many details. I have some relevant technical background and some information on current ongoing activities, but I am not sitting here myself trying to design various thrust profiles and plugging them in A6 and Vega models and doing trajectory optimization afterwards....

As said before, the current working hypotheses is (at least for A6) strictly identical solid motors. As an extension and as requested by Italy, the A6 motors and the Vega Evolution first stage motor shall also be strictly identical. Industry is working under ESA contract on that topic, but as I wrote before, the intermediate results are not too promising. Never forget, there is a huge difference between Vega (Lift-off mass ~ 137 t) and Ariane 6 (>600 t).

Obviously, you can start to deviate from the initial hypothesese, but you risk to come from different mandrel to different nozzle etc. which all eats into your assume savings during recurrent production (not to speak of non recurring costs, different mandrel is different motor and therefore most probably at least two additional motor qualification tests)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/05/2013 03:56 pm
Quote from: woods170
Hermes was cancelled several years before development of A5 was done. As such, it was no factor in the equation of A4 being an alternative to A5.
And A4 was becoming incapable of dual-launch. It still had many years of usefull service left as a single-lauch vehicle, and as such was very much an alternative to A5, both for comsats and most institutional payloads. That situation only changed when the need for launching super-heavy loads (like Envisat and ATV) arose.

The decision to develop an A5 fell in 1985, even before the A4s success. In November 1987 the ministerial council approved the A5 we know today. Hermes was cancelled in 1992.

I assume at that time people thought satellites would outgrow A5 dual-launch in the longer term.

Quote from: Notaris
The limiting factor for reusing the existing casting pits in Kourou is the maximum diameter and the maximum length.

I see, but you would need a different mandrel for different diameters...

Thanks btw for your insights into solid motor production.

Quote from: Notaris
Casting of P135 will be done in Kourou due to European safety regulations.

It has nothing to do with logistics? I can imagine transporting such huge and heavy solids to Kourou could cause some problems.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Stephan on 09/05/2013 04:34 pm
Your knowledge on solid motor casting is almost correct. The forward segment of the EAP (the S1 segment) is cast in Colleferro, Italy (as the Zefiro 23 and 9). No motor casting for big civilian motors is done in France.

Casting of P135 will be done in Kourou due to European safety regulations. According to my knowledge even the transport of the loaded Zefiro 23 from Italy to Kourou required a waiver.
Kourou is in France (nitpicking I know).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/06/2013 06:38 am
Quote from: woods170
Hermes was cancelled several years before development of A5 was done. As such, it was no factor in the equation of A4 being an alternative to A5.
And A4 was becoming incapable of dual-launch. It still had many years of usefull service left as a single-lauch vehicle, and as such was very much an alternative to A5, both for comsats and most institutional payloads. That situation only changed when the need for launching super-heavy loads (like Envisat and ATV) arose.

The decision to develop an A5 fell in 1985, even before the A4s success. In November 1987 the ministerial council approved the A5 we know today. Hermes was cancelled in 1992.
Hermes was officially cancelled at the end of 1992. But that was after a one year reflection period in which virtually all work on Hermes had been stopped. Even the first phase of Hermes was delayed considerably and by the time it was finished in late 1991 the writing was all over the wall that Hermes would never fly. ESA stopped Hermes prepartory work on Ariane 5 in 1991 as well. Development of Ariane 5 ended three years later. The decision for Ariane 5, as we saw it in 1996 was taken nine years previous (1987) indeed. But that only signalled the start of the full development and phase. And that had not finished by the time Hermes was killed. From that point on, the main driver behind Ariane 5 fell away, but it was too late to stop and do a re-design. Dual launch saved the day because at that time most available payloads could still be flown on Ariane 4 in single launch mode. Remember, the Ariane 5 performance parameters were driven by the need to launch Hermes. When Hermes got canned, Ariane 5 was suddenly way overpowered for almost all payloads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/08/2013 09:28 pm
It looks to me that ESA needs both a heavy lift rocket and a light cheap light rocket that is preferably easily man rated.
Like what the Shuttle program was before the US Airforce got involved in the program.


When they have Ariane 6 ,Ariane 5 me,Soyuz and Vega which will be cut ??
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/08/2013 10:56 pm
It looks to me that ESA needs both a heavy lift rocket and a light cheap light rocket that is preferably easily man rated.
Like what the Shuttle program was before the US Airforce got involved in the program.


When they have Ariane 6 ,Ariane 5 me,Soyuz and Vega which will be cut ??
Ariane 5 and Soyuz are replaced by Ariane 6, but Ariane 5 will probably have a transition period. Vega is in a whole different class. What ESA is working on, is on evolving Vega to share Ariane 6 parts. In particular, the P135. And may be reduce the number of stages, while making the rocket fully in Europe (currently the AVUS is mostly Ukranian). Think of current production lines: P245, EPS, ECA, ES, Souyz (it's bought built), P80, Z23/Z9, AVUS. Then you have Ariane 5's BIP, BIL, BAF and pad, Soyuz's MIK, Mobile Gantry and pad and the Vega Mobile Gantry and pad. So you have 8.5 production lines, 4 integration buildings, two Mobile Gantries and three pads. All incompatible.
If they can make the new Vega compatible with the Ariane 6's flow, they'll need production lines for: P135, A6US, Vega US, two pads, two mobile integration building and could probably share pad crew among them. This would give them the capability of doing at least 12 launches from CSG, if the integration and launch campaign is 60 days. Or, they could keep the Vega launch pad and be able to do something like 18 launches. So, it does seems like a lot of costs could be cut. It's not a bad strategy. Specially considering the political limitations involved.

Table Comparison:

Now Integrated Future

InfrastructureNow                  Future (Low rate) IFuture (High rate) II
Manufacturing lines8.5 III33
Pads3 IV23
Integration Buildings400
Mobile Gantries123
GTO Launches max18 V12 VI12
GTO Launches > 3.2tonnes max121212
GTO Launches > 4.5tonnes max6 VII1212
Total Launches max22 VIII1218
Foreign dependencyYesNoNo
Payload margin (LEO tonnes)0.5-250.5-120.5-12
ITwo pad compatible with both Ariane 6 and Vega.
IITwo Ariane 6 pads and one Vega pad.
IIIZ23 and Z9 should share half the line, at least.
IVAriane 5 count as 2, and Soyuz as 1. But A5 pairing is difficult and Soyuz is limited to 3.2tonnes. Assumes 10 launches per year for Soyuz.
VIAny payload from 0 to 6.5tonnes.
VIIAssumes that SYLDA is not modified to support heavier than 4.5 satellites.
VIIIAssume 6 launches/year Ariane 5 (count as 2), launches/year Soyuz and 6 launches/year Vega.

As you see, the future is adjusted for a lower rate of launches and for optimized cost structure. I'm not saying it couldn't be done other way. And you lose some capability that are not needed anymore, but you win on big GTO payload, which is projected into the future. Thus, while I think it could have been better a different approach (MT proposal was niceeeee), is not a bad plan and I can't say they are not being realistic on their future forecast. History has shown that flat is not a bad base assumption. And they are counting on bigger trend in GTO wight, which has been a steady case for the last thirty years.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/08/2013 11:23 pm
It looks to me that ESA needs both a heavy lift rocket and a light cheap light rocket that is preferably easily man rated.
Like what the Shuttle program was before the US Airforce got involved in the program.


When they have Ariane 6 ,Ariane 5 me,Soyuz and Vega which will be cut ??
Ariane 5 and Soyuz are replaced by Ariane 6, but Ariane 5 will probably have a transition period. Vega is in a whole different class. What ESA is working on, is on evolving Vega to share Ariane 6 parts. In particular, the P135. And may be reduce the number of stages, while making the rocket fully in Europe (currently the AVUS is mostly Ukranian). Think of current production lines: P245, EPS, ECA, ES, Souyz (it's bought built), P80, Z23/Z9, AVUS. Then you have Ariane 5's BIP, BIL, BAF and pad, Soyuz's MIK, Mobile Gantry and pad and the Vega Mobile Gantry and pad. So you have 8.5 production lines, 4 integration buildings, two Mobile Gantries and three pads. All incompatible.
If they can make the new Vega compatible with the Ariane 6's flow, they'll need production lines for: P135, A6US, Vega US, two pads, two mobile integration building and could probably share pad crew among them. This would give them the capability of doing at least 12 launches from CSG, if the integration and launch campaign is 60 days. Or, they could keep the Vega launch pad and be able to do something like 18 launches. So, it does seems like a lot of costs could be cut. It's not a bad strategy. Specially considering the political limitations involved.

Table Comparison:

Now Integrated Future

InfrastructureNow                  Future (Low rate) IFuture (High rate) II
Manufacturing lines8.5 III33
Pads3 IV23
Integration Buildings400
Mobile Gantries123
GTO Launches max18 V12 VI12
GTO Launches > 3.2tonnes max121212
GTO Launches > 4.5tonnes max6 VII1212
Total Launches max22 VIII1218
Foreign dependencyYesNoNo
Payload margin (LEO tonnes)0.5-250.5-120.5-12
ITwo pad compatible with both Ariane 6 and Vega.
IITwo Ariane 6 pads and one Vega pad.
IIIZ23 and Z9 should share half the line, at least.
IVAriane 5 count as 2, and Soyuz as 1. But A5 pairing is difficult and Soyuz is limited to 3.2tonnes. Assumes 10 launches per year for Soyuz.
VIAny payload from 0 to 6.5tonnes.
VIIAssumes that SYLDA is not modified to support heavier than 4.5 satellites.
VIIIAssume 6 launches/year Ariane 5 (count as 2), launches/year Soyuz and 6 launches/year Vega.

As you see, the future is adjusted for a lower rate of launches and for optimized cost structure. I'm not saying it couldn't be done other way. And you lose some capability that are not needed anymore, but you win on big GTO payload, which is projected into the future. Thus, while I think it could have been better a different approach (MT proposal was niceeeee), is not a bad plan and I can't say they are not being realistic on their future forecast. History has shown that flat is not a bad base assumption. And they are counting on bigger trend in GTO wight, which has been a steady case for the last thirty years.

True Ariane 6 Is not a bad low cost design at all once real time satellite video becomes routine size might grow.Now imagine if the upper solid stage got replaced with a good refuelable liquid stage it would open up many possibility's.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/08/2013 11:34 pm
You might be confusing concepts. The Ariane 6's US is almost the same H2/LOX of the Ariane 5 ME. And it uses the reignitable Vinci engine. Thus, it will be able to do things as put Galileo satellites on their circular orbits. Since the ECA can't reignite, they have to keep the hypergolic ES stage just for that (and ATV, but the last is at CSG). Can also do escape missions that require or are optimized by a two and even three burn profile.That's also why they are not loosing any really needed capability. I guess they'll be able to put 12 tonnes on LEO or so. Have you seen any payload that's not a vehicle that requires more than that?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/08/2013 11:57 pm
Manned lunar flight of course the three P135s as a first stage a liquid second stage. Refuel the second stage in orbit and boost to low lunar orbit .Refuel it again AND PUT LEGS on it and land.
A really rugged trottalable restartable engine and a zero g refueling system  would be needed for starters.

Not sure if the P135 are big enough but the is plenty of growth in the technology.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/10/2013 01:58 am
Please, don't go into fantasy mode. If and when ESA decides to go to the moon alone, they'll design the necessary LV. Unless you are willing to offer to foot a € 25B or so.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/10/2013 07:18 am

In this document there are lots of technical details:

http://emits.sso.esa.int/emits-doc/ESA_HQ/Technicalconditionsv10.pdf
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: sdsds on 11/10/2013 07:43 am
So is the physical appearance shown in the "Technical Conditions" document now fairly certain?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/10/2013 10:28 am

In this document there are lots of technical details:

http://emits.sso.esa.int/emits-doc/ESA_HQ/Technicalconditionsv10.pdf

And that document is now offline...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/10/2013 10:31 am
It looks to me that ESA needs both a heavy lift rocket and a light cheap light rocket that is preferably easily man rated.
Like what the Shuttle program was before the US Airforce got involved in the program.


When they have Ariane 6 ,Ariane 5 me,Soyuz and Vega which will be cut ??

Preferably easy man rated? Please, do tell us where you got the notion that ESA needs a man rated rocket.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/10/2013 10:34 am

Ok, I've attached it. Its unclassified, so should not be a problem ;).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/10/2013 10:45 am

Ok, I've attached it. Its unclassified, so should not be a problem ;).
Thanks Oli, lots of interesting stuff in this one.

Quote
Mass (propellant mass, inert mass) : 135 000 kg / 6500 kg
From the document. Did I miss something, or does that seem like a very high mass ratio?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 11/10/2013 10:57 am
I wonder how difficult and how expensive would it be to develop 1-booster and 5-booster versions of the Ariane 6 should the need arises - per previous discussions they would be in the Soyuz and Ariane 5 classes respectively. This (and Vega and its derivatives) would make for a flexible launcher family that might have an edge over the EELVs....  ::)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/10/2013 11:16 am
I wonder how difficult and how expensive would it be to develop 1-booster and 5-booster versions of the Ariane 6 should the need arises - per previous discussions they would be in the Soyuz and Ariane 5 classes respectively. This (and Vega and its derivatives) would make for a flexible launcher family that might have an edge over the EELVs....  ::)
According to this article: http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2013/07/09/01008-20130709ARTFIG00464-la-configuration-definitive-d-ariane-6-enfin-devoilee.php

Ariane 6 weighs 660 tons at lift-off, and has a thrust of 760 tonnes with two of the P135s firing. That's 380 tons of thrust per P135. If each P135 has a mass of about 145 tons, that brings the lift-off mass of our hypothetical "solid Soyuz" at 370 tons. A lift-off TWR of just 1.03, not including payload, seems a little too low to really work.

The document Oli linked to claimed a thrust of "up to 4.0 MN", which would mean a lift-off thrust of 408 tons and a TWR of 1.1, but that seems to be vacuum thrust. I don't think a "solid Soyuz" is going to work very well without strap-on boosters.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/10/2013 11:59 am
It looks to me that ESA needs both a heavy lift rocket and a light cheap light rocket that is preferably easily man rated.
Like what the Shuttle program was before the US Airforce got involved in the program.


When they have Ariane 6 ,Ariane 5 me,Soyuz and Vega which will be cut ??
They don't have a need for a man rated rocket. If they really cared about launching humans, they'd try to get Soyuz to Kourou before they would start some independent project that will likely be delayed by 10 years and have a total cost 3.14 times as high as initially estimated. And they don't have any reason to do so, at least for the time being. Independent manned access to space is only required if some major policy shift happens within Europe.

Heavy lift is also pretty useless to Europe. What do they need it for? Comsats rarely exceed 6 tons in mass, and Ariane 6 fits that range just fine. Earth observation satellites and Galileo are all small enough to be launched by Soyuz or Vega. ATV was only as big because Ariane 5 was the only launcher around that could get anything significant to the ISS, so they designed it around A5s capabilities. If any new space station project comes along, a smaller, ~10 ton supply vehicle launched on A6 would be a much better option than a revived ATV on a new rocket.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/10/2013 01:18 pm
It looks to me that ESA needs both a heavy lift rocket and a light cheap light rocket that is preferably easily man rated.
Like what the Shuttle program was before the US Airforce got involved in the program.


When they have Ariane 6 ,Ariane 5 me,Soyuz and Vega which will be cut ??
They don't have a need for a man rated rocket. If they really cared about launching humans, they'd try to get Soyuz to Kourou before they would start some independent project that will likely be delayed by 10 years and have a total cost 3.14 times as high as initially estimated. And they don't have any reason to do so, at least for the time being. Independent manned access to space is only required if some major policy shift happens within Europe.

Heavy lift is also pretty useless to Europe. What do they need it for? Comsats rarely exceed 6 tons in mass, and Ariane 6 fits that range just fine. Earth observation satellites and Galileo are all small enough to be launched by Soyuz or Vega. ATV was only as big because Ariane 5 was the only launcher around that could get anything significant to the ISS, so they designed it around A5s capabilities. If any new space station project comes along, a smaller, ~10 ton supply vehicle launched on A6 would be a much better option than a revived ATV on a new rocket.

What I am talking about is the next 20 years when you are launching 18 rockets a year another 5 or six will be very cheap the mats does not change.It is the EU council that only has to give the go ahead.

Galileo will be built before this rocket ever flies .
Why build a new highly costly station when the moon is there?
Refueling the com and spysats will be the new markets .
ATV is really old teck bet any good engineer could improve the design.

10 ton launcher launching many times is very cost effective as pointed out many times on this site.

ps still think that a heavy 30 tons launcher will be needed even if it only launches once every two years.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/10/2013 01:58 pm
What I am talking about is the next 20 years when you are launching 18 rockets a year another 5 or six will be very cheap the mats does not change.It is the EU council that only has to give the go ahead.

Galileo will be built before this rocket ever flies .
Why build a new highly costly station when the moon is there?
Refueling the com and spysats will be the new markets .
ATV is really old teck bet any good engineer could improve the design.

10 ton launcher launching many times is very cost effective as pointed out many times on this site.

ps still think that a heavy 30 tons launcher will be needed even if it only launches once every two years.
Galileo will need to be maintained though, satellites will break down and grow outdated and new ones will need to be launched. GPS sats were launched in march this year even though the first one was launched in 1978.

The moon is not cheaper than a new space station. A new one could be a small on orbit laboratory and won't have to cost 100 billion euros. Also, Ariane 6 also fits nicely in the 10 ton launch range for LEO flights. If you mean for GTO, then no. Dual launch is not cost effective, as has been pointed out many times.

A 30 ton launcher is not necessary. How often does ESA launch anything too heavy for Soyuz? About once per year, and that's ATV. ESA will not need a 30 ton launcher unless a major policy shift takes place. Ariane 6 is big enough for anything ESA needs, and for LEO missions an evolved Vega is actually more than enough.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/10/2013 02:35 pm
Quote from: M129K
Also, Ariane 6 also fits nicely in the 10 ton launch range for LEO flights.

Pretty sure A6 will lift more than 10t to LEO, possibly around 16t.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/10/2013 02:35 pm
What I am talking about is the next 20 years when you are launching 18 rockets a year another 5 or six will be very cheap the mats does not change.It is the EU council that only has to give the go ahead.

Galileo will be built before this rocket ever flies .
Why build a new highly costly station when the moon is there?
Refueling the com and spysats will be the new markets .
ATV is really old teck bet any good engineer could improve the design.

10 ton launcher launching many times is very cost effective as pointed out many times on this site.

ps still think that a heavy 30 tons launcher will be needed even if it only launches once every two years.
Galileo will need to be maintained though, satellites will break down and grow outdated and new ones will need to be launched. GPS sats were launched in march this year even though the first one was launched in 1978.

The moon is not cheaper than a new space station. A new one could be a small on orbit laboratory and won't have to cost 100 billion euros. Also, Ariane 6 also fits nicely in the 10 ton launch range for LEO flights. If you mean for GTO, then no. Dual launch is not cost effective, as has been pointed out many times.

A 30 ton launcher is not necessary. How often does ESA launch anything too heavy for Soyuz? About once per year, and that's ATV. ESA will not need a 30 ton launcher unless a major policy shift takes place. Ariane 6 is big enough for anything ESA needs, and for LEO missions an evolved Vega is actually more than enough.

Costs of a moon shot is ninety percent fuel.A station for what ?
The more you launch a rocket the cheaper it gets per launch.
Fully agree that ARIANE 6is big enough for everything in LEO .
It is large payloads in other orbits that the big one is for (big telescopes in GEO for instance).
Why keep Vega when Ariane 6 will be cost effective ?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/10/2013 02:52 pm
Quote from: M129K
Also, Ariane 6 also fits nicely in the 10 ton launch range for LEO flights.

Pretty sure A6 will lift more than 10t to LEO, possibly around 16t.
I know, I tried estimating its payload before. Up to 15 tons seems very realistic. However, that still fits pretty nicely with ~10 ton payloads, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/10/2013 03:01 pm
Costs of a moon shot is ninety percent fuel.A station for what ?
The more you launch a rocket the cheaper it gets per launch.
Fully agree that ARIANE 6is big enough for everything in LEO .
It is large payloads in other orbits that the big one is for (big telescopes in GEO for instance).
Why keep Vega when Ariane 6 will be cost effective ?

ESA has no desire for a "moon shot".  If ESA does want a station in future it would likely be a small microgravity lab as has been mooted for decades. ESA has no plans for big telescopes in GEO. Vega covers a range which includes many payloads from European institutions/agencies that would have to go elsewhere otherwise.  Vega is part of the EGAS policy.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/10/2013 04:42 pm
Costs of a moon shot is ninety percent fuel.A station for what ?
The more you launch a rocket the cheaper it gets per launch.
Fully agree that ARIANE 6is big enough for everything in LEO .
It is large payloads in other orbits that the big one is for (big telescopes in GEO for instance).
Why keep Vega when Ariane 6 will be cost effective ?

ESA has no desire for a "moon shot".  If ESA does want a station in future it would likely be a small microgravity lab as has been mooted for decades. ESA has no plans for big telescopes in GEO. Vega covers a range which includes many payloads from European institutions/agencies that would have to go elsewhere otherwise.  Vega is part of the EGAS policy.



Look up eads website "for Geo surveillance " the satellites resolution is limited by mirror diameter. They are going to need refueling.
Anything that Vega can do Ariane 6 can do better.
ESA are a lot of space scientists of course they want to go to the moon.
Policy  can change .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/10/2013 04:55 pm
Look up eads website "for Geo surveillance " the satellites resolution is limited by mirror diameter. They are going to need refueling.
Anything that Vega can do Ariane 6 can do better.
ESA are a lot of space scientists of course they want to go to the moon.
Policy  can change .
Say you have a 1.5 ton earth observation satellite. Would you rather pay 30 million euros for Vega, or 70 million euros for Ariane 6? Ariane 6 has no advantage for small sats.

Lots of scientists would rather see ESA exploring Mars, Venus and Jupiter using space probes than a moonshot. A moonshot would require a new LV, a manned spacecraft and a lunar lander, costing billions, and all we get is prestige and some more data about the moon. I would love to see a lunar landing by ESA, but from a scientific standpoint it's simply not worth it.

Policy can change, but I doubt France, Germany and Italy all decide at once to turn ESA from focusing on science to focusing on space colonization. It's a huge jump, and nobody wants to pay for it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/10/2013 05:19 pm
Look up eads website "for Geo surveillance " the satellites resolution is limited by mirror diameter. They are going to need refueling.
Anything that Vega can do Ariane 6 can do better.
ESA are a lot of space scientists of course they want to go to the moon.
Policy  can change .

Ariane 6 has the same fairing diameter as Ariane 5 ME, I thought you were talking about satellites A6 couldn't carry. I don'think GO-3S invalidates A6.

A6 may be able to lift more than Vega, but it is much more expensive to do so for small payloads.  It's why you don't generally see A5 lifting single 1000 Kg sats...

ESA couldn't even approve the German unmanned lunar lander, i somehow doubt the member states are particularly interested in a manned mission to the moon. Nor were they interested in the ARV manned capsule.

Policy can only change with increased funding, increased funding will only come from increased EU involvement.  That is in rough waters right now with both some governments and ESA itself growing more opposed.  Even if it were to happen we are not talking about major policy changes til at least the mid 2020's and probably later.  So really it has no place in the immediate discussions on launchers.  If the EU miraculously becomes interested in the things you propose, which I doubt, then it will fund its own launcher programme to achieve them.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/10/2013 05:47 pm
Look up eads website "for Geo surveillance " the satellites resolution is limited by mirror diameter. They are going to need refueling.
Anything that Vega can do Ariane 6 can do better.
ESA are a lot of space scientists of course they want to go to the moon.
Policy  can change .
Say you have a 1.5 ton earth observation satellite. Would you rather pay 30 million euros for Vega, or 70 million euros for Ariane 6? Ariane 6 has no advantage for small sats.

Lots of scientists would rather see ESA exploring Mars, Venus and Jupiter using space probes than a moonshot. A moonshot would require a new LV, a manned spacecraft and a lunar lander, costing billions, and all we get is prestige and some more data about the moon. I would love to see a lunar landing by ESA, but from a scientific standpoint it's simply not worth it.

Policy can change, but I doubt France, Germany and Italy all decide at once to turn ESA from focusing on science to focusing on space colonization. It's a huge jump, and nobody wants to pay for it.

Geo spysats have 5 meter mirrors at least the bigger the mirror the better the resolution.
Arianespace business is a lot bigger that just esa.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Silmfeanor on 11/10/2013 06:32 pm
Floss, what exactly are you talking about here?

You might want to make a thread about possible payloads for Ariane 6, or a thread in advanced concepts about a GEO-refueling space tug with a mass below 10mt, or something along those lines.
This thread is about Ariane 6 itself, not a discussion about whether ESA should fly to the moon  ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/10/2013 06:32 pm
Geo spysats have 5 meter mirrors at least the bigger the mirror the better the resolution.
Arianespace business is a lot bigger that just esa.
Do the math and tell me what aperture do you need for a diffraction limited optic to have a 0.25m resolution.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/10/2013 07:11 pm
Floss, what exactly are you talking about here?

You might want to make a thread about possible payloads for Ariane 6, or a thread in advanced concepts about a GEO-refueling space tug with a mass below 10mt, or something along those lines.
This thread is about Ariane 6 itself, not a discussion about whether ESA should fly to the moon  ;)
Exactly. A thread about payloads for Ariane 6 or a "How would Europe go to the moon?" thread could be very interesting, but they don't belong here.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spectre9 on 11/12/2013 08:09 am
I'm now coming around to the idea of Ariane 6.

Is it too big though?

What are the largest payloads it will be required to lift?

Manned spaceflight from Kourou is just a pipe dream. Europeons can chip in towards SLS just like they put Columbus in the shuttle payload bay.

The need for specialized international cargo vessels like ATV seems to be coming to an end too. SpaceX can play mailman.

If the Ariane 5 core stage is too expensive put it on the scrap heap. No point in fighting it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/12/2013 10:26 am
Look up eads website "for Geo surveillance " the satellites resolution is limited by mirror diameter. They are going to need refueling.
Anything that Vega can do Ariane 6 can do better.
ESA are a lot of space scientists of course they want to go to the moon.
Policy  can change .
Say you have a 1.5 ton earth observation satellite. Would you rather pay 30 million euros for Vega, or 70 million euros for Ariane 6? Ariane 6 has no advantage for small sats.

Lots of scientists would rather see ESA exploring Mars, Venus and Jupiter using space probes than a moonshot. A moonshot would require a new LV, a manned spacecraft and a lunar lander, costing billions, and all we get is prestige and some more data about the moon. I would love to see a lunar landing by ESA, but from a scientific standpoint it's simply not worth it.

Policy can change, but I doubt France, Germany and Italy all decide at once to turn ESA from focusing on science to focusing on space colonization. It's a huge jump, and nobody wants to pay for it.

Geo spysats have 5 meter mirrors at least the bigger the mirror the better the resolution.
Arianespace business is a lot bigger that just esa.

Correct. Question: how many times has Arianespace launched spysats? And when you have found the number.. do yourself a favour and try to find the reason why that number is so low.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/13/2013 05:18 pm
Is it too big though?

What are the largest payloads it will be required to lift?

I don't think it's too big. The max payloads it will be required to lift are around 6.5 tons, which is exactly what it is being designed for. If anything, I'd say it's just a little too small. Market forecasts indicated the possibility that sats could grow in mass up to 8 tons, which H2C and P1B allowed for. P7C, however, does not. If it makes up for that in lower costs, however, I'm perfectly fine with it, and so would most customers be I imagine.

For smaller payloads in the 3-3.5 ton range, they have the option of using 2 P135s instead of 3 for the first stage, which could get 3.4 tons to GTO, slightly more than Soyuz. I don't know if that option is still on the table though, I haven't seen it anywhere for the past few months. They picked a more in-line design for A6; would asymmetrical boosters be a possibility for Ariane?

Quote
Manned spaceflight from Kourou is just a pipe dream. Europeons can chip in towards SLS just like they put Columbus in the shuttle payload bay.

Agreed, ESA shouldn't bother with manned spaceflight until they have a legitimate reason to commit to such a hugely expensive program. Supporting Orion to get seats on it (or on PTK) is a better option than spending billions on doing it themselves.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/18/2013 12:22 pm
I put this in the discussion thread. Interview with ESA director Jean-Jacques Dordain.

"Ariane 6 at 70m euros, its possible"

http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/air-defense/actu/0203129671502-jean-jacques-dordain-directeur-general-de-l-esa-ariane-6-a-70-millions-d-euros-c-est-possible-630032.php

Loosely translated:

They evaluated 160 proposals from the industry. As things stand they're not yet at 70m, but he's confident that the price point will be reached.

He says that they are impressed by the Falcon first stage reusability demonstrations, but that its not certain it will pay off. The recovery cycle doesn't come for free.

(Please don't make this thead about SpaceX now ;))
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/18/2013 05:46 pm
I put this in the discussion thread. Interview with ESA director Jean-Jacques Dordain.

"Ariane 6 at 70m euros, its possible"

http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/air-defense/actu/0203129671502-jean-jacques-dordain-directeur-general-de-l-esa-ariane-6-a-70-millions-d-euros-c-est-possible-630032.php

Loosely translated:

They evaluated 160 proposals from the industry. As things stand they're not yet at 70m, but he's confident that the price point will be reached.

He says that they are impressed by the Falcon first stage reusability demonstrations, but that its not certain it will pay off. The recovery cycle doesn't come for free.

(Please don't make this thead about SpaceX now ;))
How will they reach it? I think the main thing that blocks it now is the Geo-return principle. Ariane 6 can only become that cheap if all the solids are made in one factory in Italy, and unless Italy wants to pay that much for the program they won't get that industrial return. Are they planning to get rid of geo-return?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/18/2013 06:45 pm
I put this in the discussion thread. Interview with ESA director Jean-Jacques Dordain.

"Ariane 6 at 70m euros, its possible"

http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/air-defense/actu/0203129671502-jean-jacques-dordain-directeur-general-de-l-esa-ariane-6-a-70-millions-d-euros-c-est-possible-630032.php

Loosely translated:

They evaluated 160 proposals from the industry. As things stand they're not yet at 70m, but he's confident that the price point will be reached.

He says that they are impressed by the Falcon first stage reusability demonstrations, but that its not certain it will pay off. The recovery cycle doesn't come for free.

(Please don't make this thead about SpaceX now ;))
How will they reach it? I think the main thing that blocks it now is the Geo-return principle. Ariane 6 can only become that cheap if all the solids are made in one factory in Italy, and unless Italy wants to pay that much for the program they won't get that industrial return. Are they planning to get rid of geo-return?
Two details. They've stated that they would not be so strict about geo return. And in any case it's about development money. If the Italian state puts a certain percentage, they will get that same percentage share of the industrial cost of the rocket.
But, please remember that current solids get their casing from MT in Germany, and the filling of the P80, and the P135, would be done at Kourou, which is in France.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/19/2013 10:03 am
Quote from: M129K
Are they planning to get rid of geo-return?

It looks like at this stage its being ignored.

Quote from: baldusi
But, please remember that current solids get their casing from MT in Germany

To my knowledge MT is also a contender for the composite casings for A6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/19/2013 10:43 am
But, please remember that current solids get their casing from MT in Germany, and the filling of the P80, and the P135, would be done at Kourou, which is in France.

The current Ariane 5 solids get their casing from MT in Germany. The casing for Vega's  P80 is produced by Europropulsion, for Avio, but winding of the composite casing is done at Avio itself.  The casings for Zefiro 23 and Zefiro 9 are entirely produced by Avio.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/21/2013 05:47 pm
But, please remember that current solids get their casing from MT in Germany, and the filling of the P80, and the P135, would be done at Kourou, which is in France.

The current Ariane 5 solids get their casing from MT in Germany. The casing for Vega's  P80 is produced by Europropulsion, for Avio, but winding of the composite casing is done at Avio itself.  The casings for Zefiro 23 and Zefiro 9 are entirely produced by Avio.

Thanks to both of you, I thought P80 was built entirely in Italy. Would the same be true for P135? I think that to reach the €70m goal, they would have to focus that all to one factory.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/21/2013 06:30 pm
But, please remember that current solids get their casing from MT in Germany, and the filling of the P80, and the P135, would be done at Kourou, which is in France.

The current Ariane 5 solids get their casing from MT in Germany. The casing for Vega's  P80 is produced by Europropulsion, for Avio, but winding of the composite casing is done at Avio itself.  The casings for Zefiro 23 and Zefiro 9 are entirely produced by Avio.

Thanks to both of you, I thought P80 was built entirely in Italy. Would the same be true for P135? I think that to reach the €70m goal, they would have to focus that all to one factory.
Due to transport hazards, big solids are filled in Kourou. If I'm not mistaken the top segment of Ariane 5's is filled in Europe, since it includes the start up ordnance and is "small" compared to the other two, which are filled at Kourou. The P80 is filled in Kourou, but, as stated above Z23 and Z9 are completely filled in Italy. I don't know but it would seem that 80 tonnes is above what's safe to transport by sea, thus, the P135 will surely be filled at CSG.
BTW, look into the Herakles site information about their solid propulsion sides. You'll see that they do supply many components even for the Z9 and Z23.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/21/2013 08:54 pm
Another thought that I had. If they ever need to increase the performance, couldn't they just put four booster P135 around an air started P135, plus another P135 on top? They could easily go from:
S1: 3 x P135
S2: 1 x P135
S3: H28

to
S1: 4 x P135
S2: 1 x P135
S3: 1 x P135
S4: H28

If they ever need that extra performance, of course.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 11/22/2013 07:17 am
But, please remember that current solids get their casing from MT in Germany, and the filling of the P80, and the P135, would be done at Kourou, which is in France.

The current Ariane 5 solids get their casing from MT in Germany. The casing for Vega's  P80 is produced by Europropulsion, for Avio, but winding of the composite casing is done at Avio itself.  The casings for Zefiro 23 and Zefiro 9 are entirely produced by Avio.

Your woridng is quite confusing. The casing of P80 is produced (i.e. winding of the composite casing) by Avio in Italy. The casting of the propellant is done by Regulus and the production of the motor (i.e. integration of nozzle and igniter etc.) is done by Europropulsion in Kourou.
The Zefiro 23 and 9 are entirely produced by Avio, i.e. the winding of the casing, the casting of the propellant is done and the integration of the motor.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 11/22/2013 07:24 am
But, please remember that current solids get their casing from MT in Germany, and the filling of the P80, and the P135, would be done at Kourou, which is in France.

The current Ariane 5 solids get their casing from MT in Germany. The casing for Vega's  P80 is produced by Europropulsion, for Avio, but winding of the composite casing is done at Avio itself.  The casings for Zefiro 23 and Zefiro 9 are entirely produced by Avio.

Thanks to both of you, I thought P80 was built entirely in Italy. Would the same be true for P135? I think that to reach the €70m goal, they would have to focus that all to one factory.
Due to transport hazards, big solids are filled in Kourou. If I'm not mistaken the top segment of Ariane 5's is filled in Europe, since it includes the start up ordnance and is "small" compared to the other two, which are filled at Kourou. The P80 is filled in Kourou, but, as stated above Z23 and Z9 are completely filled in Italy. I don't know but it would seem that 80 tonnes is above what's safe to transport by sea, thus, the P135 will surely be filled at CSG.
The legal limit in Europe is somewhere below 20 t propellant loading, if I remember right. I know for sure, that there is already a waiver for transport of the Zefiro 23. However, the risk assessement seems to be quite different in the U.S. The STS booster segments were casted in Utah and transported by rail across the continent to Florida.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/22/2013 12:36 pm
So, if they were to make in improved stage for Vega it would probably have to be filled at Kourou?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/22/2013 01:32 pm
Quote from: baldusi
Another thought that I had. If they ever need to increase the performance, couldn't they just put four booster P135 around an air started P135, plus another P135 on top? They could easily go from:

The boosters are designed for a certain load and have a specific thrust profile. I'm pretty sure you cannot simply use them in any other configuration without modifications.

Quote from: Notaris
The legal limit in Europe is somewhere below 20 t propellant loading, if I remember right.

I can imagine that transporting 80t or 135t solids would be a major pain in the ass, not only for safety reasons.
Rather fill them at the launch site.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/29/2013 08:04 am
Due to transport hazards, big solids are filled in Kourou. If I'm not mistaken the top segment of Ariane 5's is filled in Europe, since it includes the start up ordnance and is "small" compared to the other two, which are filled at Kourou. The P80 is filled in Kourou, but, as stated above Z23 and Z9 are completely filled in Italy. I don't know but it would seem that 80 tonnes is above what's safe to transport by sea, thus, the P135 will surely be filled at CSG.
BTW, look into the Herakles site information about their solid propulsion sides. You'll see that they do supply many components even for the Z9 and Z23.
Well, I meant producing it all in one factory, then cast it in Kourou. I was aware that casting in Europe wasn't the best idea.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/29/2013 06:56 pm
Due to transport hazards, big solids are filled in Kourou. If I'm not mistaken the top segment of Ariane 5's is filled in Europe, since it includes the start up ordnance and is "small" compared to the other two, which are filled at Kourou. The P80 is filled in Kourou, but, as stated above Z23 and Z9 are completely filled in Italy. I don't know but it would seem that 80 tonnes is above what's safe to transport by sea, thus, the P135 will surely be filled at CSG.
BTW, look into the Herakles site information about their solid propulsion sides. You'll see that they do supply many components even for the Z9 and Z23.
Well, I meant producing it all in one factory, then cast it in Kourou. I was aware that casting in Europe wasn't the best idea.
But one thing is to have them all integrated and finished (sans fill) in one factory, and another is to make everything in the same factory. As you you could read on the Herakles page, somebody can make the nozzle, other the actuators, other the integrate the TVC system, somebody can make the casing and another the winding (in the composite case), etc. The degree of vertical integration is quite a decision.
I'm not sure that everything should be made in one factory.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/30/2013 12:39 pm
But one thing is to have them all integrated and finished (sans fill) in one factory, and another is to make everything in the same factory. As you you could read on the Herakles page, somebody can make the nozzle, other the actuators, other the integrate the TVC system, somebody can make the casing and another the winding (in the composite case), etc. The degree of vertical integration is quite a decision.
I'm not sure that everything should be made in one factory.
I always understood that the best way to get the costs down is 1. simplicity, and 2. concentrate everything within one factory with a single contractor. Wouldn't spreading manufacturing of the boosters over several different factories and several different contractors only drive up costs?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/30/2013 02:47 pm
I always understood that the best way to get the costs down is 1. simplicity, and 2. concentrate everything within one factory with a single contractor. Wouldn't spreading manufacturing of the boosters over several different factories and several different contractors only drive up costs?
It's always a delicate balance. Generally it depends on how much existing infrastructure and tooling you can use and how many custom processes. If the cost is driven by quality control and traceability, may be it's better to be done in-house since you already have all the process developed and the people trained. If the cost is driven by the tooling and workers know-how, and if they supplier doesn't decide to charge you too much, it's probably wise to go with an external supplier. Or you can do an hybrid approach and send your process and auditor people to your supplier's factory and make a batch for you. You'll laugh at the example, but that's how you do Kosher candies. They use the stock factory, and have it cleaned and supervised by a rabbi.
Even in SpaceX, you see a lot of contractors. The DragonEye is contracted, the Merlin 1C turbopumps were contracted, the metal vacuum nozzle is contracted, etc. I'm pretty sure that the explosively forming of the inner lining of the Merlin 1D's thrust chamber is done on a supplier's equipment. May be the operation is managed by SpaceX personnel, but those kinds of heavy machines are usually shared by many industries.
And there's the opportunity to take normal contractors and teach them to do process control and space certify their products. Sometimes, you can simply space certify yourself  a certain batch of a stock products. Astrobotics did that with the Li-ion batteries. And I remember that the bolts that hold the lens protector on Curiosity were bought of McMaster-Carr online and then certified by NASA personnel. They did came with a standard certificate, though. So you have many options.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: sdsds on 12/21/2013 10:13 pm
New pic.

Wasn't a big part of the concept having the four solid stages as similar as possible; even identical? How can that work with the three-in-line first stage design? Structurally won't the loads on the side boosters be quite different from the loads on the center booster, and even more different from the loads on the second stage?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/22/2013 02:23 am
Wasn't a big part of the concept having the four solid stages as similar as possible; even identical? How can that work with the three-in-line first stage design? Structurally won't the loads on the side boosters be quite different from the loads on the center booster, and even more different from the loads on the second stage?

In that particular picture it almost looks like the 2nd stage is being "carried" by all three boosters (thrust transfer at the top). In any case, the boosters will be identical so I guess they're just designed for the max. load case. Solids are pretty sturdy after all ;).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/08/2014 06:28 am
Europe To Consider Radically Streamlined Supplier Base for Next-generation Ariane 6 Launcher

from here:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/38968europe-to-consider-radically-streamlined-supplier-base-for-next-generation (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/38968europe-to-consider-radically-streamlined-supplier-base-for-next-generation)

Quote
A radically simplified European rocket manufacturing organization that cuts the number of companies involved in Ariane rocket construction by two-thirds and permits a next-generation Ariane 6 rocket to meet its aggressive cost targets will be presented to European governments in March, officials from the French space agency, CNES, said Jan. 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/13/2014 12:05 pm
From the Update thread:

New pic.

Other info from the CNEStweetup. A6 could evolve into a 4t or 8t launcher, depending on the market. The 8t version would be doable with 5 solid motors in the first stage.

I can't seem to find the other info (my French is terrible, that doesn't help); does this mean that a 2x and 5x P135 Ariane 6 is pretty much confirmed? And does this indicate that Ariane 6 is evolvable, like SLS (moving between configs, but only using one at any time) or modular, like the EELVs?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/13/2014 10:54 pm

^

Evolvable probably but I don't think its modular.

Btw, thrust from the side boosters is transfered at the bottom, technical specifications clearly say so.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 01/14/2014 11:50 am
does this mean that a 2x and 5x P135 Ariane 6 is pretty much confirmed? And does this indicate that Ariane 6 is evolvable, like SLS (moving between configs, but only using one at any time) or modular, like the EELVs?

There is no such requirement in the current RFP documents.
A 5xP145 (No typo! ESA changed it to P145 recently...) would require a substantial re-design of the thrust structures.
Not to mention the acceleration loads.

Would be more or less a complete new launcher...

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kasponaut on 01/14/2014 12:28 pm
What is the diameter of the lower boosters?
Is there any technical description of the Ariane 6 out yet? I guess not.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/14/2014 12:39 pm
^

Technical conditions have been posted here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1118288#msg1118288

Diameter is 3.5m, 135t propellant and 10t dry mass.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kasponaut on 01/14/2014 01:03 pm
^

Technical conditions have been posted here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1118288#msg1118288

Diameter is 3.5m, 135t propellant and 10t dry mass.


Great! Thanks :-)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 01/14/2014 01:04 pm
^

Technical conditions have been posted here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1118288#msg1118288

Diameter is 3.5m, 135t propellant and 10t dry mass.


These numbers are outdated. They are from RFC (request for consultation).
Now we have the RFP (request for proposal) documents.
The new numbers:
Length 11,5m
Diameter 3,5m
Propellant mass 145t
Casing mass 8,7t incl. insulation

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/14/2014 01:08 pm

Quote from: spacediver
These numbers are outdated. They are from RFC (request for consultation).
Now we have the RFP (request for proposal) documents.
The new numbers:
Length 11,5m
Diameter 3,5m
Propellant mass 145t
Casing mass 8,7t incl. insulation

Spacediver

Ah, I remember, you're the liquid guy. Still convinced solids are the wrong choice and 70m per launch is unrealistic?

 :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/17/2014 07:48 pm
^

Technical conditions have been posted here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1118288#msg1118288

Diameter is 3.5m, 135t propellant and 10t dry mass.


These numbers are outdated. They are from RFC (request for consultation).
Now we have the RFP (request for proposal) documents.
The new numbers:
Length 11,5m
Diameter 3,5m
Propellant mass 145t
Casing mass 8,7t incl. insulation

Spacediver

Very interesting... Does this large increase in propellant influence the performance and cost of Ariane 6 by much? Thanks for the info btw.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Danderman on 01/17/2014 08:05 pm
Kerosene systems are cheaper than the alternative, but they don't seem to want to look at that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/17/2014 08:31 pm
Quote from: Danderman
Kerosene systems are cheaper than the alternative, but they don't seem to want to look at that.

The second part is simply not true. Kerosene/Methane systems were certainly looked at.

Spacediver said LH2/Solid/Kerosene versions had almost the same recurrent costs.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/17/2014 08:56 pm
Kerosene systems are cheaper than the alternative, but they don't seem to want to look at that.
They did look at kerosene and methane powered options. Methane proved more promising, kerosene never got as far in the trade studies, likely because both propellants required a start from scratch for Europe and methane performs better.

According to Spacediver, as well as some older ESA presentations, kerosene, methane, solid and H2 all had similar recurring cost. Europe has more experience with solids and H2, so those were the most promising options from the start.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Danderman on 01/17/2014 09:26 pm
Unless they actually looked at program lifetime costs for kerosene vs other fuels, they didn't really look at kerosene.

I am sure that using propellants they are familiar with is cheaper at the beginning, locking yourself into a more expensive system to save some upfront costs is not a wise decision.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/17/2014 09:41 pm
Quote from: Danderman
Unless they actually looked at program lifetime costs for kerosene vs other fuels, they didn't really look at kerosene.

There are numerous documents proving otherwise.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/17/2014 09:45 pm
Unless they actually looked at program lifetime costs for kerosene vs other fuels, they didn't really look at kerosene.

I am sure that using propellants they are familiar with is cheaper at the beginning, locking yourself into a more expensive system to save some upfront costs is not a wise decision.
They did. Little difference. Methane, kerosene, solid and LH2 all were similar in recurring cost. Solids and LH2 had lower dev costs and better timelines. With solids having synergies with Vega, the winner became clear.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Danderman on 01/17/2014 09:51 pm
Methane, kerosene, solid and LH2 all were similar in recurring cost.

This is one of the amazing statements I have seen in quite a while.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/17/2014 10:05 pm
Quote from: Danderman
This is one of the amazing statements I have seen in quite a while.

Why? There is nothing amazing about it. In fact its kind of obvious looking at all the different rocket configurations flying worldwide. There is no silver bullet.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 01/17/2014 11:06 pm
Methane, kerosene, solid and LH2 all were similar in recurring cost.

This is one of the amazing statements I have seen in quite a while.
I suspect that any rocket design that they tried was "overhead heavy". Kerolox has been shown to be the cheapest alternative internationally. But the environmental laws are extremelly draconian, too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Avron on 01/17/2014 11:13 pm
Quote from: Danderman
Unless they actually looked at program lifetime costs for kerosene vs other fuels, they didn't really look at kerosene.

There are numerous documents proving otherwise.

You folks talking Human  potential or just cargo, just stepped in here, please forgive?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/17/2014 11:24 pm
Quote from: baldusi
Kerolox has been shown to be the cheapest alternative internationally.

Not least because of the supply of russian SC kerolox engines. I doubt those engines would be cheap to develop and produce in the west.

Quote from: Avron
You folks talking Human  potential or just cargo, just stepped in here, please forgive?

Cargo.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Danderman on 01/17/2014 11:41 pm
What rockets are the cheapest to operate in the world?

Soyuz.

SpaceX.

What fuel do they use?

I rest my case.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Silmfeanor on 01/17/2014 11:49 pm
What rockets are the cheapest to operate in the world?

Soyuz.

SpaceX.

What fuel do they use?

I rest my case.

Ah, so what about the cost of building up a new knowledge base and expertise, state-subsidized military grunt labor, industrial capability, new infrastructures needed (or not needed) and the gigantic range in different ways to run a company (or state-owned launchers), let alone economy of scale and the like?
Must be because of the propellants!

Let's not get too much offtopic. The analysis has been done. Do you have any evidence that it is cheaper for ESA to go to LOX/RP1 for ariane 6, taking things like industrial base, commonality, expertise and the like in account?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 01/18/2014 12:32 am
At least Argentina is going from zero to kerolox. But the truth is that developing the RP-1 infrastructure is simple. There's a lot of experience in handling kerosen, and most equipment can be bought off the shelf. The kerosen has a long shelf life compared to any cryo, and is probably the cheapest to transport. Doing a GG kerolox is probably the cheapest development you can do.
I do remember the few papers I read, and none did a good job at justifying the ongoing cost nor the development effort.
For exaple, they either kept copying the solid or H2 concepts but just swapped the fuel. Obviously little or no cost was saved.
What I meant, is that they always assumed either super expensive SC or the GG are puny. If they had used a 20% more powerful kerolox GG and applied the extra performance to trade margin for cost, it could be done.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Avron on 01/18/2014 12:43 am
At least Argentina is going from zero to kerolox. But the truth is that developing the RP-1 infrastructure is simple. There's a lot of experience in handling kerosen, and most equipment can be bought off the shelf. The kerosen has a long shelf life compared to any cryo, and is probably the cheapest to transport. Doing a GG kerolox is probably the cheapest development you can do.
I do remember the few papers I read, and none did a good job at justifying the ongoing cost nor the development effort.
For exaple, they either kept copying the solid or H2 concepts but just swapped the fuel. Obviously little or no cost was saved.
What I meant, is that they always assumed either super expensive SC or the GG are puny. If they had used a 20% more powerful kerolox GG and applied the extra performance to trade margin for cost, it could be done.

OT - Argentina is not going anyplace quickly with zero forex ..

I don't see a more cheap/simple solution if you just want a rocket , than to use solids.. its proven tech from 1232 ok maybe not the "black powder" type, so I think it would be beneficial for Ariane 6 to make use of ATK tech   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 01/18/2014 12:47 am
What rockets are the cheapest to operate in the world?

Soyuz.

SpaceX.

What fuel do they use?

I rest my case.
For its payload class Zenit is pretty cheap, too. It was designed by the Russians trying to make it cheap. And the Falcon 9 is sort of very similar, even on ops.
But cheapest are usually military surplus (Minotaur, Dnpr or Kosmos) or extremely cheap labor (PSLV).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/18/2014 12:52 am
Quote from: baldusi
But the truth is that developing the RP-1 infrastructure is simple. There's a lot of experience in handling kerosen, and most equipment can be bought off the shelf. The kerosen has a long shelf life compared to any cryo, and is probably the cheapest to transport. Doing a GG kerolox is probably the cheapest development you can do.

Arianespace operates Soyuz besides Ariane/Vega, so I doubt RP-1 infrastructure was a big unknown in the decision making process.

You make a good point with the GG kerolox engines. I've never seen a NGL (Ariane 6) concept with hydrocarbon GG engines. They were all SC.

For their newer rockets (after Soyuz) the Russians did not use GG engines anymore either.

Quote from: baldusi
For its payload class Zenit is pretty cheap, too.

I would say labor in the Ukraine is pretty cheap too, probably cheaper than in Russia.

Quote from: Avron
...it would be beneficial for Ariane 6 to make use of ATK tech   

The technology in the A6 solids has already been proven with Vega.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hop on 01/18/2014 01:03 am
What rockets are the cheapest to operate in the world?

Soyuz.

SpaceX.

What fuel do they use?

I rest my case.

A very weak case.

1) You didn't present evidence they are actually the cheapest to operate. How much do PSLV, Dnepr, Tsyklon or the various Long March flavors cost to operate?
2) Atlas 5 uses Kerosene, but isn't exactly cheap. Heck, it's not clear Soyuz from Kourou is particularly cheap either (edit: and to the extent it is, the fact the rocket is produced with Russian labor is likely significant).
3) Other factors obviously play a big role. Soyuz benefits from mass production and long ago paid off infrastructure. It's clear that SpaceX has a more streamlined operation than many other LV providers, which would give them an advantage regardless of propellent.

I'm a fan of Lox/Kero myself, but I don't see any unambiguous evidence that propellent choice is a dominant factor in LV pricing, and I see a lot of evidence that other factors are more important.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Danderman on 01/18/2014 02:40 am
In business, it is generally to take a hit up front in terms of one time costs, in order to save money on recurring costs.

The Space Shuttle is a classic case of doing the opposite - saving money on development, and paying out hugely over decades of high ops costs.

Apart from the low cost of kerosene rockets, there are also lower lifetime costs in terms of nasty hypergolic propellants, someone has got to pay for the cleanup. And solids have some environmental costs.  This is not to say that kerosene is completely clean, but its cleanup costs at end of program are lower than most alternatives.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/18/2014 10:33 am
In business, it is generally to take a hit up front in terms of one time costs, in order to save money on recurring costs.

The Space Shuttle is a classic case of doing the opposite - saving money on development, and paying out hugely over decades of high ops costs.

Apart from the low cost of kerosene rockets, there are also lower lifetime costs in terms of nasty hypergolic propellants, someone has got to pay for the cleanup. And solids have some environmental costs.  This is not to say that kerosene is completely clean, but its cleanup costs at end of program are lower than most alternatives.
And hydrogen is far, far cleaner than kerosene, hypergolic or solids, with far better performance.

You really don't have a very strong case here. Some of the cheapest rockets in the world in cost/kg use hypergolic fuels, like Proton, the Long March family or PSLV, while some of the most expensive rockets in the world like Atlas V use kerosene. If there is anything that determines the cost of a launcher, it's complexity and the labor costs involved. That's what makes Soyuz and Falcon 9 cheap. Not the propellant. Kerosene was evaluated by ESA and found to have little advantage over solid or hydrogen.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 01/18/2014 01:19 pm
Hydrogen production is extremely contaminant. And you usually you need a local plant. And yes, H2 is more expensive than RP-1, both to develop and to operate, not to mention GSE. The "cheap" hypergolics are legacy systems in countries where contamination is not an issue and labor is dirty cheap. And yet all the three of them are trying to get away from it as fast as they can.
But the phalacy of your argument is comparing whole systems to the inherent technologies. Nobody starts a clean sheet design with hypergolics. And the experience with H2 is always more expensive than RP-1. You keep mentioning Atlas V but fail to mention the even more expensive Delta IV and H-IIA. So, for same capability and labor cost, RP-1 always comes cheaper.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/18/2014 02:59 pm
^

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it more true. All fuels in use have advantages and disadvantages.

When comparing Atlas and Delta you have to take into account other factors than the fuel, for example the imported RD-180. To my knowledge Delta is only slightly more expensive anyway.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/18/2014 03:11 pm
Hydrogen production is extremely contaminant. And you usually you need a local plant. And yes, H2 is more expensive than RP-1, both to develop and to operate, not to mention GSE. The "cheap" hypergolics are legacy systems in countries where contamination is not an issue and labor is dirty cheap. And yet all the three of them are trying to get away from it as fast as they can.
But the phalacy of your argument is comparing whole systems to the inherent technologies. Nobody starts a clean sheet design with hypergolics. And the experience with H2 is always more expensive than RP-1. You keep mentioning Atlas V but fail to mention the even more expensive Delta IV and H-IIA. So, for same capability and labor cost, RP-1 always comes cheaper.
The difference between Atlas V and Delta IV is pretty minimal, and most of it is because ULA has to pay Boeing a lot for every core to pay of development, combined with the Russian RD-180 engine on Atlas V.

The reason kerosene is usually cheaper is because of different design philosophies. The Russians like their kerosene, and of course their rockets are cheaper, because Russian labor is cheaper. They haven't built a hydrogen rocket yet because they don't have the money to develop it. But look at the US, and look at ESA studies, and you'll see the difference between kerosene and hydrogen for cost alone really isn't that big. There are many other factors involved and propellant alone isn't enough to base it on. In fact, from what I've seen in some older ESA papers, hydrogen usually had the advantage as the higher performance meant less engines were required, improving reliability and cost.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 01/18/2014 03:44 pm
Made up numbers. Hydrogen ground support equipment is more expensive, fuel production is more expensive, tankage is more expensive, valves are orders of magnitude more expensive, piping is more expensive, presurization system is more expensive. Only reason ESA's overly expensive studies found H2 cheaper was because they assumed an evolved Vulcain. And they use "engineering optimization" model to minimize launch dry mass, rather than cost.
Look at the MT proposal to see what I mean. Do a GG kerolox and start with bad specs. You'll need a 20% bigger rocket, but you can trade mass and design margin all over for cost.
Of course, all this discussion is for first stage use. Upper stages are a whole different analysis.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/18/2014 04:04 pm
Made up numbers. Hydrogen ground support equipment is more expensive, fuel production is more expensive, tankage is more expensive, valves are orders of magnitude more expensive, piping is more expensive, presurization system is more expensive. Only reason ESA's overly expensive studies found H2 cheaper was because they assumed an evolved Vulcain. And they use "engineering optimization" model to minimize launch dry mass, rather than cost.
Look at the MT proposal to see what I mean. Do a GG kerolox and start with bad specs. You'll need a 20% bigger rocket, but you can trade mass and design margin all over for cost.
Of course, all this discussion is for first stage use. Upper stages are a whole different analysis.

According to spacediver, the difference in recurring cost between PPH, multi-P, HH and a "KH" concept, with kerosene first stage and hydrogen upper stage, was minimal. Recurring cost, not development cost. The difference isn't massive, and kerosene is not necessarily the superior option.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/18/2014 04:56 pm
One must add that the upper stage engine was pretty much fixed with Vinci, at least in later studies (from what I have seen). Vinci has rather low thrust (18t). That requires the first stage to deliver lots of delta v.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Danderman on 01/18/2014 05:04 pm
One must add that the upper stage engine was pretty much fixed with Vinci, at least in later studies (from what I have seen). Vinci has rather low thrust (18t). That requires the first stage to deliver lots of delta v.

In aerospace, there is a saying that 90% of the costs of a program are incurred in the first 10%.

In this case, levying the requirement that "second stage must be powered by Vinci" is going to drive the design.

However, it should be noted that kerosene first stages like the Antares first stage can provide a lot of delta-V.

I would imagine that the option of "license build the Antares first stage" did not exist in this study.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/18/2014 05:05 pm

I would imagine that the option of "license build the Antares first stage" did not exist in this study.
The Antares first stage couldn't reach the 6.5 ton goal.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/18/2014 05:25 pm
Quote from: Danderman
In this case, levying the requirement that "second stage must be powered by Vinci" is going to drive the design.

Well I don't think it was an explicit requirement, but its a fine engine, if you have it you wanna use it.

Quote from: Danderman
I would imagine that the option of "license build the Antares first stage" did not exist in this study.

If I remember correctly the OHB "KH" configuration had 4 NK-33 type engines in the first stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hop on 01/18/2014 07:22 pm
In business, it is generally to take a hit up front in terms of one time costs, in order to save money on recurring costs.
In general that is often true, but the details matter. If you know you are only going to have a small production run, investing lots up front to bring your per unit cost can easily increase the total cost.
Quote
Apart from the low cost of kerosene rockets, there are also lower lifetime costs in terms of nasty hypergolic propellants, someone has got to pay for the cleanup. And solids have some environmental costs.
All of this is true, but it doesn't actually make the case that propellent choice is a significant driver of program cost, or that that it would outweigh the other constraints in the specific case of Ariane 6. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't but to know with any sort of confidence, you would need go a lot deeper than saying "F9 and Soyuz are cheap, therefore anything other than kerosene is a bad choice"
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars_J on 01/26/2014 01:33 am
This article - linked in the Ariane 5ME thread - has some interesting information regarding Ariane 6 contracting:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39156esa-puts-price-tag-on-ariane-5-me-completion

Some quotes:
Quote
"Unlike past ESA development projects, Ariane 6 is being designed by industry to meet cost and technical requirements without regard for where the work is conducted. ESA’s contract pillar — geographic return guaranteeing governments that the money they spend at ESA will be returned in the form of contracts to their national industry — has been tossed aside for Ariane 6.

“I have given industry total carte blanche on this,” Dordain said. “I want them to tell me the best way of moving forward, with no constraints.”

Once the rocket’s design and cost have been deemed acceptable by ESA, the agency will approach those governments whose companies are on the winning proposal team and ask for financing.

“Basically, I will go to those member states and say, ‘Good news: Your industry has been selected as among the best for Ariane 6. The bad news is that now you’re going to have to pay for it,’” Dordain said."
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 01/26/2014 07:57 pm

Quote from: spacediver
These numbers are outdated. They are from RFC (request for consultation).
Now we have the RFP (request for proposal) documents.
The new numbers:
Length 11,5m
Diameter 3,5m
Propellant mass 145t
Casing mass 8,7t incl. insulation

Spacediver

Ah, I remember, you're the liquid guy. Still convinced solids are the wrong choice and 70m per launch is unrealistic?

 :)


More than ever Oli, more than ever!
With the change to P145, the cost increase, according to our NELS cost model, shows that our HH concept (3 x Vulcain 3 in the first stage, cost optimized version of Vulcain 2) is now even a little cheaper in RC cost than the current A6.

To what I hear from colleagues in industry, DLR and ESA there is a struggle going on in ESA launcher directorate about going solid or liquid. Ministerial conference 2014 will show!

Spacediver 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/26/2014 09:16 pm

Quote from: spacediver
These numbers are outdated. They are from RFC (request for consultation).
Now we have the RFP (request for proposal) documents.
The new numbers:
Length 11,5m
Diameter 3,5m
Propellant mass 145t
Casing mass 8,7t incl. insulation

Spacediver

Ah, I remember, you're the liquid guy. Still convinced solids are the wrong choice and 70m per launch is unrealistic?

 :)


More than ever Oli, more than ever!
With the change to P145, the cost increase, according to our NELS cost model, shows that our HH concept (3 x Vulcain 3 in the first stage, cost optimized version of Vulcain 2) is now even a little cheaper in RC cost than the current A6.

To what I hear from colleagues in industry, DLR and ESA there is a struggle going on in ESA launcher directorate about going solid or liquid. Ministerial conference 2014 will show!

Spacediver
Can the design still be changed? I thought it was pretty much set in stone.

Also, why the increase in size? It seemed like Ariane 6 could easily reach the payload goals.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/27/2014 04:59 am
Quote from: spacediver
With the change to P145, the cost increase, according to our NELS cost model, shows that our HH concept (3 x Vulcain 3 in the first stage, cost optimized version of Vulcain 2) is now even a little cheaper in RC cost than the current A6.

Would the HH concept allow for the same level of competition between component suppliers?

Quote from: M129K
Can the design still be changed? I thought it was pretty much set in stone.

They may postpone Ariane 6, but I doubt there is time for getting industry proposals for a new concept until the november conference.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/27/2014 07:41 am

Quote from: spacediver
These numbers are outdated. They are from RFC (request for consultation).
Now we have the RFP (request for proposal) documents.
The new numbers:
Length 11,5m
Diameter 3,5m
Propellant mass 145t
Casing mass 8,7t incl. insulation

Spacediver

Ah, I remember, you're the liquid guy. Still convinced solids are the wrong choice and 70m per launch is unrealistic?

 :)


More than ever Oli, more than ever!
With the change to P145, the cost increase, according to our NELS cost model, shows that our HH concept (3 x Vulcain 3 in the first stage, cost optimized version of Vulcain 2) is now even a little cheaper in RC cost than the current A6.

To what I hear from colleagues in industry, DLR and ESA there is a struggle going on in ESA launcher directorate about going solid or liquid. Ministerial conference 2014 will show!

Spacediver
Can the design still be changed? I thought it was pretty much set in stone.

Also, why the increase in size? It seemed like Ariane 6 could easily reach the payload goals.
The PPH concept for Ariane 6 was confirmed as the preferred configuration during the 2012 ESA Ministerial Council. Official selection of the PPH configuration took place in july 2013.

The Prelimary Requirements Review (PRR), based on the PPH configuration, was concluded in November 2013.
The end of the Design Analysis Cycle 1 (DAC-1) is planned for this coming February. DAC cycles are there to iron the major quircks out of the basic design. DAC-2 is planned to start this coming March.

The results of DAC-2 will be direct input for the Systems Requirements Review (SRR). SRR is planned for October/November 2014.

Put in short: the choice for Solid or Liquid was made over a year ago, but not yet set in stone. It only becomes more-or-less irreversible until completion of the SRR. (next step after SRR is Preliminary Design Review).
So yes, theoretically, ESA could still change course from solid to liquid. But it all comes down to who is willing to pay the biggest share in Ariane 6: Germany (heavy in favor of liquid option) or France (solid all the way).

IMO: my bet is on France (and thus a solid config for Ariane 6). Germany already got what they wanted by means of Ariane 5 ME and the ESM in the 2012 Ministerial conference. France will seek payback-time in the 2014 Ministerial Conference and they will get it: PPH config for Ariane 6, regardless of the struggle going on in the ESA launcher directorate. But, that's just my personal opinion.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/27/2014 09:05 am
Quote from: woods170
...France (solid all the way)...

Maybe someone could explain to me why France should be biased towards solids.

A5 core stage integration is in France (Astrium) as well as Vulcain 2 assembly (Snecma). And the fuel comes from Air Liquide.

For the solids its the nozzles and the propellant (Herakles).

The commonality with solids for military use does not seem to be that big, although there probably is with Vega.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/27/2014 11:56 am
Quote from: woods170
...France (solid all the way)...

Maybe someone could explain to me why France should be biased towards solids.
CNES is the big player in the French contribution to ESA. And CNES is very biased towards solids. Don't know why, it just is.
And yes, I find this strange as well. France does have very significant interests in the liquid propulsion component of A5. And the same applied to Ariane 1 thru 4.  So why exactly CNES is now very much pushing solid propulsion remains a bit of a mystery.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/27/2014 12:15 pm
Quote from: woods170
...France (solid all the way)...

Maybe someone could explain to me why France should be biased towards solids.
CNES is the big player in the French contribution to ESA. And CNES is very biased towards solids. Don't know why, it just is.
And yes, I find this strange as well. France does have very significant interests in the liquid propulsion component of A5. And the same applied to Ariane 1 thru 4.  So why exactly CNES is now very much pushing solid propulsion remains a bit of a mystery.

My theories :)

1) There are more companies who can build components for the solid A6. With a liquid version they're probably stuck with Airbus and Snecma. In other words, the solid version allows for more competition and lower cost.

2) There seems to be promising research in the field of refrigerated solid propellants (or cryogenic solids). Apparently the expected isp for those propellants is between 355s and 375s against 315s for HTPB/AP/Al. That would basically enable solid-only TSTO rockets. So solids may actually be the future.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hauerg on 01/27/2014 12:22 pm
Over here the argument still seems to be to "protect" the (French) technology base for ICBMs.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/27/2014 12:40 pm
Over here the argument still seems to be to "protect" the (French) technology base for ICBMs.

Well you're probably right. I guess they want to employ those people somehow.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/27/2014 12:49 pm
Over here the argument still seems to be to "protect" the (French) technology base for ICBMs.

That industrial base is of strategic importance and will be protected anyway. If the only goal is to preserve a European launch capability for institutional payloads, then PPH is fine, especially because it has synergy with French nuclear missiles and with Vega.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 01/27/2014 01:08 pm
According to an OHB paper presented at IAC 2013, solids are better cost-wise if the number of launch does not reach the target of 9/year. With SpaceX and others coming to the market, Arianespace's market share will probably go down so solids seem to be the smarter choice.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/27/2014 01:46 pm
According to an OHB paper presented at IAC 2013, solids are better cost-wise if the number of launch does not reach the target of 9/year. With SpaceX and others coming to the market, Arianespace's market share will probably go down so solids seem to be the smarter choice.

Hi there :)

You probably cannot post the paper, but maybe you can explain the scoring system in more detail and which versions actually won on "exploitation costs". See pics attached. Thanks.

The internet is awesome ;)

Source: http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/15728-ariane-6/page-6
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/27/2014 01:58 pm
According to an OHB paper presented at IAC 2013, solids are better cost-wise if the number of launch does not reach the target of 9/year. With SpaceX and others coming to the market, Arianespace's market share will probably go down so solids seem to be the smarter choice.
That'd pretty much be giving up, wouldn't it?

The argument of lower fixed costs is a sound one though. Should launch rate go down, they're cheaper. On the othr hand, one might argue that using solids might cause more development risk, therefore more delays, causing a larger market share loss and pretty much forcing the lower launch rate.

My opinion used to be in favor of the P7C concept. However, lately I've started to change my mind about it. In part because the mass increase of P7C to P145 stages shows a first sign of what I like to call the "Ares V" process, where the concept keeps growing and growing resulting in higher cost.

Also, should a competitor achieve partial reusability, it would be difficult to incorporate that into the P7C design. The HH with three engines, however, would keep more options open for this. The future outlook for solids isn't as good.

In any case, the most affordable system should win, but with this recent increase in mass (which would also make synergies with Vega even more difficult) I don't think P7C is still competitive with an in-line PPH or HH design, or even an HH design with strap-ons.

Therefore, I keep my fingers crossed Germany will win at the next meeting in favor of liquids.

Just my €0.02.

By the way, does anyone have a link to the agenda points for the next ministerial meeting?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 01/27/2014 04:30 pm
According to an OHB paper presented at IAC 2013, solids are better cost-wise if the number of launch does not reach the target of 9/year. With SpaceX and others coming to the market, Arianespace's market share will probably go down so solids seem to be the smarter choice.

Hi there :)

You probably cannot post the paper, but maybe you can explain the scoring system in more detail and which versions actually won on "exploitation costs". See pics attached. Thanks.

The internet is awesome ;)

Well you seem to know the article better than I do, it does say PPH is the only option which can work without subsidies and can meet the 70M€/launch cost target.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Stephan on 01/27/2014 06:04 pm
Over here the argument still seems to be to "protect" the (French) technology base for ICBMs.
And that's mostly wrong, very little synergy ...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars_J on 01/27/2014 06:25 pm
Isn't Italy another strong supporter of Solids, and a significant part of the push to make Ariane 6 primarily solid? They make the first two stages for Vega, and there appears to be some synergy planned between Ariane 6 and Vega.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/28/2014 02:29 am
Quote from: gosnold
Well you seem to know the article better than I do, it does say PPH is the only option which can work without subsidies and can meet the 70M€/launch cost target.

Nah, only found the pics on the internet. The PPH seems to be the winner overall, but we don't know the scoring system so its difficult to tell by how much. The KH comes in second and the HH third.

Problem is, solids are probably a dead end in the long term, so I don't think it makes sense to go along that route if its only a few bucks cheaper.

In any case, OHB is a German company so a French conspiracy can be ruled out ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 01/28/2014 02:49 am
I'll keep my posture that they'll only make it final if SpaceX fails to return a first stage by the next Ministerial Meeting.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 01/28/2014 09:21 am
Here is the weight system used in the article, PPH has a bigger lead in the exploitation cost than in the final result.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/28/2014 09:48 am
Here is the weight system used in the article, PPH has a bigger lead in the exploitation cost than in the final result.

Thanks, do you know whether the KH version uses an existing russian engine (NK-33)? Spacediver mentioned something along those lines in an earlier post. Here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30749.msg1000469#msg1000469

If not it looks like a viable alternative to PPH.

Quote from: M129K
My opinion used to be in favor of the P7C concept. However, lately I've started to change my mind about it. In part because the mass increase of P7C to P145 stages shows a first sign of what I like to call the "Ares V" process, where the concept keeps growing and growing resulting in higher cost.

Dordain mentioned they're looking into dual launch of smaller satellites, maybe they need slightly more performance for that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 01/28/2014 11:39 am
May be this allowed a single Vega evolution to put a Galileo on orbit? May be they added a bit of mass to the solid to trade for US efficiency and save conversion work from Ariane 5 ME? May be it was required to give an inline version enough performance to be relevant?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/28/2014 12:20 pm
Over here the argument still seems to be to "protect" the (French) technology base for ICBMs.
And that's mostly wrong, very little synergy ...
True.

I had a similar conversation around the SRBs with the Shuttle and Areas as it was. I suggested mfg them in multiple pours and storing them upright in the Utah desert (of which there is quite a lot  :) ) The reply was "Can't be done, SRB composition slumps over time, unlike ICBM blend, which is designed that way."

I learned then that anyone playing the "defense" card for LV SRBs is talking nonsense. Beyond consisting of a case loaded with a solid monopropellant mixture they are completely different beasts in terms of chemistry. :(

Isn't Italy another strong supporter of Solids, and a significant part of the push to make Ariane 6 primarily solid? They make the first two stages for Vega, and there appears to be some synergy planned between Ariane 6 and Vega.
True. They also cast most of the SRB and (AFAIK) Vega segments on site (except those with the nozzles and actuators).

BTW I think ESA have changed the funding rules on Ariane 6. Work share is less directly tied to who funds it. I think funding is set by size of state, but work by capabilities. Realistically that means Germany and France will provide most of the cash, Italy most of the work.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 01/28/2014 01:01 pm
I believe that previously each country said how much they wanted to contribute and then they had to give back that amount in industrial share. Now they are going to get the best quote and ask each country to fund for that amount. The difference in pricing can be quite dramatic.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/28/2014 01:21 pm
Here is the weight system used in the article, PPH has a bigger lead in the exploitation cost than in the final result.
Which version of PPH is this? The P1B, P7C, or in-line PPH variant?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 01/28/2014 02:15 pm
Since several people are interested in the article, here it is.

I believe that previously each country said how much they wanted to contribute and then they had to give back that amount in industrial share. Now they are going to get the best quote and ask each country to fund for that amount. The difference in pricing can be quite dramatic.
That's what Dordain said:
Quote
“Basically, I will go to those member states and say, ‘Good news: Your industry has been selected as among the best for Ariane 6. The bad news is that now you’re going to have to pay for it,’”
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 01/28/2014 02:19 pm
Here is the weight system used in the article, PPH has a bigger lead in the exploitation cost than in the final result.
Which version of PPH is this? The P1B, P7C, or in-line PPH variant?

The OHB article refers to the inline PPH with 1xP340 and 1xP110 in the lower compartment.
The only PPH variant that was a bit closer to the 70M€ target but with lots of uncertainties.
It is still doubtful whether the manufacturing of a segmented CFRP-casing in the size required for a P340 is feasible.

All other PPH versions (including Multi-P, aka A6) that we investigated were much more expensive due to the higher number of propulsive modules and therefore closer to HH and KH in RC cost.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/28/2014 02:31 pm
Here is the weight system used in the article, PPH has a bigger lead in the exploitation cost than in the final result.
Which version of PPH is this? The P1B, P7C, or in-line PPH variant?

The OHB article refers to the inline PPH with 1xP340 and 1xP110 in the lower compartment.
The only PPH variant that was close to the 70M€ target but with lots of uncertainties.
It is still doubtful whether the manufacturing of a segmented CFRP-casing in the size required for a P340 is feasible.

All other PPH versions (including Multi-P, aka A6) that we investigated were much more expensive due to the higher number of propulsive modules and therefore closer to HH and KH in RC cost.

Spacediver
Thank you. But didn't you say before that PPH and HH were "nearly identical" in cost, or did you simply say that because the higher risk compensated for the lower cost?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 01/28/2014 02:39 pm
It would seem that OHB assumed that the kerosene propulsion would be imported? And also it was not very clear what solid system they were aiming for. In particular, no system was able to compete with Falcon 9 on GTO.
What's worse, it totally forgets the SSO market, which is the actual critical market for most European science missions. If they can't compete with Falcon 9, they'll have most national agencies going to USA (which is already happening).
As always, bad optimization parameters give bad solutions. How many European missions are GTO and how many are SSO?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 01/28/2014 02:48 pm
Here is the weight system used in the article, PPH has a bigger lead in the exploitation cost than in the final result.
Which version of PPH is this? The P1B, P7C, or in-line PPH variant?

The OHB article refers to the inline PPH with 1xP340 and 1xP110 in the lower compartment.
The only PPH variant that was close to the 70M€ target but with lots of uncertainties.
It is still doubtful whether the manufacturing of a segmented CFRP-casing in the size required for a P340 is feasible.

All other PPH versions (including Multi-P, aka A6) that we investigated were much more expensive due to the higher number of propulsive modules and therefore closer to HH and KH in RC cost.

Spacediver
Thank you. But didn't you say before that PPH and HH were "nearly identical" in cost, or did you simply say that because the higher risk compensated for the lower cost?

Then I refered to the Multi-P version of the PPH concept because the inline-version was, at least at that time, not a feasible alternative because of the technical challenges I mentionned before.
Unfortunately a lot of people (also from ESA) often refer to the PPH concept without taking into account that there are a lot of different PPH concepts.
Often confusing...
In NELS we investigated four basically different versions of the PPH. The inline was the cheapest of them and closest to the 70M€ target (but still exceeded it by a considerable amount), the Multi-P was about the same cost as HH and KH while the other ones were much more expensive than HH / KH.
KH with 4xNK33 could have been the cheapest and probably meet the 70M but cost to assure availability of the engines(strategic stock etc.) increased cost considerably.
A domestic (European) hydrocarbon engine could be game changing but not viable due to the "first flight in 2020" requirement.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 01/28/2014 03:05 pm
For SSO Vega is available, and upgrades are considered. A scaled-up Vega with a P145 for A6 commonality and accordingly bigger stages could launch 1.5*145/80=2.7T SSO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/28/2014 03:17 pm
Then I refered to the Multi-P version of the PPH concept because the inline-version was, at least at that time, not a feasible alternative because of the technical challenges I mentionned before.
Unfortunately a lot of people (also from ESA) often refer to the PPH concept without taking into account that there are a lot of different PPH concepts.
Often confusing...
In NELS we investigated four basically different versions of the PPH. The inline was the cheapest of them and closest to the 70M€ target (but still exceeded it by a considerable amount), the Multi-P was about the same cost as HH and KH while the other ones were much more expensive than HH / KH.
KH with 4xNK33 could have been the cheapest and probably meet the 70M but cost to assure availability of the engines(strategic stock etc.) increased cost considerably.
A domestic (European) hydrocarbon engine could be game changing but not viable due to the "first flight in 2020" requirement.

Spacediver
Thanks for the explanation. Reading this, I can hardly say I'm surprised Multi-P was selected. The last three concepts all had strap-ons except for Multi-P. I guess the 3.5 ton GTO performance was very important?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/28/2014 03:25 pm
Quote from: spacediver
It is still doubtful whether the manufacturing of a segmented CFRP-casing in the size required for a P340 is feasible.

ATK's Dark Knights are segmented.

Quote from: spacediver
KH with 4xNK33 could have been the cheapest and probably meet the 70M but cost to assure availability of the engines (strategic stock etc.) increased cost considerably. A domestic (European) hydrocarbon engine could be game changing but not viable due to the "first flight in 2020" requirement.

But a domestic NK-33 would probably be more expensive, right? (not considering strategic stock costs for NK-33).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 01/28/2014 03:27 pm
Quote from: spacediver
It is still doubtful whether the manufacturing of a segmented CFRP-casing in the size required for a P340 is feasible.

ATK's Dark Knights are segmented.
I have a feeling he means unsegmented. Making such a booster segmented is easy, but making it monolithic to cut costs is not.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 01/28/2014 04:09 pm
KH with 4xNK33 could have been the cheapest and probably meet the 70M but cost to assure availability of the engines(strategic stock etc.) increased cost considerably.
A domestic (European) hydrocarbon engine could be game changing but not viable due to the "first flight in 2020" requirement.
What about a licensed production of NK-33A or RD-181? Something like Atlas V or Antares contract? You could start with the foreign production and move to Europe if you wanted to do it on at a later date. At least in NPO Energomash case, the already have the factory tooled for mass production. Of course, if I was going to license the engine, I would go with the RD-0162. It's already designed for reusability.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/29/2014 12:15 am
I believe that previously each country said how much they wanted to contribute and then they had to give back that amount in industrial share. Now they are going to get the best quote and ask each country to fund for that amount. The difference in pricing can be quite dramatic.
I wasn't sure of the details, but I got the impression the new rules shifted the balance of support for different concepts a lot.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/29/2014 06:43 am
What about a licensed production of NK-33A or RD-181? Something like Atlas V or Antares contract? You could start with the foreign production and move to Europe if you wanted to do it on at a later date. At least in NPO Energomash case, the already have the factory tooled for mass production. Of course, if I was going to license the engine, I would go with the RD-0162. It's already designed for reusability.

NK-33 is a no-go for any ESA launcher from day one. France and Germany will see to it that the main propulsion system on any new Ariane version will not be acquired from a non-ESA country. Using NK-33 in the KH concept was a nice idea (technically speaking) but a big No-No politically speaking. Even the less substantial fourth stage of Vega (currently engined by Ukraine) is under discussion right now with German efforts to replace this stage by an all-ESA stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/05/2014 01:48 am
Thought Vega Lyra program was a upgrade that was found unworkable.Ariane 5 at the moment is too small for lunar work and too big for satellite work so a dirt cheap launcher is needed bit of a pity really seeing as a fully reusable launcher is nearly doable.
 When the SLS starts launching things might change.

Seriously dont think that Ariane 5 will be decommissioned until Skylon gets built.Figure that most space agencies will have one big and one small launcher until some game changing equipment becomes available .

As for Space x their prices have risen pretty much as expected.If ESA wanted to cut costs of Ariane 5 they would have given the 3 billion needed for lunar exploration .

Will Ariane 6 ever be built or a small 5 ton skylon is anybody's guess..
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 02/05/2014 07:30 pm
Ariane 6 development is priced at 3-4 B€ by ESA, Skylon at 12B$(9B€) by REL.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/05/2014 07:39 pm
Ariane 6 development is priced at 3-4 B€ by ESA, Skylon at 12B$(9B€) by REL.

But skylon would save for more money in the long therm kinda like the difference between rich and poor .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/05/2014 07:46 pm
Thought Vega Lyra program was a upgrade that was found unworkable. Ariane 5 at the moment is too small for lunar work and too big for satellite work so a dirt cheap launcher is needed bit of a pity really seeing as a fully reusable launcher is nearly doable.
 When the SLS starts launching things might change.
I don't really understand what SLS has to do with this.

Quote
As for Space x their prices have risen pretty much as expected.If ESA wanted to cut costs of Ariane 5 they would have given the 3 billion needed for lunar exploration .
Again, a launcher for lunar exploration is not a way to cut costs. It would make the economic viability go down the drain, because you would lose the biggest market, which is satellites. It could be cheap for launching massive stuff to LEO, as bigger rockets usually have lower cost/kg if given the flight rate for it, but it really doesn't make economic sense in the current market.

A 5 ton Skylon would also be kind of pointless. 5 tons to LEO is lower than Soyuz and would make the GTO payload negligible.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/05/2014 08:59 pm

SLS is important because it will raise the gaze of some politicians. If NASA puts man on the moon again they will be a market to cut the price of a person to the moon until then any thought of cheap space flight will nev er gain funding   because people are quiet happy with the status quo.

The more Ariane 5 that are launched the cheaper each launch costs per flight.Every moon mission would have needed 4 to 6 Ariane 5s per lunar mission.Building a new launcher is only efficient if you do the mission in one go or should I say inefficient(SLS).

A 5 ton cargo plus 2-4 crew reusable shuttle is what ESA have wanted all along that means 10 to 11 tons unmanned (Hermes).

The launch market is saturated at the mo with too many launchers so a new market is needed .In reality the only market left to fill at the mo is people to the ISS which Space X have filled quiet well.Hopefully some new markets will open or the ISS crew will grow.
 Arianespace are going after the same market that they already have which is pretty pointless .Spending billions to do a job you are already the best in the world at while reducing flexibility is pretty silly .





Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/06/2014 12:57 pm
SLS is important because it will raise the gaze of some politicians. If NASA puts man on the moon again they will be a market to cut the price of a person to the moon until then any thought of cheap space flight will nev er gain funding   because people are quiet happy with the status quo.

Your reasoning is flawed. Putting a man back on the moon bij NASA will not create any incentive to cut the price-tag. Men back on the moon will be another political stunt (at best) if done by NASA or any other government space agency. The only way to cut the price tag of putting people on the moon is to do it commercially. The minute you get governments involved the price tag goes way up.

The more Ariane 5 that are launched the cheaper each launch costs per flight.Every moon mission would have needed 4 to 6 Ariane 5s per lunar mission.Building a new launcher is only efficient if you do the mission in one go or should I say inefficient(SLS).
What in the world has this ramble to do with Ariane 6 (or 5 for that matter)? Neither vehicle is suited to do (manned) lunar missions.

A 5 ton cargo plus 2-4 crew reusable shuttle is what ESA have wanted all along that means 10 to 11 tons unmanned (Hermes).
Baloney. ESA dumped Hermes a long time ago for very valid reasons: they did not actually need it and it was way too expensive as well as a technical nightmare. Not needed and too expensive still apply today.

The launch market is saturated at the mo with too many launchers so a new market is needed .In reality the only market left to fill at the mo is people to the ISS which Space X have filled quiet well.Hopefully some new markets will open or the ISS crew will grow.
In case you had not noticed: SpaceX is flying cargo, not people, to the ISS.

Arianespace are going after the same market that they already have which is pretty pointless .Spending billions to do a job you are already the best in the world at while reducing flexibility is pretty silly .
And this final statement of yours indicates just how little you grasp the developing situation in the launch business.
Within a decade Ariane 5 will no longer be a competitive launcher. If Arianespace wishes to remain a major player in the business, they better get themselves a (much) cheaper launcher.
Last: Ariane 5 is not a flexible launcher. Launch capacity is not scalable like it was on Ariane 4 and dual-launch has actually become a quite annoying necessity to keep launch cost down to reasonable levels.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/06/2014 01:18 pm
Btw, and this is the part that I don't get of the German position on Ariane 6, Ariane 5 is good only for GTO, L-Mission escape and ATV like. And after Galileo first deployment, it will be too expensive for replenishment.
Even ExoMars and JUICY found Ariane 5 too expensive. Copernicus will use Soyuz and Vega (plus some dnpr). I simply don't see Ariane 5 ME solving anything but milcomm for EU, while Falcon 9, Soyuz, Vega and Dnpr launch all the rest of the missions. How can the Germans not want something that can scale between a Soyuz-2.1a and an Atlas V 541 that would actually cover the actual range of payloads that they need.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/06/2014 01:57 pm
Btw, and this is the part that I don't get of the German position on Ariane 6, Ariane 5 is good only for GTO, L-Mission escape and ATV like. And after Galileo first deployment, it will be too expensive for replenishment.
Even ExoMars and JUICY found Ariane 5 too expensive. Copernicus will use Soyuz and Vega (plus some dnpr). I simply don't see Ariane 5 ME solving anything but milcomm for EU, while Falcon 9, Soyuz, Vega and Dnpr launch all the rest of the missions. How can the Germans not want something that can scale between a Soyuz-2.1a and an Atlas V 541 that would actually cover the actual range of payloads that they need.
Well, most of the payloads they need are commercial communications satellites. Ariane 5 ME will cost €1 billion and cut cost per kg by 20%, while Ariane 6 will cost about three to four times as much to cut cost by 30% per kg. And Ariane 5 ME is nearly guaranteed to have that particular cost saving, while Ariane 6 is a lot less sure. Considering that big rockets are usually cheaper per kg than small rockets, it's going to be very hard to actually achieve the cost goal. Understandably, they consider the need for Ariane 6 small, as the cost benefit isn't huge, while there is very little guarantee it will actually reach the promised cost target.

By the way, the current Ariane 6 design doesn't really provide the modularity you're talking about either. It can lift 6.5 tons to GTO with triple first stage and 3.4 with double first stage, and the double first stage variant hasn't been shown for a long time. H2C and P1B did provide it, but both of those were more expensive than P7C or had other disadvantages.

On top of that, ESA is a space agency, not a launcher agency. Should they really spend their nearly frozen budget on ever increasing launch vehicle development cost? I don't think so, and the DLR doesn't think so either.

Quote from: Woods170
Putting a man back on the moon bij NASA
Got your languages mixed up mate?  ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/06/2014 02:40 pm
Btw, and this is the part that I don't get of the German position on Ariane 6, Ariane 5 is good only for GTO, L-Mission escape and ATV like. And after Galileo first deployment, it will be too expensive for replenishment.
Even ExoMars and JUICY found Ariane 5 too expensive. Copernicus will use Soyuz and Vega (plus some dnpr). I simply don't see Ariane 5 ME solving anything but milcomm for EU, while Falcon 9, Soyuz, Vega and Dnpr launch all the rest of the missions. How can the Germans not want something that can scale between a Soyuz-2.1a and an Atlas V 541 that would actually cover the actual range of payloads that they need.
Well, most of the payloads they need are commercial communications satellites...
Here is where I get the issue. I don't see the commercial comm fleets as "national interest". I understand that the only GTO that's sovereign are the military comm. And I in that category you have all earth observation, Copernicus, Galileo and some escape missions. When I look at it GTO is a small fraction of total launches. Probably a small one even by revenue. Look at how they had to use the ES for Galileo and ended up a 30% more expensive than Soyuz. And only because they launch in fours, which can only be done on the fleet deployment but is not optimal for fleet replenishment.
In other words, save for those initial two or three ES launches (ME won't arrive in time), Ariane 5 is just too big for all the sovereign missions, save comm sats. And the truth about those latter is that since they can't articulate a common fleet, they the small nations going with American fleet, and only being able to afford a couple of sats per big nation, with insufficient global coverage, just to keep their national industries happy.
In  other words, I don't see how national payloads are counted towards GTO if half of their own GTO comm exports go to Russian launchers. And if SpaceX is successful it's quite probable that a bit more than half.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/06/2014 04:46 pm
The point is: do you really believe that Ariane 6 will cut only a single € of launch cost compared to A5 and Soyuz? If you don't believe it (I for one, don't), Ariane 6 just becomes an effort to sink 5 bn $ (yes, that's what it's going to cost in the end) into the loo.

For that kind of money you could get 20 A5 launches or you could subsidize a hundred launches to match SpaceX' pricing until you can come up with a better idea to lower costs. Or SpaceX' starts to rise, too.

And what exactly is so bad about flying Soyuz as a medium sized launcher?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/06/2014 04:47 pm
Here is where I get the issue. I don't see the commercial comm fleets as "national interest".

They are of "national interest" as long as they help reduce launch costs for institutional missions. If you launch only 2-3 times with Ariane 6 instead of 12 times that's gonna be expensive per launch. Even if a yearly subsidy of 100m euros or so is needed it still saves you money. I imagine the industry also prefers the higher launcher rate.

As you said, Ariane 5 is almost useless for institutional missions, although with A5 ECB up to 8 Galileo satellites could have been deployed, so its kind of stupid ECB (now ME) was delayed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/06/2014 06:14 pm
The point is: do you really believe that Ariane 6 will cut only a single € of launch cost compared to A5 and Soyuz? If you don't believe it (I for one, don't), Ariane 6 just becomes an effort to sink 5 bn $ (yes, that's what it's going to cost in the end) into the loo.

The biggest problem we have now is that the gap between Ariane 5 and Soyuz is really big. The current Ariane 6 design closes that gap.

This could raise the question whether we can make a version of Ariane 5 with smaller boosters to make it cheaper and more versatile. But judging from some old studies, it seems like that wouldn't be very practical or cost effective.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/06/2014 06:20 pm
This all doesn't make sense given the development costs for pretty much anything around Ariane.
The "gap" is not a problem, it's just expensive. But let it cost 50 mil€ too much per launch, does that justify a, say, 1bn € development effort if you only fly one payload the other year anyway? Just spend the 50 mil extra and be happy about the hundreds of millions you still saved.

Of course, a government agency that wants to do a development project doesn't think that way, which is the real problem at hand here.
The French want a project, the Germans want a project. The Germans already got theirs, now the French want theirs doubly so. That's the game. It has all absolutely nothing to do with real capabilities anybody needs let alone with money.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/06/2014 06:27 pm
Yup french pork pie at its best as I said before Soyuz is too small if they had a bigger rocket there wound be no need for Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/06/2014 08:38 pm
What still puzzles me is the cost estimate for development. 3-4bn euros. Let's compare that to

Ariane 5: 5.8bn euros (may have been more but that's a number I found). I get it, completely new launcher and new technology for Europe in almost every aspect.

Vega: 710m plus 400m to sponsor 5 development flights (Proba, IXV etc.). I get it, P80 etc., new solid rocket technology for launchers.

Ariane 5 ME: 1bn. New upper stage, in particular new engine.

Ariane 6: Pretty much proven technology, only one solid motor type to qualify, I guess that's why the particular design has been chosen. So why 3-4bn? I guess I don't understand rocket development.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/06/2014 09:30 pm
Yea, same here.
But the whole load regime is different, I'm not sure it's "just" a new motor and I'd expect the booster and scone stage motors to not be thaaaat common in the end.

And then there's a whole he ground infrastructure. New pads, new integration buildings,....
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/06/2014 10:18 pm
And then there's a whole he ground infrastructure. New pads, new integration buildings,....
The Ariane 5 ME included a new factory, for example, fot the new ME upper atage (ECB?). And upgrades to the engine testing stand, if I'm not mistaken.
Ariane 6 would have to include not only a new factory (unless Vega's is ridiculously oversied), but two new pads, two mobile assembly structures with all the necessary GSE and clean rooms.
Besides, to design one motor  for three different roles, would probably mean more than three the qualification effort. Not to mention that the last ATV-R study cost something like 80M Euros. So you have that, too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/07/2014 06:45 am
The point is: do you really believe that Ariane 6 will cut only a single € of launch cost compared to A5 and Soyuz? If you don't believe it (I for one, don't), Ariane 6 just becomes an effort to sink 5 bn $ (yes, that's what it's going to cost in the end) into the loo.

For that kind of money you could get 20 A5 launches or you could subsidize a hundred launches to match SpaceX' pricing until you can come up with a better idea to lower costs. Or SpaceX' starts to rise, too.

And what exactly is so bad about flying Soyuz as a medium sized launcher?

None of you seem to get it do you? This is not about competing with SpaceX or keeping market share. This is all about keeping the European launcher industry at work. This is all about keeping high technology expertise in Europe. It's all about political prestige for countries such as France and Germany. Remaining competitive and lowering the cost of launches are just the arguments used in the public debate to get the money to serve the before-mentioned actual goals.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/07/2014 06:47 am
Quote from: Woods170
Putting a man back on the moon bij NASA
Got your languages mixed up mate?  ;)
No, got a new keyboard with a (rather annoying) auto-correct feature set to the Dutch language. Have switched back to my old keyboard for now.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/07/2014 06:49 am
The French want a project, the Germans want a project. The Germans already got theirs, now the French want theirs doubly so. That's the game. It has all absolutely nothing to do with real capabilities anybody needs let alone with money.
BINGO!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/07/2014 06:52 am

Ariane 5: 5.8bn euros (may have been more but that's a number I found). I get it, completely new launcher and new technology for Europe in almost every aspect.

The corrected-for-inflation number that I have states a little over 7 billion Euros for A5 development (including G, G+, ES and ECA versions) So that is 7 billion Euros to get to the most powerfull version that exists today (Ariane 5 ECA).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simonbp on 02/07/2014 02:26 pm
NK-33 is a no-go for any ESA launcher from day one. France and Germany will see to it that the main propulsion system on any new Ariane version will not be acquired from a non-ESA country. Using NK-33 in the KH concept was a nice idea (technically speaking) but a big No-No politically speaking. Even the less substantial fourth stage of Vega (currently engined by Ukraine) is under discussion right now with German efforts to replace this stage by an all-ESA stage.

And that's the problem exactly. You can either have a cheap rocket, or you can protect the existing industrial base. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

ESA has chosen to protect the industrial base. Fine. But to then pretend that the rocket will be cheap is pure fantasy. I really doubt Ariane 6 will be cheaper for the customer than the current Ariane 5 on a $/kg to orbit basis.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/07/2014 03:07 pm
But it actually is an improvement. They are doing away with the ex-ante geo-return policy. So it will mean some serious consolidation within Europe. In that sense is probably good. It won't be good for the liquid propulsion induatrial base, though.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JMSC on 02/07/2014 03:24 pm
But it actually is an improvement. They are doing away with the ex-ante geo-return policy. So it will mean some serious consolidation within Europe. In that sense is probably good. It won't be good for the liquid propulsion induatrial base, though.

Just a question here, why not do away with the geo-return policy for Ariane V?  If you could save as much by doing away with the policy for the current version of Ariane V, why not do that and use the 3-5 billion euros to fund payloads for Ariane V?  Or is the reality in Europe that going ahead with a new launcher and hence new industrial organization is the only way to get nations to agree to do away with geo-return?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/07/2014 03:49 pm
Ariane 5 is already developed and suppliers are selected and have bee supplying components for years.
You could only change the industrial setup for the new components in A5ME and there you'd probably also be limited since, for example, the engine is already developed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/07/2014 04:06 pm
Ariane 5 is already developed and suppliers are selected and have bee supplying components for years.
You could only change the industrial setup for the new components in A5ME and there you'd probably also be limited since, for example, the engine is already developed....
... and being supplied by the usual suspects along with the usual suspects for the stage structure, electronics etc. etc.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/07/2014 04:07 pm
NK-33 is a no-go for any ESA launcher from day one. France and Germany will see to it that the main propulsion system on any new Ariane version will not be acquired from a non-ESA country. Using NK-33 in the KH concept was a nice idea (technically speaking) but a big No-No politically speaking. Even the less substantial fourth stage of Vega (currently engined by Ukraine) is under discussion right now with German efforts to replace this stage by an all-ESA stage.

And that's the problem exactly. You can either have a cheap rocket, or you can protect the existing industrial base. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

ESA has chosen to protect the industrial base. Fine. But to then pretend that the rocket will be cheap is pure fantasy. I really doubt Ariane 6 will be cheaper for the customer than the current Ariane 5 on a $/kg to orbit basis.
Correct, but that fantasy stuff is used to sell the launcher to the entities providing the money (tax payers of ESA member states thru their respective governments)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/07/2014 04:11 pm
NK-33 is a no-go for any ESA launcher from day one. France and Germany will see to it that the main propulsion system on any new Ariane version will not be acquired from a non-ESA country. Using NK-33 in the KH concept was a nice idea (technically speaking) but a big No-No politically speaking. Even the less substantial fourth stage of Vega (currently engined by Ukraine) is under discussion right now with German efforts to replace this stage by an all-ESA stage.

And that's the problem exactly. You can either have a cheap rocket, or you can protect the existing industrial base. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah but buying Russian engines isn't exactly a solution either, its just a temporary relief. I remember reading in this forum that a domestic RD-180 would cost 30-40m instead of less than 15m.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/07/2014 04:44 pm
NK-33 is a no-go for any ESA launcher from day one. France and Germany will see to it that the main propulsion system on any new Ariane version will not be acquired from a non-ESA country. Using NK-33 in the KH concept was a nice idea (technically speaking) but a big No-No politically speaking. Even the less substantial fourth stage of Vega (currently engined by Ukraine) is under discussion right now with German efforts to replace this stage by an all-ESA stage.

And that's the problem exactly. You can either have a cheap rocket, or you can protect the existing industrial base. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah but buying Russian engines isn't exactly a solution either, its just a temporary relief. I remember reading in this forum that a domestic RD-180 would cost 30-40m instead of less than 15m.

Correct. Labor and materials are relatively cheap in Russia. Not so in the USA or any of ESA member states.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JMSC on 02/07/2014 05:22 pm
NK-33 is a no-go for any ESA launcher from day one. France and Germany will see to it that the main propulsion system on any new Ariane version will not be acquired from a non-ESA country. Using NK-33 in the KH concept was a nice idea (technically speaking) but a big No-No politically speaking. Even the less substantial fourth stage of Vega (currently engined by Ukraine) is under discussion right now with German efforts to replace this stage by an all-ESA stage.

And that's the problem exactly. You can either have a cheap rocket, or you can protect the existing industrial base. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah but buying Russian engines isn't exactly a solution either, its just a temporary relief. I remember reading in this forum that a domestic RD-180 would cost 30-40m instead of less than 15m.

Correct. Labor and materials are relatively cheap in Russia. Not so in the USA or any of ESA member states.

Not entirely true in the case of the US.  The US is rapidly becoming the lowest cost Western producer.  Here's a link to the synopsis for a recent Harvard Business Review article stating that, "By 2015, average manufacturing costs in Germany, Japan, France, Italy, and the UK will be 8% to 18% higher than in the U.S".  Electricity costs in the US are already about half of what they are in Germany and materials and labor are much cheaper.  For many products when you include labor productivity the US is or will be a good deal cheaper than Russia, and it looks like much cheaper than in manufacturing in Europe.

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/08/us-poised-to-become-the-low-cos/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/07/2014 06:04 pm
For many products when you include labor productivity...

I lol'd. Of course when you adjust it for productivity western countries are perfectly competitive. The question is whether they are in the production of rocket engines, apparently still a very labor-intensive process. Russia is/was kind of a special place, advanced engine technology combined with low labor costs due to the economic collapse.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JMSC on 02/07/2014 06:58 pm
For many products when you include labor productivity...

I lol'd. Of course when you adjust it for productivity western countries are perfectly competitive. The question is whether they are in the production of rocket engines, apparently still a very labor-intensive process. Russia is/was kind of a special place, advanced engine technology combined with low labor costs due to the economic collapse.

It really depends on a lot of things.  When East Germany collapsed they retained the very excellent pre-War War Germany tradition of optics production and actually made reasonably good cameras.  West Germans thought this was an industry they could actually make into a profitable business since the East Germans had low wages and sold their cameras for really cheap.  Until they found out the same task that took 1 hour in West Germany took 3 hours in East Germany.  Needless to say their was no way the businesses could be made competitive.  One major issues with rocket engines is as you point out, is the labor input since for many engines this is a very big costs, especially complex ones like the Shuttle Main Engine, so yes the cheap labor makes a difference.  But when you are say comparing a Merlin Engine with RD-180 there is no comparison.  The Merlin's productive labor force, simplified production scheme of one factory, and simplicity in design overwhelm any advantage of cheaper labor posseses.  One reason I would suspect the French like solids is the lower labor input.

However, the Japanese and Germans despite their very high labor costs are still your most profitable auto producers and are quite competitive in small cars, just not quite as large as China anymore.  I just think we need to be careful about assigning too much advantage to cheap labor, it's one input of many, and also need to remember Russian labor is not nearly as cheap as it was 20 years ago.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/07/2014 08:07 pm

Btw, with A5 ME becoming more flexible due to its restartable upper stage and Vega and its evolutions addressing the LEO market, A6 seems to be pretty pointless.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/07/2014 09:17 pm
But it actually is an improvement. They are doing away with the ex-ante geo-return policy. So it will mean some serious consolidation within Europe. In that sense is probably good. It won't be good for the liquid propulsion induatrial base, though.

Just a question here, why not do away with the geo-return policy for Ariane V?  If you could save as much by doing away with the policy for the current version of Ariane V, why not do that and use the 3-5 billion euros to fund payloads for Ariane V?  Or is the reality in Europe that going ahead with a new launcher and hence new industrial organization is the only way to get nations to agree to do away with geo-return?
It's actually a middle step. Everything is validated and qualified, so nothing that works is touched. But the new ME upper stage is consolidated on a single factory, so for that they did appear to have reduced that requirement.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/07/2014 09:22 pm
Unless you want to free Ariane 5 for other work.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simonbp on 02/07/2014 10:02 pm
Correct. Labor and materials are relatively cheap in Russia. Not so in the USA or any of ESA member states.

I wouldn't go that far. It is true that building an RD-180 using Russian 60s-era manufacturing techniques in the US or EU would be quite expensive. For the exact same reason, hand-crafted artisan RL-10s are obscenely expensive to make.

But it's 2014, and noone in the general industry builds engines like that anymore. The SpaceX Merlin 1D costs a tiny fraction of an RD-180 on $/N of thrust, and nearly all of that is simply because it's a new-design engine, which allowed SpaceX to use modern manufacturing techniques (most notably extensive use of 3d CNC). That was nothing revolutionary, and just follows what jet engine manufactures have been doing for years now.

If given a hard time/budget cap, I can completely believe that Snecma or Rolls Royce could make a cost-competitive RP-1 Euro-Merlin.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/07/2014 10:23 pm
Correct. Labor and materials are relatively cheap in Russia. Not so in the USA or any of ESA member states.

I wouldn't go that far. It is true that building an RD-180 using Russian 60s-era manufacturing techniques in the US or EU would be quite expensive. For the exact same reason, hand-crafted artisan RL-10s are obscenely expensive to make.

But it's 2014, and noone in the general industry builds engines like that anymore. The SpaceX Merlin 1D costs a tiny fraction of an RD-180 on $/N of thrust, and nearly all of that is simply because it's a new-design engine, which allowed SpaceX to use modern manufacturing techniques (most notably extensive use of 3d CNC). That was nothing revolutionary, and just follows what jet engine manufactures have been doing for years now.

If given a hard time/budget cap, I can completely believe that Snecma or Rolls Royce could make a cost-competitive RP-1 Euro-Merlin.

Except that RD-180 is an engine introduced in 1999 and a US version would obviously use modern manufacturing techniques, so that can hardly be the reason for the high cost estimates. We don't know how much Merlin costs, but maybe you have a source?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/08/2014 12:59 pm

Btw, with A5 ME becoming more flexible due to its restartable upper stage and Vega and its evolutions addressing the LEO market, A6 seems to be pretty pointless.
Ariane 5 is too powerfull and too expensive for most single payloads. The increase in payload capacity (when compared to Ariane 5 ECA) only allows Arianespace to make slightly better matches between two comsats to be launched. In ECA configuration most of those matches include a big satellite in the 5-6 metric tons range and a smaller satellite in the 3-4 metric tons range. The better upmass capacity of ME will allow Arianespace to have the smaller comsat become heavier.
And despite the relative flexibility of having a restartable upper stage Arianespace will always be puzzling to match two comsats on the same vehicle. This has caused so many headaches over the years that ESA and Arianespace both wish to do away with dual launch.
Vega on the other hand, even in it's evolved form, will still leave a considerable gap to the planned capabilities of Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/08/2014 01:35 pm
Btw, with F9 and GLSV MkIII, LM-5 having  a 5m fairing. Suddenly Kourou becomes the only LV for light GTO with a 4m fairing. Exactly when they expect SEP to be volume limited.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/08/2014 02:04 pm

Btw, with A5 ME becoming more flexible due to its restartable upper stage and Vega and its evolutions addressing the LEO market, A6 seems to be pretty pointless.
Ariane 5 is too powerfull and too expensive for most single payloads. The increase in payload capacity (when compared to Ariane 5 ECA) only allows Arianespace to make slightly better matches between two comsats to be launched. In ECA configuration most of those matches include a big satellite in the 5-6 metric tons range and a smaller satellite in the 3-4 metric tons range. The better upmass capacity of ME will allow Arianespace to have the smaller comsat become heavier.
And despite the relative flexibility of having a restartable upper stage Arianespace will always be puzzling to match two comsats on the same vehicle. This has caused so many headaches over the years that ESA and Arianespace both wish to do away with dual launch.
Vega on the other hand, even in it's evolved form, will still leave a considerable gap to the planned capabilities of Ariane 6.

A5 ME will allow for more flexibility combining different GTO payloads, and also allow combining GTO with institutional missions (earth escape). Arianespace seems to like it, especially with electric satellites on the horizon.

Dual launch causing a headache? Well without that headache Arianespace would probably not exist in its current form. Also why did Dordain mention dual launch for small satellites on A6? Maybe because A6 doesn't offer a significant cost advantage vs. A5 ME otherwise.

Regarding Vega. LEO payloads up to 3t make up most of the market. A6 is too big for LEO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/08/2014 04:28 pm
A5 ME will allow for more flexibility combining different GTO payloads, and also allow combining GTO with institutional missions (earth escape). Arianespace seems to like it, especially with electric satellites on the horizon.
Are you aware that GTO launches have very strict solar input requirements, that means that most GTO launches and the correct windows for escape are incompatible?

Quote
Dual launch causing a headache? Well without that headache Arianespace would probably not exist in its current form. Also why did Dordain mention dual launch for small satellites on A6? Maybe because A6 doesn't offer a significant cost advantage vs. A5 ME otherwise.
Obviously. A5 was a failed mini-shuttle launcher. The program would have had to been reassessed and probably cancelled. Or they might have gone with the hydrolox core and small solids and have had a Delta IV which would have given them a lot more flexibility.
Regarding the two small sats on A6 is only a way to cover even more GTO spectrum. The difference is that there exist a lot of 6tonne GTO payloads. I know not one case of a 12tonne one. And then you have Galileo, which EU will have to keep replenishing. Vega is sort of small. The "small" version of A6 would be optimal (~4tonnes to GTO might be able to put two Galileos on MEO).

Quote
Regarding Vega. LEO payloads up to 3t make up most of the market. A6 is too big for LEO.
Vega can only do 1.7 for now, has a small fairing and too many stages. An evolution with a single P145 plus a CH4/LOX upper stage that can cover anything that's required in the foreseeable future. The fact is that Vega is seriously benefited by A6. And that combo covers everything that EU needs or is going to need for a long time. BTW, A6 escape should be on par with Proton-M, which is launching ExoMars and JUICY.

The real critique to A6 is that is a technological dead end exactly when it looks that there might be a serious elbow in the technology.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/08/2014 05:55 pm
Obviously. A5 was a failed mini-shuttle launcher. The program would have had to been reassessed and probably cancelled. Or they might have gone with the hydrolox core and small solids and have had a Delta IV which would have given them a lot more flexibility.
Typically, modular launch platforms are more expensive than the ones in fixed configurations. Spacediver has said this a lot when comparing modular NGL concepts vs clean in-line designs, but I wouldn't be surprised if this also holds true for Ariane 5. Having a big launcher do all your payloads gives a lower cost/kg than giving every payload its own small launcher.

Quote
Regarding the two small sats on A6 is only a way to cover even more GTO spectrum. The difference is that there exist a lot of 6tonne GTO payloads. I know not one case of a 12tonne one. And then you have Galileo, which EU will have to keep replenishing. Vega is sort of small. The "small" version of A6 would be optimal (~4tonnes to GTO might be able to put two Galileos on MEO).
Agreed, but I still haven't seen anything on the "small" Ariane 6 besides a CNES tweet with no additional info. If that version is one using scaled down boosters I doubt it will ever be made. Very big modifications that would hurt Vega.

Vega can only do 1.7 for now, has a small fairing and too many stages. An evolution with a single P145 plus a CH4/LOX upper stage that can cover anything that's required in the foreseeable future. The fact is that Vega is seriously benefited by A6. And that combo covers everything that EU needs or is going to need for a long time. [/quote] Agreed completely.

Quote
BTW, A6 escape should be on par with Proton-M, which is launching ExoMars and JUICY.

It should actually be higher, because of the hydrolox upper stage rather than the kerolox/hypergolic Proton upper stages. However, JUICE will be launched on the much more powerful Ariane 5, Ariane 6 will be too small. Maybe the 5-P145 8 ton Ariane 6 can, however, but I haven't seen a lot on that.

I don't know what you mean exactly with a serious elbow in technology, but I still consider the current baseline a technological dead end, and I doubt it will be able to compete for very long, if ever.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/08/2014 06:02 pm

Dual launch causing a headache? Well without that headache Arianespace would probably not exist in its current form. Also why did Dordain mention dual launch for small satellites on A6? Maybe because A6 doesn't offer a significant cost advantage vs. A5 ME otherwise.
You can make your launcher flexible, cheap per kg or big. Pick two.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/08/2014 08:10 pm
The real critique to A6 is that is a technological dead end exactly when it looks that there might be a serious elbow in the technology.

No. The real criticism to A6 is how horribly expensive its development is compared to what you get for the money.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M_Puckett on 02/08/2014 08:14 pm
Pippin, I think there is an argument that both conditions are true.  Neither excludes the other.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/08/2014 08:15 pm
The real critique to A6 is that is a technological dead end exactly when it looks that there might be a serious elbow in the technology.

No. The real criticism to A6 is how horribly expensive its development is compared to what you get for the money.

That's your criticism, not "the real" criticism. There are several points of criticism that all mean more to some than to others. I've seen both of them, there is no consensus on why Ariane 6 is supposedly bad.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/08/2014 08:51 pm
A5 ME will allow for more flexibility combining different GTO payloads, and also allow combining GTO with institutional missions (earth escape). Arianespace seems to like it, especially with electric satellites on the horizon.
Are you aware that GTO launches have very strict solar input requirements, that means that most GTO launches and the correct windows for escape are incompatible?

Quote
Dual launch causing a headache? Well without that headache Arianespace would probably not exist in its current form. Also why did Dordain mention dual launch for small satellites on A6? Maybe because A6 doesn't offer a significant cost advantage vs. A5 ME otherwise.
Obviously. A5 was a failed mini-shuttle launcher. The program would have had to been reassessed and probably cancelled. Or they might have gone with the hydrolox core and small solids and have had a Delta IV which would have given them a lot more flexibility.
Regarding the two small sats on A6 is only a way to cover even more GTO spectrum. The difference is that there exist a lot of 6tonne GTO payloads. I know not one case of a 12tonne one. And then you have Galileo, which EU will have to keep replenishing. Vega is sort of small. The "small" version of A6 would be optimal (~4tonnes to GTO might be able to put two Galileos on MEO).

Quote
Regarding Vega. LEO payloads up to 3t make up most of the market. A6 is too big for LEO.
Vega can only do 1.7 for now, has a small fairing and too many stages. An evolution with a single P145 plus a CH4/LOX upper stage that can cover anything that's required in the foreseeable future. The fact is that Vega is seriously benefited by A6. And that combo covers everything that EU needs or is going to need for a long time. BTW, A6 escape should be on par with Proton-M, which is launching ExoMars and JUICY.

The real critique to A6 is that is a technological dead end exactly when it looks that there might be a serious elbow in the technology.

1. Nope, good point if true, I was not aware of that.

2. Ariane 4 was doing dual launches too and it was a major factor for its competitiveness. A5G started with a payload slightly above A4LL, its hardly a "failed mini-shuttle launcher".

3. Its not that A6 would not be preferable to A5, assuming the cost benefits would materialize, but IMO its not worth the development money at this point. I mean what's the point of upgrading your existing launcher if the next one is being introduced 3 years later. No need to hurry.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/08/2014 09:19 pm
The real critique to A6 is that is a technological dead end exactly when it looks that there might be a serious elbow in the technology.

No. The real criticism to A6 is how horribly expensive its development is compared to what you get for the money.

That's your criticism, not "the real" criticism. There are several points of criticism that all mean more to some than to others. I've seen both of them, there is no consensus on why Ariane 6 is supposedly bad.

Of course. This is an Internet forum. All we are offering here are just personal opinions,
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/09/2014 12:12 pm
2. Ariane 4 was doing dual launches too and it was a major factor for its competitiveness. A5G started with a payload slightly above A4LL, its hardly a "failed mini-shuttle launcher".

"Slightly above"? Are you trying to fool us or something?
Here are the hard numbers for single-payload launches: Ariane 44L H10-3, the most powerfull variant of the Ariane 4 family could carry 4720 kg to GTO and 7000 kg to LEO. Ariane-5 G, the starter version of Ariane 5, could carry 6900 kg to GTO (an increase of no less than 2200 kg / 46 percent compared to 44L H10-3) and 18000 kg to LEO (an increase of no less than 11000 kg / 157 percent compared to 44L H10-3).
I would hardly call those numbers "slightly above" and you bet your *ss that A5 G was a failed mini-shuttle launcher. Not until ATV came along was there any payload that came even remotely close to that massive payload-to-LEO capacity.

After the ISS deal between NASA and ESA, Ariane 5 existed for one reason, and one reason only: Hermes. ATV was still just a concept being studied with no-go for full development. Dual-launch was a back-up feature that saved the vehicle after Hermes got cancelled in 1992 and launch of Columbus had been transferred from A5 to shuttle. With the re-alignment of the ESA contributions to ISS program in 1995 the ATV finally was given the go for full development. Note: that's a full three years after Ariane 5 lost it's primary payload (Hermes).
In other words: dual launch is what kept Ariane 5 development going before ATV became an assigned payload.
But the dual-launch feature has become Ariane 5's greatest draw-back over the years and is now the prime driver for getting it out of the way for Ariane 6. The only reason Ariane 5 ME wasn't canned in 2012, in favor for all-out development of A6, was the strong-headed Germans forcing the ESA members into a dual-development approach.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/09/2014 12:43 pm
Of course. This is an Internet forum. All we are offering here are just personal opinions,
Exactly, that's why I think calling things "the real criticism" of Ariane 6 a bit nonsensical. You think it costs too much to develop without real pay-off. Some think it's a technological dead end, others think it's not flexible enough. I think it's Ariane's apparent identity crisis that is ruining Ariane 6's possibilities. They're all, to some extent, valid criticisms and there is no single weak spot about Ariane 6 that ruins it's potential.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 02/09/2014 01:13 pm
But the dual-launch feature has become Ariane 5's greatest draw-back over the years and is now the prime driver for getting it out of the way for Ariane 6.

True, which is why I'm surprised to hear they want to add dual-launch back in for small payloads to MEO/GTO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/09/2014 03:35 pm
But the dual-launch feature has become Ariane 5's greatest draw-back over the years and is now the prime driver for getting it out of the way for Ariane 6.

True, which is why I'm surprised to hear they want to add dual-launch back in for small payloads to MEO/GTO.
Dual launch to GTO is now the prime mode needed for A5 to fly as cheap and as efficient as possible (and "cheap" is meant relatively here...)
Single launch will be the prime mode for A6. However, A6 is stil a quantum leap more powerfull than the current and projected future versions of Vega. Heavier payload (too heavy for Vega) may very well be too light to serve as single payload on A6. Hence ESA keeping open the possibility of putting dual launch on A6. But, dual launch on A6 will not be the prime launch mode. Prime mode is single-launch comsats. Dual launch to MEO/GTO will be a back up mode to serve the market now served by Soyuz.
Also: Vega (evolution) does not serve the GTO market but only LEO/MEO. Vega reference orbit is 90 degree inclination 700x700 km orbit.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/09/2014 06:58 pm
Also: Vega (evolution) does not serve the GTO market but only LEO/MEO. Vega reference orbit is 90 degree inclination 700x700 km orbit.
If they evolve it to make it powerful enough, there's no real reason it can't be changed to serve that market, at least for really small sats. In theory, at least.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/10/2014 05:14 am
Also: Vega (evolution) does not serve the GTO market but only LEO/MEO. Vega reference orbit is 90 degree inclination 700x700 km orbit.
If they evolve it to make it powerful enough, there's no real reason it can't be changed to serve that market, at least for really small sats. In theory, at least.
The evolution concepts for Vega all address target orbits in their proposals. And those are all LEO/MEO/SSO.
It's not so much a question of what orbits CAN be addressed but what orbits WILL be addressed. GTO is not among them for Vega.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Runerdieker on 02/10/2014 11:15 am
But the dual-launch feature has become Ariane 5's greatest draw-back over the years and is now the prime driver for getting it out of the way for Ariane 6.
But what if the Ariane 5 ME could be used for replenishing two Galileo sats as secondary payload to a big comsat? Shouldn´t that solve the problem of too few small secondary payloads?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/10/2014 12:01 pm
But the dual-launch feature has become Ariane 5's greatest draw-back over the years and is now the prime driver for getting it out of the way for Ariane 6.
But what if the Ariane 5 ME could be used for replenishing two Galileo sats as secondary payload to a big comsat? Shouldn´t that solve the problem of too few small secondary payloads?

No. Here's a few reasons:
- Replenishment sats for Galileo come along only every several years. Smaller secondary payloads (such as s maller comsats to fit with the primary big comsat) are needed up to eight times each year at the current marketshare of Arianespace.
- Galileo sats are light: only 700 kg each. Two of them do just 1.4 metric tons. Add the dispenser hardware and you hardly make 2 metric tons. Even for A5 ECA that is too light. But I won't mention the fact that A5 ECA cannot do combined missions to different orbits for lack of re-start capability of the upper stage. A5 ME however is theoretically capable of such a combined-mission profile to different orbits. But A5 ME will increase the throw-weight-to-GTO by 20 percent, thus having even more over-performance. At least four replenishment Galileo sats would be required in such a scenario. Replenishment of Galileo is not planned to be performed at the rate of 4 sats at once.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/10/2014 12:22 pm
Please stop spreading this FUD that you somehow "need" to use an LV to capacity. Especially SpaceX shows, that this is not the case. It's all a question of costs. If your cost structure is such that it's competitive to fly with excess capacity there is absolutely no reason not to do so.

And if you compare to the status quo A6 will have an immense cost-malus here. Amortization of the development cost alone will easily cost 50 mil€/flight (I know you don't calculate that way but not counting development cost is lying to oneself, nothing else) and that's already a very generous calculation (not counting interest for dozens of years and assuming A6 will fly 100 times without another major development; both is not realistic).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/10/2014 01:49 pm
Please stop spreading this FUD that you somehow "need" to use an LV to capacity.
I was talking about A5 specific: this vehicle over-performs to GTO if and when it's not loaded with a heavy enough payload. For Ariane 5 maximizing the amount of payload weight is actually the most efficient thing to do in terms of performance and value-for-money. (Ariane 5 being a very expensive launcher compared to rest of the playing field).
Arianespace always tries to maximize the payload weight on a flight, for this very reason. And they are good at it. Only a handfull of Ariane 5 flights carried significantly more than the standard amount of ballast.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/10/2014 01:55 pm
I was talking about A5 specific: this vehicle over-performs to GTO if and when it's not loaded with a heavy enough payload. For Ariane 5 maximizing the amount of payload weight is actually the most efficient thing to do in terms of performance and value-for-money. (Ariane 5 being a very expensive launcher compared to rest of the playing field).
I was also talking about the Galileo scenario with ME above.
Of course it makes sense to max out performance if you can and of course it can make sense to use a cheaper launcher.

But that's all just a cost issue. The problem is NOT that A5 is "overpowered" to do a smaller mission (SpaceX plan to fly single large comsats on a heavy with similar performance to A5), the problem is that A5 is EXPENSIVE.
But A6 won't fix that, except for the accounting stunts that are now being brought forward, it will make it worse.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/10/2014 01:55 pm
And if you compare to the status quo A6 will have an immense cost-malus here. Amortization of the development cost alone will easily cost 50 mil€/flight (I know you don't calculate that way but not counting development cost is lying to oneself, nothing else) and that's already a very generous calculation (not counting interest for dozens of years and assuming A6 will fly 100 times without another major development; both is not realistic).
ESA pays for the development of the A6 launcher. And here's the thing: ESA does not amortize the cost of development thru flights. To ESA, development costs are sunk costs. That has applied, and still applies, to all versions of Ariane and Vega.
ESA is not SpaceX. ESA is a governmental organization. To ESA development costs are taxpayer's Euros thrown down a drain never to be looked after again. Not so for SpaceX. That's a fully commercial entity and thus in need of either a government organization throwing money at them (NASA) or they must cough up development funds on their own (thru Elon's fortune and amortization thru flights).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/10/2014 01:59 pm
But A6 won't fix that, except for the accounting stunts that are now being brought forward, it will make it worse.
Those "accounting stunts" of yours were applied to Ariane 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Vega. I didn't hear anyone in the ESA member states complaining loud enough to prevent those launchers from happening. Same applies to A6.
Complain all you will, but those "accounting stunts" are not gonna make any difference.

The one billion Euro's required for final development of A5 ME will also be sunk costs. They will not be amortized thru flights. If they were A5 ME could never do away with the yearly subsidies; they would actually need a huge increase in yearly subsidies.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/10/2014 02:00 pm
ESA pays for the development of the A6 launcher. And here's the thing: ESA does not amortize the cost of development thru flights. To ESA, development costs are sunk costs. That has applied, and still applies, to all versions of Ariane and Vega.

And what? I mean... lying about the business case doesn't make the business case any better. It's still you and me footing the bill.

The ARGUMENT being brought forward for A6 - actually the ONLY argument I have EVER heard being brought forward - is that it would be more cost efficient and so save the tax payer some money. And that argument is plain wrong. It's a lie. You can't say "it's cheaper for you if we don't count all the other money we are taking from you for it". It's like saying: hey, today you have to pay 3$ for a hamburger but if you now give me 100$ upfront, you will get the next 50 hamburgers for 2$ each so you save 50$, isn't that a great deal?"

There may be other arguments in favor of A6 but I have never heard about them in the discussion. All is just about money and that argument is wrong.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/10/2014 02:05 pm
Those "accounting stunts" of yours were applied to Ariane 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Vega. I didn't hear anyone in the ESA member states complaining loud enough to prevent those launchers from happening.
Because they developed capabilities not available before. And there were plenty of arguments against Vega.

Quote
Same applies to A6.

No it does not. A6 does NOT build a new capability. It's being done (allegedly) to save money. You don't need to develop A6 to achieve anything you could not achieve today with what you already have. That wasn't true for A1-5.

Quote
Complain all you will, but those "accounting stunts" are not gonna make any difference.

I know. Doesn't make it any better. Problem is, there kind of stunts drive down public acceptance for EU public, European programs. We see it everywhere and long term it puts the whole program at risk. It needs to stop.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/10/2014 02:08 pm
ESA pays for the development of the A6 launcher. And here's the thing: ESA does not amortize the cost of development thru flights. To ESA, development costs are sunk costs. That has applied, and still applies, to all versions of Ariane and Vega.

And what? I mean... lying about the business case doesn't make the business case any better. It's still you and me footing the bill.

The ARGUMENT being brought forward for A6 - actually the ONLY argument I have EVER heard being brought forward - is that it would be more cost efficient and so save the tax payer some money. And that argument is plain wrong. It's a lie. You can't say "it's cheaper for you if we don't count all the other money we are taking from you for it". It's like saying: hey, today you have to pay 3$ for a hamburger but if you now give me 100$ upfront, you will get the next 50 hamburgers for 2$ each so so save 50$, isn't that a great deal?"

There may be other arguments in favor of A6 but I have never heard about them in the discussion. All is just about money and that argument is wrong.
Did you even listen to my argument? The development money is gone anyway. Like it or not, but us European taxpayers pay for the development of those launchers. That money is gone, never to be seen again.
It's the phase after development that is supposed to save some of the taxpayers' money. In the operational phase a launcher that higher production-and-operating costs will be more expensive than one that has lower production-and-operating costs.

Basically, we're dealing with two differents jars of money here: development and operation. Development is always sunk money, regardless of the end-result being an expensive-to-operate or cheap-to-operate launcher.

If you want to save money thru the way you are reasoning, then ESA should immediately stop developing launchers alltogether.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/10/2014 02:17 pm
Did you even listen to my argument? The development money is gone anyway.

I do, but you don't.
The development money for A6 is NOT gone. It's still to be spent. Cancel the program now and you save 3-5bn€, depending on who you ask.

Quote
Like it or not, but us European taxpayers pay for the development of those launchers.
Yes. And that's why long term they are going to hate and cancel these programs. And then it will be all wining here in the forum about the great opportunities lost in European Spaceflight.

Quote
It's the phase after development that is supposed to save some of the taxpayers' money. In the operational phase a launcher that higher production-and-operating costs will be more expensive than one that has lower production-and-operating costs.
Such is it in my hamburger example above.
You can repeat it as often as you like (and I know European bureaucracy calculates like that, too), but there is no magic money making spell. It's still a losing deal. It overall COSTS money and not save any.

There is no way in the world the savings in the operational phase will ever outweigh the upfront investment so from an investment POV the whole activity is a loss. It doesn't pay off.

Quote
Basically, we're dealing with two differents jars of money here: development and operation. Development is always sunk money, regardless of the end-result being an expensive-to-operate or cheap-to-operate launcher.
Yes. But today we have the choice to simply NOT sink that money. There will be zero negative effect of not doing that in terms of capability. We lose nothing, we just save money.

Quote
If you want to save money thru the way you are reasoning, then ESA should immediately stop developing launchers alltogether.
That's pretty much exactly what I am proposing, indeed. Yes. Makes zero sense to depelop something you don't get anything for.

And IF ESA still wants to develop LVs, then they shall bring forward the real reasons for doing so and not just tell me funny stories about saving money that in the end turn out to be a lie. Then we can argue about those real reasons and whether they are worth the cost.
Right now, everybody is trying to play the "hey, you save money with this" game to make it appear to people as it won't cost them anything so they can just agree. But this doesn't work, it never does and in the end, all you get is a ruined public acceptance for your space program as a whole. As you can see in the US where, let's face it, the public acceptance for the (government funded) space program now is as low as never before.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/10/2014 02:17 pm
Those "accounting stunts" of yours were applied to Ariane 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Vega. I didn't hear anyone in the ESA member states complaining loud enough to prevent those launchers from happening.
Because they developed capabilities not available before. And there were plenty of arguments against Vega.
All the arguments against Vega did not prevent the launcher from being developed. And Vega was most certainly development of capabilities that ESA/Arianespace did not have prior. Large composite solids for one thing. Splittable retro-equipped interstages for another.

Same applies to A6.

No it does not. A6 does NOT build a new capability. It's being done (allegedly) to save money. You don't need to develop A6 to achieve anything you could not achieve today with what you already have. That wasn't true for A1-5.
It is of no interest that A6 supposedly does not build new capability. That's your interpretation and not ESA's. With ESA being the agency in control of development of A6 it is of no interest what your (or my) opinion in this matter is.

Complain all you will, but those "accounting stunts" are not gonna make any difference.
I know. Doesn't make it any better. Problem is, there kind of stunts drive down public acceptance for EU public, European programs. We see it everywhere and long term it puts the whole program at risk. It needs to stop.
Public acceptance for ESA programs only goes down if the public interprets these programs as "waisting Euro's". But generally ESA does a rather good job in making clear to the public why those investments are needed. ESA also does a good job of PR.
Also, public acceptance of EU or ESA programs tends to go down in times of financial crisis (such as the one we are now just barely exiting) and go up in times of financial growth.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/10/2014 02:19 pm
All the discussion about cheap access to space for smaller institutional payloads like Galileo makes me wonder what ever happened to the earlier building block PPH/PPL concepts. P240 booster first stage, P80 second stage, L10 upper stage for the smaller concept, with a P110 second stage and H28 upper stage later for 3 tons to GTO. It always seemed like a good idea to me, as it could exist alongside Ariane 5 and Vega, with Ariane doing the commercial payloads and the occasional heavy payload, Vega doing the small ones and this intermediate doing what CNES wants Ariane 6 doing. Few unique components, low cost. Wonder why it disappeared from trade studies.

Edit: Found link: http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet104/caporicci104.pdf
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/10/2014 02:40 pm
All the discussion about cheap access to space for smaller institutional payloads like Galileo makes me wonder what ever happened to the earlier building block PPH/PPL concepts. P240 booster first stage, P80 second stage, L10 upper stage for the smaller concept, with a P110 second stage and H28 upper stage later for 3 tons to GTO. It always seemed like a good idea to me, as it could exist alongside Ariane 5 and Vega, with Ariane doing the commercial payloads and the occasional heavy payload, Vega doing the small ones and this intermediate doing what CNES wants Ariane 6 doing. Few unique components, low cost. Wonder why it disappeared from trade studies.
Because those two proposals are kludges. In other words, their may be parts commonality with other programs, but at least one of those programs (Ariane 5) is to be replaced by Ariane 6. P240 is considered "old-and-ending" technology and keeping it's production line open for just that PPH/PPL variant will be expensive.
And with the switch from P240/P80/L10 to P240/P110/H28 you would essentially develop not one, but two launchers (for twice the money).

The commonality between the boosters (P135) in the first and second stage of the current A6 proposal is supposed to drive costs down: produce one booster a lot instead of producing three or four different boosters in smaller quantities. Basically the same MO used by SpaceX: produce one engine (Merlin 1D) a lot, in stead of producing two or three different engines in smaller quantities.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/10/2014 02:57 pm
All the discussion about cheap access to space for smaller institutional payloads like Galileo makes me wonder what ever happened to the earlier building block PPH/PPL concepts. P240 booster first stage, P80 second stage, L10 upper stage for the smaller concept, with a P110 second stage and H28 upper stage later for 3 tons to GTO. It always seemed like a good idea to me, as it could exist alongside Ariane 5 and Vega, with Ariane doing the commercial payloads and the occasional heavy payload, Vega doing the small ones and this intermediate doing what CNES wants Ariane 6 doing. Few unique components, low cost. Wonder why it disappeared from trade studies.
Because those two proposals are kludges. In other words, their may be parts commonality with other programs, but at least one of those programs (Ariane 5) is to be replaced by Ariane 6. P240 is considered "old-and-ending" technology and keeping it's production line open for just that PPH/PPL variant will be expensive.
And with the switch from P240/P80/L10 to P240/P110/H28 you would essentially develop not one, but two launchers (for twice the money).
I imagined that you could stick with Ariane 5 for commercial satellites, with the occasional institutional payload that requires the capacity, with upgrades to the P240 stage being spread out over the two launchers (such as composite casings as I saw proposed some time ago), and with upgrades to the second stage also being applied to Vega. Basically making every upgrade one that you can share between programs, boosting overall competitiveness (and giving the same "synergies with Vega" argument as P7C).

But yeah, if the goal is to phase out Ariane 5, it's a bad idea. That's clear. I doubt anyone is willing to pay to keep Ariane 5 up for commercial launches after ESA doesn't need it anymore. I'd prefer Ariane 5 to keep flying though. I doubt any single launch vehicle will be able to keep competing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/10/2014 03:16 pm
BTW whoever wanted Galileo as secondary, he didn't even thought about the orbital mechanics, did he?
Even assuming ME with restart, you start from a 185km x 36,000km x 5deg and have to go to a 22,000km x 22,000km x 56deg. So you have to change your plane by 51deg while increasing your perigee by 21,850km. And then circularize.
And we didn't got into RAAN issues. Launch windows are such that the gto craft has optimal illumination. This could seriously reduce launch windows. If even possible
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/10/2014 03:20 pm
Think that is the whole problem with Ariane 6 nobody would care if Ariane 5 was not being cut.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/10/2014 04:12 pm
Think that is the whole problem with Ariane 6 nobody would care if Ariane 5 was not being cut.

That's not true. I, for one, would complain even more because keeping BOTH launchers and all their infrastructure then would be even more expensive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/10/2014 04:23 pm
Think that is the whole problem with Ariane 6 nobody would care if Ariane 5 was not being cut.
I care a lot more about Ariane 6 at this point than whether Ariane 5 makes it or not. If Ariane 6 is cheaper and more flexible than Ariane 5, you won't hear me complaining if it gets tossed out.

What I don't like about Ariane 6 is that I doubt it will really be much cheaper and more flexible than Ariane 5. From what I've seen so far, it'll basically just be an A5ME with half the payload, similarly lacking in flexibility and being similar in cost, only with €3 billion attached to developing it. That's what worries me. Not Ariane 5.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 02/10/2014 07:58 pm
Vega (even upgraded with a P145 for A6 commonality) is small for GEO comsats, currently it can do 2.3T equatorial LEO, with a P145 it might do 4T, as a rule of thumb it gives half to GTO, so 2T. It is small for that kind of sats, but you may use electric propulsion which would give you the equivalent of a 4T chemical sat. The price would probably increase accordingly.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/11/2014 07:08 am
What I don't like about Ariane 6 is that I doubt it will really be much cheaper and more flexible than Ariane 5. From what I've seen so far, it'll basically just be an A5ME with half the payload, similarly lacking in flexibility and being similar in cost, only with €3 billion attached to developing it. That's what worries me. Not Ariane 5.

To get to Ariane 5 ME thru the path taken (Ariane 5 G -> G+ -> ES -> ECA -> ME) it took over 8 billion Euros in development money alone.
To get to Ariane 6 (or as you call it Ariane 5 ME with half the payload) will probably take 4 billion Euros when all is said and done.
Guess what: half the payload for half the money.
This particular sentence:
Quote
...only with €3 billion attached to developing it.
illustrates nicely your lack of understanding of the issue at hand. The only commonality between A5ME and A6 is the upper stage. The rest is (much) different and associated with it's own development cost. One vehicle being liquid fueled and the other being solid fueled. You cannot discriminate between the two vehicles by specifically mentioning the development cost of A6 and NOT mentioning the A5 development cost. Compare apples-to-apples, not apples-to-nothing please.

Another point is that development of A6 is not expected to be any cheaper than that of A5 (whatever version). And that does not matter. Reduction of the development cost is not the point of the A6 program. The point of the A6 program is to bring the operational costs down. Over time, the operational cost of a launcher will far exceed the amount of money spent on development. Development cost is sunk money. Operational cost is NOT considered sunk money and thus needs to be amortized thru sales of launches.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/11/2014 07:12 am
Think that is the whole problem with Ariane 6 nobody would care if Ariane 5 was not being cut.

That's not true. I, for one, would complain even more because keeping BOTH launchers and all their infrastructure then would be even more expensive.
If things go the way they are planned then both sets of infrastructures will co-exist (in flight operations) for at least three years, possibly even longer. Nothing new here. The same thing has happened before:
Ariane 2/3 flew for some time together with Ariane 4 (two different production lines, two sets of infrastructures at CSG). And then it happened again with Ariane 4 and Ariane 5. A4 was only phased out when A5 has already a number of flights under it's belt. (two different production lines, two sets of infrastructures at CSG). And exactly the same will happen if and when A6 starts flying.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/11/2014 07:22 am
Over time, the operational cost of a launcher will far exceed the amount of money spent on development. Development cost is sunk money.

I can't believe you said that. Sorry, but you are spreading FUD again, please look at the numbers.

1. Development cost is NOT sunk cost before you sink it, we are talking about the future here.
2. The operational cost of A6 is targeted at 75mil€. Assuming it flies as often as Ariane 5 (which is NOT projected in the plan, it's supposed to fly LESS overall!) the overall operational cost will be in the same ballpark as the development cost. The plan is to spend almost as much money as flying the thing costs over it's entire life time on development. To "save" cost.

Stating over and over again that this would somehow magically "save" money doesn't make it true. This program does NOT save any money, it COSTS money.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/11/2014 09:40 am
Over time, the operational cost of a launcher will far exceed the amount of money spent on development. Development cost is sunk money.

I can't believe you said that. Sorry, but you are spreading FUD again, please look at the numbers.

1. Development cost is NOT sunk cost before you sink it, we are talking about the future here.
2. The operational cost of A6 is targeted at 75mil€. Assuming it flies as often as Ariane 5 (which is NOT projected in the plan, it's supposed to fly LESS overall!) the overall operational cost will be in the same ballpark as the development cost. The plan is to spend almost as much money as flying the thing costs over it's entire life time on development. To "save" cost.

Stating over and over again that this would somehow magically "save" money doesn't make it true. This program does NOT save any money, it COSTS money.
No, you are spreading FUD. You cannot possibly state that the amount of development money will be in the same ballpark as the overal operational cost. Simply because it is not clear when the operational lifetime of A6 will begin, when it will end, and how many flights are performed in-between. The numbers given in the proposal and study phases are often minimal target numbers. They are not called PROJECTED numbers for nothing. Reality is nearly always different.
The same applies to A5. When A5 was developed a certain number of flights and a certain number of service years were targeted in the proposals and studies for A5. But, A5 has already gone far beyond those numbers, both in years and number of flights. Same happened for Ariane 4. Based on this prior experience it is not unreasonable to state that it is likely that the operational cost of A6 will eventually far exceed the development cost. It is not unreasonable to state the eventual number of A6's flown will be greater than is now foreseen.
On the other hand, your statement to the contrary is not based on anything but projected numbers in studies and proposals.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/11/2014 12:31 pm
2. Ariane 4 was doing dual launches too and it was a major factor for its competitiveness. A5G started with a payload slightly above A4LL, its hardly a "failed mini-shuttle launcher".

"Slightly above"? Are you trying to fool us or something?
Here are the hard numbers for single-payload launches: Ariane 44L H10-3, the most powerfull variant of the Ariane 4 family could carry 4720 kg to GTO and 7000 kg to LEO. Ariane-5 G, the starter version of Ariane 5, could carry 6900 kg to GTO (an increase of no less than 2200 kg / 46 percent compared to 44L H10-3) and 18000 kg to LEO (an increase of no less than 11000 kg / 157 percent compared to 44L H10-3).
I would hardly call those numbers "slightly above" and you bet your *ss that A5 G was a failed mini-shuttle launcher. Not until ATV came along was there any payload that came even remotely close to that massive payload-to-LEO capacity.

But the dual-launch feature has become Ariane 5's greatest draw-back over the years and is now the prime driver for getting it out of the way for Ariane 6. The only reason Ariane 5 ME wasn't canned in 2012, in favor for all-out development of A6, was the strong-headed Germans forcing the ESA members into a dual-development approach.

Slightly may be the wrong word, but according to my numbers 44L could lift 4950kg to GTO while for 5G it was 6200kg. You say dual launch has become A5 greatest drawback, but according to what I've read dual launch made A4 competitive (apart from the lack of competition), so its not surprising A5 was designed with dual launch in mind. Market projections were probably overly optimistic back then too.


Reduction of the development cost is not the point of the A6 program. The point of the A6 program is to bring the operational costs down. Over time, the operational cost of a launcher will far exceed the amount of money spent on development. Development cost is sunk money. Operational cost is NOT considered sunk money and thus needs to be amortized thru sales of launches.

While its true that operational costs will exceed development cost when it comes to launch vehicles, the question is how development costs compare to the operational cost savings of A6 versus A5. Development money is not for free, either you pay for it with a loan, so you must pay interest on it, or you must include opportunity costs in your calculations. Either way, you end up with a discount rate of maybe 3.5%-10%. The longer your investment leads actual operational cost savings (in the case of a rocket that's decades), the more punishing up front investment gets.

In the case of A6 you quickly realize that if you project the current market share into the future it won't pay off, even if Ariane 6 will fly for 25 years.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/11/2014 03:48 pm
To get to Ariane 5 ME thru the path taken (Ariane 5 G -> G+ -> ES -> ECA -> ME) it took over 8 billion Euros in development money alone.
To get to Ariane 6 (or as you call it Ariane 5 ME with half the payload) will probably take 4 billion Euros when all is said and done.
Guess what: half the payload for half the money.
This particular sentence:
Quote
...only with €3 billion attached to developing it.
illustrates nicely your lack of understanding of the issue at hand. The only commonality between A5ME and A6 is the upper stage. The rest is (much) different and associated with it's own development cost. One vehicle being liquid fueled and the other being solid fueled. You cannot discriminate between the two vehicles by specifically mentioning the development cost of A6 and NOT mentioning the A5 development cost. Compare apples-to-apples, not apples-to-nothing please.

I meant that my biggest concern with Ariane 6 is that it will end up inflexible, similarly to Ariane 5. You frequently claim that Ariane 5 is overpowered for most European payloads, but the current configuration, which is fixed at 6.5 tons to GTO, will similarly be oversized for a large amount of institutional payloads. How many payloads does ESA, or CNES or DLR have that require 6500 kg to GTO and ~13 tons to LEO? Not that many.

When I stated development cost, I meant compared to continuing Ariane 5. It's very well possible the difference in recurring cost will not be significant. If that's the case, the additional €3-4 billion development price tag seems like a plain waste to me. That's what worries me, not whether Ariane 6 will cost less to develop than A5 or not. Complaining about that is just pointless to me.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/11/2014 04:59 pm
To get to Ariane 5 ME thru the path taken (Ariane 5 G -> G+ -> ES -> ECA -> ME) it took over 8 billion Euros in development money alone.
To get to Ariane 6 (or as you call it Ariane 5 ME with half the payload) will probably take 4 billion Euros when all is said and done.
Guess what: half the payload for half the money.
This particular sentence:
Quote
...only with €3 billion attached to developing it.
illustrates nicely your lack of understanding of the issue at hand. The only commonality between A5ME and A6 is the upper stage. The rest is (much) different and associated with it's own development cost. One vehicle being liquid fueled and the other being solid fueled. You cannot discriminate between the two vehicles by specifically mentioning the development cost of A6 and NOT mentioning the A5 development cost. Compare apples-to-apples, not apples-to-nothing please.

I meant that my biggest concern with Ariane 6 is that it will end up inflexible, similarly to Ariane 5. You frequently claim that Ariane 5 is overpowered for most European payloads, but the current configuration, which is fixed at 6.5 tons to GTO, will similarly be oversized for a large amount of institutional payloads. How many payloads does ESA, or CNES or DLR have that require 6500 kg to GTO and ~13 tons to LEO? Not that many.

When I stated development cost, I meant compared to continuing Ariane 5. It's very well possible the difference in recurring cost will not be significant. If that's the case, the additional €3-4 billion development price tag seems like a plain waste to me. That's what worries me, not whether Ariane 6 will cost less to develop than A5 or not. Complaining about that is just pointless to me.
If you look at the trade studies quoted above, you'll see that A6 was not the cheapest alternative to operate, except on the low launch scenario. So, they rightfully settled on the "cheapest" alternative to assure access to space in the pessimistic environment.
Also, you'll notice that they expected at least two versions, the smaller of which should be competitive with Falcon 9. Which is (roughly) in the Soyuz range. If you look at all European missions, Soyuz has been the workhorse. So they want to replace A5 plus Soyuz. This is complicated given the huge payload range. But if they can achieve it, we'll have to congratulate them. Of course this will mean going slightly under the primary payload capability of A5 and above the SSO capability of even Soyuz-2.1B. But that means they can close ELS+MIK+MST and ELA-3+LIB+FAB plus all associated infrastructure. They'll need two new pads, and Mobile Integration Towers. The consolidation alone should save a lot of operative work. Since the pads would be identical, you could run them with a single crew. One for vehicle integration and another for payload and launch processing.
And if they can launch Vega's from those pads, then they could consolidate even more. Imagine just two pads and one crew for all your launch needs. They could (probably) launch 12 times per year with very low operative costs. That's why they want to go this way. I guess.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hauerg on 02/11/2014 05:42 pm
This makes too much sense. So you are probably wrong.      ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/11/2014 06:43 pm
If you look at the trade studies quoted above, you'll see that A6 was not the cheapest alternative to operate, except on the low launch scenario. So, they rightfully settled on the "cheapest" alternative to assure access to space in the pessimistic environment.
Also, you'll notice that they expected at least two versions, the smaller of which should be competitive with Falcon 9. Which is (roughly) in the Soyuz range. If you look at all European missions, Soyuz has been the workhorse. So they want to replace A5 plus Soyuz. This is complicated given the huge payload range. But if they can achieve it, we'll have to congratulate them. Of course this will mean going slightly under the primary payload capability of A5 and above the SSO capability of even Soyuz-2.1B. But that means they can close ELS+MIK+MST and ELA-3+LIB+FAB plus all associated infrastructure. They'll need two new pads, and Mobile Integration Towers. The consolidation alone should save a lot of operative work. Since the pads would be identical, you could run them with a single crew. One for vehicle integration and another for payload and launch processing.
And if they can launch Vega's from those pads, then they could consolidate even more. Imagine just two pads and one crew for all your launch needs. They could (probably) launch 12 times per year with very low operative costs. That's why they want to go this way. I guess.

Good points, good post overall. However, is the small version with two P145s as S1 still being considered? Haven't seen it in a long, long time.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: bolun on 02/11/2014 08:32 pm
European Auditors Question Plan To Phase out Europeanized Soyuz Rocket

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39464european-auditors-question-plan-to-phase-out-europeanized-soyuz-rocket
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/12/2014 12:03 am
European Auditors Question Plan To Phase out Europeanized Soyuz Rocket

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39464european-auditors-question-plan-to-phase-out-europeanized-soyuz-rocket

I quote from the article:

Quote
The court says the Ariane 6 as currently designed — the vehicle would be capable of carrying a 6,000-kilogram satellite to geostationary transfer orbit, where most telecommunications satellites go — will be too expensive to compete for the heavier European government satellites. These spacecraft are suited to Soyuz, the court says. It favors a long-term strategy keeping all three rockets — Ariane 6, Soyuz and Vega — in simultaneous operation.

Hilarious, so they build a launcher to serve the commercial comsat market, just as A5 does now. Brilliant ::)

Quote
Arianespace says that at 70 million euros for a 3,000-kilogram satellite, the Ariane 6 would be more expensive than today’s Ariane 5 ECA for the passenger riding in the lower position, reserved for the smaller of the two satellites typically launched by the Ariane 5.

Lol.

Quote
The advent of all-electric propulsion for satellites, which can save up to 50 percent on the weight of a telecommunications satellite, could push Ariane 6 to retain a dual-launch capability, Arianespace says in its statement to the court. Up to now, one of Ariane 6’s selling points has been that, unlike Ariane 5 ECA, its financial viability does not require the launch of two satellites at a time.

Dual launch sucks, eh? Considering the payload penalty caused by dual launch it could be difficult for A6 to retain dual-launch capability for small satellites.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/12/2014 12:15 pm
Well, if they are doing away with the low power version of the Ariane 6, then yes, most hope is lost. It is true that they could do dual manifest. SEPs will probably be 2 to 4tonnes. Which could fit nicely and they could even use the same SYLDAS and fairing that they currently use. So dual launch will be a capability directly inherited from A5. But with the same problems as before and again with the same flexibility problems.
It the A6 can't realistically replace Soyuz, then there's simply no reason for it. From what I can see, the plan closes if they replace Soyuz/Ariane 5 AND can leverage VEGA. There they can have a flexible family.
Of course if they had chosen the MT Aerospace AG proposal, of cheap gas generator H2/LOX cores with an H2/LOX upperstage and you could use anywhere from 1 to 4 cores (go read the proposal (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27452.0)) it would all have been solved. I still believe that MT made it just too big. They should have covered 3tonnes LEO to 6tonnes to GTO. Probably a 1.5MN engine, like a Vulcain but made for cheap. And that would have been a much better proposal.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 02/12/2014 06:34 pm
Well, if they are doing away with the low power version of the Ariane 6, then yes, most hope is lost. It is true that they could do dual manifest. SEPs will probably be 2 to 4tonnes. Which could fit nicely and they could even use the same SYLDAS and fairing that they currently use. So dual launch will be a capability directly inherited from A5. But with the same problems as before and again with the same flexibility problems.
It the A6 can't realistically replace Soyuz, then there's simply no reason for it. From what I can see, the plan closes if they replace Soyuz/Ariane 5 AND can leverage VEGA. There they can have a flexible family.
Of course if they had chosen the MT Aerospace AG proposal, of cheap gas generator H2/LOX cores with an H2/LOX upperstage and you could use anywhere from 1 to 4 cores (go read the proposal (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27452.0)) it would all have been solved. I still believe that MT made it just too big. They should have covered 3tonnes LEO to 6tonnes to GTO. Probably a 1.5MN engine, like a Vulcain but made for cheap. And that would have been a much better proposal.
Such a concept is imaginable. A concept using one Vulcain per core could get about 4 tons to LEO with a single core and roughly 7 tons to GTO with three cores. But didn't the NELS study show that any CCB design, with the exception of a solid CCB design, was not competitive with an in-line liquid or solid design? I doubt a vehicle requiring three separate cores to do the majority of comsat missions would be very cheap. Especially one solely powered by hydrogen. Of course, one could argue that the flexibility this would provide would pay off for the higher cost, and that liquids are inherently better than solids, but there wouldn't be any real justification for this design over Multi-P.

Note that the MT Aerospace proposal used kerosene, not hydrogen, and their trade study only showed that a CCB design was cheaper than a design with liquid or strap-on boosters. No in-line liquid design optimised for 6.5 tons to GTO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Runerdieker on 02/12/2014 06:56 pm
I am still puzzled by the development cost of 3 to 5 bn euro´s for the current A6 design. I believe that the new policy of choosing the best contenders from industry and letting their home countries pay, won´t make a big difference, because there is still no competition for the companies involved. So the figure of 3 to 5 bn wil stand. The (fierce) discussions in this topic so far have made clear that the differences between the alternatives for the current PPH-design where not that big to have a clear and conclusive winner. Why then for a LV with many improved technologies and some communalities with present LV´s, instead of a start from scratch, such huge development costs? What I read in this forum about Spacex, Orbital, TsSKB, etc. is of a really different magnitude (and most are costs for completely new vehicles). Sunken costs or not, there need to be (European!) government leaders to decide about the next phase of development, so this does matter. So what could be a coarse breakdown of the development costs of the A6 that explains at least something?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/12/2014 08:16 pm
Just the contract for A6 preliminary studoes for the next Ministerial Meeting with Airbus Defense and Space is 50M (80M usd). At those prices it won't be cheap.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/13/2014 08:25 am
Just the contract for A6 preliminary studoes for the next Ministerial Meeting with Airbus Defense and Space is 50M (80M usd). At those prices it won't be cheap.
Those are not preliminary studies. They are detailed studies aimed at validating the core design as chosen in the last ministerial conference. The phase of preliminary studies regarding A6 ended before the 2012 ministerial conference.

Those of you who are familiar with my take on the going-ons at ESA are aware of the fact that ESA studies everyting to death before any metal ever gets bend (or carbon fibre gets woven in this particular case).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/13/2014 09:02 am
European Auditors Question Plan To Phase out Europeanized Soyuz Rocket

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39464european-auditors-question-plan-to-phase-out-europeanized-soyuz-rocket (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39464european-auditors-question-plan-to-phase-out-europeanized-soyuz-rocket)

I quote from the article:

Quote
The court says the Ariane 6 as currently designed — the vehicle would be capable of carrying a 6,000-kilogram satellite to geostationary transfer orbit, where most telecommunications satellites go — will be too expensive to compete for the heavier European government satellites. These spacecraft are suited to Soyuz, the court says. It favors a long-term strategy keeping all three rockets — Ariane 6, Soyuz and Vega — in simultaneous operation.

Hilarious, so they build a launcher to serve the commercial comsat market, just as A5 does now. Brilliant ::)
Exactly what part of the phrase "A6 is a replacement for A5" did you not understand?

Quote
Arianespace says that at 70 million euros for a 3,000-kilogram satellite, the Ariane 6 would be more expensive than today’s Ariane 5 ECA for the passenger riding in the lower position, reserved for the smaller of the two satellites typically launched by the Ariane 5.

Lol.
Hence the fact that Arianespace is always looking at maximizing payload-use of the available throw-mass.

Quote
The advent of all-electric propulsion for satellites, which can save up to 50 percent on the weight of a telecommunications satellite, could push Ariane 6 to retain a dual-launch capability, Arianespace says in its statement to the court. Up to now, one of Ariane 6’s selling points has been that, unlike Ariane 5 ECA, its financial viability does not require the launch of two satellites at a time.
Dual launch sucks, eh? Considering the payload penalty caused by dual launch it could be difficult for A6 to retain dual-launch capability for small satellites.
No. Trade studies I have seen indicate that two examples of a three-metric-ton comsat can be launched on the 6.5 metric tons version of A6 with the current SYLDA design. (The largest SYLDA adapter weighs 0.5 metric tons). Mass to GTO for the current A6 baseline is not 6000 kg. but 6500 kg. It's just that reference weights for big comsats are given as 6000 kg, not 6500 kg. The extra 500 kg for the A6 throw weight is there specifically to support the use of a SYLDA.

On SYLDA: the current largest SYLDA is capable of carrying of a 6500 kg comsat on top of it. But on A6 it will not be carrying a 6500 kg comsat, it will be carrying a 3000 kg comsat at most. It is safe to assume that, as part of A6 development, a new SYLDA will be developed for use on A6. This new SYLDA will probably be substantially lighter than the current design.

Three metric tons is the current reference weight for small comsats. Standard practice on A5 dual launch is one big (6000 kg class) comsat and one small (3000 kg class) comsat.
SEP is expected to significantly bring down the mass of comsats, but a reference weight for this class of comsats (neither big nor small) has not been set at present. With this uncertainty in place it is only logical for ESA/Arianespace to state that launching a single 3 metric ton comsat on A6 will be cost-ineffective.
It all depends on how small SEP comsats will become and how big the marketshare of SEP comsats will become.

The expected weight-loss of comsats due to the advent of SEP presents a direct problem for A5ME as well: A5ME will be capable of dual launch of a 6000 kg and 5000 kg comsat. But the expectation is that comsats will become lighter, not heavier. This could result in cost-ineffective launches for A5ME. Sticking two examples of 3000-to-4000 kg comsats on a launcher (capable of throwing 11500 kg tot GTO) will result in sharing the cost of the launch between two equally heavy satellites. In that case there is no benefit to the "smaller and lighter" satellite (because there is not one). It is exactly this scenario that is being used to question the viability of A5ME.

So, where are we with all this? Back at square one. There are reasons to doubt the viability of A5ME and there are reasons to doubt the viability of A6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/13/2014 10:56 am
Ok, lets take a look at commercial market forecasts.

There are quite a few payload combination options here which A5 ME could offer at a more or less competitive price. With 60% of the market (big/medium satellites) not contested by SpaceX at the moment. So its not unreasonable to assume that Arianespace can keep up a sufficiently high launch rate for A5 ME without the need for subsidies of several hundreds of millions per year.

Because in order for A6 to make sense economically, A5 subsidies must go through the roof compared to A6. IMO this can only happen if its a lot cheaper to maintain a small market share with A6 than a big one with A5.

If assured access to space is the goal, ESA should probably build a Soyuz/Falcon 9 class launcher.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/14/2014 08:50 am
The primary goal for Ariane 6 is indeed assured indepent access to space for ESA, with the secondary goal of earning money in the comsat launch business. But you seem to be forgetting that ESA has some demands on it's own, with regards to launcher performance. Performance to GTO for comsats is by far not the only factor driving the Ariane 6 design. For example: one of those requirements is the performance demand set by ESA for institutional payloads to the L2 and L1 lagrangian points of the Sun-Earth system. Those requirements for the heaviest institutional payloads cannot be met by a Soyuz/Falcon 9 class launcher. On the other hand, A5ME (and A5 ECA) are currently over-powered for the same requirement. There is a gap in-between and A6 will land smack in the middle of that gap.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 02/14/2014 07:37 pm
Airbus, Safran, OHB and Avio have submitted industrial proposals for A6.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39494europe%E2%80%99s-rocket-builders-present-industrial-plan-for-ariane-6 (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39494europe%E2%80%99s-rocket-builders-present-industrial-plan-for-ariane-6)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/19/2014 05:02 pm
Head of DLR proposes a strange new Ariane 6 design, with cryo first and third stages, and a solid second stage.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39918woerner-urges-esa-to-scrap-favored-ariane-6-design

I'm not sure why anyone would propose such a rocket, unless the two stage version was for LEO, like Antares.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 03/19/2014 05:32 pm
Head of DLR proposes a strange new Ariane 6 design, with cryo first and third stages, and a solid second stage.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39918woerner-urges-esa-to-scrap-favored-ariane-6-design

I'm not sure why anyone would propose such a rocket, unless the two stage version was for LEO, like Antares.

 - Ed Kyle
While the text under the photo claims such a design, reading what he said makes it seem more like solid strap-ons with a normal core/upper stage layout.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 03/19/2014 05:36 pm
Ah, the return of geographic return.... Back to square one.
If this is indeed a policy position and not just a first step in the negotiation then Ariane 6 will have a hard time. If the Germans get the impression that France just wants to change the rules to have Germany finance their industry this can get nasty...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 03/19/2014 06:05 pm

Ah, the return of geographic return.... Back to square one.
If this is indeed a policy position and not just a first step in the negotiation then Ariane 6 will have a hard time. If the Germans get the impression that France just wants to change the rules to have Germany finance their industry this can get nasty...

Reading the article makes me wonder if they might be looking for more than five participants in the program, perhaps to spread the costs around more.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 03/19/2014 06:07 pm
Reading the article makes me wonder if they might be looking for more than five participants in the program, perhaps to spread the costs around more.
Ariane 5 already has twelve participants. Ariane 6 will undoubtedly be similar.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 03/19/2014 07:05 pm

Reading the article makes me wonder if they might be looking for more than five participants in the program, perhaps to spread the costs around more.
Ariane 5 already has twelve participants. Ariane 6 will undoubtedly be similar.

Speaking from a purely personal viewpoint I would like to see the UK to have some involvement in it rather than sitting on the sidelines.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 03/19/2014 07:10 pm
This position amounts to killing Ariane 6: In the OHB/MT aero study this concept ranked 4th out of 5 and 5th out of 5 for a lunch rate of 6/year, with a launch cost of 91M€ at 9 launches per year, and with a development cost 500M€ higher than PPH.

This is not even about return on investment since the proposed new geographic return rules make states pay only for the workshare given to their industry, it is simply about having maximum control on the project. It is a "If I can't have it, no one else will" kind of position.

Or it is just a ploy to get France to fund A5 ME, as the head of CNES just stated it was no longer possible:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39905questions-swirl-around-future-of-europe%E2%80%99s-ariane-launcher-program?utm_content=buffer1a4f0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39905questions-swirl-around-future-of-europe%E2%80%99s-ariane-launcher-program?utm_content=buffer1a4f0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/19/2014 07:32 pm
Head of DLR proposes a strange new Ariane 6 design, with cryo first and third stages, and a solid second stage.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39918woerner-urges-esa-to-scrap-favored-ariane-6-design

I'm not sure why anyone would propose such a rocket, unless the two stage version was for LEO, like Antares.

 - Ed Kyle
While the text under the photo claims such a design, reading what he said makes it seem more like solid strap-ons with a normal core/upper stage layout.
I think the wording in the story may have changed after I posted the link. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/20/2014 05:29 am
Head of DLR proposes a strange new Ariane 6 design, with cryo first and third stages, and a solid second stage.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39918woerner-urges-esa-to-scrap-favored-ariane-6-design

I'm not sure why anyone would propose such a rocket, unless the two stage version was for LEO, like Antares.

 - Ed Kyle
While the text under the photo claims such a design, reading what he said makes it seem more like solid strap-ons with a normal core/upper stage layout.

Euro version of the Atlas V. Interesting.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 03/20/2014 08:13 am
Off course, economically speaking A6 does not make any sense whatsoever.
Let's consider the following numbers (all in euro) from the top of my head (insert your own if you'd like)
The A5ME development costs 1.2 billion, the A6 development cost 4B.
The A5ME costs 150M a piece the A6 70M.
The A5ME can lift 12 tonnes, the A6 6.5 tonnes.

That means one ton with A5ME costs 12.5M to launch, with A6 10.77M
The breakevenpoint is found as follows
1200 + 12.5 * x = 4000 + 10.77 * x
x = 1618.5

So it makes sense to go with the A6 if you expect you will use this launcher to launch at least 1156 tonnes.
That is 249 launches!
So it does not make sense economically.

It's politics. Always has and always will.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 03/20/2014 08:36 am
Off course, economically speaking A6 does not make any sense whatsoever.
Let's consider the following numbers (all in euro) from the top of my head (insert your own if you'd like)
The A5ME development costs 1.2 billion, the A6 development cost 4B.
The A5ME costs 150M a piece the A6 70M.
The A5ME can lift 12 tonnes, the A6 6.5 tonnes.

That means one ton with A5ME costs 12.5M to launch, with A6 10.77M
The breakevenpoint is found as follows
1200 + 12.5 * x = 4000 + 10.77 * x
x = 1618.5

So it makes sense to go with the A6 if you expect you will use this launcher to launch at least 1156 tonnes.
That is 249 launches!
So it does not make sense economically.

It's politics. Always has and always will.

In your example it actually would make sense, because A6's lifetime is expected to be 25 years. However you disregard the cost of money.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Proponent on 03/20/2014 10:45 am
Euro version of the Atlas V.

I suspect that cryo means liquid hydrogen.  For one thing, the article refers to the first stage being derived from Ariane 5's first stage, which burns hydrogen.  Hence, it would be more of a Euro Delta IV.  Or, for that matter, a Euro Ariane 5.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 03/20/2014 10:59 am
I suspect that cryo means liquid hydrogen. 

LOX / hydrogen is the only liquid propulsion technology that is available in Europe to date.
So Mr. Woerner surely refered to a core with one or two Vulcain engines (Vulcain 2 or 3) and additional solid boosters.

In the NELS study we found all the concepts using solid strap on boosters as very expensive compared to "clean designs", so I hope we can convince Mr. Woerner to support the "clean" tiple Vulcain HH concept without any boosters.
This concept would also be competitive with the current A6 w.r.t recurrent cost.

As I mentionned before in the other thread, a domestic, European LOX / methane engine has the potential to lead to even lower recurrent cost but would require at least 8-10 years development time (and some billion €) and therefore a shift of A6 first flight to 2025.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 03/20/2014 11:16 am
In the NELS study we found all the concepts using solid strap on boosters as very expensive compared to "clean designs"

So what makes the design expensive? Vertical integration? Isn't that required for some payloads anyway? Or is it primarily the payload mix? (i.e. heavy comsats as main market).

If we assume Vega will keep flying for the lifetime of A6, how would that change things?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha Control on 03/20/2014 11:27 am
Steven Clark at SpaceFlightNow has a one-on-one interview with the CEO of Arianespace, Stephane Israel.

Mr. Israel discusses A5ME, A6, the launch manifest for this year, and the competition.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1403/19arianespace/

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 03/20/2014 11:49 am
Steven Clark at SpaceFlightNow has a one-on-one interview with the CEO of Arianespace, Stephane Israel.

Mr. Israel discusses A5ME, A6, the launch manifest for this year, and the competition.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1403/19arianespace/

Most interesting part: There will be Soyuz in the next decade. A6 is overpowered for Soyuz satellites, meaning you can have both A6 and Soyuz in parallel in the long term.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 03/20/2014 02:33 pm
Euro version of the Atlas V. Interesting.
More like Delta IV, though it's not really that interesting. The design was proposed long ago, lost out in the trade studies to both Multi-P and an all-liquid in-line design, and really only offers flexibility over the other designs. It's a pretty bad choice if cost is a main factor.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: quanthasaquality on 03/25/2014 01:02 am
SEP is expected to significantly bring down the mass of comsats, but a reference weight for this class of comsats (neither big nor small) has not been set at present. With this uncertainty in place it is only logical for ESA/Arianespace to state that launching a single 3 metric ton comsat on A6 will be cost-ineffective.
It all depends on how small SEP comsats will become and how big the marketshare of SEP comsats will become.

Couldn't the Europeans just wait until the size of SEP comsats becomes known, before designing a new rocket?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: quanthasaquality on 03/25/2014 07:43 am
The proposed srb-x also used a second solid stage about ~1/3 the size of the first. If NASA wasn't interested in using the shuttle launch pad, it could have gone for 3 3-segment boosters for the first stage, instead of 2 4-segment boosters.

I hope the Ariane 6 does something different than the H-3, 3 to 6.5 tons to GEO, hydrogen single stage with strap on boosters. PPH was different.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 03/30/2014 02:30 am
SEP is expected to significantly bring down the mass of comsats, but a reference weight for this class of comsats (neither big nor small) has not been set at present. With this uncertainty in place it is only logical for ESA/Arianespace to state that launching a single 3 metric ton comsat on A6 will be cost-ineffective.
It all depends on how small SEP comsats will become and how big the marketshare of SEP comsats will become.

Couldn't the Europeans just wait until the size of SEP comsats becomes known, before designing a new rocket?


Satellites have been growing for years as they grow features can be added such as the ability to dodge rubbish .etc
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 04/10/2014 10:56 am
In the NELS study we found all the concepts using solid strap on boosters as very expensive compared to "clean designs"

So what makes the design expensive? Vertical integration? Isn't that required for some payloads anyway? Or is it primarily the payload mix? (i.e. heavy comsats as main market).

If we assume Vega will keep flying for the lifetime of A6, how would that change things?

Sorry for the late answer...

The main driver is the expected payload mix. About 80% of the payloads is above 3,5t (GTO equivalent) and only 20% below 3,5t. A modular approach would optimize the launcher for small payloads that only have a 20% share and would add a huge cost penalty for the remaining 80% because of the boosters.

If the payload mix would be the other way round, 20% large and 80% small payloads, a booster concept could be more attractive, but we did not investigate such a scenario.

An important lesson learned from NELS: a cost efficient launcher configuration is strongly driven by the expected payload mix!

Horizontal vs. vertical integration is for sure an influencing factor but has not that high impact.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 04/10/2014 02:48 pm
And I suppose it also has to do with using one solid engine on the first stage instead of using seven.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 04/15/2014 09:00 am
SEP is expected to significantly bring down the mass of comsats, but a reference weight for this class of comsats (neither big nor small) has not been set at present. With this uncertainty in place it is only logical for ESA/Arianespace to state that launching a single 3 metric ton comsat on A6 will be cost-ineffective.
It all depends on how small SEP comsats will become and how big the marketshare of SEP comsats will become.

Couldn't the Europeans just wait until the size of SEP comsats becomes known, before designing a new rocket?

Well I could tell you that if the largest capacity available today would be 1 ton to GTO, then those SEP comsats would be 1 ton.
I could also tell you that if the largest capacity available today would be 2 tonnes to GTO, then those SEP comsats would be 2 ton.
I'm not sure that if the largest capacity (as in 2 launchers so you could switch if one of them has a hickup) available today would be 6.5 tonnes that they would weigh 6.5t though.

Long story short, offer drives demand, to a certain extent. That's why waiting isn't necessarily the best strategy.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/15/2014 01:24 pm
ESA can't wait because even Ariane 5ME will be barely competitive by 2021. This last years, sat distribution has been roughly 1/3 < 3.5 tonnes, 1/3 between 3.5 and 4.5 and 1/3 > 4.5 tonnes. With a slight upward trend. But since the whole commercial market is around 20 satellites, you can't really use the big numbers law. It would seem that without some sort of scalability magic, Ariane 6 would need something like 75% of wins in the top segment. Which will be quite a feat. Now, if it was an 8.5tonnes vehicle, it could dual manifest most of the lower portion of the market.
But it is more interesting the SpaceX solution. Do a 4 tonne single core for most small medium, and do a heavy variant and dual manifest the big ones. Plus, they are actively pursuing reusability. My guess is that Ariane will increase slightly the solids. Or they'll try to offer a version without the second stage solid, but only fire the outboard solids at liftoff and use the center one as a second stage. I they can add third version without boosters and two stacked solids, they could get the necessary flexibility (but might still not be price competitive)..
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 04/15/2014 06:30 pm
Interview of Stephane Israel (head of Arianespace)(in French):
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140414trib000825295/si-ariane-6-arrive-a-faire-du-lancement-double-elle-devient-vraiment-l-arme-fatale-stephane-israel-arianespace.html (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140414trib000825295/si-ariane-6-arrive-a-faire-du-lancement-double-elle-devient-vraiment-l-arme-fatale-stephane-israel-arianespace.html)
Bottom line is Arianespace is supporting both Ariane 5 Me and Ariane 6, and is pushing for a dual-launch capability on Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simonbp on 04/15/2014 08:03 pm
Relevant text:
Quote
Aussi faut-il envisager des solutions de lancement double pour Ariane 6 pour capturer les petits satellites : avec 70 millions d'euros, Ariane 6 serait plus chère pour un petit satellite en lancement simple que nous ne le sommes aujourd'hui. En revanche, si on arrive à faire du lancement double de petits satellites de 3 à 3,5 tonnes sur Ariane 6, ce lanceur devient vraiment l'arme fatale.
and Google translated:
Quote
Also we need to consider solutions dual launch for Ariane 6 to capture small satellites with 70 million euros, Ariane 6 would be more expensive for a small satellite launch simple than we are today. However, if we manage to double launch small satellites from 3 to 3.5 tonnes on Ariane 6 launcher becomes really lethal weapon.

Is that 3-3.5 tonnes to LEO or GTO? I'd guess the later, but it's not clear.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 04/15/2014 09:49 pm
In the context of the interview it is definitely GEO. I have not heard of any plans to send sats to LEO using A6, though it would be interesting (5m fairing for 70M€ can be very interesting for earth observation)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/16/2014 12:12 am
It's the GTO market. Ariane 6 is simply overkill for anything short of NRO type payloads for LEO. Earth observation are typically 1.5 to 3 tonnes. And A6 should be doing at least 12tonnes (probably more). The institutional use of A6 Is MEO, GTO, escape and L2 missions. LEO and may be split evenly among Soyuz and Vega.
Now, if they had gone with the MT proposal they could have covered Vega to A6 range with a common core, not unlike Angara but even smaller/simpler.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 04/16/2014 06:53 pm
It's true LEO does not seem to be a priority, and I have not seen any figures for the A6 payload to LEO. But A6 can be of interest for some applications: Vega has a small fairing so high resolution EO satellites have to be optimized a lot to fit in it, which is expensive. The other option is to pay 30 or 40M€ more and use Soyuz or A6. And there are many reasons not to use a Soyuz (relations with Russia getting tense, increasing the flight rate of A6 to soak up fixed costs, stopping the Soyuz activity so save up on pad maintenance, or launching defense payloads with a full autonomy). A6 is not so overkill, since it is only around 15% more expensive than a CSG Soyuz.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/16/2014 08:18 pm
The Galileo Soyuz launches cost €56, which include the dual dispenser, two payload integrations and the STB upper stage and a Fregat-MT stage. Thus, basic STA without Fregat might well be under €45.Which is a far cry from the Ariane 6 €70. And Soyuz does has a 4.1m fairing.
The next version of Vega, btw, will have a bigger fairing. Probably a 3.7m, since that's the current LEO standard. Now, if they could use a two solid plus upper stage for €50, then that would be a very interesting product. Again, zero change of reusability.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/17/2014 08:56 pm
It's the GTO market. Ariane 6 is simply overkill for anything short of NRO type payloads for LEO. Earth observation are typically 1.5 to 3 tonnes. And A6 should be doing at least 12tonnes (probably more). The institutional use of A6 Is MEO, GTO, escape and L2 missions. LEO and may be split evenly among Soyuz and Vega.
Now, if they had gone with the MT proposal they could have covered Vega to A6 range with a common core, not unlike Angara but even smaller/simpler.
You mean this one.

I'm beginning to think that industry has these same concerns - that too many payloads can't fit to have the economics work. And I'm not convinced of a viable proposal that fits well. So expect that Ariane 6 not to proceed with such underwhelming support.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/18/2014 01:52 am

It's the GTO market. Ariane 6 is simply overkill for anything short of NRO type payloads for LEO. Earth observation are typically 1.5 to 3 tonnes. And A6 should be doing at least 12tonnes (probably more). The institutional use of A6 Is MEO, GTO, escape and L2 missions. LEO and may be split evenly among Soyuz and Vega.
Now, if they had gone with the MT proposal they could have covered Vega to A6 range with a common core, not unlike Angara but even smaller/simpler.
You mean this one.

I'm beginning to think that industry has these same concerns - that too many payloads can't fit to have the economics work. And I'm not convinced of a viable proposal that fits well. So expect that Ariane 6 not to proceed with such underwhelming support.
Yep. That's the proposal. I don't know if it was strong, but it is the only architecture capable of covering the whole market.
The main issue for low cost is that it depends heavily on implementation. You have to make cheap engines, cheap tanking, cheap avionics, etc. but above all, cheap overhead, cheap infrastructure and cheap factory. I simply don't see any industrial proposal that will work that way since its sacrificing future revenue and profits. Not with current procurement system. There's very little incentive to kill half your revenue.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/19/2014 07:03 pm
PPH played to certain strengths of dominant forces from the past. You either have more variation in the design to address smaller payload GTO and greater subsidies, or you're back to multiple launch - neither of this is healthy.

With a limited set of industry they could make PPH economics work by restructuring only those. To pull off the larger solution, it meant a larger scope of restructuring of the kind put of before, and the absence of certain involvement overstated in the prior vehicle and too dominant in PPH. So instead - they stuck their fingers in their collective ears and hummed really loudly.

Can't stomach where things are headed. So everything slows down. Prediction - they'll do a high cost very limited run launcher that only does the big payloads, with few highly subsidized launches, and still be looking for a future launcher that addresses the market better. Then the industry will have a survival motivation to do something better.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/20/2014 06:21 pm
French Space Minister Open to Ariane 6 Design Changes

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40626french-space-minister-open-to-ariane-6-design-changes

Quote
French space minister Genevieve Fioraso, in an apparent overture to Germany, on May 20 said France is willing to entertain modifications to the design of the next-generation Ariane 6 rocket so long as the changes stick to the established credibility criteria and are in hand by July 8.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: quanthasaquality on 05/24/2014 02:52 pm
I find the appeal of a vega derived, soyuz replacement to be strong. A 4 stage rocket: 3 vega stg 1, 1 vega stg 1, 1 vega stg 2, vinci stage. According to my cheezy spreadsheet, that gets ~10 tons to LEO, ~4 tons to GTO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 05/24/2014 04:51 pm
That would cover most of the institutional missions, except interplanetary (and possibly L2) missions. However fairing size could be an issue.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: savuporo on 05/24/2014 07:12 pm
French Space Minister Open to Ariane 6 Design Changes
It hurt my eyes to read the full thing. This has got to be the most political rocket ever designed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/24/2014 07:26 pm
French Space Minister Open to Ariane 6 Design Changes
It hurt my eyes to read the full thing. This has got to be the most political rocket ever designed.
I guess you were not around when Ariane 5 was being designed. The only difference with today is that the internet was restricted to universities back then and no such thing as NSF existed and the only news about the launcher came thru newspapers that didn't understand rocket science. But it was just as political.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/25/2014 08:36 pm
French Space Minister Open to Ariane 6 Design Changes

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40626french-space-minister-open-to-ariane-6-design-changes

Quote
French space minister Genevieve Fioraso, in an apparent overture to Germany, on May 20 said France is willing to entertain modifications to the design of the next-generation Ariane 6 rocket so long as the changes stick to the established credibility criteria and are in hand by July 8.

And yet nobody seems to question the cost advantages of solids. The Germans are mainly interested in maintaining their test site.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/26/2014 06:34 am
French Space Minister Open to Ariane 6 Design Changes

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40626french-space-minister-open-to-ariane-6-design-changes (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40626french-space-minister-open-to-ariane-6-design-changes)

Quote
French space minister Genevieve Fioraso, in an apparent overture to Germany, on May 20 said France is willing to entertain modifications to the design of the next-generation Ariane 6 rocket so long as the changes stick to the established credibility criteria and are in hand by July 8.

And yet nobody seems to question the cost advantages of solids. The Germans are mainly interested in maintaining their test site.
And their launcher industrial base. Germany's stakes in this are bigger than Lampoldhausen alone. But, Germany acting up over Ariane 6 is to be fully expected. It's how politics work. Time will tell how much the current German actions will change the Ariane 6 design.
The whole Ariane 6 development process is already highly interesting to witness and will likely continue to do so.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 05/26/2014 08:29 am
And yet nobody seems to question the cost advantages of solids.

I do... ;D

"Cost advantage of solids"?
There is no such thing...

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/26/2014 10:40 am
And yet nobody seems to question the cost advantages of solids.

I do... ;D

"Cost advantage of solids"?
There is no such thing...

Spacediver
Yes, and I know that you are in the know. It's for this very reason that I find the politics surrounding Ariane 6 very interesting. You see, one of the reasons uttered, by several high ranking CNES- and ESA officials, for the current Ariane 6 design is the so-called cost advantage of mass-producing solids. Clearly, those officials don't have a clue what they are talking about.
That's also the reason that I don't buy recent utterings from the same officials that the ESA Service Module for Orion is back on track whilst industry sources are indicating something entirely different.

But I digress.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/26/2014 10:53 am
And yet nobody seems to question the cost advantages of solids.

I do... ;D

"Cost advantage of solids"?
There is no such thing...

Spacediver

You said its around 76m euros (same as HH), so I guess a slightly different cost model could easily lead to 70m a flight.

And of course, reliability is also an issue.

In any case, I think the German critique is rather weak. They do not dispute the advantages of solids, or the need for A6 in the next decade, they just say they'd like some liquid propulsion in A6 to keep their stuff.

Quote from: woods170
You see, one of the reasons uttered, by several high ranking CNES- and ESA officials, for the current Ariane 6 design is the so-called cost advantage of mass-producing solids. Clearly, those officials don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Well Wörner never disputed the so-called cost advantage either. See for example this article:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/36225dlr%E2%80%99s-woerner-remains-unconvinced-just-unveiled-ariane-6-design-is-right
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/26/2014 12:52 pm
The last official trade I saw, solids where barely the cheapest for the lowest launch rate scenario. Solids were more about minimizing the worse loss if it is a commercial failure. For the medium launch rate it was par or more expensive than other options. And, ironically, with a big launch rate, it was significantly more expensive. Go read the trades.
I always suspect of statements that go against prevailing trends. Tell me how many of the low cost competitors use solids? Are the rest of the world idiots that go with liquids instead of the cheapest solids?
I do suspect that for expendable small vehicles solids might be cheaper. But once you go into big sizes there are no economical big solids.
Of course, those trades didn't told the underlying assumption of keep doing things the way they always do. If so, Falcon 9 + Dragon would have costed NASA 3B. Not only for government cost, but because they would have gone into a new propulsion project, and started with 15% margins and then had to invest millions to make even more expensive design and manufacturing trying to reduce mass and increase performance because they based their trades on minimizing dry mass instead of doing a cheap and bigger rocket.
That was the underlying problem of the trade. Had they worked on optimizing the factory so they throw stages that only need final checkup, to use a HIF for integration and stage checkout, even with the possibility of integrating those payloads that can be integrated horizontally, had they made a rationalization of specification and trade studies, etc. If they had done so, liquids would have been even cheaper.
Of course they would have to reduce CSG personnel, consolidate everything in one or two factories and generally reduce Arianespace and CNES overhead significantly. Which is politically non viable. But so is keeping the expenditure. That's the underlying limitation of government bureaucracies.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/26/2014 01:26 pm
The last official trade I saw, solids where barely the cheapest for the lowest launch rate scenario. Solids were more about minimizing the worse loss if it is a commercial failure. For the medium launch rate it was par or more expensive than other options. And, ironically, with a big launch rate, it was significantly more expensive. Go read the trades.

You mean the OHB paper? Only the hypothetical KH version with Russian engines was cheaper at high launch rates (versus inline PPH). Spacediver said HH is about the same as the current PPH. And that's only one cost model. In addition, solids have proven to be very reliable in all European programs while the same cannot be said about liquids.

As long as you ignore reusability and HSF, I don't see a rational argument for choosing liquids over solids.

Quote from: baldusi
I always suspect of statements that go against prevailing trends. Tell me how many of the low cost competitors use solids? Are the rest of the world idiots that go with liquids instead of the cheapest solids?

My guess:

The Russians do not have to know-how and don't need it (since they have good hydrocarbon engines). The US needed to cover a payload range (up to Delta Heavy) which a solid-only rocket probably could not, or at least not at a reasonable price. Both the US and Russia operate multiple launch sites, while ESA only has CSG (where the solids will be cast).

In addition, there probably has been significant progress in making big composite structures in recent decades.

Antares could soon be a "low-cost competitor" that uses solids as a first stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: savuporo on 05/26/2014 05:20 pm
So France and Germany are at odds here in what they want in regards to A6 development, and the differences seem to be irreconcilable - in one vehicle.
So why force each other into a suboptimal solution that both see is going to fail, just part ways and field two separate launchers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 05/26/2014 05:23 pm
So France and Germany are at odds here in what they want in regards to A6 development, and the differences seem to be irreconcilable - in one vehicle.
So why force each other into a suboptimal solution that both see is going to fail, just part ways and field two separate launchers.



Been saying that with a while .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 05/26/2014 06:53 pm
Germany does not really want its own launcher: there is too much competition, and sovereign launch capabilities are not required (the next german spy sat launches on Falcon 9). Its goals in the Ariane 6 program are to get money for its industry, and to get a R&D-intensive workshare to be competitive in the future.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/26/2014 08:12 pm
The last official trade I saw, solids where barely the cheapest for the lowest launch rate scenario. Solids were more about minimizing the worse loss if it is a commercial failure. For the medium launch rate it was par or more expensive than other options. And, ironically, with a big launch rate, it was significantly more expensive. Go read the trades.

You mean the OHB paper? Only the hypothetical KH version with Russian engines was cheaper at high launch rates (versus inline PPH). Spacediver said HH is about the same as the current PPH. And that's only one cost model. In addition, solids have proven to be very reliable in all European programs while the same cannot be said about liquids.
You see, I'm an economist. I don't only read the engineering model, but the economic one. They didn't stated a 3P/1P/1H AND 2P/1P/1H AND 1P/1P/1H AND 1P/Z30/VEGA as an overall strategy. They compared just 3P/1P/1H as if there was a single market. Assuming no synergy with Vega nor with Soyuz. And the fact is that there's simply not how the market is configured. Doing dual launch on a 6.5tonne to GTO is a hassle, unless you do stacked pairings like the Boeing 702SP on Falcon 9 or the Reshetnevs on Proton (apparently Orbital GEOStar3 bus can also do it).
Within that framework, it was clear that they didn't assumed design to cost but the usual way of doing things. They assumed vertical integration all the way. They didn't assumed the competitiveness of the performances scales. They didn't made a model of institutional, national security and commercial payloads. Which all have different elasticities. Each engineering model, would have had different positioning and different optimal markets.
Overall, they tried one costing model, with the same business model, and then came up with a magic number. But that's not how you do market analysis. Different technical solutions have different strengths, which make them optimal for different markets, and thus you optimize in different ways.
Regrettably, the presented solid solution, showed no analysis that would have convinced me. But that analysis in general didn't convinced me. I'm not stating that solids is wrong per se. It might, if they find a way of making a mix and match system that cover from Vega to 6.5tonnes to GTO performance with at least four performance levels. It's just that they tried a general model that abstract the reality of market demand and actual cost optimizations away.

As long as you ignore reusability and HSF, I don't see a rational argument for choosing liquids over solids.
I've given you above my take on the rest. But given SpaceX latest experience with the F9R, I would at least wait a couple of years to fully understand if it's going to work or not. Re-usability has the potential to be a market changer force, and I wouldn't want to commit to a potentially dead end development just because they wanted to spend more money on development.

Quote from: baldusi
I always suspect of statements that go against prevailing trends. Tell me how many of the low cost competitors use solids? Are the rest of the world idiots that go with liquids instead of the cheapest solids?

My guess:

The Russians do not have to know-how and don't need it (since they have good hydrocarbon engines). The US needed to cover a payload range (up to Delta Heavy) which a solid-only rocket probably could not, or at least not at a reasonable price. Both the US and Russia operate multiple launch sites, while ESA only has CSG (where the solids will be cast).
In addition, there probably has been significant progress in making big composite structures in recent decades.
Antares could soon be a "low-cost competitor" that uses solids as a first stage.
Solids, ironically, seem to work for low launch rates (Athena, Pegasus, Minotaur, Taurus, etc.). All high launch rate vehicles use solids just for thrust augmentation. Look at starting nations and commercial start ups. Almost nobody tries solids. Even the masters of solid propulsion, ATK, haven't been able to move Liberty forwards. And if Antares where to go with a solid first stage, it would have still to prove itself "cheap". Upto now is just a vehicle used by OrbitalATK on a single service contract that actually required it to develop an own LV.
The Russians do have solid knowledge, since most new ICBM are solid. Yet, they don't see the need even for thrust augmentation. May be ESA's mistake is assuming they don't need to keep the liquid engine capabilities. But I don't want to digress on that point.
Casting in CSG is both a bless (because of transport) and a problem (French labor cost and environmental laws). But even though it might end as an advantage overall, I still don't believe it's the be all end all. The market had failed to be competitive due to the unreliability of Proton-M, Sea Launch and GSLV plus the US blockage on Chinese LV and ULA's and MHI's high cost.
Now SpaceX is starting to make inroads, ULA is actually lowering their prices, the Indians are improving their process and even the Japanese are getting more competitive. And nobody is planning solids for anything more than boosters or SLV.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/26/2014 08:13 pm
There's no denying its difficult to go forward with Ariane at this juncture in time.

The theory of "cheap solids" allows the political machinations to have license. Like in the previous decisions for Ariane 5 long ago - only the nature/justification of the "excuse" is different.

In truth there is more to the practice of "least risk" as a meme here than anything else. You've got too much riding on one launcher - where each community would be better served by a separate one. But, because the economics do not combine well for certain low launch frequency needs, this is disallowed. It's a perfect storm in which extreme waste of budget could happen, precisely because extreme budget discipline at a time when a paradigm change is threatening.

The theory of "reusable first stage" is still way beyond acceptable as Musk incrementally steps it forward if almost in a teasing way. While entering the scene, the overhang on the effect of this on the competitive landscape is likely a half decade to go, still longer for risk /"blame" obsessed governments with rigid industry policy. With the considerable downsides of instability as you see given Russia right now.

Many know that its just as dangerous to be overly narrow as it is to be overly broad in response at this juncture, yet that doesn't have a voice at the moment. Nor is there any flex / degrees of freedom on the policy side, given the volatile nature of international relations over the past two decades alone.

How can you make a multi decade decision? Low risk? Minimal investment? Requiring significant restructuring of industry? Without threatening the necessary eurocentrism to not bring on the rise of euroskepticism (note election results currently sweeping through). Its a straight jacket.

Striking things to think about - you can get EU/US economic scalability but at political and industrial risk. You can exploit the new paradigm but only at the cost of "all up" risk to the old paradigm - it is unlikely both will survive long term, nor is it likely that a rival exploiting the new paradigm can arrive on the scene in such a way, and in such a time, that it won't do anything but destabilize a rocky situation.

The benefits of aligning industrial bases here would be to increase the durability to economic impact by increased resilience.   Rather than having them incrementally take the hit alone, and fall over in sequence.

One can align on low cost of failure approaches (solids - a cynical bet with least exposure), push through with maximal investment on the new paradigm in a "fail fast" means (with a reserve to repair the old), or a unified "best of old", "best of new" dual mode investment with full involvement of the aligned industrial base, with  the clear intent of unlike the EELV competition, really only having one of the two long term.

It is hard to see any of these. It is still harder to see how Musk doesn't end up as a major factor in any outcome.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: savuporo on 05/26/2014 08:33 pm
One can align on low cost of failure approaches (solids - a cynical bet with least exposure), push through with maximal investment on the new paradigm in a "fail fast" means (with a reserve to repair the old), or a unified "best of old", "best of new" dual mode investment with full involvement of the aligned industrial base, with  the clear intent of unlike the EELV competition, really only having one of the two long term.
Good writeup. The third option would essentially be buying down long term risk with small cheap potential failures, i.e. continuous R&D program for launcher development to actually understand the opportunities and pitfalls better. This is a path definitely not taken in EU so far, unfortunately.



Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/27/2014 06:31 am
From the VA218 update thread:

propulsion issue (thrusters), Spacecraft was half fueled so this puts extra strain on the launch schedule for CSG (decontamination etc.)
Optus 10 will be shipped back

Launch is canceled, Arianespace looking for another payload as MEASAT is filled and ready


EDIT:
press-release here:
http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/5-26-2014-VA218.asp (http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/5-26-2014-VA218.asp)



Ariane 6 anyone?  ;)
No seriously. This is just another prime example why dual launch is not the way to go.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/27/2014 11:28 am
Oh! I'm all for single launch. I'm just criticizing the economic analysis done up to now.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/27/2014 01:00 pm
Oh! I'm all for single launch. I'm just criticizing the economic analysis done up to now.

I know that. I wasn't referring to your criticizing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/27/2014 06:50 pm
You see, I'm an economist. I don't only read the engineering model, but the economic one. They didn't stated a 3P/1P/1H AND 2P/1P/1H AND 1P/1P/1H AND 1P/Z30/VEGA as an overall strategy. They compared just 3P/1P/1H as if there was a single market. Assuming no synergy with Vega nor with Soyuz. And the fact is that there's simply not how the market is configured. Doing dual launch on a 6.5tonne to GTO is a hassle, unless you do stacked pairings like the Boeing 702SP on Falcon 9 or the Reshetnevs on Proton (apparently Orbital GEOStar3 bus can also do it).
Within that framework, it was clear that they didn't assumed design to cost but the usual way of doing things. They assumed vertical integration all the way. They didn't assumed the competitiveness of the performances scales. They didn't made a model of institutional, national security and commercial payloads. Which all have different elasticities. Each engineering model, would have had different positioning and different optimal markets.
Overall, they tried one costing model, with the same business model, and then came up with a magic number. But that's not how you do market analysis. Different technical solutions have different strengths, which make them optimal for different markets, and thus you optimize in different ways.
Regrettably, the presented solid solution, showed no analysis that would have convinced me. But that analysis in general didn't convinced me. I'm not stating that solids is wrong per se. It might, if they find a way of making a mix and match system that cover from Vega to 6.5tonnes to GTO performance with at least four performance levels. It's just that they tried a general model that abstract the reality of market demand and actual cost optimizations away.

You are making a lot of baseless assumptions here. What makes you think they (CNES, Arianespace, ESA, industry) have not done a market analysis? You can be pretty sure they have. That single publication from one company involved certainly doesn't tell the whole story.

Look at starting nations and commercial start ups. Almost nobody tries solids.

I think I have mentioned enough reasons for why this is the case.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hektor on 06/16/2014 06:50 am
Airbus, Safran team up on response to SpaceX -sources (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/15/airbus-group-safran-idUSL5N0OW1IP20140615)

Quote
Les Echos newspaper, also reporting a new co-operation venture, said Airbus and Safran would propose a new technical configuration for Ariane 6 as part of the move. France and Germany have been at odds over the rocket's design, which must be resolved ahead of a ministerial meeting in December.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hektor on 06/16/2014 08:21 am
Airbus Group and Safran To Join Forces in Launcher Activities  (http://www.safran-group.com/site-safran-en/press-media/press-releases/2014/article/airbus-group-and-safran-to-join?13976)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: bolun on 06/16/2014 08:44 pm
Airbus Group and Safran to team up: “A milestone for the European launcher industry”
 
Evry, June 16, 2014

Airbus Group and Safran, the two largest industry shareholders in Arianespace, announced this morning that they are creating an equally-owned joint venture for launch vehicles.

French President François Hollande invited all stakeholders in the Ariane system to the Elysée Palace for a meeting to mark this occasion.

Following the meeting, Arianespace Chairman and CEO Stéphane Israël said: "This is a major milestone for the European launcher industry. The initiative by Airbus Group and Safran, our two largest industry shareholders, aims to increase the competitiveness of the Ariane system and enhance its responsiveness in today's competitive environment, by simplifying our organization. Arianespace, on behalf of all our shareholders and reflecting our mission of guaranteeing independent access to space for Europe, is very pleased with this initiative, which will benefit all of our commercial and governmental customers. Today's announcement comes several months before the next ESA ministerial-level conference, in Luxembourg, which will prove decisive for the future of European launchers. Arianespace will draw on the excellence of our engineers and other employees in Evry and French Guiana to play a proactive role during this pivotal phase and maintain our long-standing leadership."

http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/6-16-2014-Rapprochement-Airbus-Safran.asp
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mlindner on 06/16/2014 09:22 pm
Could Airbus and Safran be preparing to dump Arianespace and create their own company so they're not burdened by government controls?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 06/16/2014 09:41 pm
According to French newspapers, they want to merge the launcher departments of Safran, Airbus, CNES (the French Space Agency) and Arianespace to have one integrated launch provider, and they want to use 2 rockets (4t and 8t GTO) with cryo propulsion. Very ambitious.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/16/2014 09:45 pm
Being solely a commercial company and having the freedom to choose their suppliers and design LVs without government intervention would be a big plus.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 06/16/2014 09:49 pm
They'll never be completely independent of governments, the development will be paid by France, Germany and Italy. In fact, the merger is made also to please governments: Germany has OK'd the deal and the move toward cryo propulsion certainly played a big part in that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 06/16/2014 10:00 pm

According to French newspapers, they want to merge the launcher departments of Safran, Airbus, CNES (the French Space Agency) and Arianespace to have one integrated launch provider, and they want to use 2 rockets (4t and 8t GTO) with cryo propulsion. Very ambitious.
Any more information on the technical proposal?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hektor on 06/17/2014 07:13 am
I expect something very similar to the H-3 of Mitsubishi/JAXA
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/17/2014 11:22 am
Being solely a commercial company and having the freedom to choose their suppliers and design LVs without government intervention would be a big plus.
On the other hand, they would loose access to the government-owned and CNES operated launch site at Kourou if they were to go for full indepence from ESA and the member states.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/17/2014 11:25 am
They'll never be completely independent of governments, the development will be paid by France, Germany and Italy.
Correct. On their own the companies involved don't have the bucks to develop any new launchers. They need government funds from ESA member states.

IMO, this merger is an early step in the consolidation of the European launcher industry following the coming demise of the geo-return policy.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/17/2014 11:28 am
According to French newspapers, they want to merge the launcher departments of Safran, Airbus, CNES (the French Space Agency) and Arianespace to have one integrated launch provider, and they want to use 2 rockets (4t and 8t GTO) with cryo propulsion. Very ambitious.

Both Safran, Airbus and CNES are major shareholders in Arianespace. The move described in the French newspapers would erase the boundaries between these four entities and create a single entity that could possibly operate more smoothly and efficiently. Not my use of the word 'could'.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/17/2014 05:49 pm
The 8.5t version is kind of weird. Do they expect satellites to become lighter, such that they can do dual launches?

We'll see.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 06/17/2014 06:04 pm
They are doing this joint venture to compete with SpaceX, but I don't see a strategy here that really cuts costs. They are still focused on the number of jobs per country. Notice the French are focused on their 16,000 jobs.

This is still a government dominated strategy that is basically a jobs program. There won't be significant savings here unless they change the underlying culture and strategy. In fact, in a joint venture they will likely be creating a new level of management just to run that joint venture.

This may be just my opinion, and it is purely based on these media articles so far, but I don't see how this would lead to a 20% cut in costs (or whatever the target is) for the players involved.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/17/2014 06:17 pm
This is still a government dominated strategy that is basically a jobs program.

Of course its a job program. If Arianespace loses its commercial market share, lots of jobs will be lost.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 06/17/2014 07:22 pm
The GTO throw weights seem a bit odd indeed: 4t is OK for light chemical propulsion comsats and electric propulsion ones, but the medium to heavy market is 4-6t at the moment, too heavy for the light rocket they propose and lighter than the heavy rocket.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: savuporo on 06/18/2014 02:53 pm
A bunch of tweets from Peter B. de Selding @pbdes just now , presumaly later in SN article with the full context:
Quote
18 mo of Euro/Fr space agency work on future Ariane 6 rocket near collapse as Airbus & Snecma Safran propose new design w/ Fr govt blessing.

Airbus/Snecma Safran Ariane 6 replaces solids w/ liquids, assuring German support. Also up to 8,500kg to GTO, enlarging dual-launch ability.

New Ariane 6 design eliminates need for new launch pad, saving 100s of millions in devel costs. Question remains on version's prod cost.

German DLR, French CNES space agencies agree: Airbus/Safran Snecma Ariane 6 proposal a welcome 1st step in launch-industry reorganization.

CNES chief Le Gall: Let's wait and see on whether Airbus/Snecma Safran rocket joint venture proposal's idea for Ariane 6 meets cost targets.


Let the sanity prevail ?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kerlc on 06/18/2014 03:47 pm
So, it's similar to an uprated Zenit. An EuroZenit, if you will.

If the folks at ESA are clever enough about how they organise development and production, this might actually make A6 a bit more affordable and less of a pipe dream concerning costs.

I'm still a bit skeptical on whether the decision to keep dual-launch is a smart move, but given the smaller baseline GTO payload than the A5, less money would be wasted on single-launch missions.

Wait and see, I guess?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/18/2014 05:31 pm
A bunch of tweets from Peter B. de Selding @pbdes just now , presumaly later in SN article with the full context:
Quote
18 mo of Euro/Fr space agency work on future Ariane 6 rocket near collapse as Airbus & Snecma Safran propose new design w/ Fr govt blessing.

Airbus/Snecma Safran Ariane 6 replaces solids w/ liquids, assuring German support. Also up to 8,500kg to GTO, enlarging dual-launch ability.

New Ariane 6 design eliminates need for new launch pad, saving 100s of millions in devel costs. Question remains on version's prod cost.

German DLR, French CNES space agencies agree: Airbus/Safran Snecma Ariane 6 proposal a welcome 1st step in launch-industry reorganization.

CNES chief Le Gall: Let's wait and see on whether Airbus/Snecma Safran rocket joint venture proposal's idea for Ariane 6 meets cost targets.


Let the sanity prevail ?

It would not be the first time that a design of a new version of Ariane was thrown out to make way for something better. Has anyone here ever seen the first designs for Ariane 5? Those were a natural evolution from Ariane 4. But it was ultimately concluded that the design-core for Ariane 1 to 4 had reached it's limits and could not be extended far enough to lift - what was then to be Ariane 5's primary payload - Hermes.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/18/2014 05:33 pm
Wait and see, I guess?
That's a fact. Just keep the popcorn around, relax, sit back and enjoy the ride. Interesting times are upon us once more. This new development is going to be fun to watch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/18/2014 06:05 pm
Indeed.

It's a good comparison to think of Ariane 4 designs that were abandoned, The key issue was Hermes, while the key issue now is commercial launch that can allow european aerospace to have rational economics given potential technology shifts.

Like OrbATK, they don't necessarily have to beat SpaceX (assuming they succeed), but to be relevant in such a competitive landscape. If they win 20-30% market share of commercial launches, that would be enough.

What they have going for them is a good technology base to develop from, and a history/heritage to draw off of. What they don't have is the culture of a SpaceX, which allows them to change the ways to adapt quickly with what might be heretical approaches that challenge technology base and heritage - because evolving a hydrolox propulsion system to a less expensive, modular launch architecture (possibly reusable) requires addressing massive changes of esoteric nature with a KISS approach that can be replicated with lowest labor costs, in an environment that is motived by entirely the opposite mindset.

They can do this. Will they do this? Or will they chicken out when too many ox's are gored.

PPH was a cynical gambit all along, because too many ox's were being gored.

If I were them, I'd wish to not only study F9R, but learn the lessons of where Delta IV and H2 went wrong.

Likely what we're looking at is Ariane 5 redux (A5RE?). Kind of the reverse of the Ariane 4 scenario, where they went with something completely different in the end, in this case it may be reinventing the Ariane 5 hydrolox propulsion in modular fashion.

Like perhaps having the same modular stage, tanks, thrust structure, engines. Perhaps US differentiation by stage stretch, vacuum nozzle extension. Following in the SpaceX economies of scale.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: savuporo on 06/18/2014 06:13 pm
What they have going for them is a good technology base to develop from, and a history/heritage to draw off of. What they don't have is the culture of a SpaceX, which allows them to change the ways to adapt quickly with what might be heretical ...

Ariane has a massive experience in integrating and launching commercial payloads. They know practically everything that there is to know about streamlining and squeezing launch calendars in the modern environment, as per these article for example
( although russian military has probably a lesson or two on them about firing about a launch per week to orbit with Soyuz in the old days )

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35984ariane-5-manifest-unsettled-for-remainder-of-2013-and-into-2014
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1110/26csg/

Whether they make their rockets reusable, change the fuel to baked beans etc is only relevant if it keeps their flight rates up and overhead costs down
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 06/18/2014 06:21 pm
Well, now that I think of it, there are a few ways of doing only two payloads levels without SRB thrust augmentation.
1) Single and heavy. The payload difference doesn't quite seems to fit.
2) Disposable and Reusable first stage. I don't think they'll be that bold, but if SpaceX does succeeds at reusability it might even be the politically reasonable one.
3) Using solids for first stage and doing 3P/1P/1H and 1P/1P/1H. I understand they are going with liquid propulsion, but I just wanted to state it.
4) Using one engine with "small" tanks and dual engine with a "stretched" tank. Sort like the Atlas V Phase 2 stubby and normal. It would use the same tooling and share almost everything (but pad interfaces would need either two adaptors or the option of elevating the base.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 06/18/2014 07:27 pm
The dual-launch capability mentioned by Peter de Selding is very weird, the whole point of Ariane 6 is to get rid of this. Plus 8.5t is very light for dual launch, for a heavy satellite of 6t it would leave 2t for the other passenger. There are no (or almost none) GEO satellites of this mass.

Well, now that I think of it, there are a few ways of doing only two payloads levels without SRB thrust augmentation.
1) Single and heavy. The payload difference doesn't quite seems to fit.
2) Disposable and Reusable first stage. I don't think they'll be that bold, but if SpaceX does succeeds at reusability it might even be the politically reasonable one.
3) Using solids for first stage and doing 3P/1P/1H and 1P/1P/1H. I understand they are going with liquid propulsion, but I just wanted to state it.
4) Using one engine with "small" tanks and dual engine with a "stretched" tank. Sort like the Atlas V Phase 2 stubby and normal. It would use the same tooling and share almost everything (but pad interfaces would need either two adaptors or the option of elevating the base.

SRBs are really likely, otherwise the French ministry of Defense will put its veto, since the French industry would lose a lot of expertise in solids.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 06/18/2014 07:48 pm
They are doing this joint venture to compete with SpaceX, but I don't see a strategy here that really cuts costs. They are still focused on the number of jobs per country. Notice the French are focused on their 16,000 jobs.

This is still a government dominated strategy that is basically a jobs program. There won't be significant savings here unless they change the underlying culture and strategy. In fact, in a joint venture they will likely be creating a new level of management just to run that joint venture.

This may be just my opinion, and it is purely based on these media articles so far, but I don't see how this would lead to a 20% cut in costs (or whatever the target is) for the players involved.

Indeed.

And see this thread (Airbus-Safran joint venture (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34980.0)) for a fuller discussion that is not limited to Ariane 6, the scope of this thread.

In the Airbus-Safran joint venture thread, there is a broader discussion going on of how this may, or may not, affect the competiveness of these two companies within the French mixed economy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy), and perhaps more importantly, how this change in the structure of the French space industrial complex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex) may, or may not, affect competitiveness in the worldwide launch market in general, and with SpaceX in particular.

Cheers.
 Llian
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/18/2014 08:16 pm
Right now you can go two ways - accept low/no commercial longterm and accept a trimmed fully burdened cost profile, or choose to be in the commercial competitive landscape. Very different choices w/no middle ground.

For the first you accept a loss of the initiative and future marginalization, and you get a bounded cost program and no need to change your culture/deals.

For the second, you need to address what it will take for leadership of the most competitive possible and build from there what you'll need. At a minimum its the culture that has to be invested in to change.

You can change everything, even use beans for  propellant - but the more you change the longer and greater risk - are beans a good risk? Is reusing existing pad better than all up new?

With the mention of dual payload increase, made me think of an incremental approach where both stages were being upgraded and the solids becoming optional.

As to the solids being mandatory, that's one of the ox's to be gored. If it comes down to competitive or not with SpaceX - who don't have the cost burden - do they want to be competitive or not?

Fewest cost burdens here. Thats the game. One engine used in volume. Fewest differences between boosters and US. Real obvious stuff. No distractions.

Also they don't need to do reusable. Just ELV that might be eventually revised to do so if that suits.

Keep it simple. Do it fast. Make it cheap. After that retain what made you best as a provider.

If this isn't the mantra then they won't succeed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/18/2014 08:29 pm
Well it will probably be the end of geo-return, which is a good thing I guess.

"Luckily" the institutional market in Europe is so small (and European governments are not even obliged to launch with Arianespace) such that this new entity has an actual incentive to compete in the commercial market.

Arianespace has a massive experience in integrating and launching commercial payloads.

Right, they launch 10+ commercial payloads per year and have been doing that for a long time.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 06/18/2014 09:53 pm
Btw, dual launch at 8.5tonnes cover possible future growth of payloads of big sats, or, if SEP is successful, two 4tonne SEP sats that would be about equivalent to liquid 6.5tonnes.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Burninate on 06/19/2014 12:51 am
IMO trying to complete with Falcon 9 at this juncture is not sufficient.

They have to complete with Falcon Heavy & flyback boosters as well.

Something that resembles Angara, or Angara-Baikal, adjusted to the fuels they have the best access to, and with the tremendous advantage of equatorial launch, would not be amiss.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kerlc on 06/19/2014 05:27 am
LH2 Angara actually sounds like a sound strategy due to the Angara's modular design. Single first stage core mass produced and used in various configurations to modulate payload size.

But I'm skeptical that such a design could be produced, so I'll stick to the EuroSoyuz comparison that some people on this thread have used.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/19/2014 12:05 pm
Some info from those articles

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/le-president-d-airbus-defence-and-space-france-propose-deux-versions-d-ariane-6.N269614

http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203569568414-ariane-airbus-et-safran-lancent-la-contre-attaque-face-a-space-x-1013467.php

- "2 versions of Ariane 6, actually (en fait) two versions of the same common "trunc" (core I guess) with 75% commonality".

- First flight of the 4t A6 possible in 2019. Ariane 5 ME in 2017.

- reduced transition risk from A5 to A6.

- A6 will use the A5 pad.

The obvious configuration based on previous A6 configurations we have seen would be the one with 2 Vulcain 3 in the core + strap-ons. That would cover the payload range from 2.2t (0 boosters) to 8.4t (6 boosters). I have not seen a 4t version though (with 2 boosters its 5.6t).

According to OHB, such a version is hardly competitive, at least when it comes to recurrent costs (assuming single launch). Also that configuration has a different core stage diameter than A5.

We know the A5 pad will be used, what limits does that impose on possible A6 configurations?

Right now I think it could be a A5 core with 2 P80 (or bigger) (to my knowledge such concepts were rejected in the past, too costly for too little payload), or maybe an A5 core with multiple Vulcains and no strap-ons (at least for the 4t version).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/19/2014 12:36 pm
Some info from those articles

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/le-president-d-airbus-defence-and-space-france-propose-deux-versions-d-ariane-6.N269614 (http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/le-president-d-airbus-defence-and-space-france-propose-deux-versions-d-ariane-6.N269614)

http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203569568414-ariane-airbus-et-safran-lancent-la-contre-attaque-face-a-space-x-1013467.php (http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203569568414-ariane-airbus-et-safran-lancent-la-contre-attaque-face-a-space-x-1013467.php)

The articles suggest strongly that the newly proposed A6 will be a direct derivative from the current A5; the part about first flight in 2019 is particularly telling. The fact that it is suppose to use the same launchpad suggests that the main propulsion systems (both liquid fueled engines on the core, and solid strap-ons) will be located over the currently existing flame ducts. That gives some clues, up to the point that the new A6 proposal wil likely use a core very similar to the current A5 core, possibly with multiple Vulcain engines attached (4 t version) and additional strap on boosters (derived from Vega first stage perhaps?) for the heavy (8.5 t version). The upper stage will undoubtly be powered by Vinci.
Anyway, we won't have to wait too long for more details on this proposal to emerge. Some stuff is bound to leak out once the proposal is in ESA hands later this summer. The ministerial conference coming December will surely lift the veil on most details.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/19/2014 01:08 pm
The fact that it is suppose to use the same launchpad suggests that the main propulsion systems (both liquid fueled engines on the core, and solid strap-ons) will be located over the currently existing flame ducts. That gives some clues, up to the point that the new A6 proposal wil likely use a core very similar to the current A5 core, possibly with multiple Vulcain engines attached (4 t version) and additional strap on boosters (derived from Vega first stage perhaps?) for the heavy (8.5 t version).

Indeed. The flame duct for the core looks too small for multiple engines right now, but I guess with little modification they could fit 2 in there. A 2-engine core for 4t?

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 06/19/2014 06:56 pm
Some info from those articles

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/le-president-d-airbus-defence-and-space-france-propose-deux-versions-d-ariane-6.N269614 (http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/le-president-d-airbus-defence-and-space-france-propose-deux-versions-d-ariane-6.N269614)

http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203569568414-ariane-airbus-et-safran-lancent-la-contre-attaque-face-a-space-x-1013467.php (http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203569568414-ariane-airbus-et-safran-lancent-la-contre-attaque-face-a-space-x-1013467.php)

He also says the industry solution will be cheaper than the ESA one in recurrent cost
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/20/2014 12:12 am
He also says the industry solution will be cheaper than the ESA one in recurrent cost

The kind of depends on the market. According to FAA forecasts the majority of commercial payloads (~60%) will still be above 4t by the end of the decade, maybe they're wrong.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/20/2014 01:45 am
By my read they need a 4T LV at about 1/3 cost of Ariane 5, with no solids.

Engines and stage costs would be the issue. Can't see how they can do this.

This would about do for small market share ELV only. Bare bones, holding on by fingernails.

Much better use of limited budget than PPH. More likely customers won't gag on this one.

No one has any idea of where things will go if first stage RLV becomes practicable.

Predict that ELV and RLV markets are mutually exclusive economics. Bimodal pricing with big gap between "bumps".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/20/2014 07:55 pm
Link to today's SpaceNews article by Peter B. de Selding:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40973airbus-and-safran-propose-new-ariane-6-design-reorganization-of-europe%E2%80%99s

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 06/20/2014 11:13 pm
According to this the light version can do 4t to 7t. To me this hints at a variable number of solid boosters.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/20/2014 11:17 pm
According to this the light version can do 4t to 7t. To me this hints at a variable number of solid boosters.

From the article:

Quote
One Ariane 6 would launch payloads weighing between 3,000 and 7,000 kilograms into orbit, with the focus on the European government market. The other would have a lift capacity of up to 8,500 kilograms and would be used for commercial launches, both single- and dual-launch versions.

Make no sense.

Lots of confusing information out there.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 06/21/2014 12:20 pm
The only explanation I have is the light version is seriously non-competitive, and the heavy version has a competitive cost/kg if it launches two 4t satellites at the same time. Which is a fallacy because you rarely get a perfect pairing of satellite masses.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 06/21/2014 12:38 pm
Mmm, 3 to 7 plus 8.5 does sounds like SRB augmented liquid plus a heavy version.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Archibald on 06/22/2014 05:58 am
An all LH2 Ariane 6 with multiple Vulcains on the first stage, augmented with small strapons to obtain a heavy variant.
How about that...
Two things

- back from the future, Marty !  ;D
 http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1984/1984%20-%200608.html?search=Ariane%205P
Ariane 5L seems to be back...

-  it uses Ariane 5 core with two differences: more Vulcains, smaller (or non existings) SRBs: that would be a logical consequence of the current Ariane 5 lack of flexibility.
Indeed Ariane 5 core can't fly without the big solids. But the big solids, somewhat of Hermes legacy, push the payload to 22 tons LEO or 10 tons+GTO, hence dual launch that is no longer sustainable.

That solution makes some sense, at least historically...

It is interesting to review those old Ariane 5 concepts of 30 years ago. One was clearly of Ariane 44L legacy (the 5R, Reference); and it even reached far back into the past, to Europa IIIB that was canned in favour of the LIIIS in 1973.
Much like Ariane 5R, the LIIIB was to have a cryogenic stage 2 (the H20 engine slowly evolved into the HM-60, future Vulcain... Ariane 5R was somewhat a matured LIIIB except that it ultimately proved unworkable, too much Vikings downstairs with a fat LH2 stage on top = bad)

The other two Ariane 5 were somewhat influenced by the Shuttle, one way or another. The 5P that ultimately won the deal was of clear Shuttle legacy (SRB + high tech LH2, both eventually recoverable, although that never happened in the end)

What about the 5C, all-cryo ? It was perhaps the best of the lot but is growth potential to LEO was too small. I red somewhere it topped at 13.5 tons when Hermes was already busting the 15 tons limit, on the way to the final 23 tons. It was easier to stretch SRBs for more power, as happened twice during Hermes history - from P170 to P190 in 1986, and later to P240 or so...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/22/2014 08:11 am
- back from the future, Marty !  ;D
 http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1984/1984%20-%200608.html?search=Ariane%205P

Thanks! That's the "great" thing about rockets, every concept you see will still be the future 30 years later.

Btw the Quadri-Vulcain was also one of the A6 concepts (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1072797#msg1072797), so that could be the 8.5t version (we know that a 6.5t version is possible with 3 Vulcains).

What about the 5C, all-cryo ? It was perhaps the best of the lot but is growth potential to LEO was too small.

Interestingly the LEO versions (both expendable and reusable first stage) have a big second stage with one Vulcain.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/22/2014 08:09 pm
An all LH2 Ariane 6 with multiple Vulcains on the first stage, augmented with small strapons to obtain a heavy variant.
How about that...
Depends on four things:
1. is the goal cheap expendable?
2. is the goal reusable?
3. does the goal mean cost sharing solids with Vega?
4. is the goal fewest dependant costs such that incremental change allows fast market adaptation?

The suggestion doesn't help 1, 3, or 4.


Two things

- back from the future, Marty !  ;D
 http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1984/1984%20-%200608.html?search=Ariane%205P
Ariane 5L seems to be back...

From the article:
Quote
An all-cryogenic Ariane 5 is a logical step towards reusable  step towards reusable rockets, generally accepted as the best way to reduce launch costs. Ariane 5 (solid-propellant) is not, and in this sense it represents a blind alley.
So the idea back then was cryogenic tech as a stepping stone to reusable, like Shuttle. And to band-aid that with solids, because an all cryogenic couldn't be afforded. I.e. number 2 I listed above.

So A6 PPH was another "blind alley".

-  it uses Ariane 5 core with two differences: more Vulcains, smaller (or non existings) SRBs: that would be a logical consequence of the current Ariane 5 lack of flexibility.
Indeed Ariane 5 core can't fly without the big solids. But the big solids, somewhat of Hermes legacy, push the payload to 22 tons LEO or 10 tons+GTO, hence dual launch that is no longer sustainable.

That solution makes some sense, at least historically...
The flexibility of Ariane 5 was dual payloads. Which seems to be continuing.

The choice of doing reusable back then may be different than doing reusable these days. Also, the economics have shifted in design, manufacturing, and financing.

So yes its "back to the future" from the standpoint of revisiting the post Ariane 4 discussions, which were a dead-on critique.

However, answering the question of what to do next will be a lot different.

It is interesting to review those old Ariane 5 concepts of 30 years ago. One was clearly of Ariane 44L legacy (the 5R, Reference); and it even reached far back into the past, to Europa IIIB that was canned in favour of the LIIIS in 1973.
Much like Ariane 5R, the LIIIB was to have a cryogenic stage 2 (the H20 engine slowly evolved into the HM-60, future Vulcain... Ariane 5R was somewhat a matured LIIIB except that it ultimately proved unworkable, too much Vikings downstairs with a fat LH2 stage on top = bad)
They need upper stage for necessary performance that drove the need.  But the boost for that was insufficient. And there was no kerolox experience, which, along with the Shuttle, would have been a better solution than the solids and the awkwardness created in intersecting weapons industry where the cart insists on pushing the horse in european and american budget politics...

The other two Ariane 5 were somewhat influenced by the Shuttle, one way or another. The 5P that ultimately won the deal was of clear Shuttle legacy (SRB + high tech LH2, both eventually recoverable, although that never happened in the end)

What about the 5C, all-cryo ? It was perhaps the best of the lot but is growth potential to LEO was too small. I red somewhere it topped at 13.5 tons when Hermes was already busting the 15 tons limit, on the way to the final 23 tons. It was easier to stretch SRBs for more power, as happened twice during Hermes history - from P170 to P190 in 1986, and later to P240 or so...
In many ways the influence of the Shuttle was felt both with Hermes and its launcher. That had positive and negative influences. Much like Shuttle was to America. The large segmented solids weren't a good decision, reusable liquids were a better choice. How to do liquid reuse was the missed opportunity if you wanted to do reuse.

If you wanted to do ELV, its all about economics of stage/engine like Atlas V/Antares/Delta IV/Angara/Falcon 9 teaches. Or modular costing as Falcon 9/Delta IV/Angara teaches. This gets back to my item 4 above.

Most of the negative influences had to do with being too "Shuttle like". Most of the positives had to do with what it compelled the european aerospace industries to "grow" to encompass, and to refine launch operations as a result from the challenge.

BTW, Hermes original concept w/o mission creep still think would have succeeded. But the costs of HSF vehicles was then extremely underestimated, and the creep that made it seem incrementally more like Shuttle kept compounding this - one had to just keep to the initial concept. Perhaps the same might be true here for revisiting what to do with its LV too.

One should really revisit this time of post Ariane 4. You do get the impression of Ariane 5 as incompletely executed and that much of what was discussed then as criticism is still valid. But don't take it further than that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/23/2014 12:10 pm
And there was no kerolox experience, which, along with the Shuttle, would have been a better solution than the solids

There were studies on metholox boosters as part of Ariane 2010 initiative. Mission cost for an A5 with metholox boosters was estimated to be 30% higher than with solids.

Regarding the Shuttle, I just quote from "the space shuttle decision":

Quote
The strong case of a solid motor also gave a strong case for choosing the solid motor. No one had previously tried to recover and reuse a solid booster; those of the Titan III had simply plopped into the deep, to provide homes for fishes. Early in January, a NASA official had said, "It is not contemplated at this time that a solid-rocket booster would be recoverable." Yet the modest staging velocity of the solids, as low as 4000 ft/sec, meant that their heavy casings could easily serve as a heat sink. They also could withstand the stress of dropping by parachute into the ocean. NASA-Marshall and its contractors found that reusability of these solids would cut the cost per flight to around $10 million, allowing the Shuttle to maintain its advantage and to capture its traffic from expendables.

NASA also had to consider the danger of the sea, for inevitably, some boosters would be lost. The high cost of a liquid booster meant that losing even one of them would be quite expensive. Moreover, although the pump-fed booster would save on development costs through its use of the existing F-1 engine, its thin-walled structure would easily sustain damage while afloat. The casing of a solid booster would cost much less. It would be relatively impervious to damage, and the occasional loss of such a casing would not compromise the program's overall economics.

http://www.nss.org:8080/resources/library/shuttledecision/chapter09.htm
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 06/23/2014 01:24 pm
Clearly I don't want to delve deeper into those economic analysis. I'd like to keep my breakfast.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/25/2014 07:24 pm
Safran and Airbus basically propose a "mini-A5":

- Two monolithic P145 boosters instead of the big, segmented solids.
- A new core derived from the current with 1 Vulcain 2 (cost-optimized).
- Upper stage with Vinci for the 8.5t version, Aestus for the smaller version (curious).

The 8.5t version will dual launch satellites with electric propulsion.

http://www.safran-group.com/site-safran/presse-et-medias/espace-medias/article/lanceurs-spatiaux-l-accord-safran

I'm somewhat confused by the Aestus upper stage, I thought they wanted to get rid of the A5 ES upper stage. Otherwise, looks like common sense has won. Development cost will probably be lower and dual launch will be retained. Never quite understood why they wanted to give it up.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 06/25/2014 08:18 pm
It seems a lot less optimized than PPH:
-P145 development and infrastructure has to be financed in both cases
-2 more types of liquid engines have to be kept in production (that will keep the German and Safran happy)
-the light version shares most of its components with the heavy version, so will probably be around the same cost

As you say, curious.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 06/25/2014 08:45 pm
If that is what they are proposing, i fail to see the point in developing an Ariane 6 in the first place...

That would still require a lot of development funding, but have no hope in hell of achieving the desired price point.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/25/2014 09:56 pm
It seems a lot less optimized than PPH:
-P145 development and infrastructure has to be financed in both cases
-2 more types of liquid engines have to be kept in production (that will keep the German and Safran happy)
-the light version shares most of its components with the heavy version, so will probably be around the same cost

As you say, curious.

I guess its mostly a reaction to a change in market forecast. Dual launching on A6 was mentioned before, but I guess 6.5t were not enough.

Its similar to A5, same US, almost same core, same pad, should keep dev. costs down. No change in diameter of solids I guess (3m), may also be a factor (?).

I can imagine its less costly than a 2-engine core with strap-ons.

That would still require a lot of development funding, but have no hope in hell of achieving the desired price point.

I think that is more a question of industrial organisation than a question of rocket configuration.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/26/2014 07:12 am
Safran and Airbus basically propose a "mini-A5":

- Two monolithic P145 boosters instead of the big, segmented solids.
- A new core derived from the current with 1 Vulcain 2 (cost-optimized).
- Upper stage with Vinci for the 8.5t version, Aestus for the smaller version (curious).

The 8.5t version will dual launch satellites with electric propulsion.

http://www.safran-group.com/site-safran/presse-et-medias/espace-medias/article/lanceurs-spatiaux-l-accord-safran (http://www.safran-group.com/site-safran/presse-et-medias/espace-medias/article/lanceurs-spatiaux-l-accord-safran)

I'm somewhat confused by the Aestus upper stage, I thought they wanted to get rid of the A5 ES upper stage. Otherwise, looks like common sense has won. Development cost will probably be lower and dual launch will be retained. Never quite understood why they wanted to give it up.

Emphasis mine.
The thinking was to not have 3 different upper stages. Right now you have the ES upper stage (with Aestus), the ESC-A upper stage (with HM-7B), and the Vinci upper stage for A5 ME and A6 PPH. Although the upper stages of ME and A6 would be very similar (same engine, similar tankage) they would still be slightly different.
Right now Ariane 5 ME is set to replace Ariane 5 ECA, getting rid of the ESC-A upper stage. With the new proposal two upper stages will remain: ES (adapted for Ariane 6) and the ME upper stage (for both A5 ME and the A6 heavy variant)
Under the original plan (solid A6) there would be one upper stage in two variants, both carrying Vinci.

I fail to see how this new proposal for A6 saves development money. A5 ME still will be developed, requiring wrapping up development of Vinci regardless. A6 PPH required development of new monolithic solids and so does this new A6 proposal because a monolithic P145 does not exist. And this new A6 proposal requires redevelopment of the core. That's extra development cost.

On the other hand, not needing a new launchpad will probably save several hundreds of millions of Euros and could thus offset the cost of redevelopment of the core stage.
Retaining Vulcain 2 is smart. Retaining that technology will keep redevelopment of core relatively simple.

On dual-launch: that has both its merits and some serious disadvantages. Noting a string of launch delays in recent years, caused specifically by the dual-launch feature, I can very well understand why CNES and ESA would like to do away with dual-launch capability.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/26/2014 01:15 pm
A6 PPH required development of new monolithic solids and so does this new A6 proposal because a monolithic P145 does not exist.

While this is true, the development of P80 (or rather P88) for Vega was rather inexpensive, despite being new technology. Which leads me to believe that its not the solid motor itself that makes A6 PPH dev. costly.

Still, in this new mini-A5 thrust will probably be transfered at the bottom, resulting in a heavier core (on the positive side it makes the design more flexible) and everything I've read so far suggests that the segmented solids make up less than half of Ariane 5 costs, so its hard to imagine the change of boosters alone will save them much (the same can be said about all-liquid designs with multiple Vulcains though).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 06/27/2014 12:13 am
On the other hand, not needing a new launchpad will probably save several hundreds of millions of Euros and could thus offset the cost of redevelopment of the core stage.

The reuse of Ariane 5 launch pad was already incorporated into the nominal Ariane 6 project: "Le Gall said the two companies’ proposal to scrap the idea of a new launch pad for Ariane 6 — estimated price: 750 million euros — is a good idea that had already been incorporated into the latest iteration of the solid-fueled Ariane 6 design." [1] So no saving Ariane 6 hasn't  already anticipated.

[1] http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40973airbus-and-safran-propose-new-ariane-6-design-reorganization-of-europe%E2%80%99s

Still, in this new mini-A5 thrust will probably be transfered at the bottom, resulting in a heavier core (on the positive side it makes the design more flexible) and everything I've read so far suggests that the segmented solids make up less than half of Ariane 5 costs, so its hard to imagine the change of boosters alone will save them much (the same can be said about all-liquid designs with multiple Vulcains though).
That is what I also wonder about: The industrial proposal has the same parts count/key technologies/propulsion systems as Ariane 5 ME, just scaling down the parts doesn't usually make much of a difference in costs. So how should it be significantly less expensive than Ariane 5 ME, let alone achieve the 70 M€ price target. I can't believe that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/27/2014 06:16 am
On the other hand, not needing a new launchpad will probably save several hundreds of millions of Euros and could thus offset the cost of redevelopment of the core stage.

The reuse of Ariane 5 launch pad was already incorporated into the nominal Ariane 6 project: "Le Gall said the two companies’ proposal to scrap the idea of a new launch pad for Ariane 6 — estimated price: 750 million euros — is a good idea that had already been incorporated into the latest iteration of the solid-fueled Ariane 6 design." [1] So no saving Ariane 6 hasn't  already anticipated.

[1] http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40973airbus-and-safran-propose-new-ariane-6-design-reorganization-of-europe%E2%80%99s
Thanks for pointing this out Spacejulien. I had not noticed this yet.

Still, in this new mini-A5 thrust will probably be transfered at the bottom, resulting in a heavier core (on the positive side it makes the design more flexible) and everything I've read so far suggests that the segmented solids make up less than half of Ariane 5 costs, so its hard to imagine the change of boosters alone will save them much (the same can be said about all-liquid designs with multiple Vulcains though).
That is what I also wonder about: The industrial proposal has the same parts count/key technologies/propulsion systems as Ariane 5 ME, just scaling down the parts doesn't usually make much of a difference in costs. So how should it be significantly less expensive than Ariane 5 ME, let alone achieve the 70 M€ price target. I can't believe that.
Me neither. Ariane 5 is an expensive launcher. If find it somewhat strange that a scaled-down version would be that much cheaper, particularly since the new proposal for A6 retains some expensive elements from A5: Vulcain 2, ES upper stage. Vinci upper stage is unavoidable I guess, so I won't count on any savings coming from there.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/27/2014 11:47 am
Me neither. Ariane 5 is an expensive launcher.

It may be right now, but I don't think it must be expensive. Vulcain 2 is a medium thrust GG engine. There's only one engine which simplifies thrust structure and plumbing. Vinci is an expander, the cheapest design possible other than pressure-fed. The tank diameter is relatively large, but the infrastructure to handle it is already in place (transport is done by ship anyway, Mureaux is located at the Seine river). The segmented steel boosters seem to be what everybody wants to get rid of.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 06/27/2014 05:20 pm
SES criticizes the Ariane 6 design of the industry:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/41048heavyweight-ses-leans-on-europe-to-meet-spacex-launch-prices (http://www.spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/41048heavyweight-ses-leans-on-europe-to-meet-spacex-launch-prices)

Quote
“The designs they have put forward, and the price points they have put forward, are a little lacking in ambition, we believe,” Halliwell said. “They will not get us where we need to go in the time scale we require.”
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 07/02/2014 05:26 pm
The 8.5t industry version is estimated at 100M€ per launch.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41117airbus-defends-springing-last-minute-ariane-6-design-on-esa?utm_content=buffer3afa9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41117airbus-defends-springing-last-minute-ariane-6-design-on-esa?utm_content=buffer3afa9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
This is more expensive per kg than the 70M€ 6.5t PPH.  If they really thought the 4t segment  will be the most interesting in the future, they should have proposed a 4t PPH, with common P90 boosters with Vega.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/02/2014 05:53 pm
4t is too small to capture the majority of the most lucrative part of market, in fact even 6.5 may be too small for plenty of commercial payloads in the future, which is what Francois was pointing out.  This is the case even assuming greater use of all-electric propulsion.  The point is that the liquid A6 could dual launch some all-electric sats and so somewhat negate the higher launch price, the solid version could not.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 07/02/2014 06:31 pm
The 8.5t industry version is estimated at 100M€ per launch.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41117airbus-defends-springing-last-minute-ariane-6-design-on-esa?utm_content=buffer3afa9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41117airbus-defends-springing-last-minute-ariane-6-design-on-esa?utm_content=buffer3afa9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
This is more expensive per kg than the 70M€ 6.5t PPH.  If they really thought the 4t segment  will be the most interesting in the future, they should have proposed a 4t PPH, with common P90 boosters with Vega.

At least they're being realistic with the estimates. PPH wasn't very likely to hit the cost goal of 70 million. Also, 4 tons is too small for a large portion of the market, as a large amount of payloads are still in the 6 ton range and even the PPH design might be too small for some future payloads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 07/02/2014 07:07 pm
If 4t is a small market, why are they proposing dual 4t launch then? They would be even less competitive on other segments with their solution, the price tag to put a 5t sat to GTO would twice that of SpaceX.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/02/2014 07:29 pm
A 4t launcher is too small, not the 4t satellite market. It is not that the market for 4t satellites is especially small, and indeed the push to all-electric might see more of these. It's that the entire market is small, and it is simply not economically viable to build a vehicle that will need to survive commercially that cannot compete for almost all of the accessible market. It all comes down to the market predictions.  These have indicated a splitting of the market into two discrete groups at ~4 and 7t.  Building a launcher that can only access the former is not viable from the start.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/02/2014 07:35 pm
Who koows what the real price of a Space X launch is since Space X has been given so much by NASA. Elon has said nothing about insurance or any other hidden costs.

What ESA needs is two launchers of complementary launchers so that they can assure satellite companies that their satellite will be launched no matter what with no multy year delay in case of failure .

This is the same as NASAs plans with manned flight .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 07/02/2014 07:45 pm
Quote
What ESA needs is two launchers of complementary launchers so that they can assure satellite companies that their satellite will be launched no matter what with no multy year delay in case of failure .
That is only possible if the launcher have a low commonality, which increases costs. In case of a serious failure, sat operators will move to other launch companies.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 07/02/2014 07:56 pm
A 4t launcher is too small, not the 4t satellite market. It is not that the market for 4t satellites is especially small, and indeed the push to all-electric might see more of these. It's that the entire market is small, and it is simply not economically viable to build a vehicle that will need to survive commercially that cannot compete for almost all of the accessible market. It all comes down to the market predictions.  These have indicated a splitting of the market into two discrete groups at ~4 and 7t.  Building a launcher that can only access the former is not viable from the start.

The F9 is already contracted for 5300kg satellite from SES.

There is of course the assumption SpaceX can execute their goals.

Quote
SpaceX spokeswoman Emily Shanklin said Feb. 20 that the Falcon 9 is capable of placing a 5,300-kilogram satellite into geostationary orbit. The vehicle’s advertised capacity ceiling of 4,850 kilograms does not include a 450-kilogram reserve that SpaceX has kept for its own purposes.

http://spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/39558updated-ses-books-falcon-9-for-2016-launch (http://spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/39558updated-ses-books-falcon-9-for-2016-launch)

 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/02/2014 07:58 pm
I removed that point specifically so we would not to derail the thread with SpaceX amazing peopleism...

Back to Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/02/2014 07:58 pm
Quote
What ESA needs is two launchers of complementary launchers so that they can assure satellite companies that their satellite will be launched no matter what with no multy year delay in case of failure .
That is only possible if the launcher have a low commonality, which increases costs. In case of a serious failure, sat operators will move to other launch companies.


True but if ESA want a heavier launcher for manned applications they will need justification and a market .What is limiting the growth of Ariane 5 is the fact that only Proton can handle the heavy satellites .If Ariane  6 can launch 1 heavy satellite and Ariane 5 can handle 2 then ESA will have a launcher that can be used for far more than just satellites .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/02/2014 08:03 pm

It all comes down to the market predictions.  These have indicated a splitting of the market into two discrete groups at ~4 and 7t.

Source?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 07/02/2014 08:06 pm
Quote
What ESA needs is two launchers of complementary launchers so that they can assure satellite companies that their satellite will be launched no matter what with no multy year delay in case of failure .
That is only possible if the launcher have a low commonality, which increases costs. In case of a serious failure, sat operators will move to other launch companies.


True but if ESA want a heavier launcher for manned applications they will need justification and a market .What is limiting the growth of Ariane 5 is the fact that only Proton can handle the heavy satellites .If Ariane  6 can launch 1 heavy satellite and Ariane 5 can handle 2 then ESA will have a launcher that can be used for far more than just satellites .

ESA does not want a heavy launcher for manned applications.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 07/02/2014 08:14 pm
If 4t is a small market, why are they proposing dual 4t launch then? They would be even less competitive on other segments with their solution, the price tag to put a 5t sat to GTO would twice that of SpaceX.
4 tons is a very large share of the market, possibly the largest, but the 6-8 ton market is not negligible and if the vehicle can't provide services to that market it's bound to be pretty uncompetitive. SpaceX wouldn't be able to capture the majority of the market if they only offered Falcon 9.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/02/2014 08:18 pm
Quote
What ESA needs is two launchers of complementary launchers so that they can assure satellite companies that their satellite will be launched no matter what with no multy year delay in case of failure .
That is only possible if the launcher have a low commonality, which increases costs. In case of a serious failure, sat operators will move to other launch companies.


True but if ESA want a heavier launcher for manned applications they will need justification and a market .What is limiting the growth of Ariane 5 is the fact that only Proton can handle the heavy satellites .If Ariane  6 can launch 1 heavy satellite and Ariane 5 can handle 2 then ESA will have a launcher that can be used for far more than just satellites .

ESA does not want a heavy launcher for manned applications.

Not yet anyway but but it would be handy to have one avalible .But a bigger Ariane 5 opens way more opportunities than just satellites .Kinda easy to get funding for a mission if you dont need a whole launcher.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 07/02/2014 08:37 pm
A 4t launcher is too small, not the 4t satellite market. It is not that the market for 4t satellites is especially small, and indeed the push to all-electric might see more of these. It's that the entire market is small, and it is simply not economically viable to build a vehicle that will need to survive commercially that cannot compete for almost all of the accessible market. It all comes down to the market predictions.  These have indicated a splitting of the market into two discrete groups at ~4 and 7t.  Building a launcher that can only access the former is not viable from the start.
Well, as I read it, the 8t-version is intended for the commercial market and the smaller derivative is for institutional, non-GTO launches. The latter one has an equivalent payload capability to GTO in the range of 4 to 7 t. Quasi a replacement for the Soyuz launched from Kourou.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/02/2014 08:45 pm

It all comes down to the market predictions.  These have indicated a splitting of the market into two discrete groups at ~4 and 7t.

Source?

Just from reading policy documents from esa/astrium/arianespace etc over the years.

To be honest I don't have more recent ones to hand, here's one from a few years back (see page 22)
Le transport spatial européen et ses enjeux (http://www.education-cva.eu/data/File/formation-transport-spatial/Les%20lanceurs%20europeens%20-%20ISSAT%20-%20pbai%20-%2011%20July%202012%20%5BCompatibility%20Mode%5D.pdf) (PDF) where the split was around 3/6, but the predicted masses have continued to rise in the intervening years as predicted.  This is part of the reason why the operators were sceptical of the solid A6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/02/2014 08:53 pm
Well, as I read it, the 8t-version is intended for the commercial market and the smaller derivative is for institutional, non-GTO launches. The latter one has an equivalent payload capability to GTO in the range of 4 to 7 t. Quasi a replacement for the Soyuz launched from Kourou.

I was specifically responding to gosnold's suggestion of just creating a 4t capable solid A6.

Do we know the capability for the Aestus version, I don't think it was announced?  7t to GTO seems unlikely.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/02/2014 11:08 pm
These have indicated a splitting of the market into two discrete groups at ~4 and 7t.  Building a launcher that can only access the former is not viable from the start.

If the split will be 4/7, why a new launcher? A5 ME would be perfect. IMO this new A6 only makes sense when the vast majority of payloads will be around 4t.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/03/2014 12:45 am
I made that very point on page 43! :)

To be fair there are some valid reasons, e.g. ESA would like a launcher that could cover both the institutional missions (replacing Soyuz) as well as commercial. But I can't see the Aestus version having a particularly attractive launch cost if the Vinci is over $130m.

This new proposal makes more sense commercially than the solid, granted and which is the primary concern, but you do wonder whether it's worth the effort and uncertainty a new launcher brings.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/03/2014 12:33 pm
Quote
What ESA needs is two launchers of complementary launchers so that they can assure satellite companies that their satellite will be launched no matter what with no multy year delay in case of failure .
That is only possible if the launcher have a low commonality, which increases costs. In case of a serious failure, sat operators will move to other launch companies.


True but if ESA want a heavier launcher for manned applications they will need justification and a market .What is limiting the growth of Ariane 5 is the fact that only Proton can handle the heavy satellites .If Ariane  6 can launch 1 heavy satellite and Ariane 5 can handle 2 then ESA will have a launcher that can be used for far more than just satellites .

ESA does not want a heavy launcher for manned applications.

Not yet anyway but but it would be handy to have one avalible .But a bigger Ariane 5 opens way more opportunities than just satellites .Kinda easy to get funding for a mission if you dont need a whole launcher.
Trolling again floss? You have a habit of bringing up the completely unsubstantiated "ESA needs a heavy launcher for manned applications" thing every few months. What happens next is that people show that your assumption is wrong and the subject goes off the table. Only to be refloated, by you, a few months later. This has happened multiple times now and quite frankly your MO is becoming boring.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kerlc on 07/05/2014 04:09 pm
So I stumbled upon this neat little article:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28166626

It features concepts for the Safran/Airbus-proposed A6 versions (attached).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/06/2014 08:36 am
Its interesting that they went for a different upper stage for the smaller version instead of a smaller number of boosters. For example they could have chosen 2 boosters for the small version and 4 for the big version, similar to the Japanese H-2A. In that case the size of the boosters could have remained closer to Vega's P88, instead of developing a rather huge P145.

Maybe because a smaller booster would not be substantially cheaper than a P145, or maybe because otherwise they could not use the same pad as A5.

By the way, what does spacediver think of this new design?  :D
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/06/2014 09:18 am
I suspect the primary reason is to reduce the need to modify the ELA-3 pad.  By creating a mini-A5 the infrastructure cost is kept down.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kerlc on 07/06/2014 02:05 pm
But can it really drive the costs down?

This question might seem a bit silly, but what was it exactly that drove the costs so high with A5? was it the design itself or was the reason of a more bureaucratic nature?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 07/06/2014 02:38 pm
I simply don't understand how to reduce costs with that architecture. There's zero rationalization of stages, no reduction in integration and processing infrastructure, no system simplification. Only if they replace Vega with a P148+ES.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 07/06/2014 03:36 pm
By the way, what does spacediver think of this new design?  :D

This design is at least maintaining the Vulcain technology, but having four different stages with three different propulsion technologies is not what I would call a cost optimized approach...

I am sure this new configuration is more politically than economically driven. It is designed to make everyone happy in the Astrium / Safran joint venture.
It is OK to show CNES and ESA that other approaches are possible, but I am also sure that this configuration will not be the final answer by Astrium/Safran. I see this as an approach to re-open the discussion.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 07/06/2014 03:42 pm
Spacediver, I have an important question from a cost perspective. The current flow of the Ariane 5 requires three vertical integration buildings, plus pad and MLP. Isn't it one of the biggest overhead drivers? I could see either a HIF plus MST on pad, a VAF plus MLP and flat pad or a straight MST on pad for full integration (and two pads). But the current flow seems really inefficient. What were the trades on your studies?
I mean this question as a proxy of actual work on lowering the costs against keeping the status quo.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 07/06/2014 03:45 pm
IMHO the thinking behind the configuration is to the French and the German onboard for development, and then to ask for a bigger subsidy from ESA to be able to compete with SpaceX. ESA approval is likely if they have French and German support.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 07/06/2014 11:48 pm
Has the entire design of Ariane 6 been put back into play?
It's almost as if they are starting over due to the November 2012 decisions no longer being competitive.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41117airbus-defends-springing-last-minute-ariane-6-design-on-esa

Quote
The head of Airbus’ space division on July 1 said his company was forced to come up with an Ariane 6 rocket design that competed with the version approved by the European and French space agencies because the agency version ultimately would have decimated Europe’s rocket industry.

Testifying before the French Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Armed Forces, Francois Auque said the solid-fuel-dominated Ariane 6 design that the European Space Agency and the French space agency, CNES, approved in July 2013 would have attracted mainly European government customers — a market whose size would mean reducing Europe’s rocket design and production industry by two-thirds.

To avoid being decimated, he said, European rocket builders needed to be sure that the commercial market, which accounts for 90 percent of the launches of Europe’s current heavy-lift Ariane 5 vehicle, would support the new vehicle.

“We asked our customers and they said, ‘The Ariane 6 design you have will not be competitive — at all — on the commercial market,’” Auque said. “Since it’s human nature to resist being reduced by two-thirds, we reacted and came up with a solution that could attract the commercial market as well.”
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/07/2014 01:16 am
Yes, you bring everyone back onboard to reconsider the position.

PPH had other shortcomings besides not being able to address  dual launch (which as an issue by itself isn't bad).

What are your competitive threats?
1. low cost F9 (4T) launches - current, active threat but not working down the manifest
2. lower cost F9R launches -  inching closer every quarter from theoretical to possible
3. higher payload FH launches - awaiting becoming practice-able, already possible given DIVH
4. Atlas V (ignore engine nonsense) entering into commercial fray
5. Russian?

Your competitive footprint is larger than in the past. Without liquid first stage boost, there are limits to modular solid approach.
So you have to retain that, and have the ability to address potential payloads well above Ariane 5 ECA, while also addressing the
volume (4T) and commonality with Vega. So you get a Hobson's choice to begin reopening the argument again.

Need not only for processing/mfr costs to be less and greater commonality, need greater range so that the allure of bigger payloads doesn't cause one to lose the appearance of leadership. Not a problem until items 3 & 4 happen.

Cost structures around kerolox boost are hard to beat with hydrolox and solids. Even more so with modular use. Solids are about the cost/volume curve, and hydrolox is about making an exotic propellant system approach hydrocarbon levels.

If you can't do the first because you can't get the volumes, then you minimize the dependency and focus on the second.

Or, you do kerolox without solids. With no history. And no industry support. Not likely to source from Russia either.

So many easy options. The only part constant is the need for a Vinci second stage, and the need to optimise assembly/pad flows of what you finally decide to field.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/07/2014 09:06 am
Has the entire design of Ariane 6 been put back into play?
It's almost as if they are starting over due to the November 2012 decisions no longer being competitive.

I imagine the problem is the variety of missions foreseen for A6 and the changing market perspectives.

A6 must be competitive with Falcon 9 for small satellites, with Proton for medium to heavy satellites and also fulfill institutional needs. 100m euros for 8.5t isn't bad, but for single launches up to ~6.5t I guess its slightly more expensive than Proton.

Judging by the article it seems the industry is afraid that CNES/ESA choose a design (A6 PPH) that is optimal for institutional missions and low flight rate. For A5 subsidizing commercial exploitation makes sense to some extent, that might change with A6.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 07/07/2014 06:59 pm
Details of the Airbus/Safran proposal have leaked out:
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140707trib000838582/faut-il-donner-toutes-les-cles-d-ariane-6-a-airbus-et-safran.html (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140707trib000838582/faut-il-donner-toutes-les-cles-d-ariane-6-a-airbus-et-safran.html)
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140707trib000838581/privatisation-d-ariane-6-comment-airbus-et-safran-negocient-le-casse-du-siecle.html (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140707trib000838581/privatisation-d-ariane-6-comment-airbus-et-safran-negocient-le-casse-du-siecle.html)
(In French)

Summary:
ESA members pay 2.6B€ cash at the start of the program
The industry has control over the design
ESA purchases 4 launchers/year
ESA members pay for CSG maintenance
ESA members assume return to flight costs and pay for future tech develoment if necessary

In which case, the price for a block buy of 30 launchers is 85M€ the heavy 6.1 version and 69M€ the light 6.2 version.
I will leave you to your conclusions...
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/07/2014 07:37 pm
ESA members pay 2.6B€ cash at the start of the program

In which case, the price for a block buy of 30 launchers is 85M€ the heavy 6.1 version and 69M€ the light 6.2 version.

It further says the launch price is guaranteed with a launch rate of 4 A6 6.2 and 8 A6 6.1 per year (and 4 Vega).

If true that's a very good price. Its interesting that the light version is 16m euros cheaper than the heavy, which suggest that EPS is a bargain compared to the Vinci US.

The 2.6bn euros dev. cost (of which 300m for ground infrastructure) are still a lot, but I suppose in Europe its difficult to do it cheaper. The industry just isn't as big as in the US.

...but having four different stages with three different propulsion technologies is not what I would call a cost optimized approach...

I guess at some point though rationalization of stages does not save you much anymore. For a liquid-only 8.5t rocket you'd probably need 4 Vulcain 3 and a huge core. And if EPS is that much cheaper, why not use it?

This A6 is basically a 3-stage rocket again, with the solids doing almost all of the work up to Mach 6 or so. Vulcain 2 was somewhat underpowered for Ariane 5 (gravity losses after separation of solids), it might actually be a better fit for A6.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/07/2014 10:35 pm
ESA members pay 2.6B€ cash at the start of the program

In which case, the price for a block buy of 30 launchers is 85M€ the heavy 6.1 version and 69M€ the light 6.2 version.


If true that's a very good price.

...but having four different stages with three different propulsion technologies is not what I would call a cost optimized approach...
Not to be unkind, but its an impossibly good price on a very tight budget and where consolidation of the workforce will have impact.

I'm dubious. Sounds like too good a deal. Flat out cannot believe the reductions in labor costs required for a more complex LV than A5.

Projection - either cost is an issue or it isn't. If it is, the costs in the solids and the multiple LRE's must be trimmed, along with stage costs. If it isn't, program costs will rise considerably above these numbers, and A6 is merely a incremental development plan for A5 indefinitely to serve need of not deciding on anything more ambitious.

I guess at some point though rationalization of stages does not save you much anymore. For a liquid-only 8.5t rocket you'd probably need 4 Vulcain 3 and a huge core. And if EPS is that much cheaper, why not use it?

This A6 is basically a 3-stage rocket again, with the solids doing almost all of the work up to Mach 6 or so. Vulcain 2 was somewhat underpowered for Ariane 5 (gravity losses after separation of solids), it might actually be a better fit for A6.
EPS is a non issue right now. Doesn't figure much into the future, more of not needing to add development costs. Allows use of the common first stage in 4T launches - good, but also requires solids commonality which may be too costly against competition as a total package. The overall integration costs, facilities, and flows bring along too much labor as well.

As pad work now I can't see more than 2-3 inline engines working, and you'd still need smaller solids to make that stretched core work. Assume you could have a working liquid only single core 4T LV, the commonality of the engines no solids might allow for acceptable costs assuming scaling production of Vulcain 3 were to substantially reduce cost.

I've heard this before with US and Japanese hydrolox first stage engines, and have been rather skeptical. Even more skeptical of low cost staged combustion for "expendable" SSME derivatives. Perhaps it can be done.

The cost issue for A6 is really around having too many propulsion systems requiring too much combined costs across the board.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2014 04:35 am
I'm dubious. Sounds like too good a deal. Flat out cannot believe the reductions in labor costs required for a more complex LV than A5.

EPS is a non issue right now. Doesn't figure much into the future, more of not needing to add development costs. Allows use of the common first stage in 4T launches - good, but also requires solids commonality which may be too costly against competition as a total package.

It is certainly less complex than A5, no need to stack solids.

EPS uses hypergolics, I don't see commonality with solids.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 07/09/2014 09:53 am
So currently they charge about ~€120M for an ECA capable of 10.35t. (in '07 there was a batch of 35 for over 4 billion, which means less than 5 billion, costs have improved with 5% since then if i remember correctly)
The A5ME capable of 12t is claimed to be as cheap as the ECA if I'm correct. Or €10M/t

Then you throw €2.6B at it, basically strap of the boosters, put some new ones on, change to cheaper Vulcain 3 and make the first stage slightly smaller and tada €40M dissapears. You are left with an 8.5t launcher for 85M or 10M/t.

So where is the benefit? Shouldn't you just fit the ME with a Vulcain 3 and get 12.5t for €115M and only pay €0.5B developement cost?

Pricewise (payload per kg), this proposal is no improvement over A5ME. Is single launch over dual launch worth that much? - I havent even begun how the 8.5t is oversized for the market btw. -
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: major_tom on 07/09/2014 10:33 am
In which case, the price for a block buy of 30 launchers is 85M€ the heavy 6.1 version and 69M€ the light 6.2 version.
I will leave you to your conclusions...

In the aftermath of yesterday's ministerial reunion came out this article:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2014/07/08/01008-20140708ARTFIG00387-le-choix-d-ariane-6-divise-industriels-et-agences-spatiales.php

Turns out that, according to the space agencies, Airbus/Safran performance and cost numbers
for their Ariane 6.X proposal don't add up. I quote:

"Et d'après les industriels, ces deux nouvelles versions d'Ariane 6 seraient moins chères que celle demandée par l'ESA. Une conclusion que contestent les experts des agences spatiales, qui estiment d'autre part que la capacité d'emport annoncée à 8,5 tonnes en géostationnaire serait surestimée de 1,7 tonne!"

Translation: "according to the manufacturers (Airbus/Safran) these two new Ariane 6 versions (Ariane 6.1
and 6.2) would be less expensive than ESA requirements. This claim is contested by the space agencies'
experts, who estimate that in fact the 8.5 ton to GTO performance is overestimated by 1.7 ton!"

So it seems that  A6.1 will carry just 6.8 ton, and that's what 85M€ will get you.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/09/2014 10:51 am
So currently they charge about ~€120M for an ECA capable of 10.35t. (in '07 there was a batch of 35 for over 4 billion, which means less than 5 billion, costs have improved with 5% since then if i remember correctly)

What you are calculating is not the launch price. e.g., see Former Arianespace Chief Says SpaceX Has Advantage on Cost (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39906former-arianespace-chief-says-spacex-has-advantage-on-cost). Even when factoring in the ESA subsidy the per-satellite price, i.e in dual launch, is about $100 million.  The price for a whole Ariane payload is therefore approximately $200 million, which matches with a CNES doc i have from a couple of years ago which puts it around $190 million. So we are talking a price for an Ariane 5 of about €147 million.

So this plan would represent significant reductions if it were to work.

I haven't even begun how the 8.5t is oversized for the market btw.

It is not oversized if you are working on the premise that you need to be able to compete for a very large fraction of the market to remain viable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 07/09/2014 12:53 pm

What you are calculating is not the launch price. e.g., see Former Arianespace Chief Says SpaceX Has Advantage on Cost (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39906former-arianespace-chief-says-spacex-has-advantage-on-cost). Even when factoring in the ESA subsidy the per-satellite price, i.e in dual launch, is about $100 million.  The price for a whole Ariane payload is therefore approximately $200 million, which matches with a CNES doc i have from a couple of years ago which puts it around $190 million. So we are talking a price for an Ariane 5 of about €147 million.


http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140707trib000838581/privatisation-d-ariane-6-comment-airbus-et-safran-negocient-le-casse-du-siecle.html

Well yes that is what I am calculating because I want to compare apples to apples. €85M is for a 30 launcher block buy to Arianespace. The extra cost of Arianespace's work needs to be transferred to the customer for both the A5 as A6 on top of the figures I used.

It is not oversized if you are working on the premise that you need to be able to compete for a very large fraction of the market to remain viable.

Yes but if you go for single launch on an 8.5t launcher your average payload will probably turn out to be 6t. If you go for dual launch on a 12t launcher your average payload will probably turn out to be 11t or so.
So the customer will have a lower price to pay per ton with A5ME than A6 due to this effect of higher capacity loading.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2014 01:29 pm
So we are talking a price for an Ariane 5 of about €147 million.

Without subsidy its probably closer to 160m.

€85M is for a 30 launcher block buy to Arianespace.

€85M is the alleged launch price.

Yes but if you go for single launch on an 8.5t launcher your average payload will probably turn out to be 6t. If you go for dual launch on a 12t launcher your average payload will probably turn out to be 11t or so.

What? Dual launch takes away 0.5t of payload, to my knowledge. The goal is to launch 2 4t sats.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 07/09/2014 10:14 pm
Ariane 5 ECA VEHICLE PRICE is about 120 M€ for the launch vehicle delivered out-of-BIL (w/o Sylda, Fairing) by Airbus to Arianespace, thus w/o payload processing, w/o launch.
The total LAUNCH COST including vehicle procurement for Arianespace is about 160 M€, their earnings per launch are about 140 M€.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 07/10/2014 07:50 am
Ariane 5 ECA VEHICLE PRICE is about 120 M€ for the launch vehicle delivered out-of-BIL (w/o Sylda, Fairing) by Airbus to Arianespace, thus w/o payload processing, w/o launch.
The total LAUNCH COST including vehicle procurement for Arianespace is about 160 M€, their earnings per launch are about 140 M€.

Thank you.

From the la tribune article:
 
"Les prix proposés par les deux industriels seraient garantis à partir d'une cadence de production de douze lanceurs par an (4 Ariane 6.2 et 8 Ariane 6.1) et de 28 moteurs à poudre (2x12 Ariane 6 ; 1x4 Vega) lorsque le nouveau lanceur sera en régime de croisière et par l'achat d'un lot de 30 lanceurs, après un lot initial de 15 lanceurs."

So the prices of 69M and 85M are only for a batch of 30 launchers after an initial lot of 15 (which would be at higher prices). Twelve launches per year are required for this. Only thing is, to me, they seem to refer to the block buys, which occur between Airbus and Arianespace.

If this is not the case, they want me to believe that replacing the P235's and changing the tanks would lead to an almost 50 percent reduction in price. Sorry, I'm not buying that. This thing looks to much as an Ariane 5ME and its price will look like it too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/10/2014 10:32 am
Only thing is, to me, they seem to refer to the block buys, which occur between Airbus and Arianespace.

Its the launch price, it says so in the paragraph above the one you quoted and even more clearly in every other article.

Whether its realistic or not is another question. Its not fundamentally different from the cost estimates we have seen from OHB for various configurations for example.

ESA should make sure it does not have to foot the fill in the case the industry fails to reduce costs as promised.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/11/2014 03:27 pm
Why ESA dosent just buy a hydrocarbon engine and make a lower stage like Dyneticks proposed .
2 stages to leo and Vinci for orbital work.
Same tank diameter so only 1 jig.

Lower stage can be upgraded easily to reuse or more thrust seeing as it stages so low.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 07/12/2014 08:04 am
Why ESA dosent just buy a hydrocarbon engine and make a lower stage like Dyneticks proposed .
2 stages to leo and Vinci for orbital work.
Same tank diameter so only 1 jig.

Lower stage can be upgraded easily to reuse or more thrust seeing as it stages so low.

Which is exactly what we proposed in the NELS study!
KH was - by far - the cheapest concept using Russian engines.
Even with west European labour cost applied for a license production of the engines, the KH concept would have been about 4-5 million Euro cheaper than the next best concept.

Also a cooperation with Aerojet on their new 2200 kN kerolox engine would be a great option, but Kerosene is an absolute no go in the European space community!

I proposed kerolox during the 2011 space access conference in Paris and faced violent contradiction by CNES members.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/12/2014 09:47 am
Why ESA dosent just buy a hydrocarbon engine and make a lower stage like Dyneticks proposed .
2 stages to leo and Vinci for orbital work.
Same tank diameter so only 1 jig.

Lower stage can be upgraded easily to reuse or more thrust seeing as it stages so low.

Which is exactly what we proposed in the NELS study!
KH was - by far - the cheapest concept using Russian engines.
Even with west European labour cost applied for a license production of the engines, the KH concept would have been about 4-5 million Euro cheaper than the next best concept.

Also a cooperation with Aerojet on their new 2200 kN kerolox engine would be a great option, but Kerosene is an absolute no go in the European space community!

I proposed kerolox during the 2011 space access conference in Paris and faced violent contradiction by CNES members.

Spacediver



Funny how that happens if anything that recent events have provd is that Ariane 5 core is a perfectly adequate upper stage and a US lower stage would "Americanise " the rocket thus enabling larger markets .

So am I right that they dismissed a cheaper ,smoother and easily upgradeable rocket for Eurofudge Ariane 6 that will take years and billions to complete.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/12/2014 10:51 am
Interesting moves. Can any of you judge on whether this is just a move to open up the box on A6 and probably get the whole thing delayed a bit further to be able to refine the configuration? Maybe even after the Airbus-Safran JV is set up enough to be able to really make it's own decisions?

I mean... to me that would be the only sensible move, would also buy them time to see how things go on with SpaceX and reusability... I mean... currently SpaceX is upping prices instead of lowering them and F9R is really not a GEO launcher and FH isn't really reusable and nobody knows whether reusability really saved them money so all of this is pretty much just nice ideas in the room but IF they succeed to lower prices then the European space industry needs to reach a bit higher...

Technically, these new proposals look like they make even less sense than the PPH A6 but then spending 2.4bn and retain capabilities (Vulcain) makes more sense than spending 4bn only to scrap them but I fail to see how all these price tags fit together. Developing more components for less money kind of doesn't make sense to me.

Keeping the EPS sounds not _that_ bad a move to me if the engine is much cheaper than Vinci, btw. There will probably not be too much development cost attached to this.
What I also wonder is whether the existing pad could be modified to launch a configuration with 4 P80s attached in pairs (and whether this would work from a thermal POV), this with a smaller core could really be kind of a cheaper solution from a development POV and a 2xP80/EPS upper stage version might add payload range while further lowering the launch cost for small payloads.
Such a version would reduce newly needed components to a smaller core. And then there's cost reduction efforts like the Vulcain nozzle and things.

But I wonder whether the real change they'd need is actually one in the whole organizational setup not on the industry side but on the institutional side. This would all be incremental developments and actually incremental developments do make a lot of sense because they allow you to learn after each step and make better decisions for the next one. Just like it worked out with Ariane 1-4
However, any incremental approach is really hard if after every step you have to go through the ministerial council and plan for a few years for the decision alone....

IF SpaceX becomes really successful IMHO the only promising way forward for European space industry is to privatize the operational/development side of things as well, maybe with a model like Airbus originally had it. With one operating company also writing the contracts and main contractors/subcontractors and stuff and ESA just throwing money at the thing if they have their own needs.
Maybe the Airbus-Safran move is a first step in that direction, too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 07/12/2014 12:18 pm
Why ESA dosent just buy a hydrocarbon engine and make a lower stage like Dyneticks proposed .
2 stages to leo and Vinci for orbital work.
Same tank diameter so only 1 jig.

Lower stage can be upgraded easily to reuse or more thrust seeing as it stages so low.

Which is exactly what we proposed in the NELS study!
KH was - by far - the cheapest concept using Russian engines.
Even with west European labour cost applied for a license production of the engines, the KH concept would have been about 4-5 million Euro cheaper than the next best concept.

Also a cooperation with Aerojet on their new 2200 kN kerolox engine would be a great option, but Kerosene is an absolute no go in the European space community!

I proposed kerolox during the 2011 space access conference in Paris and faced violent contradiction by CNES members.

Spacediver



Funny how that happens if anything that recent events have provd is that Ariane 5 core is a perfectly adequate upper stage and a US lower stage would "Americanise " the rocket thus enabling larger markets .

So am I right that they dismissed a cheaper ,smoother and easily upgradeable rocket for Eurofudge Ariane 6 that will take years and billions to complete.

The reason Europe builds launch vehicles is independent access to space. And there are good reasons for that, see e.g. [1], pages 36ff  for the history behind the decision to develop Ariane:
Quote
The negotiations that were subsequently begun with the USA and Comsat about purchasing Thor Delta rockets to be launched from Cape Canaveral were successfully concluded in June 1974, although considerable political hurdles had to be jumped before that: in the view of the US government, even Europe’s experimental communications satellites represented a potential threat to the American-dominated INTELSAT consortium. Because ‘Symphonie’ was started on an American launcher the USA could achieve that none of the ‘Symphonie’ satellites would be used commercially.
There is another detail of transatlantic cooperation which shows how critically the US government viewed ‘Symphonie’. The
Europeans were assured that the infrared horizon sensors needed to pinpoint the antennas as well as the small attitude control
jets required for stabilising the satellites would be supplied. Four weeks before the agreed delivery date, the agreement was
annulled by the Department of Commerce, not by NASA.

In those days, the US protected their commercial interests, imagine Europe today having to rely on foreign launch services for military reconnaissance, satcom or navigation.

Europe develops and operates launch vehicles because it needs an independent access to space. That is absolutely non-optional, you wont get development funding from the European governments for a launch vehicle that threatens the independence.

In this context "Americanisation" is as stupid an idea as is buying Russian engines or production licenses*4). Industry is fully free to cooperate with any other entity for launch system developments like e.g. ATK for liberty launcher, [2], but on their own funds.

There is almost no doubt that a hydrocarbon first stage has price advantages, but Europe would need to develop the technology themselves. And there is not even the budget available to develop the PPH Ariane 6, see e.g. [3]. so where should the budget for yet another liquid engine development come from?

It is interesting that the OHB/MTA NELS study assumes that the engines may well be procured in Russia, whilst stage tanks & structures are probably assumed to be procured in Europe (e.g. from MTA)?

[1] http://www.dlr.de/rd/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-4788/7944_read-31168/

[2] http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26773.15

[3] http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40655germany%E2%80%99s-budget-straitjacket-complicates-europes-ariane-funding-outlook

*4) License production of Russian engines is very difficult and expensive to do, as the whole qualification system from materials specifications, technical standards up to qualification logic is so different between Russia and Euroamerica, that a license production relying on a complete Euroamerican production chain is almost as expensive as a complete redevelopment of said engine.
Compare the related topic of "Americanisation" of the RD-180: http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-rd-180-coproduction-would-cost-1-billion
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/12/2014 12:44 pm
Which is exactly what we proposed in the NELS study!
KH was - by far - the cheapest concept using Russian engines.

Even with west European labour cost applied for a license production of the engines, the KH concept would have been about 4-5 million Euro cheaper than the next best concept.

Also a cooperation with Aerojet on their new 2200 kN kerolox engine would be a great option, but Kerosene is an absolute no go in the European space community!

I proposed kerolox during the 2011 space access conference in Paris and faced violent contradiction by CNES members.

Spacediver

In that OHB paper KH using Russian engines was not the cheapest in terms of recurrent cost, you said that yourself not long ago.

Regarding a European kerolox engine...4 million euros less would be around 5% cheaper than the next best concept (PPH/HH), so its probably not worth the development cost.

The fact that there is no consensus in that matter also suggests that the cost advantages of such an engine are marginal ab best.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/12/2014 12:49 pm
Which is exactly what we proposed in the NELS study!
KH was - by far - the cheapest concept using Russian engines.

Even with west European labour cost applied for a license production of the engines, the KH concept would have been about 4-5 million Euro cheaper than the next best concept.

Also a cooperation with Aerojet on their new 2200 kN kerolox engine would be a great option, but Kerosene is an absolute no go in the European space community!

I proposed kerolox during the 2011 space access conference in Paris and faced violent contradiction by CNES members.

Spacediver

In that OHB paper KH using Russian engines was not the cheapest in terms of recurrent cost, you said that yourself not long ago.

Regarding a European kerolox engine...4 million euros less would be around 5% cheaper than the next best concept (PPH/HH), so its probably not worth the development cost.

The fact that there is no consensus in that matter also suggests that the cost advantages of such an engine are marginal ab best.





Never said Russian engines the object is Americanisation not funding Putins attempt at Tzar.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/12/2014 07:03 pm
Not going to happen, as spacejulien pointed out America is an even less reliable partner than Russia as it is preoccupied with protecting its assets from competition. *cough*Galileo*cough*
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/14/2014 10:01 am
What I also wonder is whether the existing pad could be modified to launch a configuration with 4 P80s attached in pairs (and whether this would work from a thermal POV), this with a smaller core could really be kind of a cheaper solution from a development POV and a 2xP80/EPS upper stage version might add payload range while further lowering the launch cost for small payloads.

In a spacenews article on Ariane 6 from approx. a year ago they said that in order to reduce cost one must, among other things, minimize the number of solids with TVC. Could be a reason why the version with P180, P110 plus strap-ons (without TVC) stayed in the race until July last year. I can imagine that 4xP80 would be significantly more expensive in production than 2xP145.

Or its the pad ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/14/2014 11:16 am
Why ESA dosent just buy a hydrocarbon engine and make a lower stage like Dyneticks proposed .
2 stages to leo and Vinci for orbital work.
Same tank diameter so only 1 jig.

Lower stage can be upgraded easily to reuse or more thrust seeing as it stages so low.

Which is exactly what we proposed in the NELS study!
KH was - by far - the cheapest concept using Russian engines.
Even with west European labour cost applied for a license production of the engines, the KH concept would have been about 4-5 million Euro cheaper than the next best concept.

Also a cooperation with Aerojet on their new 2200 kN kerolox engine would be a great option, but Kerosene is an absolute no go in the European space community!

I proposed kerolox during the 2011 space access conference in Paris and faced violent contradiction by CNES members.

Spacediver



Funny how that happens if anything that recent events have provd is that Ariane 5 core is a perfectly adequate upper stage and a US lower stage would "Americanise " the rocket thus enabling larger markets .

So am I right that they dismissed a cheaper ,smoother and easily upgradeable rocket for Eurofudge Ariane 6 that will take years and billions to complete.

Ariane 5 core is anything but a perfectly adequate upper stage, regardless of what ATK tries to make you believe.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/14/2014 11:19 am
Why ESA dosent just buy a hydrocarbon engine and make a lower stage like Dyneticks proposed .
2 stages to leo and Vinci for orbital work.
Same tank diameter so only 1 jig.

Lower stage can be upgraded easily to reuse or more thrust seeing as it stages so low.

Which is exactly what we proposed in the NELS study!
KH was - by far - the cheapest concept using Russian engines.
Even with west European labour cost applied for a license production of the engines, the KH concept would have been about 4-5 million Euro cheaper than the next best concept.

Also a cooperation with Aerojet on their new 2200 kN kerolox engine would be a great option, but Kerosene is an absolute no go in the European space community!

I proposed kerolox during the 2011 space access conference in Paris and faced violent contradiction by CNES members.

Spacediver


Thing is that engine development is always going to be something Europe will want to be doing themselves. Buying an off-the-shelf Russian engine was (and most certainly is now) a no-go for any ESA launcher development program. Out-sourcing the engine(s) was in direct contradiction to the 'insured independent access to space' mantra. And thanks to Elon Musk it will remain so for a very substantial number of years to come.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/15/2014 01:21 am
Doesn't matter the nation/alliance. If one has a dependant relationship to such, automatically it becomes a "economic competitiveness" issue for the controlling nation/alliance. That is precisely why global fragmentation of aerospace markets occur in the first place.

No nations really can afford space in an optimal fashion, because there is too little return on such a large total cost.

With Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union, they needed cash and had an abundance of ORSC - temporarily it was in their interest to sell it. If they no longer believe it is in their interest, they won't sell.

Even the theory of "dependence" kills any international cost sharing. You can never rely on, say, reliable cheap ORSC kerolox first stage booster engines/stages from, say, Russia, or reliable cheap hydrolox second/inspace engines/stages from, say, India, or reliable cheap solids for strapons/core stages/kick stages from. say, America. If each could scale to global one of these, you could cut costs 10x from the launch volume in theory. In practice all of them, including Europe, would view it as a means to control the others, either by "value pricing" or outright withholding at times.

So none of them really can afford all the propulsion options they might want. America discontinued kerolox and kept solids/hydrolox, which Europe/Japan followed, because solids aligns with defense needs, and hydrolox for performance in space.

However, solids don't scale as well as kerolox. Should be no surprise that both RD-180 and Musk's Merlin are kerolox "pivot points" globally right now. And likely will continue to be.

Kerolox and methalox launchers with a single engine type make for the most economical LV - this simply won't go away. Forget for the moment the reusability aspect - just from the standpoint of supporting reliable production through the smallest footprint, approaches like this win at the budget level, but compromise at the launch vehicle performance level. If you can't accept the performance compromise(including flying multiple launch missions) then one must accept the burden of 10x budget (or more) for what it takes for optimal propulsion.

One may want it to appear less, like linearly additive per propulsion system, but the scaling does not work out that way. Nor does the smaller solids for defence scale to LV's either.

SpaceX might not work out - costs are rising, and in the end perhaps the compromise is too great. I think we'll learn that with about 50-100 flights irrespective reuse, and it will be entirely around this singular propulsion economics.

Epsilon and Vega tell us of single propulsion solids - note the desire for liquid second stage options (and cost growth). Single propulsion hydrolox doesn't seem attractive, although considered. We'll leave out the hypergols due to similar scalability issues.

It seems that only kerolox is plausible for this. So what if Musk is right? Again, forgetting reuse. Then to compete, other nations need to have a low cost kerolox architecture to fit in the same function. When would they need it? Before dominant market share is established.

Soonest to be able to do so - Russians. Where do they stand? Modular kerolox with Angara. Can it compete best case? No - too many cost centers/burdens. So, pretty much an all up new design? Yup. If they started today? About five years. Are they starting? No.

So, Ariane 6 (really 5) keeps moving along gradually, like the other national LVs, without a clear future certain.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 07/26/2014 09:28 am
I looked again at the industry proposal for Ariane 6, and I wonder if they can make the center core reusable. Is the Vulcain 2 Engine restartable and how many times can it be fired? Though given it is a 2nd stage the payload hit would be high.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/26/2014 10:24 am
I looked again at the industry proposal for Ariane 6, and I wonder if they can make the center core reusable. Is the Vulcain 2 Engine restartable and how many times can it be fired? Though given it is a 2nd stage the payload hit would be high.

Unlikely. Remember that the A5 core separates at ~6.8km/s (Mach 20). That won't be much different with A6 6.1.

The boosters however will separate at maybe Mach 6 or so, so they could be replaced with reusable liquids at some point. There were similar plans for Ariane 5, never happened...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: German Space Fan on 07/26/2014 10:35 am
The industry's design plans to use an upgraded Vulcain 2, called the Vulcain 2+. So in development of this engine they could include reuseability capability. But making Vulcain 2 suited for reuseability will be very expensive, very much design changes have to be made. Actually, industry's concept is even worse than CNES'. 89 million Euro for the Vinci stage version! :o My opinion is: Lowering the prices radically is only possible with spaceplanes like SKYLON. Because politic won't give SKYLON funding (even though it's got many advantages), I decided to start an online-petition:

https://www.openpetition.de/petition/online/europas-raumfahrt-retten-skylon-statt-einer-grossen-silvesterrakete

You can change the language with the "Sprache auswählen"-button. I would be very pleased about your signature!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 07/26/2014 12:29 pm
ESA and the British government ARE funding Skylon to the tune of $ 100 million.
http://www.space.com/22004-skylon-space-plane-rocket-engine.html (http://www.space.com/22004-skylon-space-plane-rocket-engine.html)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: German Space Fan on 07/26/2014 12:52 pm
ESA and the British government ARE funding Skylon to the tune of $ 100 million.
http://www.space.com/22004-skylon-space-plane-rocket-engine.html (http://www.space.com/22004-skylon-space-plane-rocket-engine.html)

Yes, but ESA funding is more symbolic. 10.5 million $? If they really want to develop SABRE, they would have spent much more money. And I know no real plans SKYLON should become ESA's next launch system, like demanded in my petition.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 07/26/2014 02:34 pm
I looked again at the industry proposal for Ariane 6, and I wonder if they can make the center core reusable. Is the Vulcain 2 Engine restartable and how many times can it be fired? Though given it is a 2nd stage the payload hit would be high.

Vulcain 2 can only be started once. It is ignited by three pyrotechnic devices that have to be replaced, e.g. for each test at the test stand.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/27/2014 02:54 pm
I looked again at the industry proposal for Ariane 6, and I wonder if they can make the center core reusable. Is the Vulcain 2 Engine restartable and how many times can it be fired? Though given it is a 2nd stage the payload hit would be high.

Vulcain 2 can only be started once. It is ignited by three pyrotechnic devices that have to be replaced, e.g. for each test at the test stand.
Also, in the rare case that an A5 launch gets aborted in between ignition of Vulcain 2 and ignition of the EAP's a similar replacement is required.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 07/27/2014 04:39 pm
I looked again at the industry proposal for Ariane 6, and I wonder if they can make the center core reusable. Is the Vulcain 2 Engine restartable and how many times can it be fired? Though given it is a 2nd stage the payload hit would be high.

Vulcain 2 can only be started once. It is ignited by three pyrotechnic devices that have to be replaced, e.g. for each test at the test stand.
Also, in the rare case that an A5 launch gets aborted in between ignition of Vulcain 2 and ignition of the EAP's a similar replacement is required.

Do you know if that ever happened ?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/27/2014 04:58 pm
I looked again at the industry proposal for Ariane 6, and I wonder if they can make the center core reusable. Is the Vulcain 2 Engine restartable and how many times can it be fired? Though given it is a 2nd stage the payload hit would be high.

Vulcain 2 can only be started once. It is ignited by three pyrotechnic devices that have to be replaced, e.g. for each test at the test stand.
Also, in the rare case that an A5 launch gets aborted in between ignition of Vulcain 2 and ignition of the EAP's a similar replacement is required.

Do you know if that ever happened ?

Apparently only once.

http://spaceflightnow.com/ariane/va201/110418update/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/04/live-ariane-eca-launch-yahsat-1a-and-intelsat-new-dawn/

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kryten on 07/27/2014 07:33 pm
Apparently only once.
http://spaceflightnow.com/ariane/va201/110418update/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/04/live-ariane-eca-launch-yahsat-1a-and-intelsat-new-dawn/
From the live thread of that launch;
Is this the first time this has happened to Ariane 5?

No, it's the second time for Ariane 5.  The first, it was in november 2002 with V157 (failure some days after).  But it's the 3rd in the Ariane history.  The first abord it was for the first flight in 79.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 07/29/2014 11:21 am
According to a French reporter, ESA member states are planning to scrap the PPH and PHH proposals for Ariane 6, and go for a lighter 5t GTO launcher, with the industry having the design authority. And they plan to retire CSG Soyuz after 2019:

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140729trib000841730/pourquoi-l-europe-spatiale-veut-desorbiter-soyuz-de-kourou.html (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140729trib000841730/pourquoi-l-europe-spatiale-veut-desorbiter-soyuz-de-kourou.html)

Cost objective: 10-15 k€/kg
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 07/29/2014 11:46 am
Also translated from the same article:

Quote
ESA will also consider longer-term projects reusable launchers

Which is interesting to say the least.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/29/2014 04:06 pm
They always say that though, and then when it comes to crunch time it's too expensive/difficult.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/29/2014 04:53 pm
They always say that though, and then when it comes to crunch time it's too expensive/difficult.

Why cost is mentioned is beyond me seeing as every cent will provide jobs and boost economies .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 07/29/2014 07:02 pm
Also translated from the same article:

Quote
ESA will also consider longer-term projects reusable launchers

Which is interesting to say the least.

Hopefully meaning a Kerolox engine development program. Even New Zealand makes them now!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/29/2014 07:31 pm
We also split atom and may have flown first.

 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/30/2014 09:21 am
Also translated from the same article:

Quote
ESA will also consider longer-term projects reusable launchers

Which is interesting to say the least.

Hopefully meaning a Kerolox engine development program. Even New Zealand makes them now!

Subscale staged combustion demonstration by Snecma/Astrium was done for Hydrogen and Methane, no Kerosene. The high thrust engine demonstrator would also have been adapted to run on Methane. There seems to lots of commonality between engine designs for the two fuels (both run fuel rich, for starters).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 07/30/2014 07:08 pm
Also translated from the same article:

Quote
ESA will also consider longer-term projects reusable launchers

Which is interesting to say the least.

Hopefully meaning a Kerolox engine development program. Even New Zealand makes them now!

Subscale staged combustion demonstration by Snecma/Astrium was done for Hydrogen and Methane, no Kerosene. The high thrust engine demonstrator would also have been adapted to run on Methane. There seems to lots of commonality between engine designs for the two fuels (both run fuel rich, for starters).
Well, SpaceX and KbKhA/Progress are proposing a methane future. It's not like the whole industry is moving there but those two have to be seriously taken into account on the LV market, right?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/30/2014 08:36 pm
Also translated from the same article:

Quote
ESA will also consider longer-term projects reusable launchers

Which is interesting to say the least.

Hopefully meaning a Kerolox engine development program. Even New Zealand makes them now!

Subscale staged combustion demonstration by Snecma/Astrium was done for Hydrogen and Methane, no Kerosene. The high thrust engine demonstrator would also have been adapted to run on Methane. There seems to lots of commonality between engine designs for the two fuels (both run fuel rich, for starters).
Well, SpaceX and KbKhA/Progress are proposing a methane future. It's not like the whole industry is moving there but those two have to be seriously taken into account on the LV market, right?

I suppose Methane is the fuel of choice for reusable boosters. Nobody but SpaceX is working on that though (from the big guys).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 07/30/2014 09:08 pm
Also translated from the same article:

Quote
ESA will also consider longer-term projects reusable launchers

Which is interesting to say the least.

Hopefully meaning a Kerolox engine development program. Even New Zealand makes them now!

Subscale staged combustion demonstration by Snecma/Astrium was done for Hydrogen and Methane, no Kerosene. The high thrust engine demonstrator would also have been adapted to run on Methane. There seems to lots of commonality between engine designs for the two fuels (both run fuel rich, for starters).
Well, SpaceX and KbKhA/Progress are proposing a methane future. It's not like the whole industry is moving there but those two have to be seriously taken into account on the LV market, right?

I suppose Methane is the fuel of choice for reusable boosters. Nobody but SpaceX is working on that though (from the big guys).
Please review KbKhA work on the RD-0162/0164, with TsSKB Progress of Samara projects on Soyuz 5 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32161.msg1236767#msg1236767) and their proposal for HLV, all of which are CH4/LOX.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/30/2014 10:36 pm
Please review KbKhA work on the RD-0162/0164, with TsSKB Progress of Samara projects on Soyuz 5 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32161.msg1236767#msg1236767) and their proposal for HLV, all of which are CH4/LOX.

I meant reusable boosters.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/31/2014 12:28 am
According to a French reporter, ESA member states are planning to scrap the PPH and PHH proposals for Ariane 6, and go for a lighter 5t GTO launcher, with the industry having the design authority. And they plan to retire CSG Soyuz after 2019:

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140729trib000841730/pourquoi-l-europe-spatiale-veut-desorbiter-soyuz-de-kourou.html (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140729trib000841730/pourquoi-l-europe-spatiale-veut-desorbiter-soyuz-de-kourou.html)

Cost objective: 10-15 k€/kg
Missed this article - thank you. Explains a lot.

My read of "reusability" is not in the near term, but possibly with an entirely different LV further down the line. Hard to understand how current propulsion would figure in that LV. Also, its hard to judge long term the market/market size, for industry to even begin to define such.

What is likeable is the sense of pragmatism the article conveys, whether or not it is achievable. The need for confidence going forward, and the understanding that the interest is in becoming more competitive not necessarily overcommitting. Pulling back to a 4.5-5T sized  single LV makes considerable sense.

That said, items in pippin's earlier post seemed more relevant after reading this article. Specifically trying to develop higher commonality with Vega for the necessary solids (possibly without TVC given enough control authority from the core?), a cost reduced Vulcain and core stage, inherit US from 5/5ME. Although still don't believe the cost numbers, but perhaps its just about getting enough market share to stay in the game.

Am not surprised at this turn. It may be a difficult next 5-10 years, and overcommitting at this point would be the worst choice.

So, in response to Elon Musk's "has no future", it sounds like "has a much better future than just no future" is the message.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/31/2014 08:25 pm
Maybe its time for Airbus to dig out the Hopper concept.

(http://www.igeawagu.com/bild/vm-raumtransport0404.jpg)

I was always amazed by the fact that this vehicle was supposed to launch 7.5t into GTO with only 3 puny Vulcain 3 engines in the back and a small upper stage. I guess it was too good to be true.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 07/31/2014 08:26 pm
I've been talking about the exact same thing recently, it's a really interesting concept. But wasn't the 7.5 metric ton payload for LEO?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/31/2014 09:09 pm
I've been talking about the exact same thing recently, it's a really interesting concept. But wasn't the 7.5 metric ton payload for LEO?

Nope, 7.5t to GTO.

Some technical data:

3x Vulcain 3R with 1351kn (sl) respectively 1651kn (vac) thrust each.
Launch mass: 480t
Empty mass: 63t
Fuel mass: 380t
US mass: 35t

Of course, one problem was that it would have had to land on different islands depending on the inclination.

Ascension island for GTO, Santa Maria for ISS and Saint Pierre and Miquelon for SSO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 07/31/2014 09:10 pm
Very big surprise to me... Where did you get these figures from? I have scoured the depths of the internet for hours to find more info on it, but mostly unsuccessful.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 07/31/2014 09:19 pm

In the document attached (in German).

The vehicle was supposed to launch on a passive sled, hence the low thrust to GLOW ratio.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/31/2014 09:27 pm
Nice answer.
I've been talking about the exact same thing recently, it's a really interesting concept. But wasn't the 7.5 metric ton payload for LEO?

Nope, 7.5t to GTO.

Some technical data:

3x Vulcain 3R with 1351kn (sl) respectively 1651kn (vac) thrust each.
Launch mass: 480t
Empty mass: 63t
Fuel mass: 380t
US mass: 35t
Well its definitely "fluffy enough".

Am skeptical of PMF for such in carbon fibre, and Li Al would be a significant challenge.

Not sure that RV's of that scale could be proposed at this time ... but the concept is appealing.
Of course, one problem was that it would have had to land on different islands depending on the inclination.

Ascension island for GTO, Santa Maria for ISS and Saint Pierre and Miquelon for SSO.
It would be an operational nightmare to coordinate weather and transport for successive launch campaigns.

Thank you for the document. Very impressive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 07/31/2014 09:28 pm

In the document attached (in German).

The vehicle was supposed to launch on a passive sled, hence the low thrust to GLOW ratio.
Thanks for the wonderful document, I've been looking for info on this vehicle for ages.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: anonymous on 08/03/2014 09:43 am
I see why they're scaling back the payload. Why develop a launcher that's bigger than they need to try to compete against SpaxeX for the commercial market? It sounds like a mug's game. But giving the design authority to industry sounds like they're going to end up with something similar to the Ariane 6.2 proposal. It's hard to believe that it would cost half as much as Ariane 5 when it's so similar. Has the protection of existing industry trumped cost savings?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 08/04/2014 02:37 pm
Ariane 6.2 proposal. It's hard to believe that it would cost half as much as Ariane 5 when it's so similar.

Lets see. Boosters are probably more than 50% cheaper than A5 boosters. Vulcain 2+ engine 30%+ cheaper. Core has no common bulkhead (cheaper), doesn't need to be pressurized during transport (relevant?). Launch rate is foreseen to be 12 per year instead of ~5 per year for Ariane 5. Add new structures, avionics, manufacturing processes, changes in the industrial structure and 40%+ cheaper does not sound completely unrealistic.

Needless to say, its only another A6 proposal  ;)

Has the protection of existing industry trumped cost savings?

As long as ESA gets its 4 institutional lauches per year at a fixed price, they should not care.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: German Space Fan on 08/04/2014 04:49 pm
As long as ESA gets its 4 institutional lauches per year at a fixed price, they should not care.
I already noted that earlier: It's not ESA's decision, but the decision of the European space ministers. I think ESA would choose a much better design: A modular, reuseable Ariane 6. But I'm afraid the politic chooses the design, and they are mainly interested in questions like "Which is the rocket our country can build most of the components?"  or "Which rocket will serve most jobs?". It's not about sciencific or economical reasons, but just about politics. If you would allow ESA to decide about the launch system, a much better rocket or even SKYLON would be developed. But because this is not the term, billions of Euros will be spent for a rocket that has no advantage about now existing launchers. But this is not the end: When Ariane 6 will be operational, even cheaper rockets will exist. When the politicans finally recognize they have made a wrong decision, it will be too late: Money for a new Ariane Europe has only each 30 years. This would mean the ruin of Europe's spaceflight. And this is the reason for starting my petition.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M_Puckett on 08/04/2014 05:06 pm
I think your reasoning is sound, GSF.  If they blow this opportunity, history will leave them in the dust with the Buggywhip manufacturers.

They only have one chance to get this right.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars_J on 08/04/2014 11:24 pm

In the document attached (in German).

The vehicle was supposed to launch on a passive sled, hence the low thrust to GLOW ratio.

A neat concept. As far as the low takeoff thrust, some smaller reusable boosters (either solid or liquid) could solve that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 08/05/2014 07:56 am

In the document attached (in German).

The vehicle was supposed to launch on a passive sled, hence the low thrust to GLOW ratio.

A neat concept. As far as the low takeoff thrust, some smaller reusable boosters (either solid or liquid) could solve that.

You misunderstood. Low thrust requirement is an advantage. Horizontal takeoff is an integral part of the concept. The downside is the need for high lift.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 08/05/2014 10:18 am

In the document attached (in German).

The vehicle was supposed to launch on a passive sled, hence the low thrust to GLOW ratio.

A neat concept. As far as the low takeoff thrust, some smaller reusable boosters (either solid or liquid) could solve that.

You misunderstood. Low thrust requirement is an advantage. Horizontal takeoff is an integral part of the concept. The downside is the need for high lift.

Anyone know why these concept never feature drop off tanks? You could jettison them much more violently than the DynaSoar and much higher in the atmosphere so problems with hypersonic jettisoning should not be such a concern. For spaceplanes this seems to me to be a huge advantage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 08/05/2014 10:20 am
More on topic, why do they choose to tie the boosters at the bottom of the core.
This will make the core very heavy wrt the current A5 no?
Is it just to dampen vibrations to the payload? Didn't they already made great strides with the POD-X program?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars_J on 08/05/2014 05:10 pm

In the document attached (in German).

The vehicle was supposed to launch on a passive sled, hence the low thrust to GLOW ratio.

A neat concept. As far as the low takeoff thrust, some smaller reusable boosters (either solid or liquid) could solve that.

You misunderstood. Low thrust requirement is an advantage. Horizontal takeoff is an integral part of the concept. The downside is the need for high lift.


No, it is not an advantage. Sled launched launchers have been proposed many times, and always fall through on technical details. That's why I suggest replacing the "stage 0" sled with "stage 0" boosters, and keeping the rest of the concept as-is.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 08/05/2014 06:22 pm
More on topic, why do they choose to tie the boosters at the bottom of the core.
This will make the core very heavy wrt the current A5 no?
Is it just to dampen vibrations to the payload? Didn't they already made great strides with the POD-X program?


I guess the boosters would have to be too long. When they were looking at Methane boosters for A5, in the case of rear attachment 1.7t of reinforcement would have had to be added to the first stage, with a trajectory similar to the standard A5 (see Ariane 2010 initiative paper, google is your friend). Remember that the A5 core is lightweight compared to the Delta IV core not only because of top-lift, but also because of common bulkhead, a much lighter engine, larger diameter and less volume.

Layman observations ;)

Anyone know why these concept never feature drop off tanks? You could jettison them much more violently than the DynaSoar and much higher in the atmosphere so problems with hypersonic jettisoning should not be such a concern. For spaceplanes this seems to me to be a huge advantage.

I do not think tanks are as cheap as people think they are...also they can be easily reused. And if you drop tanks, why not drop engines too? Granted, for spaceplanes it makes more sense. For Hopper though...first of all, it launches horizontally, so aerodynamics during that phase are important. Second, it doesn't reenter at orbital speed, more like Mach 15, hence TPS requirements and thus weight, maintenance are probably not that critical. Third, maybe being more fluffy gives it more range during reentry/glide phase, not sure about that though.

No, it is not an advantage. Sled launched launchers have been proposed many times, and always fall through on technical details. That's why I suggest replacing the "stage 0" sled with "stage 0" boosters, and keeping the rest of the concept as-is.

Problem is the lift you need for horizontal takeoff. The wings are dead weight in orbit. Hence for a SSTO, vertical launch with cylindric body and stubby wings probably makes more sense. For reusable boosters and reusable first stages, the upper stage is probably too large to fit in the body and they do not need lots of range during reentry (although there are boost+glide back to launch site concepts and flyback concepts need large wings as well). Hopper goes up to Mach 15 and glides to the landing site 4500km downrange.

This is btw. also the reason why this concept is unique. It needs landing sites downrange, and only ESA members possess enough islands in the Atlantic ocean to make such a concept feasible (for governments).

There were also VTO Hopper studies btw. Of course, I don't think any of this will ever happen.

If you add boosters, as you suggested, you'd rather make the boosters reusable and add an US. You want to recover the slowest part of the rocket, and the one with the most engines (most thrust).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/08/2014 02:21 am
Lars point is still valid about sleds. Perhaps not much thrust assist before rotation to horizontal, and getting the vehicle up to the sled's imparted velocity to generate lift.

Not a true vertical launch, but enough to obviate the sled and its high cost. The trade would be the additional weight of the bottom lift thrust structure. Which might be difficult in such a design because it might have an unacceptable dry mass fraction.

But it does remind me of rocket assisted cruise missiles like Regulus.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/05/2014 06:15 pm

Latest proposal here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1251376#msg1251376

So we're at 11t to GTO (1t short of A5 ME).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hauerg on 09/05/2014 06:28 pm
How will be the 6.4 that much cheaper than the A5 that it is worth the devolopment.
And how is the 6.4 a LOT cheaper, when the difference is only 2 smallish SRBs.
Seems I do not get it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 09/05/2014 06:34 pm

Latest proposal here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1251376#msg1251376

So we're at 11t to GTO (1t short of A5 ME).
So 60% of the price of an Ariane 5 ECA for 110% of the performance? If they can make that cost target it would be an amazing deal for Europe. I also like how it preserves the technology for large liquid engines. If reusability ever becomes more than a dream having that capability is a good idea.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/05/2014 06:38 pm
Yes, it sounds quite ambitious. Targeted prices per kg to GTO so far:

A5 ME (12t): 13.3k per kg.
A6 PPH (6.5t): 10.8k per kg.
A6 6.2 (8.5t): 10k per kg.
A6 6.4 (11t): 8.2k per kg.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/05/2014 06:48 pm
They are expecting a P120 solid development. It would also benefit Vega. A P120 plus a methalox stage would cover the low end of the Soyuz performance, and 6-2 would cover above it. A bit more expensive, but cheaper than a commercial Atlas-V 431 (for GTO).
The 6-4 does seems like an extremely good value. It could do dual 5tonnes for €45 each. That's on the same cost/performance than Falcon 9, and with simpler orbital insertion. In fact, for a GTO with 1,500m/s they would be cheaper.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/05/2014 08:00 pm
Yes, it sounds quite ambitious. Targeted prices per kg to GTO so far:

A5 ME (12t): 13.3k per kg.
A6 PPH (6.5t): 10.8k per kg.
A6 6.2 (8.5t): 10k per kg.
A6 6.4 (11t): 8.2k per kg.

Are your numbers coming from the spacenews article or elsewhere, and are they in €?
And do you think Vinci can be used for 6.2 and 6.4?

Edit: Nevermind, in just saw the Figaro article http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2014/09/05/01008-20140905ARTFIG00351-ariane-6-la-version-de-la-derniere-chance.php (http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2014/09/05/01008-20140905ARTFIG00351-ariane-6-la-version-de-la-derniere-chance.php)
So 1st stage would be 2 or 4 P120
2nd stage 1 improved Vulcain 2
3rd stage 1 Vinci

6.2:75M€, 5t GTO
6.4: 90M€, 11t GTO

6.4 seems like a bargain, too good to be true compared to Ariane 5
I don't see the problem Germany has with that
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: German Space Fan on 09/05/2014 09:12 pm

6.2:75M€, 5t GTO
6.4: 90M€, 11t GTO

6.4 seems like a bargain, too good to be true compared to Ariane 5
I don't see the problem Germany has with that

Quite simple: Germany says NEIN because a rocket like this would mainly being built in Italy and France. Germany just gets an upper stage. You have to understand, Germany's aim is not to have a new, compeditive rocket, their aim is to get as many elements of the rocket being built by German firms. Ms Zypries, our space minister, sees spaceflight rather as science firms can do some research on that will maybe lead to better technologies on earth than as an exiting adventure that will extend our knowledge of us and the universe. A vision for space? No, thanks.

Welcome to European space policy! And Germany is the country I am citizen of! :(

I'm against this new design, too, but because of a completely different reason. 60 Mio $ for 5.5 t GTO? Not bad and much better than previous designs, but not enough. Remember, this rocket shall compete with Falcon 9. At the moment Ariane 6 is compeditive, but what if SpaceX manages to half the prices by doing reusablility? The new concept still allows no reusability, so ESA can't lower their prices. There has to be a more revolutionary step to be compeditive over 20-30 years, this is the timeframe after that ESA has enough money again for the development of a new Ariane.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/05/2014 09:18 pm
I'd like to see a reusable design too, but I don't think ESA has liquid engines with a high enough TWR for that. So they have to be developed first.
Also, isn't part of Vulcain built in Germany?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: German Space Fan on 09/05/2014 09:28 pm
I'd like to see a reusable design too, but I don't think ESA has liquid engines with a high enough TWR for that. So they have to be developed first.
Also, isn't part of Vulcain built in Germany?

It's planned to modify the Vulcain, which is AFAIK completely built by the French company Safran, for a more cost-effective use on the Ariane 6. I think it should be doable to include a higher TW-Level in these modifications by using new lighter and cheaper materials and manufacturing technologies.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 09/06/2014 06:16 am
I'd like to see a reusable design too, but I don't think ESA has liquid engines with a high enough TWR for that. So they have to be developed first.
Also, isn't part of Vulcain built in Germany?

It's planned to modify the Vulcain, which is AFAIK completely built by the French company Safran, for a more cost-effective use on the Ariane 6. I think it should be doable to include a higher TW-Level in these modifications by using new lighter and cheaper materials and manufacturing technologies.

The Vulcain 2 engine is mainly built by French (including Safran), German, Italian and Swedish companies and assembled by Safran/Snecma in France. The flight engines are also tested in France by Snecma whereas "technology" engines from the production line are tested here in Lampoldshausen to check quality and modifications.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: German Space Fan on 09/06/2014 06:49 am

The Vulcain 2 engine is mainly built by French (including Safran), German, Italian and Swedish companies and assembled by Safran/Snecma in France.

Really? ESA says, Safran is prime contractor of the Vulcain and builds its LH2 turbopump, Avio the LOX one and Volvo Aero the nozzle (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Launchers/Launch_vehicles/Vulcain_engine) I'm sorry, but I can't find a German company in this list. :( Outdated page? Maybe some smaller parts are built in Germany, but this is not the know-how and jobs Germany wants to keep.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 09/06/2014 07:03 am
The combustion chamber is made by Airbus in Ottobrunn.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 09/06/2014 08:47 am
The combustion chamber is made by Airbus in Ottobrunn.

Yes - and not only of Vulcain 2 but also of the new Vinci and even of the "old" HM-7B (dating back to the early 1970s).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: guckyfan on 09/06/2014 09:57 am
According to these numbers two additional solid boosters more than double the payload to GTO. Is that correct?

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 09/06/2014 03:01 pm
According to these numbers two additional solid boosters more than double the payload to GTO. Is that correct?
It doesn't sound unlikely. If more ∆V is done by the lower composite, the upper stage will enter LEO with far more propellant. The payload for high energy orbits usually changes far more than LEO capacity when you change the vehicle.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: guckyfan on 09/06/2014 03:51 pm
According to these numbers two additional solid boosters more than double the payload to GTO. Is that correct?
It doesn't sound unlikely. If more ∆V is done by the lower composite, the upper stage will enter LEO with far more propellant. The payload for high energy orbits usually changes far more than LEO capacity when you change the vehicle.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: artrz on 09/06/2014 09:35 pm
How about the following modification?

It would consist of an approx. same core/upper stages as Ariane 6-4, but instead of 4 x P120s it would have 6 x P80s as boosters.

Note the similarity of total solid prop. weight (superficial, I do not know details).

It would be more flexible and in the booster part the development could consist only in minimal necessary adaptations of Vega's P80.

On the flexibility side, with the same core/upper stages, instead of 2 configurations, number of "balanced" booster configurations is much bigger:

2 x P80 (on opposite sides - probably just for low orbit types)
3 x P80 (separated by 120 deg - performance similarity to Ariane 6-2)
4 x P80 (all ground-lit)
6 x P80 (all ground-lit - performance similarity to Ariane 6-4)
and further
4 x P80 (2 ground-lit, 2 air-lit)
6 x P80 (4 ground-lit, 2 air-lit)

Maybe not all configurations are necessary/desirable, but the idea is to increase fit/optimization opportunities for the uncertain future payloads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/06/2014 09:53 pm
How about the following modification?

It would consist of an approx. same core/upper stages as Ariane 6-4, but instead of 4 x P120s it would have 6 x P80s as boosters.

Note the similarity of total solid prop. weight (superficial, I do not know details).

It would be more flexible and in the booster part the development could consist only in minimal necessary adaptations of Vega's P80.

On the flexibility side, with the same core/upper stages, instead of 2 configurations, number of "balanced" booster configurations is much bigger:

2 x P80 (on opposite sides - probably just for low orbit types)
3 x P80 (separated by 120 deg - performance similarity to Ariane 6-2)
4 x P80 (all ground-lit)
6 x P80 (all ground-lit - performance similarity to Ariane 6-4)
and further
4 x P80 (2 ground-lit, 2 air-lit)
6 x P80 (4 ground-lit, 2 air-lit)

Maybe not all configurations are necessary/desirable, but the idea is to increase fit/optimization opportunities for the uncertain future payloads.
Would require significant pad changes that P120's don't.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/06/2014 10:01 pm
Vega will have P120.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: artrz on 09/07/2014 07:02 am
Space Ghost 1962:
"Would require significant pad changes that P120's don't."

Currently the pad made is for 2 boosters. Changing it to 4 is anyway significant, isn't it?

Oli:
"Vega will have P120."

If so, one advantage goes away.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/07/2014 01:05 pm
Would require significant pad changes that P120's don't.

Is pad design or construction far enough along that this would be a problem?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/07/2014 01:33 pm
Ideally you would like to use the Ariane 5 pad with minimal modifications.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/07/2014 06:54 pm
Now that I'm looking at it, the thrust transfer structure on Ariane 5 is on top of the core, while this 6-2/4 proposal would have them pushing from bellow, apparently. May be the Liberty work did help them on this?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 09/07/2014 07:33 pm
Talk about lego rockts .IF they learned anything from liberty they would just build a large solid first stage and bedone with boosters altoghter .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/07/2014 07:50 pm
The merit of using P80 over P120 would be for lower total cost due to least total changes.

The most this would allow is four P80 without increasing pad/core changes. It would also lock you to P80 not P120 unless you pay twice.

Four P80 is not enough. Six P80 adds significant cost, diminishing returns.

Separately Vega program wants P120 long term. Concurrent changes don't save anything just costs same/more.

Who pays twice?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/08/2014 06:44 am
Ideally you would like to use the Ariane 5 pad with minimal modifications.

ESA has chosen to reuse the ELA-2 site, which was used for Ariane 4. Most of this pad was demolished, according to this article all that's left is a flame trench:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-aims-to-freeze-design-of-the-new (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-aims-to-freeze-design-of-the-new)

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/08/2014 05:50 pm
Ideally you would like to use the Ariane 5 pad with minimal modifications.

ESA has chosen to reuse the ELA-2 site, which was used for Ariane 4. Most of this pad was demolished, according to this article all that's left is a flame trench:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-aims-to-freeze-design-of-the-new (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-aims-to-freeze-design-of-the-new)
ESA also chose Ariane 6 as PPH. So?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 09/09/2014 09:07 am
Ideally you would like to use the Ariane 5 pad with minimal modifications.

ESA has chosen to reuse the ELA-2 site, which was used for Ariane 4. Most of this pad was demolished, according to this article all that's left is a flame trench:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-aims-to-freeze-design-of-the-new (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35469with-ariane-6-launch-site-selected-cnes-aims-to-freeze-design-of-the-new)



This is not what the article says, it is a quarry created during the Ariane 4 days, but not the Ariane 4 pad:
Quote
Taking advantage of work done years ago on what was then a quarry, CNES officials have selected a site to the north of the Ariane 5’s launch site for Ariane 6, an area called Roche Nicole. Quarry construction left a large pit, now filled with water, that will be used for the Ariane 6 flame trench.

CNES officials say that because of the quarry work, done to support launches of the now-retired Ariane 4 rocket, the flame trench is now the equivalent of 70 percent complete even though no work has begun on it.

I searched with google maps when I first read the article and the best fit to the description in the article I could find was this "lake" (https://www.google.de/maps/place/5%C2%B015%2728.5%22N+52%C2%B046%2754.3%22W/@5.2579163,-52.78175,6672m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0).

However, the new pad has since been abandoned due to its cost, all concepts (A6 PPH, industrial proposal and the recent new design with P120 boosters) assume the reuse of the Ariane 5 pad.

Edit: google-maps link
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/09/2014 01:59 pm
I searched with google maps when I first read the article and the best fit to the description in the article I could find was this"lake"

However, the new pad has since been abandoned due to its cost, all concepts (A6 PPH, industrial proposal and the recent new design with P120 boosters) assume the reuse of the Ariane 5 pad.
Oh swell. So they are ready to pour in a couple a billion Euros for a new launcher that will be non-competitive from day 1. But the couple of hunderd million Euros for a new pad are too much for them? Sheesh...


(Removed the overly long Google Maps URL. It screws up page layout).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 09/09/2014 03:22 pm
Woods, I fully concur. I also think the launcher will be non-competitive from the start, no matter whether it is the  original A 6 PPH configuration  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1136933#msg1136933), the  industrial counter proposal  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1223402#msg1223402) or  the new design. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1251376#msg1251376)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/09/2014 04:33 pm
Woods, I fully concur. I also think the launcher will be non-competitive from the start, no matter whether it is the  original A 6 PPH configuration  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1136933#msg1136933), the  industrial counter proposal  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1223402#msg1223402) or  the new design. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1251376#msg1251376)
Absolutely. Was only pleased that it was a retreat on being less of a bad thing, not that it was likely to be competitive.

IMHO, the best strategy is incremental cost reduction of Ariane 5 with changing country/industry contributions/contracts/policy to allow gradual reductions in running Ariane/Vega programs as a whole (note - accept that this has its own hazards), for the next 5-10 years, as an extension of the existing program past its sunset. That is the best plan (unacceptable to them) given this time.

In a sentence: "Cost reduced A5 sharing Vega solid enhanced US fewest new cost centers".

There isn't the budget or the will for them to do a new launcher - unfortunately this is unacceptable. Not because of technology or industry, but because of the nature of how things are changing in the market.

Where will things likely head? IMHO a bunch of false starts. PPH was the first. PHH likely the next. Few more to go possibly.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/09/2014 04:44 pm
Woods, I fully concur. I also think the launcher will be non-competitive from the start, no matter whether it is the  original A 6 PPH configuration  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1136933#msg1136933), the  industrial counter proposal  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1223402#msg1223402) or  the new design. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1251376#msg1251376)

Is there a particular reason for this assumption? IMO it depends on whether ESA's 'threat' to end subsidies for commercial operation is credible. If they say we guarantee only 4 institutional launches per year at a fixed price, the industry has a real incentive to lower costs in order to stay competitive. The particular configuration that is chosen is probably not the decisive factor.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/09/2014 04:53 pm
Woods, I fully concur. I also think the launcher will be non-competitive from the start, no matter whether it is the  original A 6 PPH configuration  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1136933#msg1136933), the  industrial counter proposal  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1223402#msg1223402) or  the new design. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1251376#msg1251376)

Is there a particular reason for this assumption? IMO it depends on whether ESA's 'threat' to end subsidies for commercial operation is credible. If they say we guarantee only 4 institutional launches per year at a fixed price, the industry has a real incentive to lower costs in order to stay competitive. The particular configuration that is chosen is probably not the decisive factor.

spacejulien is in a more than adequate position to judge the competitiveness of any current A6 proposal. Technically it may still be an assumption, but it will be a safe one.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/09/2014 04:59 pm
Woods, I fully concur. I also think the launcher will be non-competitive from the start, no matter whether it is the  original A 6 PPH configuration  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1136933#msg1136933), the  industrial counter proposal  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1223402#msg1223402) or  the new design. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1251376#msg1251376)

Is there a particular reason for this assumption? IMO it depends on whether ESA's 'threat' to end subsidies for commercial operation is credible. If they say we guarantee only 4 institutional launches per year at a fixed price, the industry has a real incentive to lower costs in order to stay competitive. The particular configuration that is chosen is probably not the decisive factor.

spacejulien is in a more than adequate position to judge the competitiveness of any current A6 proposal. Technically it may still be an assumption, but it will be a safe one.

That is why I was asking for a particular reason. So 90m euros for Ariane 6.4 is unrealistic? As long as ESA gets it 4 launches at a fixed price it doesn't matter. What matters is what the industry subscribes to.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/09/2014 06:32 pm
What matters is what the industry subscribes to.
Not quite.

If it were, then just more deals on a protracted manifest.

Competitive to attract enough interest is one thing. Competitive to be able to satisfy economics such that the manifest is consumed enough such that cancellations don't dominate later is another.

Doing things for the appearance has always been an issue here. Which is why I have issues with the current proposal, and such politics that generate the need for them in general.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/10/2014 08:00 am
The satellite operators seem to like this new proposal:
Eutelsat CEO: We are candidate for 1st Ariane 6 launch if it's ready in 2019. We've not done likewise for Ariane 5ME.#WSBW2014

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/509600037572468736
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/10/2014 01:28 pm
The satellite operators seem to like this new proposal:
Eutelsat CEO: We are candidate for 1st Ariane 6 launch if it's ready in 2019. We've not done likewise for Ariane 5ME.#WSBW2014

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/509600037572468736
One example makes for poor statistics. Until the other operators chime in in similar wording it is probably not a good idea to suggest that "the satellite operators seem to like this new proposal"
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/10/2014 07:30 pm
The satellite operators seem to like this new proposal:
Eutelsat CEO: We are candidate for 1st Ariane 6 launch if it's ready in 2019. We've not done likewise for Ariane 5ME.#WSBW2014

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/509600037572468736
One example makes for poor statistics. Until the other operators chime in in similar wording it is probably not a good idea to suggest that "the satellite operators seem to like this new proposal"

The World’s Biggest Satellite Fleet Operators Want Europe To Build Ariane 6 by 2019

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41821the-world%E2%80%99s-biggest-satellite-fleet-operators-want-europe-to-build-ariane

Letter to Dordain attached.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 09/10/2014 07:36 pm
Its impossible to build Ariane 6 until 2019, especially as Germany and France can't agree on A5 ME vs. A6. The next ministerial council will probably be delayed (according to SpaceNews), that is not how you are going to win against SpaceX.

Europe is going to loose against SpaceX in the commercial market, I think that is quite obvious now. And I'm saying this as a european.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 09/10/2014 07:40 pm
From the letter:
Quote
To be successful in the long term, the new paradigm and resulting operating model should be agile, cost driven, customer centric.

If there was one thing, that doesn't characterize european spaceflight, that would be the word "agile"...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/10/2014 07:42 pm
The letter is a must-read, it confirms sat operators envision reusability very seriously.

Quote
the price per launch may well decrease significantly below the US$ 60M mark as presently proposed by
SpaceX.  In  this  context,  it  is  necessary  in  our  view  that  the  design  of  the  future  European
launcher  includes  enough  modularity  and  is  engineered  in  a  future-proof  manner.  To  that
respect,  Ariane  6  should  remain  open  to  performance  adaptation,  and  if  need  be  evolution
towards new cost effective technologies including, for instance, reusability.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/10/2014 07:49 pm
The letter is a must-read, it confirms sat operators envision reusability very seriously.

Quote
the price per launch may well decrease significantly below the US$ 60M mark as presently proposed by
SpaceX.  In  this  context,  it  is  necessary  in  our  view  that  the  design  of  the  future  European
launcher  includes  enough  modularity  and  is  engineered  in  a  future-proof  manner.  To  that
respect,  Ariane  6  should  remain  open  to  performance  adaptation,  and  if  need  be  evolution
towards new cost effective technologies including, for instance, reusability.
Basically, the sat operators are telling ESA and Arianespace: Get your act together fast, and do it SpaceX style, or suffer the consequences.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/10/2014 07:50 pm
The satellite operators seem to like this new proposal:
Eutelsat CEO: We are candidate for 1st Ariane 6 launch if it's ready in 2019. We've not done likewise for Ariane 5ME.#WSBW2014

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/509600037572468736
One example makes for poor statistics. Until the other operators chime in in similar wording it is probably not a good idea to suggest that "the satellite operators seem to like this new proposal"

The World’s Biggest Satellite Fleet Operators Want Europe To Build Ariane 6 by 2019

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41821the-world%E2%80%99s-biggest-satellite-fleet-operators-want-europe-to-build-ariane

Letter to Dordain attached.


Multiple operators do indeed make for better statistics. ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/10/2014 08:04 pm
The letter is a must-read, it confirms sat operators envision reusability very seriously.

Quote
the price per launch may well decrease significantly below the US$ 60M mark as presently proposed by
SpaceX.  In  this  context,  it  is  necessary  in  our  view  that  the  design  of  the  future  European
launcher  includes  enough  modularity  and  is  engineered  in  a  future-proof  manner.  To  that
respect,  Ariane  6  should  remain  open  to  performance  adaptation,  and  if  need  be  evolution
towards new cost effective technologies including, for instance, reusability.
Basically, the sat operators are telling ESA and Arianespace: Get your act together fast, and do it SpaceX style, or suffer the consequences.

First and foremost they are saying: We really want to see SpaceX and Arianespace competing each other on price. If Arianespace has higher costs that may very well keep market prices high.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/10/2014 11:08 pm
Wow! If I was on the receiving side of such letter I would feel quite concerned. I've noticed the CC to the German and French Ministers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/11/2014 11:09 am
Wow! If I was on the receiving side of such letter I would feel quite concerned. I've noticed the CC to the German and French Ministers.
Yup. This better wake up some folks at ESA and Arianespace. If it doesn't...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/11/2014 11:20 am
The letter is a must-read, it confirms sat operators envision reusability very seriously.

Quote
the price per launch may well decrease significantly below the US$ 60M mark as presently proposed by
SpaceX.  In  this  context,  it  is  necessary  in  our  view  that  the  design  of  the  future  European
launcher  includes  enough  modularity  and  is  engineered  in  a  future-proof  manner.  To  that
respect,  Ariane  6  should  remain  open  to  performance  adaptation,  and  if  need  be  evolution
towards new cost effective technologies including, for instance, reusability.
Basically, the sat operators are telling ESA and Arianespace: Get your act together fast, and do it SpaceX style, or suffer the consequences.

First and foremost they are saying: We really want to see SpaceX and Arianespace competing each other on price. If Arianespace has higher costs that may very well keep market prices high.

If that is what you concluded from the contents of this letter than you did some very selective reading IMO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/11/2014 04:19 pm
The satellite operators will not abandon Ariane totally as they need two reliable launch providers for redundancy. But they will start sending more business SpaceX's way.

The letter stated that SpaceX plan to lower their launch costs to  < $60M, given they have just increased, this proposed price reduction must be based on reusability.

If Ariane plan to stay competitive in this market they can't ignore reusability. We will know if reusability is financial viable when SpaceX start dropping their prices for F9R and FHR flights, but this may take a year or two. Ariane can't afford to wait this long before deciding on a new LV design.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/11/2014 04:51 pm
ESA does not have the right technologies (restartable, high thrust liquid engines) to develop a reusable launcher before 2020 anyway.
Edit: I may be wrong, they can not use the spaceX formula, but maybe they could land the core on a barge or on Ascension island. See the attached ariane 5 launch profile:
(http://i.imgur.com/xGKhxZz.png)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/11/2014 05:49 pm
The letter is a must-read, it confirms sat operators envision reusability very seriously.

Quote
the price per launch may well decrease significantly below the US$ 60M mark as presently proposed by
SpaceX.  In  this  context,  it  is  necessary  in  our  view  that  the  design  of  the  future  European
launcher  includes  enough  modularity  and  is  engineered  in  a  future-proof  manner.  To  that
respect,  Ariane  6  should  remain  open  to  performance  adaptation,  and  if  need  be  evolution
towards new cost effective technologies including, for instance, reusability.
Basically, the sat operators are telling ESA and Arianespace: Get your act together fast, and do it SpaceX style, or suffer the consequences.

First and foremost they are saying: We really want to see SpaceX and Arianespace competing each other on price. If Arianespace has higher costs that may very well keep market prices high.

If that is what you concluded from the contents of this letter than you did some very selective reading IMO.

Why do you think the CEOs of sat operators send such a letter to ESA? Because they have some emotional attachement to Arianespace ::)? Obviously not. There are vital business interests at stake here. Operators do not want ESA to design a rocket primarily for the institutional market but to remain a competitor in the commercial market (the letter actually says so explicitly).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 09/11/2014 06:16 pm
ESA does not have the right technologies (restartable, high thrust liquid engines) to develop a reusable launcher before 2020 anyway.
Edit: I may be wrong, they can not use the spaceX formula, but maybe they could land the core on a barge or on Ascension island. See the attached ariane 5 launch profile:
(http://i.imgur.com/xGKhxZz.png)
I do not know the numbers for a Falcon 9 GTO launch, but for Ariane 5 ECA the main stage (EPC) is separated after 9 min at a height of 150+ km and with a speed of approx. 7 km/s.
I think it would be much more complicated to get this stage back to earth (non re-ignitable Vulcain 2 not counting) than the Falcon 9 1st stage that separates at 3 min into the flight.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/11/2014 07:35 pm
ESA does not have the right technologies (restartable, high thrust liquid engines) to develop a reusable launcher before 2020 anyway.
Edit: I may be wrong, they can not use the spaceX formula, but maybe they could land the core on a barge or on Ascension island. See the attached ariane 5 launch profile:
(http://i.imgur.com/xGKhxZz.png)
I do not know the numbers for a Falcon 9 GTO launch, but for Ariane 5 ECA the main stage (EPC) is separated after 9 min at a height of 150+ km and with a speed of approx. 7 km/s.
I think it would be much more complicated to get this stage back to earth (non re-ignitable Vulcain 2 not counting) than the Falcon 9 1st stage that separates at 3 min into the flight.

RTLS is certainly very hard to pull off, by landing downrange might be possible. The TWR of the empty core under Vulcain power is not that far off as a F9 1st stage with 1 Merlin.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 09/11/2014 11:39 pm
For a reausable launcher to the ISS Woomera would be a better choice than Kourou .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars_J on 09/11/2014 11:59 pm
For a reausable launcher to the ISS Woomera would be a better choice than Kourou .

How so? It is farther from the equator, and is not situated on the ocean.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 09/12/2014 12:22 am
Abort  Runways for a start that is the beauty of the ISS you can reach it from most anywhere.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars_J on 09/12/2014 01:18 am
Abort  Runways for a start that is the beauty of the ISS you can reach it from most anywhere.

Which planned reusable launcher will use abort runways?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/12/2014 04:54 am
Europe is going to loose against SpaceX in the commercial market, I think that is quite obvious now. And I'm saying this as a european.
I'm going to wait until I see Falcon Heavy reaching orbit profitably before I worry about Ariane 5.  Falcon Heavy is not yet a given, either technically or financially.  Twenty eight engines have to work every time to achieve success, and consider the overhead for Falcon Heavy, which will have to staff three launch sites rather than only one for Ariane 5.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/12/2014 05:06 am
Europe is going to loose against SpaceX in the commercial market, I think that is quite obvious now. And I'm saying this as a european.
I'm going to wait until I see Falcon Heavy reaching orbit profitably before I worry about Ariane 5.  Falcon Heavy is not yet a given, either technically or financially.  Twenty eight engines have to work every time to achieve success, and consider the overhead for Falcon Heavy, which will have to staff three launch sites rather than only one for Ariane 5.

That's fine.  You can just wait until everything has already happened before even contemplating it.  Most of the rest of us see that there's a very strong chance of it happening and we're thinking ahead to the effect that will have.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/12/2014 06:54 am
If that is what you concluded from the contents of this letter than you did some very selective reading IMO.

Why do you think the CEOs of sat operators send such a letter to ESA? Because they have some emotional attachement to Arianespace ::)? Obviously not. There are vital business interests at stake here. Operators do not want ESA to design a rocket primarily for the institutional market but to remain a competitor in the commercial market (the letter actually says so explicitly).
You still don't get it, do you?
This letter is not about getting Arianespace to compete on price with SpaceX. It's all about spreading risk. The sat operators are well aware that getting ESA/Arianespace to produce an Ariane, 6 that can compete with SpaceX on price alone, is not a given under the present circumstances.
But, those same sat operators also know that being solely dependent on SpaceX for access to GTO is worse business still:
- Proton is no longer an option: too many failures
- China's Long March is not an option: too many ITAR restrictions
- SeaLauch: on the very of financial collapse, so no longer a serious option.
- Orbital: no demonstrated capability to get present sized comsats into GTO/GEO.

That leaves ULA, Arianespace and SpaceX. ULA is out on price alone.
And Arianespace is heading the same way courtesy of SpaceX competition and a wrong design for A6. As a result, it won't be long until the only seriously viable launch option for comsat operators is SpaceX. But what if SpaceX does a 'Proton' or get's seriously restricted by ITAR? The comsat operators will want a second viable launch providers for insurance against such risks.
The current design and operation date for A6 do not provide that insurance. That's why the comsat operators have now sent this letter; financials are important, but much more telling is the 2019 date.

It's all about spreading risk. The comsat operators don't like the prospect of them not having a way to spread risk five years from now. The fact they mention the 2019 deadline is clear insight into the opinion of the comsat operators. They are convinced that the competition (SpaceX) will be so established five years from now (both in reliabilty and schedule-keeping) that the much higher prize of A5ME will push that vehicle out of the market. And that would leave them with only one launch provider unless ESA/Arianespace get their act together on A6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/12/2014 06:57 am
Abort  Runways for a start that is the beauty of the ISS you can reach it from most anywhere.

Which planned reusable launcher will use abort runways?
@Lars_J: do yourself a favor and don't ask that. Floss has a reputation of trolling threads by constantly coming up with notions of non-existing ESA spacecraft/rockets. He's been away some time after his latest scare but is now back. Don't let him hijack this thread by getting into a pointless discussion with him. Thank you.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hkultala on 09/12/2014 07:10 am
[offtopic]

Europe is going to loose against SpaceX in the commercial market, I think that is quite obvious now. And I'm saying this as a european.
I'm going to wait until I see Falcon Heavy reaching orbit profitably before I worry about Ariane 5.  Falcon Heavy is not yet a given, either technically or financially.  Twenty eight engines have to work every time to achieve success, and consider the overhead for Falcon Heavy, which will have to staff three launch sites rather than only one for Ariane 5.

 - Ed Kyle

28 engines won't have to work. It's enough that 24-26 first stage engines and one upper stage engine works.. They can lose one first stage engine from each core and still achieve success if they have just small margin (which they usually will have, due the huge payload capasity)

[/offtopic]

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/12/2014 07:14 am
If that is what you concluded from the contents of this letter than you did some very selective reading IMO.

Why do you think the CEOs of sat operators send such a letter to ESA? Because they have some emotional attachement to Arianespace ::)? Obviously not. There are vital business interests at stake here. Operators do not want ESA to design a rocket primarily for the institutional market but to remain a competitor in the commercial market (the letter actually says so explicitly).
You still don't get it, do you?
This letter is not about getting Arianespace to compete on price with SpaceX. It's all about spreading risk. The sat operators are well aware that getting ESA/Arianespace to produce an Ariane, 6 that can compete with SpaceX on price alone, is not a given under the present circumstances.
But, those same sat operators also know that being solely dependent on SpaceX for access to GTO is worse business still:
- Proton is no longer an option: too many failures
- China's Long March is not an option: too many ITAR restrictions
- SeaLauch: on the very of financial collapse, so no longer a serious option.
- Orbital: no demonstrated capability to get present sized comsats into GTO/GEO.

That leaves ULA, Arianespace and SpaceX. ULA is out on price alone.
And Arianespace is heading the same way courtesy of SpaceX competition and a wrong design for A6. As a result, it won't be long until the only seriously viable launch option for comsat operators is SpaceX. But what if SpaceX does a 'Proton' or get's seriously restricted by ITAR? The comsat operators will want a second viable launch providers for insurance against such risks.
The current design and operation date for A6 do not provide that insurance. That's why the comsat operators have now sent this letter; financials are important, but much more telling is the 2019 date.

It's all about spreading risk. The comsat operators don't like the prospect of them not having a way to spread risk five years from now. The fact they mention the 2019 deadline is clear insight into the opinion of the comsat operators. They are convinced that the competition (SpaceX) will be so established five years from now (both in reliabilty and schedule-keeping) that the much higher prize of A5ME will push that vehicle out of the market. And that would leave them with only one launch provider unless ESA/Arianespace get their act together on A6.

Arianespace being pushed entirely out of the market and no alternative left is of course a worst case scenario, but highly unlikely. Alternatives to SpaceX will exist, even if they are pricier. Your doomsday scenarios for anything but SpaceX are a bit laughable to be honest. In fact SpaceX might not be interested in pricing its competitors out of the market even if it could.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 09/12/2014 07:55 am
Arianespace being pushed entirely out of the market and no alternative left is of course a worst case scenario, but highly unlikely. Alternatives to SpaceX will exist, even if they are pricier. Your doomsday scenarios for anything but SpaceX are a bit laughable to be honest. In fact SpaceX might not be interested in pricing its competitors out of the market even if it could.

Of course they are interested in pricing out its competitors. The partial reusable Falcon 9 is supposed to cost 75% of a normal F9 (if I remember the interview with Elon Musk correctly), thats 45 million dollars or 35 million euros, thats cheaper than Vega. I'm really looking forward to the comments by european officials how this could not be forseen (basically the same as with the SES-8 launch).

Btw, the Vinci M5 motor just completed its testing: 16 tests in 12 months (a bit more than one test per month). SpaceX is probably laughing at this extraordinary development speed. And its still another 3-4 years until Ariane 5 ME is supposed to fly!

A lot more change is necessary in Europe than just a joint-venture on paper and changing 2 solids (Ariane 5) to 2-4 (new Ariane 6 concept).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 09/12/2014 12:19 pm
Well, the partially reusable F9 has no leverage here because it's too small to launch GEO comsats.

The big question is whether reusability really brings F9H into a competitive region to the heavy payloads on A5 or whether F9 will price A5 out of the market for the smaller passengers. The sat operators seem to believe so and they should have some knowledge.

The point about A5ME might be that it simply leaves no real good case for smaller size comsats so it might actually lead to a situation where for the ~4t range SpaceX might be the only option. If this class is really growing due to SEP that would indeed be a significant issue for SpaceX.

We are exactly where I claimed we would be when the A6 discussions started here 18 months ago or so: it turns out that back then there was not enough information about how this market would evolve to make a good decision on an A6 design.
I'm not sure there is enough information now before we've seen how reuse will turn out economically for SpaceX, especially for FH.
I stand by my old assumption: the best decision would be to wait another year or two and spend a bit more money on subsidizing A5 for a few more flights if needed.
But then the slow decision processes in Europe might actually just do that job pretty well :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 09/12/2014 12:53 pm
Arianespace being pushed entirely out of the market and no alternative left is of course a worst case scenario, but highly unlikely. Alternatives to SpaceX will exist, even if they are pricier. Your doomsday scenarios for anything but SpaceX are a bit laughable to be honest. In fact SpaceX might not be interested in pricing its competitors out of the market even if it could.

Of course they are interested in pricing out its competitors. The partial reusable Falcon 9 is supposed to cost 75% of a normal F9 (if I remember the interview with Elon Musk correctly), thats 45 million dollars or 35 million euros, thats cheaper than Vega. I'm really looking forward to the comments by european officials how this could not be forseen (basically the same as with the SES-8 launch).

Btw, the Vinci M5 motor just completed its testing: 16 tests in 12 months (a bit more than one test per month). SpaceX is probably laughing at this extraordinary development speed. And its still another 3-4 years until Ariane 5 ME is supposed to fly!

A lot more change is necessary in Europe than just a joint-venture on paper and changing 2 solids (Ariane 5) to 2-4 (new Ariane 6 concept).

When SpaceX knows the testing business as well as we do, I do not think they would laugh. We are testing Vinci under vacuum. SpaceX did not do this with its upper stage engine. And producing - and keeping - vacuum during a test of several hundreds of seconds is not that easy...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/12/2014 01:07 pm

The sat operators seem to believe so and they should have some knowledge.

Actually they only mention reusability once, as a potential option to reduce price further in the future.

When SpaceX knows the testing business as well as we do, I do not think they would laugh. We are testing Vinci under vacuum. SpaceX did not do this with its upper stage engine. And producing - and keeping - vacuum during a test of several hundreds of seconds is not that easy...

Haven't you heard? SpaceX does everything faster, better and cheaper. The fact that you are testing in vacuum and SpaceX did not obviously means you're doing something terribly wrong.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 09/12/2014 01:12 pm
When SpaceX knows the testing business as well as we do, I do not think they would laugh. We are testing Vinci under vacuum. SpaceX did not do this with its upper stage engine. And producing - and keeping - vacuum during a test of several hundreds of seconds is not that easy...

Yes, they didn't, but they were lucky (or they know what they are doing ;) ). Actually SpaceX was lucky three times, with the Kestrel, the Merlin 1CVac and the Merlin 1 D Vac. The reignition didn't work on Cassiope but it did later with SES-8 after understanding the issue.

I think SpaceX knows the testing business very well, the evidence speaks for itself. 70 flown Merlin 1Ds within the last 365 days. Zero engine inflight failures for F9v1.1 so far.

It looks like the Merlin-1D is becoming the new Viking, a much better Viking.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: rpapo on 09/12/2014 01:14 pm
Haven't you heard? SpaceX does everything faster, better and cheaper. The fact that you are testing in vacuum and SpaceX did not obviously means you're doing something terribly wrong.
For my part, I would envy their nice testing facilities.  NASA has similar things.  Whether they are necessary, or whether a private company would invest money to make such places is a different question.  But they exist now, and can be used to reduce potential failure modes.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/12/2014 01:47 pm
Europe is going to loose against SpaceX in the commercial market, I think that is quite obvious now. And I'm saying this as a european.
I'm going to wait until I see Falcon Heavy reaching orbit profitably before I worry about Ariane 5.  Falcon Heavy is not yet a given, either technically or financially.  Twenty eight engines have to work every time to achieve success, and consider the overhead for Falcon Heavy, which will have to staff three launch sites rather than only one for Ariane 5.

That's fine.  You can just wait until everything has already happened before even contemplating it.  Most of the rest of us see that there's a very strong chance of it happening and we're thinking ahead to the effect that will have.
Understandable, but I honestly believe that SpaceX only has a 50-50 chance of pulling off Falcon Heavy as a competitive machine.  It is going to be a lot of rocket and complexity - and therefore money - for a relatively small GTO payload. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/12/2014 02:32 pm
Arianespace being pushed entirely out of the market and no alternative left is of course a worst case scenario, but highly unlikely. Alternatives to SpaceX will exist, even if they are pricier. Your doomsday scenarios for anything but SpaceX are a bit laughable to be honest. In fact SpaceX might not be interested in pricing its competitors out of the market even if it could.

Of course they are interested in pricing out its competitors. The partial reusable Falcon 9 is supposed to cost 75% of a normal F9 (if I remember the interview with Elon Musk correctly), thats 45 million dollars or 35 million euros, thats cheaper than Vega. I'm really looking forward to the comments by european officials how this could not be forseen (basically the same as with the SES-8 launch).

Btw, the Vinci M5 motor just completed its testing: 16 tests in 12 months (a bit more than one test per month). SpaceX is probably laughing at this extraordinary development speed. And its still another 3-4 years until Ariane 5 ME is supposed to fly!

A lot more change is necessary in Europe than just a joint-venture on paper and changing 2 solids (Ariane 5) to 2-4 (new Ariane 6 concept).

When SpaceX knows the testing business as well as we do, I do not think they would laugh. We are testing Vinci under vacuum. SpaceX did not do this with its upper stage engine. And producing - and keeping - vacuum during a test of several hundreds of seconds is not that easy...
I would simply say that RP-1 is a lot easier than H2. They do know a thing or two about testing. In the same timeframe that Vinci is going from concept to production, SpaceX went through six different versions of the Merlin 1. They've also developed the Kestrel, Draco and SuperDraco and are starting to test sub assemblies of a 7.5MN Full Flow CH4/LOX engine (yes, tell me about that). They have flown in that last 12 months more than 70 Merlin 1D, and that requires at least an engine and a stage acceptance test at Waco. And their team was doing F9-Dev1 testing while doing all that.
Please, I do believe you might have the highest quality and one of the top two most technical thorough teams and equipment for H2. But SpaceX has an amazing team at Waco that does an amount of testing that only Russians can brag about.
Yes, their testing procedures might not be so thorough. But they get to actually fly faster and on a non-restart critical missions and learn from their failures. It might sound terribly bad engineering to you that they have failed to restart on all their LV debuts. And yet that's the way they develop things.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 09/12/2014 04:28 pm
Arianespace being pushed entirely out of the market and no alternative left is of course a worst case scenario, but highly unlikely. Alternatives to SpaceX will exist, even if they are pricier. Your doomsday scenarios for anything but SpaceX are a bit laughable to be honest. In fact SpaceX might not be interested in pricing its competitors out of the market even if it could.

Of course they are interested in pricing out its competitors. The partial reusable Falcon 9 is supposed to cost 75% of a normal F9 (if I remember the interview with Elon Musk correctly), thats 45 million dollars or 35 million euros, thats cheaper than Vega. I'm really looking forward to the comments by european officials how this could not be forseen (basically the same as with the SES-8 launch).

Btw, the Vinci M5 motor just completed its testing: 16 tests in 12 months (a bit more than one test per month). SpaceX is probably laughing at this extraordinary development speed. And its still another 3-4 years until Ariane 5 ME is supposed to fly!

A lot more change is necessary in Europe than just a joint-venture on paper and changing 2 solids (Ariane 5) to 2-4 (new Ariane 6 concept).

When SpaceX knows the testing business as well as we do, I do not think they would laugh. We are testing Vinci under vacuum. SpaceX did not do this with its upper stage engine. And producing - and keeping - vacuum during a test of several hundreds of seconds is not that easy...
I would simply say that RP-1 is a lot easier than H2. They do know a thing or two about testing. In the same timeframe that Vinci is going from concept to production, SpaceX went through six different versions of the Merlin 1. They've also developed the Kestrel, Draco and SuperDraco and are starting to test sub assemblies of a 7.5MN Full Flow CH4/LOX engine (yes, tell me about that). They have flown in that last 12 months more than 70 Merlin 1D, and that requires at least an engine and a stage acceptance test at Waco. And their team was doing F9-Dev1 testing while doing all that.
Please, I do believe you might have the highest quality and one of the top two most technical thorough teams and equipment for H2. But SpaceX has an amazing team at Waco that does an amount of testing that only Russians can brag about.
Yes, their testing procedures might not be so thorough. But they get to actually fly faster and on a non-restart critical missions and learn from their failures. It might sound terribly bad engineering to you that they have failed to restart on all their LV debuts. And yet that's the way they develop things.

When you speak about the timeframe of the Vinci development you have to consider that Vinci was scaled back to an FLPP (Future Launcher Preparatory Program) program for some years to compensate for the re-engineering effort of the Vulcain 2 nozzle after its failure on its inaugural flight.

In addition: And yes, of course, with 70 engines flown in 12 month SpaceX has a good experience level. But they fly a lot of engines because they have to. Ariane 5 can fly with only one main engine. We could discuss back and forth whether this is an advantage or disadvantage...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 09/12/2014 04:33 pm

The sat operators seem to believe so and they should have some knowledge.

Actually they only mention reusability once, as a potential option to reduce price further in the future.

When SpaceX knows the testing business as well as we do, I do not think they would laugh. We are testing Vinci under vacuum. SpaceX did not do this with its upper stage engine. And producing - and keeping - vacuum during a test of several hundreds of seconds is not that easy...

Haven't you heard? SpaceX does everything faster, better and cheaper. The fact that you are testing in vacuum and SpaceX did not obviously means you're doing something terribly wrong.


For faster and cheaper I agree - but better depends on whether you want to have some luck being responsable for success or not. Time will tell...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Jim on 09/14/2014 12:27 pm
For a reausable launcher to the ISS Woomera would be a better choice than Kourou .

Based on what?  There is no relevant data that supports that claim.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Proponent on 09/15/2014 08:41 am
The World’s Biggest Satellite Fleet Operators Want Europe To Build Ariane 6 by 2019

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41821the-world%E2%80%99s-biggest-satellite-fleet-operators-want-europe-to-build-ariane

Letter to Dordain attached.

Thanks much, Oli, for posting that letter.

I was quite surprised to read that the satellite operators like the dual-launch concept.  I had long mistakenly suspected it was just a case of being stuck with lemons (an Ariane V that was oversized as a result of ESA's previous man-in-space pipedreams) and choosing to make lemonade (dual comsat launches).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/15/2014 01:38 pm
The World’s Biggest Satellite Fleet Operators Want Europe To Build Ariane 6 by 2019

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41821the-world%E2%80%99s-biggest-satellite-fleet-operators-want-europe-to-build-ariane

Letter to Dordain attached.

Thanks much, Oli, for posting that letter.

I was quite surprised to read that the satellite operators like the dual-launch concept.  I had long mistakenly suspected it was just a case of being stuck with lemons (an Ariane V that was oversized as a result of ESA's previous man-in-space pipedreams) and choosing to make lemonade (dual comsat launches).
I don't think that they like dual-launch as much as they rather put up with dual launch if its needed for a cheap and reliable launcher. And judging from the 6-4 performance, it would seem like an excellent value proposal. Ariane 5 performance (with restart capability) for just 60% of the cost. I believe that they were pointing rather their preference in that sense. Not that they "rather" have a dual-launch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/15/2014 05:52 pm
If that is what you concluded from the contents of this letter than you did some very selective reading IMO.

Why do you think the CEOs of sat operators send such a letter to ESA? Because they have some emotional attachement to Arianespace ::)? Obviously not. There are vital business interests at stake here. Operators do not want ESA to design a rocket primarily for the institutional market but to remain a competitor in the commercial market (the letter actually says so explicitly).
You still don't get it, do you?
This letter is not about getting Arianespace to compete on price with SpaceX. It's all about spreading risk. The sat operators are well aware that getting ESA/Arianespace to produce an Ariane, 6 that can compete with SpaceX on price alone, is not a given under the present circumstances.
But, those same sat operators also know that being solely dependent on SpaceX for access to GTO is worse business still:
- Proton is no longer an option: too many failures
- China's Long March is not an option: too many ITAR restrictions
- SeaLauch: on the very of financial collapse, so no longer a serious option.
- Orbital: no demonstrated capability to get present sized comsats into GTO/GEO.

That leaves ULA, Arianespace and SpaceX. ULA is out on price alone.
And Arianespace is heading the same way courtesy of SpaceX competition and a wrong design for A6. As a result, it won't be long until the only seriously viable launch option for comsat operators is SpaceX. But what if SpaceX does a 'Proton' or get's seriously restricted by ITAR? The comsat operators will want a second viable launch providers for insurance against such risks.
The current design and operation date for A6 do not provide that insurance. That's why the comsat operators have now sent this letter; financials are important, but much more telling is the 2019 date.

It's all about spreading risk. The comsat operators don't like the prospect of them not having a way to spread risk five years from now. The fact they mention the 2019 deadline is clear insight into the opinion of the comsat operators. They are convinced that the competition (SpaceX) will be so established five years from now (both in reliabilty and schedule-keeping) that the much higher prize of A5ME will push that vehicle out of the market. And that would leave them with only one launch provider unless ESA/Arianespace get their act together on A6.

Arianespace being pushed entirely out of the market and no alternative left is of course a worst case scenario, but highly unlikely. Alternatives to SpaceX will exist, even if they are pricier.
You entirely miss his point, which I've emphasized.

Yes, temporarily you can have more expensive, full service providers. But that does not make you a market leader, but a niche provider. Once you own the leading market share, you can drive the market. In the past, this was as important as indigenous LV and launch services to orbit, for the same reason.


Your doomsday scenarios for anything but SpaceX are a bit laughable to be honest. In fact SpaceX might not be interested in pricing its competitors out of the market even if it could.

It's not a doomsday scenario, its attempting to continue a policy that's been in place for decades.

SpaceX is making a run on market share, clearly to control the market and change/control how it works. One would have to be a fool to ignore the obvious, palpable threat. Threat is not reality. But you must plan for it becoming real.

Otherwise you cede the initiative in not regaining the perception of leadership.

So the strategic game, the tactical game, and operational footprint all matter here.

edit: fixed quotes, added 2 omitted words for clarity.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/15/2014 06:12 pm
Europe is going to loose against SpaceX in the commercial market, I think that is quite obvious now. And I'm saying this as a european.
I'm going to wait until I see Falcon Heavy reaching orbit profitably before I worry about Ariane 5.  Falcon Heavy is not yet a given, either technically or financially.  Twenty eight engines have to work every time to achieve success, and consider the overhead for Falcon Heavy, which will have to staff three launch sites rather than only one for Ariane 5.

That's fine.  You can just wait until everything has already happened before even contemplating it.  Most of the rest of us see that there's a very strong chance of it happening and we're thinking ahead to the effect that will have.
Understandable, but I honestly believe that SpaceX only has a 50-50 chance of pulling off Falcon Heavy as a competitive machine.  It is going to be a lot of rocket and complexity - and therefore money - for a relatively small GTO payload. 

 - Ed Kyle
Given Delta IVH experience yes I think it will be a nightmare to integrate for launch. But the issues will be lessened due to no hydrogen and all the joy that brings to going vertical on the pad.

I think that unlike Delta horizontal integration really works for Falcon. So I think the economics will be far better.

And I think that the superb job of increasing pad flow this year we've seen goes a long way towards developing the necessary integration skills/rate needed for those three lower stages - that needed to happen first.

I think that the whole point of the Texas pad and timeline is a "launch factory" that competes eyeball to eyeball with Kourou. And I think it doesn't even require a minimum launch frequency! So they can turn it on to throttle the market as needed, and if that consumes commercial launches, they just turn it off until demand builds. This would be very hard to compete with.

As for reusable LV, for Ariane its a long term issue that needs to be on "real" roadmap unlike the past. In the near term, its just competing  expendable, which is very hard already given where SpaceX is headed and how soon they might make it there.

As to Russian/China/India/etc providers, they have a extremely long lead time to catch up, because they are even less dynamic.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/16/2014 11:15 am
New article on Ariane 6 in the French press:
http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/une-ariane-6-des-2019-et-pas-d-ariane-5me.N284638 (http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/une-ariane-6-des-2019-et-pas-d-ariane-5me.N284638)
Ariane 5 ME is reportedly cancelled, Ariane 6 will have configurations with  2 (4.5t GTO),3(7t-8t) or 4(11t) solids boosters.
An ESA meeting on this topic will take place on Wednesday.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/16/2014 01:06 pm
New article on Ariane 6 in the French press:
http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/une-ariane-6-des-2019-et-pas-d-ariane-5me.N284638 (http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/une-ariane-6-des-2019-et-pas-d-ariane-5me.N284638)
Ariane 5 ME is reportedly cancelled, Ariane 6 will have configurations with  2 (4.5t GTO),3(7t-8t) or 4(11t) solids boosters.
An ESA meeting on this topic will take place on Wednesday.
More details on cost:
- Continued development of A5-ME will delay A6 to 2025 timeframe
- Getting A6 to fly in 2019-2020 timeframe requires cancellation of A5-ME.
- Basically: ESA can't afford to have them both.

Tough choice....
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 09/16/2014 01:16 pm
New article on Ariane 6 in the French press:
http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/une-ariane-6-des-2019-et-pas-d-ariane-5me.N284638 (http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/une-ariane-6-des-2019-et-pas-d-ariane-5me.N284638)
Ariane 5 ME is reportedly cancelled, Ariane 6 will have configurations with  2 (4.5t GTO),3(7t-8t) or 4(11t) solids boosters.
An ESA meeting on this topic will take place on Wednesday.
So, basically the CNES concept we saw recently, but even lower in (target) cost and with the added option of flying with only three boosters.

It's not perfect but if it proves a workable compromise I'd say this is a pretty great deal. A much better long term investment than Ariane 5 ME first, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/16/2014 01:20 pm
From the article:

Quote
La nouvelle Ariane 6, qui permet de réemployer des technologies développées ou en cours de développement (moteur réallumable Vinci) sera compétitive sur le marché : il en coutera 65 millions d’euros par tir pour Ariane 6-2, et de 80 à 85 millions d’euros pour Ariane 6-4 capable de lancer deux satellites à la fois.

65m (6.2) to 85m (6.4) euros.

I have always prefered A5 ME (assuming it wasn't too big for dual launch for Arianespace) because I did not see how the potential savings with A6 could pay for the up-front development costs, but if the actual price will be close to the prices above, its really a no-brainer.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GreenShrike on 09/16/2014 04:10 pm
More details on cost:
- Continued development of A5-ME will delay A6 to 2025 timeframe
- Getting A6 to fly in 2019-2020 timeframe requires cancellation of A5-ME.
- Basically: ESA can't afford to have them both.

Tough choice....

I wonder why the A5-ME would cost so much. Isn't the primary upgrade the new Vinci-based upper stage, which would be shared with the A6 and thus need to be developed either way? This latest A6 design does still use a Vinci upper stage, right?

Getting the A6 done in 5 years, or 10 years if A5-ME is developed implies that the A5 upgrades and the A6 will take the same amount of time and cost the around the same; can a larger fairing and upgraded SYLDA for dual large satellite deployments really cost as much as a new rocket design?

Then again, I suppose that this latest 11t-maximum A6 can completely replace the A5 in a way that the 6.5t-only PPH A6 couldn't -- and at such a low price! -- so perhaps there's less reason to have the A5 stick around.

With a selection of 2 or 4 boosters, a single core design could be used, with two attachment points going unused for the 2-booster config. I wonder if they'll use the same core for the 3-booster config and lump the asymmetrical thrust -- like Atlas V -- or if there will be a unique core with only 3 attachment points 120 degrees separated.

With only 20m euros between the 4.5t and 11t configurations, it appears economics will encourage a continuation of Ariane's dual launch legacy -- 14.4k euros/kg versus 7.7k euros/kg.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/17/2014 05:36 pm
The results of today's meeting are in:

http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php (http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php)

Highlights: ESA, CNES, DLR, Airbus and Safran agree that the way forward should be Ariane 6 in 2 versions: with 2 boosters for €65M, and with 4 boosters for €85M. Development cost is estimated at €4B.
First launch is to be 2020. Funding Ariane 6 and 5ME concurrently is financially impossible, so the recommendation is to drop 5ME entirely. 
There was no mention of a 3-booster version of Ariane 6.

The next step will be for the space ministers of the member countries to endorse this roadmap, which is scheduled for September 23. I'm not sure I understand the article completely, because they also mention the date of December 2 for the final decision.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 09/17/2014 05:43 pm
Is this new Ariane 6 concept the one with a liquid core, or a solid one?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/17/2014 05:46 pm
The article didn't say, they just mention that the boosters are 120 tons each.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 09/17/2014 06:41 pm
The results of today's meeting are in:

http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php (http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php)

Highlights: ESA, CNES, DLR, Airbus and Safran agree that the way forward should be Ariane 6 in 2 versions: with 2 boosters for €65M, and with 4 boosters for €85M. Development cost is estimated at €4B.
First launch is to be 2020. Funding Ariane 6 and 5ME concurrently is financially impossible, so the recommendation is to drop 5ME entirely. 
There was no mention of a 3-booster version of Ariane 6.

The next step will be for the space ministers of the member countries to endorse this roadmap, which is scheduled for September 23. I'm not sure I understand the article completely, because they also mention the date of December 2 for the final decision.

December 2 is the ministerial meeting which happens every 2 years and during which ministers from all of ESA's member countries agree the budget (for everything, not just launchers). They'll formally agree (well, hopefully) about Ariane 5ME/6 on this date.

Next week is only a preliminary discussion to discuss the new proposal, but there will be no formal agreement and most likely, even if they are happy with it, more details will need to be sorted out before December.
I guess it's good sign that both CNES and DLR are happy with this latest plan, but it doesn't mean it will be accepted at ministerial level (for political/economical reasons).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/17/2014 08:17 pm
The results of today's meeting are in:

http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php (http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php)

Highlights: ESA, CNES, DLR, Airbus and Safran agree that the way forward should be Ariane 6 in 2 versions: with 2 boosters for €65M, and with 4 boosters for €85M. Development cost is estimated at €4B.
First launch is to be 2020. Funding Ariane 6 and 5ME concurrently is financially impossible, so the recommendation is to drop 5ME entirely. 
There was no mention of a 3-booster version of Ariane 6.

The next step will be for the space ministers of the member countries to endorse this roadmap, which is scheduled for September 23. I'm not sure I understand the article completely, because they also mention the date of December 2 for the final decision.

December 2 is the ministerial meeting which happens every 2 years and during which ministers from all of ESA's member countries agree the budget (for everything, not just launchers). They'll formally agree (well, hopefully) about Ariane 5ME/6 on this date.

Next week is only a preliminary discussion to discuss the new proposal, but there will be no formal agreement and most likely, even if they are happy with it, more details will need to be sorted out before December.
I guess it's good sign that both CNES and DLR are happy with this latest plan, but it doesn't mean it will be accepted at ministerial level (for political/economical reasons).
Oh, it will be accepted. You see, it's cheaper than the original plan. And economics is everything these days. ESA member states are still very much cash-strapped.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/17/2014 08:48 pm
Will today's ULA/Blue Origin announcement of a new launch vehicle have any impact on decisions regarding the Ariane 6 configuration?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 09/17/2014 08:58 pm
The results of today's meeting are in:

http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php (http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php)

Highlights: ESA, CNES, DLR, Airbus and Safran agree that the way forward should be Ariane 6 in 2 versions: with 2 boosters for €65M, and with 4 boosters for €85M. Development cost is estimated at €4B.
First launch is to be 2020. Funding Ariane 6 and 5ME concurrently is financially impossible, so the recommendation is to drop 5ME entirely. 
There was no mention of a 3-booster version of Ariane 6.

The next step will be for the space ministers of the member countries to endorse this roadmap, which is scheduled for September 23. I'm not sure I understand the article completely, because they also mention the date of December 2 for the final decision.

December 2 is the ministerial meeting which happens every 2 years and during which ministers from all of ESA's member countries agree the budget (for everything, not just launchers). They'll formally agree (well, hopefully) about Ariane 5ME/6 on this date.

Next week is only a preliminary discussion to discuss the new proposal, but there will be no formal agreement and most likely, even if they are happy with it, more details will need to be sorted out before December.
I guess it's good sign that both CNES and DLR are happy with this latest plan, but it doesn't mean it will be accepted at ministerial level (for political/economical reasons).
Oh, it will be accepted. You see, it's cheaper than the original plan. And economics is everything these days. ESA member states are still very much cash-strapped.

Yes, you might well be right. I was just wondering about Germany and the cancellation of A5 ME. Two years ago, they didn't want to finance A6 at all, but I guess a lot of things have changed since then and they might see this iteration of A6 as leading to enough industrial work for them.

On another level, I do wonder what's Airbus DS plan to reduce production costs and if they are going to close down some sites (well merging some sites with Safran) to simplify the production process, as they have hinted at.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 09/17/2014 11:49 pm
[rant]
I really wonder why apparently everyone is buying this bulls**t and nobody is asking the right questions.

Why developing a new launcher in order to perform the same job, bringing ~11 t into GTO? Ariane 5 ECA delivers >10 t, Ariane 6 shall deliver 10.9 t, that is the same spec. Why does the main stage, it's engine and the boosters need to be re-developed to perform the exact same job?

Does Europe really need to develop a launcher "Family" which has only two family members, one of which is just a replacement? Isn't that a big waste of resources?
 
Why is the Ariane 6 core stage downscaled from Ariane 5 ME? So A5ME shall bring >11 t into GTO, A6.4 shall deliver 10.9 t. Both share the same upper stage design, 4 boosters with 120 t loading equal two boosters with 243 t loading. So main stage loading should also remain the same. But of course, new materials make everything lighter AND cheaper and it is of course worth exploiting this even if it makes you redevelop and re-qualify your stages. I remember  Antonio Elias  (https://www.orbital.com/CorporateInformation/ExecutiveProfiles/AElias/) posting  in this forum  (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3550.msg58259#msg58259):
Quote
*SIGH*... people forget that, unlike microelectronics, where we still have a few rounds of "Moore's law" to go before quantum physics hits us in the head, we reached the PHYSICAL LIMITS of the two fundamental parameters of rocketry: specific impulse and mass fraction, in the mid-60's and the late 50's, respectively!!!  The specific impulse of LOX-LH2 engines, around 450s, represents the limits imposed by INTRAmolecular bonds in this here known universe; the BEST mass fraction ever achieved on a launch vehicle stage was the Atlas, and unless somebody comes up with rocket-sized nanotube structures, mass fractions have reached the limits of INTERmolecular bonds in the above mentioned universe.

So there is NO WAY OF REDUCING THE COST OF LAUNCH BY TECHNOLGY." [...]
This was and still is true. The vehicle with all it's new stages will at best be marginally better wrt. the structural mass ratio of its stages but considerably more expensive due to (a) the new processes & materials and (b) due to having lost all the cost decrease from the learning curve in production. Economies of scale of expendable launch vehicles considering the low automation level and low number of units produced per year still provides much more cost decrease than the few percent provided by technical superior efficiency of modern materials.

How can a launch vehicle which is technically almost the same as Ariane 5 suddenly be produced & launched for half the price?
Compared to Ariane 5 ME Ariane 6 uses the same upper stage, a core stage with slightly lower loading and 4 boosters with 120 t propellant loading instead of the two with 243 t loading. Even if each part were re-engineered and simplified that may account for 10% better pricing but cannot account for such a price difference. Also economies of scale and synergies with Vega for P120 cannot account for this, as the P120 has yet to be developed and the max 2 Vega launches per year don't really help to reduce costs.
But of course it is always claimed that the cost reductions will come from the improved efficiency of the new Ariane 6 governance scheme/ of the new joint venture/ the hands-off management for government agencies.

Then why isn't this so much more efficient mgmt-scheme implemented for Ariane 5 production? Get the cost efficiency in production without having to pay for a full-fledged new development program. THAT would be efficent. But, nah, let's do the development first and then see how to achieve the cost reduction by half. Just because your "True Cost" cost simulations show that such low launch prices COULD be achieved they don't tell you HOW they are achieved and what you really have to change for that, (otherwise there would not be the need for all these business consultants).

The concept may be more palatable to the Germans due to the increased use of liquid propulsion. And the French want to hone their solid propulsion skills. This launcher fulfills both. Fine. So it is the good launcher to fulfill these agendas. But then don't fool yourself and your taxpayers into believing that the LV design defined by political agendas will magically ALSO be the best one in terms of recurrent costs.

How can it be that an   upper stage development costs further 1.2 billion euros ($1.6 billion)  (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41770esa-ministerial-in-doubt-as-france-germany-remain-far-apart-on-future) (overall thus a total of almost 2 billion Euro) and the exact same companies offer a full vehicle development for 4 billion euro? With three new stages (taking over the less than half finished upper stage from A5ME) with a lot more system engineering activities, with a new production infrastructure, with a new/modified launch pad. Either the Ariane 6 price is ridiculously understated by ESA and/or Airbus or the A5ME development is extremely overpriced by Airbus. Either way its embarrassing.
[/rant]
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 09/18/2014 04:31 am
Why developing a new launcher in order to perform the same job, bringing ~11 t into GTO?

Because Ariane 5 is an inflexible money*****.

European governments aren't really concerned with the commercial market. Their primary concern is institutional payloads, the institutional market has had to rely on Soyuz for the past couple of decades.  For as long as it has been around Ariane 5 has been the rocket ESA doesn't really want.  Sure it found success with the commercial market but that does little for European governments, and at a heavy subsidy.  The 11t version is a concession to the commercial market, but it is not Ariane 6's raison d'être.

ESA wants Ariane 6.2 (Soyuz replacement).  6.4 keeps the commercial operator happy at moderate increase in development costs.  Booster development secures Vega evolution. This is design by committee, but what did you really expect?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/18/2014 07:11 am
[rant]
I really wonder why apparently everyone is buying this bulls**t and nobody is asking the right questions.

<snipped the rest of your otherwise perfectly logical rant>
I for one don't buy the bulls**t with regards to Ariane 6. But that's not the point, is it? The point is that the politicians WILL buy the cr*p and (as usual) sucker for it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/18/2014 07:24 am

This was and still is true. The vehicle with all it's new stages will at best be marginally better wrt. the structural mass ratio of its stages but considerably more expensive due to (a) the new processes & materials and (b) due to having lost all the cost decrease from the learning curve in production. Economies of scale of expendable launch vehicles considering the low automation level and low number of units produced per year still provides much more cost decrease than the few percent provided by technical superior efficiency of modern materials.

At Ariane 5's production rate, I wonder if economies of scale and a cost decrease from the learning curve ever got a chance. SpaceX found it's difficult to produce just a few vehicles a year, because when you do a task only once every few months you tend to forget some of the details in between. So task proficiency never takes hold.
If on the other hand you do the task once a week, the learning curve is in full effect.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/18/2014 07:34 am
Will today's ULA/Blue Origin announcement of a new launch vehicle have any impact on decisions regarding the Ariane 6 configuration?

The only way that would happen is if ULA were able to offer launches at a lower price than SpaceX. In my outsider's view, that's unlikely.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 09/18/2014 07:40 am
I think the issue is that those governments that payed for development of Ariane 5 want the geo return and therefore specific companies do all the production. I don't think you can just give everything to Airbus and stop production at lots of subcontractor locations. That would be a big political issue.

With a new development program however this is different.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/18/2014 07:41 am
[rant]
[/rant]

Lets say 25% of the ~50% cost reduction compared to A5 ECA comes from new technology, including new manufacturing techniques (wild guess). Is that so unrealistic? After all Ariane 5 was designed 25 years ago and Ariane 6 incorporates some obvious innovations (boosters, upper stage, Vinci, Vulcain 2+). In the same time period the semiconductor industry has, according to Moore's law, reduced cost by a factor 2^12.5 = 5793. So with 25% I'm far from making silly comparisons with consumer electronics (which, admittedly, a lot of people do on NSF).

Of course that assumes A5 design and production have technology-wise more or less stayed the same since A5 was introduced.

Regarding the industrial organization. I can imagine its close to impossible to reorganize the entire A5 production, or at least it won't come cheaper than making a new launcher. Manufacturing capabilities and intellecual property rights are probably distributed over a multitude of companies.

In the end, even if the promised price is unrealistic, as long as the industry pays for cost overruns, who cares? ESA must make sure it won't pay more than what the industry has committed to. That should not be too much to ask, after all the industry gets a heap of development money for free.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 09/18/2014 08:51 am
Why developing a new launcher in order to perform the same job, bringing ~11 t into GTO?

Because Ariane 5 is an inflexible money*****.

European governments aren't really concerned with the commercial market. Their primary concern is institutional payloads, the institutional market has had to rely on Soyuz for the past couple of decades.  For as long as it has been around Ariane 5 has been the rocket ESA doesn't really want.  Sure it found success with the commercial market but that does little for European governments, and at a heavy subsidy.  The 11t version is a concession to the commercial market, but it is not Ariane 6's raison d'être.

ESA wants Ariane 6.2 (Soyuz replacement).  6.4 keeps the commercial operator happy at moderate increase in development costs.  Booster development secures Vega evolution. This is design by committee, but what did you really expect?

Replacement of Soyuz is just a convenient alibi.

Ariane 6 PPH was sized for a 6.5 t GTO P/L, exactly what SeaLaunch and Proton offer. Science and human spaceflight communities were absolutely not happy with the design, too low performance for escape missions or any HSF scenario and prospectively very dimensioning launch loads. Noone cared for that.

And the majority of European government P/L do get launched with Ariane 5, the national P/Ls need to be counted as well as the ESA ones. The excerpt image below from  this presentation (http://www.dglr.de/fileadmin/inhalte/dglr/fb/r1/r1_2/02-Raumtransportsysteme-Markt-Bedarf.pdf) shows that government launches was largely a job for Ariane 5 between 2007 and 2011 and that hasn't changed:

Ariane 5 launches with institutional P/Ls:
1996 ,   V88 (A501), Cluster (full P/L)
1997 , V101 (A502), Maqsats (full P/L)
1998 , V112 (A503), ARD, Maqsat 3 (full P/L)
1999 , V119 (A504), XMM-Newton (full P/L)
2001 , V142 (A510), Artemis (paired with commercial P/L)
2002 , V145 (A511), Envisat (full P/L)
2002 , V155 (A513), MSG-1 (paired with commercial P/L)
2003 , V157 (A517), Stentor (paired with commercial P/L)
2003 , V162 (A516), SMART-1 (as auxiliary P/L)
2004 , V158 (A518), Rosetta, (full P/L)
2004 , V165 (A520), Helios 2A & PARASOL (full P/L)
2005 , V164 (A521), XTAR-EUR (full P/L)
2005 , V169 (A525), MSG-2 (paired with commercial P/L)
2006 , V170 (A527), SpainSat (paired with commercial P/L)
2007 , V175 (A535), Skynet 5A (paired with commercial P/L)
2007 , V179 (A538), Skynet 5B (paired with commercial P/L)
2008 , V181 (A528), ATV-1 (full P/L)
2008 , V183 (A540), Skynet 5C (paired with commercial P/L)
2009 , V188 (A546), Herschel & Planck (full P/L)
2009 , V191 (A549), ComsatBW-1 (paired with commercial P/L)
2009 , V193 (A532), Helios 2B (full P/L)
2010 , V194 (A551), ComsatBW-2 (paired with commercial P/L)
2011 , V200 (A544), ATV-2 (full P/L)
2012 , VA-205 (A553), ATV-3 (full P/L)
2012 , VA-207 (A563), MSG-3 (paired with commercial P/L)
2012 , VA-211 (A567), Skynet 5D (paired with commercial P/L)
2013 , VA-213 (A592), ATV-4 (full P/L)
2013 , VA-214 (A569), Alphasat I-XL (paired with commercial P/L)
2014 , VA-219           , ATV-5 (full P/L)

Thus 15 full P/Ls and 13 paired P/Ls (& 1 auxiliary) => Equivalent 15 + 13/2 = 21.5 launches for institutional P/Ls. From out of the 75 Ariane 5 launches to date this is a ratio of 29% of P/Ls are for European institutional customers. At a launch rate of 6 this would be 1.5 to 2 launches per year for institutional missions. That is not too bad. Compared to that, the occasional Souyz from Kourou is really peanuts.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 09/18/2014 09:11 am
I think the issue is that those governments that payed for development of Ariane 5 want the geo return and therefore specific companies do all the production. I don't think you can just give everything to Airbus and stop production at lots of subcontractor locations. That would be a big political issue.

With a new development program however this is different.

Regarding the industrial organization. I can imagine its close to impossible to reorganize the entire A5 production, or at least it won't come cheaper than making a new launcher. Manufacturing capabilities and intellecual property rights are probably distributed over a multitude of companies.


So if fragmentation is really the cost driver and Europe really wants to consolidate the production in a few sites, then all the "small countries" (in terms of contribution) are out and then France, Italy and Germany have one site each. Might really be more efficient in the end (although I'm cautious, as this also creates even more monopolies wrt launcher technologies which is usually detrimental to cost efficiency and/or low prices). But this implies that the technologies/IPR held by this multitude of companies will need to be re-developed by the new company (or companies). That, however is fully inconsistent with the development budget of 4 billion euro. Ariane 5 G development had cost 8 billion in those days euros 20 years ago. That's ~16 billion in today's euros. Airbus already needs almost 2 billion to develop the A5ME upper stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/18/2014 09:29 am
So if fragmentation is really the cost driver and Europe really wants to consolidate the production in a few sites, then all the "small countries" (in terms of contribution) are out and then France, Italy and Germany have one site each.

I guess its not only about consolidation to 3 integration sites (core, US, booster), but also about Airbus/Safran being allowed to choose whatever subcontractors are the cheapest. I'm sure some of the companies chosen will come from smaller countries and those countries will be asked to contribute to development according to their industry share. At least I think that's the idea.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 09/18/2014 09:42 am

Lets say 25% of the ~50% cost reduction compared to A5 ECA comes from new technology, including new manufacturing techniques (wild guess). Is that so unrealistic? After all Ariane 5 was designed 25 years ago and Ariane 6 incorporates some obvious innovations (boosters, upper stage, Vinci, Vulcain 2+).  [...]

Of course that assumes A5 design and production have technology-wise more or less stayed the same since A5 was introduced.

No it hasn't remained unchanged, Ariane 5 had two supplementary development slices, "Ariane 5 evolution" improving Boosters, Main Stage and EPS upper stage and "Ariane 5 plus" with the development of ESC-A upper stage. These programs' combined price tag was well beyond 1.5 billion.

If such price reductions would exist, how come this neither shows up in A5ME due to the new upper stage with Vinci, nor shows up in Vega due to the boosters (32 million euro per launch! (http://www.spacenews.com/article/vega-expected-be-price-competitive-russian-rockets) That is already half the Ariane 6.2 price, but w/o the 2nd booster, main & upper stages).

Quote
In the end, even if the promised price is unrealistic, as long as the industry pays for cost overruns, who cares? ESA must make sure it won't pay more than what the industry has committed to. That should not be too much to ask, after all the industry gets a heap of development money for free.

There is no such legally binding commitment and there won't be. Industry has not committed to the launch prices, but rather that these launch prices should be the target. Nor is there any legally binding commitment to the development budget.

Just imagine, if ESA would manage to have the full development budget subscribed this December and would prepare to place the contract with Airbus for full development incl. FM1 launch. Airbus wouldn't sign that, that is just too much risk for them.

But Airbus just needs to play along in this budget allocation game, ESA will probably not secure the full development budget in these constrained times, then they need to slice their contracts, each slice leading to intermediate milestones like PDR, CDR, etc. But without a full development contract in their pocket Airbus can't commit to the launch date or the overall development budget. Thus no commitments made to prevent the development budget spiraling up later.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/18/2014 10:00 am
If such price reductions would exist, how come this neither shows up in A5ME due to the new upper stage with Vinci, nor shows up in Vega due to the boosters (32 million euro per launch! (http://www.spacenews.com/article/vega-expected-be-price-competitive-russian-rockets) That is already half the Ariane 6.2 price, but w/o the 2nd booster, main & upper stages).

Well they show up in A5 ME in the form of increased performance, and thus lower cost per kg to GTO. I was taking ECA with 10.5t to GTO as a reference point (~160m euros vs. targeted ~85m euros for A6). The price of Vega doesn't tell use how much the first stage costs.

There is no such legally binding commitment and there won't be.

Well IMO there definitely should be. We'll see.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 09/18/2014 10:47 am

At Ariane 5's production rate, I wonder if economies of scale and a cost decrease from the learning curve ever got a chance. SpaceX found it's difficult to produce just a few vehicles a year, because when you do a task only once every few months you tend to forget some of the details in between. So task proficiency never takes hold.
If on the other hand you do the task once a week, the learning curve is in full effect.

I remember how Ariane 5 was advertised in the end 80ies, with one engine per stage it would be much more efficient than Ariane 4 needing up to 10 engines per launch... And then, when we were struggling to ramp up Ariane 5 G production and to reduce glitches in production you ended up with one of these few expensive parts being out of spec, which you couldn't afford to toss but instead had to assess (& qualify) repair options. That was tiring. And then my (older) colleagues frequently started raving about the good days of Ariane 4 production with these more reasonable production cadences, etc. To listen to that was tiring, too.

I have since run enough launch vehicle cost models to conclude that it doesn't really matter whether you have one engine or lots of engines per stage, two boosters of 243 t loading or four of 120 t, etc. It is the same whether you produce 12 units of a 6 t to GTO launcher per year or 6 units of a 12 t to GTO launcher per year. Overall "in orbit delivered mass per year" is, what matters for cost decrease. Admittedly, the precision of cost modelling for LVs is not the best, there is not enough data available to extract a lot of detail (totally different thing for e.g. companies that build millions of cars, having a good database for statistical evaluation), giving everyone the opportunity to spin it according to his preferred gusto.
From my experience the major problem to LV cost decrease are the low overall demand and on top of that the market is woefully fragmented. E.g. in the U.S. NASA used the shuttle, the DoD Atlas and Delta and the commercial companies Ariane, Proton & SeaLaunch. Just imagine that for 25 to 40 GTO Payloads per year there are (in alphabetical order) Ariane 5, Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, GSLV, H-IIA, Long March, Proton, Soyuz, Zenit(SeaLaunch) and in near future maybe Antares and Angara. And due to protectionism that won't change.
(By the way that also explains why SpaceX is trying to tap all market segments (NASA, DoD, Commercial), even willing to sue the federal government for that.)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/18/2014 11:12 am

At Ariane 5's production rate, I wonder if economies of scale and a cost decrease from the learning curve ever got a chance. SpaceX found it's difficult to produce just a few vehicles a year, because when you do a task only once every few months you tend to forget some of the details in between. So task proficiency never takes hold.
If on the other hand you do the task once a week, the learning curve is in full effect.

I remember how Ariane 5 was advertised in the end 80ies, with one engine per stage it would be much more efficient than Ariane 4 needing up to 10 engines per launch... And then, when we were struggling to ramp up Ariane 5 G production and to reduce glitches in production you ended up with one of these few expensive parts being out of spec, which you couldn't afford to toss but instead had to assess (& qualify) repair options. That was tiring. And then my (older) colleagues frequently started raving about the good days of Ariane 4 production with these more reasonable production cadences, etc. To listen to that was tiring, too.

I have since run enough launch vehicle cost models to conclude that it doesn't really matter whether you have one engine or lots of engines per stage, two boosters of 243 t loading or four of 120 t, etc. It is the same whether you produce 12 units of a 6 t to GTO launcher per year or 6 units of a 12 t to GTO launcher per year. Overall "in orbit delivered mass per year" is, what matters for cost decrease. Admittedly, the precision of cost modelling for LVs is not the best, there is not enough data available to extract a lot of detail (totally different thing for e.g. companies that build millions of cars, having a good database for statistical evaluation), giving everyone the opportunity to spin it according to his preferred gusto.
From my experience the major problem to LV cost decrease are the low overall demand and on top of that the market is woefully fragmented. E.g. in the U.S. NASA used the shuttle, the DoD Atlas and Delta and the commercial companies Ariane, Proton & SeaLaunch. Just imagine that for 25 to 40 GTO Payloads per year there are (in alphabetical order) Ariane 5, Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, GSLV, H-IIA, Long March, Proton, Soyuz, Zenit(SeaLaunch) and in near future maybe Antares and Angara. And due to protectionism that won't change.
(By the way that also explains why SpaceX is trying to tap all market segments (NASA, DoD, Commercial), even willing to sue the federal government for that.)
Great post, as usual.
What, in your professional opinion, would be the 'real' price-tag for the latest A6 proposal? (assuming full development of both 6.2 and 6.4 versions thru first flight. And leaving everything else as it is today, including the current level of fragmentation of the industry)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/18/2014 11:40 am
I have since run enough launch vehicle cost models to conclude that it doesn't really matter whether you have one engine or lots of engines per stage, two boosters of 243 t loading or four of 120 t, etc. It is the same whether you produce 12 units of a 6 t to GTO launcher per year or 6 units of a 12 t to GTO launcher per year. Overall "in orbit delivered mass per year" is, what matters for cost decrease.

Not that I disagree, but if you say configuration does not matter, technology does not matter and industrial organization does not matter, how to you explain SpaceX' relatively low prices?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 09/18/2014 12:09 pm
As a starting point, you could consider that the euro/dollar exchange rate already makes them 30% cheaper. ;-)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/18/2014 12:15 pm
As a starting point, you could consider that the euro/dollar exchange rate already makes them 30% cheaper. ;-)

I suppose that's a joke because of the smiley, but if not, the nominal exchange rate alone is irrelevant for competitiveness.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/18/2014 12:39 pm
I have since run enough launch vehicle cost models to conclude that it doesn't really matter whether you have one engine or lots of engines per stage, two boosters of 243 t loading or four of 120 t, etc. It is the same whether you produce 12 units of a 6 t to GTO launcher per year or 6 units of a 12 t to GTO launcher per year. Overall "in orbit delivered mass per year" is, what matters for cost decrease.

Not that I disagree, but if you say configuration does not matter, technology does not matter and industrial organization does not matter, how to you explain SpaceX' relatively low prices?
In-house KISS combined with no political pork
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 09/18/2014 12:54 pm
I have since run enough launch vehicle cost models to conclude that it doesn't really matter whether you have one engine or lots of engines per stage, two boosters of 243 t loading or four of 120 t, etc. It is the same whether you produce 12 units of a 6 t to GTO launcher per year or 6 units of a 12 t to GTO launcher per year. Overall "in orbit delivered mass per year" is, what matters for cost decrease.

Not that I disagree, but if you say configuration does not matter, technology does not matter and industrial organization does not matter, how to you explain SpaceX' relatively low prices?

No, that is not exactly what I meant. Technology does not make a difference in the optimisation of details (Vulcain 2 versus Vulcain 2+) or in number and size of solid propellant boosters, if it amounts to overall ~480 t per launch for both A5ME and A6.4. Also, both have two cryogenic stages, both have Vinci, both have Vulcain. One big engine or ten small engines of the same technology don't make a difference.

The Ariane 6 PPH does have the better recurrent cost simulation results due to its simpler technologies, which made CNES and ESA fixate on it from mid 2012 to mid 2014. However, the main critique (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40193satellite-operators-press-esa-for-reduction-in-ariane-launch-costs) was the lack of modularity:
Quote
But several satellite fleet operators have lamented what they say is the vehicle’s lack of modularity, and the fact that ESA and CNES appear to have focused Ariane 6 on launching one satellite at a time. For a 6,500-kilogram satellite, they have said, the target cost may be competitive. But if operators must pay the same price to launch a 3,500-kilogram or 5,000-kilogram satellite, Ariane 6 will lose market share.

[...]

Addressing the Space Access conference here April 9, organized by Astech Paris Region, Pilchen ran into sharp questioning from a satellite operator representative, who demanded to know what it might cost to place a lighter-weight satellite on the Ariane 6.

Pilchen said different Ariane 6 designs are being investigated to better attract owners of satellites weighing between 3,500 and 5,000 kilograms. But he declined to be cornered on whether these Ariane 6 variants, which may not benefit from the same scale economies, would be less expensive than the core design.

Satellite operators have long pushed ESA and Evry, France-based Arianespace to drop their dual-launch model and design a next-generation vehicle that carries one satellite at a time.

The difficulties, and frequent launch delays, associated with having to wait for two compatible satellites to be placed on the same vehicle are not worth whatever savings there may be, operators have said.

They appear to be changing their minds for Ariane 6 if the vehicle’s designers and operators are able to slash the 70 million-euro price per satellite.

“We expect alternative service providers to offer launch services at approximately $60 million [for a 3,500-kilogram-class spacecraft],” the ESOA letter says. “In that respect, satellite operators consider that dual launches, even though they produce additional requirements, are a viable solution … if they represent the strongest lever to deliver enhanced competitiveness in price.”

o Different configurations made from same technology doesn't really matter.
o Industrial organization does not measurably matter for recurrent production (in development it does matter more). E.g. SpaceX operates two launch pads (east and west coast), a test center in Texas, a production and design center in Hawthorne, CA, a future second test site (@ spaceport america) and up to two more pads (LC-39A and Texas).
o Cost of labor does matter a lot (SpaceX has a lot of young personnel with salaries not quite up to aerospace prime standards).
o Different configurations made from different technologies do matter. I'd like to refer to "LEO on the cheap" (http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA289106) written by John R. London III, Lt Col, USAF in 1994, already predicting that Kerosine propulsion would win the race.

Another e.g. for the RC independence on industrial organization, one (rather convenient to use) cost estimation handbook "Transcost" (http://astrobooks.com/browseproducts/Handbook-of-Cost-Engineering-for-Space-Transportation-Systems-%28Revision-3%29-with-Transcost-8.0-%5BKoelle--2010%5D-%28softcover%29.HTML), based on the largest database of actual launch vehicle costs aggregated, has a dependence of development costs wrt. industrial organization, but not for recurrent costs.

And above and beyond all "in orbit delivered mass per year" drives down per kg cost.

And in the mid-term (if SpaceX succeeds) or far-term (if SpaceX fails) future reusability will change everything in space transportation.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/18/2014 01:09 pm
The Ariane 6 PPH does have the better recurrent cost simulation results due to its simpler technologies, which made CNES and ESA fixate on it from mid 2012 to mid 2014.

All right, but is it possible that those cost simulation models are basically useless? Do Airbus/Safran use such models internally?

CNES said 70m for PPH, then we have a guy (and a paper) from OHB saying that's impossible, now the industry presented the A6.2 design with liquid core for 65m (!), a design which costs a lot more according to the aforementioned OHB paper.

In all this chaos (from an outsider's perspective) I would trust Airbus/Safran the most simply because they actually build most of the stuff. It is also their market to lose if ESA stops subsidies.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 09/18/2014 01:43 pm
The Ariane 6 PPH does have the better recurrent cost simulation results due to its simpler technologies, which made CNES and ESA fixate on it from mid 2012 to mid 2014.

All right, but is it possible that those cost simulation models are basically useless? Do Airbus/Safran use such models internally?

CNES said 70m for PPH, then we have a guy (and a paper) from OHB saying that's impossible, now the industry presented the A6.2 design with liquid core for 65m (!), a design which costs a lot more according to the aforementioned OHB paper.

In all this chaos (from an outsider's perspective) I would trust Airbus/Safran the most simply because they actually build most of the stuff. It is also their market to lose if ESA stops subsidies.

There are different types of cost modelling, (a) copying and scaling of actual known (sub-)element product data (easiest & fastest), (b) launch vehicle cost/price data aggregation and regression onto key LV design criteria & sizes and checking whether the regressions are significant (Transcost) and (c) a full-blown simulation of production steps in e.g. True Price, which first needs to be calibrated for each product family and company.

So you need to run several models of different type and cross-check them with each other.

And I would fully agree with the OHB guy, 70 M€ for the PPH (incl. launch) is unachievable. But the PPH is cheaper than two stage cryogenic LVs with strap-ons.

I don't trust Airbus and Safran, as they are building a lot of A5ECA and A5ME, too, and that is really expensive @ 160 M€ / launch.

Airbus and Safran wanted to get rid of the stupid A6PPH design and for that they need to advertise/target their preferred design at the same unrealistic recurrent cost level as ESA/CNES were advertising/targeting the PPH. They were stuck between a rock and a hard place and now they just reversed the game.  In both cases it's just advertising, no commitments.

Europe is very prone to the sunk-cost fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy), as there is only one (GTO-capable) launch vehicle and only one LV prime for a vehicle of this size. Europe would not want to loose their independent access to space. Stopping subsidies is thus a non-credible threat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-credible_threat).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/18/2014 02:20 pm
Stopping subsidies is thus a non-credible threat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-credible_threat).

I disagree. The threat was non-credible until recently because the ~100m in subsidies for commercial operation were cheaper for ESA than using Ariane 5 only for 1-2 institutional launches (as you said, low payload leads to higher recurrent cost). IMO the situation changed for 2 reasons: First, in order to be able to compete with SpaceX Arianespace would need a lot more subsidies. Second, a smaller Ariane 6 (PPH) only for institutional missions would allow for a reasonable launch rate and therefore subsidizing the commercial market would not be required anymore.

In other words, there is the danger that the European launch industry will shrink considerably and become more like Japans.

IMO the only purpose of this entire charade was to force the industry (in particular Airbus/Safran) to react. They ultimately did with their last-minute proposal. Obviously the whole thing would have been pointless if the industry wouldn't give binding commitments now that ESA is willing to fund a launcher that would again be too expensive for institutional payloads only.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/18/2014 02:26 pm
I concur that the principal-agent issue makes subsidy stops threat non credible. I also concur that this is primarily a jobs program and it makes for even worse outcome game.
But I would like to point out that the P120 are single segment solids. While the P243 have three. If you consider this 4 single segments might be upto 30% cheaper than the two 3-segment. Specially if they use cheaper composite structure. And probably the filling process will be more efficient, since they need just one mandrel, so some efficiencies can be achieved there. And if Vega moves, then they go from four different tooling for solid fills to just one (I believe the P243 top segment is filled in Europe because it has the igniter?).
I also wonder if much of the development cost isn't about decreasing costs. A sandwich channel wall nozzle and MCC, a 3D printed injector design, etc. All that work will reduce costs significantly, but basically require a full qualification campaign just like with a new engine.
I understand that current Araine 5 uses a balloon tank design, but the interstage is complicated because it has to transfer the P243 thrust. Now moving everything to the main body and attaching the solids "at the bottom" might reduce the structural complexity. May be they move to a new aluminum, like AL-2050. The upper stage would still be the same work as Ariane 5 ME.
May be when you take into consideration all those changes, plus a vertically integrated manufacturing structure, they can get real cost reductions. I don't know if 45% is achievable this way, though. But that there's some credibility to the plan, it should be considered.
Beside, this design has a chance of keeping the technologies needed for a reusable evolution.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/18/2014 02:38 pm
Europe is very prone to thesunk-cost fallacy, as there is only one (GTO-capable) launch vehicle and only one LV prime for a vehicle of this size. Europe would not want to loose their independent access to space. Stopping subsidies is thus a non-credible threat.
This. That's why I mentioned earlier that the politicians will sucker for it and ultimately cough up the must higher price tag. Industry low-sells the vehicle and, when confronted with the cost-overruns, the politicians will grumble and cough up the money anyway. Industry knows this. It has worked this way for well over three decades. It will take nothing short of a miracle to change this ridiculous way of making things happen in the ESA launcher business.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 09/18/2014 10:05 pm
As a starting point, you could consider that the euro/dollar exchange rate already makes them 30% cheaper. ;-)

I suppose that's a joke because of the smiley, but if not, the nominal exchange rate alone is irrelevant for competitiveness.

I was half-joking, as I agree that you cannot blame lack of competitiveness on exchange rate alone, as you would also need to compare labour cost, etc...

However, if you are in a market in which all your costs are in euro and you sell in dollar, you cannot deny that the exchange rate has an impact on your price with respect to your competitor who has both cost and selling price in dollar.

I have seen a few interviews of Arianespace's CEO pushing for a lower exchange rate, including after the decision by the BCE a few weeks ago to force the euro down with respect to the dollar (in which he was welcoming that decision).

IMO the only purpose of this entire charade was to force the industry (in particular Airbus/Safran) to react. They ultimately did with their last-minute proposal. Obviously the whole thing would have been pointless if the industry wouldn't give binding commitments now that ESA is willing to fund a launcher that would again be too expensive for institutional payloads only.
I seriously doubt that industry will accept binding commitments on either the development or the recurring costs at this stage.
For the development costs, you could imagine that ESA asks for a firm-fixed price contract as they do for satellites, but that normally covers one phase at a time and I doubt that they will accept to sign such contract  covering the whole development starting now.
As for the recurring cost, it is even less likely. If the industry finally cannot meet the commitment, it means that they'll be producing Ariance 6 at a loss for the next 20 years ? They'll never take that risk.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/19/2014 02:33 pm
However, if you are in a market in which all your costs are in euro and you sell in dollar, you cannot deny that the exchange rate has an impact on your price with respect to your competitor who has both cost and selling price in dollar.

Foreign exchange risk management is more of a burden for small and medium enterprises.

I have seen a few interviews of Arianespace's CEO pushing for a lower exchange rate, including after the decision by the BCE a few weeks ago to force the euro down with respect to the dollar (in which he was welcoming that decision).

As long as prices are sticky the central bank can influence the real exchange rate in the short term through monetary policy. Facing below target inflation rates (and generally shitty economic policy inside the eurozone) the ECB might resort to QE, but its really none of Arianespace's business.

Anyway, this is totally OT.

I seriously doubt that industry will accept binding commitments on either the development or the recurring costs at this stage.

Honestly I do not see a lot of risk in development. The new technology is already being tested or in use (Vega). Its not a huge step like from A4 to A5. Market development and thus recurring costs are probably more uncertain.

I would of course expect Airbus/Safran to ask for a significant risk premium in the case of binding commitments. Also governments are big shareholders of both companies so they are not entirely powerless in the case of cost overruns (unless the promised costs were unrealistic to begin with).

The main reason I'm arguing for binding commitments is really that some people more knowledgeable than me here are saying that the advertised price points are nothing but fantasy.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/20/2014 11:59 am
Quote
Overall "in orbit delivered mass per year" is, what matters for cost decrease
I'd say what matters for cost decrease is the number of competitors on the market and the contracting format used (cost plus vs fixed price etc)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Joel on 09/21/2014 01:10 pm
Replacement of Soyuz is just a convenient alibi.
But that would be a consequence of this? That is, no more Soyuz from Guiana?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/21/2014 01:38 pm
Replacement of Soyuz is just a convenient alibi.
But that would be a consequence of this? That is, no more Soyuz from Guiana?
That is the plan. Russia is too unreliable and CSG Soyuz deprives the european industry of a sizeable source of revenue.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 09/21/2014 01:52 pm
Seriously, if we stop flying Soyuz from Kourou, how can ESA management justify flying Exomars on Proton? Proton is a lot more unreliable than Soyuz. There is a not so low probability that one billion Euro from european tax payers will do a looping and crash into the Kazakh Steppe.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Joel on 09/21/2014 02:44 pm
Proton is a lot more unreliable than Soyuz.
I think the point was that Russia is unreliable, not the Soyuz launcher. As in, invading countries and stuff.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/21/2014 03:26 pm
Seriously, if we stop flying Soyuz from Kourou, how can ESA management justify flying Exomars on Proton? Proton is a lot more unreliable than Soyuz. There is a not so low probability that one billion Euro from european tax payers will do a looping and crash into the Kazakh Steppe.

Isn't ExoMars a cooperation between ESA and Russia, with the Proton being part of Russia's share in the cost of the mission? Changing to Ariane would change that balance.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/22/2014 06:13 am
People, this thread is about Ariane 6. It is not about Exomars, nor Proton doing a loop, etc. etc. Stick to the subject please. Thank you.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: sdsds on 09/22/2014 06:37 am
Maybe more on topic for Ariane 6, is it "easy" to estimate its payload to equatorial LEO? I ask because:
Al Globus has a new paper called "Orbital Space Settlement Radiation Shielding" which makes the argument that massive space settlements in equatorial low Earth orbits may require minimal radiation shielding. The paper also provides a great background on space radiation issues and prior work:

http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RadiationPaper2014.pdf

See QuantumG's full post (and discussion thread) for more on this, but it is potentially a significant finding for launchers that can more easily reach equatorial LEO. Are the orbits Globus describes ones that the various proposed Ariane 6 vehicles could reach with meaningful payloads?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/22/2014 09:28 am
Maybe more on topic for Ariane 6, is it "easy" to estimate its payload to equatorial LEO? I ask because:
Al Globus has a new paper called "Orbital Space Settlement Radiation Shielding" which makes the argument that massive space settlements in equatorial low Earth orbits may require minimal radiation shielding. The paper also provides a great background on space radiation issues and prior work:

http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RadiationPaper2014.pdf

See QuantumG's full post (and discussion thread) for more on this, but it is potentially a significant finding for launchers that can more easily reach equatorial LEO. Are the orbits Globus describes ones that the various proposed Ariane 6 vehicles could reach with meaningful payloads?

There is no reason to settle in LEO. At best we might see some tourism to LEO during the lifetime of A6, but for short stays radiation is not a big issue.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: sdsds on 09/22/2014 09:51 am
There is no reason to settle in LEO. At best we might see some tourism to LEO during the lifetime of A6, but for short stays radiation is not a big issue.

If you've read the Globus paper, and want to contest his conclusions, I would really enjoy having that discussion in the thread linked above!

If you even concede the possibility that equatorial LEO might have radiation advantages over other cis-lunar locations, then isn't it interesting to know what size precursor mission A6 might be able to launch there?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/22/2014 07:47 pm

From my experience the major problem to LV cost decrease are the low overall demand and on top of that the market is woefully fragmented. E.g. in the U.S. NASA used the shuttle, the DoD Atlas and Delta and the commercial companies Ariane, Proton & SeaLaunch. Just imagine that for 25 to 40 GTO Payloads per year there are (in alphabetical order) Ariane 5, Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, GSLV, H-IIA, Long March, Proton, Soyuz, Zenit(SeaLaunch) and in near future maybe Antares and Angara. And due to protectionism that won't change.
(By the way that also explains why SpaceX is trying to tap all market segments (NASA, DoD, Commercial), even willing to sue the federal government for that.)

Yes, very much so.

But the degree of protectionism will drop with the spread of launch services pricing. At some point protected providers and the payloads tied to them become a separate economic activity with completely different structures - no more underwriting supports because it cannot be blurred together any more.

I think that the "factory" approach to launch services, with its marketing related differentiation that like SpaceX is currently providing, is an attempt to define a volume and price dominated new market definition of launch services, such that this new market definition peels off payloads to it incrementally, stripping the protected providers of the economic "fog of business" that surrounds them.

The idea may be to force a new game with very high stakes to enter, meaning you can't do it piecemeal. Since most of the protected providers are already very narrow in footprint financially, they will not dare to tread, so they will just become more reductionist in LV footprint, and cede "payload ground" gradually.  And so the effect is even more fragmentation with the protected providers, while in this new game there are fewer providers, possibly one, with more launch frequency and cost/speed to orbit advantages.

First off, none of US/Europe/Russia traditional providers can risk/afford/stomach playing the new game, as too much too quickly and too uncertain.

Three different ways Ariane can go here:

1) (Most likely) Smallest footprint of cost centers, least new development, most obvious cost reductions. Buy time. Only works if one is serious about cost. In some ways, I think this is also what is driving the BO/ULA interest. Current Safran/Airbus proposal heads somewhat in this direction, with dubious deliberation on the effectiveness required upfront.

2) PPH/PPP+ modular. Minimal footprint dead end. Ideally where you'd head for ceding all but protected interests long term.

3)(Impossible) Modular hydrocarbon boost with recovery, modular hydrolox or solid US, economics that eventually retains enough commercial market share, across the board restructuring with centralized development. Can't see it funded/operated. No history.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/23/2014 01:09 am
The following space news article, posted on September 22, 2014, explicitly states that Ariane 6 now uses a Vulcain 2 powered core, Vinci powered second stage, and varying numbers of monolithic 120 tonne strap on boosters.  First time I've seen these details in print.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41939iss-expected-to-take-back-seat-to-next-gen-ariane-as-space-ministers-meet

It'll work just fine, but it seems like a political compromise rocket to me.  I was fond of the cost-based boldness of the previous, mostly solid motor design.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/23/2014 01:21 am
The following space news article, posted on September 22, 2014, explicitly states that Ariane 6 now uses a Vulcain 2 powered core, Vinci powered second stage, and varying numbers of monolithic 120 tonne strap on boosters.  First time I've seen these details in print.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41939iss-expected-to-take-back-seat-to-next-gen-ariane-as-space-ministers-meet

It'll work just fine, but it seems like a political compromise rocket to me.  I was fond of the cost-based boldness of the previous, mostly solid motor design.

 - Ed Kyle
Thanks for the link Ed. Interesting bit about ESA might pull out of ISS around 2020...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/23/2014 06:49 am
Thanks for the link Ed. Interesting bit about ESA might pull out of ISS around 2020...
Which is OT for this thread so don't go there please. Thank you.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/23/2014 01:01 pm
A somewhat off topic question: How should the thrust between core stage and boosters be optimally distributed? In particular for a hydrogen core it seems reasonable to make the core as weak/small as possible, such that the T/W ratio at booster separation is just "sufficient". Basically the core just hangs in there and is only ground lit because its safer (?). Examples would be Ariane 5/6, H-2A and SLS. The Delta IV however is significantly overpowered at separation. With a high thrust core and 2 gimbaling engines/nozzles you wouldn't need TVC for the boosters though, that could be an advantage (see Atlas).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 09/23/2014 03:29 pm
A somewhat off topic question: How should the thrust between core stage and boosters be optimally distributed? In particular for a hydrogen core it seems reasonable to make the core as weak/small as possible, such that the T/W ratio at booster separation is just "sufficient". Basically the core just hangs in there and is only ground lit because its safer (?). Examples would be Ariane 5/6, H-2A and SLS. The Delta IV however is significantly overpowered at separation. With a high thrust core and 2 gimbaling engines/nozzles you wouldn't need TVC for the boosters though, that could be an advantage (see Atlas).

Yes, for the Ariane 5/6 the core stage engine (the crogenic Vulcain 2) is ignited before lift-off because it is safer (see the launch pad abort of VA-201 shortly before booster ignition). The Titan IVB, e.g., ignited its core stage only shortly before booster separation - but it was a hypergolic engine.
I do not know the exact numbers for Ariane 6 - but the core stage engine is the same as for Ariane 5; with the same thrust. And the four P120 boosters of the Ariane 6.4 should have around the same thrust as or maybe slightly more than the two EAPs of Ariane 5 ECA (assuming the same diameter as currently the P80 has on the VEGA).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 09/23/2014 05:00 pm
The following space news article, posted on September 22, 2014, explicitly states that Ariane 6 now uses a Vulcain 2 powered core, Vinci powered second stage, and varying numbers of monolithic 120 tonne strap on boosters.  First time I've seen these details in print.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41939iss-expected-to-take-back-seat-to-next-gen-ariane-as-space-ministers-meet

It'll work just fine, but it seems like a political compromise rocket to me.  I was fond of the cost-based boldness of the previous, mostly solid motor design.

 - Ed Kyle

So... this is now basically a scaled down Ariane 5 ME? (with 2 or 4 SRBs)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 09/23/2014 05:10 pm
It'll work just fine, but it seems like a political compromise rocket to me.  I was fond of the cost-based boldness of the previous, mostly solid motor design.

 - Ed Kyle
I gotta agree with you on this; the rocket seems like a compromise. For that reason I really doubt they're going to get this thing anywhere near the 50% cost reduction they're aiming for. 10%? Probably. 20%? Could be. 50%? Heck no.

The Multi-P design did a lot of things wrong but IMO did one thing right; moving away from the conventional "hydrogen+solid strap on" concept that has proven very expensive, judging from Delta IV and Ariane 5. You can't greatly reduce the cost by sticking to the same formula, you gotta move away from it, and, well, they tried.

But instead of trying they now seem to just go with an Ariane 5 with the solids split into two parts. How that's going to save 50%, somebody has to explain it to me. Sadly European ministers don't seem to need an explanation.

Quote from: Lars-J
So... this is now basically a scaled down Ariane 5 ME? (with 2 or 4 SRBs)
It's not really scaled down. The two boosters together have the same propellant load as one EAP, and performance is almost exactly the same.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 09/23/2014 05:22 pm
The results of today's meeting are in:

http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php (http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php)

Highlights: ESA, CNES, DLR, Airbus and Safran agree that the way forward should be Ariane 6 in 2 versions: with 2 boosters for €65M, and with 4 boosters for €85M. Development cost is estimated at €4B.
First launch is to be 2020. Funding Ariane 6 and 5ME concurrently is financially impossible, so the recommendation is to drop 5ME entirely. 
There was no mention of a 3-booster version of Ariane 6.

The next step will be for the space ministers of the member countries to endorse this roadmap, which is scheduled for September 23. I'm not sure I understand the article completely, because they also mention the date of December 2 for the final decision.

Looks like that this agreement was confirmed today:
http://www.futura-sciences.com/magazines/espace/infos/actu/d/acces-espace-nouvelle-version-ariane-6-devoilee-55334/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 09/23/2014 06:04 pm
It'll work just fine, but it seems like a political compromise rocket to me.  I was fond of the cost-based boldness of the previous, mostly solid motor design.

 - Ed Kyle
I gotta agree with you on this; the rocket seems like a compromise. For that reason I really doubt they're going to get this thing anywhere near the 50% cost reduction they're aiming for. 10%? Probably. 20%? Could be. 50%? Heck no.

The Multi-P design did a lot of things wrong but IMO did one thing right; moving away from the conventional "hydrogen+solid strap on" concept that has proven very expensive, judging from Delta IV and Ariane 5. You can't greatly reduce the cost by sticking to the same formula, you gotta move away from it, and, well, they tried.

But instead of trying they now seem to just go with an Ariane 5 with the solids split into two parts. How that's going to save 50%, somebody has to explain it to me. Sadly European ministers don't seem to need an explanation.

I don't speak french, but I found this french scanned french sheet that appears to outline a similar skepticism at the 50% or more cost reduction:
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tesla on 09/23/2014 06:33 pm
This seems to be an interesting quote.

"
Whatever the configuration of the future Ariane 6 launcher will be economic to remain as close as possible to the business strategy of SpaceX.
A simple but formidable in a highly competitive market that is to rely on high government contracts in the United States (NASA, USAF) to provide launchers abnormally low prices, understand that do not reflect the strategy actual costs of the launcher.
"

The French seem to mad at SpaceX. Never seen such language from Germany yet. I understand them IF they wouldn't subsidize their own rockets. Kind of like a dog chasing his tail.    ;D





http://translate.google.at/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.futura-sciences.com/magazines/espace/infos/actu/d/acces-espace-nouvelle-version-ariane-6-devoilee-55334/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.futura-sciences.com/magazines/espace/infos/actu/d/acces-espace-nouvelle-version-ariane-6-devoilee-55334/%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DGWW%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26channel%3Dsb
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 09/23/2014 06:38 pm
That article has concept art for the new Ariane 6 proposal: (Although the SRB's look a bit too small, so take this image with a large grain of salt)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mr. mark on 09/23/2014 06:40 pm
The french are trying to fathom how they can replicate the SpaceX strategy in their own way in there own system. It's not an easy task. You can see how ULA is now trying to adapt with BO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 09/23/2014 06:46 pm
That article has concept art for the new Ariane 6 proposal: (Although the SRB's look a bit too small, so take this image with a large grain of salt)
That's ESA's NGL concept that's been on the ESA website for a few years now. Unrelated to the current concept.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 09/23/2014 06:57 pm
That article has concept art for the new Ariane 6 proposal: (Although the SRB's look a bit too small, so take this image with a large grain of salt)
That's ESA's NGL concept that's been on the ESA website for a few years now. Unrelated to the current concept.

Not quite unrelated, since it seems to match up pretty well with this new Ariane 6 direction. ;) (aside from the technical details)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 09/23/2014 07:01 pm
I've seen this article, says it's from AFP but can't confirm veracity,

http://www.techniques-ingenieur.fr/actualite/ariane-6-dialogue-tout-a-fait-interessant-entre-europeens-fioraso-article_288399/

Anyway it appears to give some flavour of the meeting today.  Sounds like not entirely a done deal, but all parties requested ESA provide further financing and scheduling information on the new design.  Says another meeting may be necessary.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tesla on 09/23/2014 07:03 pm
The french are trying to fathom how they can replicate the SpaceX strategy in their own way in there own system. It's not an easy task. You can see how ULA is now trying to adapt with BO.

True, but keep in mind that since the beginning the french goverment sees spaceflight as nothing more than a jobs progam with no human exploration intentions. I don't judge for you people if this is good.  :-\
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/23/2014 08:04 pm
The french are trying to fathom how they can replicate the SpaceX strategy in their own way in there own system. It's not an easy task. You can see how ULA is now trying to adapt with BO.

True, but keep in mind that since the beginning the french goverment sees spaceflight as nothing more than a jobs progam with no human exploration intentions. I don't judge for you people if this is good.  :-\
More complicated than that.

And there is a lot of hurt pride and perceived insult in this, from inside the US and across the globe.

Some of it brings back bad memories, most in the US don't seem inclined to remember.

Also, there's a conflation of business/commercial, national security, institutional, related industry needs/issues. Too much rides on a single LV decision. Before you could wave your hand and half-address them with some consideration/budget offset/arrangement/... That's been made a lot harder by certain developments.

Many are still betting on failure of changes in launch services being attempted, so they can go back to the prior arrangements. I'd say 80%.  But a few years back it was more like 98%.

ULA is not convinced from what I see. They are simply acting to remove risk from Pad 41 launch operations. As they should.

Bezos is far from where Musk is now. In four years, he may reveal a way to catch-up/over take that involves ULA in part as well as others. But by then Musk will have other things too, and other efforts will come on line - the game will change again.

Europe right now has very little to waste on launchers. Many economic structural issues that complicate things. To have an upstart mess with this at an ill time often yields bad mouthing and disbelief.  There's enough hear on this board to demonstrate that.

The biggest issue to confront is what to do (target and choices) and how to do it in the allowable structure (participation, organization, budget), which is more constrained than elsewhere.

Musk/Bezos can do so by private fiat - decisions/budget changes in days.

ULA can call upon Congress, AR, BO, ATK, etc and change things in months/years.

Europe/Russia/China are revisiting decade's of policy and industry base by comparison. Of them,  Europe will move soonest and with considerable deliberation. But by the rules, fast bypasses with the likes of Musk/Bezos aren't in the cards.

The policies that constrain aerospace definite its strengths and weaknesses. If you centralize too much, you limit options. But if you have too many options, you fragment and limit scalability.

At the moment, none of them can take the risk to counter Musk on his terms. But they also know they need to not let him get too far ahead, such that they might never catch up.

The badmouthing mentioned above is schadenfreude not unlike found in Congress from SLS/ULA representatives. Team sports. They are worried at the job losses because the pork has to be spent more carefully, because now it matters. It always does.

Musk has a long shot gamble still. But I think we are long overdue for a global restructuring of aerospace, and a lessening of inflated protected practice.

add:
The more I think about it, thinking the unthinkable is the only way to address this. You'd fund a next generation launch industry apart from the current one, and accept the budget overrun it would create. It won't happen for million reasons. And even if by a miracle it did, too quickly it would be sucked back into the industry giants it would attempt to out manoeuvre.

BTW, that's something to watch for with ULA/BO/SpaceX/Orbital/ATK/Boeing/LockMart as well. Lots of money, influence, and power at stake.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/23/2014 08:17 pm
The french are trying to fathom how they can replicate the SpaceX strategy in their own way in there own system. It's not an easy task. You can see how ULA is now trying to adapt with BO.

True, but keep in mind that since the beginning the french goverment sees spaceflight as nothing more than a jobs progam with no human exploration intentions. I don't judge for you people if this is good.  :-\
The French government see spaceflight as an essential tool to its foreign policy, as it provides independent, objective intelligence, secure communications and is critical to nuclear deterrence. It also is one of the few industrial sectors in which its industry is very competitive and R&D intensive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/23/2014 08:33 pm
The Multi-P design did a lot of things wrong but IMO did one thing right; moving away from the conventional "hydrogen+solid strap on" concept that has proven very expensive, judging from Delta IV and Ariane 5. You can't greatly reduce the cost by sticking to the same formula, you gotta move away from it, and, well, they tried.

Multi-P was for a 6.5t rocket, we're now at 11t. I find this fuel debate to be a bit silly. Methane was in the race from the beginning (FLPP), and apparently it never emerged as a clear winner. I also don't see a reason why the industry should somehow conspire against it. To the contrary, I think Safran would have loved a methane engine program.

As Mr. Sowers from ULA puts it:

But we didn't make our decision based on fuel.  We did a system level comparison of all our options including both technical and business considerations.  Both non-recurring and recurring cost were major drivers. The total package won us over.

The total package may simply look different across the pond.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/23/2014 08:35 pm
With a lower cost LV ULA will be able to compete for commercial satellite launches. Ariane may loss even more market share.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tesla on 09/24/2014 07:50 am
With a lower cost LV ULA will be able to compete for commercial satellite launches. Ariane may loss even more market share.

Do we already have data on the 'Atlas 6' price tag? As far as I know, no, plus the europeans have a 'magical weapon'. They don't just launch they also provide financing. Cheap access to capital is often critical for comsat customers.  :-X
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 09/24/2014 06:05 pm
Just to put the European subsidies into the right perspective (from this week's SpaceNEWS): "The U.S. Air Force has awarded ULA a $ 938 million contract ... for launch capability services for FY 2015 ... to help cover overhead and engineering activities..."
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 09/24/2014 06:22 pm
New report on the September 23rd meeting, largely confirms the story from AFP I posted earlier with some additional details.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41978esa%E2%80%99s-ariane-6-cost-estimate-rises-with-addition-of-new-launch-pad

Quote
ESA’s Ariane 6 Cost Estimate Rises with Addition of New Launch Pad

The European Space Agency on Sept. 23 presented to seven of their governments an updated plan for developing the next-generation Ariane 6 rocket, with lower estimated recurring production costs but a higher overall development cost owing to the need for a new, Ariane 6-dedicated launch pad, European government and industry officials said.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 09/24/2014 06:56 pm
The new pad will reportedly cost 700M€. That's around twice the development cost of F9 (including two tests flights)...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 09/24/2014 07:10 pm
The new pad will reportedly cost 700M€. That's around twice the development cost of F9 (including two tests flights)...

That's almost a billion US $. What are the making it of? Gold alloys?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/24/2014 08:21 pm
The new pad will reportedly cost 700M€. That's around twice the development cost of F9 (including two tests flights)...

Another apt comparison is SpaceX's South Texas launch site for F9/FH, which is supposed to cost about $100 million ($85 million for SpaceX and $15 million from the state and local governments).

It will be built from scratch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/24/2014 08:42 pm
The new pad will reportedly cost 700M€. That's around twice the development cost of F9 (including two tests flights)...

Another apt comparison is SpaceX's South Texas launch site for F9/FH, which is supposed to cost about $100 million ($85 million for SpaceX and $15 million from the state and local governments).

It will be built from scratch.
"The pork needs to be spent more wisely than before".

Note again the subsidy. Europe and America both squabble about these, and the theory of hidden ones as well. They both do same. No belief in transparency at all.

I don't think it matters really. They'll always spend huge sums here.

The real issue is what do they spend it on - results. In this specific example, compare a slightly better pad flow for 700M EU verses a GTO factory with optimized range for 150M US (accepting numbers as is).  Which is the better investment return? Shall we also add in how the Soyuz pad did to, or Vega pad? Consistent issue. Now that its a real global business, returns matter.

If it looks like I'm picking on someone, I'm not. I could call out all of them worldwide and in the US as well.

However you rack up the figures, Musk spends money and gets results better than all the rest. Which galls them into wasting more.

All of them need to not respond by spending more stupidly, but to accept the fact that its much harder to spend extremely wisely at this stage. BTW, Musk has already done some really dumb things too - but in the main, doesn't matter yet.

add:

This is a simplification, meant solely to make a point. In the grander case of full up industries, cultural and cross functional linking with other industries blurs the distinctions still further. This allows, among other things, political aspects enough cover to let people feel they are winning in bad economic decisions, when they are clearly losing. E.g. they can feel justified in being a "loser".

Be very careful in the choice of rationalizations. The Americans/Europeans/Russians all rationalize differently, but none of them help their cause long term when they choose to do so.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/24/2014 09:31 pm
Well, if they have to build an ELS trench, plus a new Integration building, plus a VAB, plus rails, plus MLP, with French costs on a remote site, I wouldn't be surprised that they got at around that level of money. Of course they will have such a huge upkeep that they won't be able to reach the recurring cost level they are proposing. On the other had, if they have to size this for 10 launches/year (they are quoting the prices for 9), and the flow is anything like the A5, then they might be assuming dual Integration Buildings.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/24/2014 11:03 pm
One must compare industries not individual companies/rockets/launch pads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/25/2014 05:40 am
Well, if they have to build an ELS trench, plus a new Integration building, plus a VAB, plus rails, plus MLP, with French costs on a remote site, I wouldn't be surprised that they got at around that level of money. Of course they will have such a huge upkeep that they won't be able to reach the recurring cost level they are proposing. On the other had, if they have to size this for 10 launches/year (they are quoting the prices for 9), and the flow is anything like the A5, then they might be assuming dual Integration Buildings.
Remember that the original A6 proposal assumed TWO new launchpads, in order to reach the high projected launch rate.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tesla on 09/25/2014 08:41 am
The new pad will reportedly cost 700M€. That's around twice the development cost of F9 (including two tests flights)...

Another apt comparison is SpaceX's South Texas launch site for F9/FH, which is supposed to cost about $100 million ($85 million for SpaceX and $15 million from the state and local governments).

It will be built from scratch.
"The pork needs to be spent more wisely than before".

Note again the subsidy. Europe and America both squabble about these, and the theory of hidden ones as well. They both do same. No belief in transparency at all.

I don't think it matters really. They'll always spend huge sums here.

The real issue is what do they spend it on - results. In this specific example, compare a slightly better pad flow for 700M EU verses a GTO factory with optimized range for 150M US (accepting numbers as is).  Which is the better investment return? Shall we also add in how the Soyuz pad did to, or Vega pad? Consistent issue. Now that its a real global business, returns matter.

If it looks like I'm picking on someone, I'm not. I could call out all of them worldwide and in the US as well.

However you rack up the figures, Musk spends money and gets results better than all the rest. Which galls them into wasting more.

All of them need to not respond by spending more stupidly, but to accept the fact that its much harder to spend extremely wisely at this stage. BTW, Musk has already done some really dumb things too - but in the main, doesn't matter yet.

add:

This is a simplification, meant solely to make a point. In the grander case of full up industries, cultural and cross functional linking with other industries blurs the distinctions still further. This allows, among other things, political aspects enough cover to let people feel they are winning in bad economic decisions, when they are clearly losing. E.g. they can feel justified in being a "loser".

Be very careful in the choice of rationalizations. The Americans/Europeans/Russians all rationalize differently, but none of them help their cause long term when they choose to do so.

May I say something stupid here? The main reason people of different countries keep being mad at each other when they have better industries and thus jobs, are borders and the legal right countries have to forbid people from another country to work there. If there was an USA-EU union we wouldn't be in this mess and our industries could work together and compete in a capitalistic fashion, without subsidies. Just like when the first airlines became private companies in the 60s. And look at the ticket prices today compared to 30y ago. You can fly for 50$ from london to madrid. Arianespace could fly a 'Ariane F9' instead of a soyuz.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/25/2014 08:48 am
May I say something stupid here? The main reason people of different countries keep being mad at each other when they have better industries and thus jobs, are borders and the legal right countries have to forbid people from another country to work there. If there was an USA-EU union we wouldn't be in this mess and our industries could work together and compete in a capitalistic fashion, without subsidies. Just like when the first airlines became private companies in the 60s. And look at the ticket prices today compared to 30y ago. You can fly for 50$ from london to madrid. Arianespace could fly a 'Ariane F9' instead of a soyuz.

Or maybe the American tendency to free markets would be too diluted in such a union and the united USA-EU would have a single space agency and a single launch provider that was even more inefficient and had to spread its workforce over 50 states plus a dozen European countries for political reasons.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 09/25/2014 10:27 am
The total package may simply look different across the pond.
Here's the thing though, this total package, in basically the same form, has been flying since 1996. A large hydrogen core, powered by a Vulcain engine, with 480 tons of solid propellant strapped on to it. You can cut costs by redesigning the components with cost in mind, you can try to further consolidate manufacturing, but can you really cut costs by 50% compared to the vehicle you already had? And why does that have to cost €4 billion?

I'm not advocating for methane propellant necessarily, I don't know where you get that form. I'm advocating for moving away from this "total package". Hydrogen+strap ons is too expensive right now, it was too expensive in the previous trade studies, yet now it's suddenly the leading concept again, promising to halve the cost for a launch compared to A5. It just doesn't seem believable to me in any way and I don't know why it would to anyone else.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/25/2014 01:41 pm
I'm not advocating for methane propellant necessarily, I don't know where you get that form. I'm advocating for moving away from this "total package". Hydrogen+strap ons is too expensive right now, it was too expensive in the previous trade studies, yet now it's suddenly the leading concept again, promising to halve the cost for a launch compared to A5. It just doesn't seem believable to me in any way and I don't know why it would to anyone else.

Whether hydrogen+strap ons is too expensive right now is debatable. Atlas is not exactly cheaper. Russian rockets aren't a bargain either, considering the lower labor costs. Previous trade studies didn't see more than 10% recurrent cost difference between all-solid, hydrolox, metholox (3t-8t, though all with strap-ons for 8t), or were done for a smaller rocket (6.5t) and possibly without the option to develop a new liquid engine. Now we're back at a capability practically identical to A5ME, so I do not find it surprising that the configuration looks almost the same.

Anyway, I don't know it better than the people who decide, so I'll give them the benefit of doubt.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/25/2014 03:03 pm
Well, if they have to build an ELS trench, plus a new Integration building, plus a VAB, plus rails, plus MLP, with French costs on a remote site, I wouldn't be surprised that they got at around that level of money. Of course they will have such a huge upkeep that they won't be able to reach the recurring cost level they are proposing. On the other had, if they have to size this for 10 launches/year (they are quoting the prices for 9), and the flow is anything like the A5, then they might be assuming dual Integration Buildings.
Remember that the original A6 proposal assumed TWO new launchpads, in order to reach the high projected launch rate.
Well, I consider that's quite a logic jump to state the €700 is too expensive without knowing what's being done, right? I actually tried to estimate what could you do for that amount of money. It's not lost to me that using the old hole means that the PPH pad was at 70% of advance. But the dual pads were critical for PPH because, AIUI, it was to be stacked at the pad.
This 6.2 and 6.4 look more like an MLP pad flow. May be, they have made the trades and went with an ELS like solution, but with vertical stacking at the pad. I still believe that they could do 20 day pad turn around with a single pad, if they have dual IB and MLP. That's the trick that most high launch rate use.
And I don't think they'll be able to lower costs much if A6 is going to be a pad queen.
Unless, as I stated before, they went with the PPH model and have dual pads with mobile tower where they integrate the whole vehicle and then bring the encapsulated payload.
Or they may go for a Delta IV like flow and have one HIF. And only integrate the solids and payload at the pad. They are probably still doing the trades.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/25/2014 07:27 pm
Trades depend on context too much. When context changes too much (like with modular stages), too much is different to reasonably reconcile, so the effects are paradoxical - this is known, so its an excuse for non critical overspending.

Look at the ULA/BE4 approach - even if it doesn't come off. The idea is not deep, but extremely shallow. The idea is to continue the business. The attempt is net cost net risk low. Forget everything else. That's most of the decision. Other future good doesn't factor in.

Look at SpaceX Texas pad "launch factory" - take something proven elsewhere and optimize it otherwise unchanged. Does it stand on its own merit.

Neither of these hit a unified goal. Both unlock a limitation. Keep from getting into a "frozen" state where a big change is needed.

It is hard to do this with a launch provider who always needed too much frequency for the economics to work. Delta IV and H-II  suffer from that as well. In effect, Shuttle shared the same weakness, and bequeathed it to them. One has to back off from this position to regain alternatives that are not locked on minimum launch frequency.

Thus some kind of parallel approach that brings in something to exchange out something else. Since boost is the least expensive change, its the flexible element first on the table. Solid/hydrolox boost doesn't scale as well as hydrocarbon, regardless of the appearance of trades. That's the root issue.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 09/26/2014 12:14 pm
Whether hydrogen+strap ons is too expensive right now is debatable. Atlas is not exactly cheaper. Russian rockets aren't a bargain either, considering the lower labor costs. Previous trade studies didn't see more than 10% recurrent cost difference between all-solid, hydrolox, metholox (3t-8t, though all with strap-ons for 8t), or were done for a smaller rocket (6.5t) and possibly without the option to develop a new liquid engine. Now we're back at a capability practically identical to A5ME, so I do not find it surprising that the configuration looks almost the same.
The trade studies didn't look at options without strap ons though, nor did it look at RP-1 or other fuels, or GG cycle engines aside from the hydrogen one. Even if the difference between this and, say, a European launcher similar to Soyuz or Falcon is only small, I still find it suspicious they managed to get the cost down to only €85m where the earlier NELS studies were at €90+ million for a similar concept that only lifted 6.5 tons. Even the earlier industrial proposal cost €85m for 8.5 tons to GTO with two fewer boosters.

They probably know better than me, but at the same time, the people who decide also have more interests than just getting a cheap LV.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/26/2014 01:23 pm
I still find it suspicious they managed to get the cost down to only €85m where the earlier NELS studies were at €90+ million for a similar concept that only lifted 6.5 tons.

The question is of course, where did the cost data for those studies come from? I guess it came from the industry based on previous experience. Maybe that's not the proper input when you want to fundamentally change how things are done. But I don't know.

In any case, I don't want to defend the current proposal. As I see it it's a rocket optimized for sat operators, but lets face it, there is no point in fighting for crumbs. There is no profit to be made in the commercial launch industry. Too many rockets fighting for too few sats per year and it will only get worse. IMO ESA should make a 5t rocket for its own demand, and invest in technologies that may at some point in the future be needed when demand for spaceflight really takes off (which may be decades away).

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/29/2014 03:22 am
Frustration is understood.

But Europe won't abandon the commercial market, nor will certain other providers.

It is necessary to stay in the game for each of these for powerful reasons, even if not large market share.

The question is more how to stay in the commercial game. It needs to be a combination of a strategy that contains retaining existing capabilities while separately addressing longer term need.

They never could be addressed as a single LV, and that is what won't continue because it is simply unaffordable. If you notice, all that it did was breed a false future, in all cases of providers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: suncity on 10/16/2014 05:28 pm
is it possible to estimate how much of the Soyuz from Guyane market will be eroded by the smaller-than-Ariane-5 Ariane 6.2 and by the larger VEGA with P120 first stage? 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/16/2014 07:11 pm
is it possible to estimate how much of the Soyuz from Guyane market will be eroded by the smaller-than-Ariane-5 Ariane 6.2 and by the larger VEGA with P120 first stage? 
Spacejulien should have an answer to that question.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 10/16/2014 07:32 pm
is it possible to estimate how much of the Soyuz from Guyane market will be eroded by the smaller-than-Ariane-5 Ariane 6.2 and by the larger VEGA with P120 first stage?

I think it will be eroded completely. The goal is to launch institutional payloads with A6 (and Vega).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 10/22/2014 02:44 am
From the update thread:
Ariane 62 configuration

The Ariane 62, with two P120 solid boosters, will be used mainly in single-launch configurations.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Ariane_62_configuration

Image credit: ESA

Hmmm... That launch vehicle (1st image) does look very familiar. A close cousin of the Japanese H-IIA? (second image)

- The Ariane 6 "62" configuration is a close match to the H-IIA.
- The Ariane 6 "64" (four solids) is a close match to the H-IIA 204 model (replaced by H-IIB).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/22/2014 04:12 am
From the update thread:
Ariane 62 configuration

The Ariane 62, with two P120 solid boosters, will be used mainly in single-launch configurations.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Ariane_62_configuration

Image credit: ESA

Hmmm... That launch vehicle (1st image) does look very familiar. A close cousin of the Japanese H-IIA? (second image)

- The Ariane 6 "62" configuration is a close match to the H-IIA.
- The Ariane 6 "64" (four solids) is a close match to the H-IIA 204 model (replaced by H-IIB).
Generally, but the Ariane 6 boosters would carry nearly twice as much propellant as the SRB-A boosters.  Also, H-2A uses a different diameter core than H-2B while Ariane 6 will use the same core for both "62" and "64".  Thanks to the more powerful boosters the "64" would only use one main core engine rather than the two engines used by H-2B.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 10/22/2014 07:06 am
From the update thread:
Ariane 62 configuration

The Ariane 62, with two P120 solid boosters, will be used mainly in single-launch configurations.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Ariane_62_configuration

Image credit: ESA

Hmmm... That launch vehicle (1st image) does look very familiar. A close cousin of the Japanese H-IIA? (second image)

- The Ariane 6 "62" configuration is a close match to the H-IIA.
- The Ariane 6 "64" (four solids) is a close match to the H-IIA 204 model (replaced by H-IIB).
Generally, but the Ariane 6 boosters would carry nearly twice as much propellant as the SRB-A boosters.  Also, H-2A uses a different diameter core than H-2B while Ariane 6 will use the same core for both "62" and "64".  Thanks to the more powerful boosters the "64" would only use one main core engine rather than the two engines used by H-2B.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, I know that the Ariane 6 would be ~15% larger in height and diameter than the H-IIA, and that specs would be different. But the concept is still remarkably similar.

And perhaps it will have the same pitfalls? While a capable system, I don't think the H-IIA/B has been as cheap as the Japanese hoped. The only other two SRB/hydrolox core launch vehicles (Delta IV and Ariane 5) aren't exactly know for their cost effectiveness either - a primary goal of the Ariane 6.

(And I know about the H-IIB - Which is why I was comparing the "64" to the H-IIA204 model, which flew once - right? - see image)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/22/2014 02:48 pm
From the update thread:
Ariane 62 configuration

The Ariane 62, with two P120 solid boosters, will be used mainly in single-launch configurations.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Ariane_62_configuration

Image credit: ESA

Hmmm... That launch vehicle (1st image) does look very familiar. A close cousin of the Japanese H-IIA? (second image)

- The Ariane 6 "62" configuration is a close match to the H-IIA.
- The Ariane 6 "64" (four solids) is a close match to the H-IIA 204 model (replaced by H-IIB).
Generally, but the Ariane 6 boosters would carry nearly twice as much propellant as the SRB-A boosters.  Also, H-2A uses a different diameter core than H-2B while Ariane 6 will use the same core for both "62" and "64".  Thanks to the more powerful boosters the "64" would only use one main core engine rather than the two engines used by H-2B.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, I know that the Ariane 6 would be ~15% larger in height and diameter than the H-IIA, and that specs would be different. But the concept is still remarkably similar.

And perhaps it will have the same pitfalls? While a capable system, I don't think the H-IIA/B has been as cheap as the Japanese hoped. The only other two SRB/hydrolox core launch vehicles (Delta IV and Ariane 5) aren't exactly know for their cost effectiveness either - a primary goal of the Ariane 6.

(And I know about the H-IIB - Which is why I was comparing the "64" to the H-IIA204 model, which flew once - right? - see image)
Actually the JAXA H-X programme led by the contracted MHI H-III Development team would more closely match the Ariane-6 family as it currently stands. H-III goes from core alone config to 6 SRM config.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/22/2014 03:00 pm
From the update thread:
Ariane 62 configuration

The Ariane 62, with two P120 solid boosters, will be used mainly in single-launch configurations.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Ariane_62_configuration

Image credit: ESA

Hmmm... That launch vehicle (1st image) does look very familiar. A close cousin of the Japanese H-IIA? (second image)

- The Ariane 6 "62" configuration is a close match to the H-IIA.
- The Ariane 6 "64" (four solids) is a close match to the H-IIA 204 model (replaced by H-IIB).
Generally, but the Ariane 6 boosters would carry nearly twice as much propellant as the SRB-A boosters.  Also, H-2A uses a different diameter core than H-2B while Ariane 6 will use the same core for both "62" and "64".  Thanks to the more powerful boosters the "64" would only use one main core engine rather than the two engines used by H-2B.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, I know that the Ariane 6 would be ~15% larger in height and diameter than the H-IIA, and that specs would be different. But the concept is still remarkably similar.

And perhaps it will have the same pitfalls? While a capable system, I don't think the H-IIA/B has been as cheap as the Japanese hoped. The only other two SRB/hydrolox core launch vehicles (Delta IV and Ariane 5) aren't exactly know for their cost effectiveness either - a primary goal of the Ariane 6.

(And I know about the H-IIB - Which is why I was comparing the "64" to the H-IIA204 model, which flew once - right? - see image)
H-IIA204 version is still offered. All H-II/IIA/IIB family versions are being replaced by a standardized launcher family H-III to reduce costs and allow for much increased launch rate.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/22/2014 03:02 pm
And perhaps it will have the same pitfalls? While a capable system, I don't think the H-IIA/B has been as cheap as the Japanese hoped. The only other two SRB/hydrolox core launch vehicles (Delta IV and Ariane 5) aren't exactly know for their cost effectiveness either - a primary goal of the Ariane 6.
I agree about Delta 4 and H-2A/B costs, which is reflected in their relatively low flight rates.  Delta 4 has flown 16 times since the start of 2010 and H-2A/B has flown 12 times during the same period.  Meanwhile, Ariane 5 has flown 27 times, only three times less than kerosene/LOX Atlas 5.  Zenit, the kerosene wonder-rocket, has only flown 13 times and failed once (the same record as all versions of Falcon 9, interestingly enough).  Proton, of course, has out-flown all of these with 48 flights, but with at least five failures.

So it appears that Ariane 5 is more cost effective than the other LH2 core rockets.  Vulcain 2 has a simpler combustion cycle than H-7A and is much smaller, lighter, and lower thrust than RS-68, which may explain part of the difference.  Since Ariane 6 seems slated to use the same core propulsion systems, essentially, it may have a chance to continue that record.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/25/2014 08:02 pm
Nice and accurate discussion.

Hydrolox boost is much more volume sensitive than hydrocarbon boost. I think that will always be true.

Keep in mind that the necessary commercial "volume" that makes Ariane economics work out.

My belief is that Delta IV had to have commercial launches from the start as a significant component for the economics to have shifted. This would have had to also kept up while significant rework of flight systems / pad / etc would have had to be redone. And I don't think that the Heavy would ever have matched economics / performance until the engines were redone.

As to HII A/B - the Europeans could "forward price" out of need. The Japanese can't countenance the same culturally in order to gain the advantage that the Europeans got (at a cost!). One advantage of deals with the Americans by the Japanese for launch vehicles is a "cultural bypass" that can get around this - however it is very hard for both of them to work together, knowing the respective risks of a) the commercial not coming off, and b) knowing that the Japanese must eventually have indigenous launch/manufacture to complete the joint success.

Back to this thread - hydrocarbon boost systems will "volume pressure" hydrolox by denying market share and costs high. Whatever Ariane 6 looks like, this is the weakness. To the degree that HX follows either Ariane (necessary solids) or Delta (high thrust core) paths, its cost containment has to have a significant volume that it can achieve to do better than H II - again the market fragmentation issues for commercial launch looms large.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 10/26/2014 06:06 pm
Is there any information on the evolution planned for Vulcain for Ariane 6? Do you know if reignition possible with the current or future design, even if the turbopumps are restarted through additional pyrotechnic charges?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/27/2014 09:06 am
Is there any information on the evolution planned for Vulcain for Ariane 6? Do you know if reignition possible with the current or future design, even if the turbopumps are restarted through additional pyrotechnic charges?
From what I've heard from the current industry proposal Vulcain will (again) be ground-started. No in-flight (re)ignition planned for Ariane 6.
Current design of Vulcain is also incapable of in-flight reignition.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simpl simon on 10/27/2014 09:30 am
It seems to me that ESA, CNES and the associated industrial partners have turned their backs on opportunities to incorporate any significant technological advance in Ariane 6 designs. Considering the strategic role Ariane plays in European access to space ambitions, I think the approach selected for Ariane 6 is negative - almost defeatist. In particular, I feel that the continued use of solid propellant boosters is not acceptable in this age of environmental concerns.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 10/27/2014 09:59 am
Vinci is a significant technological advance for ESA. The largest monolithic solids ever designed for commercial use is a significant technological advance for ESA.

But Ariane 6 is fundamentally about affordability and achieving it with as little capital investment as possible. In that paradigm investment in for example a major new liquid main engine is a non-starter.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 10/27/2014 10:44 am
Vinci is a significant technological advance for ESA. The largest monolithic solids ever designed for commercial use is a significant technological advance for ESA.

But Ariane 6 is fundamentally about affordability and achieving it with as little capital investment as possible. In that paradigm investment in for example a major new liquid main engine is a non-starter.

Yes. Until the PPH launcher was "proposed" by ESA/CNES studies were underway for an advanced liquid main engine - and I think there will such an engine for an "Ariane 6 PHH Evolution" in the latter part the 2020s...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 10/27/2014 12:47 pm
Vinci is a significant technological advance for ESA. The largest monolithic solids ever designed for commercial use is a significant technological advance for ESA.

But Ariane 6 is fundamentally about affordability and achieving it with as little capital investment as possible. In that paradigm investment in for example a major new liquid main engine is a non-starter.

Yes. Until the PPH launcher was "proposed" by ESA/CNES studies were underway for an advanced liquid main engine - and I think there will such an engine for an "Ariane 6 PHH Evolution" in the latter part the 2020s...
I think that ESA/CNES/DLR are more on a "wait and see" attitude. SpaceX is not only dangerous per se. It might force ULA back into the commercial market and that American Duo is quite a threat. Upto now Ariane 5 has been competing with high reliability and mission assurance against the less than reliable Russians. And they had made a genius move in actually contracting the most serious Russian team (which is in Samara). But if they have to compete against ULA, they'll have to do so on price. Which ULA already will have to do against SpaceX.
And if the Hawthorn guys actually close the business case for reusability, it might be a whole new game. If I look at it that way, it would seem to me that the Europeans have chosen to keep their liquid propulsion capabilities, do an extreme exercise on cost cutting, and wait until the next technological trends settle. Until then, EU will foot the necessary subsidies to keep their industrial base afloat.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 10/27/2014 05:31 pm
Vinci is a significant technological advance for ESA. The largest monolithic solids ever designed for commercial use is a significant technological advance for ESA.

But Ariane 6 is fundamentally about affordability and achieving it with as little capital investment as possible. In that paradigm investment in for example a major new liquid main engine is a non-starter.

Yes. Until the PPH launcher was "proposed" by ESA/CNES studies were underway for an advanced liquid main engine - and I think there will such an engine for an "Ariane 6 PHH Evolution" in the latter part the 2020s...

If I remember correctly that work was for a new high-thrust SC engine.

For Ariane 6 I thought we'll see a cost-optimized Vulcain 2...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simpl simon on 10/27/2014 06:38 pm
Vinci is a significant technological advance for ESA. The largest monolithic solids ever designed for commercial use is a significant technological advance for ESA.

But Ariane 6 is fundamentally about affordability and achieving it with as little capital investment as possible. In that paradigm investment in for example a major new liquid main engine is a non-starter.

But the Vinci engine is being developed as part of the Ariane 5ME program, so I do not count it as a technological advance for Ariane 6.
And my objection to solid propellant boosters relates to the tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere every time they are used. In my view, developing "the largest monolithic solids ever...." is a technological step backwards, which demonstrates the weak leadership of the space agencies involved.

Ariane 6 is fundamentally an institutional program, and trying to justify it on the basis of low cost and/or low market price is an illusion. That idea completely ignores the basis of the European space program, which is built on cooperation between the member states to stimulate mutual technological development.

Ariane 6 will never be able to compete head-to-head with a company like SpaceX on price, and Russia and China will continue to set launch prices as they wish.

A forward-looking institutional program should seek to reduce launch costs through technological progress, not by relying on technological obsolescence.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lobo on 10/27/2014 07:12 pm
Interesting that they've gone back to a liquid core.  Kind of a mini-Ariane 5, or upscaled H-IIB or Delta 4 (5,2-4).

It'll probably save on investment as it'll share a lot with Ariane 5 in hardware and operations.  But will the overhead be any cheaper than Ariane 5?  It still has two liquid stages with two liquid engines, and separate SRB's.  Don't know how much a hydrocarbon engine would be to develop but I just wonder in the long run if that investment wouldn't end up being cheaper?  A methalox or kerolox booster with a Vinci-powered upper stage to make a 2-stage EELV type LV.  Get rid of the SRB's all together.  Two liquid stages, no booster options.  Nice a simple.  I would think that Snecma could develop a new hydrocarbon engine without too much trouble.  It could be a simple GG type, and still have good performance with the hydrolox upper stage.

But I suppose if the SRB's will be common with Vega, maybe that wouldn't be much of a cost savings.  And the Vulcain 2 already exists.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/27/2014 07:30 pm
And my objection to solid propellant boosters relates to the tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere every time they are used. In my view, developing "the largest monolithic solids ever...." is a technological step backwards, which demonstrates the weak leadership of the space agencies involved.
For valid comparison, make sure to also contemplate the "tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere" required to manufacture, store, and transport liquid hydrogen, and, to a lesser extent, liquid oxygen.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simpl simon on 10/27/2014 08:12 pm
And my objection to solid propellant boosters relates to the tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere every time they are used. In my view, developing "the largest monolithic solids ever...." is a technological step backwards, which demonstrates the weak leadership of the space agencies involved.
For valid comparison, make sure to also contemplate the "tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere" required to manufacture, store, and transport liquid hydrogen, and, to a lesser extent, liquid oxygen.

 - Ed Kyle

Thank you. I did.
I also contemplated the "tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere" required to manufacture, store and transport the solid propellant itself, even before it is ignited.

The point is, we can do better. But since the 1990's ESA and the member states have been unable to agree on a coherent future launcher strategy, and now we get this lash-up forced upon us. And the justification is cost/price of future launches. Anybody with any experience of European launcher development knows the current cost and schedule targets will not be achieved. And while we are wasting money on this polluting disaster we will not be investing in the real improvements that an ESA program should provide.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simonbp on 10/27/2014 10:55 pm
Ariane 6 is fundamentally an institutional program, and trying to justify it on the basis of low cost and/or low market price is an illusion. That idea completely ignores the basis of the European space program, which is built on cooperation between the member states to stimulate mutual technological development.

The Ariane program (neé Europa, when the UK was involved) was created to ensure that Europe (and France especially) had the ability to launch satellites independent of the USA. That's the reason it receives so many subsidies. They've only really led the commercial market since the retirement of Delta II and Atlas IIAS (which were both cheap and subsidized) made the US launchers too expensive.

Ariane 6 really is a European H-2, which is not a bad thing. Like H-2, it will be outclassed on the commercial market, but will keep European launch independence and the attendant industry.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 10/27/2014 11:23 pm
And my objection to solid propellant boosters relates to the tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere every time they are used. In my view, developing "the largest monolithic solids ever...." is a technological step backwards, which demonstrates the weak leadership of the space agencies involved.
For valid comparison, make sure to also contemplate the "tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere" required to manufacture, store, and transport liquid hydrogen, and, to a lesser extent, liquid oxygen.

 - Ed Kyle
LOX is a waste product of many products. Principally Liquid N2. Thus, launch or no launch, it's gonna happen. But I concur on the general concept.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/28/2014 07:06 am
And my objection to solid propellant boosters relates to the tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere every time they are used. In my view, developing "the largest monolithic solids ever...." is a technological step backwards, which demonstrates the weak leadership of the space agencies involved.
For valid comparison, make sure to also contemplate the "tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere" required to manufacture, store, and transport liquid hydrogen, and, to a lesser extent, liquid oxygen.

 - Ed Kyle

Thank you. I did.
I also contemplated the "tons of poisonous gases dumped into the atmosphere" required to manufacture, store and transport the solid propellant itself, even before it is ignited.

The point is, we can do better. But since the 1990's ESA and the member states have been unable to agree on a coherent future launcher strategy, and now we get this lash-up forced upon us. And the justification is cost/price of future launches. Anybody with any experience of European launcher development knows the current cost and schedule targets will not be achieved. And while we are wasting money on this polluting disaster we will not be investing in the real improvements that an ESA program should provide.


Come again? When was the last time an ESA launcher program was a real improvement over the previous one?
Answer: Ariane 1. No more after that, not even the switch from Ariane 4 to Ariane 5 thanks to the very large solids.
Point is: Ariane launcher development programs are NOT primarily intended to provide real improvements (other than upmass capacity) but to secure continued independent access to space for the ESA member states.
For example: ESA could have made a huge improvement going from the Ariane 1-4 series to Ariane 5 by getting rid of polluting technologies such as solid motors and hypergolics. But they didn't. ESA chose to employ tried-and-tested technologies, some of which are very polluting.
Ariane 6 will not be any different. They don't need to. Their prime competitors fly (very) polluting rockets as well.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 10/29/2014 02:08 am
Not sure solid rocket exhausts are worse than dumping stages with kerosene or even hydrazine residuals into the ocean.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/29/2014 07:58 am
Not sure solid rocket exhausts are worse than dumping stages with kerosene or even hydrazine residuals into the ocean.
Pollution of the upper atmosphere by the combustion products of solid motors is much more long-term than pollution of the sea by kerosene and hydrazine. In the latter case, most of that stuff is fairly rapidly digested by seawater-bacteria and converted to carbon dioxide, water and some residuals. In the former case, the combustion products stay in the atmosphere for years doing long-term damage to the ozone layer and ecosystems (thru rain-out).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 10/29/2014 11:05 am
In the former case, the combustion products stay in the atmosphere for years doing long-term damage to the ozone layer and ecosystems (thru rain-out).

Well I guess green solid propellants (e.g. ADN as oxidizer) would be an alternative if anyone would start to care about the environmental impact.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: chapi on 10/29/2014 12:37 pm
[Pollution of the upper atmosphere by the combustion products of solid motors is much more long-term than pollution of the sea by kerosene and hydrazine. In the latter case, most of that stuff is fairly rapidly digested by seawater-bacteria and converted to carbon dioxide, water and some residuals. In the former case, the combustion products stay in the atmosphere for years doing long-term damage to the ozone layer and ecosystems (thru rain-out).

Are you sure that they have such a significant impact on the ozone layer ?

I thought analyses were carried out some years ago to assess environnemental impact for rocket launches wordlwide, concluding that these impact either were benign unless the number of launches increase significantly (even on the ozone layer). Additionnaly, is was not fully clear whether solid propelland was far worse than liquid.

As far as I remember, a guy named Martin Ross was frequently quoted (as paper author or in mass media interviews). By googling him, I can find for instance a statement he made for National Geographic  (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090414-rockets-ozone.htm) in 2009, or a paper for Astropolitics (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/01/space_rockets_kill_ozone).

You'll find here and there the following quotes :
"[...]Currently, global rocket launches deplete the ozone layer [approximately] 0.03%, an insignificant fraction of the depletion caused by other ozone depletion substances[...]"
"[...]But how do liquids compare to solids as far as ozone loss is concerned? We do not know for sure[...]

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 10/29/2014 01:08 pm
[Pollution of the upper atmosphere by the combustion products of solid motors is much more long-term than pollution of the sea by kerosene and hydrazine. In the latter case, most of that stuff is fairly rapidly digested by seawater-bacteria and converted to carbon dioxide, water and some residuals. In the former case, the combustion products stay in the atmosphere for years doing long-term damage to the ozone layer and ecosystems (thru rain-out).

Are you sure that they have such a significant impact on the ozone layer ?

I thought analyses were carried out some years ago to assess environnemental impact for rocket launches wordlwide, concluding that these impact either were benign unless the number of launches increase significantly (even on the ozone layer). Additionnaly, is was not fully clear whether solid propelland was far worse than liquid.

As far as I remember, a guy named Martin Ross was frequently quoted (as paper author or in mass media interviews). By googling him, I can find for instance a statement he made for National Geographic  (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090414-rockets-ozone.htm) in 2009, or a paper for Astropolitics (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/01/space_rockets_kill_ozone).

You'll find here and there the following quotes :
"[...]Currently, global rocket launches deplete the ozone layer [approximately] 0.03%, an insignificant fraction of the depletion caused by other ozone depletion substances[...]"
"[...]But how do liquids compare to solids as far as ozone loss is concerned? We do not know for sure[...]

Wow that's interesting. Deserves its own thread IMO.

I quote the summary

Quote
Space travel's impact on stratospheric ozone can be relatively significant in comparison to other industrial activities because rockets uniquely emit ozone destroying compounds throughout the stratosphere. Both solid and liquid fueled rockets cause ozone loss. Based on existing data, models, and general principals of rocket combustion and stratospheric chemistry we constructed a simple description of the relationship between rocket combustion emissions and ozone depletion and then related ozone depletion to the mass of payload placed into LEO. Because stratospheric rocket emissions are not fully understood, our description is necessarily uncertain, especially with respect to liquid propellant engines. Even so, we draw several conclusions and provide guidance for future work.

Present day global ozone loss caused by rocket emissions is dominated by SRM emissions and is almost certainly less than 0.1%, insignificant relative to other sources of ozone loss at the present time. The relative impact of rocket emissions will likely increase over the next several decades as the requirements of a growing space industry grow and the ozone layer recovers from past use of ozone depleting substances that have been now banned by international agreements.

Global ozone loss associated with space development scenarios that assume large increases of payload delivered to orbit could be significant, even using liquid propellants. Growth of a factor of one hundred could cause several percent global ozone losses, likely large enough to trigger attention by the international stratospheric protection community. Regulation of launches might take the form of limitation of the number of types of launches or mass of payloads and might apply globally or nationally. Such limits would present significant distortions in what is usually assumed to be an emerging free market for launch services. One implication of launch limits associated with ozone depletion is to increase the difficulty of recovering large investment to reduce launch cost through increased launch rates. Because of the large uncertainty over the impacts of liquid propellant rockets on ozone, and the lack of a clear process to assess the ozone loss caused by rocket emissions, the potential for limitation on space transportation cannot be eliminated. This potential presents a long-term risk that space development could be hampered by overly aggressive ozone protection efforts that might arise from a lack of information on rocket emissions. Policy makers in both the space development and stratospheric protection communities should begin to better understand ozone loss from rocket emissions, how to quantify those losses, and how to manage the loss if the space transport business grows significantly in the future.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 10/30/2014 11:52 am
More recent research by the Aerospace Corporation also found that soot from rocket launches could have a significant impact on the climate.

You can read about it here: http://www.aerospace.org/2013/07/31/rocket-soot-emissions-and-climate-change/

I actually posted in that thread a few hours ago and it has already been deleted for reasons you can imagine.

This recent article is interesting:

Radiative forcing caused by rocket engine emissions

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000160/full

In any case, it seems the problem can easily be avoided by using propellants that don't produce soot. Hydrogen and I guess Methane. The Ozone depletion problem is probably more serious.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: anonymous on 10/30/2014 11:55 am
More recent research by the Aerospace Corporation found that soot in the stratosphere from rocket launches could have a significant impact on the climate as well as the ozone layer. Hydrocarbon-fueled rockets were implicated, but further research was needed about whether particles from SRBs have an analogous effect on the climate.

You can read about it here: http://www.aerospace.org/2013/07/31/rocket-soot-emissions-and-climate-change/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: anonymous on 10/30/2014 12:15 pm
This recent article is interesting

Radiative forcing caused by rocket engine emissions

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000160/full

In any case, it seems the problem can easily be avoided by using propellants that don't produce soot. Hydrogen and I guess Methane. The Ozone depletion problem is probably more serious.


The new finding in your article is that alumina particles from SRBs were found to also have a net warming effect.

I agree that the solution is to use different fuels. Methane combustion also produces soot, although less - I can't find how much less. Hydrogen would be best.
 
The ozone depletion problem is more difficult to avoid, but hydrogen is again the best approach. I think that the elevated NOx emissions from Skylon would make it worse than conventional hydrogen rockets.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 10/30/2014 01:06 pm
The new finding in your article is that alumina particles from SRBs were found to also have a net warming effect.

Yep, a chlorine-free oxidizer wouldn't help with that.

Methane combustion also produces soot, although less - I can't find how much less.

Me neither.
 
The ozone depletion problem is more difficult to avoid, but hydrogen is again the best approach.

Actually the article chapi refered to assumes hydrolox produces the same amount of radicals per mass (0.02g/kg) as kerolox. Of course a hydrolox rocket uses less fuel so it produces less emissions. Do you have other reasons to assume hydrogen is preferable?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14777620902768867#tabModule

I think that the elevated NOx emissions from Skylon would make it worse than conventional hydrogen rockets.

Yes it seems airbreathing systems at 20 miles up could be pretty bad unless they are somehow optimized to produce less NOx. I wonder if rocket engines could be adapted to produce less of the stuff.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: anonymous on 10/30/2014 01:29 pm
It was only an assumption that hydrolox produces as much free radicals as kerolox; the only liquid fuel they modelled was hypergolic. Water vapour is less reactive than other combustion products, as they say, and the soot particles from kerolox may have the same catalytic effect on ozone depletion that SRB particles do, as they also say - that seems very likely to me, because the reason for ozone holes over the poles is the catalytic effect of ice particles there.

The Scimitar engine for REL's hypersonic airliner would produce 98 or 99 percent less NOx than Skylon's SABRE, but that was achieved by lowering the combustion temperature. I think that may cut back too much on payload mass for an SSTO RLV.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 10/30/2014 03:30 pm
From the ozone article:

"For the best case with δL equal to the lower limit from H2O emissions alone and an ozone loss limit of 1%, the launch limit is about 2500 kt per year. At this level, it is difficult to imagine that ozone loss regulation would play any role in space development. However, for the worst case with δL equal to the upper limit and an ozone loss limit of 0.2%, only about 30 kt could be placed into orbit per year, a level certain to have a strong influence on the economic and technological basis for large scale space systems."

30kt are roughly 2000 F9 launches so its a bit early to worry about it. The ~1000 or so annual suborbital launches assumed in that black carbon study are more likely to happen in a decade or so.

Anyway, back to the topic.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: anonymous on 10/30/2014 05:10 pm
Those calculations you quote are based on an assumption of only liquid rocket engines if space launch is to grow.

The article says:

"In recent years, the global launch industry has annually lifted nearly 1 kt into LEO and about one quarter of the stratospheric emission has been from SRMs"

and:

"For a value of ΔO3 considered excessive as small as 0.2% our results show that upper limits on material that can be placed into earth orbit by conventional chemical propulsion systems are about 1 and 28 kt per year for SRM and LRE launch systems, respectively."

That rather supports the criticisms simpl simon and woods170 made of the continued use of SRMs in Ariane 6. If everyone used solids (like PPH) or mostly solids (like the chosen design) for their launches, we would already be at the limit for the amount of launches that could be supported without too much damage to the ozone layer. Europe usually tries to set an environmental example to the world, but not with this.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 10/30/2014 05:34 pm
That rather supports the criticisms simpl simon and woods170 made of the continued use of SRMs in Ariane 6. If everyone used solids (like PPH) or mostly solids (like the chosen design) for their launches, we would already be at the limit for the amount of launches that could be supported without too much damage to the ozone layer. Europe usually tries to set an environmental example to the rest of the world, but not with this.

I see. Well but A6 is now PHH with 43t of solid prop. per ton payload instead of 90t. Also the foreseen flight rate is 10 per year. I guess what comes after A6 could be (partially) reusable and won't use solids, assuming the demand exists.

The more interesting question would be whether a A6 follow up should get hydrogen boosters or hydrocarbon.

Edit: This part is maybe more informative:

"Interestingly, Figure 4 shows the situation that would have developed had the Space Shuttle met its original goal of weekly launches. In this case, ΔO3 from Space Shuttle launches would have approached the 0.2% limit for small ozone loss."

52*500t (propellant)*2 = 52000t per year.

That's a lot. A6 might burn 32*120 (3840t) annually, although I guess what matters is how much exhaust ends up in critical parts of the atmosphere.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: simpl simon on 11/01/2014 11:14 pm
Well, I have been attending the space exploration conference in Strasbourg this past week and I see the discussion has moved on – rather productively, it seems.
Just to complete the thoughts I posted a week ago, yes, I am unhappy that Ariane 6 will continue to use solid propellants for the foreseeable future. I understand that in the early years of rocket development relatively crude solutions were sometimes expedient to achieve performance and/or operational requirements (although von Braun avoided them over 50 years ago) but I feel strongly that launcher technology has – or should have – advanced sufficiently by now to respond to conflicting requirements imposed by other considerations – in particular those concerning protection of the environment. In this context I find it noteworthy that both SpaceX and OSC have selected LOX/kerosene as first stage propellants. Ironically, LOX/kerosene technology was available in Europe from about 1960 until 1972 with the first stage of ELDO-A, originally known as Blue Streak.
If Ariane 6 was a purely commercial development, I could understand the reasons for the selected design approach – minimum development risk combined with reduced operational costs for the purpose of launching satellites. But Ariane 6 is not a commercial venture, it is an institutional program, conceived and promoted by CNES as an agency of the French government, imposed on ESA as a European program to support French national strategy.
Transferring responsibility for program implementation to ESA means, in my opinion, that a core responsibility of ESA, namely that of advancing the technological competitiveness of European industry, should be respected and included in the program. Environmental protection is just one of many issues that could and should have been addressed.
Interestingly enough, industrial representatives at an agency/industry meeting in Zurich in September said the only substantial way to reduce costs was to eliminate CNES and ESA's involvement. Since one reason the French government promoted the program was to find employment for the bloated CNES launcher directorate it will be a major struggle to get them out of the program now.
In conclusion, despite woods170’s previous objections, I remain of the opinion that this launch vehicle is a step backwards and unworthy of 21st century European space technology capabilities. I would go further and say the shortcomings of this program are symptomatic of the current weakness that passes for leadership in European space policy-making circles.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/02/2014 11:07 pm
Only benifit Ariane 6 gives is customer confidence that satellite will be launched if Ariane 5 fails .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/03/2014 06:45 am
Only benifit Ariane 6 gives is customer confidence that satellite will be launched if Ariane 5 fails .
Do us all a favour: don't pollute those threads with your ill-informed opinion. You have done this before and it has spoiled a number of ESA and Arianespace related threads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/07/2014 06:56 am
Some new info here:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42472to-win-over-germany-esa-maps-out-how-ariane-6-would-save-everyone-money

Quote
Industry, led by Ariane 5 prime contractor Airbus Defence and Space and engine builder Safran, will be obliged to commit to an Ariane 6 price and schedule before ESA governments commit their financing. A series of milestone payments from ESA will follow program advances made by industry.

...

Airbus and Safran have agreed to form a joint-venture company, with other Ariane contractors to be added later, to manage Ariane 6. The two companies delivered to ESA on Oct. 27 a full Ariane 6 contract proposal with fixed-price commitments.

I hope so...

It also says government will pay €70m for A62 and €115m for A64. That would lead to savings of €345m over 4 years (2021-2024) compared to Soyuz (€80m) and A5 (€165m).

In addition, ESA won't pay annual subsidies for commercial launches (right now at ~€100m).

Personal opinion: That alone won't pay for A6 development. However if one takes into account that annual subsidies for commercial launches would in all likelihood have to increase significantly for A5 to maintain its market share, A6 might pay off economically over its lifetime of ~20 years.

Edit: Corrected. Also according to the pdf linked to in the update thread, exploitation cost for A62 is €79m and for A64 €90.6m (€158m for A5 ME).



Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 11/07/2014 02:01 pm
Edit: Corrected. Also according to the pdf linked to in the update thread, exploitation cost for A62 is €79m and for A64 €90.6m (€158m for A5 ME).

So a booster P120 is only expected to cost about €5-6M
I suddenly like the old PPH again, which uses €24M of boosters and the vinci upper stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 11/07/2014 06:03 pm
Fixed costs of the boosters probably aren't included in that €5m difference, and stacking such a vehicle has obvious cost disadvantages associated with it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 11/07/2014 07:07 pm
A few points from the ESA document:
-ESA and industry agree A5 will not be competitive past 2018, ME or not. They expect A5 launches to drop to 4/year after 2018.
-The cost for a Soyuz launch in the coming years is 85M€
-The cost of a 6.2 is 79M€, and of a 6.4 90M€
-They want to sell 6.2 launches at 70m€ (79 for institutional) and 6.4 launches at 115M€
-This means that they make their profit with 6.4, sell the 6.2 at a loss.
-The 5 institutional payload/year dilute the fixed costs of the 6.2/6.4 system
-They think their cost and schedule estimates are robust (ESA,CNES and industry agree on those)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/08/2014 07:10 am
Edit: Corrected. Also according to the pdf linked to in the update thread, exploitation cost for A62 is €79m and for A64 €90.6m (€158m for A5 ME).

So a booster P120 is only expected to cost about €5-6M
I suddenly like the old PPH again, which uses €24M of boosters and the vinci upper stage.

A PPH with 4xP120 would launch 5.12t into GTO. The "addition" of a core stage thus roughly doubles the payload.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Proponent on 11/08/2014 12:13 pm
Radiative forcing caused by rocket engine emissions

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000160/full

Thanks for the link.

There's something I don't understand about that paper.  Table 1 shows that each kilogram of lox-hydrogen burned produces 1000 g of water.  Particularly because lox-hydrogen engines run fuel rich, a lot of excess hydrogen pours out of the nozzle.  Attached is an analysis of the RS-68A done with RPA Lite (http://www.propulsion-analysis.com/index.htm).  More than 25% of the molecules produced are hydrogen or hydrogen rich.  It may be that most of that excess hydrogen ultimately combines with ambient oxygen to produce water, in which case burning 1 kg of propellant produces more than 1000 g of water.  One way or the other, this won't alter the conclusions qualitatively, but it seems odd.  Am I missing something?

There's also the point that edkyle99 makes (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1277367#msg1277367):  rocket emissions themselves are only part of the picture.  The emissions associated with production and transportation of propellants may be significant too.  Lox-hydrogen comes out looking pretty good in the paper, but I suspect typical methods of producing hydrogen, which involve energy and hydrocarbon feed stocks, may not be very green.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/08/2014 12:52 pm
There's also the point that edkyle99 makes (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1277367#msg1277367):  rocket emissions themselves are only part of the picture.  The emissions associated with production and transportation of propellants may be significant too.  Lox-hydrogen comes out looking pretty good in the paper, but I suspect typical methods of producing hydrogen, which involve energy and hydrocarbon feed stocks, may not be very green.

Note that CO2 exhaust is irrelevant, so is black carbon etc. produced at ground level. What matters is black carbon and alumina released in the upper atmosphere. Hydrogen will be important for energy storage in a few decades, hence it will be less "dirty" by then. But again, unless you think demand for space flight will explode its irrelevant how dirty hydrogen production is (unless your factory is located in the stratosphere).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 11/10/2014 10:06 am
Edit: Corrected. Also according to the pdf linked to in the update thread, exploitation cost for A62 is €79m and for A64 €90.6m (€158m for A5 ME).

So a booster P120 is only expected to cost about €5-6M
I suddenly like the old PPH again, which uses €24M of boosters and the vinci upper stage.

A PPH with 4xP120 would launch 5.12t into GTO. The "addition" of a core stage thus roughly doubles the payload.

And it roughly doubles the price.
And a retraction of 2 P120's and addition of a core stage keeps payload roughly the same but adds €14M in price.

A few points from the ESA document:
-ESA and industry agree A5 will not be competitive past 2018, ME or not. They expect A5 launches to drop to 4/year after 2018.
-The cost for a Soyuz launch in the coming years is 85M€
-The cost of a 6.2 is 79M€, and of a 6.4 90M€
-They want to sell 6.2 launches at 70m€ (79 for institutional) and 6.4 launches at 115M€
-This means that they make their profit with 6.4, sell the 6.2 at a loss.
-The 5 institutional payload/year dilute the fixed costs of the 6.2/6.4 system
-They think their cost and schedule estimates are robust (ESA,CNES and industry agree on those)

They will sell all 6.2's at €70M also the institutional ones.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: MP99 on 11/10/2014 06:23 pm
The french are trying to fathom how they can replicate the SpaceX strategy in their own way in there own system. It's not an easy task. You can see how ULA is now trying to adapt with BO.

True, but keep in mind that since the beginning the french goverment sees spaceflight as nothing more than a jobs progam with no human exploration intentions. I don't judge for you people if this is good.  :-\
More complicated than that.

And there is a lot of hurt pride and perceived insult in this, from inside the US and across the globe.

Some of it brings back bad memories, most in the US don't seem inclined to remember.

Also, there's a conflation of business/commercial, national security, institutional, related industry needs/issues. Too much rides on a single LV decision. Before you could wave your hand and half-address them with some consideration/budget offset/arrangement/... That's been made a lot harder by certain developments.

Many are still betting on failure of changes in launch services being attempted, so they can go back to the prior arrangements. I'd say 80%.  But a few years back it was more like 98%.

ULA is not convinced from what I see. They are simply acting to remove risk from Pad 41 launch operations. As they should.

Bezos is far from where Musk is now. In four years, he may reveal a way to catch-up/over take that involves ULA in part as well as others. But by then Musk will have other things too, and other efforts will come on line - the game will change again.

Europe right now has very little to waste on launchers. Many economic structural issues that complicate things. To have an upstart mess with this at an ill time often yields bad mouthing and disbelief.  There's enough hear on this board to demonstrate that.

The biggest issue to confront is what to do (target and choices) and how to do it in the allowable structure (participation, organization, budget), which is more constrained than elsewhere.

Musk/Bezos can do so by private fiat - decisions/budget changes in days.

ULA can call upon Congress, AR, BO, ATK, etc and change things in months/years.

Europe/Russia/China are revisiting decade's of policy and industry base by comparison. Of them,  Europe will move soonest and with considerable deliberation. But by the rules, fast bypasses with the likes of Musk/Bezos aren't in the cards.

The policies that constrain aerospace definite its strengths and weaknesses. If you centralize too much, you limit options. But if you have too many options, you fragment and limit scalability.

At the moment, none of them can take the risk to counter Musk on his terms. But they also know they need to not let him get too far ahead, such that they might never catch up.

The badmouthing mentioned above is schadenfreude not unlike found in Congress from SLS/ULA representatives. Team sports. They are worried at the job losses because the pork has to be spent more carefully, because now it matters. It always does.

Musk has a long shot gamble still. But I think we are long overdue for a global restructuring of aerospace, and a lessening of inflated protected practice.

add:
The more I think about it, thinking the unthinkable is the only way to address this. You'd fund a next generation launch industry apart from the current one, and accept the budget overrun it would create. It won't happen for million reasons. And even if by a miracle it did, too quickly it would be sucked back into the industry giants it would attempt to out manoeuvre.

BTW, that's something to watch for with ULA/BO/SpaceX/Orbital/ATK/Boeing/LockMart as well. Lots of money, influence, and power at stake.

If Ariane 6 becomes irrelevant in a next-decade launch market, is there any chance that Skylon could become its European replacement?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 11/10/2014 06:35 pm
If Ariane 6 becomes irrelevant in a next-decade launch market, is there any chance that Skylon could become its European replacement?

Cheers, Martin

Skylon has to work first. If A6 fails, they are unlikely to bet the farm on something so unproven. A more likely outcome is that they will try to emulate whomever the new market leader is.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 11/10/2014 08:16 pm
If Ariane 6 becomes irrelevant in a next-decade launch market, is there any chance that Skylon could become its European replacement?

Cheers, Martin

Skylon has to work first. If A6 fails, they are unlikely to bet the farm on something so unproven. A more likely outcome is that they will try to emulate whomever the new market leader is.

Interestingly, Airbus is working on methalox propulsion, there were several papers on the subject at the last IAC.  It might prove useful for an Ariane 6 redesign (which is extremely unlikely if a hydrolox version flies). ESA (well CNES actually) on the other hand seems focused on hydrolox and solids.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: bolun on 11/10/2014 08:21 pm
To Win Over Germany, ESA Maps out How Ariane 6 Would Save Everyone Money

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42472to-win-over-germany-esa-maps-out-how-ariane-6-would-save-everyone-money

From Mr. Wörner's blog: http://www.dlr.de/blogs/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5896/9578_read-774/

Quote
... The preparations for the ESA Ministerial Council are unfortunately still not going in such a way that we can be sure that the decisions made in Luxembourg will be satisfactory. Very different visions are being presented by the various ESA member states, led by Germany and France, regarding both launchers and the question of the future of the International Space Station. It would surely not be reasonable to use horse trading as a basis for negotiations. Spaceflight is not suited to market trading. Rather, solutions must be found that combine and meet the various interests of the member states in the best possible way. In this regard, we have submitted proposals. In the coming weeks, we will see whether there will be jointly supported solutions, or whether the final Ministerial Council during the period of office of the current General Director, Jean-Jacques Dordain, will be a massive failure for ESA.

This addresses another subject – the selection of the next ESA Director General. In coordination with the German Federal Government, I have submitted my documents and so am entering the running. The profiles of the candidates still under discussion are very varied, and the selection will therefore be a decision on the future development prospects for ESA. At a time when the paradigm shift in spaceflight towards more commercialisation cannot be denied, the positioning of the agencies at the national and European level is a cause for particular tension.

Well, I wonder what is going to happen?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 11/11/2014 07:29 am
Interestingly, Airbus is working on methalox propulsion, there were several papers on the subject at the last IAC.  It might prove useful for an Ariane 6 redesign (which is extremely unlikely if a hydrolox version flies). ESA (well CNES actually) on the other hand seems focused on hydrolox and solids.

In fact Airbus has a 420kN methalox engine sitting on the P3.2 testbench in Lampoldshausen right now, ready to be tested!
If they could perform a successful test prior to the ministerial conference.... who knows....:-)

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/11/2014 09:08 am
Interestingly, Airbus is working on methalox propulsion, there were several papers on the subject at the last IAC.  It might prove useful for an Ariane 6 redesign (which is extremely unlikely if a hydrolox version flies). ESA (well CNES actually) on the other hand seems focused on hydrolox and solids.

In fact Airbus has a 420kN methalox engine sitting on the P3.2 testbench in Lampoldshausen right now, ready to be tested!
If they could perform a successful test prior to the ministerial conference.... who knows....:-)

Spacediver
Interesting! What engine was that again?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 11/11/2014 09:19 am
Interesting! What engine was that again?

It's the engine that was originaly intended for the suborbital spaceplane project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Space_and_Defence_SpacePlane

They are still working on that project, at least on the engine technology, at low pace.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 11/11/2014 10:07 am
And they are investigating reusable methalox launchers:
http://www.iafastro.net/download/congress/IAC-14/DVD/full/IAC-14/C4/5/manuscripts/IAC-14,C4,5,1,x24354.pdf (http://www.iafastro.net/download/congress/IAC-14/DVD/full/IAC-14/C4/5/manuscripts/IAC-14,C4,5,1,x24354.pdf)
http://www.iafastro.net/download/congress/IAC-14/DVD/full/IAC-14/C4/6/manuscripts/IAC-14,C4,6,3,x25497.pdf (http://www.iafastro.net/download/congress/IAC-14/DVD/full/IAC-14/C4/6/manuscripts/IAC-14,C4,6,3,x25497.pdf)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 11/11/2014 10:51 am
And they are investigating reusable methalox launchers:
http://www.iafastro.net/download/congress/IAC-14/DVD/full/IAC-14/C4/5/manuscripts/IAC-14,C4,5,1,x24354.pdf (http://www.iafastro.net/download/congress/IAC-14/DVD/full/IAC-14/C4/5/manuscripts/IAC-14,C4,5,1,x24354.pdf)
http://www.iafastro.net/download/congress/IAC-14/DVD/full/IAC-14/C4/6/manuscripts/IAC-14,C4,6,3,x25497.pdf (http://www.iafastro.net/download/congress/IAC-14/DVD/full/IAC-14/C4/6/manuscripts/IAC-14,C4,6,3,x25497.pdf)

I think the TRL of methalox in Europe is higher than most people, also at ESA, are willing to accept.

I am pushing for hydrocarbon propelled Ariane 6 since several years.
The last time I did this was at the DGLR congress in Augsburg in September, but most folks at DLR, ESA and, of course, CNES are very deprecative against hydrocarbons.
In fact a hydrocarbon propelled A6 has a high potential to meet the recurrent cost targets that were set by ESA while all those other concepts so far have no chance to meet these targets.

When I was at ESA headquarters in Paris some months ago I mentioned my thaughts about hydrocarbons and one of the ESA guys got quite angry, even enraged about this. But on the other hand I also know some ESA employees that are very open towards hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbon propulsion is just not "politically correct" within ESA at the moment...

I think it will take some more time to convince more ESA (and also industry) people that hydrocarbon propulsion is the way to go for Ariane.

Spacediver


   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/11/2014 11:00 am
Hydrocarbon propulsion is just not "politically correct" within ESA at the moment...

It seems to be a religion for you more than for anybody else.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 11/11/2014 11:20 am
It seems to be a religion for you more than for anybody else.

Incorrect!

Religion is based on assumptions without any evidence.

The fact that hydrocarbon propulsion is the only way for Europe to meet the cost targets set by ESA is based on several years of intensive studies and cost calculations.

Could we please go back to the topic now?
Discussions on the level of Oli's personal attacks are not really helpful!

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/11/2014 11:40 am
Could we please go back to the topic now?
Discussions on the level of Oli's personal attacks are not really helpful!

That's funny because you just personally attacked quite a few people who are not here to defend themselves, but yeah, lets go back to topic.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/11/2014 12:21 pm

In any case, if one would want to copy the Falcon 9 model 1:1.

This engine, in its 600kN version, for first and second stage topped with a third stage with Avio's LM10-MIRA methane expander engine would be rather nice.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/11/2014 01:28 pm
This engine, in its 600kN version, for first and second stage topped with a third stage with Avio's LM10-MIRA methane expander engine would be rather nice.

I didn't know MIRA used an expander cycle, nice! PPH makes more sense to me, in parallel with Vega upgrades such as Lyra. That might lead to a PCH configuration for Ariane later.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 11/12/2014 06:28 am
Apparently germany is not satisfied with ariane 6 and want to continue with ariane 5 me :
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20141112trib7276f27d2/ariane-6-c-est-nein-pour-l-allemagne.html (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20141112trib7276f27d2/ariane-6-c-est-nein-pour-l-allemagne.html)
It seems they just want to kill arianespace....
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: avollhar on 11/12/2014 07:01 am
It's not Germany which kills Arianespace but the decision takers trying to compete with SpaceX with a solid fuelled Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 11/12/2014 07:09 am
It seems they just want to kill arianespace....

Seems more to me they want to protect European spaceflight from doing a bold step into the swamp.
As long as the claimed payload capacity numbers and recurrent cost targets for A62/A64 are highly doubtful it seems better to me not to start an Ariane 6 phase A/B development.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/12/2014 07:43 am
Apparently germany is not satisfied with ariane 6 and want to continue with ariane 5 me :
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20141112trib7276f27d2/ariane-6-c-est-nein-pour-l-allemagne.html (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20141112trib7276f27d2/ariane-6-c-est-nein-pour-l-allemagne.html)
It seems they just want to kill arianespace....

Continuing with A5 ME seems to be completely nonsensical to me. Sat operators apparently don't need the capacity and neither does ESA. Maybe Germany just wants to protect its industry (in particular OHB)?

All that should matter at this point are the contracts proposed by the industry. If they commit to the schedule and prices (which I'm not sure of, I don't know the details of the proposal), why not do it?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Proponent on 11/12/2014 08:59 am
There's also the point that edkyle99 makes (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1277367#msg1277367):  rocket emissions themselves are only part of the picture.  The emissions associated with production and transportation of propellants may be significant too.  Lox-hydrogen comes out looking pretty good in the paper, but I suspect typical methods of producing hydrogen, which involve energy and hydrocarbon feed stocks, may not be very green.

Note that CO2 exhaust is irrelevant, so is black carbon etc. produced at ground level. What matters is black carbon and alumina released in the upper atmosphere. Hydrogen will be important for energy storage in a few decades, hence it will be less "dirty" by then. But again, unless you think demand for space flight will explode its irrelevant how dirty hydrogen production is (unless your factory is located in the stratosphere).


CO2 and other emissions at ground level are certainly outside the scope of the paper, which is about emissions from rocket launches.  In considering the larger question of which propellant combinations should be used, though, surely it's essential to consider the entire propellant cycle, from production through transportation to flight.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/12/2014 10:38 am
CO2 and other emissions at ground level are certainly outside the scope of the paper, which is about emissions from rocket launches.  In considering the larger question of which propellant combinations should be used, though, surely it's essential to consider the entire propellant cycle, from production through transportation to flight.

Not sure what you mean. According to the study the effect of CO2 emissions is irrelevant compared to that of black carbon, alumina. So even if your steam reforming is only 70% efficient, there's no way you can do worse with hydrogen than with hydrocarbons (in fact since you need less fuel in hydrogen rockets (higher isp) overall CO2 emissions will probably always be less).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/13/2014 09:26 am
Apparently germany is not satisfied with ariane 6 and want to continue with ariane 5 me :
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20141112trib7276f27d2/ariane-6-c-est-nein-pour-l-allemagne.html (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20141112trib7276f27d2/ariane-6-c-est-nein-pour-l-allemagne.html)
It seems they just want to kill arianespace....

Continuing with A5 ME seems to be completely nonsensical to me. Sat operators apparently don't need the capacity and neither does ESA. Maybe Germany just wants to protect its industry (in particular OHB)?

All that should matter at this point are the contracts proposed by the industry. If they commit to the schedule and prices (which I'm not sure of, I don't know the details of the proposal), why not do it?


Indeed the more information we get on Ariane 6, the more I see Ariane 5 ME as a complete waste of money.

Ariane 5 ME does nothing for ESA in the long run.  The raison d'être is largely to reduce subsidies, but we already have admissions that Ariane 5 ME won't achieve this because launch rate will drop due to competition.

On the other hand Ariane 6 ensures that the vast majority of european institutional payloads return to european systems thus supporting the industry, while giving the commercial side the flexibility it needs to remain competitive globally.

Ariane 5 ME is not cheap itself, so really why bother?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/13/2014 01:55 pm
Indeed the more information we get on Ariane 6, the more I see Ariane 5 ME as a complete waste of money.

Ariane 5 ME does nothing for ESA in the long run.  The raison d'être is largely to reduce subsidies, but we already have admissions that Ariane 5 ME won't achieve this because launch rate will drop due to competition.

On the other hand Ariane 6 ensures that the vast majority of european institutional payloads return to european systems thus supporting the industry, while giving the commercial side the flexibility it needs to remain competitive globally.

Ariane 5 ME is not cheap itself, so really why bother?
That's because Germany likes to get as many concessions as possible, from the French, before agreeing to the new direction for Ariane 6. That starts with foot-dragging.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/13/2014 07:23 pm
Interestingly, Airbus is working on methalox propulsion, there were several papers on the subject at the last IAC.  It might prove useful for an Ariane 6 redesign (which is extremely unlikely if a hydrolox version flies). ESA (well CNES actually) on the other hand seems focused on hydrolox and solids.

In fact Airbus has a 420kN methalox engine sitting on the P3.2 testbench in Lampoldshausen right now, ready to be tested!
If they could perform a successful test prior to the ministerial conference.... who knows....:-)

Spacediver
A 800kn version of this engine x7-9 would give them great LV. The theoretical methane F9 had an impressive performance.

The other plus is reusability would be an option.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 11/13/2014 07:42 pm
They are considering a 125t engine.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/13/2014 09:58 pm
They are considering a 125t engine.
That would equate to about 275klb or half thrust of BE4.
A they developing this in partnership with Japan?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/14/2014 09:23 pm
http://m.lesechos.fr/redirect_article.php?id=0203931475953&fw=1 (http://m.lesechos.fr/redirect_article.php?id=0203931475953&fw=1)

http://m.lesechos.fr/monde/ariane-6-paris-et-berlin-ont-trouve-un-compromis-0203935766702.htm (http://m.lesechos.fr/monde/ariane-6-paris-et-berlin-ont-trouve-un-compromis-0203935766702.htm)

Compromise was found yesterday in Cologne:
Arian 5 ME is dead. Ariane 6 will be built with verfication points in the process every two years. OHB has been guaranteed an important role in the solids of Ariane 6.

So, it seems like the horse trading and bartering finally payed off. About time they settled on Ariane 6 and dumped Ariane 5 ME. The ESA member states simply cannot afford to have both.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/15/2014 12:57 am

http://m.lesechos.fr/redirect_article.php?id=0203931475953&fw=1 (http://m.lesechos.fr/redirect_article.php?id=0203931475953&fw=1)

http://m.lesechos.fr/monde/ariane-6-paris-et-berlin-ont-trouve-un-compromis-0203935766702.htm (http://m.lesechos.fr/monde/ariane-6-paris-et-berlin-ont-trouve-un-compromis-0203935766702.htm)

Compromise was found yesterday in Cologne:
Arian 5 ME is dead. Ariane 6 will be built with verfication points in the process every two years. OHB has been guaranteed an important role in the solids of Ariane 6.

So, it seems like the horse trading and bartering finally payed off. About time they settled on Ariane 6 and dumped Ariane 5 ME. The ESA member states simply cannot afford to have both.
Technically, the ESA member states aren't willing to afford anything else. Their investment on LV wrt their government spending is less than a rounding error. But I digress.
It does seems like this is a jobs program. But I find it very interesting that they are already breaking the rule of not doing the geo return game that's so bad for recurring costs. I would also like to know if the insistence on the solids is to keep some track of the French nuclear program.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 11/15/2014 10:08 am
There are no alternatives to solids if you want a launch in 2020.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/15/2014 02:12 pm
There are no alternatives to solids if you want a launch in 2020.
I very much doubt that. Six years is plenty of time to develop liquid boosters. The trouble is that no-one is willing to pay for it. It's a money-thing, not a schedule-thing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Waz_Met_Jou on 11/15/2014 03:13 pm
There are no alternatives to solids if you want a launch in 2020.
I very much doubt that. Six years is plenty of time to develop liquid boosters. The trouble is that no-one is willing to pay for it. It's a money-thing, not a schedule-thing.
Besides, wasn't there an ESA study that showed that methane boosters were about 30% more expensive than solid boosters? Getting 11 tons to GTO with just two stages isn't easy and solids are a better choice for boosters than liquids are.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/15/2014 06:17 pm
The good news is that they have made a decision.
Bad news for ArianeSpace is that is not just F9 that Ariane 6 will be competing against but ULA's new LV.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Patchouli on 11/15/2014 07:54 pm

So, it seems like the horse trading and bartering finally payed off. About time they settled on Ariane 6 and dumped Ariane 5 ME. The ESA member states simply cannot afford to have both.

Technically they could afford to have both and to fund even more projects as their combined economies are comparable to the US but they simply are not willing to spend more.
In stable economic output minus the bubble stuff which can disappear over night it may even be larger.

If I think they should emulate Falcon 9 for Ariane 6 or modify Ariane 5 to be more like the Delta IV minus the aspects that make it expensive and fund some storta RLV for the long term.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/15/2014 08:37 pm
There are no alternatives to solids if you want a launch in 2020.
I very much doubt that. Six years is plenty of time to develop liquid boosters. The trouble is that no-one is willing to pay for it. It's a money-thing, not a schedule-thing.
Besides, wasn't there an ESA study that showed that methane boosters were about 30% more expensive than solid boosters? Getting 11 tons to GTO with just two stages isn't easy and solids are a better choice for boosters than liquids are.

Yes, I think people should look at early FLPP methane proposals. First stage with 340t propellant, 2x2650kn staged combustion engines, GLOW of 420t, delivering 5t into GTO. The A6 first stage has 150t propellant and one 1350kn gas generator engine. Yes hydrogen is more expensive and less dense, and I guess a 5t version with methane could be cheaper, but the 11t A6 is hard to beat assuming the boosters are as cheap as we think they are.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kaputnik on 11/16/2014 09:06 pm
Does the current plan involve solids which are monolithic and have no TVC? I could see how that would be pretty cheap.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Waz_Met_Jou on 11/16/2014 09:39 pm
Does the current plan involve solids which are monolithic and have no TVC? I could see how that would be pretty cheap.
They are monolithic and use composite casings, but they most likely will have TVC as the total thrust of Ariane 64 is probably similar to Ariane 5. That means four boosters with TVC for every commercial launch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 11/16/2014 10:24 pm
Besides, wasn't there an ESA study that showed that methane boosters were about 30% more expensive than solid boosters? Getting 11 tons to GTO with just two stages isn't easy and solids are a better choice for boosters than liquids are.

This is true if you compare solid boosters vs. methane boosters isolated from the launch vehicle.
But they are part of a launcher system.

The trick is to use methane propulsion in the first stage (with hydrolox in the upper stage) and getting completely rid of the boosters.
Of course you cannot reach 11 tons of payload but do we really need this payload capacity?

6 of the above mentioned 125t methalox engines in the first stage, together with a Vinci upper stage, could lift about 8tons to GTO which is absolutely enough for the foreseeable future.
For smaller payloads (4t) we can use the same launcher but with only 4 engines mounted to the first stage and 30% propellant offload.

Two stages to GTO without boosters is the way to cost reduction, and this is where hydrocarbon propulsion is optimal.

If we go the Ariane 6 way, the door is still open towards such a concept. The A6 first stage and the boosters can be replaced in the 2025 to 2030 time frame by the methalox stage (which would have the same diameter as the A6 core, currently planned with 4,6 m) while the upper stage can stay the same.

Spacediver

 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/17/2014 05:35 pm
And now confirmed by Germany that Ariane 5 ME is off the table. All balls now on Ariane 6.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42574germany-agrees-to-forgo-ariane-5-upgrade-in-favor-of-next-generation
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Waz_Met_Jou on 11/26/2014 04:16 pm
This is true if you compare solid boosters vs. methane boosters isolated from the launch vehicle.
But they are part of a launcher system.

The trick is to use methane propulsion in the first stage (with hydrolox in the upper stage) and getting completely rid of the boosters.
Of course you cannot reach 11 tons of payload but do we really need this payload capacity?

6 of the above mentioned 125t methalox engines in the first stage, together with a Vinci upper stage, could lift about 8tons to GTO which is absolutely enough for the foreseeable future.
For smaller payloads (4t) we can use the same launcher but with only 4 engines mounted to the first stage and 30% propellant offload.

Two stages to GTO without boosters is the way to cost reduction, and this is where hydrocarbon propulsion is optimal.

If we go the Ariane 6 way, the door is still open towards such a concept. The A6 first stage and the boosters can be replaced in the 2025 to 2030 time frame by the methalox stage (which would have the same diameter as the A6 core, currently planned with 4,6 m) while the upper stage can stay the same.

Spacediver
And are we absolutely, positively sure that such an 8 ton configuration is necessarily cheaper for individual satellites than an 11 ton dual launch configuration? Scaling up your rocket often really does help greatly to reduce the cost/kg, and a non-modular 8 ton configuration probably won't be able to dual launch most individual commercial payloads, but at the same time, it's far too much for most individual commercial payloads of 4 to 6 metric tons. 10 or more tons to GTO gives you a lot more flexibility when dual launching, and it almost certainly gives a lower cost/kg than a 5 or 6 ton launcher.

Now, this holds true mostly for expendable commercial launches. If we're aiming a rocket at ESA first, commercial second, the design you propose is probably cheaper for the European governments than one with solids, but that's not what ESA is aiming for.

I don't want to discredit what you found in the NELS study, but I don't believe that these findings hold true completely if you scale up your vehicle significantly and take dual launches into account.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/28/2014 12:17 pm
Heads up for all you folks: the Ariane 6 section of the CNES phototheque has been removed. This MIGHT indicate that new artist impressions, based on the 6.2 and 6.4 proposals, may be imminent. Particularly since the 2014 ESA Ministerial council is less than a week away.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/28/2014 12:23 pm
Interesting tidbit from the pre-council presser:

http://www.esa.int/For_Media/Press_Releases/Media_backgrounder_for_ESA_Council_at_Ministerial_Level (http://www.esa.int/For_Media/Press_Releases/Media_backgrounder_for_ESA_Council_at_Ministerial_Level)

Emphasis mine.

Quote from: ESA
In response to these rapid changes, the ESA Executive and European launcher industry have defined a modular Ariane 6 in two configurations to serve the medium and heavy launch segments as from 2020, and a Vega upgraded launch system (Vega C) to serve the small launch segment. Ariane 6 will profit from the best re-use of Ariane 5 Midterm Evolution results and investments and from the common use of a solid rocket motor (P120C) as both first stage of Vega C and strap-on booster for Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: zzabur on 12/01/2014 01:01 pm
BBC has a new article on Ariane 6
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30251863
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: lele on 12/01/2014 02:13 pm
Le Monde is quite optimistic about Ariane 6
http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/12/01/les-europeens-s-appretent-a-mettre-ariane-6-en-chantier_4532259_3234.html
(The article may be beyond a paywall)

Quote
Les Européens vont vers un accord historique. Après des mois de débats et de tensions, et sauf aléa de dernière minute, les vingt ministres en charge de l’espace des pays membres de l’Agence spatiale européenne (ESA) vont décider, mardi 2 décembre à Luxembourg, de lancer une nouvelle fusée, appelée Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: sanman on 12/01/2014 08:00 pm
I was reading the latest on Ariane 6:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/21271/20141201/esa-hoping-space-race-ariane-rocket.htm


(http://images.techtimes.com/data/images/full/27488/ariane-6.jpg?w=490)


No disrespect to what is obviously a very elegant and efficient rocket design, but is it wise to be running towards where the football is now, rather than running towards where it is going be?

Various observers are noting that with SpaceX on the verge of achieving reusability, that Ariane 6 could be at a severe disadvantage even while it's still on the drawing board.

Why isn't ESA trying to come up with a reusable rocket? Obviously they have the technical expertise to go for this.
So why aren't they doing this, in order to maintain a competitive edge against what is obviously a moving target?

Or is it possible that in spite of what we see on the drawing board today, that Ariane 6 will evolve over time like Falcon has?

Is it possible for ESA to embrace an evolutionary algorithm, without getting too focused on a particular morphological state?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 12/01/2014 08:09 pm
ESA does not have the engines for reusable rockets, and France in bent on keeping solids in future launch vehicles.
I bet that if SpaceX reflies a Falcon in 2016, a lot of european payloads will move to Falcon 9, including institutional ones eventually.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 12/01/2014 08:22 pm
I was reading the latest on Ariane 6:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/21271/20141201/esa-hoping-space-race-ariane-rocket.htm


(http://images.techtimes.com/data/images/full/27488/ariane-6.jpg?w=490)


No disrespect to what is obviously a very elegant and efficient rocket design, but is it wise to be running towards where the football is now, rather than running towards where it is going be?

Various observers are noting that with SpaceX on the verge of achieving reusability, that Ariane 6 could be at a severe disadvantage even while it's still on the drawing board.

Why isn't ESA trying to come up with a reusable rocket? Obviously they have the technical expertise to go for this.
So why aren't they doing this, in order to maintain a competitive edge against what is obviously a moving target?

Or is it possible that in spite of what we see on the drawing board today, that Ariane 6 will evolve over time like Falcon has?

Is it possible for ESA to embrace an evolutionary algorithm, without getting too focused on a particular morphological state?
That is the old project. The new project is a simplified Ariane 5 ME that replaces the two P243 with four P120 (that will be shared with Vega C or D).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: rcoppola on 12/01/2014 09:50 pm
I don't think an RLV would have fit into any proposal ESA member states could have agreed to. It would negatively impact development costs and time to market.

SpaceX can operate with an efficiency and risk tolerance that ESA and all its' member state interests would find difficult to achieve. I say that with regards to any number of Private Vs Public programs, so no disrespect intended.

I'm not sure how well this 2020 A6 answers their perceived SpaceX threat of 2014. By 2020, they would have introduced re-usablitily cost reductions into the market already by at least 2 - 3 years.

I wish them the best and this design seems like a decent political/technical - balance/compromise but they may want to speed things up a bit and keep their CAD software updated.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 12/02/2014 08:42 am
I was reading the latest on Ariane 6:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/21271/20141201/esa-hoping-space-race-ariane-rocket.htm


(http://images.techtimes.com/data/images/full/27488/ariane-6.jpg?w=490)


No disrespect to what is obviously a very elegant and efficient rocket design, but is it wise to be running towards where the football is now, rather than running towards where it is going be?

Various observers are noting that with SpaceX on the verge of achieving reusability, that Ariane 6 could be at a severe disadvantage even while it's still on the drawing board.

Why isn't ESA trying to come up with a reusable rocket? Obviously they have the technical expertise to go for this.
So why aren't they doing this, in order to maintain a competitive edge against what is obviously a moving target?

Or is it possible that in spite of what we see on the drawing board today, that Ariane 6 will evolve over time like Falcon has?

Is it possible for ESA to embrace an evolutionary algorithm, without getting too focused on a particular morphological state?
That is the old project. The new project is a simplified Ariane 5 ME that replaces the two P243 with four P120 (that will be shared with Vega C or D).

Everybody is currently using the old images because there is no image, graphic, drawing, video or whatever of the new configuration. The most important point here is that this is still the PPH and not the PHH design.

I had a call from a German television channel yesterday and the editor said that he found a nice ESA video of the new Ariane 6 - and I said "No - this must be the old one..."
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/02/2014 02:45 pm
NEW Ariane 6 images here:
 
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 12/02/2014 02:51 pm
NEW Ariane 6 images here:
 
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go)

According to these images the upper stage diameter would not be 5.4 m...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Waz_Met_Jou on 12/02/2014 02:53 pm
NEW Ariane 6 images here:
 
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go)
Jesus, that beast is huge!

Studies into evolution to start in June 2015, if I heard it correctly. Does this apply to possible evolutions of Ariane 6 as well?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 12/02/2014 03:28 pm
NEW Ariane 6 images here:
 
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go)

And the NEW video:
http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2014/12/Ariane_6
It is clearly visible that Vinci's nozzle is no longer to be deployed...

Also in HD: http://vimeo.com/113290058
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 12/02/2014 04:16 pm
Interesting Ariane 6 data by CNES (in French):
http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-fr/11283-ariane-6.php
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 12/02/2014 04:19 pm
NEW Ariane 6 images here:
 
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go)
Jesus, that beast is huge!


Yes, w/o the common bulkhead in the main stage and the non-deployable nozzle in the upper stage it's getting very high...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 12/02/2014 04:26 pm
NEW Ariane 6 images here:
 
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go)
Jesus, that beast is huge!


Yes, w/o the common bulkhead in the main stage and the non-deployable nozzle in the upper stage it's getting very high...

So they went from a common bulkhead on the Ariane 5 core to a non-common one on Ariane 6, even with a thinner core? (which should make common bulkhead easier)

In these images, it truly looks HUGE. Compare with the solid variant comparison image from a few months ago:
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tesla on 12/02/2014 04:33 pm
the first stage engine seems to be strangely covered. Maybe part of the engine part reuse program?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Silmfeanor on 12/02/2014 04:35 pm
the first stage engine seems to be strangely covered. Maybe part of the engine part reuse program?
I'd imagine it is to protect from radiative heating from the SRBs close to it
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Waz_Met_Jou on 12/02/2014 04:37 pm
Or it's just there to look nice on graphics when the design isn't fully finished.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 12/02/2014 04:37 pm
I created a size comparison from the new images and the old Ariane 5 ME/Ariane 6 image:
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 12/02/2014 04:53 pm
Or it's just there to look nice on graphics when the design isn't fully finished.

The booster nozzles are nearer to the Vulcain 2+ engine due to the 4.6 m diameter of the main stage - and in the A64 version you have four boosters.
Here's another graphic from CNES with transparent interstage and lower cover:
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tp1024 on 12/02/2014 05:27 pm
The pictures of the Ariane 6 do make me wonder: Why only 4 attachment points for solid boosters?

6 attachment points would add some mass to the core stage, but it would yield the possibility to use 2,3,4 or 6 boosters and be more flexible. Ariane 63 would have a payload of about 8t and, of course, Ariane 66 could put on the order of 13t into GTO.

So, what would be plausible reasons not to keep that option around, when it is cheapest to add (namely: on paper)?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zardar on 12/02/2014 05:37 pm
The pictures of the Ariane 6 do make me wonder: Why only 4 attachment points for solid boosters?

6 attachment points would add some mass to the core stage, but it would yield the possibility to use 2,3,4 or 6 boosters and be more flexible. Ariane 63 would have a payload of about 8t and, of course, Ariane 66 could put on the order of 13t into GTO.

So, what would be plausible reasons not to keep that option around, when it is cheapest to add (namely: on paper)?
Possibly engineering cost considerations, due too:
Too much thrust/stress on the core stage.
Too much heat on the core stage.
Too much heat/noise on the launch pad.
Too much vibrations with 6 solid boosters.
Launch pad can't support the 2+4, and the 6 option, since boosters+holes won't line up! (similar to angara 5 vs 7 issue)


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 12/02/2014 05:40 pm
Never mind 6 boosters 3 cores like Delta YAHOO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/02/2014 05:48 pm
Never mind 6 boosters 3 cores like Delta YAHOO.

Would barely get off the ground, need something beefier than vulcain.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mhlas7 on 12/02/2014 07:48 pm
How about no boosters. How much would that put into orbit and is there a market for that capacity?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 12/02/2014 08:18 pm
How about no boosters. How much would that put into orbit and is there a market for that capacity?

It won't get off the pad, so the market would be very limited.  ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 12/02/2014 09:00 pm
I created a size comparison from the new images and the old Ariane 5 ME/Ariane 6 image:

It'd be interesting to have an Ariane 4 for comparison as well. I've got models of A4 and A5 sitting side by side here, and I'd estimate the height of Ariane 62 to be very close to that of A4.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/02/2014 09:21 pm
Or it's just there to look nice on graphics when the design isn't fully finished.

The booster nozzles are nearer to the Vulcain 2+ engine due to the 4.6 m diameter of the main stage - and in the A64 version you have four boosters.

I think it might have something to do with aerodynamics, apparently the lack of skirt caused problems during A5 development. Read that a few months ago in an article but do not remember where exactly.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 12/02/2014 10:56 pm
So the decision is made now.

A5ME will be scrubbed close to CDR and the almost completely welded first article upper stage tank will find its way to some museum.

It will be interesting to see how far this Ariane 6 project will come before it's terminated or changed to another configuration. PDR? CDR?
Depends on when they recognize that it will never be able to meet these payload mass and cost targets.

Interesting times ahead :)

Spacediver

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/02/2014 11:01 pm
Never mind 6 boosters 3 cores like Delta YAHOO.

Would barely get off the ground, need something beefier than vulcain.

Wonder if a heavy tri-core version of the Ariane 6 with a pair of strapped-on P120 or P145 SRM on each core is feasible? Even if feasible, you will need a new launch pad/processing facility.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 12/02/2014 11:04 pm
the first stage engine seems to be strangely covered. Maybe part of the engine part reuse program?

The reason is that the axial booster loads will be introduced into the core at the bottom of the booster.
On the launch pad the launcher will stand on the core while the boosters are hanging on the side with no mechanical contact to the launch pad, a bit like the old Ariane 4 concept.

These two features require a somehow massive thrust structure at the bottom of the core, probably covering most of the Vulcain engine.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tp1024 on 12/02/2014 11:46 pm
The reason is that the axial booster loads will be introduced into the core at the bottom of the booster.
On the launch pad the launcher will stand on the core while the boosters are hanging on the side with no mechanical contact to the launch pad, a bit like the old Ariane 4 concept.

These two features require a somehow massive thrust structure at the bottom of the core, probably covering most of the Vulcain engine.

So, this sounds like having 6 boosters would be feasible with Ariane 6, except that it might need a beefier thrust structure, the sound emissions have to be reevaluated and the launchpad must be able to withstand all 6 of them.

Oh, and while I'm at it, an air-startable Vulcain would be great no matter what. (And I know that *this* wouldn't be done, because starting it on the ground is so much more convenient and reliable.)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/03/2014 02:31 am
Europe had a plan for a rocket that could beat Elon.  Now it doesn't. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 03:12 am

The pictures of the Ariane 6 do make me wonder: Why only 4 attachment points for solid boosters?

6 attachment points would add some mass to the core stage, but it would yield the possibility to use 2,3,4 or 6 boosters and be more flexible. Ariane 63 would have a payload of about 8t and, of course, Ariane 66 could put on the order of 13t into GTO.

So, what would be plausible reasons not to keep that option around, when it is cheapest to add (namely: on paper)?
What would you want to launch with such a beast? Adding fixed cost for nothing doesn't make much sense
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 03:13 am
Europe had a plan for a rocket that could beat Elon.  Now it doesn't. 

 - Ed Kyle
No it didn't. Europe had a plan to throw 4bn € out of the window and it still has.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 03:34 am

I don't think an RLV would have fit into any proposal ESA member states could have agreed to. It would negatively impact development costs and time to market.

Schedule: ok. But budget... Heck, they chose the most expensive option around: new pad, new integration building, new boosters, new core stage, new upper stage (throwing away part of the work already done for 5ME). And the result: an LV that has similar capability to A5 today even keeping dual launch capability around.

Ok the components might get a little bit cheaper, especially the boosters but with the development price tag this is even more wasteful than the old A6 proposal which was already breaking records...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: nimbostratus on 12/03/2014 06:11 am
How does Ariane 6 cut cost with the same vulcain and vinci engines?

And to realize reusability, maybe the SRBs can be recovered just as the Space Shuttle SRBs.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 08:04 am
So the decision is made now.

A5ME will be scrubbed close to CDR and the almost completely welded first article upper stage tank will find its way to some museum.
Hell no, once they're done with it, it will be scrapped. No one (not even museums) care for structures.


It will be interesting to see how far this Ariane 6 project will come before it's terminated or changed to another configuration. PDR? CDR?
Depends on when they recognize that it will never be able to meet these payload mass and cost targets.
Give or take two years. That's what it took last time.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 08:08 am
NEW Ariane 6 images here:
 
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go)
Jesus, that beast is huge!


Yes, w/o the common bulkhead in the main stage and the non-deployable nozzle in the upper stage it's getting very high...
Hey, they had to get the cost down. Common bulkhead and deployable nozzles are more expensive than the more conventional alternatives. In case of Vinci it has the added benefit of eliminating a failure mode.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2014 08:15 am
even more wasteful than the old A6 proposal which was already breaking records...

All proposals I remember were close to $4bn all things included. I suppose this one also covers part of Vega-C development. Whether its wasteful or not kind of depends on the exploitation costs. We have to wait until 2016 at least to get more definite information on that. Remember the alternative is the continued exploitation of A5 and Soyuz.

It will be interesting to see the comments of today's naysayers when A6 actually flies in 2020  :D
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 12/03/2014 08:33 am
NEW Ariane 6 images here:
 
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go)
Jesus, that beast is huge!


Yes, w/o the common bulkhead in the main stage and the non-deployable nozzle in the upper stage it's getting very high...
Hey, they had to get the cost down. Common bulkhead and deployable nozzles are more expensive than the more conventional alternatives. In case of Vinci it has the added benefit of eliminating a failure mode.

That's clear - but the deployment of the nozzle already worked really well last year...
Will be intersting to see how the new nozzle will look like!

The costs are also the reason for a new Vulcain 2 for Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 08:39 am
NEW Ariane 6 images here:
 
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=mc2014&img=1&SearchButton=Go)
Jesus, that beast is huge!

Not really. The current Ariane 5 ECA has less height than its predecessor (Ariane 4) ever had thanks to those huge SRB's.
This new Ariane 6 will have roughly 10 meters greater lenght than Ariane 4. Height will actually be almost the same as Falcon 9 v1.1. Diameter of the core (including fairing) will similar to Ariane 5.
So yeah, this Ariane 6 design is bigger than any previous Ariane versions. But calling it a huge beast is over-doing a bit.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 08:41 am
Europe had a plan for a rocket that could beat Elon.  Now it doesn't. 

 - Ed Kyle
Correct, and you have the sat operators to thank for that. They were the primary ones who refused to adopt the all-solid A6 design.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2014 08:50 am
Europe had a plan for a rocket that could beat Elon.  Now it doesn't. 

 - Ed Kyle
Correct, and you have the sat operators to thank for that. They were the primary ones who refused to adopt the all-solid A6 design.

If an all-solid A6 were so much cheaper for launching commercial sats sat operators would have loved it. Apparently it wasn't.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 12/03/2014 09:11 am
The costs are also the reason for a new Vulcain 2 for Ariane 6.

Hallo Ralf

According to my information, A6 will use the Vulcain 2 engine as is.
Currently no upgrade is planned.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tesla on 12/03/2014 09:14 am
There has never been less enthusiasm about the unveiling of a new heavy rocket than with this one. xD No disrespect. 

But the Ariane 6 and the japanese H2 rockets are very similar in appearance.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/03/2014 09:20 am
All-solid A6 had nothing to do with beating Elon, in fact it was precisely the opposite.  The whole economic case was built on having a much smaller launch industry that could survive on institutional launches alone. It was a capitulation, essentially pulling ESA out of the commercial market and leaving it to SpaceX.  France was playing a game of chicken with industry/operators, "Fine, you want Elon? You can have Elon." Remember also the business case for sat operators rely on having multiple reliable launch options. Naturally, as Oli mentions, both industry and operators didn't like the idea of that hence the much more ambitious A6 we have now.

Whatever you think of the current plans, all-solid A6 was a "straw man" proposal. It's a dead end that would have seen ESA become a significantly less ambitious organisation in future. No one wanted that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 09:25 am
Schedule: ok. But budget... Heck, they chose the most expensive option around: new pad, new integration building, new boosters, new core stage, new upper stage (throwing away part of the work already done for 5ME). And the result: an LV that has similar capability to A5 today even keeping dual launch capability around.

Ok the components might get a little bit cheaper, especially the boosters but with the development price tag this is even more wasteful than the old A6 proposal which was already breaking records...
Debunking some of the cr*p here:
- Regardless of any new Ariane version there was always gonna be a new launchpad. The fallacy that the Ariane 5 launchpad could be re-used has been exactly that from day 1: a fallacy.
- New integration building: no different from the switch from Ariane 1/2/3 to Ariane 4 and no different from the switch from A4 to A5. Goes with a new launchpad. Was always a given, regardless of what configuration of A6.
- New boosters: what's your point? The previous A6 proposal had new boosters as well. Difference this time is that development cost will be split between A6 and Vega C.
- New core stage: That's correct, but it's mostly structures. Propulsion is the big ticket and this is slightly more developed A5 legacy.
- New upper stage: What's your point? The previous A6 proposal had a new upper stage as well, differing both in diameter and lenght from the one being developed for Ariane 5 ME. The same start situation applies to this new A6 proposal.
- New upper stage (continued): Most of the work done for Ariane 5 ME was on the engine. That work is NOT lost for the new Ariane 6 proposal: the Vinci engine is still baselined, in a simpler version (fixed nozzle in stead of deployable). The prototype structure for Ariane 5 ME upper stage was never fit for use on Ariane 6 anyway, regardless of the previous proposal or the current.
- The fact that dual launch is back in the picture is thanks to the objections the comsat operators had against the previous Ariane 6 proposal. With it's limited configuration-range the previous A6 proposal was considered to be not flexible enough to fit a large payload-range. This issue has been addressed in the current A6 proposal resulting in the return of dual-launch. Difference with A5 this time is that single-launch mode is available as well. Much like was the case with Ariane 4.

If anything, this A6 proposal is basically what (IMO) Ariane 5 should have been back when the transition for A4 to A5 took place.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 09:27 am
Europe had a plan for a rocket that could beat Elon.  Now it doesn't. 

 - Ed Kyle
Correct, and you have the sat operators to thank for that. They were the primary ones who refused to adopt the all-solid A6 design.

If an all-solid A6 were so much cheaper for launching commercial sats sat operators would have loved it. Apparently it wasn't.

That was not the point. The comsat operators balked at the vehicle being all-solid and it's inherent config-inflexibility.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 09:34 am
C'mon, you know what my point is: the whole Ariane 6 thing is nothing but waste. They throw out 4bn € and they will end up with something no more competitive than A5 is today.
That "it's always b en the plan" is no argument against that, 4bn wasted are 4bn wasted.

What they should have done instead is something similar to the original 5ESC-B plan: just build a new upper stage for A5 now and wait until pressure is high enough to do something really revolutionary. Like having a prime contractor responsible for the whole thing and developing it in commercial terms, for example.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 09:37 am
Oh, and I completely agree that this is what A5 originally _should_ have been. But not 10bn € down the road, 25 years later.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 09:38 am
C'mon, you know what my point is: the whole Ariane 6 thing is nothing but waste. They throw out 4bn € and they will end up with something no more competitive than A5 is today.
That "it's always b en the plan" is no argument against that, 4bn wasted are 4bn wasted.

What they should have done instead is something similar to the original 5ESC-B plan: just build a new upper stage for A5 now and wait until pressure is high enough to do something really revolutionary. Like having a prime contractor responsible for the whole thing and developing it in commercial terms, for example.
Your premise is that investing in launch vehicles is a waste. What part of the ESA charter with respect to 'independent access to space' do you not understand? It's the one thing that is important to ESA member states in such a magnitude that they are willing to open their wallets for.
Added bonus is that it keeps a good number of high-tech jobs alive. Money well spent in the economies of the ESA member states regardless of the prime contractors being responsible for the whole thing, or not.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 09:42 am
Waste is never money well spent, how often technocrats in the government-dependent industries around the world keep re-iterating it,
And the alternative was not to lose independent access to space, how often you keep reiterating that, it's a bogus argument. You could well have left A5 running for a billion or so (probably even much less). Independent access given. Money saved. Lots of it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/03/2014 09:50 am
You could not have left A5 running, even with ME the projections ESA have made of the market show that as soon as by the end of this decade A5 launches will reduce to the point that even heavy subsidies would make it barely viable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 09:50 am
My premise is that investing in launch vehicles that add exactly nothing to your current capabilities for 4bn€ (if it even stays at that) is waste, yes.

I mean... seriously: does _anyone_ believe that this thing will be competitive in the commercial market in the 2020s? So how many flights will it do per year then? 3? 4? That's your "assured access".

Now how much do you save on these 3-4 flights compared to using A5? A hundred million per year? Even 200? Let's call it 200. This means you could keep flying A5 for 20 years for the money sunk with this activity. 30 years if you allow for interest.

And don't come back with "it's a different budget" or such nonsense. Money spent is money spent and money spent on something you don't get any profit from is waste.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 09:51 am
You could not have left A5 running, even with ME the projections ESA have made of the market show that as soon as by the end of this decade A5 launches will reduce to the point that even heavy subsidies would make it barely viable.

Show me the numbers. And add them up to 4bn. Then let's talk.
Until then this is all just FUD.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/03/2014 09:54 am
You could not have left A5 running, even with ME the projections ESA have made of the market show that as soon as by the end of this decade A5 launches will reduce to the point that even heavy subsidies would make it barely viable.

The reduction in subsidies they'll get from going from A5 to A6, if any, will be much less than the A6 development costs.  So, yes, they could absolutely have left A5 running and saved money overall, even though A5 will need increasing subsidies.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 09:55 am
Oh, and I completely agree that this is what A5 originally _should_ have been. But not 10bn € down the road, 25 years later.
Fully agree with you on that. But heck, we have Hermes to blame for that. A5 in it's current form and that mini-shuttle were joined at the hip. Hermes got canned and (unfortunately) A5 was at that time so far along in development that cancelling it would have cost as much as completing it. So, the latter option was chosen.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/03/2014 09:58 am
You could not have left A5 running, even with ME the projections ESA have made of the market show that as soon as by the end of this decade A5 launches will reduce to the point that even heavy subsidies would make it barely viable.

Show me the numbers. And add them up to 4bn. Then let's talk.
Until then this is all just FUD.

How about read the ESA letter to Germany further up the thread. There are other documents  regarding this but I'm currently at work.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 10:05 am
Oh, and I completely agree that this is what A5 originally _should_ have been. But not 10bn € down the road, 25 years later.
Fully agree with you on that. But heck, we have Hermes to blame for that. A5 in it's current form and that mini-shuttle were joined at the hip. Hermes got canned and (unfortunately) A5 was at that time so far along in development that cancelling it would have cost as much as completing it. So, the latter option was chosen.
Which brings us to the important point: never, never ever, rely on German space policy. It's as bad as it gets, they don't care for the outcome and change their mind radically every 5 years.

But the point is where to go from here. You can bet that in the mid '20s people will start complaining about the (then much higher than today) launch subsidies and start developing A7. Or scrap the whole program because hey, you've just spend billions on something not competitive.
Germany certainly will say that "assured access" can be bought in the US then, just as they did in the 70s.

Sat operators of course just want to keep their options - with Russia looking uncertain and only F9 1.1 currently a given in the US. They still need an alternative to SpeceX et al because everything surrounding those is still too uncertain. And they know Europe will probably keep subsidizing launch prices even with A6 so from their POV that's currently not a problem at all.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 10:14 am
How about read the ESA letter to Germany further up the thread. There are other documents  regarding this but I'm currently at work.

That's a joke, isn't it? That mentions savings of altogether of 470 million Euro - and that's the most aggressive case, if you assume they mean 50 million for two sats we only talk 295 million.
10% of the money you need to spend to achieve these "savings". Cool deal. Can I be the contractor?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2014 10:18 am
This means you could keep flying A5 for 20 years for the money sunk with this activity. 30 years if you allow for interest.

Meaning it would just pay off over the lifetime of A6. With the additional benefit of having a replacement for the Russian-made Soyuz (which will likely be needed at some point in the future anyway) and a new first stage for Vega-C.

That was not the point. The comsat operators balked at the vehicle being all-solid and it's inherent config-inflexibility.

I'd say the capacity of 6.5t to GTO was enough for almost all comsats. The config-inflexibility shouldn't be of interest for sat operators as long as the price is right. The 6.5t launcher might simply have been to costly for a single payload.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 10:21 am
This means you could keep flying A5 for 20 years for the money sunk with this activity. 30 years if you allow for interest.

Meaning it would just pay off over the lifetime of A6. With the additional benefit of having a replacement for the Russian-made Soyuz (which will likely be needed at some point in the future anyway) and a new first stage for Vega-C.

If you assume that A6 flights are free: sure.  Are they? Now that's quite a cool deal.
If they are not, you'd probably have to keep flying A6 for another 50-60 years to "break even".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2014 10:23 am
This means you could keep flying A5 for 20 years for the money sunk with this activity. 30 years if you allow for interest.

Meaning it would just pay off over the lifetime of A6. With the additional benefit of having a replacement for the Russian-made Soyuz (which will likely be needed at some point in the future anyway) and a new first stage for Vega-C.

If you assume that A6 flights are free: sure.  Are they? Now that's quite a cool deal.
If they are not, you'd probably have to keep flying A6 for another 50-60 years to "break even".

What? You assumed 200m in savings per year compared to A5.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 10:28 am
Oh, you are right, I was assuming only 100m of savings per flight so you are right. Not free. But still: we both know that 50% of that cost is probably fixed so at a flight rate of 3-4 per year A6 will not be that cheap (neither will A5).
And do you seriously assume that A6 will fly for 30 years without any further investment?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 10:33 am
But the real problem is something else: as I said above: the result of this whole activity will be that nobody is willing to invest another 5bn in 2020 to develop something actually competitive and since we all seem to agree that A6 will not be this leaves the European space program in a pretty dire state by then. I would not be surprised if the decision will the. Be to unwind the whole Ariane program at some point if a competitive commercial launch market is still around.

Saying that... Maybe that would not even be a bad decision by then, maybe it frees up some resources to do a commercial program in Europe as well, without excessive funding from a multilateral behemoth like ESA
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2014 10:39 am
And do you seriously assume that A6 will fly for 30 years without any further investment?

No but my point is that its not an obvious waste of money. It depends on a variety of factors and neither of us is qualified to make such a sweeping statement.

...we all seem to agree that A6 will not be..(competitive)

Speak for yourself.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/03/2014 10:51 am
How about read the ESA letter to Germany further up the thread. There are other documents  regarding this but I'm currently at work.

That's a joke, isn't it? That mentions savings of altogether of 470 million Euro - and that's the most aggressive case, if you assume they mean 50 million for two sats we only talk 295 million.
10% of the money you need to spend to achieve these "savings". Cool deal. Can I be the contractor?

I was referring to how it explains why A5 is dead regardless of what happens with A6. A5 will very soon become a massive financial drain to ESA, it needs to cut the cord soon.

The "savings" ESA is referring to in that document are largely related to future launch costs to ESA, that is not the sole reason for A6.

When Ariane 5 loses it's grip on the commercial market, as it will, the subsidies ESA will need to keep it afloat will be eye watering. It is already over 100m with over 50% market share. Forget ESA ever having any money left to develop any launcher, let alone a reusable one like you want.

The point of A6 is not about launch cost savings per se, it is about creating a financially sustainable industry, which A5 isn't.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 10:55 am
My premise is that investing in launch vehicles that add exactly nothing to your current capabilities for 4bn€ (if it even stays at that) is waste, yes.

I mean... seriously: does _anyone_ believe that this thing will be competitive in the commercial market in the 2020s? So how many flights will it do per year then? 3? 4? That's your "assured access".

Now how much do you save on these 3-4 flights compared to using A5? A hundred million per year? Even 200? Let's call it 200. This means you could keep flying A5 for 20 years for the money sunk with this activity. 30 years if you allow for interest.

And don't come back with "it's a different budget" or such nonsense. Money spent is money spent and money spent on something you don't get any profit from is waste.
Ariane was not supposed to have been competitive at all. Look at the history: it started as an institutional launcher, also capable of doing commercial launches. Thanks to some short-sighted Americans it was able to seize a very substantial size of the commercial launch market, almost by accident. By the time Challenger happened and EELV were developed the USA made another substantial mistake: they built the EELV's as expensive as possible, even more pricey than Ariane.
That situation lasted from the first half of the 1980's to the early 2000's. But fortunately for Ariane the next viable competitor (Proton) blew itself up just often enough to be labeled 'unreliable'. The scare-for-China thing next kept most customers comfortably in the Ariane zone.
But now times are finally changing thanks to a certain company from Hawthorne.
IMO the next few years Ariane will be reverted back to what it originally was: an institutional launcher for most part.
But regardless of that bleak view of the future the ESA member states still want independent assured access to space. That costs money, and heaps of it. Yesterday, the ESA member states committed to investing that money.
Don't agree with that? Then go vote for someone else.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 10:58 am
This means you could keep flying A5 for 20 years for the money sunk with this activity. 30 years if you allow for interest.

Meaning it would just pay off over the lifetime of A6. With the additional benefit of having a replacement for the Russian-made Soyuz (which will likely be needed at some point in the future anyway) and a new first stage for Vega-C.

If you assume that A6 flights are free: sure.  Are they? Now that's quite a cool deal.
If they are not, you'd probably have to keep flying A6 for another 50-60 years to "break even".
Wrong premise again. Governments are not interested in "break even". You're not dealing with a commercial company here. You're dealing with politicians. Terms like "loss", "profit" and/or "break even" don't apply to them.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 11:02 am
Oh, and I completely agree that this is what A5 originally _should_ have been. But not 10bn € down the road, 25 years later.
Fully agree with you on that. But heck, we have Hermes to blame for that. A5 in it's current form and that mini-shuttle were joined at the hip. Hermes got canned and (unfortunately) A5 was at that time so far along in development that cancelling it would have cost as much as completing it. So, the latter option was chosen.
Which brings us to the important point: never, never ever, rely on German space policy. It's as bad as it gets, they don't care for the outcome and change their mind radically every 5 years.
Carefull with such posts please. They tend to upset people. And mind you: Hermes was a French fiasco, regardless of whatever country was responsible for it's cancellation. France never should have rammed that shuttle down ESA's throat. Had the French been hell-bent on flying a shuttle they could have taken up the gauntlet and finished development on their own. But heck no, that was too expensive. So they pitched it to ESA. But that comes with the risk of ESA-induced cancellation, much like ESA cancelled Germany's moonlander.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 11:04 am
When Ariane 5 loses it's grip on the commercial market, as it will, the subsidies ESA will need to keep it afloat will be eye watering.
Everybody says that but I have NEVER seen any figures. Do you have any?
Quote
It is already over 100m with over 50% market share.
Per year. That's 2.5% of what they want to invest in A6. Less than the interest you've got to pay on that investment.
Quote
Forget ESA ever having any money left to develop any launcher, let alone a reusable one like you want.
Who says I want a reusable launcher? I've never said anything like that. I'm not convinced reuse will be the sole key to anything or even pay off dramatically.
But I'm pretty sure that another LV that looks pretty much the same as A5 just replacing the boosters (at a 4bn price tag) will not be it. And keeping most of the the ever-inefficient industry structure around.

Quote
The point of A6 is not about launch cost savings per se, it is about creating a financially sustainable industry, which A5 isn't.
And A6 is? Do you seriously believe that?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 11:06 am
Wrong premise again. Governments are not interested in "break even". You're not dealing with a commercial company here. You're dealing with politicians. Terms like "loss", "profit" and/or "break even" don't apply to them.

Sure. They just waste my precious tax money on a useless program. That was my point, wasn't it?
I think I should have the right to criticize that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2014 11:12 am
IMO the next few years Ariane will be reverted back to what it originally was: an institutional launcher for most part.

While I do not necessarily consider that a bad thing (although a smaller launcher would have been sufficient in that case), I don't think the industry is willing to give up on the commercial market. Its a lot more important for the European launch industry than for the American/Russian/Chinese.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 11:14 am
Carefull with such posts please. They tend to upset people.
Oops, yes. But I'm German, I'm just criticizing my own Government, think that's OK.

But to be fair: I think a lot of issues stem from the fact that Germany and France sometimes just compete a bit too much. I mean: competition is good, it generates new ideas and makes you rethink things. But if it gets institutionalized to a point where both sides do things just for the sake of being different from what the other side wants to do....
And they are pretty similar in this respect. But France's insisting, after all, was what brought us a European launcher program after Germany killed off the predecessor.

But right now all these national pet projects keep the overall result from making sense. That was the problem with the all-solid A6 and the problem with this proposal, too. Everyone pets their favorite part of the project and in the end you have what you get when you plug all these things together.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 11:17 am
While I do not necessarily consider that a bad thing (although a smaller launcher would have been sufficient in that case), I don't think the industry is willing to give up on the commercial market. Its a lot more important for the European launch industry than for the American/Russian/Chinese.
Well, but they just got written a 4bn cheque. Keeps them alive for a while. After that... well, who's still in his job by then....
And do they have any leverage? Has the industry ever spent significant amounts of their own money here? If they were really serious about that they would have all the opportunity to act.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 11:48 am
Wrong premise again. Governments are not interested in "break even". You're not dealing with a commercial company here. You're dealing with politicians. Terms like "loss", "profit" and/or "break even" don't apply to them.

Sure. They just waste my precious tax money on a useless program. That was my point, wasn't it?
I think I should have the right to criticize that.
You have every right to criticize it. But do not expect it to ever change.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 11:50 am
Carefull with such posts please. They tend to upset people.
Oops, yes. But I'm German, I'm just criticizing my own Government, think that's OK.

Point is that there are more folks from Germany on this forum. It's not safe to assume that all of them agree with you criticizing the German government.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/03/2014 11:59 am
Point is that there are more folks from Germany on this forum. It's not safe to assume that all of them agree with you criticizing the German government.

So it's fine to agree with it, but not fine to criticise it?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2014 12:14 pm
While I do not necessarily consider that a bad thing (although a smaller launcher would have been sufficient in that case), I don't think the industry is willing to give up on the commercial market. Its a lot more important for the European launch industry than for the American/Russian/Chinese.
Well, but they just got written a 4bn cheque.

Well guess what, without government money there would be no launcher industry in Europe and there would be no A5 successor of any kind. There would also be no Falcon, Antares, SLS, Atlas, Delta etc. I would argue that with A6 Europe gets launch capability for another 25 years relatively cheaply compared to other countries.

Wrong premise again. Governments are not interested in "break even". You're not dealing with a commercial company here. You're dealing with politicians. Terms like "loss", "profit" and/or "break even" don't apply to them.

No offense but that statement is just totally stupid.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 12:18 pm
Point is that there are more folks from Germany on this forum. It's not safe to assume that all of them agree with you criticizing the German government.

So it's fine to agree with it, but not fine to criticise it?
That's an assumption. That's not safe either. ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/03/2014 12:18 pm
Everybody says that but I have NEVER seen any figures. Do you have any?
Everybody says that because it's common sense. There won't be figures because it will be a commercial negotiation with Arianespace, but you only have to look at the scale of the industry to realise that if A5 is reduced to say 25% of the market that that is lot of money Arianespace will be losing.

What do you expect is going to happen? Arianespace will be launching far fewer commercial payloads due to already anticipated competition, that means far less money to cover the rest of the business.  It WILL seek increased subsidies from ESA to keep it afloat, and ESA is not in a position to say no.

Quote
Per year. That's 2.5% of what they want to invest in A6. Less than the interest you've got to pay on that investment.

You do realise the A6 cost covers a 10 year period don't you? It's not €3.8 billion per year...

But as I said above, logically that subsidy will increase.

Quote
Who says I want a reusable launcher? I've never said anything like that.

True, but you did say ESA should wait to fund something revolutionary, well in the launcher business there's not many options...

But my point is ESA can't wait.

Quote
And A6 is? Do you seriously believe that?
IF industry can pull off their promises then yes, A6 can compete commercially while importantly reducing the financial risk to ESA.

I'm not saying I love it, but It is the least worst option. And there are plenty of side benefits. it would be financially viable to end reliance on foreign launchers giving ESA more control over its programmes.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2014 12:20 pm
Wrong premise again. Governments are not interested in "break even". You're not dealing with a commercial company here. You're dealing with politicians. Terms like "loss", "profit" and/or "break even" don't apply to them.

No offense but that statement is just totally stupid.

You are entitled to your opinion. Does not mean that I agree with it.
It's only stupid to those who don't understand how politics works.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 12:31 pm
Quote
Who says I want a reusable launcher? I've never said anything like that.

True, but you did say ESA should wait to fund something revolutionary, well in the launcher business there's not many options...
Huh? SpaceX started with a totally different approach: simplifying the technology, reducing the number of stages, reducing the number of different components and so on. Streamlining the value chain (insourcing), streamlining operations,...
I believe all of that has a much bigger impact than reuse, if the latter will ever actually save money.

For Ariane, a first step would be to radically streamline the supplier structure. That has potentially more impact than any redesign but will only happen if politics either get out of the way or the situation is really desperate. That's what I meant with "radical" solutions.
The technology is there in Europe, industry has most of what it needs to develop a competitive launcher.

Quote
But my point is ESA can't wait.

Another one of these often-iterated statements. Why not? Because of another few 100mil. € they would otherwise lose? Better sink a few billion now instead of losing a few 100 mil on the way? C'mon. If waiting gives you a chance to save billions long term it would be pretty easy. It would actually be a sensible thing to do right now.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/03/2014 12:32 pm
woods is entirely right on that point, governments do not operate in the same way as businesses, particularly when it comes to investment. When investing government is largely interested in reducing overheads, recouping capital cost is not a driver. It's not like they have investors to keep happy...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/03/2014 12:36 pm
woods is entirely right on that point, governments do not operate in the same way as businesses, particularly when it comes to investment. When investing government is largely interested in reducing overheads, recouping capital cost is not a driver. It's not like they have investors to keep happy...

1. governments have a tendency for waste if not forced to act otherwise. Agreed. That was my criticism, indeed. You need to keep that criticism up or they will continue the waste. Because it's EASIER for politicians. It's always easier to collect just a little more taxes from everyone than to take away a whole program from some. Spending is easier than saving.

2. That overhead statement... nah, I've never, really never seen any government trying to reduce overhead (unless they really had to, e.g. due to being bankrupt).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2014 12:56 pm
woods is entirely right on that point, governments do not operate in the same way as businesses, particularly when it comes to investment. When investing government is largely interested in reducing overheads, recouping capital cost is not a driver. It's not like they have investors to keep happy...

Governments must (or at least should, and often do) make sure their investments make economic sense as well. There's obviously a lot more uncertainty involved because the impact on the economy as a whole must be taken into account as well as non-monetary benefits/costs. Capital costs are lower because government bonds are a very safe investment.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 12/03/2014 02:41 pm
Before mods realize this thread is going into a really poor discussion, I would like to point some interesting technical details (assuming the renders are accurate):
1) They appear to be using same tooling for core and upper stage.
2) The construction seems similar without common bulkhead, with common tooling, external downcomers and similar interstages.
3) They traded performance for cost and risk. Exemplary cases are the longer interstage with elimination of the nozzle extender mechanism and the thrust structure on the bottom of the core.
It would appear that everything could use a single factory with common tooling and processes. That should reduce costs. I still don't understand the diameter reduction, save for two possible optimizations:
a) enabling more potential locations for factories (due to more logical diameter for read transport), or;
b) maximizing upper stage performance while keeping common tooling. Since you already have the interstage length limited by the fixed nozzle length, and the tanks dome diameters put a limit on the separation, if you go too wide, your LOX tank on the upper stage eventually needs to be narrower than the LH2. It seems pretty thin in the render.
Overall, it does seems to have a lot of potential for cost reductions and the trade might have been core mass that will affect 62 performance (but probably enable 64 dual launch).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: quanthasaquality on 12/03/2014 03:17 pm
I originally did not favor the PPH, but this is not a commercial rocket, it is a European government rocket. The European governments can force their satellites to be a certain mass, even if it produces a suboptimal satellite. Hell, they could force a standard European satellite bus, to be launched on a standard European rocket. Just like GSM.

Hell, America could kill off the EELVs, and have competition between the Long March 5, Angara 5, Falcon Heavy, and Ariane 6 for launching its big spy satellites (provided a minor shrink). Maybe the H-3 heavy will be powerful enough.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 12/03/2014 03:20 pm
I love the new plans simply because it leaves scope for upgrades .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: sanman on 12/03/2014 03:42 pm
Is there any possibility that Europe will simply throw all its weight into something else like Skylon, backing it as a dark horse candidate to mount a competitive challenge to SpaceX, and that Ariane6 would simply be a placeholder in the meantime?

I find it hard to believe that ESA will allow themselves to just gently fall by the wayside.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 12/03/2014 04:19 pm
Money Skylon would need a far bigger market .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tp1024 on 12/03/2014 04:45 pm
I originally did not favor the PPH, but this is not a commercial rocket, it is a European government rocket.

Well, there will be a PPM, if you will, in the shape of the Vega C once the methane powered upper stage is flying. However, Ariane 6 PHH is conservative and is going to work. It's much more predictable. That's a big plus for politicians. Replacing it with PPH is much more risky from that point of view, especially since it hasn't really been done before at that scale. A big minus for politicians.

On the other hand, Vega certainly has the potential to be upgraded with more boosters and gradually grow up to be what the Ariane 6 PPH was to supposed to deliver. IF Vega proves to be cheaper and the Ariane 6 (PHH) more expensive than expected, there would be an easy and politically palatable pathway towards that (given that most components are already in production and well proven, by that point).

Vega could evolve in a number of ways. One is adding a zeroth stage by putting two P120 parallel to the first. The two P120 would have enough thrust to lift themselves and the central stack. The central P120 could have a bigger nozzle and higher ISP as well (Let's call it P120v). In my opinion, this is very likely to happen in the next couple of years, because such a rocket could replace Soyuz.

Of course, you could go much bigger. Consider parallel staging with a big liquid (methane/hydrogen) stage on top and up to seven P120 below it. It would be a 4-stage rocket. Four P120 would have 1380tons-force of thrust at liftoff (seven P120s would mass about 1000tons). Two P120v would be the second stage and another P120v in the center would serve as the third stage.

Whatever is on top of that could have a mass of about 100tons, having a delta-v (minus losses) of 5.9km/s. Assuming losses of 1.7km/s, this would give you a LEO payload of about 35 tons and GTO payload of about 14-15tons almost regardless of fuel. (Assuming that a methane stage has a mass fraction of about 5% and hydrogen a bit more than 10%.)

The rocket would certainly be helpful in scraping pies from the sky.  ::)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 12/03/2014 04:55 pm
I'm just wondering. Why is there a possibility to make it 70 meters tall, while the ME needed to be a frankenstein because there was no space in the budget to make a taller VEB? How good could the ME have been if they just went with a taller VEB from the start. But i guess its the french that decides what happens at csg.

Also everybody should bear in mind that government programs exist to support private undertakings. One should not underestimate the savings, and the importance of them, the european satellite operators will enjoy through lauching on A6 vs A5.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 12/03/2014 05:10 pm
Now I'm wondering about the pad flow. Solid boosters require to be integrated vertically, so will payloads, apparently. For Ariane 5, the launch cadence was limited by the time taken in the integration building. In fact, Ariane 5 has a vehicle integration building and a payload integration building. IIRC, they would need a second paylaod integration building to be able to launch seven and more times per year. It would allow for special launches (like ATV), not to hold the whole flow.
Now, how could they do this fast and cheap? One solution could be to use a dual pad system, with a mobile tower for vertical integration of the whole stack and payload. Or, you could add an Horizontal Integration Facility where the core and upper stage would be integrated (and may be some payloads), with booster integration (and some payloads) at the pad, just like Delta IV. Any ideas on which would be the cheapest alternative that would fit within the development budget?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 12/03/2014 08:05 pm
Money Skylon would need a far bigger market .

Unsupportable statement. Economic analysis done on the REL thread shows this is to be an incorrect fallacy.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 12/03/2014 08:25 pm
Money Skylon would need a far bigger market .

Unsupportable statement. Economic analysis done on the REL thread shows this is to be an incorrect fallacy.

Not for 5 launches a year guaranteed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: rcoppola on 12/03/2014 09:15 pm
I don't know. After reading and thinking more about them, seems like a good move. Common tooling and components as have been mentioned.  Nice mix of heritage and new. A nice industrial base compromise. And 4Billion for associated development, launch infrastructure resulting in two launch classes doesn't sound far off in the grand scheme of things.

As for future competitiveness, seems like with this design there are a number of paths for future upgrades, efficiencies, etc. Solids could have upgraded propellant mixtures, lighter casings etc. Core and 2nd stage engines could have part, weight reductions increase T/W etc. Stage extensions etc. Maybe even a future version where they put some legs, Grid Fins and a new deep throttling - reusable engine for future core returns. (Ok that's a stretch)
Just my 1.5 cents worth of positive thoughts.

On another note, how well do we think this will compete against the Modular Angara?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 12/03/2014 10:21 pm
Angara will be launching from a 63deg latitude. If Ariane 6 can't compete from a 5deg latitude in the GTO market, they are in trouble,
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 12/04/2014 04:39 am

Angara will be launching from a 63deg latitude. If Ariane 6 can't compete from a 5deg latitude in the GTO market, they are in trouble,

Price is not directly linked to latitude.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/04/2014 09:47 am
Money Skylon would need a far bigger market .

Unsupportable statement. Economic analysis done on the REL thread shows this is to be an incorrect fallacy.

The REL thread shows no such thing.  The current launch rate for A5 could never pay enough to justify even the optimistic development cost numbers from REL.  REL's own economic analysis claims a market for 30 Skylons.  At current A5 launch rates, each of those 30 would fly only once every several years.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/04/2014 10:05 am
Money Skylon would need a far bigger market .

Unsupportable statement. Economic analysis done on the REL thread shows this is to be an incorrect fallacy.

The REL thread shows no such thing.  The current launch rate for A5 could never pay enough to justify even the optimistic development cost numbers from REL.  REL's own economic analysis claims a market for 30 Skylons.  At current A5 launch rates, each of those 30 would fly only once every several years.

REL's own economic analysis is completely unrealistic. But not any different from any other major launch vehicle provider. They all provide hugely over-optimistic future-outlooks to 'sell'  the vehicle for government funding.

The numbers from industry with regards to Ariane 6 are no exception. It will be much more expensive than now being advertised.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 12/04/2014 05:22 pm


Angara will be launching from a 63deg latitude. If Ariane 6 can't compete from a 5deg latitude in the GTO market, they are in trouble,

Price is not directly linked to latitude.
Value to GTO is. Angara from Baikonour or Voitochny will have better performance and thus be able to compete with the most expensive payloads. I seem to recall that A5/Briz-M from Plesetsk is able to do 5 or less tonnes. H2 from Voitochny something close to 8, I believe.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/05/2014 06:37 am
I'm just wondering. Why is there a possibility to make it 70 meters tall, while the ME needed to be a frankenstein because there was no space in the budget to make a taller VEB? How good could the ME have been if they just went with a taller VEB from the start. But i guess its the french that decides what happens at csg.

[...]

ME was supposed to be integrated in the existing integration buildings ("BIL" and "BAF") and phased in during "nominal" operation of A5 ECA. Raising the BAF-building and the door was considered infeasible without impacting the exploitation of A5ECA. A new building was considered too expensive.

In contrast, with A6 there is money allocated for a new launch complex with limited reuse of A5 facilities.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/05/2014 06:48 am
Now I'm wondering about the pad flow. Solid boosters require to be integrated vertically, so will payloads, apparently. For Ariane 5, the launch cadence was limited by the time taken in the integration building. In fact, Ariane 5 has a vehicle integration building and a payload integration building. IIRC, they would need a second paylaod integration building to be able to launch seven and more times per year. It would allow for special launches (like ATV), not to hold the whole flow.
Now, how could they do this fast and cheap? One solution could be to use a dual pad system, with a mobile tower for vertical integration of the whole stack and payload. Or, you could add an Horizontal Integration Facility where the core and upper stage would be integrated (and may be some payloads), with booster integration (and some payloads) at the pad, just like Delta IV. Any ideas on which would be the cheapest alternative that would fit within the development budget?

Vertical payload integration is - at best - only required for special payloads. Most if not all payloads will be happily integrated either vertical or horizontal. Horizontal is "standard" in Russia, but also with a number of US-launchers (e.g. Falcon). Vertical integration of payloads on Soyuz in Kourou was only chosen to make last minute swaps of (small to medium) GTO-S/C from Soyuz to Ariane or the other way around feasible - something which most likely will never happen as GTO-missions on Soyuz from Kourou are not planned and are neither likely to materialize due to the relative lack of small to medium GTO-S/C in the Arianespace manifest.

A single launch pad is planned for Ariane 6. The current set-up foresees two zones: a launcher integration zone (potentially horizontal integration) and a final assembly step (payloads + boosters) at the pad with the help of a mobile gantry. This set-up is assumed to be compatible with the nominal launch rate of 11 launches per year.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 12/05/2014 04:22 pm


Angara will be launching from a 63deg latitude. If Ariane 6 can't compete from a 5deg latitude in the GTO market, they are in trouble,

Price is not directly linked to latitude.
Value to GTO is. Angara from Baikonour or Voitochny will have better performance and thus be able to compete with the most expensive payloads. I seem to recall that A5/Briz-M from Plesetsk is able to do 5 or less tonnes. H2 from Voitochny something close to 8, I believe.

Again, that "value to GTO" comparison only applies to the same vehicle launched from two launch sites. And since Angara won't launch from Kourou, and A6 won't launch from Russia, the latitude link to launch value is questionable at best. Of all the factors that determine launch cost, latitude is waaay down the list.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 12/05/2014 04:52 pm


Angara will be launching from a 63deg latitude. If Ariane 6 can't compete from a 5deg latitude in the GTO market, they are in trouble,

Price is not directly linked to latitude.
Value to GTO is. Angara from Baikonour or Voitochny will have better performance and thus be able to compete with the most expensive payloads. I seem to recall that A5/Briz-M from Plesetsk is able to do 5 or less tonnes. H2 from Voitochny something close to 8, I believe.

Again, that "value to GTO" comparison only applies to the same vehicle launched from two launch sites. And since Angara won't launch from Kourou, and A6 won't launch from Russia, the latitude link to launch value is questionable at best. Of all the factors that determine launch cost, latitude is waaay down the list.
Angara won't fly from Kourou, but it will fly from either Baikonour or Vostochniy. Those 13deg of difference do help them a bit. Angara will get 5.4 metric tons to GTO (1,500m/s) from the Plesetsk launch site. I think it will get around one extra tonne from Vostochniy with Birz-M. And if they implement hydrogen upper stage on Vostochniy they could get to 8+. This is critical to compete on the dual launch payload.
Current dual Express-1000 launches from Proton, for example, would be quite constrained to fit into the A5 5.4 tonnes of payload. And both Boeing 702SP and Orbital Star3 buses are designed for dual launch, too.
Let me put the ILS numbers for comparison:

Performance (tonnes)ProtonAngara 5 PlesetskAngara 5 Vostochniy
GTO (Briz-M)6.355.46.4
GTO (cryogenic)N/A6.68.1
GSO (Briz-M)3.32.83.4
GSO (cryogenic)N/A4.04.3

As you can see, with Briz-M from  Plesetsk, Angara is quite short of Proton-M performance. Since the H2 upper stage is even more pie in the sky than the Vostochniy pad, I would say that from Plesetsk Angara 5 won't be competitive. It's squarely in the middle between Falcon 9 v1.1 and Ariane 62 in performance. And I doubt it will be able to match F9 price or Araine 6 64 on dual launch config. I see it more like a Russian launcher for Russian payloads, for now.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 12/06/2014 04:34 pm
Upon reading more about proposed plans I can see that 500 KG has been allocated for deorbiting the upper stage and they are thinking of using a solid rocket if restarting the Vinci proved too troublesome.

I might suggest that Smart 1 weighed 367 kg and if a ion powered tug based on the same design with 2 ion engines( one on top and one the base) and bigger solar panels would be able to deorbit the upper stage and go deorbit one or two more upper stages or satellites  .

At 5 to 12 launches a year this would make a large dent in the orbital debris population .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/07/2014 07:01 pm
Upon reading more about proposed plans I can see that 500 KG has been allocated for deorbiting the upper stage and they are thinking of using a solid rocket if restarting the Vinci proved too troublesome.

I might suggest that Smart 1 weighed 367 kg and if a ion powered tug based on the same design with 2 ion engines( one on top and one the base) and bigger solar panels would be able to deorbit the upper stage and go deorbit one or two more upper stages or satellites  .

At 5 to 12 launches a year this would make a large dent in the orbital debris population .
- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.
- Your suggestion for upper stage de-orbit is a non-starter for the complexity involved, not to mention the mass penalty.
- Large dent? Get real. There are tens-of-thousands of pieces of orbital debris. The twelve upper stages not being there is like a drop in the ocean.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 12/07/2014 08:39 pm
Upon reading more about proposed plans I can see that 500 KG has been allocated for deorbiting the upper stage and they are thinking of using a solid rocket if restarting the Vinci proved too troublesome.

I might suggest that Smart 1 weighed 367 kg and if a ion powered tug based on the same design with 2 ion engines( one on top and one the base) and bigger solar panels would be able to deorbit the upper stage and go deorbit one or two more upper stages or satellites  .

At 5 to 12 launches a year this would make a large dent in the orbital debris population .
- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.
- Your suggestion for upper stage de-orbit is a non-starter for the complexity involved, not to mention the mass penalty.
- Large dent? Get real. There are tens-of-thousands of pieces of orbital debris. The twelve upper stages not being there is like a drop in the ocean.


I said that a small ion engined tug would be able to deorbit 15 to 36 large pieces (5 to 12 launches per year).
After a few years this would be a small army cleaning up the earth orbits .
As for complexity and mass penalty how much would a mass produced ion tug cost and weigh ?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/08/2014 11:50 am
Upon reading more about proposed plans I can see that 500 KG has been allocated for deorbiting the upper stage and they are thinking of using a solid rocket if restarting the Vinci proved too troublesome.

I might suggest that Smart 1 weighed 367 kg and if a ion powered tug based on the same design with 2 ion engines( one on top and one the base) and bigger solar panels would be able to deorbit the upper stage and go deorbit one or two more upper stages or satellites  .

At 5 to 12 launches a year this would make a large dent in the orbital debris population .
- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.

Using the restartable Vinci is an option, though it comes at a cost. Thermal Re-Conditioning (Chill-Down) takes a noticeable amount of fuel. Futhermore, nominal thrust (180 kN) is way more than needed for a de-orbit burn, and reduced thrust needs additional qualification effort. Restartability was driven by certain target orbits, not by de-orbit requirements.
Vinci might end up as the retained option for de-orbit, but this is not a straight-forward choice!

Quote
- Your suggestion for upper stage de-orbit is a non-starter for the complexity involved, not to mention the mass penalty.
- Large dent? Get real. There are tens-of-thousands of pieces of orbital debris. The twelve upper stages not being there is like a drop in the ocean.

Agreed, that the de-orbited upper stages are only your litteral drop in the ocean. However, de-orbit will be mandatory for new European Launch Systems to make sure that the spent stages are real drops in the ocean and do not fall on land. The extremely small, but non-neglibile risk of casualties on ground due to an uncontrolled reentry of a spent upper stage is no longer acceptable according to the French Space Operations Act.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/08/2014 12:44 pm
Upon reading more about proposed plans I can see that 500 KG has been allocated for deorbiting the upper stage and they are thinking of using a solid rocket if restarting the Vinci proved too troublesome.

I might suggest that Smart 1 weighed 367 kg and if a ion powered tug based on the same design with 2 ion engines( one on top and one the base) and bigger solar panels would be able to deorbit the upper stage and go deorbit one or two more upper stages or satellites  .

At 5 to 12 launches a year this would make a large dent in the orbital debris population .
- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.

Using the restartable Vinci is an option, though it comes at a cost. Thermal Re-Conditioning (Chill-Down) takes a noticeable amount of fuel. Futhermore, nominal thrust (180 kN) is way more than needed for a de-orbit burn, and reduced thrust needs additional qualification effort. Restartability was driven by certain target orbits, not by de-orbit requirements.
Vinci might end up as the retained option for de-orbit, but this is not a straight-forward choice!
I'm well aware of that. De-orbit by means of a small solid is neither.
Folks are looking into de-orbiting the stage by not doing a full-fledged firing of Vinci, but a semi-firing; an 'engine-burp'. Have you read up on that? If not, I suggest you do. Vinci can be used much more creatively for end-of-life purposes than you suggest.


- Your suggestion for upper stage de-orbit is a non-starter for the complexity involved, not to mention the mass penalty.
- Large dent? Get real. There are tens-of-thousands of pieces of orbital debris. The twelve upper stages not being there is like a drop in the ocean.

Agreed, that the de-orbited upper stages are only your litteral drop in the ocean. However, de-orbit will be mandatory for new European Launch Systems to make sure that the spent stages are real drops in the ocean and do not fall on land. The extremely small, but non-neglibile risk of casualties on ground due to an uncontrolled reentry of a spent upper stage is no longer acceptable according to the French Space Operations Act.
That was not my point. I very well understand why the upper stages need to be de-orbited in a controlled fashion. I've been aware of that French piece of legislation for quite some time.
My point was the 'large dent' remark by floss. Removing the upper stages is not a large dent. It's a very small dent. My beef is with floss exaggerating, as he often does. He is well known for trolling threads with unsubstantiated & exaggerated scenarios and 'ideas'.
One example is his 'idea' to de-orbit the stage by means of an ion-drive and solar arrays. The required hardware and technology, not to mention the additional launch to get this de-orbit-tug in orbit, make the idea a non-starter from a financial perspective. A solid motor attached to the A6 upper stage, or the re-ignition of Vinci, are economics-wise much more attractive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/08/2014 01:28 pm
Upon reading more about proposed plans I can see that 500 KG has been allocated for deorbiting the upper stage and they are thinking of using a solid rocket if restarting the Vinci proved too troublesome.

I might suggest that Smart 1 weighed 367 kg and if a ion powered tug based on the same design with 2 ion engines( one on top and one the base) and bigger solar panels would be able to deorbit the upper stage and go deorbit one or two more upper stages or satellites  .

At 5 to 12 launches a year this would make a large dent in the orbital debris population .
- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.
- Your suggestion for upper stage de-orbit is a non-starter for the complexity involved, not to mention the mass penalty.
- Large dent? Get real. There are tens-of-thousands of pieces of orbital debris. The twelve upper stages not being there is like a drop in the ocean.


I said that a small ion engined tug would be able to deorbit 15 to 36 large pieces (5 to 12 launches per year).
After a few years this would be a small army cleaning up the earth orbits .
As for complexity and mass penalty how much would a mass produced ion tug cost and weigh ?


Where is the technology?
A de-orbit tug doesn't exist. It will be expensive to develop. It will be expensive to use. I know, because I've read up on the numbers of previous attempts to develop (almost) exactly what you propose.

For example, once upon a time there was something called ConeXpress. It was originally developed as an orbital life extension tug, but was later pitched as an orbital debris de-orbiter as well. Full development, up to the point of having flying hardware, was projected to be in the order of 350 million Euro's (in 2006). Individual tugs/de-orbiter units cost 75 million Euro's each.
The prohibitive cost resulted in this tug going nowhere and the program was canned. A next attempt was made by some other companies. They offered something based on Smart-1. Again, that went nowhere. Again due to economics.
You see, why spend 75 million Euro's on a tug/de-orbit unit when a 1 million Euro's small solid rocket motor, attached to the A6 upper stage, can do the job for you?
Even better: why spend 1 million Euro's on a small solid rocket motor when using the engine already present (Vinci) will do the job for you even cheaper?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 12/08/2014 08:58 pm
Upon reading more about proposed plans I can see that 500 KG has been allocated for deorbiting the upper stage and they are thinking of using a solid rocket if restarting the Vinci proved too troublesome.

I might suggest that Smart 1 weighed 367 kg and if a ion powered tug based on the same design with 2 ion engines( one on top and one the base) and bigger solar panels would be able to deorbit the upper stage and go deorbit one or two more upper stages or satellites  .

At 5 to 12 launches a year this would make a large dent in the orbital debris population .
- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.
- Your suggestion for upper stage de-orbit is a non-starter for the complexity involved, not to mention the mass penalty.
- Large dent? Get real. There are tens-of-thousands of pieces of orbital debris. The twelve upper stages not being there is like a drop in the ocean.


I said that a small ion engined tug would be able to deorbit 15 to 36 large pieces (5 to 12 launches per year).
After a few years this would be a small army cleaning up the earth orbits .
As for complexity and mass penalty how much would a mass produced ion tug cost and weigh ?


Where is the technology?
A de-orbit tug doesn't exist. It will be expensive to develop. It will be expensive to use. I know, because I've read up on the numbers of previous attempts to develop (almost) exactly what you propose.

For example, once upon a time there was something called ConeXpress. It was originally developed as an orbital life extension tug, but was later pitched as an orbital debris de-orbiter as well. Full development, up to the point of having flying hardware, was projected to be in the order of 350 million Euro's (in 2006). Individual tugs/de-orbiter units cost 75 million Euro's each.
The prohibitive cost resulted in this tug going nowhere and the program was canned. A next attempt was made by some other companies. They offered something based on Smart-1. Again, that went nowhere. Again due to economics.
You see, why spend 75 million Euro's on a tug/de-orbit unit when a 1 million Euro's small solid rocket motor, attached to the A6 upper stage, can do the job for you?
Even better: why spend 1 million Euro's on a small solid rocket motor when using the engine already present (Vinci) will do the job for you even cheaper?

I am fully in agreement with you I only proposed an Ion tug because I was shocked that they were thinking of a solid .

Having seen Cone express cut and smart express failure  I figure that a tug will have to be part of a launcher because many would be needed.

Ironically 5 TO 12 small satellites a year would be a massive jobs opportunity for any disadvantaged area.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/08/2014 09:56 pm
Ironically 5 TO 12 small satellites a year would be a massive jobs opportunity for any disadvantaged area.

If an area has the highly skilled labor needed to build satellites and the infrastructure, lack of corruption, lack of onerous regulation, etc. needed to make a satellite building operation financially viable, it's unlikely to be disadvantaged.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 12/10/2014 06:39 pm
Tweets by Peter de Selding (Spacenews Europe reporter):
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/542613614851784704 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/542613614851784704)
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/542612197969756160 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/542612197969756160)

Quote
What's Germany get for its 23% stake in ESA's P120 Vega/Ariane 6 solid rocket stage? An Augsburg (MT Aerospace) P120 production line.

Quote
Germany OK for funding 7% of Vega & 23% of Vega/Ariane 6 P120 solid booster stage means Italy & Germany to share P120 production of ~ 25/yr.

So much for France wanting to protect its solids industry...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/10/2014 06:41 pm
Are these still going to be filament wound cases, or are they going back to metal ones?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Waz_Met_Jou on 12/10/2014 06:45 pm
Seeing the solids are mostly made in Italy for Vega I think it's unlikely they'll go back to metal casings.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 12/10/2014 06:48 pm
Are these still going to be filament wound cases, or are they going back to metal ones?

Let's see if Mr de Selding answers this one. If would be surprised if they ditched filament wound casings, as P120 is supposed to be a bigger version of P80 (and because ditching them means offending CNES, but moving solids production out of France will already be a big problem for the French MoD).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/10/2014 07:03 pm
Let's see if Mr de Selding answers this one. If would be surprised if they ditched filament wound casings, as P120 is supposed to be a bigger version of P80 (and because ditching them means offending CNES, but moving solids production out of France will already be a big problem for the French MoD).

I thought all Ariane 5 solids production facilities were located outside metropolitan France, while France has its own domestic facilities for SLBM production. I don't think there's going to be much of an effect.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 12/10/2014 07:27 pm
P80s are indeed cast in Kourou. But manufacturing solids outside of France means it is harder to shuffle people between the civil and military programs, so Safran will lose its skills in solids.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: chapi on 12/10/2014 07:41 pm
P80s are indeed cast in Kourou. But manufacturing solids outside of France means it is harder to shuffle people between the civil and military programs, so Safran will lose its skills in solids.

AFAIK what is at stake between Italy and Germany is the production line for the casing of those boosters, and not the overall stage (inc.  loading, nozzle...).

Those casing for Ariane 5 are actually already manufactured in Germany (MT) since years, so I don't see much relationship between the Ariane 6 Italo/German dispute and any move/setback in french industry.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/11/2014 06:51 pm
Are these still going to be filament wound cases, or are they going back to metal ones?

Let's see if Mr de Selding answers this one. If would be surprised if they ditched filament wound casings, as P120 is supposed to be a bigger version of P80 (and because ditching them means offending CNES, but moving solids production out of France will already be a big problem for the French MoD).

No Peter de Selding is needed for this question. The casings of P120C will be carbon fibre, no matter if to be produced in Colleferro or Augsburg. MT-A aims at qualifiying a new and supposedly more cost-efficient production process which is currently an ongoing demonstration activity within FLPP (see undated attached pdf).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/11/2014 06:58 pm
P80s are indeed cast in Kourou. But manufacturing solids outside of France means it is harder to shuffle people between the civil and military programs, so Safran will lose its skills in solids.

AFAIK what is at stake between Italy and Germany is the production line for the casing of those boosters, and not the overall stage (inc.  loading, nozzle...).

Correct!

Quote
Those casing for Ariane 5 are actually already manufactured in Germany (MT) since years, so I don't see much relationship between the Ariane 6 Italo/German dispute and any move/setback in french industry.

Correct for the metallic casings and Augsburg.

Both Italy and Germany argued with a certain logic, that they are the rightful future manufacturers of Ariane boosters: MT-A arguing on the continued production of Ariane boosters (with the minor switch from metallic to CFK ;)) and Avio arguing that the P120C are more or less the P80s already prodcued nowadays in Colleferro.

On top of that, France claimed in the past (during A6 PPH-times) to have the production site for the A6 booster casings (building on M51 heritage), though had dropped this claim sometime before the Ministerial.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/12/2014 09:40 am

On top of that, France claimed in the past (during A6 PPH-times) to have the production site for the A6 booster casings (building on M51 heritage), though had dropped this claim sometime before the Ministerial.
Perfectly understandable that France dropped this claim: it could not be upheld for multiple reasons:
- A5 EAP casings coming from Germany.
- A5 EAP upper sections being cast in Italy (igniter related)
- A5 EAP other sections being cast at Kourou.
- A5 EAP igniter comes from the Netherlands
- A5 EAP TVC  comes from Belgium
- The A5 EAP nozzles and motor come from France.
- Vega P80 coming mainly from Italy, with the main exception being the nozzle (French), TVC (Belgium) and igniter (the Netherlands)
- A6 boosters are derivatives from Vega first stage, not M51 heritage. There are claims that M51 was derived from the A5 boosters. However, the Vega P80 is not derived from Ariane 5 boosters.

So, not direct link between the proposed A6 boosters and M51 heritage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/12/2014 10:44 am

On top of that, France claimed in the past (during A6 PPH-times) to have the production site for the A6 booster casings (building on M51 heritage), though had dropped this claim sometime before the Ministerial.
Perfectly understandable that France dropped this claim: it could not be upheld for multiple reasons:
- A5 EAP casings coming from Germany.
- A5 EAP upper sections being cast in Italy (igniter related)
- A5 EAP other sections being cast at Kourou.
- A5 EAP igniter comes from the Netherlands
- A5 EAP TVC  comes from Belgium
- The A5 EAP nozzles and motor come from France.
- Vega P80 coming mainly from Italy, with the main exception being the nozzle (French), TVC (Belgium) and igniter (the Netherlands)
- A6 boosters are derivatives from Vega first stage, not M51 heritage. There are claims that M51 was derived from the A5 boosters. However, the Vega P80 is not derived from Ariane 5 boosters.

So, not direct link between the proposed A6 boosters and M51 heritage.

Concerning casing technology, the M51 is clearly _not_ derived from Ariane 5 EAPs. Synergies are in the related fields, both being "big" solid boosters (though considerably different loading. M51 and EAP are to be considered to be more of similar class than the previous experience in Europe with small Ariane 4 PAP solid boosters, which "explains" a heritage-link between EAP and M51!).

The M51 casing ist CFK-based, therefore the technology for P120C-casings is mastered in France (Airbus DS Bordeaux) and a French claim for this activity is technically substantiated.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/12/2014 11:17 am

On top of that, France claimed in the past (during A6 PPH-times) to have the production site for the A6 booster casings (building on M51 heritage), though had dropped this claim sometime before the Ministerial.
Perfectly understandable that France dropped this claim: it could not be upheld for multiple reasons:
- A5 EAP casings coming from Germany.
- A5 EAP upper sections being cast in Italy (igniter related)
- A5 EAP other sections being cast at Kourou.
- A5 EAP igniter comes from the Netherlands
- A5 EAP TVC  comes from Belgium
- The A5 EAP nozzles and motor come from France.
- Vega P80 coming mainly from Italy, with the main exception being the nozzle (French), TVC (Belgium) and igniter (the Netherlands)
- A6 boosters are derivatives from Vega first stage, not M51 heritage. There are claims that M51 was derived from the A5 boosters. However, the Vega P80 is not derived from Ariane 5 boosters.

So, not direct link between the proposed A6 boosters and M51 heritage.

Concerning casing technology, the M51 is clearly _not_ derived from Ariane 5 EAPs. Synergies are in the related fields, both being "big" solid boosters (though considerably different loading. M51 and EAP are to be considered to be more of similar class than the previous experience in Europe with small Ariane 4 PAP solid boosters, which "explains" a heritage-link between EAP and M51!).

The M51 casing ist CFK-based, therefore the technology for P120C-casings is mastered in France (Airbus DS Bordeaux) and a French claim for this activity is technically substantiated.
Don't fully agree. Although both M51 casings and P80 casings are filament wound casings, they were developed by two different consortia in two different countries. As far as I can ascertain their developments were pretty much independent from each other, as seen from a technology point of view.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 12/12/2014 06:34 pm
The point was not that France should have got the P120 production because of the M51 heritage, but that the successor to the M51 will have to be built by a French industry with no production activity in solids.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/15/2014 06:17 am

On top of that, France claimed in the past (during A6 PPH-times) to have the production site for the A6 booster casings (building on M51 heritage), though had dropped this claim sometime before the Ministerial.
Perfectly understandable that France dropped this claim: it could not be upheld for multiple reasons:
- A5 EAP casings coming from Germany.
- A5 EAP upper sections being cast in Italy (igniter related)
- A5 EAP other sections being cast at Kourou.
- A5 EAP igniter comes from the Netherlands
- A5 EAP TVC  comes from Belgium
- The A5 EAP nozzles and motor come from France.
- Vega P80 coming mainly from Italy, with the main exception being the nozzle (French), TVC (Belgium) and igniter (the Netherlands)
- A6 boosters are derivatives from Vega first stage, not M51 heritage. There are claims that M51 was derived from the A5 boosters. However, the Vega P80 is not derived from Ariane 5 boosters.

So, not direct link between the proposed A6 boosters and M51 heritage.

Concerning casing technology, the M51 is clearly _not_ derived from Ariane 5 EAPs. Synergies are in the related fields, both being "big" solid boosters (though considerably different loading. M51 and EAP are to be considered to be more of similar class than the previous experience in Europe with small Ariane 4 PAP solid boosters, which "explains" a heritage-link between EAP and M51!).

The M51 casing ist CFK-based, therefore the technology for P120C-casings is mastered in France (Airbus DS Bordeaux) and a French claim for this activity is technically substantiated.
Don't fully agree. Although both M51 casings and P80 casings are filament wound casings, they were developed by two different consortia in two different countries. As far as I can ascertain their developments were pretty much independent from each other, as seen from a technology point of view.

Not sure that I am getting your point. You are perfectly right that M51 and P80 casing developments were completely independent and performed from two different companies. Nevertheless, both Airbus DS (France) with M51 and Avio with P80 (+ the Zefiros) have demonstrated that they are capable to design CFK-pressure vessels with skirts and inner thermal protection. Therefore, designing a P120C is no technical challenge for either of them. That was my point that you seem not to fully agree to......

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/15/2014 06:25 am
The point was not that France should have got the P120 production because of the M51 heritage, but that the successor to the M51 will have to be built by a French industry with no production activity in solids.


As far as I know (not 100% sure), there is currently still a low scale production of M51 ongoing. Nevertheless, your point is valid as M51 production will certainly not continue seamlessly until a successor will be developped and produced. On the other side, it is expecting too much that European civilian launcher programmes cater for all French military needs with respect to their "force de frappe".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RocketMaster on 12/17/2014 03:55 pm
As far as I know the evolution of Vega will also use the P120 as the first stage. It is reffered to as "Vega-C" which is the name of a Vega design mentioned in a DLR study (IAC-07-D2.7.09):

Quote
VENUS version "C": Version "C" intends replacing the current Vega Z9 solid 3rd stage and the AVUM 4th stage by a single new cryogenic (LOX/LH2) propellant stage equipped with the 180 kN Vinci engine.[...]The cryogenic VENUS C upper stage with Vinci could load around 16000 kg fuel. Payload reaches an impressive 3560 kg.
(Payload to LEO of course.)

Is this the same version C as the one which was decided on at the ESA Council this month, just now with a P120 1st stage? And how would Payload increase with the switch to a P120?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/17/2014 05:04 pm
As far as I know the evolution of Vega will also use the P120 as the first stage. It is reffered to as "Vega-C" which is the name of a Vega design mentioned in a DLR study (IAC-07-D2.7.09):

Quote
VENUS version "C": Version "C" intends replacing the current Vega Z9 solid 3rd stage and the AVUM 4th stage by a single new cryogenic (LOX/LH2) propellant stage equipped with the 180 kN Vinci engine.[...]The cryogenic VENUS C upper stage with Vinci could load around 16000 kg fuel. Payload reaches an impressive 3560 kg.
(Payload to LEO of course.)

Is this the same version C as the one which was decided on at the ESA Council this month, just now with a P120 1st stage? And how would Payload increase with the switch to a P120?

No, not the same version. Vega C (Consolidation) is simply the current Vega with an uprated first stage. P80 becomes P120. No other (major) differences. Performance increase to LEO is roughly 400 kg. (From roughly 2 metric tons to LEO to 2.4 metric tons to LEO)


Replacement of the Z9 stage and AVUM by a new, single, cryogenic upper stage (LYRA programme with MYRA engine) is known as Vega E. That also includes replacing the current second stage (Zefiro 23) by the new Zefiro 40 stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 12/17/2014 05:42 pm
Is there to be any commonality between the Ariane 6 and Vega's avionics? I seem to recall that Arianespace denied the Ariane 5 ECA avionics to Avio, so they had to develop their own. But now the A5 platform was seen as obsolete and thus the Vega's might have been proposed as the basis for A6? I do know that the idea was for Germany to supply a replacement for AVUM so it could be a 100% European rocket. Was MYRA the proposed solution?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RocketMaster on 12/17/2014 06:43 pm
[...]Replacement of the Z9 stage and AVUM by a new, single, cryogenic upper stage (MYRA) is known as Vega E.[...]

So why did they develop a completly new engine with new propellant and without any commonality to the just newly developed Vinci engine? Wouldn't the better performance of Vinci over Myra and the increased production rate outweigh the issue of having to enlarge the Z23 and the controlability problems due to the increased height? I don't really see the logic behind seeking for as many commonalities as possible between the different rockets to keep down development cost and then going for an all new US engine. Or is it just because of the new propellant?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/17/2014 07:51 pm
[...]Replacement of the Z9 stage and AVUM by a new, single, cryogenic upper stage (MYRA) is known as Vega E.[...]

So why did they develop a completly new engine with new propellant and without any commonality to the just newly developed Vinci engine? Wouldn't the better performance of Vinci over Myra and the increased production rate outweigh the issue of having to enlarge the Z23 and the controlability problems due to the increased height? I don't really see the logic behind seeking for as many commonalities as possible between the different rockets to keep down development cost and then going for an all new US engine. Or is it just because of the new propellant?
Take my advice: start reading up on ESA politics 101. Italy is the main driving nation behind Vega (and the LYRA programme that is intended to produce the new C10 cryogenic upper stage powered by the Myra engine), with other ESA member states contributing much smaller amounts of money. Vinci is mainly a French engine.
Vega was never intented to have commonality with Ariane thru Vinci. The newly proposed commonality between Vega and Ariane thru P120 however is a different story. That's been on the table since 2007.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/17/2014 07:59 pm
Is there to be any commonality between the Ariane 6 and Vega's avionics? I seem to recall that Arianespace denied the Ariane 5 ECA avionics to Avio, so they had to develop their own. But now the A5 platform was seen as obsolete and thus the Vega's might have been proposed as the basis for A6? I do know that the idea was for Germany to supply a replacement for AVUM so it could be a 100% European rocket. Was MYRA the proposed solution?
No, MYRA was not the proposed solution.
Germany proposed to replace the AVUM upper stage of the current Vega model with a European one, including a European engine. This proposal was named VENUS (VEga New Upper Stage). As of today, only studies have been performed into this.
This proposal never had much chance of going beyond studies because of the currently active LYRA programme (read below)

Italy proposed replacing the current Z9 third stage and AVUM upper stage (fourth stage) by a new, single, cryogenic upper stage (powered by a MYRA engine). This programme is named LYRA and is currently active. Structures for the C10 upper stage are under development and the MYRA engine is in development as well.
The LYRA programme is planned as part of Vega E (Evolution). Further element of Vega E is the replacement of the Zefiro 23 second stage by a larger Zefiro 40 second stage.

As such, the planned Vega C consists of:
- P120 first stage
- Zefiro 23 second stage
- Zefiro 9 third stage
- AVUM upper stage

The planned Vega E consists of:
- P120 first stage
- Zefiro 40 second stage
- C10 (LYRA) cryogenic upper stage powered by the MYRA engine
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 12/17/2014 09:06 pm
Two questions:
1) Anything about the avionics?
2) Estimated performance? In particular, will any version be able to put at least one Galileo satellite? Or will they have to wait for the SEP Galileos?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/17/2014 09:37 pm
Is there to be any commonality between the Ariane 6 and Vega's avionics? I seem to recall that Arianespace denied the Ariane 5 ECA avionics to Avio, so they had to develop their own. But now the A5 platform was seen as obsolete and thus the Vega's might have been proposed as the basis for A6? I do know that the idea was for Germany to supply a replacement for AVUM so it could be a 100% European rocket. Was MYRA the proposed solution?
No, MYRA was not the proposed solution.
Germany proposed to replace the AVUM upper stage of the current Vega model with a European one, including a European engine. This proposal was named VENUS (VEga New Upper Stage). As of today, only studies have been performed into this.
This proposal never had much chance of going beyond studies because of the currently active LYRA programme (read below)

Italy proposed replacing the current Z9 third stage and AVUM upper stage (fourth stage) by a new, single, cryogenic upper stage (powered by a MYRA engine). This programme is named LYRA and is currently active. Structures for the C10 upper stage are under development and the MYRA engine is in development as well.
The LYRA programme is planned as part of Vega E (Evolution). Further element of Vega E is the replacement of the Zefiro 23 second stage by a larger Zefiro 40 second stage.

As such, the planned Vega C consists of:
- P120 first stage
- Zefiro 23 second stage
- Zefiro 9 third stage
- AVUM upper stage

The planned Vega E consists of:
- P120 first stage
- Zefiro 40 second stage
- C10 (LYRA) cryogenic upper stage powered by the MYRA engine

The last few posts were all quite off-topic as they are dealing more about Vega than Ariane 6. Nevertheless, they contain a number of inaccuracies (by various contributors, but I aggregate it in one reply) that I want to correct :

a) Vega-C within DLR's VENUS-study has no link with Vega-C(onsolidation) which is currently being worked on within an ESA programme. Vega-A through Vega-F within VENUS was just a nomenclature for the different studied versions. In contrast, Vega-C(onsolidation) in ESA context is meant to be the next, near-term (small) evolutionary definition of the Vega launch vehicle. Vega-E(volution) is in ESA context the subsequent evolutionary step for Vega taking bigger modifications on board. This summer, there were discussions if there might be a Vega-D which is somewhere inbetween Vega-C and Vega-E both in terms of development cost and launch vehicle performance (and based on Aestus).

b) The current definition of Vega-C is more than just the replacement of P80 by the P120C. In addition, the second stage Zefiro 23 will be replaced by Zefiro 40 (roughly +17 tons propellant loading; increased diameter). The fourth stage will also see minor modifications and be called AVUM+ (mainly slightly larger propellant tanks). This Vega-C definition is quite similar to what was planned 2012 in Naples (however with slightly bigger first stage which was then a commonality with the A6-PPH of that time). However, as requirements for Vega-C and A6-PPH had diverged in the last two years, the Vega-C definition prior to this summer was a P-CV (roman 105, meaning 105 t propellant loading) and AVUM+ as new elements with Z23 and Z9+ as unchanged stages.

c) Vega-E with Myra/Lyra is not a cryo-stage in the classical sense, i.e. it is LOX-methane and not LOX/LH2. This is the preferred configuration by Italy, but far from being decided. Most of the relevant work has been performed within Italian national activities. Nothing more than system studies for Vega-E is planned in the subscribed ESA-Vega Programme and I bet that Vega-C activities will have priority and precedence over Vega-E for quite some time.

d) Commonality between Vega and Ariane 6 avionics: Ariane 5 avionics was redundant, whereas significant elements of Vega are not redundant. I personaly believe for the time being, that Ariane 6 will have redundant avionics. Nevertheless, this would not exclude as such the reuse of certain avionics boxes. However, A5 and Vega use the MIL-bus, whereas there is a likelyhood that A6 will use a different bus. Furthermore, new developments concerning the avionics main system (with focus on reduced cost and mass) are candidates for A6. I therefore believe that there will only be very limited commonality between A6 and Vega for what concerns the avionics.

e) Vinci as upper stage engine on Vega: This solution implies converting Vega into a two stage rocket and has been studied as Vega-F in the VENUS study (I attached the previously mentioned IAC paper as pdf for reference). Technically possible, but quite a deviation from the original Vega performance class. (And I fully share woods170 statement on ESA politics 101!)

f) active or inactive programmes: LYRA/MYRA are ongoing at a rather low level in Italy. As written above, the Vega-E activities within the ESA programme are even more limited and will stay that way for quite some time. Germany had studied (in VENUS-II) mainly two evolutions of Vega: one option consisting of replacing the Z9 third stage and AVUM with a storable upper stage with the flight qualified Aestus engine. The other option was mainly to stay with a four stage configuration with a Europeanized fourth stage. What is likely to happen is a "reduced" version of the latter. The development of European propellant tanks to replace the Russian Lavochkin tanks was already funded in 2012 and the development contract should finally be signed in the not too far future. On top of that, there is an ongoing development of a storable engine demonstrator in the 5 kN class within FLPP. A first hot firing campaign has been performed since mid August in Lampoldshausen and showed good performance of the engine. There is the option to tweek that demonstrator into a flight engine design for AVUM+ and thus to replace the current Ukranian engine, but it is still to be evaluated if there is sufficient budget available to reach flight qualification. On top of that, it would also take some more effort on system and stage side as the slightly higher thrust as well as different propellant (MMH instead of UDMH) would have to be taken into account .

Anyhow, I propose to have any follow up to this in an Vega thread, where it is much more appropriate!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Remes on 12/17/2014 09:47 pm
Is there to be any commonality between the Ariane 6 and Vega's avionics? I seem to recall that Arianespace denied the Ariane 5 ECA avionics to Avio, so they had to develop their own.
OBC for Vega and Ariane 5 are both from Ruag Space.

I would assume, that the Ariane 6 will use a Leon core (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEON), as its development was payed by ESA.

Quote
The launcher’s onboard computer and the telemetry antennas are built by RUAG Space Sweden. Compared with the onboard computer used in Ariane 5, the Vega computer offers far more processing power, yet is significantly smaller and lighter.
http://www.ruag.com/en/group/media/media-releases/news/europes-new-vega-launcher-relies-on-ruag-space-technology/e78e92a7768137bc538fe78213b77819/

I don't know anyway how arianespace could forbid someone to use some avionics. But others might know it for sure.


Nice pdf about obc:
www.ltas-vis.ulg.ac.be/cmsms/uploads/File/OnBoardComputers.pdf

Vega and Ariane 5 OBC
http://www.ruag.com/space/products/digital-electronics-for-satellites-launchers/on-board-computers/

Newer obc will be based on the leon processor core (and not on the ERC-32 like Vega/Ariane). The non-failure tolerant core (up to Leon-3) can be downloaded from http://gaisler.com/index.php . (Downloaded in vhdl and then synthesized in a FPGA).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 12/17/2014 10:50 pm
Is there to be any commonality between the Ariane 6 and Vega's avionics? I seem to recall that Arianespace denied the Ariane 5 ECA avionics to Avio, so they had to develop their own.

In addition to what was stated before, Airbus DS produces some avionics common to both Ariane 5 and Vega, including the inertial navigation system:
http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/press_centre/airbus-defence-and-space-to-provide-key-elements-for-vega-launcher.html

However, it's likely the A6 avionics will be different.

(Actually, it's certain it will be different. A5 avionics is fairly outdated by now. The question is if Vega will evolve to have commonalities with A6 avionics)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/18/2014 06:26 am
Is there to be any commonality between the Ariane 6 and Vega's avionics? I seem to recall that Arianespace denied the Ariane 5 ECA avionics to Avio, so they had to develop their own.
OBC for Vega and Ariane 5 are both from Ruag Space.

I would assume, that the Ariane 6 will use a Leon core (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEON), as its development was payed by ESA.

Quote
The launcher’s onboard computer and the telemetry antennas are built by RUAG Space Sweden. Compared with the onboard computer used in Ariane 5, the Vega computer offers far more processing power, yet is significantly smaller and lighter.
http://www.ruag.com/en/group/media/media-releases/news/europes-new-vega-launcher-relies-on-ruag-space-technology/e78e92a7768137bc538fe78213b77819/

I don't know anyway how arianespace could forbid someone to use some avionics. But others might know it for sure.

Arianespace had no say concerning that issue. Anyhow, as far as I remember, the main issue was with the flight software, not the hardware. Airbus DS (Astrium Space Transportation as they were called at that time) was not granted an export licence for delivery to Italy. But in the end it boils down to how Europe works in space matters and the individual interests of Countries (France in this specific case).


Quote
Nice pdf about obc:
www.ltas-vis.ulg.ac.be/cmsms/uploads/File/OnBoardComputers.pdf

Vega and Ariane 5 OBC
http://www.ruag.com/space/products/digital-electronics-for-satellites-launchers/on-board-computers/

Newer obc will be based on the leon processor core (and not on the ERC-32 like Vega/Ariane). The non-failure tolerant core (up to Leon-3) can be downloaded from http://gaisler.com/index.php . (Downloaded in vhdl and then synthesized in a FPGA).

Concerning commonalities, it much depends on what one understands. One could make the follwoing distinction:

Commonality "Type A": Same manufacturer
Commonality "Type B": Same manufacturer and same materials & processes
Commonality "Type C": Same product (from same manufacturer)

Commonality of Type C is given on component level (screws, bolts, washers, etc. but also e.g. for RF-antennas and the likes) but rare on sub-system level concerning A5 and Vega. The same will most likely apply for Vega and Ariane 6. This is not surprising because there are decades between the development start of the different launchers and delta-qualifications are costly and come with an inherent technical risk that noone wants to take. The P120C is now being planned as the major common element for Vega and A6, but risks to be the only major one. I highly doubt that anyone would support the move to upgrade Vega avionics to be common with A6, due to the non recurring costs, the risk and the (most likely) different geo-return (companies in different countries) of the A6 avionics.

Commonality of Type B is more common, but far from being the rule for A5 and Vega. There might be more for A6 and Vega, but that remains to be seen.

Commonality of Type A is widespread both between A5 and Vega and that will also be the case for A6 and Vega.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hektor on 12/23/2014 10:56 pm
Commonality of P120 has to be taken with caution since the structure of the booster on Ariane 6 and on Vega would not carry the loads in the same way at all. For Ariane 6 P120 is a strap on booster and on Vega it is a first stage with further stages on top of it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Patchouli on 12/24/2014 04:33 am
I wonder will Ariane 6 be capable of placing large payloads in LEO like Ariane 5.
The four P120 booster variant seems it should be capable of placing at least 21MT in LEO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 12/24/2014 06:13 am
Commonality of P120 has to be taken with caution since the structure of the booster on Ariane 6 and on Vega would not carry the loads in the same way at all. For Ariane 6 P120 is a strap on booster and on Vega it is a first stage with further stages on top of it.

The loads aren't *that* different. Rocket boosters either lift by the base or the top - they are not attached to the side walls. So the load paths do not have to be that different, if the booster attachment is designed properly. (Just see the rockets that do use cores as boosters for evidence: Delta IV, Angara 5, and soon FH)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Patchouli on 12/24/2014 06:21 am
Ares I used a booster inline and the different stresses were not a serious issue for it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 12/29/2014 06:29 pm
Commonality of P120 has to be taken with caution since the structure of the booster on Ariane 6 and on Vega would not carry the loads in the same way at all. For Ariane 6 P120 is a strap on booster and on Vega it is a first stage with further stages on top of it.

The loads aren't *that* different. Rocket boosters either lift by the base or the top - they are not attached to the side walls. So the load paths do not have to be that different, if the booster attachment is designed properly. (Just see the rockets that do use cores as boosters for evidence: Delta IV, Angara 5, and soon FH)

Axial load will be transmitted at top for Vega (inline!) and at the bottom for Ariane 6 (forward attachment is at mid LH2-tank). This is however not the major problem. In the Vega-case, the mechanical fluxes  are evenly distributed over the circumference, whereas there is a strong assymetry in the skirt area at the (rear) attachment points for A6. Now define "designed properly" in this case.... A "common" design is obviously feasible but will have strongly de-optimized skirts for the Vega load case.

Your "common" cores are a superb example. AFAIK, Atlas cores are identical no matter if used in the 401 or 551 configuration (or any of the other configurations for that matter). In contrast (and again AFAIK), Delta cores are different for each configuration and only have the fittings required for the number of boosters used (and likely the same applies for cores used in latteral attachment for Delta IV Heavy which might have specially designed skirts). The Atlas way allows for a streamlined production, configuration management and late changes in mission manifest (changing the number of boosters) but comes with a performance penalty. It remains to be seen if the intended compromisse is acceptable both for Vega and Ariane 6.

On top of the casing commonality, there is however also the commonality of inner ballistics (thrust profile) for the time being. The same principle observations apply for that too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mr. mark on 01/09/2015 06:47 pm
Ariane 6 related. http://spacenews.com/new-airbus-safran-venture-eyes-full-control-of-arianespace/

"Airbus Defence and Space on Jan. 8 said its new joint venture with Safran, Airbus Safran Launchers, would purchase the French government’s shares in the Arianespace launch service provider “in the coming weeks” and by the end of the year would assume total control of the design and future production, operation and commercial sales of the next-generation Ariane 6 launcher.-spacenews.com
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: MarekCyzio on 04/03/2015 06:58 pm
Airbus Safran and ESA divided over division of Ariane 6 cost - this is a headline from the NewSpaceWatch, unfortunately the rest of the article requires paid service, so I cannot access it.

https://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/75845-airbus-safran-and-esa-divided-over-division-of-ariane-6-cost-ula-rocket-payment-infographic.html
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/03/2015 08:22 pm
The NewSpaceWatch article points to this one...

http://spacenews.com/esa-industry-at-odds-over-ariane-6-funding-responsibilities/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacejulien on 04/07/2015 02:24 pm
The article [1] of SpaceNEWS (even though not so very recent) shows some interesting insight into the European launcher vehicles and services industrial landscape, if some fairly standard business analyses are performed on the data provided:

According to the article [1] Safran pays 800 M€ to Airbus, in order "to maintain a 50 percent stake in the new company [the joint-venture now called Airbus-Safran-Launschers]". The value of assets and know-how transferred by Airbus to the joint venture is thus 1600 M€ higher than the value of assets and know-how from Safran. The simple calculation is:

value_Airbus - 800 M€ = value_Safran + 800 M€ => value_Airbus - value_Safran = 1600 M€

The distribution of Arianespace's shareholders [2] originally intended to reflect the relative turnovers of those companies in the production of Ariane vehicles. The exception is the share of CNES with 34.68% with no part in production. The other ratios may not exactly reflect the actual distribution of industrial turnover, but is sufficiently precise for this analysis.

Airbus is the mother company of ASTRIUM GmbH (11.59 %), EADS CASA (2.04 %), ASTRIUM SAS (16.85 %), EADS France SAS (not significant) and  DUTCH SPACE BV (1.94 %) = 32.42 %

Safran is the mother company of TECHSPACE AERO SA (not significant) and SAFRAN (10.57 %) = 10.57 %

According to this, together they hold 42.99 % of Arianespace, [3] mentions that "Airbus Safran Launchers now controls 41 percent of Arianespace’s equity."

The value of Safrans contribution to the JV is thus 10.57%/42.99% times the value of the JV plus the 800 M€ paid in cash, Airbus' contribution is 32.42%/42.99% times the value of the JV minus the 800 M€ paid in cash. Both are equal:

10.57%/42.99% * value_JV + 800 M€ = 32.42%/42.99% * value_JV - 800 M€

Solving for value_JV:

value_JV (32.42% - 10.57%)/42.99% = 1600 M€ and thus value_JV = 1600 M€ / 0.508 = 3150 M€

Such investment needs to pay off. Annual return on invested capital is expected to be about 8%. In fact, the very same article [1] states: "Airbus said it valued its contribution to the joint venture at 12 times the 2014 gross profit of the division." Which means that the expected RoC [4] for Airbus is 1/12 = 8.3 %

Applying the 8% ratio for the overall value of the JV this means that it has to generate 3150 M€ * 8% = 252 M€ annual gross profit. This means that each and every  launch (at the foreseen rate of 12 per year) needs to create 21 M€ of gross profit. And this is only the profit of the JV, not including the subcontractor's profits.

Using the Arianespace shareholding ratios again, excluding the 34.68 % CNES share yields:

value_overall (32.42% - 10.57%)/(100% - 34.68%) = 1600 M€ and thus value_overall = 1600 M€ / 0.3345 =  4783 M€ and thus a required annual gross profit of 382.65 M€ or 32 M€ profit per launch. That is quite steep, esp. considering that a lot of the production assets are not even owned by industry, but ESA.

For a launch vehicle that overall shall cost below 100 M€ per launch, this profit requirement is already crashing the business case. And that such profits are expected is clear by the article as well [1]: "Safran [...] said the company has compared the profit of its existing space business with the likely profitability of Airbus Safran Launchers and determined that the venture is a good investment" and "[...] Safran said its Snecma and Herakles divisions that are transferred to the joint venture reported [...] a profit margin of 12.2 percent".

The most recent article in SpaceNEWS [5] along with article [6] discussing whether industry shall bear 400 M€ of the Ariane 6 development funding is ridiculously narrow-minded in that interest on these 400 M€, if borne by industry, may increase the cost of Ariane 6. Interest would be 400 M€ * 8%/a = 32 M€/a, peanuts (not even 10%) compared to the profit required by the value of industrial assets.

One can re-run the analysis made herein with modified assumptions (maybe Airbus production turnover percentage is higher, maybe Safrans is lower than assumed by the shareholder percentages) but the overall conclusions won't change significantly:

1) The value of the industrial infrastructure in place (at least its value as perceived by industry) is totally bloated.
2) Ariane 6 launch costs of below 100 M€ are unfeasible with such a burden of investments.
3) Either industry is fooling themselves (believing that they can actually produce it at that cost target) or they are fooling the European governments (assuming that the governments will pay the subsidies in the end, as they usually do).

Just my 2(euro)cents on the matter.

[1] Peter B. de Selding, SpaceNEWS, dated 27-Feb-2015, http://spacenews.com/safran-to-pay-airbus-1-billion-for-equal-stake-in-joint-rocket-venture/ (http://spacenews.com/safran-to-pay-airbus-1-billion-for-equal-stake-in-joint-rocket-venture/)
[2] Arianespace, dated 5-Jan-2011, http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp (http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp)
[3] Peter B. de Selding, SpaceNEWS, dated 08-Jan-2015, http://spacenews.com/new-airbus-safran-venture-eyes-full-control-of-arianespace/ (http://spacenews.com/new-airbus-safran-venture-eyes-full-control-of-arianespace/)
[4] Wikipedia, 18-Mar-2015, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_capital)
[5] Peter B. de Selding, SpaceNEWS, dated 03-Apr-2015, http://spacenews.com/esa-industry-at-odds-over-ariane-6-funding-responsibilities/ (http://spacenews.com/esa-industry-at-odds-over-ariane-6-funding-responsibilities/)
[6] Peter B. de Selding, SpaceNEWS, dated 03-Apr-2015, http://spacenews.com/desire-for-competitive-ariane-6-nudges-esa-toward-compromise-in-funding-dispute-with-contractor/ (http://spacenews.com/desire-for-competitive-ariane-6-nudges-esa-toward-compromise-in-funding-dispute-with-contractor/)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/07/2015 03:28 pm
3) Either industry is fooling themselves (believing that they can actually produce it at that cost target) or they are fooling the European governments (assuming that the governments will pay the subsidies in the end, as they usually do).

The latter of those two options. Industry is betting on the fact that ESA is consistent in it's 'independent access to space' stance, and thus will find some way to cough up the subsidies somehow, once those are needed (probably from the first launch forward).
Never mind what the outgoing and incoming ESA director generals are trying to persuade us of: ESA will not be willing to give up independent access to space in exchange of saving a few hunderd million Euros each year.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/07/2015 04:56 pm
That's not how you do the numbers. For one, the cost of the rocket means a certain amount of profits to its suppliers. Given the intensiveness of labor in the space business, it's not strange to see huge amount of profits if you have a vertically integrated supplier. What's more, launches are just on of all the sources of profit. May be the money makers are in the integration services, or those same BU offer services for other parties. I'd see it as an upper bound.
Among other sources of profit, all the design work, which will be paid by ESA's members, will actually go to engineer's time, which will be a source of profit for said companies.
I still concur that this is a jobs program and they are doing the charade that it is not. But I'm just making a point about the numbers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 04/07/2015 05:42 pm
@spacejulien

That calculation doesn't make much sense to me.

The joint venture's revenue will come from development contracts paid for by ESA as well as launch vehicles sold to Arianespace. I doubt dividends paid by Arianespace will be a big contribution (have they paid any recently?).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 04/24/2015 06:42 pm
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824

Quote
CNES's Le Gall to German DLR space propulsion conf: We need to look past Ariane 6/Vega designs to new-gen propulsion that could be reusable

Since ULA and SpaceX are headed towards reusing part of their launchers, is there a way Europe could do it too with Ariane 6? It seems the central core of Ariane 6 is the only part that could benefit from that, but is it possible to restart the engine, survive reentry and then land and be reused?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/24/2015 07:03 pm
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824

Quote
CNES's Le Gall to German DLR space propulsion conf: We need to look past Ariane 6/Vega designs to new-gen propulsion that could be reusable

Since ULA and SpaceX are headed towards reusing part of their launchers, is there a way Europe could do it too with Ariane 6? It seems the central core of Ariane 6 is the only part that could benefit from that, but is it possible to restart the engine, survive reentry and then land and be reused?
While their current Ariane 6 design might not lend itself to that kind of reusability, it might very well use the Vulcan's model. If SpaceX model does works out to be cheaper and at least as reliable as Ariane 5, then they will need to do some thinking. But unless they start right now an advanced propulsion project (something like a SC methane engine), they'll have to live through subsidies until they do the Ariane 7.
I want to stress the point that neither SpaceX nor ULA have demonstrated that reusability is actually cheaper, for now.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/30/2015 09:44 pm
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824

Quote
CNES's Le Gall to German DLR space propulsion conf: We need to look past Ariane 6/Vega designs to new-gen propulsion that could be reusable

Since ULA and SpaceX are headed towards reusing part of their launchers, is there a way Europe could do it too with Ariane 6? It seems the central core of Ariane 6 is the only part that could benefit from that, but is it possible to restart the engine, survive reentry and then land and be reused?
Well Shuttle showed that large SRB can be recovered, and in fact the Ariane 5 SRB design does have features to allow recovery, and in fact some of the early ones were recovered for study.

But IIRC the big solids designed for A6 are single piece casings. I'm not sure anyone's worked out how to refill one of these.  :(

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/30/2015 10:51 pm
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824

Quote
CNES's Le Gall to German DLR space propulsion conf: We need to look past Ariane 6/Vega designs to new-gen propulsion that could be reusable

SABRE/Skylon
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 05/01/2015 04:08 pm
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824

Quote
CNES's Le Gall to German DLR space propulsion conf: We need to look past Ariane 6/Vega designs to new-gen propulsion that could be reusable

SABRE/Skylon

I am quite sure that Le Gall was not thinking of SABRE/Skylon. There is not much support for that project outside UKSA and maybe a few individual staff members of ESA/ESTEC, but certainly not from anyone relevant within CNES.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 05/01/2015 09:25 pm
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824

Quote
CNES's Le Gall to German DLR space propulsion conf: We need to look past Ariane 6/Vega designs to new-gen propulsion that could be reusable

SABRE/Skylon

I am quite sure that Le Gall was not thinking of SABRE/Skylon. There is not much support for that project outside UKSA and maybe a few individual staff members of ESA/ESTEC, but certainly not from anyone relevant within CNES.

He might be thinking about a methalox launcher, Airbus has done some work and should have a reusable engine ready for testing soon (at least some components of it).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/01/2015 11:48 pm
And special work on deep throttling.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 05/02/2015 11:40 am
And special work on deep throttling.
Interesting, do you have public documentation on that?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/02/2015 05:15 pm
And special work on deep throttling.
Interesting, do you have public documentation on that?
I didn't myself clear. If they aren't going with SpaceX like number of engine, they will need very deep throttle for reusability.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rebel44 on 05/02/2015 06:25 pm
And special work on deep throttling.
Interesting, do you have public documentation on that?
I didn't myself clear. If they aren't going with SpaceX like number of engine, they will need very deep throttle for reusability.

They are more likely to go after just engine reuse - like ULAs Vulcan - and for that they wont need deep throttle ability.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 05/16/2015 01:33 pm
With CNES appearing serious about reusable launchers post-A6, they probably have the opportunity to start from a clean sheet.  They should consider the engine-only option as well as full core reuse and other possibilities(?).  Methlox does have appeal since their level of expertise is high and reuse is a starting criterion (in contrast to SpaceX where the expertise level was unproven and the initial goal was simply to fly something).

They should know within a year or so if SpaceX is successful and the going price for a reused core -- this will be the mark to beat as well as a proven formula... solid information on the ULA approach is at best a decade into the future.  Also, they need to include considerations such as their remote launch site (logistics for refurbishing) and other constraints that are unique to ESA's situation.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 05/17/2015 02:53 pm
Why would you want to land a fuel tank that you spent millions hauling into orbit a cheap recycling capability in leo would be of far more value to ESA then spending billions trying to make a rocket reusable . 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 05/18/2015 06:26 pm
They should know within a year or so if SpaceX is successful and the going price for a reused core -- this will be the mark to beat as well as a proven formula... solid information on the ULA approach is at best a decade into the future.  Also, they need to include considerations such as their remote launch site (logistics for refurbishing) and other constraints that are unique to ESA's situation.

When that happens and if F9R is cheap, the debate on the Ariane 6 program will be much more intense than what we've seen yet.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kato on 05/18/2015 08:21 pm
Why would you want to land a fuel tank that you spent millions hauling into orbit
First stage tanks aren't going anywhere near orbit unless you're going SSTO (or virtual single-stage plus boosters).

The main idea operations-wise behind F9 is that the (reusable) first stage just about pushes the rest of the rocket beyond the edge of the thicker parts of the atmosphere, while keeping its speed to the same at separation as A5's boosters. That way the (non-reusable) second stage can exhaust its full vacuum impulse to push itself into orbit entirely.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: rustpo on 05/27/2015 04:05 pm
Just read these interesting posts:
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/603573806842519552
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/603581028184260609

It's an interesting idea to bring more versions with a different number of boosters.

If you were to put 6 boosters on the Core, wouldn't you need an extra launchpad for that configuration? That of course would cost more money which the gouvernments at this point and time aren't willing to pay. On the other hand you might also be able to go with two and probaply three boosters on the same launchpad which could allow for a second pad to pay off.

I guess gto-performance for the 3 booster version might be like 7-8 tons. Could someone please give his more educated thought on the performance?

So you would have four Ariane 6 versions with two launchpads . It might be easier to find two satellites which fit in one launcher and with two launchpads you would also be able to launch more frequently thus reducing the cost for each launch.

What about the mounting for the boosters - is it possible to have each mainstage support all four configurations so that one can massproduce the hydrogenstages and then adjust the launcher to the payload just by adding as many solids as needed?

Edit:
I just noticed that one could also rearange the boosters of the 4 booster configuration so that they are mounted like the boosters of the 6 booster version just with two mountings empty. This would remove the need for a second launch pad.
One could also think of a 1 booster configuration just like with the Atlas V(411). But the low cost of the booster and the high cost of the hydrogen stage might make this configuration too expensive for the small payload, if one booster is actually enough for the rocket to start properly.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 05/27/2015 06:57 pm
It is already costing them more  to build a single launchpad than it cost SpaceX to design and test-fly the Falcon 9,a 2nd launchpad would bankrupt them.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/27/2015 07:19 pm
I thought satellites are getting smaller thanks to EP and now everybody is building monstrous rockets again...

If you were to put 6 boosters on the Core, wouldn't you need an extra launchpad for that configuration?

Eh? Why would you need a second pad for that? They're building a new one for A6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: rustpo on 05/27/2015 08:27 pm
If you were to put 6 boosters on the Core, wouldn't you need an extra launchpad for that configuration?

Eh? Why would you need a second pad for that? They're building a new one for A6.

The current plans of the Ariane 64 show the boosters each 90° apart, but a conceptual Ariane 66 would probaply have the boosters each 60° from eachother to maximize the spacing. So without changing the angle between the boosters in the 64 version it might become difficult or impossible to build a launchpadconfiguration that supports both options because the holddowns for the boosters might be to close together to fit.
But by changing the layout of the Ariane 64 configuration by placing the boosters in two pairs, the pairs each with a 60° angle and the pairs with a 120° angle from eachother you can eliminate that problem.

I think planning for a more sizeable Ariane 6 is a good idea to be able to better respond to a changing market.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/28/2015 06:51 am

Couldn't they just drop the core stage and extend the skirt by 10 meters or so?

 ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: rustpo on 05/29/2015 06:39 pm
News from ASL:

http://spacenews.com/airbus-safran-agrees-to-400-million-ariane-6-contribution/

ASL is willing to pay their part of 400Mio.€ for Ariane 6 development. I thought they would pay less, but of course they will find other ways to get more money from the governments. Seems like the signing of the contract in July is pretty likely and will speed up Ariane 6 development. Hopefully CNES will pay attention to the positioning of the new launchpad to avoid rangeconcerns like it was the case with the VEGA-IXV-launch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: SkyPL on 05/30/2015 01:37 pm
If you were to put 6 boosters on the Core, wouldn't you need an extra launchpad for that configuration?

Eh? Why would you need a second pad for that? They're building a new one for A6.

The current plans of the Ariane 64 show the boosters each 90° apart, but a conceptual Ariane 66 would probaply have the boosters each 60° from eachother to maximize the spacing. So without changing the angle between the boosters in the 64 version it might become difficult or impossible to build a launchpadconfiguration that supports both options because the holddowns for the boosters might be to close together to fit.
But by changing the layout of the Ariane 64 configuration by placing the boosters in two pairs, the pairs each with a 60° angle and the pairs with a 120° angle from eachother you can eliminate that problem.

I think planning for a more sizeable Ariane 6 is a good idea to be able to better respond to a changing market.
There's no reason why it might be impossible to build a launch pad handling all 3 configurations, especially if you prepare for that in such an early stage.

Well Shuttle showed that large SRB can be recovered, and in fact the Ariane 5 SRB design does have features to allow recovery, and in fact some of the early ones were recovered for study.

But IIRC the big solids designed for A6 are single piece casings. I'm not sure anyone's worked out how to refill one of these.  :(
More important matter is if it'd be economically viable to reuse them in a first place. Reusability for the sake of reusability is pointless.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kch on 05/30/2015 01:48 pm
If you were to put 6 boosters on the Core, wouldn't you need an extra launchpad for that configuration?

Eh? Why would you need a second pad for that? They're building a new one for A6.

The current plans of the Ariane 64 show the boosters each 90° apart, but a conceptual Ariane 66 would probaply have the boosters each 60° from eachother to maximize the spacing. So without changing the angle between the boosters in the 64 version it might become difficult or impossible to build a launchpadconfiguration that supports both options because the holddowns for the boosters might be to close together to fit.
But by changing the layout of the Ariane 64 configuration by placing the boosters in two pairs, the pairs each with a 60° angle and the pairs with a 120° angle from eachother you can eliminate that problem.

I think planning for a more sizeable Ariane 6 is a good idea to be able to better respond to a changing market.

It would also allow the use of 3 equally-spaced boosters ... might be useful.  :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: rustpo on 05/30/2015 08:47 pm
Yeah and even a configuration with only one booster (if one booster is enough to lift the rocket) might be useful, but due to the low cost of the solid boosters it might not pay off to go with less payload and instead stack other payloads together to use a launcherconfiguration with more boosters.

Nevertheless it seems to be smart to consider all configurations that are easily possible (1 to 6 boosters).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tp1024 on 05/31/2015 01:04 pm
Yeah and even a configuration with only one booster (if one booster is enough to lift the rocket) might be useful, but due to the low cost of the solid boosters it might not pay off to go with less payload and instead stack other payloads together to use a launcherconfiguration with more boosters.

I'm not sure if Ariane 6 can withstand the forces caused by the asymmetric thrust of just one booster. (On the other hand, I have no idea why Atlas V can do that. I'm guessing it is because the RD-180 is strong enough to balance it anyway, in which case Ariane 6 is a no-go.)

If it can, the P120 Booster has a mass of about 140t, thrust of about 340t. (That's for a 1.5x scale P80 booster.) Assuming a core similar to Ariane 5, it has a mass of about 200 tons and the Vulcain 2 provides another 100t thrust at sea level. So it's a mass of ~340t and thrust of ~440t. So that part would work out, the economics probably not.

What would be much more interesting are inflight-startable vacuum versions of the Vulcain engine and P120 booster. That way you could probably get some 14-15tons to GTO by staging the boosters, 4 boosters as 1st stage, 2 boosters as second stage, core as 3rd stage and an upper (Vinci) 4th stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 05/31/2015 01:21 pm
That way you could probably get some 14-15tons to GTO by staging the boosters, 4 boosters as 1st stage, 2 boosters as second stage, core as 3rd stage and an upper (Vinci) 4th stage.

I'm pretty sure a 6-booster configuration would start 2 boosters in-flight.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/31/2015 10:04 pm
I agree developing more versions of Ariane 6 could be usefull. But:
'Rockets Are No Lego'!
The more configurations the less efficient (structurally) will your rocket be.
 
From my understanding: With the Ariane 62 and 64, the Ariane 62 will have an un-optimised configuration. The center-stage and the upper-stage of the A6 rocket will be designed to withstand the loads of both A62 and A64. Most likely the loads are all the highest at the A64 configuration. So the stages will be developed for the loads with four boosters. The center-stage and the upper-stage will be to strong and thus heavier than necessary for the A62.

The same holds for the F9 and FH from SpaceX. The boosters for FH will be the same (except from the load transfer top structure at the interstage) as the first stage of F9. The center-stage of FH will be structurally completely different, and most likely a lot heavier than the boosters/ F9 stage. 
When you add more configurations, you add more load situations. This results in less optimal configurations most likely for all the configurations. MT Aerospace (the company building the upperstage tanks) was bold enough in 2011 to propose its own launcher design for NGL (Next Generation Launcher). Two papers are hidden on the NSF server 1 (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D27452.0%3Battach%3D342261&ei=oWprVdDcIZHbsATawYKQAg&usg=AFQjCNEs6K6hSwr-XwuFi0-mNtIawE7I9A&bvm=bv.94455598,d.cWc) and 2 (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D27452.0%3Battach%3D342262&ei=oWprVdDcIZHbsATawYKQAg&usg=AFQjCNF4817XtkhTAIG7gqGqlF3_mIox3Q&bvm=bv.94455598,d.cWc).
MT Aerospace came up with the idea to separate the load-bearing function from the stage design. In the design the loads are transferred at the inter-stage and the base of the stage. They use a modular inter-stage to optimize four configurations.
This same technology can be used for the Ariane 6, only are the loads transferred from the boosters to the center-stage halfway up the stage and at the bottom. To optimize all the A6 configurations, load-bearing sheets for the full length of the stages (center and upper) are necessary. For the second stage it is also possible to build two versions (A60,61,62,63 and A64-66) instead of segmenting the stage and the structure.
For this to work, an horizontal stage preparation and storage facility is needed at CSG. More Ifrastructure = more cost so the investment for this to work is higher.

In wrote the Wiki article about FLPP/ NGL back in 2011 or 2012. After the ministerial conference I lost my interest in space because the best designs were made impossible. France and Germany decided to start developing A5ME, and A6 PPH. During the FLPP studies PPH came out worst becouse it has hardly any growth potential. Because of tight budgets the first stage rocket engine developments were ended. All the other NGL configurations needed a new first stage engine. Thus after the conference ESA's launch strategy was scrued untill Ariane7 is developed somewhere around 2040. Most of the funding for A5ME development went in building upper-stage production infrastructure in Germany, so they were guaranteed the production of future upper-stages would be in Germany.
Half way along 2014 when the industry convinced ESA to go back to a liquid first stage with boosters they went back to a design that has growth potential. But because they didn't fund the rocket engine development between 2012 and 2015, boosters are always needed.  :'(

I hope they will decide to develop A6 for four configurations: A62, A63, A64 and A66. For this three load structure elements are needed:  60deg., 120deg. and 60deg. with booster mount. The different configurations work out as following:
Configuration:   60deg.      120deg.    60deg.+ booster.
A62                                    2             2
A63                    3                             3
A64                    2                             4
A66                                                   6

Currently they are developing two rocket engines: A small 5-8kN engine for Avum+ (VEGA C), and de Mica LOX-CH engine under evaluation for VEGA E. Other engines for Vega E are Aestus 2/RS-72 and a 80kN version of Vince. For the development of A6 they are simplifying the Vulcan 2 so it can be build cheaper. After 2022 all the engine developments are finished. I hope ESA will fund development of a new first stage engine after this period so A7 can be developed out of A6. A7 can be launched beginning from 2035-2040. For A7 I see six or more configurations: A70(without boosers), A72, A73, A74, A76 and A7H (tree ore more liquid first stages). Most likely they will be reusable). With Vega in three configurations: Vega E (P120C, Z40, VUS), Vega EM (Z40, VUS) and Vega EH 3-4P120C, Z40, VUS). And a cubesat (~20kg) launcher, ESA will finally have full, redundant, independent access to space.
Only a pitty we need more than six rocket stages for this to work, and it will take until at least 2030.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 06/01/2015 11:49 pm
I agree developing more versions of Ariane 6 could be usefull. But:
'Rockets Are No Lego'!
The more configurations the less efficient (structurally) will your rocket be.
 
From my understanding: With the Ariane 62 and 64, the Ariane 62 will have an un-optimised configuration. The center-stage and the upper-stage of the A6 rocket will be designed to withstand the loads of both A62 and A64. Most likely the loads are all the highest at the A64 configuration. So the stages will be developed for the loads with four boosters. The center-stage and the upper-stage will be to strong and thus heavier than necessary for the A62.

The same holds for the F9 and FH from SpaceX. The boosters for FH will be the same (except from the load transfer top structure at the interstage) as the first stage of F9. The center-stage of FH will be structurally completely different, and most likely a lot heavier than the boosters/ F9 stage. 
When you add more configurations, you add more load situations. This results in less optimal configurations most likely for all the configurations. MT Aerospace (the company building the upperstage tanks) was bold enough in 2011 to propose its own launcher design for NGL (Next Generation Launcher). Two papers are hidden on the NSF server 1 (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D27452.0%3Battach%3D342261&ei=oWprVdDcIZHbsATawYKQAg&usg=AFQjCNEs6K6hSwr-XwuFi0-mNtIawE7I9A&bvm=bv.94455598,d.cWc) and 2 (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D27452.0%3Battach%3D342262&ei=oWprVdDcIZHbsATawYKQAg&usg=AFQjCNF4817XtkhTAIG7gqGqlF3_mIox3Q&bvm=bv.94455598,d.cWc).
MT Aerospace came up with the idea to separate the load-bearing function from the stage design. In the design the loads are transferred at the inter-stage and the base of the stage. They use a modular inter-stage to optimize four configurations.
This same technology can be used for the Ariane 6, only are the loads transferred from the boosters to the center-stage halfway up the stage and at the bottom. To optimize all the A6 configurations, load-bearing sheets for the full length of the stages (center and upper) are necessary. For the second stage it is also possible to build two versions (A60,61,62,63 and A64-66) instead of segmenting the stage and the structure.
For this to work, an horizontal stage preparation and storage facility is needed at CSG. More Ifrastructure = more cost so the investment for this to work is higher.

In wrote the Wiki article about FLPP/ NGL back in 2011 or 2012. After the ministerial conference I lost my interest in space because the best designs were made impossible. France and Germany decided to start developing A5ME, and A6 PPH. During the FLPP studies PPH came out worst becouse it has hardly any growth potential. Because of tight budgets the first stage rocket engine developments were ended. All the other NGL configurations needed a new first stage engine. Thus after the conference ESA's launch strategy was scrued untill Ariane7 is developed somewhere around 2040. Most of the funding for A5ME development went in building upper-stage production infrastructure in Germany, so they were guaranteed the production of future upper-stages would be in Germany.
Half way along 2014 when the industry convinced ESA to go back to a liquid first stage with boosters they went back to a design that has growth potential. But because they didn't fund the rocket engine development between 2012 and 2015, boosters are always needed.  :'(

I hope they will decide to develop A6 for four configurations: A62, A63, A64 and A66. For this three load structure elements are needed:  60deg., 120deg. and 60deg. with booster mount. The different configurations work out as following:
Configuration:   60deg.      120deg.    60deg.+ booster.
A62                                    2             2
A63                    3                             3
A64                    2                             4
A66                                                   6

Currently they are developing two rocket engines: A small 5-8kN engine for Avum+ (VEGA C), and de Mica LOX-CH engine under evaluation for VEGA E. Other engines for Vega E are Aestus 2/RS-72 and a 80kN version of Vince. For the development of A6 they are simplifying the Vulcan 2 so it can be build cheaper. After 2022 all the engine developments are finished. I hope ESA will fund development of a new first stage engine after this period so A7 can be developed out of A6. A7 can be launched beginning from 2035-2040. For A7 I see six or more configurations: A70(without boosers), A72, A73, A74, A76 and A7H (tree ore more liquid first stages). Most likely they will be reusable). With Vega in three configurations: Vega E (P120C, Z40, VUS), Vega EM (Z40, VUS) and Vega EH 3-4P120C, Z40, VUS). And a cubesat (~20kg) launcher, ESA will finally have full, redundant, independent access to space.
Only a pitty we need more than six rocket stages for this to work, and it will take until at least 2030.


Much cheaper to just evolve the core (stronger engine and lighter structure) to 5 tons to GEO without boosters than  spend money on 4 different launchers .That would be 10 tons to LEO for manned work and in a triple core heavy somewhere in the 30 to 40  tons LEO .


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/02/2015 01:07 am
They could do reusability incrementally. Develop reusable liquid boosters powered by new methane engine to replace SRBs. Perfect these then move onto middle/2nd stage.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: SkyPL on 06/07/2015 07:06 pm
Much cheaper to just evolve the core (stronger engine and lighter structure) to 5 tons to GEO without boosters than  spend money on 4 different launchers .That would be 10 tons to LEO for manned work and in a triple core heavy somewhere in the 30 to 40  tons LEO .
It's not 4 different launchers, it's 1 launcher in 4 variants. Evolving the core stage will be far more expensive and time-consuming than adding boosters (at least: if decision about Ariane 66 is made on an early stage of development).

Well Shuttle showed that large SRB can be recovered, and in fact the Ariane 5 SRB design does have features to allow recovery, and in fact some of the early ones were recovered for study.

But IIRC the big solids designed for A6 are single piece casings. I'm not sure anyone's worked out how to refill one of these.  :(
The fact that you can reuse SRBs doesn't mean that it's economically feasible to reuse them.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/15/2015 08:02 am
The same holds for the F9 and FH from SpaceX. The boosters for FH will be the same (except from the load transfer top structure at the interstage) as the first stage of F9. The center-stage of FH will be structurally completely different, and most likely a lot heavier than the boosters/ F9 stage. 
When you add more configurations, you add more load situations. This results in less optimal configurations most likely for all the configurations. MT Aerospace (the company building the upperstage tanks) was bold enough in 2011 to propose its own launcher design for NGL (Next Generation Launcher). Two papers are hidden on the NSF server 1 (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D27452.0%3Battach%3D342261&ei=oWprVdDcIZHbsATawYKQAg&usg=AFQjCNEs6K6hSwr-XwuFi0-mNtIawE7I9A&bvm=bv.94455598,d.cWc) and 2 (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D27452.0%3Battach%3D342262&ei=oWprVdDcIZHbsATawYKQAg&usg=AFQjCNF4817XtkhTAIG7gqGqlF3_mIox3Q&bvm=bv.94455598,d.cWc).
MT Aerospace came up with the idea to separate the load-bearing function from the stage design. In the design the loads are transferred at the inter-stage and the base of the stage. They use a modular inter-stage to optimize four configurations.

I'm not sure MT came up with this.

When I looked at A5 it looked like most of the SRB thrust loads were through the interstage section (what seems to be called the "forward skirt"). I theorized if  you eliminated the SRB's and allowed both tanks to be shortened  you could arrive at a configuration which let the Vulcain 2 act as an expendable SSTO. The forward skirt then gets replaced by the payload fairin and a new VAB. The VAB is very heavy. It's as heavy as the equivalent system on the Saturn V. Given that it's 1/3 the diameter and made in Carbon Fibre, not Aluminium honeycomb, suggests very poor design.  :(
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 06/15/2015 11:15 pm

I'm not sure MT came up with this.

When I looked at A5 it looked like most of the SRB thrust loads were through the interstage section (what seems to be called the "forward skirt"). I theorized if  you eliminated the SRB's and allowed both tanks to be shortened  you could arrive at a configuration which let the Vulcain 2 act as an expendable SSTO. The forward skirt then gets replaced by the payload fairin and a new VAB. The VAB is very heavy. It's as heavy as the equivalent system on the Saturn V. Given that it's 1/3 the diameter and made in Carbon Fibre, not Aluminium honeycomb, suggests very poor design.  :(

Honeycomb-esque materials have a lot of inherent wiggle-room however. There's a lot you can change.

I'm interested in how much the design is influence by wanting to make work for the existing factories. If there are enough parallels, that might be the reason.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/16/2015 10:57 am
Honeycomb-esque materials have a lot of inherent wiggle-room however. There's a lot you can change.
It's works than that. The Saturn V computer weighed about 50Kg, as did the spinning metal gyros, which were spun up by GN2 tanks at about 4000 psi. The batteries were not light weight and the telemetry was not far above discrete transistors throughout. BTW the Saturn IU was designed to carry the entire Apollo stack on top.

That was about 100 tonnes.

Once I knew about the mass of the A5 VAB (and it goes all the way to orbit) I've been sure any upgrade plan should have targetted its mass reduction as a priority.
Quote
I'm interested in how much the design is influence by wanting to make work for the existing factories. If there are enough parallels, that might be the reason.
Probably quite a lot. If it's an internal study they'd prefer to play to the company strengths.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 06/16/2015 09:37 pm
It's works than that. The Saturn V computer weighed about 50Kg, as did the spinning metal gyros, which were spun up by GN2 tanks at about 4000 psi. The batteries were not light weight and the telemetry was not far above discrete transistors throughout. BTW the Saturn IU was designed to carry the entire Apollo stack on top.

That was about 100 tonnes.

Once I knew about the mass of the A5 VAB (and it goes all the way to orbit) I've been sure any upgrade plan should have targetted its mass reduction as a priority.

Do you have some numbers for the A5 VEB mass ?

I found numbers varying from 950kg to 1400kg on the following sites:
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html
http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/spacecraft-propulsion/showcase/ariane5-attitude-control-system.html

However I don't know if these numbers are anywhere near reality and if they refer to the original design (VEB using aluminium structure) or the new one (using composite, since A5 ES/ECA (?)).

By comparison, wikipedia claims the Saturn V IU was just under 2 tons.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/16/2015 11:49 pm
Do you have some numbers for the A5 VEB mass ?

I found numbers varying from 950kg to 1400kg on the following sites:
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html
http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/spacecraft-propulsion/showcase/ariane5-attitude-control-system.html
1400Kg was the figure I've seen.
Quote
However I don't know if these numbers are anywhere near reality and if they refer to the original design (VEB using aluminium structure) or the new one (using composite, since A5 ES/ECA (?)).

By comparison, wikipedia claims the Saturn V IU was just under 2 tons.
That's the point. Despite the Saturn V IU being developed decades before the A5 VAB, and being roughly 3x the diameter it still comes in lighter.  :(
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 06/17/2015 07:39 pm
Quote
However I don't know if these numbers are anywhere near reality and if they refer to the original design (VEB using aluminium structure) or the new one (using composite, since A5 ES/ECA (?)).

By comparison, wikipedia claims the Saturn V IU was just under 2 tons.
That's the point. Despite the Saturn V IU being developed decades before the A5 VAB, and being roughly 3x the diameter it still comes in lighter.  :(

Sorry but I don't think your figures are correct. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V_Instrument_Unit and  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5 (in french):

Ariane 5 VEB:
  diameter 5.4m
  height 1.6m
  mass 1500kg

Saturn V IU:
  diameter 6.6m
  height 0.9m
  mass 2000kg

So the A5 VEB has only a slightly smaller diameter while being taller and is lighter than the Saturn V IU.

Also, in addition to containing all the avionics and power subsystems, the A5 VEB contains the thrusters used to control the launcher roll after separation of the boosters and the related propellant (about 80kg).
On the other hand, the Saturn V IU probably needs a stronger/heavier structure due to the larger mass on top of it.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/25/2015 01:31 pm
Ariane 6 rockets to be assembled horizontally

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/24/ariane-6-rockets-to-be-assembled-horizontally/


Question: when was the last time a liquid-fueled rocket, aided by srb's was stacked horizontally?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 06/25/2015 01:32 pm
OneWeb have options for 3 Ariane 6 launches.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 06/25/2015 01:38 pm
Ariane 6 rockets to be assembled horizontally

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/24/ariane-6-rockets-to-be-assembled-horizontally/


Question: when was the last time a liquid-fueled rocket, aided by srb's was stacked horizontally?

How heavy would that LV strong-back need to handle? 600+ tonnes?  :o
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/25/2015 03:11 pm
Ariane 6 rockets to be assembled horizontally

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/24/ariane-6-rockets-to-be-assembled-horizontally/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/24/ariane-6-rockets-to-be-assembled-horizontally/)


Question: when was the last time a liquid-fueled rocket, aided by srb's was stacked horizontally?

How heavy would that LV strong-back need to handle? 600+ tonnes?  :o
Not to mention the lower part of the first stage having to handle two-to-four fully loaded solids while horizontal.

No, I think the picture is not complete.

One way to facilitate this is with the solids not 'resting' on the core stage, but on the base-plate of the strong-back. So, basically, the solids do not impart significant load on the core stage while horizontal because they are not carried by the core stage but by their own connection (hold-down) to the base plate. Like A5 and STS. Still needs a hefty strong-back.

Another, more classic way of mounting the solids (like Delta II and Atlas V) could result in something like this:
- The core vehicle, minus the solids, will be assembled horizontally
- The core vehicle, minus the solids, is transported to the pad
- The core vehicle, minus the solids, is uprighted to vertical.
- Only then will the solids be attached.
Substantially less hefty strong-back required.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: chapi on 06/25/2015 07:26 pm
Interesting suggestions. Buy off on avoiding core new load paths, and reducing erector costs.

But solids don't handle this well. You get cracking/fissures, because the load paths INSIDE are vertically arranged.

Yes you can improve the "hoisting". But the larger this gets, the more troublesome.
More likely the boosters will be mated to the launcher after vertical erection. They don't need to have them attached early in the integration process.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 06/25/2015 09:04 pm
Interesting suggestions. Buy off on avoiding core new load paths, and reducing erector costs.

But solids don't handle this well. You get cracking/fissures, because the load paths INSIDE are vertically arranged.

Yes you can improve the "hoisting". But the larger this gets, the more troublesome.
More likely the boosters will be mated to the launcher after vertical erection. They don't need to have them attached early in the integration process.

You wouldn't want the payload anywhere near an incomplete stack, so payload integration would follow solids... basically the Delta-IV M flow, I think.  Seems that such a hybrid flow hasn't proven cost effective/efficient.

If going horizontal to get cost break, then need to find a way to roll out with solids attached.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 06/25/2015 11:32 pm
Delta IV flow was never commissioned like it was envisioned. And if VI is a requirement, then a HIF is a cheap way of increasing throughtput. Specially for an expensive location like CSG.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 06/26/2015 05:08 pm

If going horizontal to get cost break, then need to find a way to roll out with solids attached.

Erecting an empty rocket (30 tons for Soyuz, IIRC) is no big deal. Adding 600 tons of solid boosters will complicate matters.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/28/2015 07:24 am
Since this is the Ariane 6 discussion could anyone say how Ariane 5 is moved?

It's already a big rocket with 2 big SRB's on it. IIRC it's vertical on a mobile platform.

TBH my instinct is that if you want full flexibility in payload and low(ish) costs on assembly you have to go with a hybrid approach.

Move the whole stack (including 4 SRB's as the worst case) on it's side to the launch area then vertically assemble the payload.

I'd suggest those last 2 SRB's, which prevent such a stack lying flat are the tricky bit.

But railway track is fairly cheap, fairly easy to lay very straight and the assembly sequence still under discussion.

So bring out an SRB 1st, the core + 2 SRB then the last SRB in 3 separate "wagons" then raise them vertically separately.

With all the stack joined together and early testing complete thing bring up the payload (possibly on a separate lighter track so it's path does not get obstructed by any SRB) and align it to the top of the stack.

This keep everything that can be horizontal horizontal as long as possible and gets the stuff that absolutely must stay vertical stays vertical.

This keeps the hardware relatively simple but the assembly sequence a bit more elaborate. Depending on how well the -64 version sells most of the time I expect it will reduce to a 2 package stack and payload.

This obviously needs some cleverness in the SRB/core joints but that does not necessarily mean they have to be very heavy, using some kind of power driven "bolt driver" system on the pad to engage/disengage SRB 3 & 4 (you weren't going to leave the whole stack outside if there's a launch scrub, were you?  :)  ). Once the SRB's are joined the drivers can be retracted inside blast proof boxes ready for launch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 06/28/2015 02:59 pm
Ariane 5 is assembled and moved vertically. The SRBs (or EAP, as Arianespace calls them) are moved to the integration building vertically as well.

The EAP main segments are filled at Kourou (the nose is filled in Italy). After filling, the segments are transported vertically:

http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/annexes/annexe13%20cometo%20AIT%20200.JPG

After stacking, the whole EAP is transported vertically to the integration building where they're attached to the first stage:
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane5/EAP_small.jpg[

from http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/annexes/annexe13_transport_ariane_partie2.htm (http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/annexes/annexe13_transport_ariane_partie2.htm)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/30/2015 11:12 am
Ariane 5 is assembled and moved vertically. The SRBs (or EAP, as Arianespace calls them) are moved to the integration building vertically as well.

The EAP main segments are filled at Kourou (the nose is filled in Italy). After filling, the segments are transported vertically:
Thanks for that. I'd always thought it was the nozzle end that was filled in Italy, as that was where most of the mechanical complexity was located, TVC actuators, APU etc.

I knew the bulk of the segments were cast on site by local workers.

With the SRB's already vertical it would seem a good idea to keep them vertical, bring the core out to them, then lock them together before propellant loading.

The joker would remain uncoupling the SRB's in the event of a launch scrub but I still think this could be done both quickly and by remote control.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 06/30/2015 11:43 am

I've seen that A6 picture on spacenews.com and I've been trying to make sense of it ever since.

At first I thought that's obviously the outdated all-solid version. However a large part of the core is grey, which suggests it is insulated and thus a liquid core with solids attached at the inter-tank section. The core would have the same small diameter as the solids though. On the other hand the grey part might not be insulation after all, since the skirt between core and upper stage is grey as well. Would make no sense if that were insulated.

Anyway, feel free to waste time on pointless speculation.  ;D
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kryten on 08/12/2015 05:31 pm
Vega C is; P120, Z40, Z9, and an AVUM with more propellant.
Is that AVUM with the current engine, or a european one?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 08/12/2015 05:34 pm
The current one. The europeanised version will have to wait for Vega E
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 08/13/2015 01:13 pm

I've seen that A6 picture on spacenews.com and I've been trying to make sense of it ever since.

At first I thought that's obviously the outdated all-solid version. However a large part of the core is grey, which suggests it is insulated and thus a liquid core with solids attached at the inter-tank section. The core would have the same small diameter as the solids though. On the other hand the grey part might not be insulation after all, since the skirt between core and upper stage is grey as well. Would make no sense if that were insulated.

Anyway, feel free to waste time on pointless speculation.  ;D

That is the old PPH-version. Colors were just the choice of the graphic artist. Don't overestimate the accuracy of such renderings.

However, not even the most recent graphics of the current Ariane 6 PHH version are up to date. They were published shortly after last December's Ministerial Conference, but the design has evolved since then. Personally, I do not expect that new renderings will be released before the final design (stage diameter, attachment point of boosters, etc.) are finally frozen.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 08/13/2015 01:15 pm
The current one. The europeanised version will have to wait for Vega E

That is not correct. Airbus is working on a 5kN storable engine which has a reasonable chance of having its place on Vega-C. Depends obviously on technical and programmatic progress until PDR.

Edit: But this is off-topic in the Ariane 6 Discussion thread.  :-[
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 08/20/2015 10:31 pm
Somehow I get significantly more payload than 5t to GTO for the A62 version. Makes we wonder whether 5t is just a "marketing number"...

Edit: In fact its generally difficult for me to get to such low payloads with A6. A5 has really shitty dry mass fractions for the boosters and in particular the upper stage. The A5 core mf is very good, but raising that to 12% or so for A6 doesn't have that big of an impact. Maybe the upper stage will be just as bad for A6? That would explain a lot...

Or I need proper software :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 08/21/2015 08:20 am
Somehow I get significantly more payload than 5t to GTO for the A62 version. Makes we wonder whether 5t is just a "marketing number"...

Edit: In fact its generally difficult for me to get to such low payloads with A6. A5 has really shitty dry mass fractions for the boosters and in particular the upper stage. The A5 core mf is very good, but raising that to 12% or so for A6 doesn't have that big of an impact. Maybe the upper stage will be just as bad for A6? That would explain a lot...

Or I need proper software :)
The upper stage structure of A6 will have better dry mass fraction compared to A5 upper stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 08/21/2015 12:10 pm
Somehow I get significantly more payload than 5t to GTO for the A62 version. Makes we wonder whether 5t is just a "marketing number"...

Edit: In fact its generally difficult for me to get to such low payloads with A6. A5 has really shitty dry mass fractions for the boosters and in particular the upper stage. The A5 core mf is very good, but raising that to 12% or so for A6 doesn't have that big of an impact. Maybe the upper stage will be just as bad for A6? That would explain a lot...

Or I need proper software :)
Just use ZOOM (http://trajectorysolution.com/ZOOM%20Program.html). It's everything you need.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 09/06/2015 11:59 am
Since this is the Ariane 6 discussion could anyone say how Ariane 5 is moved?

It's already a big rocket with 2 big SRB's on it. IIRC it's vertical on a mobile platform.

TBH my instinct is that if you want full flexibility in payload and low(ish) costs on assembly you have to go with a hybrid approach.

Move the whole stack (including 4 SRB's as the worst case) on it's side to the launch area then vertically assemble the payload.

I'd suggest those last 2 SRB's, which prevent such a stack lying flat are the tricky bit.

But railway track is fairly cheap, fairly easy to lay very straight and the assembly sequence still under discussion.

So bring out an SRB 1st, the core + 2 SRB then the last SRB in 3 separate "wagons" then raise them vertically separately.

With all the stack joined together and early testing complete thing bring up the payload (possibly on a separate lighter track so it's path does not get obstructed by any SRB) and align it to the top of the stack.

This keep everything that can be horizontal horizontal as long as possible and gets the stuff that absolutely must stay vertical stays vertical.

This keeps the hardware relatively simple but the assembly sequence a bit more elaborate. Depending on how well the -64 version sells most of the time I expect it will reduce to a 2 package stack and payload.

This obviously needs some cleverness in the SRB/core joints but that does not necessarily mean they have to be very heavy, using some kind of power driven "bolt driver" system on the pad to engage/disengage SRB 3 & 4 (you weren't going to leave the whole stack outside if there's a launch scrub, were you?  :)  ). Once the SRB's are joined the drivers can be retracted inside blast proof boxes ready for launch.


Why move the rocket at all assemble it on the launch pad using a mobile building (on rails) then move the building back to allow a second mobile  building to place the payload on top like Vega.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/06/2015 09:31 pm
Since this is the Ariane 6 discussion could anyone say how Ariane 5 is moved?

It's already a big rocket with 2 big SRB's on it. IIRC it's vertical on a mobile platform.

TBH my instinct is that if you want full flexibility in payload and low(ish) costs on assembly you have to go with a hybrid approach.

Move the whole stack (including 4 SRB's as the worst case) on it's side to the launch area then vertically assemble the payload.

I'd suggest those last 2 SRB's, which prevent such a stack lying flat are the tricky bit.

But railway track is fairly cheap, fairly easy to lay very straight and the assembly sequence still under discussion.

So bring out an SRB 1st, the core + 2 SRB then the last SRB in 3 separate "wagons" then raise them vertically separately.

With all the stack joined together and early testing complete thing bring up the payload (possibly on a separate lighter track so it's path does not get obstructed by any SRB) and align it to the top of the stack.

This keep everything that can be horizontal horizontal as long as possible and gets the stuff that absolutely must stay vertical stays vertical.

This keeps the hardware relatively simple but the assembly sequence a bit more elaborate. Depending on how well the -64 version sells most of the time I expect it will reduce to a 2 package stack and payload.

This obviously needs some cleverness in the SRB/core joints but that does not necessarily mean they have to be very heavy, using some kind of power driven "bolt driver" system on the pad to engage/disengage SRB 3 & 4 (you weren't going to leave the whole stack outside if there's a launch scrub, were you?  :)  ). Once the SRB's are joined the drivers can be retracted inside blast proof boxes ready for launch.


Why move the rocket at all assemble it on the launch pad using a mobile building (on rails) then move the building back to allow a second mobile  building to place the payload on top like Vega.

We do have an example of that concept in California. It is called SLC-6 at VAFB. AIUI it might currently be the most expensive launch facility. You are moving a structure about half the size of most sports arenas.  ::)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 09/07/2015 04:51 pm
Since this is the Ariane 6 discussion could anyone say how Ariane 5 is moved?

It's already a big rocket with 2 big SRB's on it. IIRC it's vertical on a mobile platform.

TBH my instinct is that if you want full flexibility in payload and low(ish) costs on assembly you have to go with a hybrid approach.

Move the whole stack (including 4 SRB's as the worst case) on it's side to the launch area then vertically assemble the payload.

I'd suggest those last 2 SRB's, which prevent such a stack lying flat are the tricky bit.

But railway track is fairly cheap, fairly easy to lay very straight and the assembly sequence still under discussion.

So bring out an SRB 1st, the core + 2 SRB then the last SRB in 3 separate "wagons" then raise them vertically separately.

With all the stack joined together and early testing complete thing bring up the payload (possibly on a separate lighter track so it's path does not get obstructed by any SRB) and align it to the top of the stack.

This keep everything that can be horizontal horizontal as long as possible and gets the stuff that absolutely must stay vertical stays vertical.

This keeps the hardware relatively simple but the assembly sequence a bit more elaborate. Depending on how well the -64 version sells most of the time I expect it will reduce to a 2 package stack and payload.

This obviously needs some cleverness in the SRB/core joints but that does not necessarily mean they have to be very heavy, using some kind of power driven "bolt driver" system on the pad to engage/disengage SRB 3 & 4 (you weren't going to leave the whole stack outside if there's a launch scrub, were you?  :)  ). Once the SRB's are joined the drivers can be retracted inside blast proof boxes ready for launch.


Why move the rocket at all assemble it on the launch pad using a mobile building (on rails) then move the building back to allow a second mobile  building to place the payload on top like Vega.

We do have an example of that concept in California. It is called SLC-6 at VAFB. AIUI it might currently be the most expensive launch facility. You are moving a structure about half the size of most sports arenas.  ::)


True it is a bit of a challenge but that is what world class engineers are for mind you if they need more than one launchpads it is a no brainer .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: savuporo on 09/12/2015 05:54 pm
I came across a nice doc about restartable Vinci upper stage development, applies to Ariane 5 ME and 6

http://www.ecosimpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SP2014_2938390_Kajon.pdf

I was a bit surprised that considered monopropellants were H2O2, hydrazine and ADN, but no LMP-103S - anyone know if ECAPS was ever looked at ?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: chapi on 09/12/2015 06:41 pm
What they called ADN within the trade was LMP-103S from ECAPS, actually. To my knowledge, H2O2 was eventually selected.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: savuporo on 09/13/2015 06:44 pm
What they called ADN within the trade was LMP-103S from ECAPS, actually. To my knowledge, H2O2 was eventually selected.
Yes H2O2 was selected, as per the doc above.

Do you have a reference for the ADN/ECAPS trade somewhere ?

On technical level, I find the selection somewhat strange, as LMP-103S actually has orbital flight heritage by now. Looking at politics and the subsystem contractor selections for candidate technologies however, its not all that surprising how this particular piece of Eurofudge was made.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: chapi on 09/13/2015 07:19 pm


Do you have a reference for the ADN/ECAPS trade somewhere ?

I doubt you'll find any open information on that.

Most of the recent Ariane trade are cost-driven (production cost), and I guess this is what happened on this one, as there is not such a harsh political fight between Sweden and Norway over Ariane workshares.

Besides, H2O2 is not exactly a low TRL choice, even if ECAPS had had great achievements in the last years.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: savuporo on 09/13/2015 08:04 pm
The comment about politics wasn't Sweden vs Norway, its more about keeping military contractors well supported
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/08/2015 02:50 pm
Looks like there's a new version. No comment :)

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31484.0;attach=1078174;image)

Source: http://www.airbusafran-launchers.com/

It is the same Ariane-6 except for the Atlas V style nose cones on the top of the solid motors.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Skyrocket on 11/08/2015 05:20 pm
Looks like there's a new version. No comment :)

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31484.0;attach=1078174;image)

Source: http://www.airbusafran-launchers.com/

It is the same Ariane-6 except for the Atlas V style nose cones on the top of the solid motors.

No, the really interesting point is, that the core stage diameter has been increased, so that it is the same as the payload fairing - i.e. the diameter is now the same as in Ariane-5
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/08/2015 08:47 pm
Looks like there's a new version. No comment :)

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31484.0;attach=1078174;image)

Source: http://www.airbusafran-launchers.com/

It is the same Ariane-6 except for the Atlas V style nose cones on the top of the solid motors.

No, the really interesting point is, that the core stage diameter has been increased, so that it is the same as the payload fairing - i.e. the diameter is now the same as in Ariane-5
Increased diameter and decreased length.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 11/08/2015 11:03 pm
It is growing more and more similar to Ariane 5 with every revision.  :) Not a bad thing, necessarily!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/08/2015 11:30 pm
Ahh... how far we've come.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FishInferno on 11/09/2015 12:00 am
Ahh... how far we've come.

That sure will look weird after the boosters have staged  :P
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/09/2015 07:21 am
No, the really interesting point is, that the core stage diameter has been increased, so that it is the same as the payload fairing - i.e. the diameter is now the same as in Ariane-5

And if I'm not mistaken the booster thrust is now transfered through the intertank section. I guess that's the reason for the larger core diameter and the rather huge booster nose cones.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/09/2015 07:37 am
No, the really interesting point is, that the core stage diameter has been increased, so that it is the same as the payload fairing - i.e. the diameter is now the same as in Ariane-5

And if I'm not mistaken the booster thrust is now transfered through the intertank section. I guess that's the reason for the larger core diameter and the rather huge booster nose cones.
There is very little to support your assumption. The images provided with the press release show a notable lack of attachments between the boosters and the main stage.
Granted, the extended nose cones on the boosters could be an indicator that thrust take-out will be (partially) thru the intertank section. Based on the material available now, it is speculation at best however.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 11/09/2015 08:02 am
No, the really interesting point is, that the core stage diameter has been increased, so that it is the same as the payload fairing - i.e. the diameter is now the same as in Ariane-5

And if I'm not mistaken the booster thrust is now transfered through the intertank section. I guess that's the reason for the larger core diameter and the rather huge booster nose cones.
There is very little to support your assumption. The images provided with the press release show a notable lack of attachments between the boosters and the main stage.
Granted, the extended nose cones on the boosters could be an indicator that thrust take-out will be (partially) thru the intertank section. Based on the material available now, it is speculation at best however.

woods170 is right in his statement that the picture does not give any hint to support Oli's assumption. Nevertheless, Oli is right in his assumption that the booster thrust will be transferred through the inter-tank section. However, Oli's causal chain ist not fully correct, it is the other way around at best. The main stage diameter has increased to 5,40m, thus easing the choice of thrust introduction at inter-tank level.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/09/2015 08:06 am
Ahh... how far we've come.

That sure will look weird after the boosters have staged  :P

It already looked weird enough!  ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/09/2015 08:31 am
Apparently the new version was presented at SpaceUp.

https://twitter.com/SpaceHolgar/status/662973767648460801?s=17
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/09/2015 01:07 pm
woods170 is right in his statement that the picture does not give any hint to support Oli's assumption. Nevertheless, Oli is right in his assumption that the booster thrust will be transferred through the inter-tank section. However, Oli's causal chain ist not fully correct, it is the other way around at best. The main stage diameter has increased to 5,40m, thus easing the choice of thrust introduction at inter-tank level.

Nice! What were the drivers to increase the main stage diameter?
At 60 meters in length this version is still at least 6 meters longer than the tallest A5 version.
Main stage diameter is now identical to that of A5. Driven by common tooling considerations perhaps?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 11/09/2015 01:27 pm
woods170 is right in his statement that the picture does not give any hint to support Oli's assumption. Nevertheless, Oli is right in his assumption that the booster thrust will be transferred through the inter-tank section. However, Oli's causal chain ist not fully correct, it is the other way around at best. The main stage diameter has increased to 5,40m, thus easing the choice of thrust introduction at inter-tank level.

Nice! What were the drivers to increase the main stage diameter?
At 60 meters in length this version is still at least 6 meters longer than the tallest A5 version.
Main stage diameter is now identical to that of A5. Driven by common tooling considerations perhaps?

Correct. Inital assumption was commonality throughout lower and upper stage and thus a common diameter of 4,60m for all tanks. However, the synergies with existing infrastructure/machines/toolings were one of the main drivers to go back to 5,40m (except for the LOX upper stage tank (at least for the time being)).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/09/2015 02:13 pm
5,40m (except for the LOX upper stage tank (at least for the time being)).

The upper stage LOX tank seems to have the same diameter, just without side walls.

It is growing more and more similar to Ariane 5 with every revision.

Well the industry had to make it look different before the contracts were signed, otherwise politicians would have asked why the hell they're paying 2.4bn for almost the same rocket.
 
 ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/09/2015 03:59 pm
Why is the hydrogen tank on the bottom and the oxygen tank on top. If they change this around the tank connection is close to the top of the P120C (actually P135 loaded 150mT), if I'm not mistaken. They also lower the CG (center of gravity) of the rocket.
Isn't this possible because the Vince engine gets cooled down to much?
And no common bulkhead  :o  ::)
This is just A5ME with the P120C boosters. The 2,4Billion (+400mln P120C) is a lot better than just 1,5 billion for A5ME and still , but still it's a lot of money.
I hope they decide to abandon constructing ELA-4 and modify ELA-3, possibly they save several 100millions with this.

Has anyone noticed the commonality between this Ariane6 and JAXA's H3?
(I found out a couple of weeks ago that Europaen and Japanese companies are together developing a LOxMethane engine (Romeo), that airbus plans to use in Adeline.
Another thing; more Vega/ nanolauncher related. DLR and Brazilian CTA are developing the VLM rocket. CTA is also redesigning their VLS. They are developing a 75kN Upperstage engine and upperstage (this could posibly be the VUS for VEGA E) for VLS Alpha. The VLS Beta has a P40 or P50 sollid first stage, and they are collaborating with Italy (is this a first stage derivative of Z40?). Arianespace is overthinking a nano rocket launch facility. Could the future Arianespace family have connections with H3 and VLS/VLM.
There are also rumors about change of ownership of Avio (Italy). (german) MT Aerospace also wants to produce the P120C (P135), will MT Aerospace buy those shares? There are some things going on in the background that will explain a lot later.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 11/09/2015 07:50 pm
Quote
Why is the hydrogen tank on the bottom and the oxygen tank on top.

Generally you want the center of gravity to be high up. This seems counterintuitive, but the stack is more stable that way.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/09/2015 08:23 pm
Is there any chance that this change allows use of ELA 3 (modified of course) rather than an all-new launch site?

Ariane 6 looks more and more to be Ariane 5 ECB with higher performing (and possibly lower cost) monolithic solids.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/09/2015 09:55 pm
Generally you want the center of gravity to be high up. This seems counterintuitive, but the stack is more stable that way.

Is it that a large arm (distance) between the CG and the engine makes it easier to steer the stage in the right direction? So the instability is practical. Or is there another reasoning?

Ariane 6 looks more and more to be Ariane 5 ECB with higher performing (and possibly lower cost) monolithic solids.

 - Ed Kyle

I've looked at the flame tranche at ELA-3, It's to narrow to facilitate the A64, the A62 will work. They will have to modify the flame trance to facilitate the A64. Most likely it is cheaper to build ELA-4 than to modify ELA-3. Building a new pad leaves ELA-3 operational so ESA keeps the capability to accesses space, when they would have chosen to modify the pad, it wouldn't be operational for several months. After some consideration it is better, although expensive (700mln euro), they build a new pad.   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 11/10/2015 08:21 am
Ariane 6 looks more and more to be Ariane 5 ECB with higher performing (and possibly lower cost) monolithic solids.

 - Ed Kyle

I've looked at the flame tranche at ELA-3, It's to narrow to facilitate the A64, the A62 will work. They will have to modify the flame trance to facilitate the A64. Most likely it is cheaper to build ELA-4 than to modify ELA-3. Building a new pad leaves ELA-3 operational so ESA keeps the capability to accesses space, when they would have chosen to modify the pad, it wouldn't be operational for several months. After some consideration it is better, although expensive (700mln euro), they build a new pad.   

Yes, and another constraint is that the two launchers (A6 and A5ECA) will have a transition phase of at least three years (2020 - 2023) when they are both used.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: STS-200 on 11/10/2015 12:10 pm
Generally you want the center of gravity to be high up. This seems counterintuitive, but the stack is more stable that way.

Is it that a large arm (distance) between the CG and the engine makes it easier to steer the stage in the right direction? So the instability is practical. Or is there another reasoning?

The primary reason is to allow aerodynamic stability by ensuring that the centre of pressure isn't in front of the centre of gravity.

On upper stages, they usually don't bother, and put the heavy oxidiser tank at the bottom.

On some vehicles it can also help reduce tank mass by optimising load paths and/or allowing lower tank pressures (the line from the top tank has a nice big gravity head), although those are secondary benefits and do not always apply.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/10/2015 09:13 pm
Ariane 6 looks more and more to be Ariane 5 ECB with higher performing (and possibly lower cost) monolithic solids.

 - Ed Kyle

I've looked at the flame tranche at ELA-3, It's to narrow to facilitate the A64, the A62 will work. They will have to modify the flame trance to facilitate the A64. Most likely it is cheaper to build ELA-4 than to modify ELA-3. Building a new pad leaves ELA-3 operational so ESA keeps the capability to accesses space, when they would have chosen to modify the pad, it wouldn't be operational for several months. After some consideration it is better, although expensive (700mln euro), they build a new pad.   

Yes, and another constraint is that the two launchers (A6 and A5ECA) will have a transition phase of at least three years (2020 - 2023) when they are both used.
Modifying ELA-3 in such a way that both A5 and A6 could use the same pad is unlikely to be cost-effective given the relatively short period that both systems will be flying simultaneously. A new pad for A6 is therefore the more logical choice.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 11/11/2015 12:08 pm

Has anyone noticed the commonality between this Ariane6 and JAXA's H3?
(I found out a couple of weeks ago that Europaen and Japanese companies are together developing a LOxMethane engine (Romeo), that airbus plans to use in Adeline.
Another thing; more Vega/ nanolauncher related. DLR and Brazilian CTA are developing the VLM rocket. CTA is also redesigning their VLS. They are developing a 75kN Upperstage engine and upperstage (this could posibly be the VUS for VEGA E) for VLS Alpha. The VLS Beta has a P40 or P50 sollid first stage, and they are collaborating with Italy (is this a first stage derivative of Z40?). Arianespace is overthinking a nano rocket launch facility. Could the future Arianespace family have connections with H3 and VLS/VLM.
There are also rumors about change of ownership of Avio (Italy). (german) MT Aerospace also wants to produce the P120C (P135), will MT Aerospace buy those shares? There are some things going on in the background that will explain a lot later.

I was at SpaceUp, and Gilibert (the CTO of Airbus Safran Launchers) said they just completed testing a Lox/Methane turbopump in japan, in collaboration with IHI. He was very enthusiastic about LOX/Methane.
He also talked about small launchers, the slides should be somewhere on twitter, I'll try and repost it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 11/11/2015 01:44 pm
The IHI LOX-CH4 turbopump is dimensioned for Airbus' space plane rocket engine ACE-42R. See the attached fact sheet, which I got hold of at this year's Le Bourget Air Show.

There is no link (yet) with Ariane 6!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/11/2015 03:00 pm
^^ A.k.a Romeo

When Adeline was unveiled Airbus material discussed using Romeo for the Adeline demonstrator.

Not much of a stretch to put a cluster of say 4 Romeos on a full Adeline to replace Vulcain.

Though of course by then it may as well be called ariane 7
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 11/11/2015 03:13 pm
Actually their vision is to eventually develop a methalox engine of the same class as vulcain.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/11/2015 04:43 pm
For an expendable afaik, not for a reusable like Adeline.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/19/2015 02:35 pm
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/11/Artist_s_view_of_the_two_configurations_of_Ariane_6

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/11/Exploded_artist_s_view_of_the_two_configurations_of_Ariane_6

Credits: ESA–David Ducros, 2015
I keep wondering why a cross and not double pairs. It would flatten the stack and might allow for a 6 solid version if even needed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/19/2015 03:47 pm
Indeed I was wondering the same thing, now they are going with the larger diameter surely it would make more sense to cluster the solids wouldn't it? It would simplify the pad design and rocket assembly as well as adding flexibility to the configuration.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/19/2015 04:07 pm
Indeed I was wondering the same thing, now they are going with the larger diameter surely it would make more sense to cluster the solids wouldn't it? It would simplify the pad design and rocket assembly as well as adding flexibility to the configuration.
I would guess so. Nice things about pairing boosters is that you can detach them together and thus you reduce the recontact risk. But this is possible only with liquids, like Energia did. Solids have the issue of having some thrust lead off.
In this sens it is interesting the ULA's decision to go back to conic tips for the ATK solids was done in part because it enables it to be discarded immediately after they reach a T/W<1. The ones with AeroJet SRB with conforming head, currently used on Atlas V, need some extra time to avoid recontact due to the interaction of the remaining thrust and the aerodynamic forces. Seeing how the new design has a significant aerodynamic tip, I would guess that they had quite an issue with this particular dynamic behavior.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/19/2015 04:52 pm
Indeed I was wondering the same thing, now they are going with the larger diameter surely it would make more sense to cluster the solids wouldn't it? It would simplify the pad design and rocket assembly as well as adding flexibility to the configuration.
I would guess so. Nice things about pairing boosters is that you can detach them together and thus you reduce the recontact risk.

On Atlas there's only a very small delay between booster detachements. Doesn't seem to be an issue.

See e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8PIoT78t4U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYtDZ5Btp-A

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/07/2015 12:06 am
How well do we think that it will compete in market?  There will be ULA - Valcun, BO and SpaceX?  Is the A6 too little to really compete?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/07/2015 04:20 am
How well do we think that it will compete in market?  There will be ULA - Valcun, BO and SpaceX?  Is the A6 too little to really compete?
In my opinion, all of those will be chasing Ariane 6.  Ariane retains the near-equatorial latitude trump card.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/07/2015 06:21 am
How well do we think that it will compete in market?  There will be ULA - Valcun, BO and SpaceX?  Is the A6 too little to really compete?

Will there? Vulcan is far from certain to be developed, BO are nowhere near producing a commercial heavy-lifter to compete with Ariane 6, and spacex need to stop blowing rockets up.

What do you mean by too little?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GClark on 12/07/2015 09:14 am
...spacex need to stop blowing rockets up.

I am just about the last person on these boards to be defending that company, but that accusation is more than a tad unfair.

ONE Falcon 9 out of 19 attempts has suffered a launch failure.  Not too shabby IMNSHO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/07/2015 09:56 am
It was hyperbole of course, the point is that all this doom-mongering about Ariane from newspace amazing peoples is ridiculous.

There isn't yet any real competitior for Ariane 5, let alone Ariane 6...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/07/2015 10:07 am
Are we sure the politicians will funded the Ariane 6  adequately for it be in service on schedule? There is the economic mess in Europe right now.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/07/2015 10:34 am
The major backers are France and Germany, neither has been hit as badly as some other countries. The decision to proceed with Ariane 6 was taken last December, when governments have known for some time what pressures they are under. Italy is heavily involved in the boosters but Germany is building a backup production line anyway.

They have already signed-off on contracts with Airbus, they wouldn't do that if the funding wasn't largely in place.

Of course that all assumes it stays on budget...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/07/2015 11:23 am
The major backers are France and Germany, neither has been hit as badly as some other countries. The decision to proceed with Ariane 6 was taken last December, when governments have known for some time what pressures they are under. Italy is heavily involved in the boosters but Germany is building a backup production line anyway.

They have already signed-off on contracts with Airbus, they wouldn't do that if the funding wasn't largely in place.

Of course that all assumes it stays on budget...
Which it won't and that won't matter because in that case the member states will simply cough-up the additional required funds. It happened before with Ariane 1, Ariane 2/3, Ariane 4 and Ariane 5. Ariane 6 will be no different.
Once the member states are committed, they will stick to it all the way. Independant access to space is simply too important.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 12/09/2015 10:04 am
It was hyperbole of course, the point is that all this doom-mongering about Ariane from newspace amazing peoples is ridiculous.

There isn't yet any real competitior for Ariane 5, let alone Ariane 6...

That is what is holding back Ariane from building larger rockets the commercial operators will not build a satellite for only one launcher .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/09/2015 12:17 pm
@Floss For which purpose should ESA/ Arianespace need a larger (more payload to orbit) rocket. Ariane 5 ES can launch 21mT to LEO (ISS), A5 ESA can launch a single 10mT payload to GTO and dual payload of 9,5mT. A64 will be a little more capable than A5, the main advantage of A6 (I would call it A5ME with Vega synchronization) is that it is more flexible, because the upper-stage will be re-ignitable two payloads can be launched to a wider range of orbits.
Next year at least two A5 comsat launches with one payload will take place, because no matching secondary payload could be found (main is <6mT, secondary <3,5mT). The problem here is that A5 is to large for one payload and not flexible enough to deliver two comsats to different orbits. Hence the cheaper and more flexible A6 is needed.

What payload capability does ESA and the EU member-states need:
The heaviest payload ever launched by ESA was ATV with 20mT, but this program has ended. There are only two highly speculative payloads I can think of that can surpass this, the Orion spacecraft and new space-station modules. The current heaviest payload planned is JWST (the telescope) with 8mT if i'm not mistaken.
All other payloads are lighter.
Large comsats ~6mT GTO,
medium comsats/MTG 3,5mT GTO,
Small comsats 1,5mT GTO,
Gallileo navigation (1mTx1;2 or 4) 1-5mT MEO,
Earth opservation & MetopSG 1-5mT SSO (/LEO),
Escape 1-5mT.

So A5 and A64 are the heaviest launchers needed in europe, when something heavier is needed there is a simple method called segmentation and in orbit assembly. (Hence I don't get the billions NASA is wasting on SLS, but that's an opinion.)

On the financial situation in Europe; yes there is a state debt problem, especially in southern European countries (Greece [that should never been allowed to join the Eurogroup; my opinion sorry], Portugal, Spain, Italy). They have state depts over 90% of GDP, but the US has the same, isn't it? 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/09/2015 01:07 pm
Indeed Europe does not have the luxury of wasting billions, any launcher is going to need to pay its way and so will be sized primarily to make a commercial "profit". In fact I'd argue that the current Ariane 6 design is already a concession to support non-commercial ambitions, it was the previous smaller all-solid design that was supposed to rely purely on the commercial market. Members baulked at such a reduction in capability and so coughed-up for the guaranteed 6.2 flights.

Europe has no real interest in anything larger as it has no plans that would require it.

As for commercial operators and their satellites, there is an expectation that the move to all-electric propulsion will limit if not reverse mass growth of satellites. There's no indication that they want even bigger satellites right now.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/09/2015 01:28 pm
Indeed Europe does not have the luxury of wasting billions, any launcher is going to need to pay its way and so will be sized primarily to make a commercial "profit". In fact I'd argue that the current Ariane 6 design is already a concession to support non-commercial ambitions, it was the previous smaller all-solid design that was supposed to rely purely on the commercial market. Members baulked at that and so coughed-up for the guaranteed 6.2 flights.

Europe has no real interest in anything larger as it has no plans that would require it.

As for commercial operators and their satellites, there is an expectation that the move to all-electric propulsion will limit if not reverse mass growth of satellites. There's no indication that they want even bigger satellites right now.

I think sat operators were clearly in favor of the PHH option. Remember this letter:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1253669#msg1253669
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/09/2015 02:13 pm
It was hyperbole of course, the point is that all this doom-mongering about Ariane from newspace amazing peoples is ridiculous.

There isn't yet any real competitior for Ariane 5, let alone Ariane 6...

That is what is holding back Ariane from building larger rockets the commercial operators will not build a satellite for only one launcher .
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Over the past years your posts show a clear preference for Europe developing a big-*ss rocket to launch non-existent heavy payloads. One of the arguments you come up with (on a regular bases I might add) is that such a launcher is needed to launch a European manned spacecraft.
Neither the heavy payloads, nor the manned spacecraft have surfaced over the past years and will not be surfacing anytime soon.
In stead of developing a manned spacecraft on it's own Europe has joined forces with the US on Orion. No heavy payloads are being developed and none are planned for development.
Put short: there is no need for a bigger launcher of European origin. And that has nothing to do with what the commercial sat operators want. They couldn't care less if their sat is part of a one-payload or two-payload launch. All what matters to them is that Ariane get's the payload safely in orbit, preferably in one piece and with as little delay as possible.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/09/2015 02:39 pm
Let me explain why I think Vega synchronized Ariane 5ME is a more appropriate name than Ariane 6. I have some CNES presentations form 2010 and earlier where they are discussing future launcher designs. In those presentations they call implementing Vince on Ariane 5 the second improvement (after the development of the ES upper-stage and the improvements from A5G to A5E. The Ariane5 first stage uses a balloon tank, it's structural integrity is reliant on pressure inside the tanks. The stresses on the first stage when using the ECB(vince) upper-stage would exceed what it can handle. Thus the first stage structure has to be modified, than it's a little effort to improve/optimize the solids to. Thus the 1,5 billion euro program cost for A5ME with little to no cost saving.
The current design is very close to A5ME but they changed from France Metalic multi segment solids to Italian Carbonfiber-epoxy filement-wound monolithic boosters. The new boosters P120C (containing ~136mT of propallent) are about half as powerful, so four instead of two boosters are needed. The nice thing about this is that using two P120C will give a nice intermediate rocket with roughly the same capabilities as A6PPH. This rocket (A62) is a little bit more powerful than Soyuz, but also more expensive.
The nice thing is that the P120C together with the Z40 second stage (that AVIO has been developing) can improve the capability of Vega to 2500kg to 800km SSO, so ESA/EU relies less on Soyuz for Earth-observation satellites. This Vega C will cost roughly the same as the current vega.

With the PPH Esa would have lost the capability to launch more than 15mT to LEO and 7mT to GTO. The vibration environment would be harsher that on the PHH, that's why satellite providers prefer PHH.

I still regret the stupid decisions made at the ESA ministerial conference 2012, because for a real better launch vehicle a new first stage engine would have to be developed. The High Trust Engine part of the FLPP program. Just like with the inregular funding for the Vince upper-stage engine, that lead to a decade long development program. The HTE part of FLPP was stopped and it was decided to develop Ariane5 ME (B/C phase) and study architectures for A6 (0/A phase). A lot of A6 architectures relied on new/ better (truss to weight and higher trust) liquid first stage engines. So the only direction that could be followed for the A6 was solids, the PPH.

At the end of 2014 I think it was the industry that pulled ESA towards the current launcher direction PHH. Becouse they saw doom scenario's in front of them. PPH has no future grow scenario at all (documents form 2011), a high trust LOx-Methane engine has the largest grow potential. Developing the P120C and using this for both the first stage of an improved Vega as well as booster for A5ME, delivers a wider launch capability and also has a grow path when a new high trust first stage engine would be developed in the future.

The development contract signed earlier this year is different from development contracts signed in the past. The Industry also puts 400 million of it's money into the 3,4 billion Euro fixed price development program for Vega-C, Ariane 6 and ELA-4. In trade of this ESA together with EU the member-states and organisations committed themselves to order a minimum amount of launches per year. So the industry has a small guaranteed demand to rectify their investment.
Arianespace was privatized by CNES selling their shares. Personally I think some more share trades will happen during the following years that will lead to a smaller number of businesses responsible for developing and producing rockets, and Arianespace responsible for launch services. ESA and other EU organisations will order launch services and will fund low TRL level developments. (although this might be wistful thinking/ over optimistic)       
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/09/2015 03:19 pm
Indeed Europe does not have the luxury of wasting billions, any launcher is going to need to pay its way and so will be sized primarily to make a commercial "profit". In fact I'd argue that the current Ariane 6 design is already a concession to support non-commercial ambitions, it was the previous smaller all-solid design that was supposed to rely purely on the commercial market. Members baulked at that and so coughed-up for the guaranteed 6.2 flights.

Europe has no real interest in anything larger as it has no plans that would require it.

As for commercial operators and their satellites, there is an expectation that the move to all-electric propulsion will limit if not reverse mass growth of satellites. There's no indication that they want even bigger satellites right now.

I think sat operators were clearly in favor of the PHH option. Remember this letter:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1253669#msg1253669


Well two things; I don't think the letter explicitly or implicitly favoured either option as there are points to support both, but my point wasn't about what the operators wanted. It was about whether Member States would pay in some way for the capabilities they wanted over and above the PPH "do minimum" option. PPH was all that was needed to fulfil the tickbox requirements, that's precisely why no one liked it that much.

Nicely backs up the point about satellite mass though.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/09/2015 05:05 pm
I don't think the letter explicitly or implicitly favoured either option...

Um..disagree.

I still regret the stupid decisions made at the ESA ministerial conference 2012, because for a real better launch vehicle a new first stage engine would have to be developed. The High Trust Engine part of the FLPP program.

I remember those designs, how would it have led to a "better" launch vehicle? The fact that HTE was stopped but work on Ariane 6 continued speaks volumes IMO. Or what's your interpretation?

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/09/2015 05:21 pm
I think there is one Ariane 6 configuration missing, because it is impossible with the vulcain 2 engine; the Ariane 6.0 the configuration without boosters. This would have about the same capabilities as soyuz.  3mT SSO; 2mT MEO; 2mT GTO, 10mT LEO. Also the Heavy configuration is not possible (two liquid main stage boosters, the main stage and the upper-stage. This would have been possible with engines that would have been developed during the HTE program.
For the 3,5-4mT SSO METOPSG with the current plan there is no launcher with the right capabilities. So it has to be launch with a dual launch or about 1mT of rideshare payloads on A62 or on Soyuz.   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 12/09/2015 05:56 pm
I think there is one Ariane 6 configuration missing, because it is impossible with the vulcain 2 engine; the Ariane 6.0 the configuration without boosters. This would have about the same capabilities as soyuz.  3mT SSO; 2mT MEO; 2mT GTO, 10mT LEO. Also the Heavy configuration is not possible (two liquid main stage boosters, the main stage and the upper-stage. This would have been possible with engines that would have been developed during the HTE program.
For the 3,5-4mT SSO METOPSG with the current plan there is no launcher with the right capabilities. So it has to be launch with a dual launch or about 1mT of rideshare payloads on A62 or on Soyuz.

Those rockets were meant to do single launches of comsats and had a maximum capacity of 8t to GTO. They were also "performance-driven", i.e. they were using high-thrust staged combustion hydrolox or methalox engines and tanks with common bulkheads.

If reusability is the goal that's probably the way to go.

Remember though, any of those fancy RTLS reusable first stages do not compete with the Ariane 6 core stage, they compete with the boosters. Boosters which are very reliable and apparently also can get pretty cheap if you produce them in large numbers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 12/09/2015 06:08 pm
And never forget that you don't have to exactly match payload capacity. Excess payload doesn't hurt that much if you can keep commonality. Fuel prices don't kill you, it's overhead and fixed costs that drive launch costs.
I'd bet giving up the whole Soyuz pad and operations and simply launching these payloads on a single A62 would save a lot of money.

But saving money actually (despite the brouhaha around it) has never been a priority in the European launcher programs, politics have always been more important.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: chapi on 12/09/2015 06:42 pm


I don't think the letter explicitly or implicitly favoured either option...

Um..disagree.


I think there is one Ariane 6 configuration missing, because it is impossible with the vulcain 2 engine; the Ariane 6.0 the configuration without boosters.

Actually it is quite possible with the Vulcain 2, and has been part of the trade space for Ariane 6 : you only have to accommodate 3 to 4 Vulcain, which is not such a big deal at 5.4m diameter. But this is just not cost effective, and this is why the variant was not kept, ultimately.

And I suspect HTE would cost more in those architecture than a bunch of 3-4 serial production Vulcain.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kato on 12/09/2015 07:28 pm
All other payloads are lighter.
Remember that A5 also lofts loads to HCO or to SEL points using only the upper stage - in the past Rosetta, in the future currently planned for JUICE and ATHENA. Meaning the upper stage needs to do 7.0 km/s instead of 6.3 km/s delta-v (very roughly).

Not really a decisive factor for A6, but something to keep in mind regarding availability of an option with more than a default commercial 6-8 mt to GTO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 12/10/2015 12:34 am
@Floss For which purpose should ESA/ Arianespace need a larger (more payload to orbit) rocket. Ariane 5 ES can launch 21mT to LEO (ISS), A5 ESA can launch a single 10mT payload to GTO and dual payload of 9,5mT. A64 will be a little more capable than A5, the main advantage of A6 (I would call it A5ME with Vega synchronization) is that it is more flexible, because the upper-stage will be re-ignitable two payloads can be launched to a wider range of orbits.
Next year at least two A5 comsat launches with one payload will take place, because no matching secondary payload could be found (main is <6mT, secondary <3,5mT). The problem here is that A5 is to large for one payload and not flexible enough to deliver two comsats to different orbits. Hence the cheaper and more flexible A6 is needed.

What payload capability does ESA and the EU member-states need:
The heaviest payload ever launched by ESA was ATV with 20mT, but this program has ended. There are only two highly speculative payloads I can think of that can surpass this, the Orion spacecraft and new space-station modules. The current heaviest payload planned is JWST (the telescope) with 8mT if i'm not mistaken.
All other payloads are lighter.
Large comsats ~6mT GTO,
medium comsats/MTG 3,5mT GTO,
Small comsats 1,5mT GTO,
Gallileo navigation (1mTx1;2 or 4) 1-5mT MEO,
Earth opservation & MetopSG 1-5mT SSO (/LEO),
Escape 1-5mT.

So A5 and A64 are the heaviest launchers needed in europe, when something heavier is needed there is a simple method called segmentation and in orbit assembly. (Hence I don't get the billions NASA is wasting on SLS, but that's an opinion.)

On the financial situation in Europe; yes there is a state debt problem, especially in southern European countries (Greece [that should never been allowed to join the Eurogroup; my opinion sorry], Portugal, Spain, Italy). They have state depts over 90% of GDP, but the US has the same, isn't it? 

Financial situation is great if you are an exporter like Germany,France or Britain all the bankrupt countries makes the Euro cheaper so it is easier to sell stuff.
The most funny thing about debts is that who it is owed to take rep of Ireland for instance who is 92 % of GDP in debt but guess who owns that debt but Britain but guess what they owe Ireland  just as much as we owe them .

I never said that Europe needs a big ass launcher but a 30 ton to leo launcher that can launch 3 5 ton all electric  com sats would be excellent and the insurance would be cheaper .

That would be
30 TONS to Leo ISS modules and the ability for future man rating .
15 tons to GEO 3 all electric satellites /2  6 ton satellites with a science mission.
10 tons to the lunar surface for exploration .

Incidentally a manned lunar lander weighs around 15 tons .

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 12/10/2015 02:30 am
Please stop this nonesense. They don't need 30tonne, 3 x 5tonne GTO would be prohibitive for insurance.And I don't want to get into economics.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/10/2015 08:26 am
I never said that Europe needs a big ass launcher but a 30 ton to leo launcher that can launch 3 5 ton all electric  com sats would be excellent and the insurance would be cheaper .

That would be
30 TONS to Leo ISS modules and the ability for future man rating .
15 tons to GEO 3 all electric satellites /2  6 ton satellites with a science mission.
10 tons to the lunar surface for exploration .

Incidentally a manned lunar lander weighs around 15 tons .


There. You are at it again. 30 Tons to LEO actually IS a big-*ss launcher. In fact 50% more powerfull than the current Ariane 5. And mind you, A5 already is classed as a heavy lifter.
Also, there is no need for launching additional modules to ISS, most decidely not ones weighing 30 tons. USOS is complete and any future Russian modules (if any) will be launched on Russian launchers.
And there is the man-rating thing again. Please get this into your head: There is no need for any European launcher to be man-rated. The last time it was needed was two-an-a-half decade ago. And that went away real fast. And the current manned spacecraft that ESA is CO-working on will be launched on a US vehicle.

Finally: those lunar colony plans that the current ESA DG is dreaming about? Those are just dreams, not supported by financial reality and very much not supported by the policy makers in ESA.
Manned lunar lander? Man, you really have a tendency to clinch to every little straw to have your arguments stick.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/10/2015 06:29 pm
As if the spaceflight gods were listening, just a short while ago Woerner said this at a media event in Washington,

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/675007686166097921 (https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/675007686166097921)
Quote
Woerner: no plans to human-rate Ariane 6. Rely on partners for human transport, including NASA.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/15/2015 10:18 pm
I couldn't find a report of new information about Ariane 6 posted on the website from CNES (https://ariane.cnes.fr/fr/web/CNES-fr/11283-ariane-6.php).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 12/16/2015 05:39 pm
I couldn't find a report of new information about Ariane 6 posted on the website from CNES (https://ariane.cnes.fr/fr/web/CNES-fr/11283-ariane-6.php).

Here are the images from that link.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RonM on 01/29/2016 01:23 pm
Here's a BBC article on the Ariane 6.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35435108 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35435108)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/29/2016 01:28 pm
I found a video with the latest design of Ariane 6. (deleted)
I also during the Director Genaral Year opening Briefing, held the 15th of Januari, it can watch it here (http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2016/01/DG_s_media_brief_replay).
Some interesting pictures were shown concerning Ariane 6 and Vega C/E. Also a picture was shown with a Vega X and Ariane Y, future evaluations of the Ariane and Vega family. In this (http://www.urvilag.hu/europai_urpolitika/20160127_az_urtevekenyseg_olcso) article there is a picture with a screenshot.  These future versions looked like very similar to the Ariane 5 alternative presented by (german) MT Aerospace back in 2011.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/29/2016 01:44 pm
Apparently Airbus Safran Launchers (ASL) held their annual press conferance yesterday. The video was shown there. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmIVzEJpmcs)
Two new documents can be found on the ASL site (http://www.airbusafran-launchers.com/), one concerning the 70th consecutive successful launch of Ariane 6 with Intelsat 29e. The other one is about the press conference, and a year of working on Ariane 6.     
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/29/2016 02:17 pm
There is one direct lie in the BBC article.
Europe does NOT have beter (cryogenic) propulsion technology than the USA. It is by lack of good engines that Arianespace, ASL and ELV(avio) are forced to us to a design with Solid strap on boosters. A direct replacement to the Soyuz would be Ariane 60 (without P120C's). But because the Vulcain 2 engine is to expensive, not powerful enough to launch the core and upperstage with one engine and just like the RS-68A not capable of withstanding the heat when multiple engines are mounted unther one core. The A60 is an impossible configuration.
I forgot to mention that Arianespace is forced to dual payloads to get a compatible offer with the expendable Falcon 9. It is in no ways beter for the client that another payload is required to get an affordable launch.

The European ministers stoped the engine development program than would have made a A60 configuration possible back 2012 at the ministerial conference. They decided to waist money on production facilities (in germany) for the A5ME upper-stage that will now be used for the A6 upper-stage. And the detailed design for A5ME and preliminary designs of A6. This stupid decision (in my opinion) made me lose intrest for space for at least two years. Luckily the industry directed the development towards the current design, (most likely they had the current design of A6 in their mind from the begining. the narrower core design was most likely just to get the funding. With came down a lot, form 1,5billion just for A5ME to wards 2,4 billion for A6 with has lots of growth potential.
I hope new technologies will be developed by means of small (micro/nano) launch vehicles. And maybe in ten years Europe will get at the same point as the US is now. Is ASL is allowed industry itself can change/ advance the design of the Ariane 6. The future of the european launch industry looks a lot brighter now than two years back, in my opinion.     
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JamesH on 01/29/2016 03:08 pm
Just watched the video from the BBC site - and what really stuck out was - no reusability AT ALL. It's like they saw SpaceX/BO in the distance, and stuck their heads in the sand until they had gone by.

Amazing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Pipcard on 01/29/2016 03:20 pm
Just watched the video from the BBC site - and what really stuck out was - no reusability AT ALL. It's like they saw SpaceX/BO in the distance, and stuck their heads in the sand until they had gone by.

Amazing.
Because they believe in the idea (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/656756468876750848) that RLVs need dozens of flights per year to be economically viable, or that the viability needs to be "proven" first. (although Robotbeat claims that there is a Lockheed study (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31025.msg1009428#msg1009428) that says you only need 8 flights/year for a reusable first stage)

Also, this (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3xue7n/arianespaces_ceo_has_doubts_about_the_economic/):
Quote from: Stéphane Israel, Arianespace CEO
[The reusable Falcon 9 first stage] is a beautiful technological achievement in the context of a mission in LEO asking little performance from the launcher, freeing the performance required by recovery. But for the economic equation, things are still very uncertain. Performance loss on recovery, lower industrial rate, cost of refurbishment of the first stage, difficulty convincing customers to use a used launcher, uncertainties about the reliability: it would be a mistake to consider reuse is the alpha and omega of disruptive innovation in the field of launchers.

Quote
[Will the Ariane 6 configuration allow for reusability in the long term?]

The fact that the configuration finally selected by ESA and the industry, said PHH (a solid stage, two liquid stages), make use of less powder than the initial PPH project and surely goes in this direction: a launcher is more likely to be reused if it uses less a powder. But in the version which will be available by 2020, priority has not been put on reuse. All the players in the launcher sector wanted cheaper launcher as quickly as possible, more flexible and better suited to the European institutional market. I think that nothing would be worse than backtracking to better jump.

In spring 2015, we asked our customers: they wrote to the Director General of ESA, which was also had the same the opinion, saying that the worst solution would be to change our project Ariane 6, which also includes the re-ignitable Vinci higher stage, an important technological innovation and that is well adapted to the market of satellite constellations and electric-powered satellites.

Copying the competitor gives you the assurance that you will, at best, be second. Then, the future remains open: the agencies and the industry are already working on projects of reusability for the first or second stage of a launcher, as shown by the Adeline concept recently unveiled by Airbus and the work carried out in France and Germany on new technologies of reusable engines at very low cost.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/29/2016 03:29 pm
With the technologies they have at hand there is just no possibility of effective re-usability. With the solids (P120C actually P136) the rubber liner, that protects the carbon composite casing, will be damaged. This liner needs to be taken out and replaced. It's just cheaper to make a new solid stage than refurbishing one. The core stage with the Vulcain 2+ (2.1) engine, can only be fired once. New igniters have to be placed to re-fire the engine.
It has happened at least once that the Vulcain2 of Ariane5 didn't start up correctly, so the solids didn't ignite. The Ariane 5 had to be rolled back to the BAF, to place new igniters. A launch delay of at least two weeks. (Another way European rocket engines are inferior to US engines. Arianespace has only hypergolic reignitable engines at their disposal (AVUM and EPS (A5ES)). Vince is also re-ignitable five times, but the ESC-B upperstage (A5-ME) is still in development as upperstage for A6. Both BE-3 and Merlin 1D(v) are re-ignitable at least five times. BE-4 and Raptor will most likely also be reignitable, I don't know if Romeo LOx-LCH4 450kN will be re-ignitable.
A lot of technologies have to be developed before a European launcher can have economical reusable stages. They have been working on that for more than 20 years in the US, and not at all in europe.  :-[     
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/29/2016 03:37 pm
...just like the RS-68A not capable of withstanding the heat when multiple engines are mounted unther one core. The A60 is an impossible configuration.

 ???

The Vulcain nozzle is regeneratively cooled. Configurations with multiple Vulcains on the core have been studied. The problem with such configurations seems to be the high cost relative to the performance, so they ended up with using boosters as a first stage.

The core stage with the Vulcain 2+ (2.1) engine, can only be fired once. New igniters have to be placed to re-fire the engine.

Vulcain was never used as a second stage engine, so why make it reignitable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/29/2016 04:03 pm
I think reusability can work at high and very low launch rates. let me explain and give an example.

For serial production to be economical I think a rate of 10-15 is required, on every month to every two weeks. At lower rates the workers have to relearn there task every time they execute it. At these rates a learning effect takes place, and most likely one production line is sufficient. For Falcon 9 ten engines are required per launch, and i think the above rule applies very well for engine assembly. Now for a launch rate of 10 rockets 100 engines are required, I think with a reusable first stage the engine production rate will drop to 20 to 30 engines per year, for the same amount of launches. (I think a small check will have to take place after every launch. After a maximum of 10 launches at least the center engine has to be replaced, and a detailed inspection has to take place. Possibly a new stage is cheaper at this point than refurbishment.)
When a system has a very low (less than 3 per year) launch rate, as with the SLS, each system has the production cost of a prototype/ single p product. If you can get parts of that system back and the refurbishment takes less work than building a new system. A reusable system will be more effective than a expendable one.

Than the example.
In Spain a startup PLD (PayLoaD) Space, has plans for a reusable sounding rocket and a reusable small launch vehicle. Currently they try to get the funding to develop their sounding rocket. First this rocket will be expendable but they will try to recover the stage each flight, with a para-foil recovery system. The end goal is ten sounding rocket launches each year for this they will have one system involved in a launch-compane, one that is being refurbished and one being build. The launch system will fly about eight times per year and for the first stage the same cadence is planned.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/29/2016 04:33 pm
1)The Vulcain nozzle is regeneratively cooled. Configurations with multiple Vulcains on the core have been studied. The problem with such configurations seems to be the high cost relative to the performance, so they ended up with using boosters as a first stage.
2)Vulcain was never used as a second stage engine, so why make it reignitable.
1) Point taken, it can sustain the heat but the other two reasons are valid. To expansive and to little trust for a single engine.
2) For a rocket(stage) to be reusable it has to be re-ignitable, or a guided parachute system or wing system has to be incorporated. With Ariane 5 it was inconvenient that the system had to go back to the BAF for the refurbishment, with A6 this is solved, because of the roll away gantry at the launchpad. The gantry can provide the environment where the engine can be prepared for the next launch attempt.
 
I think there is going to be a capability gap between VEGA C/E and Ariane 62. Most likely this will be solved with a multiple (cheap) engine configuration, one 2000-4000kN engine is way more expansive to design and most likely also to manufacture than multiple 350-800kN engines. These smaller engines can be used for a smaller system, and one engine can be made re-ignitable to enable powered stage landing and/or boost back.
But new engines are needed for a reusable launcher, and I think multiple smaller engines with engine out capability are a smarter approach than a single very large engine.
Most likely A62 is the direct competitor to F9, they have about the same capability. But Arianespace can offer the 5mT GTO capability for 45mln instead of 75mln with A64 on a dual launch.   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/29/2016 07:46 pm
I think reusability can work at high and very low launch rates.

I think reusability is a bit of a fad at the moment. If you're willing to sacrifice performance with low staging velocities, then why not use "dumb boosters" instead? Even SpaceShipTwo with its projected high launch rate is using expendable solids (to be precise: hybrids where the solid part is expendable).

For a rocket(stage) to be reusable it has to be re-ignitable

It doesn't make much sense to me to reuse Vulcain on Ariane 6 because the core will be very fast at burnout and most thrust will be provided by expendable boosters.
 
Most likely this will be solved with a multiple (cheap) engine configuration, one 2000-4000kN engine is way more expansive to design and most likely also to manufacture than multiple 350-800kN engines

I think from a maintenance cost point of view a single large engine would probably be preferable to multiple smaller ones.

Regardless, a ~1000kn methalox engine dubbed "Prométhée" should be on the test stand by the end of the decade so we'll see what they do with it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/29/2016 10:57 pm
I think reusability can work at high and very low launch rates.

I think reusability is a bit of a fad at the moment. If you're willing to sacrifice performance with low staging velocities, then why not use "dumb boosters" instead? Even SpaceShipTwo with its projected high launch rate is using expendable solids (to be precise: hybrids where the solid part is expendable).

We don't know how "reusable stages" will work out (yet). Reuse itself might "be a fad" as you put it.

Post landing BO/SX first stages, and an example of reuse, one effect to notice is a "drying up" of interest in first stage engine reuse. ULA is starting to hint at US reuse, possibly by elements of "SMART". That is how the narrative has changed.

You're right about the slow/"lofted" staging - but SX seems to think that Mach 9 with downrange recovery is possible w/o change to LV - and they did get engines back on that. With certain changes, Mach 11 might be feasible. In these cases its more about the props/legs as digging into performance loss.

It may be that these costs compared to the additional hydrolox costs for Ariane 6 are negligible. And we have not even begun to bring in the solids. Also, SS2 is not a good one to bring up here for many reasons.

Earlier PPH designs did attempt a low cost expendable with modular solids, which in theory could push expendables beyond the partial recovery economics, but in practice the contradictions of solids as sourced did not allow such to be affordable. The decision for the current design as a refinement of Ariane 5 is more of a "take the current launch architecture about as far as it can be economically stretched", where the departure from first stage recovery happened with decisions decades old. You might even say "too little gain" for reuse/cost for either stage 0/1 because you need either both or something in the middle ;)

And likewise, US reuse doesn't amount to enough either as a single program in itself. The problem is that cost fractions across the LV are in effect too well split.

Quote

For a rocket(stage) to be reusable it has to be re-ignitable

It doesn't make much sense to me to reuse Vulcain on Ariane 6 because the core will be very fast at burnout and most thrust will be provided by expendable boosters.
 
Most likely this will be solved with a multiple (cheap) engine configuration, one 2000-4000kN engine is way more expansive to design and most likely also to manufacture than multiple 350-800kN engines

I think from a maintenance cost point of view a single large engine would probably be preferable to multiple smaller ones.

Regardless, a ~1000kn methalox engine dubbed "Prométhée" should be on the test stand by the end of the decade so we'll see what they do with it.

Faces a similar issue - cost spread across the LV. It's not just a new engine, or HC props. Its a launch architecture that can compete/upgrade in like or better fashion. Other launch architectures also face this same issue.

And once one visits that issue, there are others like it that "knock on" in sequence.

Suggest that the resistance to "the fad of reuse" is more about being ill-placed to accept the above mentioned sequence of events, which does not fit nicely into current economic "silos".

Suggest one way to read Stéphane Israël's comments on economics of reuse is from the perspective of this awkwardness. In this light, it makes perfect sense.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/29/2016 11:21 pm
I think reusability can work at high and very low launch rates.

I think reusability is a bit of a fad at the moment. If you're willing to sacrifice performance with low staging velocities, then why not use "dumb boosters" instead?

Because it's cheaper in the long run to reuse something multiple times even if it's somewhat more expensive to begin with compared with the disposable version.

We already know how cheap launch can be with dumb boosters: not very.  The only hope for greatly reducing launch costs is with reusable boosters.

Even SpaceShipTwo with its projected high launch rate is using expendable solids (to be precise: hybrids where the solid part is expendable).

Some people believe that just because Virgin Galactic makes a particular choice it doesn't mean it's the right choice for everyone in every situation.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/30/2016 07:35 am
We already know how cheap launch can be with dumb boosters: not very.  The only hope for greatly reducing launch costs is with reusable boosters.

Dumb boosters have low performance, and performance matters for cost. Reusable boosters suffer from the same problem. I do not believe in some magic formula that will greatly reduce launch costs.

For a cost comparison of liquids/solids see for example the end of that page:
http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/en/organisation/departments/space-engineering/space-systems-engineering/expertise-areas/space-propulsion/system-design/generate-candidates/comparison-of-rockets/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 01/30/2016 10:04 pm

I think reusability can work at high and very low launch rates.

I think reusability is a bit of a fad at the moment.

A fad? Did you really write that? :D
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Jarnis on 01/31/2016 04:00 pm
They are going with tried and true, evolutionary design that just shaves off some costs.

If SpaceX reusability turns out not to work economically, they will look smart.

If SpaceX reusability turns out to work "perfectly" and costs of launches on SpaceX launchers go down substantially, they will look bankrupt.

Their choice :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 01/31/2016 07:06 pm
Reuse is great if you have hundreds of payloads but the market is not that big unless something major changes .

 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 01/31/2016 09:28 pm
Apparently Airbus Safran Launchers (ASL) held their annual press conferance yesterday. The video was shown there. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmIVzEJpmcs)
Two new documents can be found on the ASL site (http://www.airbusafran-launchers.com/), one concerning the 70th consecutive successful launch of Ariane 6 with Intelsat 29e. The other one is about the press conference, and a year of working on Ariane 6.     

There is a "slight discrepancy" in the way the Ariane 6 is built together in this video:
At 0:48 (see bottom image) the launcher is correctly mounted - but at 0:36/0:38 (top and middle image) you can see that the upper stage is directly placed on top of the lower stage - w/o interstage structure.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kch on 01/31/2016 09:40 pm

Even SpaceShipTwo with its projected high launch rate is using expendable solids (to be precise: hybrids where the solid part is expendable).

The "solid part" is the fuel!  The fuel is always expended in any chemical rocket engine, whether it's solid or liquid (otherwise there's no thrust, no liftoff, no nuthin' ;) ).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Nibb31 on 02/01/2016 11:14 am
There is a "slight discrepancy" in the way the Ariane 6 is built together in this video:
At 0:48 (see bottom image) the launcher is correctly mounted - but at 0:36/0:38 (top and middle image) you can see that the upper stage is directly placed on top of the lower stage - w/o interstage structure.

It looks like they inverted the upper stage and the interstage in that graphic.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/02/2016 11:14 am

Even SpaceShipTwo with its projected high launch rate is using expendable solids (to be precise: hybrids where the solid part is expendable).

The "solid part" is the fuel!  The fuel is always expended in any chemical rocket engine, whether it's solid or liquid (otherwise there's no thrust, no liftoff, no nuthin' ;) ).

The CTN (case, throat and nozzle) containing the solid fuel is not being reused, to my knowledge.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 02/07/2016 02:37 am
They are going with tried and true, evolutionary design that just shaves off some costs.

If SpaceX reusability turns out not to work economically, they will look smart.

If SpaceX reusability turns out to work "perfectly" and costs of launches on SpaceX launchers go down substantially, they will look bankrupt.

Their choice :)

Actually they are fine with that. ESA will then start Ariane 7 development and spend another $6 billion on their favorite contractors in each of their favorite countries.

As soon as you recognize that this is a jobs program, not a competitive space program, then you understand their motivations. Many of the government space ministers are fine with spending a few billion on their favorite contractors, where they hope to get jobs when they transition out of government.

The Europeans are not in this to beat SpaceX. They don't feel the need to be the cheapest or the first. They just want to maintain their own local industries and avoid sending European satellites to the USA to be launched. Their goal is just to have Ariane be close to breakeven so that their annual subsidies are affordable. As long as Ariane 6 gets a few commercial satellites to go along with their government satellites, then they are satisfied.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Nibb31 on 02/07/2016 10:39 am
They are going with tried and true, evolutionary design that just shaves off some costs.

If SpaceX reusability turns out not to work economically, they will look smart.

If SpaceX reusability turns out to work "perfectly" and costs of launches on SpaceX launchers go down substantially, they will look bankrupt.

Their choice :)

Actually they are fine with that. ESA will then start Ariane 7 development and spend another $6 billion on their favorite contractors in each of their favorite countries.

As soon as you recognize that this is a jobs program, not a competitive space program, then you understand their motivations. Many of the government space ministers are fine with spending a few billion on their favorite contractors, where they hope to get jobs when they transition out of government.

The Europeans are not in this to beat SpaceX. They don't feel the need to be the cheapest or the first. They just want to maintain their own local industries and avoid sending European satellites to the USA to be launched. Their goal is just to have Ariane be close to breakeven so that their annual subsidies are affordable. As long as Ariane 6 gets a few commercial satellites to go along with their government satellites, then they are satisfied.

Which makes it very similar to NASA's SLS.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Baranquilla on 02/07/2016 11:27 am

Actually they are fine with that. ESA will then start Ariane 7 development and spend another $6 billion on their favorite contractors in each of their favorite countries.

As soon as you recognize that this is a jobs program, not a competitive space program, then you understand their motivations. Many of the government space ministers are fine with spending a few billion on their favorite contractors, where they hope to get jobs when they transition out of government.

The Europeans are not in this to beat SpaceX. They don't feel the need to be the cheapest or the first. They just want to maintain their own local industries and avoid sending European satellites to the USA to be launched. Their goal is just to have Ariane be close to breakeven so that their annual subsidies are affordable. As long as Ariane 6 gets a few commercial satellites to go along with their government satellites, then they are satisfied.

I wonder what you mean by "annual subsidies"? Also arianespace certainly feels the need to do better than break-even and wants to remain the biggest launch provider for GTO.

In general I fear you're just copying a semi-known fact in the US (transitioning of military people to the 'traditional' space companies) and applying it to Europe ESA funding (feel free to prove me wrong..).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hauerg on 02/07/2016 11:52 am
Just watched the video from the BBC site - and what really stuck out was - no reusability AT ALL. It's like they saw SpaceX/BO in the distance, and stuck their heads in the sand until they had gone by.

Amazing.
Yeah, watching it I thought: "10 years ago I would have thought this is a good looking rocket." Now it's screaming "obsolete!".
First flight in 5 years.
It will feel "old" by then.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/07/2016 02:10 pm
Just watched the video from the BBC site - and what really stuck out was - no reusability AT ALL. It's like they saw SpaceX/BO in the distance, and stuck their heads in the sand until they had gone by.

Amazing.
Yeah, watching it I thought: "10 years ago I would have thought this is a good looking rocket." Now it's screaming "obsolete!".
First flight in 5 years.
It will feel "old" by then.


Without a 20 billion development program for a SSTO it is a brilliant system that can grow quiet cheaply .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/07/2016 06:44 pm
They are going with tried and true, evolutionary design that just shaves off some costs.

If SpaceX reusability turns out not to work economically, they will look smart.

If SpaceX reusability turns out to work "perfectly" and costs of launches on SpaceX launchers go down substantially, they will look bankrupt.

Their choice :)

Actually they are fine with that. ESA will then start Ariane 7 development and spend another $6 billion on their favorite contractors in each of their favorite countries.

As soon as you recognize that this is a jobs program, not a competitive space program, then you understand their motivations. Many of the government space ministers are fine with spending a few billion on their favorite contractors, where they hope to get jobs when they transition out of government.

The Europeans are not in this to beat SpaceX. They don't feel the need to be the cheapest or the first. They just want to maintain their own local industries and avoid sending European satellites to the USA to be launched. Their goal is just to have Ariane be close to breakeven so that their annual subsidies are affordable. As long as Ariane 6 gets a few commercial satellites to go along with their government satellites, then they are satisfied.

Which makes it very similar to NASA's SLS.
Unsurprisingly. Both ESA and NASA are government entities (with the singular difference that NASA serves just one government while ESA serves a whole bunch of governments) and very much the focal point of politics. Both entities have large pots of money available and in both cases a limited number of aerospace giants are vying to get their dirty claws into those pots.
So, a new launcher initiated by ESA is not very much different from a new launcher initiated by NASA. In both cases affordability and 'making economic sense' are at the low end of the priority list.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/07/2016 06:49 pm
I wonder what you mean by "annual subsidies"? Also arianespace certainly feels the need to do better than break-even and wants to remain the biggest launch provider for GTO.

In general I fear you're just copying a semi-known fact in the US (transitioning of military people to the 'traditional' space companies) and applying it to Europe ESA funding (feel free to prove me wrong..).
Arianespace is currently handed an annual subsidy from ESA to make up for the money lost on operating and launching Ariane 5, Vega and Soyuz ST. The very small profit Arianspace makes every year is entirely courtesy of the ESA subsidy. If that annual subsidy did not exist Arianespace would be losing tens of millions of Euro's each year.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/08/2016 12:25 am

I wonder what you mean by "annual subsidies"? Also arianespace certainly feels the need to do better than break-even and wants to remain the biggest launch provider for GTO.

In general I fear you're just copying a semi-known fact in the US (transitioning of military people to the 'traditional' space companies) and applying it to Europe ESA funding (feel free to prove me wrong..).
Arianespace is currently handed an annual subsidy from ESA to make up for the money lost on operating and launching Ariane 5, Vega and Soyuz ST. The very small profit Arianspace makes every year is entirely courtesy of the ESA subsidy. If that annual subsidy did not exist Arianespace would be losing tens of millions of Euro's each year.
That's a fallacy. You don't know what would happen if the subsidy wasn't there. Arianespace would certainly act differently.
They are doing what makes sense for them with the subsidy in place, ceterus paribus with the subsidy going away doesn't apply.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/08/2016 08:02 am

I wonder what you mean by "annual subsidies"? Also arianespace certainly feels the need to do better than break-even and wants to remain the biggest launch provider for GTO.

In general I fear you're just copying a semi-known fact in the US (transitioning of military people to the 'traditional' space companies) and applying it to Europe ESA funding (feel free to prove me wrong..).
Arianespace is currently handed an annual subsidy from ESA to make up for the money lost on operating and launching Ariane 5, Vega and Soyuz ST. The very small profit Arianspace makes every year is entirely courtesy of the ESA subsidy. If that annual subsidy did not exist Arianespace would be losing tens of millions of Euro's each year.
That's a fallacy. You don't know what would happen if the subsidy wasn't there. Arianespace would certainly act differently.
They are doing what makes sense for them with the subsidy in place, ceterus paribus with the subsidy going away doesn't apply.
I have more insight in Arianespace than you think . I've multiple sources inside both Arianespace and it's contractors. I can tell you for a fact that if the annual subsidy would disappear, Arianespace would immediately start losing money. The current set-up of particularly Ariane 5 does not allow for significant improvements in terms of efficiency and (additional) reduction of costs.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Baranquilla on 02/08/2016 10:21 pm
I have more insight in Arianespace than you think . I've multiple sources inside both Arianespace and it's contractors. I can tell you for a fact that if the annual subsidy would disappear, Arianespace would immediately start losing money. The current set-up of particularly Ariane 5 does not allow for significant improvements in terms of efficiency and (additional) reduction of costs.

Interesting, is this subsidy annually fixed (100M I read)? Do you happen to know if this is part of a mandatory program of ESA or the optional programs (like launcher development)?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: riocrokite on 02/09/2016 09:26 am
Do you guys know why Ariane 6 main stage hasn't got common bulkhead like Ariane 5 had? Why not reuse same core tank system from Ariane 5?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 02/09/2016 10:25 am
Separate tanks are cheaper and simpler, I assume in the trades they found this more compelling than weight savings/height reduction etc of the common bulkhead.

You can't just reuse everything from the ariane 5 or your rocket will cost the same as an ariane 5...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Runerdieker on 02/09/2016 02:26 pm
They are going with tried and true, evolutionary design that just shaves off some costs.

If SpaceX reusability turns out not to work economically, they will look smart.

If SpaceX reusability turns out to work "perfectly" and costs of launches on SpaceX launchers go down substantially, they will look bankrupt.

Their choice :)

Actually they are fine with that. ESA will then start Ariane 7 development and spend another $6 billion on their favorite contractors in each of their favorite countries.

As soon as you recognize that this is a jobs program, not a competitive space program, then you understand their motivations. Many of the government space ministers are fine with spending a few billion on their favorite contractors, where they hope to get jobs when they transition out of government.

The Europeans are not in this to beat SpaceX. They don't feel the need to be the cheapest or the first. They just want to maintain their own local industries and avoid sending European satellites to the USA to be launched. Their goal is just to have Ariane be close to breakeven so that their annual subsidies are affordable. As long as Ariane 6 gets a few commercial satellites to go along with their government satellites, then they are satisfied.

Which makes it very similar to NASA's SLS.
Unsurprisingly. Both ESA and NASA are government entities (with the singular difference that NASA serves just one government while ESA serves a whole bunch of governments) and very much the focal point of politics. Both entities have large pots of money available and in both cases a limited number of aerospace giants are vying to get their dirty claws into those pots.
So, a new launcher initiated by ESA is not very much different from a new launcher initiated by NASA. In both cases affordability and 'making economic sense' are at the low end of the priority list.
From a lot of reactions in this thread you can feel the disappointment about Ariane 6 not using the newest technologies or having a vision of reusability. Also that the politicians don´t bother to throw away billions, only to save jobs. This is too easaly stated and not correct.
The development could of course be much cheaper, when there should be a fast, decisive and persistent management of one company on top of the project, that has enough financial margin to fulfil this. In Europe such a company simply does not exist. The shareholders of the present space-industry don´t see how they could earn money when developing everything on their own cost. So it needs to have government support. Politicians do have the knowledge of almost every big technological project spinning out of (financial) control, especially when space is involved (Ariane 5, Galileo, JWST). So they certainly don´t want to spend billions on an uncertain technological adventure. The more contributors, the more the risk is spread. But also cost will rise. The reasons are summed up so often: many contributors, too many people that have to decide, no one really in control, etc.
I really believe it is a miracle that while European governments slashed their military expenditures year after year since 1989, space mostly escaped this process. The general public has no idea of the current budget, because otherwise they certainly wanted it to be cut!
The idea that ESA or Arianespace or the European space-industry are not paying attention to reusability is also not correct. In a number of occasions they were addressing this issue, but they also made clear that reusability needs a far bigger market to break even, as many in other threads have pointed out so often. The current amount of launches by Arianespace with already three different vehicles is too low to make a profitable reusable vehicle. 
So let´s not spin around in circles in negativity, while there are exciting developments. I would like to see discussions about the study of the new and cheap methane Promethee engine http://www.industrie-techno.com/le-cnes-et-airbus-safran-etudient-un-moteur-spatial-reutilisable-et-low-cost.41901 (http://www.industrie-techno.com/le-cnes-et-airbus-safran-etudient-un-moteur-spatial-reutilisable-et-low-cost.41901), that could be ready in 2020! I also miss how the Adeline project could be fit in on an Ariane 6, etc.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Pipcard on 02/09/2016 02:47 pm
Separate tanks are cheaper and simpler, I assume in the trades they found this more compelling than weight savings/height reduction etc of the common bulkhead.
It's because of the temperature difference between the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. This was why Japan switched from a common bulkhead with the H-II (http://www.mitsubishi.com/mpac/e/monitor/back/0110/cs.html) to separate tanks with the H-IIA.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 02/09/2016 02:57 pm
That is included in the "simpler" part, I sincerely doubt there is just one issue that led them to go with seperate tanks. They would have traded various concepts against one another and a common bulkhead lost out. It is not impossible to adequately insulate the bulkhead obviously, it just adds cost for little benefit in this case.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/09/2016 03:09 pm
There's also the fact that a first stage weight savings only translate to a 10% of such mass in payload. They should rather focus on US common bulkhead. Or same tooling for core and upper stage. This is supposed to be cheap.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/09/2016 04:03 pm
Today's use of composites, assuming that is what is used for the intertank section, makes the common versus separate bulkhead tradeoff smaller than it once was, especially for LH2/LOX. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/09/2016 05:50 pm
Do you guys know why Ariane 6 main stage hasn't got common bulkhead like Ariane 5 had? Why not reuse same core tank system from Ariane 5?
And by not using a common bulkhead, they need a structure between the tanks. This structure is easy to modify for two or four boosters or maybe in the future even six or three. Or some liquid booster that are the first stage of a micro (<500kg) launch vehicle. The other simple structure is the lower skirt at the vulcain engine. Most likely the fluid lines can be connected at the outside, eliminating beating equipment during production, they will most likely also build the main stages horizontally instead of the current vertical approach.
   
The savings for Ariane 6 compared to Ariane 5 come from three thing, new production methods (mainly for the vulain engine), the the use of composite monolithic solids in stead of the 2,5segment metal solids, and the switch on the main stage from common bulkhead to two bulkheads with an inter-stage structure and most likely horizontal in stead of vertical fabrication.
The development budget is most likely so large because a new factory has to be build with new tooling, and additional work force during the transition period from A5 to A6 (about six years).   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/09/2016 06:31 pm
Most of the money spend on A5ME went into two new factories in Bremen, Germany. MT Aerospace (OHB AG) build a new facory for tank structure production with spin forming bulkhead tooling. And EuroCryospace (Airbus D&S, Air Liquide) build a facility for upperstage production.
A couple of weeks ago at Avio's factory in Italy was the ground breaking ceremony for the construction of fase 1 of the production plant for the P120C solids. The building will be situated between a factory were some work is done on the ariane 5 solids and the plant for the vega solids (P80(8); Z23;Z9A). The second fase will boost the production capability to 36 stages annually, but MT Aerospace in Germany is also trying to get the second production line. We'll have to weight to some were near 2020 before we know were the second line will be build.

If I'm not mistaken engine for the AVUM+ Vega 4th stage will be manufactured in Germany, at least they have been testing and developing a new NTO-MMH engine named BERTA at DLR Lampoldshausen for several years.

The Ariane 5 Main stage (EPC) and LOxH2 upperstage (ECA) are build at one or two factories of EuroCryospace in France. Most likely a new factory for the A6 mainstage will be build in France. But I could be totally wrong on this.
I expect that the stage structures will be build at the new MT Aerospace factory in Bremen and transported to the main stage factory in France. Something that is also happening right now if i'm not mistaken.

A new version of the main-stage engine, Vulcain 2+ (also known as Vulcain 3) has been developed during the past decade. The main change is a sandwich nozzle from Volvo Aero, Sweden link (http://flygteknik.mcistockholm.se/filer/mandag/SessionF-rum357kl.13.00/Flygteknik_2010_Session_F7.pdf) link2 (http://f-m-v.dk/documents/00324.pdf).

Most likely several factories will close after 2023 and several hundreds of jobs will be lost around Europe, when the production for Ariane 5 ends. I found some (old) news in Germain concerning job losses at an MT Aerospace factory were currently the structures are build for Ariane 5. I expect Job losses at Airbus D&S Netherlands (Dutch Space) because I expect that the Engine mount structure will be build at another factory. APP the Dutch igniter factory will most likely get more work, but those last two are speculation.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 02/09/2016 07:21 pm
A new version of the main-stage engine, Vulcain 2+ (also known as Vulcain 3) has been developed during the past decade. The main change is a sandwich nozzle from Volvo Aero, Sweden link (http://flygteknik.mcistockholm.se/filer/mandag/SessionF-rum357kl.13.00/Flygteknik_2010_Session_F7.pdf) link2 (http://f-m-v.dk/documents/00324.pdf).

The new main stage engine is officially called Vulcain 2.1 and it is currently being developed for Ariane 6 by Airbus Safran Launchers (ASL). There has not been any testing up to now. The sandwich nozzle was developed by what is now GKN Aerospace for the current Ariane 5 Vulcain 2 engine but has never been qualified for flight: http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-4836/8021_read-22300/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/09/2016 08:55 pm
Okee I was wrong on the engine name, but are they using the new nozzle, and new turbo pump and turbine. So I was correct in the fact the improved vulcain 2 was in development for over a decade. I think this is all accumulated developments from the ARTA engine test at DLR lampoldshousen.
link to news from GKN Aerospace (http://www.gkn.com/media/News/Pages/Rocket-science-in-GKN.aspx), and Snecma (http://www.snecma.com/space-engines/launchers/vulcainr2) (Safran)
 wow, GKN Aerospace has taken over a lot of companies.


I also was wrong about Airbus D&S the Netherlands, they will keep building heavy loaded structures for Vega C and Ariane 6. link  (http://www.airbusdefenceandspacenetherlands.nl/activities/structures/)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/10/2016 01:07 am
Okee I was wrong on the engine name, but are they using the new nozzle, and new turbo pump and turbine. So I was correct in the fact the improved vulcain 2 was in development for over a decade. I think this is all accumulated developments from the ARTA engine test at DLR lampoldshousen.
link to news from GKN Aerospace (http://www.gkn.com/media/News/Pages/Rocket-science-in-GKN.aspx), and Snecma (http://www.snecma.com/space-engines/launchers/vulcainr2) (Safran)
 wow, GKN Aerospace has taken over a lot of companies.


I also was wrong about Airbus D&S the Netherlands, they will keep building heavy loaded structures for Vega C and Ariane 6. link  (http://www.airbusdefenceandspacenetherlands.nl/activities/structures/)
Vulcan-2+ was previously part of Vulcan-3 development before it became an intermediate upgrade (Vulcan-2.1).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/12/2016 12:09 am
I found an presentation from GKN Aerospace link (http://www.rymdforum2015.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.1_Rymdforum_Peter-Alm.pdf) (I think it was in Swedish) where they write about Vulcain 2.1 with the laser-deposited Nozzle, an an Vulcain 2.2 where both turbopumps are made with aditive manufacturing production methods. So most likely the last batch of Ariane 5's will also use the Vulcain 2.1. and the second batch of Ariane 6 will switch to the Vulcain 2.2. (and Vulcain 2.2 is most likely the former Vulcain 3)

I also found this (http://www.isae-alumni.net/docs/2015152450_presentation-airbus-safran-launchers-2015.pdf) Airbus Safran Launchers presentation (in French). To show the complexity of the European manufacturing industry, on slide 12 there is an diagram. But I am missing Germain MT Aerospace on it, so it is even more complex than shown in the diagram. Also some specs. (most likely it has been posted before.)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/12/2016 12:17 am

I wonder what you mean by "annual subsidies"? Also arianespace certainly feels the need to do better than break-even and wants to remain the biggest launch provider for GTO.

In general I fear you're just copying a semi-known fact in the US (transitioning of military people to the 'traditional' space companies) and applying it to Europe ESA funding (feel free to prove me wrong..).
Arianespace is currently handed an annual subsidy from ESA to make up for the money lost on operating and launching Ariane 5, Vega and Soyuz ST. The very small profit Arianspace makes every year is entirely courtesy of the ESA subsidy. If that annual subsidy did not exist Arianespace would be losing tens of millions of Euro's each year.
That's a fallacy. You don't know what would happen if the subsidy wasn't there. Arianespace would certainly act differently.
They are doing what makes sense for them with the subsidy in place, ceterus paribus with the subsidy going away doesn't apply.
I have more insight in Arianespace than you think . I've multiple sources inside both Arianespace and it's contractors. I can tell you for a fact that if the annual subsidy would disappear, Arianespace would immediately start losing money. The current set-up of particularly Ariane 5 does not allow for significant improvements in terms of efficiency and (additional) reduction of costs.
Oh, sure, that's not what I meant.
What I meant is that looking forward at Ariane 6. It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to plan to exceed any political targets.
A certain amount of support will be there, it's not like "if we don't meet that cost target they'll let us go bankrupt and then shut the whole program down". And the same thing (probably even more so) was true for Ariane 5.

I understand it's unlikely that they have easy short term cost saving options but its similarly unlikely that there are no long term options especially given all the A5 requirements that have gone away
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/12/2016 06:31 am

I wonder what you mean by "annual subsidies"? Also arianespace certainly feels the need to do better than break-even and wants to remain the biggest launch provider for GTO.

In general I fear you're just copying a semi-known fact in the US (transitioning of military people to the 'traditional' space companies) and applying it to Europe ESA funding (feel free to prove me wrong..).
Arianespace is currently handed an annual subsidy from ESA to make up for the money lost on operating and launching Ariane 5, Vega and Soyuz ST. The very small profit Arianspace makes every year is entirely courtesy of the ESA subsidy. If that annual subsidy did not exist Arianespace would be losing tens of millions of Euro's each year.
That's a fallacy. You don't know what would happen if the subsidy wasn't there. Arianespace would certainly act differently.
They are doing what makes sense for them with the subsidy in place, ceterus paribus with the subsidy going away doesn't apply.
I have more insight in Arianespace than you think . I've multiple sources inside both Arianespace and it's contractors. I can tell you for a fact that if the annual subsidy would disappear, Arianespace would immediately start losing money. The current set-up of particularly Ariane 5 does not allow for significant improvements in terms of efficiency and (additional) reduction of costs.
Oh, sure, that's not what I meant.
What I meant is that looking forward at Ariane 6. It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to plan to exceed any political targets.
A certain amount of support will be there, it's not like "if we don't meet that cost target they'll let us go bankrupt and then shut the whole program down". And the same thing (probably even more so) was true for Ariane 5.

I understand it's unlikely that they have easy short term cost saving options but its similarly unlikely that there are no long term options especially given all the A5 requirements that have gone away
I was talking about the present situation where there is only A5 flying and no A6. And even when A6 starts flying there will be a few additional years of subsidy required given that A5 and A6 will be flying side-by-side for at least three years.
Although A6 might not require annual subsidies, A5 most certainly does. Somewhere in the future the annual subsidies might go away. But not today, and, IMO, not in the next five years either.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/12/2016 10:17 am
I don't see them ever go away. That was my point :)
They never had to plan for a situation where it was not possible to get a subsidy
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 02/12/2016 04:37 pm
I found an presentation from GKN Aerospace link (http://www.rymdforum2015.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.1_Rymdforum_Peter-Alm.pdf) (I think it was in Swedish) where they write about Vulcain 2.1 with the laser-deposited Nozzle, an an Vulcain 2.2 where both turbopumps are made with aditive manufacturing production methods. So most likely the last batch of Ariane 5's will also use the Vulcain 2.1. and the second batch of Ariane 6 will switch to the Vulcain 2.2. (and Vulcain 2.2 is most likely the former Vulcain 3)

From what I know, Ariane 5 cannot fly with Vulcain 2.1 - as it is currently being designed.
But the GKN presentation is very interesting.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: lucspace on 02/17/2016 11:57 am
Impressive new Ariane 6 art here: https://www.aerospatium.info/premier-lot-dariane-6-en-2016/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/18/2016 10:09 am
Added for posterity
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 03/01/2016 03:35 pm
Launch pad.

http://lekotidien.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/20160203-cnes2016-8.jpg
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWH on 03/01/2016 04:03 pm
Interesting... Thought the plan was for horizontal integration, either that is payload and core/upper stage only or the art is off?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 03/01/2016 04:09 pm
Look at how Delta IV is processed. The VA tower is just for SRB and payload processing. SRB alignment requirements makes vertical integration a necessity. So the core is processed horizontally until just the launch operations. Once carried to the pad it is raised, the SRB installed, the payload integrated and after final checks it's launch ready.
You don't need the mobile launch tower, the VA tower is relatively simple and the flow is simplified.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 03/01/2016 04:12 pm
From what I have seen the solids at least will be vertically integrated which isn't surprising. You do have to wonder what the cost savings are of such an operational mashup.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 03/01/2016 06:02 pm
Launch pad.

http://lekotidien.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/20160203-cnes2016-8.jpg (http://lekotidien.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/20160203-cnes2016-8.jpg)
The launch pad image is highly notional in nature. I suggest you all keep the armchair analysis, based on this image, to an absolute minimum.

Added hi-res versions of this image and related ones. All images: courtesy of CNES/ESA/ill./DUCROS David, 2015
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 03/01/2016 06:18 pm
For Ariane 5 there are two vertical buildings structures and the launch pad (Clean pad). The BIL [Building Integration Launcher] is used to assemble the Ariane 5 (Erect first stage, place second stage on top, on top of the second stage the equipment bay, and two boosters (assembled in the BIP {EAP Booster Integration Building}) connected to the launcher on the launch tabel). And the BAF (Building Assembly Final) is used to integrate the payload with the launcher.
For Ariane 6 they make a horizontal instead of a vertical BIL, and they integrate the boosters and the payload at the pad. They used this proces flow for the Ariane 4 that also launched about 12 times per year. Only was the Launcher assembly building vertical for Ariane 4.   

Here is a link (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2014-1668) to a document (AIAA) about the seven launch facilities that have existed at CSG.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 03/02/2016 04:38 pm
For Ariane 5 there are two vertical buildings structures and the launch pad (Clean pad). The BIL [Building Integration Launcher] is used to assemble the Ariane 5 (Erect first stage, place second stage on top, on top of the second stage the equipment bay, and two boosters (assembled in the BIP {EAP Booster Integration Building}) connected to the launcher on the launch tabel). And the BAF (Building Assembly Final) is used to integrate the payload with the launcher.
For Ariane 6 they make a horizontal instead of a vertical BIL, and they integrate the boosters and the payload at the pad. They used this proces flow for the Ariane 4 that also launched about 12 times per year. Only was the Launcher assembly building vertical for Ariane 4.   

Here is a link (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2014-1668) to a document (AIAA) about the seven launch facilities that have existed at CSG.

Very interesting document!
I would just mention that the flow in the figure on page 13 is that of the cancelled Ariane 6 PPH Version.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 03/08/2016 10:04 pm
First let me correct myself on some previous post. I discovered that the links I posted here were before posted on Germain and France blogs. Sorry if I have offended people by copying (translating) their post, I only reed these post afterwards.

I also found a video (http://www.radiobremen.de/video85220-popup.html) from radio Berlin about the Ariane 6 upper-stage.

ps. On the Aiaa site there are also other interesting documents from the same conference/book.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RonM on 04/08/2016 03:36 am
BBC article "Ariane 6 project 'in good shape'"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35983735

Quote
The dream is moving to reality. That was the message from European Space Agency boss, Jan Woerner, on Wednesday as he discussed the Ariane 6 rocket.

The director general was touring the Airbus Safran Launchers facilities at Les Mureaux, France, where much of the future vehicle will be integrated.

Reporters were shown the progress being made towards a 2020 maiden flight.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/08/2016 09:59 am
A new Ariane 6 video was posted on ESA's youtube page. ESA's youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDwZIGso-9E)
Less relevent here, both CNES (France) and ASI (Italy) have video's on their youtube acound about BlueOrigin New Sheperd. I think this indicates something. (Orbspace Infinity; NLR SMILE)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/08/2016 10:24 am
I've seen no published figures for Ariane 6's payload to Low Earth Orbit, only to GTO. Has anybody seen the LEO statistics?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/08/2016 11:42 am
On some slides the SSO capability for Ariane 62 was shown to be 5,8mT while GTO (-1500m/s) was 5,6mT. But those figures are not fixed in stone jet, because the design is stil evolving.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/08/2016 11:56 am
Yes. Ariane V's LEO capability is about 21 metric tons. I'm starting to imagine Ariane 6 will be similar.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/08/2016 12:17 pm
I think you are right Mattblak.
LEO (400x400km) equatorial from CSG A5;A64 ~21mT, A62 ~12mT.
SSO (800x800km ~97deg.) from CSG: A64 ~12mT, A62 ~6mT.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/08/2016 12:38 pm
Those SSO numbers seem too low (not that it really matter for a market where 3tonne is huge). It has an H2 stage that shines at high delta-v. It simply can't have almost the same performance to SSO than GTO. SSO 800km should be no less than 75% of LEO.

Sent from my Classic using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kaputnik on 04/12/2016 12:50 pm
BBC article "Ariane 6 project 'in good shape'"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35983735

Quote
The dream is moving to reality. That was the message from European Space Agency boss, Jan Woerner, on Wednesday as he discussed the Ariane 6 rocket.

The director general was touring the Airbus Safran Launchers facilities at Les Mureaux, France, where much of the future vehicle will be integrated.

Reporters were shown the progress being made towards a 2020 maiden flight.

They're saying "we only have one engine, not nine, so we don't need reusability". Good luck with than one...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/12/2016 03:17 pm
They're saying "we only have one engine, not nine, so we don't need reusability". Good luck with than one...

Yes, Ariane 6 just as Ariane 5 has one main stage engine that is not (jet) restart-able, so powered recovery is no option. But the price of that engine will come down a lot, because of new manufacturing technologies that have been developed. In the history of rocketry the first attempt to make an reusable rocket resulted in a more expansive rocket, not in a cheaper one. I agree Ariane 6 is an intermediate step. I expect it to be replaced before 2035. Most of the investment's for Ariane 6 (I guess 2/3 th) are in production infrastructure, that is more flexible.

In the end, when a smaller LOxLNG rocket engine has proved to work; most likely a larger engine will be developed. But you have to remember that the Ariane rocket family is a launcher from multiple countries, and multiple companies, designed by a space agency. You can't compare it to a one (young) company launcher. A fair comparison is with ULA (Vulcain), or with Nasa developed launchers (SLS).

I also want to point to the fact that the core of Ariane 5 is beter comparable with the falcon 9 upper-stage, not the first stage. The first stage of falcon 9 is more comparable to the solid rocket boosters ~2,5min burn time at >1,5 T/W. If upper-stages ever get reusable remains to be seen, as is the economical case for reusable stages.
I credit SpaceX for forcing the launch market to half the launch costs, but if they can go lower; aka are already underselling remains to be seen.
I think the current Ariane 6, is an good improvement of the Ariane 5. (much beter than the PPH design). For an reusable stage new engines are required, those take at least five years to design and after that a launcher has to be developed for the engine, that also takes at least two years. SpaceX got an very nice restart-able rocket engine design for free from NASA. They have spend a decade improving that design and are now able to recover their stages, if the stages can be re-flown remains to be seen.     

The last thing I want to add, is that I have the impression that the way SpaceX operates at their Mcgregor facility, would be totally unacceptable in Europe. (Way to high sound levels and soil pollution) Europe is much denser populated then the US, because of this test have to take place under much stricter conditions than in the US. Thus rocket innovation is more expansive.     
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 04/12/2016 03:36 pm
They're saying "we only have one engine, not nine, so we don't need reusability". Good luck with than one...

Reusability for reusability's sake is pointless, it needs to be economic.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/12/2016 07:15 pm
There were several interesting details in the BBC article.
I already wrote about the propallent loading increase in the P120C solids from 136 to 142 mT, the solids are named ESR (could this be the abbreviation for: European Solid Rocket?).

The core stage will be named LLPM (Lower Liquid Propulsion Module?), it will contain 150mT of LOx and LH2. And it will be powered by the 137mT trust gas generator cycle Vulcain 2.1. The core stage fuel loading has increased by 10mT.

The upper-stage has not changed. It will contain 30mT LOx and LH2, be powered by the 18 mT trust expander cycle Vince engine, that will have a fixed nozzle (not a deployable one as on ESC-B) The upper-stage will be named ULPM (Upper Liquid Propulsion Module?).

The A62 has become 22mT heavier and the A64 has gained 34mT in GLOW.

Edit: I fixed my mistake with perfomance of Vince, sorry for the confusion.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/12/2016 08:45 pm
Vinci is 180kN, or 18 tonnes.

Sent from my Classic using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: savuporo on 04/13/2016 04:12 pm
Just a heads up, there will be many interesting updates at Propulsion 2016 in May, Rome.

http://www.propulsion2016.com/wp-content/uploads/SP2016_Preliminary-Program_Tech-Sessions-UPDATE-20160310.pdf

KEYNOTE SPEECH - ARIANE 6 PROGRAMME STATUS
Stefano Bianchi, Head of the launchers development programmes, ESA

Many very interesting panels and talks throughout the program.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/03/2016 05:37 pm
SpaceX recently estimated pricing (http://spacenews.com/spacexs-new-price-chart-illustrates-performance-cost-of-reusability/) and if both estimates turn out to be correct:

FalconArian 62Falcon HeavyAriane 64
Prize| $62M| $86.2M| $90M| $103.5M
GTO| 8'300kg| 5'000kg| 22'200kg| 10'500kg

... what's the advantage of this new rocket, except when SpaceX is fully booked? As someone with no deeper understanding, it looks ridiculous.
First, those are not the same GTO, Falcon 9 has a delta-v deficit of 1,800m/s while Ariane's has just 1,500m/s. Those 300m/s are a lot and you should probably shave 30% to 40% of F9 performance to match orbits. The NLS II (NASA Launch Services Program) estimates a loss of 45% for those extra 300m/s (and that's to a 65'000km x 20deg GTO)! But let's be generous and say that they would get "just" 35% of payload loss.
Then, Ariane 64 can still do double launches (which SpaceX stated they won't do). By using double launch, they can take advantage of the better price per kilogram. I've modified the columns so that it shows all these information. Also, we don't know if Ariane's numbers are typical total cost, while SpaceX are just "basic launch service". Those differences in extra services requires might add anywhere from a couple of millions to 20M.
FalconArian 62Falcon HeavyAriane 64
Prize| $62M| $86.2M| $90M| $103.5M
GTO (1'800m/s)| 8'300kg| 5'000kg| 22'200kg| 10'500kg
GTO (1'500m/s)| 5'400kg| 5'000kg| 14'400kg| 10'500kg
USD/kg at GTO 1'500| 11'500 USD/kg| 17'250 USD/kg| 6'250 USD/kg| 9'850 USD/kg
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/03/2016 06:17 pm

FalconArian 62Falcon HeavyAriane 64Ariane 5 ECA
Prize| $62M| $86.2M| $90M| $103.5M| $200M
GTO (1'800m/s)| 8'300kg| 5'000kg| 22'200kg| >10'500kg| >10'500kg
GTO (1'500m/s)| 5'400kg| 5'000kg| 14'400kg| 10'500kg| 10'500kg
USD/kg at GTO 1'500| 11'500 USD/kg| 17'250 USD/kg| 6'250 USD/kg| 9'850 USD/kg| 19'050 USD/kg

I've added the numbers for Ariane 5 to make clear why Ariane 6 is developed. The current A6 is an intermediate step. A new first stage engine has to be developed to be able to half the launch cost again.
The other reason for A6 development is the A62 configuration that is designed for institutional (ESA; CNES DLR etz.) not GTO payloads.

The main cost for the Ariane 6 development program are new production facilities that are easier to reconfigure for another launcher design. The first stage of Ariane 5 is assembled vertically, the stages for Ariane 6 will be assembled horizontally. The ESA member-states also will not be needed to subsidize Arianespace for more then 100mln euro when A6 is operational.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 05/03/2016 07:17 pm
First, those are not the same GTO, Falcon 9 has a delta-v deficit of 1,800m/s while Ariane's has just 1,500m/s. Those 300m/s are a lot and you should probably shave 30% to 40% of F9 performance to match orbits. The NLS II (NASA Launch Services Program) estimates a loss of 45% for those extra 300m/s (and that's to a 65'000km x 20deg GTO)! But let's be generous and say that they would get "just" 35% of payload loss.
Then, Ariane 64 can still do double launches (which SpaceX stated they won't do). By using double launch, they can take advantage of the better price per kilogram. I've modified the columns so that it shows all these information. Also, we don't know if Ariane's numbers are typical total cost, while SpaceX are just "basic launch service". Those differences in extra services requires might add anywhere from a couple of millions to 20M.
FalconArian 62Falcon HeavyAriane 64
Prize| $62M| $86.2M| $90M| $103.5M
GTO (1'800m/s)| 8'300kg| 5'000kg| 22'200kg| 10'500kg
GTO (1'500m/s)| 5'400kg| 5'000kg| 14'400kg| 10'500kg
USD/kg at GTO 1'500| 11'500 USD/kg| 17'250 USD/kg| 6'250 USD/kg| 9'850 USD/kg

This comparison by USD/kg is actually not very realistic, especially for Falcon Heavy, as no one is going to launch 14 tons to GTO as they don't do double launch.

If Ariane 64 can do a double launch with a "small" and "big" combination, as they currently do for A5, they could price it at something like $40M for a 4000kg sat and $60M for a 6000kg sat, which would make A64 around 33% cheaper than SpaceX for these two sats (the first being launched on Falcon and the second requiring Falcon Heavy)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 05/03/2016 08:04 pm
First, those are not the same GTO, Falcon 9 has a delta-v deficit of 1,800m/s while Ariane's has just 1,500m/s. Those 300m/s are a lot and you should probably shave 30% to 40% of F9 performance to match orbits. The NLS II (NASA Launch Services Program) estimates a loss of 45% for those extra 300m/s (and that's to a 65'000km x 20deg GTO)! But let's be generous and say that they would get "just" 35% of payload loss.
Then, Ariane 64 can still do double launches (which SpaceX stated they won't do). By using double launch, they can take advantage of the better price per kilogram. I've modified the columns so that it shows all these information. Also, we don't know if Ariane's numbers are typical total cost, while SpaceX are just "basic launch service". Those differences in extra services requires might add anywhere from a couple of millions to 20M.
FalconArian 62Falcon HeavyAriane 64
Prize| $62M| $86.2M| $90M| $103.5M
GTO (1'800m/s)| 8'300kg| 5'000kg| 22'200kg| 10'500kg
GTO (1'500m/s)| 5'400kg| 5'000kg| 14'400kg| 10'500kg
USD/kg at GTO 1'500| 11'500 USD/kg| 17'250 USD/kg| 6'250 USD/kg| 9'850 USD/kg

This comparison by USD/kg is actually not very realistic, especially for Falcon Heavy, as no one is going to launch 14 tons to GTO as they don't do double launch.

If Ariane 64 can do a double launch with a "small" and "big" combination, as they currently do for A5, they could price it at something like $40M for a 4000kg sat and $60M for a 6000kg sat, which would make A64 around 33% cheaper than SpaceX for these two sats (the first being launched on Falcon and the second requiring Falcon Heavy)


I have tried to make that point more than once that more satellites per launch is cheaper. Plus the fact that Vinci can put a satellite in GEO orbit not a transfer orbit and Arianespace dominance of the Geo market should grow .
Where Space X should expand is manned spaceflight use Falcon for crew and Falcon heavy for space station modules .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hkultala on 05/03/2016 08:22 pm
I have tried to make that point more than once that more satellites per launch is cheaper.

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than two expendable launches of similar too big rocket, yes

Cheaper than two launches of optimized smaller rocket, maybe, but usually not, if the smaller rocket can launch much more often and benefit from economy of scale.

Cheaper than two launches of similar-sized smaller-payload reusable rocket, no.


And satellite missions that can be dual-manifested are rare, and having the dual satellite capasity while only using at 2 times/year is also expensive.


Quote
Plus the fact that Vinci can put a satellite in GEO orbit not a transfer orbit and Arianespace dominance of the Geo market should grow .

Why should satellite be injected directly into GEO by the rocket? Injection to GTO means the mass of the upper stage of the rocket does not have to go to GEO, meaning there is effectively one stage more, and better efficiency can be obtained.

And SEP propulsion is getting more common in satellites and it allows orbital injection to even lower trajectories and then spiralling to GEO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hkultala on 05/03/2016 08:27 pm
Ariane 64 having twice the payload but only about 1.6 times the liftoff weight off Ariane 62 hints that 62 suffers badly from low T/W at liftoff.

What is the situation with the future versions of Vulcain engine? Will it get a thrust upgrade some day? That should increase the payload of Ariane 62 considerably.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/03/2016 09:10 pm
Note that the Falcon 9 v1.2 numbers are given as $62 million for "up to" 5.5 metric tons to GTO (GEO-1,800 m/s, or roughly 4.1 metric tons equivalent to GEO-1,500 m/s).  That implies a higher price for heavier payloads that would expend the first stage.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/04/2016 12:30 pm
We really should get back to Ariane 6. From this point onwards.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: dlapine on 05/04/2016 07:11 pm
Anyone know when the Ariane 6 is scheduled to be in service? The website for ESA notes that a PDR is scheduled for "mid 2016" but didn't have further information. I realize that any info would be speculative.

Did some site searches here without success. If there's already a thread discussing this, just point me in the right direction. 

Thanks

Update:

Found a reference for a planned 2020 maiden flight in the "Ariane 6 Updates" thread (D'oh).

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1512882#msg1512882

Is that still a valid time frame?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/05/2016 09:04 am
I found this french article from LesEchos (http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/021822812989-ariane-6-donne-la-priorite-a-la-baisse-des-couts-1212064.php#) dated 6th April.

The design of Ariane 6 was finalized last month (april). Currently they are building new factories in France (first stage) and Italy (p120c boosers). The upperstage factory in Germany was build for the A5ME program. The current ruag fairing factory will be used (US work will be transferred to the US, atlas V)
Avia Italy is doing smaller (vega Zefiro 9A) scale casing production tests. And the P120C boosters arre under development.

The article states that the first stage factory will start producing stages in 2018.
Maiden launch is planned for 2020,
the first operational launch is planned for 2021.
And by 2023 the Ariane 6 has to be fully operational (up to 12 launches annually).
so the timeline is still valid. The political trouble with the merge of Airbus and Safran, and the Arianespace share trade have had little consequences.

The article also clearly states the purpose of Ariane6:
'To be able to launch more then 10mT to GTO for les then 90mln Euro.'
Ariane 64 will have half the launch cost of Ariane 5 ECA, with at least the same performance.

Sorry for going off topic now (I think it is on topic and belongs in this discussion topic).
Comparing the GTO launch cost of Falcon 9/H with Ariane 6 is really an apples to oranges comparison.
I've three arguments for this statement.
1) Falcon9 is an operational system, it's cost and performance are known. The other launchers are in development,  their cost and performance are expectations, with some uncertainty.
2) The performance numbers are conservative because the performance of the P120C are unknown.
3) The Falcon family is marketed in dollars, Ariane 6 is marketed in Euro's. In the 14 years the Euro exists I've seen the Euro-Dollar exchange rate fluctuate between 1 (1=1) and 1.5 (1=1,5). This fluctuation on exchange rate has a large impect on the cost /kg comparison.

Ariane 62 will cost less then the 78mln that a soyuz launch from CSG costs, and it has a lot more performance. Also Vega C will take over some of the European soyuz market and EuRokot.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/09/2016 08:10 am
I read the OHB/ MT Aerospace 2015 Annual Report (http://www.ohb.de/tl_files/ohb/pdf/finanzberichte_hauptversammlung/2015/ohb_gb_2015_e.pdf) last weekend, lots of info on Ariane 6 is in it.
- On page 24-27 (pdf 28-31) there is an article about Ariane 6 and OHB involvement. OHB/MT Aerospace will be responsible for 11,5% of Ariane 6 production. German companies will contribute 23% to Ariane 6.
Already during the Ariane5ME / Ariane 6 evaluation phase MT Aerospace started the development of a carbon composite production proces that would eliminate the need for an autoclave. ESA awarded MT Aerospace a contract to develop demonstrator modules for the boosters, that program will run until the end of 2017. 
- On page 53 (PDF 57) in the second alinea the reason for the development of Ariane 6 is described.
- On page 57 (PDF 61) the total development budget for A6 is 3,75 billion Euro, 23% is funded by Germany. (800mln system design stage 2015, 600mln for the launch site development the other 2,35billion is for the system development and production set and the test program / flight.) On this page also the elements MT aerospace is expecting to produce are named.
- Page 62-63 (PDF 66-67) the technologies under development by OHB are named.
- Page 67 (PDF 71) For the ESA contract a 1:1 scale casing will be build and tested. Also for a DLR contract three S50 (brazilian VLM-1 1th & 2th stage) casings will be developed and build. Those will be fire tested in 2018.

For Ariane 5 OHB builds the steel solid rocket segments at there Augsburg plant. During the transition period from A5 to A6 this plant will be converted to a second P120C production line. (For the first production line a new factory is being constructed in Italy at AVIO's facility.) During the A5ME development program OHB (and also airbus) build a new factory in Bremen (close to the A320 Bremen assembly line). At that factory MT Aerospace will build the aluminium segments for both the main and upperstage of A6. The inter-tank structure and the lower skirt of the main stage will use the segmented panel concept from MT Aerospace (there future launcher concept in 2012).
Lots of work for OHB/MT Aerospace on Ariane 6.
 
(do you agree a OHB would be a good partner for AVIO, an it would be a good development if OHB took over some of the shares of AVIO. (ASL) Airbus Safraan Launchers will build the nozzles for P120C/ESR, i think they could also buy a minority part of the shares. Avio's share holders could become: ~50% Leonardo, ~30% OHB & ~20% ASL. But this is tollally speculative)
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/09/2016 01:16 pm
They had a beautiful concept of single cores and a segmented interstage that enabled the use of 1, 2, 3 or even 4 cores to dial performance. Is anything like this?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gospacex on 05/09/2016 02:10 pm
For an reusable stage new engines are required, those take at least five years to design and after that a launcher has to be developed for the engine, that also takes at least two years. SpaceX got an very nice restart-able rocket engine design for free from NASA.

Every today's engine is based on prior designs and experience. SpaceX was not handed a free rocket engine design which they used with little/no work and expense. For one, the turbopump was completely new design already in the very first version of Merlin.

For SpaceX, it took only four years from founding the company to first flight of Falcon-1. What is the physical reason Arianespace needs no less than seven years?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/09/2016 06:04 pm
Indeed the multi segment interstage/tank strructure and also a multisegment lower skirt. To be able to mount two or four boosters.

There are multiple reasons why it takes so long.
1) new factories have to be build in France (core stage) Avio 50% of the boosters and France Guiana launch site and integration facilities. I expect the launch site to have the longest development time. They have finished earth works in the end of april, they have worked for over a year on it.
2) New technologies have to be put in production. Expecially the boosters and altitude control system.
3) Esa and arianespace want to continue launching vega and Ariane 5. Ariane 6 will use many of the ground facilities that are needed for Ariane 5. This criates a shortage of production failities for Ariane 6.
They also want a smooth transition from A5 to A6, not the immediate transitions SpaceX does.
4) Companies have to murge to get a lean launch industry. This murging proces takes time, and it was halted by some political trouble. The work has to be devided between the different european companies. This takes a lot of discussion time. Also the tests take a lot of time.
5) The decision to really develop A6 still has to be made during ESA ministerial conference 2016. The past year and this year they have spend studiing the design to optimize it for gto and leo.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: MartinW on 05/13/2016 09:27 am
Falcon 9Ariane 62Falcon HeavyAriane 64
Prize| $62M| $86.2M| $90M| $103.5M
GTO (1'800m/s)| 8'300kg| 5'000kg| 22'200kg| 10'500kg
GTO (1'500m/s)| 5'400kg| 5'000kg| 14'400kg| 10'500kg
USD/kg at GTO 1'500| 11'500 USD/kg| 17'250 USD/kg| 6'250 USD/kg| 9'850 USD/kg

That's grossly inaccurate. You take SpaceX price for "up to 8.0 mT" and apply it to 22.2 t. See: http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

Here is a corrected version

FalconAriane 62Falcon HeavyAriane 64
Price| $62M| | $90M|
Cost| | €75M| | €90M
For GTO payload| 5,500kg| 5,000kg| 8,000kg| 10,500kg
Price per kg to declared GTO| 11,273 $/kg| 15,000 €/kg| 11,250 $/kg| 8,571 €/kg

Few important remarks:

- Ariane 6 specifications are not final, we do not know what exactly they will be and to which GTO.
- Distinguish between the price and a cost. They are not the same, and I over and over again see people confusing these two in this tread.
- Keep the currency. Ariane is priced in Euro, Falcon in USD. We have no idea how currencies will fluctuate over time, and most of the Arianespace customers are not US-based.
- Note that you cannot easily compare these numbers with Ariane 5, because the price customer pays depends on which slot satellite takes. Lighter satellites pay much less per kilogram than the heavier do, it can be as low as $10k/kg, that's how Ariane 5 remains competitive with Falcon 9.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/13/2016 10:28 am
Ariane 6 launches are priced at A62 75M and A64 90M Euro, their cost are different.
I've an Ansers to Questions of Germany paper dated 29 Oct. 2014. There it is reported that:
A5ECA launch price: 165M euro (Bepi-Combo, JWST);(158M euro w/o MQO A5ME)
Launch price A64 = 115M euro; Cost 90,6M euro.
So A saving of 50M for a full flight and 25M euro for one payload of a dual launch. 
Soyuz price: 85M Euro (Proba 3 (2018); 40M (2002)=51,6M (2014); 5xGallileo 69,3M (2010) =74,7M (2014);
                               8x optional Galileo 74,1M (2012) = 78M (2014).
Ariane 62 Price: 70M Euro ; Cost >70M {79M/73,6M W/O MQO} Euro.
So 10M Euro saved on a A62 compared to a Soyuz launch.
It is calculated that with A6 launches compared to A5 & Soyuz launches 345M euro in launch cost is saved in the period 2021-2024. (only on ESA missions). With a more capable VEGA C/E more can be saved. They estimate 800M euro is feasible).

Note this is old data, new data is not public jet. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 05/13/2016 05:57 pm
Falcon 9Ariane 62Falcon HeavyAriane 64
Prize| $62M| $86.2M| $90M| $103.5M
GTO (1'800m/s)| 8'300kg| 5'000kg| 22'200kg| 10'500kg
GTO (1'500m/s)| 5'400kg| 5'000kg| 14'400kg| 10'500kg
USD/kg at GTO 1'500| 11'500 USD/kg| 17'250 USD/kg| 6'250 USD/kg| 9'850 USD/kg

That's grossly inaccurate. You take SpaceX price for "up to 8.0 mT" and apply it to 22.2 t. See: http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

Here is a corrected version

FalconAriane 62Falcon HeavyAriane 64
Price| $62M| | $90M|
Cost| | €75M| | €90M
For GTO payload| 5,500kg| 5,000kg| 8,000kg| 10,500kg
Price per kg to declared GTO| 11,273 $/kg| 15,000 €/kg| 11,250 $/kg| 8,571 €/kg

Few important remarks:

- Ariane 6 specifications are not final, we do not know what exactly they will be and to which GTO.
- Distinguish between the price and a cost. They are not the same, and I over and over again see people confusing these two in this tread.
- Keep the currency. Ariane is priced in Euro, Falcon in USD. We have no idea how currencies will fluctuate over time, and most of the Arianespace customers are not US-based.
- Note that you cannot easily compare these numbers with Ariane 5, because the price customer pays depends on which slot satellite takes. Lighter satellites pay much less per kilogram than the heavier do, it can be as low as $10k/kg, that's how Ariane 5 remains competitive with Falcon 9.
No I didn't. You lost the most important part and that's the distinction between 1,500m/s and 1,800m/s GTO. I divided 90M by 14,400kg. The "up to 8tonnes" pricing (which is a quite valid critique, by the way) is also to a 1,800m/s GTO. So we would need to know the cost to a 1,500m/s GTO. I assumed the most optimistic case for FH. Could they do 8tonnes to 1,500m/s and still get full recoverability? I would guess so and in such case it is quite probable that they will stay on roughly the same usd/kg as F9.
But Ariane 5 can currently subsidize the lower berth because they practically hada monopoly for high reliability GTO launches above 4,000kg. Now that F9 might be able to do 4,500kg or may be 5,500kg in expendable mode, it will be a very tough competitor for Ariane 5. Not to mention when FH is finally proven and they can't cross price the subsidy.
Atlas V and H-2 have been able to steal two such launches, but they are not without their own troubles. Luckily for them Proton keeps blowing itself, Sea Launch is out of business (after blowing itself repetedly), Angara is still in development, Long March is out of bounds thanks to ITAR and GSLV MkIII won't compete with the Ariane 5 upper berth.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: npuentes on 05/21/2016 12:38 pm
In the "Ariane 6 Updates" thread there is a video of the construction zone for ELA-4, the future Ariane 6 launch site. What are the reasons for not resurrecting ELA-2? (apologies if this has already been discussed on this thread and I've missed it)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/21/2016 06:57 pm
Here I write some reasons I came up with:
- ELA-2 is locaded to close to the launch consollidsom for the P120C solids to be used from there.
- The liquid oxigen production plant and stowege facilities are now located at te south west side of ELA-2.
- The distance between ELA-2 and ELV & ELA-3 is small. Work on the launchsite has to be stoped for each launch. Also a launch failure on one pad will damage all three launch pads.
- The flame duct at ELA-2 is not able to sustain the Ariane 6 launch loads, mainly the sollids. The acoustics of the flameduct are also wrong. (To many vibrations) So before the flameduct has to be removed first before a new flamduct can be constructed. So it's faster and cheaper to clear a new site for ELA-4.
- When a rocket launches from a refurbished ELA-2 it will fly over ELA-3. When the launch goes wrong ELA-3 gets dammaged.

I came up with these reasons, I'm just speculating here.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/21/2016 07:39 pm
Here I write some reasons I came up with:
- ELA-2 is locaded to close to the launch consollidsom for the P120C solids to be used from there.
- The liquid oxigen production plant and stowege facilities are now located at te south west side of ELA-2.
- The distance between ELA-2 and ELV & ELA-3 is small. Work on the launchsite has to be stoped for each launch. Also a launch failure on one pad will damage all three launch pads.
- The flame duct at ELA-2 is not able to sustain the Ariane 6 launch loads, mainly the sollids. The acoustics of the flameduct are also wrong. (To many vibrations) So before the flameduct has to be removed first before a new flamduct can be constructed. So it's faster and cheaper to clear a new site for ELA-4.
- When a rocket launches from a refurbished ELA-2 it will fly over ELA-3. When the launch goes wrong ELA-3 gets dammaged.

I came up with these reasons, I'm just speculating here.
By the time ELA-2 went fully operational for Ariane 4 in the late 1980's, ELA-1 was largely out of business. This was a good thing given that ELA-1 and ELA-2 are located quite close to each other.
The only reason why VEGA was placed at ELA-1 in the early 2000's was because ELA-2 was out of business (no more A4).
Given that ELA-1 is now in use for VEGA it makes no sense to convert ELA-2 for Ariane 6. The pads are simply located too close together.  Any mishap at ELA-1 is likely to inflict damage to ELA-2 and vice versa.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 05/22/2016 05:58 pm
Here I write some reasons I came up with:
- ELA-2 is locaded to close to the launch consollidsom for the P120C solids to be used from there.
- The liquid oxigen production plant and stowege facilities are now located at te south west side of ELA-2.
- The distance between ELA-2 and ELV & ELA-3 is small. Work on the launchsite has to be stoped for each launch. Also a launch failure on one pad will damage all three launch pads.
- The flame duct at ELA-2 is not able to sustain the Ariane 6 launch loads, mainly the sollids. The acoustics of the flameduct are also wrong. (To many vibrations) So before the flameduct has to be removed first before a new flamduct can be constructed. So it's faster and cheaper to clear a new site for ELA-4.
- When a rocket launches from a refurbished ELA-2 it will fly over ELA-3. When the launch goes wrong ELA-3 gets dammaged.

I came up with these reasons, I'm just speculating here.
By the time ELA-2 went fully operational for Ariane 4 in the late 1980's, ELA-1 was largely out of business. This was a good thing given that ELA-1 and ELA-2 are located quite close to each other.
The only reason why VEGA was placed at ELA-1 in the early 2000's was because ELA-2 was out of business (no more A4).
Given that ELA-1 is now in use for VEGA it makes no sense to convert ELA-2 for Ariane 6. The pads are simply located too close together.  Any mishap at ELA-1 is likely to inflict damage to ELA-2 and vice versa.
As part of the ceremony of final Decommissioning and closure for the implosion of the ELA-2 structures, it was stated by CNES Engineering that if demand for Vega became to high ELA-2 would be converted into ELV-2 for Vega and would be capable of mobile Launcher table for Launcher buildup so that the pad would be tied up less than current ELV-1
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/22/2016 11:15 pm
As part of the ceremony of final Decommissioning and closure for the implosion of the ELA-2 structures, it was stated by CNES Engineering that if demand for Vega became to high ELA-2 would be converted into ELV-2 for Vega and would be capable of mobile Launcher table for Launcher buildup so that the pad would be tied up less than current ELV-1

Thanks for bringing this forward. It's always nice to have someone sharing information that is less known. Now I also know where the three core Vega EH would launch form if ever developed.
Does someone know to what trust rating the ELV/ELA-1 flame trance is rated. Is it capable of sustaining the P120C launch loads. Only Ariane 1 to 3 launched form ELA-1, if wiki is correct A3 had a takeoff thrust of 5100kN. So ELV should  be capable of supporting Vega C and later E. But also here the acoustics could become a problem.
 
Am I right that Arianespace now can launch three Vega launchers annually. If the P80/P120C stage gets tested in another facility I guess ELV is capable of supporting up to six launches per year. But for this to happen also new P80/P120C casting facilities are required. For an ever higher launch cadence the ELA-2 site could be developed into a second (more capable) Vega launch site. Or ELA-3 when Ariane 5 is no longer operational launches less often.     
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/23/2016 06:27 am
Here I write some reasons I came up with:
- ELA-2 is locaded to close to the launch consollidsom for the P120C solids to be used from there.
- The liquid oxigen production plant and stowege facilities are now located at te south west side of ELA-2.
- The distance between ELA-2 and ELV & ELA-3 is small. Work on the launchsite has to be stoped for each launch. Also a launch failure on one pad will damage all three launch pads.
- The flame duct at ELA-2 is not able to sustain the Ariane 6 launch loads, mainly the sollids. The acoustics of the flameduct are also wrong. (To many vibrations) So before the flameduct has to be removed first before a new flamduct can be constructed. So it's faster and cheaper to clear a new site for ELA-4.
- When a rocket launches from a refurbished ELA-2 it will fly over ELA-3. When the launch goes wrong ELA-3 gets dammaged.

I came up with these reasons, I'm just speculating here.
By the time ELA-2 went fully operational for Ariane 4 in the late 1980's, ELA-1 was largely out of business. This was a good thing given that ELA-1 and ELA-2 are located quite close to each other.
The only reason why VEGA was placed at ELA-1 in the early 2000's was because ELA-2 was out of business (no more A4).
Given that ELA-1 is now in use for VEGA it makes no sense to convert ELA-2 for Ariane 6. The pads are simply located too close together.  Any mishap at ELA-1 is likely to inflict damage to ELA-2 and vice versa.
As part of the ceremony of final Decommissioning and closure for the implosion of the ELA-2 structures, it was stated by CNES Engineering that if demand for Vega became to high ELA-2 would be converted into ELV-2 for Vega and would be capable of mobile Launcher table for Launcher buildup so that the pad would be tied up less than current ELV-1
Yes, and in doing so it would automatically result in the very same thing that happened when ELA-2 was first commissioned: the shut-down of ELA-1 (in this case that would be ELV-1). And for exactly the same reasons.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Pipcard on 06/18/2016 08:30 am
When Ariane 6 had a PPH configuration, it wasn't going to have dual-launch capability (https://cnes.fr/en/web/CNES-en/10705-gp-europe-sets-its-sights-on-ariane-6.php) because they were having trouble pairing satellites together due to the increase in the average mass of a comsat.

So why was that re-integrated into the plan? (with Ariane 64's total GTO payload capacity being about the same as Ariane 5 ECA)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 06/18/2016 08:34 am
Because they figure that satellites will get smaller and the upper stage can do more work.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 06/18/2016 03:29 pm
The conservative estimates are that A64 will have the same 10,5mT to GTO -1500m/s performance as Ariane 5 ECA. But most likely it's performance will be better than this. I think it will go as high as 12mT to the same orbit. This is nearly enough to do two heavy comsats.
The main problem with A5 ECA is that the upperstage can't be reignited. Vince can be ignited up to five times during a launch. This will eliminate the requirement that both payloads have nearly the same orbital destination.
For example: with A64 a pair can be made were one satellite has a location over the US an the other satellite over Africa. This is not possible with A5 ECA.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 06/18/2016 06:37 pm
The statements that I saw were more on the line of doing a 1,500m/s on the primary payload and then reduce the delta-v (or even circularize) for the lower berth payload, usually a SEP bird. The drift can't be handled by the stage and is better left to the bird itself.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 06/30/2016 10:15 pm
Airbus Safran Launchers updated their website: link (http://www.airbusafran-launchers.com/en)
And SpaceNews (http://spacenews.com/airbus-safran-finalize-ariane-joint-venture/) refered to a Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-safran-idUSKCN0ZG0KL) news article. Airbus and Safran finalized the merging discussions. Safran will pay 750mln Euro to airbus to make ASL a 50|50% joint venture. This is 50mln less than originally planned.
(Placed here because the first isn't really news/ an A6 update)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 07/01/2016 10:39 pm
The main problem with A5 ECA is that the upperstage can't be reignited. Vince can be ignited up to five times during a launch. This will eliminate the requirement that both payloads have nearly the same orbital destination.
For example: with A64 a pair can be made were one satellite has a location over the US an the other satellite over Africa. This is not possible with A5 ECA.

I'm VERY skeptical that this is an issue. From a GTO orbit you can easily access ANY geostationary location with very little delta-v.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 07/01/2016 11:52 pm
Actually, it is just part of the standard GTO circularization strategy.
What Vinci enables both different deployment orbits and to increase the perigee of the orbit. With a single burn, you can't coast. And GEO is too high to do a direct injection. Thus, with ECA you will be burning exclusively at perigee, which only can increase the apogee.
Since they already launch with just 5deg of inclination, going super synchronous adds practically nothing and might, in fact, add delta-v cost.
But with Vinci, they can increase the perigee and thus reduce the delta-v deficit. What they can also do, is release one satellite in a standard GTO and the other with a higher perigee to save the delta-v.
Please note that in that latter case they would need to do another burn to deorbit the stage within the 25 years of their own requirements.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/11/2016 06:45 pm
Not exactly Ariane 6, more like 7, but nowhere better to put it right now and not wanting to create a new thread right yet. There's a bit more info on Prometheus (100T Lox/Methane engine);

http://spacenews.com/frances-cnes-backs-space-station-hedges-bets-on-reusable-rockets/
Quote
Longer term, CNES has proposed to ESA a liquid oxygen/liquid methane engine called Prometheus, designed to cost one-tenth of the Ariane 5’s Vulcain main-stage engine.

ESA Launcher Director Gaele Winters said the agency will propose to its governments in December a development program based on Prometheus.

CNES officials have said they are working with the German and Italian space agencies to craft a four-year, 125-million-euro Prometheus development that would end with a small demonstrator, called Callisto, in 2020.


And a bit more about the parallel reusable first stage (in French);
http://www.voaafrique.com/a/lanceurs-la-france-appelle-l-europe-a-preparer-le-moteur-du-futur-/3357791.html
Quote
Simultaneously, France, Germany and Japan have started research on a reusable first stage prototype, named Callisto.

To be launched from French Guiana, this mini vehicle ten meters high, which will be equipped with a Japanese engine will go up to a hundred kilometers above sea level, before descending for landing. Its promoters are targetting a date of 2020 for a first test.

Callisto project at this stage cost a hundred million euros. It will also be presented at the Ministerial Conference in Lucerne.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 07/13/2016 08:03 pm
Here is another Prometheus article... probably is or will soon be time to start a separate thread on reusable launch vehicle efforts by ESA.

Quote
French space minister calls for European rocket R&D effort, says SpaceX victory still TBD -

Quote
Mandon was referring to a reusable, liquid-oxygen, liquid-methane engine that France has been working on, called Promethee. France would like to Europeanize the effort, offering to subcontract major elements to Germany and other European partners in exchange for financial contributions.

Mandon’s calling the propulsion system both Promethee, French for Prometheus, and Prometheus presages a French effort this December to persuade European Space Agency governments to fund the new propulsion system.

http://spacenews.com/french-space-minister-calls-for-european-rocket-rd-effort-says-spacex-victory-still-tbd/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/28/2016 10:04 pm
This reusable launch vehicle is much beter comparable to Blue Origin's New Shepard then to a grasshopper from SpaceX. I read it would be 10m tall and 1m in diameter. If the complete length would be a cilinder, it would have a volume of 7,85m3. With a LOxLNG mass of 0,825mT/M3 the fuel weight will weight about 6.5mT.
With a system weight of 1mT the total weight will be 7,5mT. The 10mT trust IHI LE-8 LOxLNG engine would be a suitable launcher for this.
I don't think small European launch companies are happy about this (Black Aero 2 and Arion 1).
Might I suggest to move the discussion about the suborbital demo vehicle to the Micro launcher segment:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38446.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38446.0)

To come back on the Ariane 6 subject, I've been trying to identify the payloads for the first couple of Ariane 6 launches. The maiden launch of Ariane 6 in 2020 would be a A64. I couldn't identify A64 payloads.
In 2021 two A64 and two A62 launches are planned. I think one of the A62 launches will be used for four Galileo satellites and the other for the EUMETSAT Polar System - Second Generation (EPS-SG) METOP-SG A1 (Sentinel 5) and a secondary (group) of payloads (4,2mT+ ~2,5mT).
Any other ideas on the first payloads for Ariane 6?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/28/2016 10:21 pm
Dream Chaser .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/29/2016 03:34 pm
Dream Chaser .
That would be nice but I would prefer Pride (a IXV derived European vehicle), both as ISS resupply vehicle (2020-2024) and as reusable free flying laboratory (like X-37). One launch annually would ad some much required launch volume. I don't think Dream Chaser nor Pride will launch on one of the early flights though.
The 2020 A64 launch and the first 2021 A62 launch are really risky, because they are maiden flights. The first ten launches of Ariane 6 will most likely also have higher insurance costs because the launcher still has to prove it's reliability. So I don't expect payloads that can tolarate a failure. This can be ordinary comsats, Galileo (reserve) satellites. Metop-A1 has no European alternative so it will have to ride on A62.
I also expect a MTG satellite (Sentinel4) will launch on a A64 flight in the 2020-2023 timeframe.
Feel free to speculate further.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Jester on 07/29/2016 03:52 pm
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/29/2016 04:14 pm
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2
do you have an estimated year as to when this might occur?? I assume this flight(s) would either be Block-II expansion or replenishment flights.
or these flights??
NLT 2020 - Galileo-FOC FM23, Galileo-FOC FM24 - TBD - Kourou
NLT 2020 - Galileo-FOC FM25, Galileo-FOC FM26 - TBD - Kourou
NLT 2020 - Galileo-FOC FM27, Galileo-FOC FM28 - TBD - Kourou
NLT 2020 - Galileo-FOC FM29, Galileo-FOC FM30 - TBD - Kourou
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/29/2016 04:26 pm
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2
do you have an estimated year as to when this might occur?? I assume this flight(s) would either be Block-II expansion or replenishment flights.
Most likely 2021 (possibly the second A6 flight overall). I guess it would be Galileo FOC M10 carrying FM27-30
(considering a Ariane 5 FOC M9 flight in 2019-2020) All very speculative. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/29/2016 06:06 pm
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2
do you have an estimated year as to when this might occur?? I assume this flight(s) would either be Block-II expansion or replenishment flights.
Most likely 2021 (possibly the second A6 flight overall). I guess it would be Galileo FOC M10 carrying FM27-30
(considering a Ariane 5 FOC M9 flight in 2019-2020) All very speculative. 
We should find out more during the November ESA Ministerial Council meeting as there is to be a discussion and vote planned on whether to exercise the Galileo contract options for up to two additional Ariane 5ES-Galileo launchers to finish out Galileo First Generation Constellation (GFG) or place them on Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT or Ariane 6.2.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/29/2016 06:37 pm
Like the first flight of Ariane 5 and Vega I figure that some not too important science missions will be launched on the first Ariane 6.4  I wonder how much a new Telescope for visual light  and a laser range finder to measure the height of plants would fit.

There would probably be room for another satellite as well.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Jester on 07/29/2016 07:02 pm
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2
do you have an estimated year as to when this might occur?? I assume this flight(s) would either be Block-II expansion or replenishment flights.
Most likely 2021 (possibly the second A6 flight overall). I guess it would be Galileo FOC M10 carrying FM27-30
(considering a Ariane 5 FOC M9 flight in 2019-2020) All very speculative. 
We should find out more during the November ESA Ministerial Council meeting as there is to be a discussion and vote planned on whether to exercise the Galileo contract options for up to two additional Ariane 5ES-Galileo launchers to finish out Galileo First Generation Constellation (GFG) or place them on Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT or Ariane 6.2.

Before we get to a point about when/what to fly on A6.2 (which is VERY tbd) the above discussion first needs to be done, and afaik its not so much a council but an ESA-EC question (how fast do we deploy/risk mitigation for A5 failure etc.) in short lets see how VA233 goes ;-)
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/13/2016 04:57 pm
Good article on A6

http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/13/ariane-6-rocket-holding-to-schedule-for-2020-maiden-flight/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: cheesybagel on 08/16/2016 02:09 am
This LOX/Methane engine is too late. They should have never stopped development of the VOLGA engine of the French with Russia. They could have had the engine by now if they never stopped development.

If this engine ever comes to light SpaceX is probably going to be flying reusables by then.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/16/2016 02:52 pm
This LOX/Methane engine is too late. They should have never stopped development of the VOLGA engine of the French with Russia. They could have had the engine by now if they never stopped development.

If this engine ever comes to light SpaceX is probably going to be flying reusables by then.

Is Volga the 2600kN LOx-LNG engine that was under evaluation for the High Trust Engine program?
I agree it would have been nice and really wanted when a new first stage engine would be ready for implementation in Ariane 6. Unfortunately this is not the case, as result of several political and financial reasons.
HTE wasn't executed because the financial (bank & Euro) crisis. This resulted in budget trouble in all the ESA member states, so low funding for the space programs.

I think it's just the right time to develop a Promethee (~1000kN LOx-LNG; or higher thrust) first stage engine.
The shared development between IHI and Airbus of the ACE-42R Reusable 420kN LOx-LNG engine is nearing completion. IHI also developed the LE-8 100kN LOx-LNG engine, but in Europe this was the first full engine development of a Methane rocket engine. Promethee is a nice follow-on development after the ACE-42R engine.

Italy and Russia jointly developed the Myra 120kN LOx-LNG engine, I don't know the current status of this program, but engine tests have taken place in Russia. The current political situation after: the annexation of Crimea and the 'war' between Ukraine and Russia (MH17 shot out of the sky). Doesn't allow joint ESA Russia programs in my oppinion. I also expect the use of Dnepr/Baikal and Rockot for ESA (memberstate) launches won't continue for more then three years (terminated when Vega C goes into service). These launchers go out of service because Angara 1.2 and Soyuz 2-1v will take over their role.

I think in 2011 the ESA member states already realized they couldn't develop a new engine in-time for Falcon 9, Angara, Long March 5 or 7 to come into service. In 2014 Falcon 9 was in service and took most of it's market share from the (unreliable) Proton rocket. The ESA member-states realized A5-ME wouldn't be competitive, as would be the PPH A6. So they found a path in between A6 PHH.

It is a fact the commercial (GTO) launch market will become more competitive. The purpose of the A6 development program is that ESA (and it's member-states) will maintain independent access to space. Ariane 5 with its ~200mln launch cost, that needed ~200mln annually in launch site aid funding, at 6 launches annually, wouldn't maintain it's market share. Ariane 64 might maintain this market share of 6 launches annually, because of the lower launch cost and the more flexible system (re-ignitable upper-stage).

I've analyzed the ESA and member-state launch requirement for the 2020-2030 time frame. I found 47 main payloads, 22 can be launched by Vega (C) the other 26 need a A6 launch. From the 26 payloads for A6, 14 will have GEO as destination. They will launch on A64 with another payload.
So the 5 launches for A6 annually is unrealistic, but 5 for both A6 and Vega might be realistic.
(ISS resupply, in orbit test vehicles and SSO dedicated ride share launches could increase the launch rate)
If they chose to prefer A6 over Vega, the launch rate will be lower because A6 (7mT to SSO) has nearly 3x the Vega C (2,3mT to SSO) capability. Vega C will mostly do two payloads each launch, so A6 will have to be multi manifested launches (like Falcon 9 with Formosat5 and Sherpa).

       

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 08/31/2016 11:52 pm
This LOX/Methane engine is too late. They should have never stopped development of the VOLGA engine of the French with Russia. They could have had the engine by now if they never stopped development.

If this engine ever comes to light SpaceX is probably going to be flying reusables by then.



Reuseability is entirely dependent on a massive increase in the mass going into orbit otherwise just a gimic .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/09/2016 09:50 am
Arianespace have published cross-section drawings as seen in the Update thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1580987#msg1580987).

A few things I noticed:

- Vinci no longer has an extendable nozzle.
- There doesn't seem to be a VEB. Could the control system have been moved to the upper stage? There seems to be plenty of room for it between the tanks, but that's going to be a low-temperature space (sitting between the LOX and LH tanks)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 09/10/2016 11:16 am
Would it possible to move JUICE from Ariane V to VI  or would that delay it too much and if they did would it speed up its journey to Jupiter in any way?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/11/2016 11:12 am
I wrongly posted this in the update topic:

Mattblak, Indeed they did not publish LEO figures jet. All figures that have been published are conservative estimates if I'm not mistaken. I think we'll have to wait a year or two before more precise figures will be published. There is a uncertainty about the performance of the P120C (P142 / ESR), the static fire test at the BEAP will eliminate this. Does someone know when this test is scheduled, the end of 2017?
They have to test the last version of the Vince upper stage engine to learn it's performance. And the mass of all components of the launcher will have to be known before exact figures can be published.

The >10,5mT to GTO for A64 and 5mT GTO / 7mT SSO are the rough estimates.
10,5mT is a dual launch with a 4mT and a 6mT satellite.
The SSO minimal requirement is 4,5mT for the EUMETSAT Polar System-Second Generation (EPS-SG) satellites.
For Gallileo A62 will need to be able to loft 3mT to MEO (56deg. 23 000km)

My impression is that A64 will outperform A5 ES in it's ISS performance (LEO 56deg. ~350km). I guess A64 will be capable to orbit between 20 to 25mT to the ISS. My guess for A62 is about 12mT, but know that I didn't calculate this, because I don't have empty stage mass specifications.

Please place update posts in the update threat and all other stuff here, thanks
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/11/2016 11:54 am
I think there's a mistake in this picture. It looks like there's a tank underneath the intertank structure of the second stage.

I don't think It's a mistake. Those are helium and/or nitrogen pressure vessels. They are spherical carbonfiber epoxy tanks. most likely produced by MT-Aerospace in Germany. I found an image (http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/87925/view) of a gas vessel for A5ME and this ESA article  (https://artes.esa.int/projects/hehpv-%E2%80%93-helium-high-pressure-vessel) about smaller tanks for satellite applications.
I think Airbus Safran Launchers opted to place them around the Vince engine instead of inside the LOX/LH2 tanks or the space between the two tanks because of three reasons.
1) There is enough space for them around Vince, expecially since they droped the expendable nozzle.
2) Installation is much easier around the engine then in between of the tanks. And they could still switch to a Common bulkhead without having to reposition the pressurization tanks.
3) It's a common practice to alter the number of pressure vessels on a upper stage to get the required performance with the lightest stage mass. I think they do this already on ESC-A, ULA certainly does this on the centaur upper stage. When the gas vessels are in between of the bulkheads they have to decide the amount of vessels during stage production. It's very hard to reconfigure afterwards in the case the launch plan changes. With the vessels around the engine, removing or adding a vessel is not really complicated.

In the launch simulation video posted early 2016 these pressurization vessels were also visible around the Vince Engine.

With the core stage they will place them in the space between the oxidizer and fuel tanks. MT-Aerospace will build two different versions of the lower skirt and inter-tank structure. They have to swap these structures to change a stage from a A64 to a A62 or vice-versa. Besides the gas vessels don't fit around the Vulcain 2.1, and the delta V penalty is much lower for extra mass on a lower stage than on a upper stage.

I think this is one of the design choices that will make the Ariane 6 such a affordable and versatile launcher.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 09/11/2016 04:37 pm
I think the big advantage of Ariane 6 is Vinci. Finally a restartable upper stage. Took about forever and opens up a lot of options.

The rest seems a bit boring, basically a respin of the Ariane 5 to reduce cost. - Which is ok for me. Taking a proven system, redesign it for manufacturability and shaving of a significant part of the launch cost is a worthwhile endeavor.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/11/2016 05:50 pm
I think there's a mistake in this picture. It looks like there's a tank underneath the intertank structure of the second stage.

I don't think It's a mistake. Those are helium and/or nitrogen pressure vessels. They are spherical carbonfiber epoxy tanks. most likely produced by MT-Aerospace in Germany. I found an image (http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/87925/view) of a gas vessel for A5ME and this ESA article  (https://artes.esa.int/projects/hehpv-%E2%80%93-helium-high-pressure-vessel) about smaller tanks for satellite applications.
I think Airbus Safran Launchers opted to place them around the Vince engine instead of inside the LOX/LH2 tanks or the space between the two tanks because of three reasons.
1) There is enough space for them around Vince, expecially since they droped the expendable nozzle.
2) Installation is much easier around the engine then in between of the tanks. And they could still switch to a Common bulkhead without having to reposition the pressurization tanks.
3) It's a common practice to alter the number of pressure vessels on a upper stage to get the required performance with the lightest stage mass. I think they do this already on ESC-A, ULA certainly does this on the centaur upper stage. When the gas vessels are in between of the bulkheads they have to decide the amount of vessels during stage production. It's very hard to reconfigure afterwards in the case the launch plan changes. With the vessels around the engine, removing or adding a vessel is not really complicated.

In the launch simulation video posted early 2016 these pressurization vessels were also visible around the Vince Engine.

With the core stage they will place them in the space between the oxidizer and fuel tanks. MT-Aerospace will build two different versions of the lower skirt and inter-tank structure. They have to swap these structures to change a stage from a A64 to a A62 or vice-versa. Besides the gas vessels don't fit around the Vulcain 2.1, and the delta V penalty is much lower for extra mass on a lower stage than on a upper stage.

I think this is one of the design choices that will make the Ariane 6 such a affordable and versatile launcher.

That's not what I meant. There's a tank underneath the intertank structure, i.e. between the lh2 and lox tank.
The core intertank structure doesn't have it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Jester on 09/11/2016 05:53 pm
I think the big advantage of Ariane 6 is Vinci. Finally a restartable upper stage. Took about forever and opens up a lot of options.

The rest seems a bit boring, basically a respin of the Ariane 5 to reduce cost. - Which is ok for me. Taking a proven system, redesign it for manufacturability and shaving of a significant part of the launch cost is a worthwhile endeavor.

A5 EPS is already restartable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/11/2016 06:07 pm

That's not what I meant. There's a tank underneath the intertank structure, i.e. between the lh2 and lox tank.
The core intertank structure doesn't have it.

I just went over the drawings again, and I can't find what you're referring to. Can you draw an arrow to what you're referring to?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/11/2016 06:09 pm
I think the big advantage of Ariane 6 is Vinci. Finally a restartable upper stage. Took about forever and opens up a lot of options.

The rest seems a bit boring, basically a respin of the Ariane 5 to reduce cost. - Which is ok for me. Taking a proven system, redesign it for manufacturability and shaving of a significant part of the launch cost is a worthwhile endeavor.

A5 EPS is already restartable.

Sure, but for a very long time now Arianespace had a choice between the low-performance, but restartable EPS and the higher-performance, nonrestartable, designed as an interim solution ESC-A. Now we finally get something close to the ESC-B that has been in the works since when, the 1990s?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/11/2016 06:40 pm
This LOX/Methane engine is too late. They should have never stopped development of the VOLGA engine of the French with Russia. They could have had the engine by now if they never stopped development.

If this engine ever comes to light SpaceX is probably going to be flying reusables by then.



Reuseability is entirely dependent on a massive increase in the mass going into orbit otherwise just a gimic .

Wrong thread.  There are other threads where the generic merits of reuse debate has happened over and over.  This thread is specifically for Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/11/2016 09:33 pm
I also can't find where Oli is referring to. I've labeled the tanks in one picture.
What stood out to me, is that it looks like the upper stage oxigen tank has a smaller diameter than the other three tanks. This is most likely because otherwise it wouldn't be a sphere and thus heavier.

I also don't get whey they didn't develop a reignitable HM7. Most likely this is much more complicated than developing a igniter that can start more then once. (HTP-LH2 or Sparkplug (like Vince))
I do realize a real drowback of the HM7B on Ariane 5 is the low Thrust to Weight ratio of the upperstage. (<0,5 6.7/39-15) That is why the more powerfull and reignitable Vince engine was developed. Only that development took over a decade. (It's all about the money. It's all about the ..... song)
I question how long it would take to develop a HM7C reignitable 60-75kN LOxLH2 engine. The cost could be lowerd by the use of additive manufacturing. This would also be a nice engine for VEGA E (VUS) or as upperstage on a promethee powered first stage (GLOW 80-100mT ~800kg payload).
Most likely A6 is launching for years before this HM7C is developed. And Myra 75-120kN LOx-LNG would deliver a cheaper upperstage. But I'm goeing totally speculative and off topic.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 09/11/2016 11:10 pm
HM-7B is a gas generator, Vinci is an expander, it is gentler, safer, higher performance and easier to start.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/12/2016 07:27 am
I also can't find where Oli is referring to.

See the pic.

Look to me like there's a tank wall where there shouldn't be one.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/12/2016 08:00 am
I also can't find where Oli is referring to.

See the pic.

Look to me like there's a tank wall where there shouldn't be one.
No, there isn't. The artist impression of A6 is exactly that: an artists impression. Those images are by no means an accurate representation of the current design iteration. My advise: don't do A6 kremlinology on those early A6 impressions.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/12/2016 10:29 am
I also can't find where Oli is referring to.

See the pic.

Look to me like there's a tank wall where there shouldn't be one.
No, there isn't. The artist impression of A6 is exactly that: an artists impression. Those images are by no means an accurate representation of the current design iteration.

 ???

That's what I said. The picture is wrong or at least misleading.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/12/2016 11:16 am
I also can't find where Oli is referring to.

See the pic.

Look to me like there's a tank wall where there shouldn't be one.
No, there isn't. The artist impression of A6 is exactly that: an artists impression. Those images are by no means an accurate representation of the current design iteration.

 ???

That's what I said. The picture is wrong or at least misleading.
If that was your point then I wholeheartedly agree.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mike Jones on 09/13/2016 09:02 pm
ESA Council officially approved the continuation of Ariane 6 development today leading to a Maiden flight planned in 2020.
Contracts between ESA & Airbus Safran Launchers for the 2-versions launch vehicle and ESA + CNES for ELA 4  launch complex will be firmed up in coming weeks.
Everything seems on track for Ariane 6 at this stage. Arianespace will start commercialisation soon.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: savuporo on 09/17/2016 07:23 am
new Vinci testbench:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSNbHFyoSE
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/18/2016 10:20 pm
Is this Vince Test bench in France or in Germany?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DT1 on 09/20/2016 10:01 am
Is this Vince Test bench in France or in Germany?

That's the PF52 at ASL in Vernon/France - built for tests w/o nozzle at sea level pressure.
The P4.1 at DLR in Lampoldshausen/Germany conducts the tests (already since 2005) under vacuum (less than 5 mbar) w/ nozzle.

And a new test bench, P5.2, is also just being built at DLR in Lampoldshausen/Germany for the tests of the complete upper stage with Vinci.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/05/2016 05:45 pm
Cross-posting from the UPDATES thread.


Ariane 6 industrial organisation

In 2014, the decision of ESA Council at Ministerial level on the development of Ariane 6 was accompanied by a change in the governance of the European launcher sector, which is now based on a more balanced sharing of responsibility, cost and risk from design to exploitation by ESA and industry.

This gives industry considerably more responsibility in designing the new launcher, managing the industrial organisation, determining the needs of commercial customers and exploiting the product commercially. In turn, industry is required to contribute to the development costs and to increase its accountability in the commercial exploitation.   

The new governance approach will significantly contribute to delivering an Ariane 6 to the launch pad with the same launch capability but at 50% of the cost of the current Ariane 5.

The ESA Member States that contribute to ESA’s Launchers Programme are also involved in the manufacture of Ariane and Vega launchers. They benefit from their investment in the programme through contracts awarded to their space industry.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/11/Ariane_6_industrial_organisation (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/11/Ariane_6_industrial_organisation)

Image credit: ESA

How can European stakeholders (ESA, Arianespace, ASL, CNES, MT-A and Avio) seriously claim that Ariane 6 will be cost competitive  with such fragmented industrial organization ?

Most of those companies belong to each other. Background companies for 90% of that mix are only OHB, Airbus, Safran and Avio - read: the stakeholders you mention.

The only major outside subcontractors are Air Liquide (cryogenics - no surprise, they also deliver all cryogenic propellant for Arianespace launchers), RUAG (fairing - who else do you expect?) and GKN (turbines and Vulcain nozzle - has been on every single Ariane rocket for four decades).


It remains far too fragmented among many sites all over Europe each of them which can't be closed for local political reasons. By the way Indirect shareholding links among most of these companies do exist but it does not guarrantee competitve prices from subcontractors in e.g spain or Norway, as each company is in a kind of Monopoly for its specific component and protected by ESA Geographic return rules.

If you draw the same graph for Falcon or Proton, the picture would be much simpler... hence the lower prices ...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 11/05/2016 08:09 pm
It remains far too fragmented among many sites all over Europe each of them which can't be closed for local political reasons.

These sites can't be closed because most of them do plenty of other things that Ariane 6 or rockets in general.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kato on 11/06/2016 03:59 pm
Except for boosters (and other parts only added in assembly in Kourou anyway) and a handful parts (Vulcain engine nozzle, turbines, oxygen turbopumps) everything else comes from within an area the size of Florida.

"All over Europe" looks different.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 11/06/2016 05:16 pm
Except for boosters (and other parts only added in assembly in Kourou anyway) and a handful parts (Vulcain engine nozzle, turbines, oxygen turbopumps) everything else comes from within an area the size of Florida.

"All over Europe" looks different.
The area might be geographically "small", but don't forget that there are dozens of languages, legal systems, and a good few different currencies in that "small" area. Despite what the anti-EU campaigners claim, Europe is far from a single superstate.... It's probably easier to cooperate over much longer distances within a big country like the US, than over a smaller distance but in a different country, like in Europe.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 11/06/2016 08:15 pm
Just about every industry does business this way, including cutthroat sectors like electronics and automotive. Having subcontractors does not preclude low prices. The rocket industry is unusual in that it had very little price pressure for a long time.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/07/2016 01:57 am
The image is part of the ESA ministerial conference documentation. It shows all the work packages of the launchers program. Most likely these is a dockument with the funding amounts that belong to the work packeges. There are 3 tbd's in the image. These are to put pressure on countries to fund the launchers program. The ERS igniters is such a example. The liquid igniters can only be made by Dutch APP (Safraan company). The igniters of vega are also produced by APP, I'm not sure about the A5 solid igniters but I thought they were also from APP. It could also be a French daughter of Safraan group.
I even can imagine that the engine trust frames could go to MT Aerospace when the Dutch government doesn't support the launch program enough.
The electronics and pressurisation (gas) vessels most likely also have such a story behind them. Also newer ESA memberstates might tap the bill and get the work package.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: kato on 11/07/2016 05:34 pm
I'm not sure about the A5 solid igniters but I thought they were also from APP. It could also be a French daughter of Safraan group.
The igniters for the A5 boosters are built by Avio (http://avio.com/en/media_center/press_releases/2016/avio_once_again_confirms_reliability/avio_once_again_confirms_reliability/) within the Europropulsion joint venture.

APP isn't per se a Safran company, it used to be a joint venture of TNO and Stork formed in 2003 specifically for producing and marketing igniters for space applications - a rather small one given that it employs less than 40 people. TNO designed the liquid igniters for Vulcain II and Vinci (they hold the patent), Stork previously built the igniters for Vulcain I. Safran bought out 70% of APP in 2014 and integrated them into their Herakles solid motor division.

a good few different currencies in that "small" area
Other than RUAG and APCO (which aside from Switzerland also hold offices in Euro countries and have been contributors to Ariane programs since Ariane 4) the only other company in that mix that nominally doesn't use the Euro is Kongsberg. And all they build for Ariane 6 - and Ariane 5 - are the struts with which the boosters are attached.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: jacqmans on 11/09/2016 08:34 am
Press Release
N°39-2016

Paris, 8 November 2016

Ariane 6 on track, contracts towards full development to be signed tomorrow 

After a programmatic review finalised in September and following the positive outcome of today's meeting of the Industrial Policy Committee, ESA is now in a position to confirm the full development of Ariane 6 and Vega C. 

Tomorrow, the riders to the contracts already awarded in August 2015 to the industrial contractor Airbus Safran Launchers (ASL) for the launcher development and to the French space agency CNES for its launch complex, will be signed at ESA headquarters,
8-10 Rue Mario Nikis in Paris at 11:00. 

Media representatives are invited to attend the ceremony as of 10:45. 

The contracts will be signed by Jan Dietrich Woerner, Director General of ESA, Alain Charmeau, CEO/President of ASL and Jean-Yves Le Gall, President of CNES. The signatures will take place in the presence of Thierry Mandon, French Secretary of State
for Research and Higher Education.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: jacqmans on 11/10/2016 01:25 pm
ESA confirmed the full development of Ariane 6 and Vega C. Yesterday, the riders to the contracts already awarded in August 2015 to the industrial contractor Airbus Safran Launchers (ASL) for the launcher development and to the French space agency CNES for its launch complex, were signed by ESA Director General Jan Woerner, ASL CEO Alain Charmeau and CNES President Jean-Yves Le Gall. The signatures took place in the presence of Thierry Mandon, French Secretary of State for Research and Higher Education.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: sdsds on 11/24/2016 08:33 am
Could someone please explain:  both Germany and Italy will be producing casings for the A6 strap-on boosters? Or only Italy?

(http://spacenews.com/esa-decision-frees-up-full-funding-for-ariane-6-rocket/)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacediver on 11/24/2016 10:21 am
Could someone please explain:  both Germany and Italy will be producing casings for the A6 strap-on boosters? Or only Italy?

(http://spacenews.com/esa-decision-frees-up-full-funding-for-ariane-6-rocket/)

The negotiations are still in Progress.
A decision is expected not earlier than MC 2018.

Casings for the early flights will come from Italy, German casings would not fly before 2021.

Spacediver
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/26/2016 03:46 pm
For the Ariane 6 boosters and Vega-C first stage the production base plan to my understanding is as folowing. Currently at Avio's (Italy) plant a new factory is under construction. This factory will have te capacity to produce 18 ESR stages annually.
Currently at this location the thermal isolation is placed incide the metal booster segments or Ariane 5. All solid vega stages are produced there. The top segment of the A5 boosters are casted there. As are the Z23 and Z9A vega stages. For Vega-C the P80 will be replaced by a ESR (P142, P120c), and the Z23 will replaced by a Z40.

In Germany MT Aerospace produces the metal segments of the Ariane 5 boosters. This work ends when A6 succeeds A5. MT Aerospace together with a German composite laboratory have developed a carbon fiber - Epoxy booster production method that doesn't require a Autoclave. If this technology is applied on ESR two large Autoclave D3,5m L15m doesn't have to be build. As I understand it MT Aerospace got an order from DLR to produce 3 S50 (VLM-1 D1,45 L5 m) casings. These casings will be test fired in Brazil to prove the production method. If these test are succesfully executed the production method will be aplied on ERS.
According to the current Ariane 6 and Vega-C production plan 35 or 36 boosters are required annually. Germany and MT Aerospace want to convert the metal casing factory into the second booster production line. This line will only be set up when the autoclave-less production method is chosen and more then 18 (I think even 24) boosters are required annually. Otherwise the Avio factory will be expended according to te requirement.

This is how I understand it, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/26/2016 04:00 pm
Nice artist impresions for ELA-4 (from ESA) were posted on the update topic.
I'm wondering how the ESR casting and Integration and Testing facilities are goeing to look like.
When these facilities are finished the Vega launch rate can increase above the max 4 annually.  It is currently limited by the fact the CSG casting plant can only produce 32 P80/ A5 booster segments annually. (This year 7x 4 segments Ariane 5 + 2x P80 Vega + 2segments for the booster test.)
And the P80 (actually P88) have to be tested at ELA-1, that requires more then a month.

Next year we could see 7x Ariane 5 and 4x Vega launching. Ad a couple of Soyuz launches and Arianespace has a new launch rate record.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: sdsds on 12/06/2016 05:06 am
Thank you for this post on the update thread:
Spacenews article: Q&A Avio CEO Ranzo ... (http://spacenews.com/qa-avio-ceo-ranzo-on-sharing-the-pie-with-germany-and-keeping-spacex-from-an-italian-contract/)
About Avio and MT Aerospace sharing the A6 ESR (booster) casing production.
In short All casings produced in Germany are going to be completed at Avio (Italy).

Ranzo does an excellent job explaining his attitude and approach. Particularly noteworthy is the quote at the end: "The decision probably won’t be based on tweets." Europe is so fortunate in this regard! ;)

His description of himself as, "an industrialist, not a policymaker" also seems enviable. Doesn't Avio have lobbyists?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/26/2016 08:46 pm
Don't think there is anything new here, but Stéphane Israel was interviewed last week after the Ariane 5 launch. The focus was on competition from SpaceX and Blue Origin and thus the rationale for Ariane 6: http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0211622913644-face-a-spacex-blue-origin-arianespace-ne-doit-pas-se-reposer-sur-ses-lauriers-2052837.php (http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0211622913644-face-a-spacex-blue-origin-arianespace-ne-doit-pas-se-reposer-sur-ses-lauriers-2052837.php)

Article is in French but a pretty readable Google translate English version is attached.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Runerdieker on 01/21/2017 03:21 pm
In the Ariane 6 updates thread there was a post about the Expander-cycle Technology Integrated Demonstrator (ETID). This demonstrator is meant to prepare evolutions of upper stage propulsion. 
This confuses me: the article suggests these are evolutions on the Vinci Engine, to be used on the Ariane 6. But at the same time the P5.2 test stand is being built in Lampoldshausen to test the complete upper stage in 2018. Is there enough time to integrate this 'evolved Vinci' into the existing design of the upper stage?   

Expander-cycle Technology Integrated Demonstrator

Development of the Expander-cycle Technology Integrated Demonstrator (ETID) began mid-2013. It is a major constituent of the Future Launchers Preparatory Programme (FLPP) and prepares competitive evolutions of upper stage propulsion for Ariane 6 and Vega by assembling technologies that pave the way for the next generation of cryogenic upper stage engines in Europe.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/11/Expander-cycle_Technology_Integrated_Demonstrator

Image credit: Airbus Defence & Space
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/21/2017 04:01 pm
This is research on an evolved vinci for a future upgrade of Ariane 6, they are not planning on developing this in time for first-flight.  The FLPP research programmes are designed to develop future upgrades that may eventually find their way onto launchers, they are not part of the current Ariane 6 development.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Bubbinski on 01/24/2017 01:34 am


Re: the NSF.com article about Ariane 6 Chris B wrote:

Excellent article Chris! I didn't know the Europeans were looking at a potential reusability solution. The Adeline looks like a pretty cool concept, detaching after stage sep w/engines and avionics and using propeller engines (electric motors? Turboprops w/minimal jet fuel in the fins?) to fly to a landing on the runway. It's good to see multiple reusability options out there for spacecraft launch vehicles being developed or looked at.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/14/2017 05:05 pm
The first version of the Ariane 6 users manual was posted in the update treet by Lsquirrel.
This is the place to comment on it.

I found it a little bit disappointing that only the single and dual (Sylda) payload configurations were included in the users manual. Info about the new Ariane 6 ASAP small payload adapter or other rideshare payload mounts would have been interesting.
Another thing that stood out to me, is the fact Arianespace is going to use the BAF (Ariane 5 Final Assembly Building) payload stacking facilities for Ariane 6. I already expected this, but it's nice to have thoughts confirmed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 02/14/2017 06:07 pm
At first glance the drop of in payload from GTO 1500 m/s (11,000) to GEO (4,100 kg) seems harsh.

In other words weight lifted to GEO is 37% of the GTO performance.

As comparison here are the Atlas V numbers I have found:

GTO 1800 m/s 8,856 kg
GTO 1500 m/s 6,652 kg
GEO          3,856 kg
(Source: ULA website)

Does this point towards another overweight upper stage, following the history of ESC-A and ESC-B?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/14/2017 06:30 pm
At first glance the drop of in payload from GTO 1500 m/s (11,000) to GEO (4,100 kg) seems harsh.

In other words weight lifted to GEO is 37% of the GTO performance.

As comparison here are the Atlas V numbers I have found:

GTO 1800 m/s 8,856 kg
GTO 1500 m/s 6,652 kg
GEO          3,856 kg
(Source: ULA website)

Does this point towards another overweight upper stage, following the history of ESC-A and ESC-B?
A6 Upper Core Stage is the A5ME (ESC-B) upper stage albeit modified.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 02/14/2017 06:51 pm
ESC-A: Get's a pass because it was supposed to be a short-term stand in.

ESC-B: Official data was 27.500 kg propellant and 6.250 kg dry mass. That's...not good at all.

I always assumed this was due to the need to keep the design similar with ESC-A, to avoid changes on the GSE, and to limit the development cost.

If the "clean sheet" Ariane 6 Upper Liquid Propulsion Module is similarly heavy that would be a major disapointment. The 50 year old Centaur can do better...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 02/14/2017 07:05 pm
Agreed, it's a strange to put money in Vinci and still use an upper stage with a terrible mass fraction.

However direct to GEO is not in high demand. For ULA it's mostly for DoD SIGINT spacecrafts I think. Europe does not have those. So it sounds like an sensible business decision to only introduce Vinci to access the Galileo market, and to ignore direct to GEO.

Edit: I'm reading the manual and the direct to GEO mission includes a disposal burn for the upper stage, which must eat a lot of performance.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/14/2017 07:15 pm
Agreed, it's a strange to put money in Vinci and still use an upper stage with a terrible mass fraction.

However direct to GEO is not in high demand. For ULA it's mostly for DoD SIGINT spacecrafts I think. Europe does not have those. So it sounds like an sensible business decision to only introduce Vinci to access the Galileo market, and to ignore direct to GEO.

Edit: I'm reading the manual and the direct to GEO mission includes a disposal burn for the upper stage, which must eat a lot of performance.
GEO stage disposal is to higher graveyard or directly to escape, which is not so much.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 02/14/2017 07:38 pm
Some quick napkin-math:

For standard commercial GTO missions Ariane 64 lifts 24% more mass than Atlas 551, while still providing a advantageous injection orbit to the customer (Δv GEO 1500 instead 1800 m/s).

If both launchers head direct for GEO, then Ariane's advantage is reduced to 6%, despite A64 having a "head start" by launching from Kourou.

Now GEO missions are (very) rare, but it's not like a lighter upper stage wouldn't help with GTO or MEO missions as well...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/14/2017 08:55 pm
At first glance the drop of in payload from GTO 1500 m/s (11,000) to GEO (4,100 kg) seems harsh.

Suggests a dry mass of ~6.9mt (propellant mass of 30mt). Unless I've make a mistake. Worst PMF record ;D
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 02/15/2017 12:23 am
Well, we all know how these European projects work.... there has to be a next project so that more money can be spent and a mass-optimized upper stage is a really nice one because you can easily develop that without interrupting current operations...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 02/15/2017 06:21 am
Some quick napkin-math:

For standard commercial GTO missions Ariane 64 lifts 24% more mass than Atlas 551, while still providing a advantageous injection orbit to the customer (Δv GEO 1500 instead 1800 m/s).

If both launchers head direct for GEO, then Ariane's advantage is reduced to 6%, despite A64 having a "head start" by launching from Kourou.

Now GEO missions are (very) rare, but it's not like a lighter upper stage wouldn't help with GTO or MEO missions as well...

A more apt comparison will be against Vulcan.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/15/2017 06:56 am
Some quick napkin-math:

For standard commercial GTO missions Ariane 64 lifts 24% more mass than Atlas 551, while still providing a advantageous injection orbit to the customer (Δv GEO 1500 instead 1800 m/s).

If both launchers head direct for GEO, then Ariane's advantage is reduced to 6%, despite A64 having a "head start" by launching from Kourou.

Now GEO missions are (very) rare, but it's not like a lighter upper stage wouldn't help with GTO or MEO missions as well...
Ariane 6 is not about maximizing performance. It's about minimizing cost to build and launch it. That led to no significant re-design of the existing Vinci-propelled upper stage design, because it is not needed: GTO is by far the standard over GEO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hkultala on 02/15/2017 07:33 am
Some quick napkin-math:

For standard commercial GTO missions Ariane 64 lifts 24% more mass than Atlas 551, while still providing a advantageous injection orbit to the customer (Δv GEO 1500 instead 1800 m/s).

If both launchers head direct for GEO, then Ariane's advantage is reduced to 6%, despite A64 having a "head start" by launching from Kourou.

Now GEO missions are (very) rare, but it's not like a lighter upper stage wouldn't help with GTO or MEO missions as well...
Ariane 6 is not about maximizing performance. It's about minimizing cost to build and launch it. That led to no significant re-design of the existing Vinci-propelled upper stage design, because it is not needed: GTO is by far the standard over GEO.

But evegy gram in their upper stage is exactly on gram less in their payload.

A62 is now 5000 kg to GTO, A64 11000 kg to GTO.

IF they have a 5500 kg satellite to GTO, 500 kg lighter upper stage would allow them to use A62 instead of A64, saving two SRB's

Or, if they have a 6300 kg satellite to GTO, 1300kg lighter upper stage would allow them to use A62 instead of A64, saving two SRB's

And AFAIK there are quite a lot of satellites in this size range.


Only on LEO launches the upper stage weight is not a big waste. But LEO launches on A6 will be quite rare.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 02/15/2017 08:30 am
A62 is not a commercial launcher, it is not cost-competitive. The only reason the option exists is because member states wanted the option to purchase single-launch rockets for scientific payloads. The A62 is not particularly profitable for ASL.

Why on earth would you launch a big telecoms sat on an A62 that costs ~€75m when you could take the top slot on a ~€90m A64 and share the cost with another sat? A couple of hundred Kgs here or there isn't going to change the economics.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/15/2017 09:07 am
http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Ariane6_Users-Manual_February2017.pdf
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/15/2017 10:32 am
Two notes:
1)  I think Arianespace showed very conservative figures in this concept Ariane 6 users manual. I think more exact numbers will be published after p120c ground tests and the initial Vega-C / Ariane 6 launches.

2) The cost for Arianespace are 75mln for a A62 and 90mln for a A64. The launch cost for payloads will be higher. The point stays valid that a A62 to GTO is not price competative. Though Asingle launch on A62 is beter than a on a A5ECA or A64.

If a client want's a GEO launch, I think an in orbit third stage  (Fregat,  AVUM, Sherpa) on a A62 might be the most affordable option. Or dual launch on A64 with 3th stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 02/15/2017 10:36 am
Some quick napkin-math:

For standard commercial GTO missions Ariane 64 lifts 24% more mass than Atlas 551, while still providing a advantageous injection orbit to the customer (Δv GEO 1500 instead 1800 m/s).

If both launchers head direct for GEO, then Ariane's advantage is reduced to 6%, despite A64 having a "head start" by launching from Kourou.

Now GEO missions are (very) rare, but it's not like a lighter upper stage wouldn't help with GTO or MEO missions as well...
Ariane 6 is not about maximizing performance. It's about minimizing cost to build and launch it. That led to no significant re-design of the existing Vinci-propelled upper stage design, because it is not needed: GTO is by far the standard over GEO.

But evegy gram in their upper stage is exactly on gram less in their payload.

A62 is now 5000 kg to GTO, A64 11000 kg to GTO.

IF they have a 5500 kg satellite to GTO, 500 kg lighter upper stage would allow them to use A62 instead of A64, saving two SRB's

Or, if they have a 6300 kg satellite to GTO, 1300kg lighter upper stage would allow them to use A62 instead of A64, saving two SRB's

And AFAIK there are quite a lot of satellites in this size range.


Only on LEO launches the upper stage weight is not a big waste. But LEO launches on A6 will be quite rare.


The current cryogenic upper stage on A5 ECA is also very much mass-inefficient. But that does not stop A5 from being the one of the most succesful commercial launchers today.

Again: A6 is not about maximizing performance. It's about minimizing cost. And despite the hefty numbers for payload masses today, the general future trend is that mass of commercial payloads will go down.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/24/2017 05:27 pm
Some quick napkin-math:

For standard commercial GTO missions Ariane 64 lifts 24% more mass than Atlas 551, while still providing a advantageous injection orbit to the customer (Δv GEO 1500 instead 1800 m/s).

If both launchers head direct for GEO, then Ariane's advantage is reduced to 6%, despite A64 having a "head start" by launching from Kourou.

Now GEO missions are (very) rare, but it's not like a lighter upper stage wouldn't help with GTO or MEO missions as well...
Ariane 6 is not about maximizing performance. It's about minimizing cost to build and launch it. That led to no significant re-design of the existing Vinci-propelled upper stage design, because it is not needed: GTO is by far the standard over GEO.

But evegy gram in their upper stage is exactly on gram less in their payload.

A62 is now 5000 kg to GTO, A64 11000 kg to GTO.

IF they have a 5500 kg satellite to GTO, 500 kg lighter upper stage would allow them to use A62 instead of A64, saving two SRB's

Or, if they have a 6300 kg satellite to GTO, 1300kg lighter upper stage would allow them to use A62 instead of A64, saving two SRB's

And AFAIK there are quite a lot of satellites in this size range.


Only on LEO launches the upper stage weight is not a big waste. But LEO launches on A6 will be quite rare.


The current cryogenic upper stage on A5 ECA is also very much mass-inefficient. But that does not stop A5 from being the one of the most succesful commercial launchers today.

Again: A6 is not about maximizing performance. It's about minimizing cost. And despite the hefty numbers for payload masses today, the general future trend is that mass of commercial payloads will go down.


That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 02/24/2017 08:52 pm
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/25/2017 01:03 am
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...

I never said 3 3000 kg satellites I figure that Ariane 6 will grow fairly quickly after it is built just like Ariane 5 did at present Ariane  6 4 adds no new capability.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 02/25/2017 01:53 am
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...

I never said 3 3000 kg satellites I figure that Ariane 6 will grow fairly quickly after it is built just like Ariane 5 did at present Ariane  6 4 adds no new capability.

It does for anything that needs a multiple burn flight profile. EPS is really weak in comparison.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EgorBotts on 04/16/2017 09:05 am
As the CSG is currently blocked by protesters, I guess the construction site of the Ariane 6 launchpad is also affected. I wonder if this 4 weeks late are already damageable for the final Ariane 6 delivery date.
The Ariane 6 ground segment was supposed to be delivered at the end of 2018, then support a full year of testing and validation before dealing with actual flight hardware and allow launches in 2020. Does anyone know how tight are the margins?

Considering a 2020 launch date, us europeans being a little conservative, there should have been a few months of buffer to allow some construction or assembly margins. But would they be enough to cover for a 4 weeks shutdown? 6 weeks? More?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 06/04/2017 04:55 pm
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...


Was not that the point of Cone eXpress with 75 million you can add a third satellite to Ariane 5 already seeing as the launch of a satellite is the most dangerous part of its life the more satellites on a reliable launcher the better .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hauerg on 06/04/2017 05:08 pm
Well, we all know how these European projects work.... there has to be a next project so that more money can be spent and a mass-optimized upper stage is a really nice one because you can easily develop that without interrupting current operations...
I hpoe you are not an US citizen, else I would have to say: "SLS".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 06/04/2017 05:31 pm
Well, we all know how these European projects work.... there has to be a next project so that more money can be spent and a mass-optimized upper stage is a really nice one because you can easily develop that without interrupting current operations...
I hpoe you are not an US citizen, else I would have to say: "SLS".
Yea. First, I'm not a US citizen so it's my money they spend on Ariane and then I actually think SLS is indeed similar but worse.

ESA projects are often have in mind to keep a certain capability and keeping the knowledge how to develop a rocket stage _is_ something worse pursuing and if in lack of a broader industry you have to do it through a public project then so be it.

To a certain degree it's probably the same with SLS just that the US have plenty of alternatives these days and the question is whether you really need it except as a local jobs program.

That said: the European way could certainly be done more efficiently and from what my layman' view sees they are working on it by integrating all of Ariane's development and operations more. Of course under pressure from SpaceX.

I'm still not convinced the Ariane 6 project needed to be pulled off like it was done. Sunk cost fallacy is always sunk cost fallacy and not having an overall business case will never be right.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/05/2017 06:46 pm
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...


Was not that the point of Cone eXpress with 75 million you can add a third satellite to Ariane 5 already seeing as the launch of a satellite is the most dangerous part of its life the more satellites on a reliable launcher the better .
Why bother bring that up? ConeXpress has been dead for a decade.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 06/05/2017 08:34 pm
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...


Was not that the point of Cone eXpress with 75 million you can add a third satellite to Ariane 5 already seeing as the launch of a satellite is the most dangerous part of its life the more satellites on a reliable launcher the better .
Why bother bring that up? ConeXpress has been dead for a decade.

Dead or just waiting for an investor my point was that triple launch is nowhere near as costly as some people think . 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/05/2017 08:41 pm
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...


Was not that the point of Cone eXpress with 75 million you can add a third satellite to Ariane 5 already seeing as the launch of a satellite is the most dangerous part of its life the more satellites on a reliable launcher the better .
Why bother bring that up? ConeXpress has been dead for a decade.

Dead or just waiting for an investor my point was that triple launch is nowhere near as costly as some people think .

Don't you think there was a reason the proposal died and people don't bring it up any more?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 06/05/2017 09:11 pm
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...


Was not that the point of Cone eXpress with 75 million you can add a third satellite to Ariane 5 already seeing as the launch of a satellite is the most dangerous part of its life the more satellites on a reliable launcher the better .
Why bother bring that up? ConeXpress has been dead for a decade.

Dead or just waiting for an investor my point was that triple launch is nowhere near as costly as some people think .

Don't you think there was a reason the proposal died and people don't bring it up any more?


Yes but in space things tend to be recreated if in a souped up version Mig 105 =hl20=Dreamchaser for instance. Vinci is going to change the launch the launch market completely .If you take the three tons of propellent off the satellites and add them to the upper stage and use ion engines/hall thrusters only on the satellites you can build simpler satellites with more capability.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Skyrocket on 06/05/2017 11:00 pm
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...

A SPELTRA (Structure Porteuse Externe Lancement TRiple Ariane) has already been developed for Ariane-5, but was only used in the dual version on the first three development flights.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/05/2017 11:25 pm
Dead or just waiting for an investor my point was that triple launch is nowhere near as costly as some people think .

Don't you think there was a reason the proposal died and people don't bring it up any more?


Yes but in space things tend to be recreated if in a souped up version Mig 105 =hl20=Dreamchaser for instance. Vinci is going to change the launch the launch market completely .If you take the three tons of propellent off the satellites and add them to the upper stage and use ion engines/hall thrusters only on the satellites you can build simpler satellites with more capability.

I have no doubt that if there is a market demand for triple launch, it will be implemented.

I agree that the future is all-electric satellites, but that change is already well underway, long before Vinci, so I really don't see Vinci as the agent for changing the launch market.

With Falcon 9 and New Glenn bringing reusability to launch, even with triple launch, Ariane 6 doesn't seem very compelling.  I doubt Ariane will have enough business to fill up even two slots per launch, let alone three.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/06/2017 12:00 pm
Quote
DutchSpace‏ @DutchSpace 14m14 minutes ago

Nice #Ariane6 models are slowly appearing... @Arianespace @ASLaunchers @AirbusSpace @AirbusDS_NL

https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/872056666707165185 (https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/872056666707165185)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 06/06/2017 07:41 pm
I took the liberty of translating the information next to the model (in the image above) for all you non-German speaking folks:

Ariane 6 Launcher

Ariane A62
Liftoff mass: 530 metric tons
Thrust at liftoff: 800 metric tons

Ariane A64
Liftoff mass: 860 metric tons
Thrust at liftoff: 1500 metric tons

Height approx. 60 meters

Fairing. Length 20 meters

Dual-Start-System SYLDA. Diameter 4.5 meters

Upper Stage. Propellants: 30 metric tons of LOX-LH2.

Re-ignitable Vinci engine. Thrust: 18 metric tons.

Core Stage. Propellants: 150 metric tons of LOX-LH2.

Two (2) or four (4) solid rocket boosters. Solid propellant: 142 metric tons, per booster. Thrust: 350 metrict tons, per booster.

Vulcain 2.1 engine. Thrust: 137 metric tons.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: SgtPoivre on 06/22/2017 06:15 am
If some of you want your own brick version of Ariane 6, you can support this project!
https://ideas.lego.com/projects/fbb6b2e9-21f2-409a-b899-91885db3a5ab
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 06/22/2017 11:59 pm
I doubted what the most appropriate place is for this post. Here, in the update thread or Governance Arianespace. I decided here becouse I expect discussion. I'll crosspost.

Today at the ESA pavilion at the Paris Airshow, there was a live roundtable discussion about the fixed institutional procurement of launches from Arianespace. Link to video (http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2017/06/Round_table_on_the_role_of_European_institutions_in_the_exploitation_of_Ariane_6_and_Vega-C)
The participents were representatives of: the EU, ESA, France, Germany & Italy, EUMETSAT and Arianespace.

I think it's good to continue the discussion here.
EU institurions get discounted flights on Ariane 62. If they commit to 5x Ariane6 annually, A62 for 70mln and A64 for 115mln. Pricepoint 2014. Read back, paper from Israel to german government.

Also the point that some launch providers are asking very different prices for institutional and commercial launches. And is it fair that overcapacity on institutional launches will be filled up with microsatellite rideshare.

I look forward to this discussion. With is moved to a dedicated topic (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43202.0)

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 06/23/2017 03:23 pm
Quote
- 90% reduction of component parts, 40% reduction of costs and 30% reduction of production time

That's good news. Which is the share of the total Ariane 5 cost is due to the Vulcain 2 currently?

Please don't place discussions in the update topic.
It has already been known for a couple of years that this new nozzle will be integrated into the Vulcain 2.1 engine as improvement onto the Vulcain 2. I don't have a clue what share the full nozzle assembly is in the total Vulcan engine cost.
Vulcain 2.1 will not include all the improvements that are planed for the Vulcain engine. ESA / the industry found it to risky to implement 3D printed injector heads and turbines into Vulcain 2.1. If I'm not mistaken this nozzle assembly has been used on test stand since 2015. If rumors are correct, there are two further evolutions of the Vulcain engine in the pipeline, Vulcain 2.2 and 2.3.
edit: since I found it so fast: link techforspace.com (https://www.techforspace.com/european-space-sector/prometheus-asls-future-rocket-engine/)

Prometheus is a totally new engine. It will most likely use a smaller combustion chamber with the same technology. 3D printed: Injector head, GasGenerator, Turbine and the LOx and LNG turbopump. It looks like they decided for a single turbine geometry instead of the dual turbine geometry on Vulcain and Vince. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 06/23/2017 04:06 pm
I move the discussion to the proper thread.

From here: https://www.ariane.group/en/commercial-launch-services/ariane-6/prometheus/

Quote
Its aim is to lower the production price of the Vulcain® engine by 90%, meaning that this future engine would cost only 1 million euros, as against just over 10 million for the Vulcain®2 engine fitted to Ariane 5

Thank you. Btw, which browser are you using? In mine it happens to be out-of-date. :\

According to the famous ULA cost chart (https://i.stack.imgur.com/aY2w2.jpg), the engine takes up to ~60 % of the first stage total cost. Also Musk states the same thing about the engines cost vs total cost in some interviews. So reducing the ~60 % an additional 90 %, it is a substantial change. Assuming that the SRM cost will drop as well.

Please don't place discussions in the update topic.

Sorry, I just fixed it.

It has already been known for a couple of years that this new nozzle will be integrated into the Vulcain 2.1 engine as improvement onto the Vulcain 2. I don't have a clue what share the full nozzle assembly is in the total Vulcan engine cost.
Vulcain 2.1 will not include all the improvements that are planed for the Vulcain engine. ESA / the industry found it to risky to implement 3D printed injector heads and turbines into Vulcain 2.1. If I'm not mistaken this nozzle assembly has been used on test stand since 2015. If rumors are correct, there are two further evolutions of the Vulcain engine in the pipeline, Vulcain 2.2 and 2.3.
edit: since I found it so fast: link techforspace.com (https://www.techforspace.com/european-space-sector/prometheus-asls-future-rocket-engine/)

Prometheus is a totally new engine. It will most likely use a smaller combustion chamber with the same technology. 3D printed: Injector head, GasGenerator, Turbine and the LOx and LNG turbopump. It looks like they decided for a single turbine geometry instead of the dual turbine geometry on Vulcain and Vince.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DorianH on 07/21/2017 05:09 pm
Hello everybody, I am a novice to this forum, so if my post is out of place I apologize.

Alain Charmeau implied that a future version of A6 powered by the Prometheus engine might be reusable. How would that be possible? The design of Ariane 6 around strap-on boosters and a huge central stage implies a comparably small upper stage, and Vinci is actually pretty underpowered (thrust 18mT for 31mT of fuel, plus upper stage dry weight and payload). So this means the central stage would again be traveling very fast at the speed of separation, making central stage reuse very difficult. If they were to try booster reuse à la SpaceX, they would have to redevelop the entire rocket, right? And this would almost definitely mean a bigger upper stage and bigger upper stage engine, right? Or could liquid Prometheus boosters be worthwile?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/21/2017 09:11 pm
@DorianH I totally agree with you. The launcher that could use the prometheus engine is called Ariane Next. In my oppinion the move from A5 to A6 is comparable with the move from A3 to A4 or A5 GS to ECA. The move from A6 to ANext will be comparable with the move from A4 to A5 (a completely new launcher).
A beter place to discuss this is the  Prometheus and Callisto topic (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41330.0).

Now to the news that FORC was successfully tested (http://www.mt-aerospace.de/news-details-en/items/new-type-of-booster-casing-for-ariane-6-successfully-tested.html). Very good news. This means that; when the demand for P120C casings is high enough, MT aerospace will convert the ERP (Ariane 5 booster) casing production factory into the second P120C production line. Their CFRP casing production proces doesn't require an autoclave.
During the FORC project, also multiple ~0.8m diameter casings in two lengths were produced to develop the production proces. MT Aerospace also has a contract to produce three S50 casings for S50 qualification and the first VS-50 sounding rocket (http://brazilianspace.blogspot.nl/2017/07/realizada-na-alemanha-revisao.html). This S50 stage is developed for VLM-1, in colaboration by IAE (Brazil) and DLR.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/23/2017 11:54 am
Yahoo with a hydrocarbon first stage and a cryogenic upperstage a heavy lift rocket is possible .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/12/2017 11:38 am
With the move from A5 to A6 Arianespace will stop using multi segment solids. The solid stacking facilities will become obsolete. Also the A5 launch facilities will become obsolete.
Does someone have any idea how expansive the development of a two segment derivative of P120C will be?
With this P250-P280 a third version of Ariane6 can be developed. My intuition leads me to think that this third version of Ariane 6 will be more capable then A64, because it has a smaller frontal area.
The A62 and third A6 version could be launched from ELA3 when the two launch tables are modified. This gives Arianespace two launch sites for Ariane 6.
ELA4 will be capable of supporting up to 14 launches annually. I think ELA3 can support up to ten annual launches. I don't expect up to 14 launches but having a second launch zone could be beneficial.

I think the P280 could be comparable in performance as the F9 first stage. Possibly a competitive launcher could be developed later with the P280 and a prometheus upper-stage.
The earliest point they could start working on P280 is 2020.
The double engine length geometry could possibly be scaled down to the 2.4m (Z40) diameter for a new monolitic Vega first stage or smaller booster for Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/12/2017 11:42 am
Yahoo with a hydrocarbon first stage and a cryogenic upperstage a heavy lift rocket is possible .
Indeed they Could develop a extremely heavy launcher. If they Should is a different question.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 09/12/2017 04:08 pm
Yahoo with a hydrocarbon first stage and a cryogenic upperstage a heavy lift rocket is possible .
Indeed they Could develop a extremely heavy launcher. If they Should is a different question.

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 .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/12/2017 11:35 pm
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 (http://www.bis-italia.it/workshop-sul-programma-vega-in-asi/) 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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 09/13/2017 07:50 am
They are really conservative in it's launcher selection though. I remember a recent launcher panel at which the head of EUTMETSAT said (paraphrased): "We were offered a steep discount to launch on the first Ariane 5 ECA. We turned the offer down. Turns out we were right to do so."

I don't doubt they will switch to Ariane 6.2 once it has it's first 5+ flights under it's belt.

Edit: I found the quote, my summary wasn't that off:

Quote
Eumetsat: No commitment to Ariane 6 until it’s flight-proven

Now on commitment: For the reasons I have explained, we can only commit to reality. You cannot expect Eumetsat to commit to buy launchers that are not qualified, meaning flight-proven.
I can give you an example. We were offered a very good price for the first Ariane 5 ECA. We refused. And we were right. We were offered half the price and we did not want it because we wanted a qualified launcher. [Ariane 5’s inaugural flight, carrying a European science mission, failed.]

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/squaring-circle-europe-wants-launcher-autonomy-low-launch-prices/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/13/2017 11:28 am
They are really conservative in it's launcher selection though. I remember a recent launcher panel at which the head of EUTMETSAT said (paraphrased): "We were offered a steep discount to launch on the first Ariane 5 ECA. We turned the offer down. Turns out we were right to do so."

I don't doubt they will switch to Ariane 6.2 once it has it's first 5+ flights under it's belt.

Edit: I found the quote, my summary wasn't that off:

Quote
Eumetsat: No commitment to Ariane 6 until it’s flight-proven

Now on commitment: For the reasons I have explained, we can only commit to reality. You cannot expect Eumetsat to commit to buy launchers that are not qualified, meaning flight-proven.
I can give you an example. We were offered a very good price for the first Ariane 5 ECA. We refused. And we were right. We were offered half the price and we did not want it because we wanted a qualified launcher. [Ariane 5’s inaugural flight, carrying a European science mission, failed.]

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/squaring-circle-europe-wants-launcher-autonomy-low-launch-prices/
And Eumetsat's resolve, with regards to flying only on flight-proven launchers, was further strengthened when Ariane 5 ECA also failed on it's first mission.

However, EUMETSAT's attitude has not always been this conservative. For example, Meteosat 3 flew on the very first flight of Ariane 4 (mission V22) in 1988.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/13/2017 03:52 pm
Wasn't there also a problem during the MetOP-A Soyuz 2.1a compane that kept the satellite on ground for several weeks!?
If I'm not mistaken, the EUMETSAT representive also talked  about this during the launchers roundtable discussion at the 2017 Paris Airshow.

I agree EUMETSAT is very conservative now. But every payload that goes to a more proven launcher, is a loss for the Ariane6 launch manifest. For the Ariane6 to be sold at the proposed prices, ESA and other European institutions need to use five launches annually. Besides this another 6 or 7 commercial launches have to be sold, to come to the required launch rate of 11 or 12 launches.
I fear these 5 institutional annual launches will not be achieved.
If the launch rate is lower, launch cost goes up, because the fixed launch site cost have to be devided over a smaller number of launches. Possibly a higher launch rate of Vega(-C) can compensate this.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 09/13/2017 05:07 pm
You have a good memory! :) Yes, it was a Russian - Kazakh standoff over money. Kazakhstan argued that polar launches over populated territory weren't part of the the Baikonur lease agreement. The delay was months, not weeks.

As for the rest: I agree with all your points.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 09/13/2017 07:56 pm
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 (http://www.bis-italia.it/workshop-sul-programma-vega-in-asi/) 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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 09/13/2017 08:37 pm
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 (http://www.bis-italia.it/workshop-sul-programma-vega-in-asi/) 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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/13/2017 09:55 pm
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.

 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 09/14/2017 02:45 pm
We will see IN 2025 till then good bye.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/16/2017 12:05 am
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.)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 09/16/2017 07:31 am
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?  :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Salo on 09/16/2017 07:39 am
http://www.arianespace.com/ariane-6/
http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Ariane6_Users-Manual_February2017.pdf
http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Presentation_Ariane-6-Users-Club_Sept-2017.pdf
http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Presentation_Ariane-6-Users-Club-Jamboree-Session_Sept-2017.pdf
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Prettz on 09/21/2017 06:23 pm
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?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 09/21/2017 06:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 09/21/2017 08:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 09/22/2017 06:20 am
The pad should be located at roughly +5.2646 -52.7921 or N5°15'52", W52°47'31". (via planet)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Runerdieker on 09/24/2017 05:58 pm
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 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1057597#msg1057597)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Prettz on 09/29/2017 01:59 am
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/29/2017 08:29 pm
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 (http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t17315p350-les-nouvelles-du-lanceur-ariane-6) 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 (http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/17/24/79/25/ela410.jpg)

And liberation.fr made (http://www.liberation.fr/amphtml/futurs/2017/08/13/kourou-un-grand-pas_1589788) a article with a map of all launch zones at CSG.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/30/2017 06:40 am
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 10/06/2017 04:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/06/2017 06:24 pm
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.   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 10/08/2017 09:19 am
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/PAD3wqW.png]https://i.imgur.com/PAD3wqW.png)
"poussée" is thrust

Edit: I can't count to 7 this morning apparently
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/08/2017 09:45 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMrN6Iufsk
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/24/2017 01:07 pm
Quote
Oops. Poll at #SpaceTechExpoEu asks if @ArianeGroup will meet its Ariane 6 cost/price goals. Looks like German audience needs persuading.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/922808848515256320 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/922808848515256320)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EgorBotts on 10/24/2017 06:18 pm
As I pointed out in Twitter, this kind of poll is not really relevant until we know the actual number of participants...

As far as I know, a total of 3 people could have answered...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/30/2017 09:06 am
Moved this from the Prometheus / Callisto thread:

However, the current PHH configuration of Ariane 6 is now well over a year beyond PDR and CDR is looming around the corner. Metal is being bent on the core stage. SRB's are being cast. Vulcain 2.1 has been constructed and the launchpad and HIF are being constructed as we speak. All for the PHH configuration.
Indeed.

But CHH is just one letter different. Yes a marginal improvement, but one that does not impact schedules, gives true operational insight return, gradually factors in the "C" while letting the "P" gracefully phase out. All of this is very European.
On the contrary. There have been no INTENTIONAL gradual phase-ins and phase-outs in the Ariane programme:

- The switch from Ariane 2/3 to Ariane 4 had a one-year period with both flying. But that was to fly out the (small) stockpile of A2/A3 vehicles. ESA and Arianespace were lucky to have payloads available for those remaining A2/A3 vehicles.

- The switch from Ariane 4 to Ariane 5 had a six (6) year period of overlap. But that was unintentional. Arianespace was forced to keep flying Ariane 4 while the bugs were being ironed out of Ariane 5. Remember: in it's first 10 missions, Ariane 5 suffered 3 (partial) failures. Had those not happened than Ariane 4 would have stopped flying less than two (2) years after the initial A5 launch. That was the plan back in 1996. But because of A501 one more batch of A4 vehicles had to be ordered to prevent Arianespace from going out of business.

- The growth-path for Ariane 5, as originally intended, had Ariane 5 G, Ariane 5 ECA and Ariane 5 ES. However, courtesy of Ariane 517 (the first ECA launch) ESA and Arianespace ended up with a bunch of ECA hardware but no available core-stage engine. The result was two cludges: Ariane 5 G+ and Ariane 5 GS. Those were unintended and were the result of working around a (big) problem. They also were not gradually phased in, nor gradually phased-out. They were simply fitted into the manifest where the fit was best to get rid of the stockpile.


This thing is not gonna change course anymore, not even with the recent noise coming from the Prometheus/Callisto teams.
Understood.

It doesn't have to. But there's nothing that keeps it from being enhanced. Like the prior Ariane 4/5.
I don't agree. A growth-path for Ariane 1 was part of the development of vehicle development from day 1. The result was Ariane 2/3. And when Ariane 4 went into development a growth-path for A4 was identified as well. A growth-path for Ariane 5 was part of development from day 1 forward as well.
Not so for Ariane 6. The launcher is approaching CDR and no clear evolution path has been identified. This is a clear break with Ariane tradition. The reason is that both the original PPH and the current PHH configurations of A6 are dead-ends. Even CNES agrees on this. The future lies not with the current architecture, but with a completely new one. One that sees the vehicle switching from solids-supported, H2-driven main stages to an all-liquids (methane) vehicle. Unfortunately, the A6 architecture does not allow this switch to occur within that architecture.

IMO Ariane 6 will have a short life once the absolute necessity of having a reusable booster stage sinks in hard. That, however, is still some time away.
Perhaps the development coat and the desire to ride out the vehicle life cycle might limit the desire/scope for Anext as well?

Agree that the necessity will/is sinking in slow.
Prometheus/Callisto was officially made part of FFPL-NEO in december 2016. If anything, the scope of AriaNEXT/FLPP efforts has been extended in recent years, not limited.

Once it does sink in however the Ariane 6 basic design will serve, IMO, as the starting point for an AriaNEXT. The result, with reusability capabilities will not be an Ariane 6 re-hash but basically an almost all-new rocket: Ariane 7.
Sorry, too hopeful.

Ariane 6 IS A REHASH of Ariane 5. The internal politics make it far easier to do a rehash.
I disagree. Internal ESA (and EU) politics never prevented the switch from A4 to A5. The latter was an all-new vehicle, with new core-stage propulsion and propellants. Big solids were new for ESA as well (A4 solids were much, much smaller).
The switch from the A4 architecture, to the completely different A5 architecture, was driven by the fact that the A4 architecture had become a dead-end and was inable to satify future needs.
IMO the same is happening with A6. I absolutely agree with you that A6 is a re-hash of A5. But it is also a technological dead-end. Reusability is happening and eventually ESA and Arianespace will be forced to follow suit. That requires a very different architecture. One that is now being explored by CNES and DLR. It is very different from A6 indeed. Note that most of the projects within the scope of FLPP-NEO do NOT explicitly look at enhancing A6. They are exploring all-new technology because to ESA it is already clear that the distant future of ESA launchers does not lie with A6.
Additionally: A6 being a rehash of A5 is also the result of the economic crisis hitting Europe between 2009 and 2014.

The only re-use capabilities we will ever see on Ariane 6, IMO, concern re-usable fairings.
And no magic fairy's carrying the used Vulcain back to land? 
I see you have sense of humor.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/30/2017 04:38 pm
I'm in between the opinion of Woods170 and Space Ghost.
I think Space Ghost refereed to the use of both solid and liquid strap-on's on Ariane 4. Arianegroup could also do this on Ariane 6.
But the implementation of C (could be Methane or Propane) means implementation of a new type of cryogenic fuel at CSG. This would require another fuel stowage / production facility, and the launch pad('s) need to be modified to accommodate the additional fuel. It can be done but requires considerable investments (>0.5 billion).

Woods170 stated that there was a growth path for Ariane 5 (A5G => A5 ECA => A5 ECB) but this didn't work, thus Ariane 6. (Is in my opinion nearly equal to the plans for A5 ECB, the only difference is 2 or 4 single segment solids instead of 2 multiple segment solids.

Now lets assume both the Prometheus engine and Callisto demonstrators are successful. I think the first thing ESA/Arianegroup will develop is a small launcher. They could implement two or three new versions of Vega at once, namely:  {and Vega-L ?}
 - Vega-E (P120c Z40c VUS);
 - Vega-F (P120c Prometheus Upper Stage);
 - ? Prometheus Callisto first stage (Adeline?) VUS
For this; LCH4 facilities need to be developed at CSG and ELV needs to be modified to accommodate LOx & LCH4 loading.

What also can be done is using the new first stage (single Prometheus engine) as booster for Ariane 6.
I estimate that the Core and Upper-stage with a 5mT payload and fairing weight ~200mT. With the minimal T/W-ratio of 1.2 the minimal initial thrust level should be 2400kN. Vulcain 2.1 has a sea level thrust of 1000kN, thus 1400kN short of the minimum required. Now I'm adding Prometheus (1000kN SL) powered stages, but those also add weight. If I assume a propallent mass of 55mT and ~10% structural weight this stage weights 60mT, and with the T/W rule 720kN is required to take this off the ground. There is 280kN more thrust, thus five of these liquid boosters are required. I don't think that's any improvement at all.
So multi engine boosters are required to make a A6 with liquid boosters. They could go expendable (3; 4) or reusable [5; 7; 9] or more. But than we are in the rang of ArianeNext. Personally I think a expendable Ariane 4 / Zenith type; aka 4x Prometheus - 1x Prometheus is more likely then a reusable 7x/9x - 1x ... because of the <20 launch rate (and then I'm optimistic).
ESA/Arianegroup could also still develop two segment P240-P280 (2xP120c) solid stages. A P120c 1x prometheus is comparable to a Ariane 4 type; P280 1x... is comparable to a 7/9x type.

But this only comes on the tabel past 2020, after Prometheus and Callisto were successful.

Then I want to clear something up. Ariane 6 wasn't developed because of falcon 9. In around 2010 ESA/Arianespace saw multiple new launchers coming onto the market in the future, aka:
Angara, Antares, GSLV (Mk.III), H2 (H3), Long March 5/6/7; and Falcon 9.
Only Falcon has become a treat, but Proton and Zenit have decreased launching, thus Ariane 5 has the same market share as a couple of years back.
Also the satellite mass didn't match with launch performance, thus it was very difficult to pair launches. Now with more electric satellites, and the higher performance of A5 ECA PB+/PC and A64 this is less a problem.
Most of the above listed launchers still have to come to market, Blue Origin's new Glenn is another threat as is Vulcan. But Ariane 6 is a big improvement in my opinion compared to Ariane 5. The new factories in Europe and the launch sites in France Guiana (ELA3; ELA4 & ELV) could also be used for for future launchers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/30/2017 04:44 pm
Compare Vulcan 1 ; 2 (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/1998/01/Vulcain_Mk2_engine_for_Ariane-5E) and 2.1 (http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2017/10/Vulcain_2.1).
I think Vulcain 2.1 goes back to Vulcan 1, only with newer materials, and different production technologies.
let's add this older article (https://www.additivemanufacturing.media/news/gkn-reduces-components-on-rocket-nozzle-with-the-help-of-am) and GKN Aerospace (http://www.gkngroup.com/farnborough/news-and-Media/Pages/gkn-aerospace-wins-major-contracts-from-airbus-safran-launchers.aspx)

Concerning Italian parts: Avio produces the LOx turbopumps for both Vince (http://www.avio.com/en/ariane/ariane-6/turbopump-vinci/) and Vulcain (http://www.avio.com/en/ariane/ariane-6/vulcain-2-turbopomp/).
And possibly also the combined turbo-pump for Prometheus.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 10/30/2017 06:25 pm
The move to Ariane 6 is not wrong, even with Falcon 9 reuse becoming an operational thing.
Finally a restartable cyrogenic upper stage. Consolidating supply chain and processes. Rebalancing cost vs. performance choices. (esp in the 1st stage. Separate tanks, simpler engine, no helium, ...) The synergies with Vega are also a good.

Its just mighty expensive for my taste. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
With a price-tag of 2 billion this discussion would be much different, at 1 billion there would be no discussion.  :)
The geo return policy helps to lessen the blow, the nations that want the money had to put it in in the first place.


As I understand Vulcain 2.1 is much about cost. Both in design features and manufacturing methods. Performance, not that much of a priority. The GG exhaust routing into the nozzle was complex (=costly) to manufacture so it has been removed. As we now know external ignition makes the engine simpler and adding autogenous pressurization of the O2 tank removes the helium system. (I wonder if they basically repurposed the liquid helium heatexchanger.) Reliability however is important, additive manufacturing seems to be much more prevalent in Prometheus.


Since the idea comes up so often has someone done the actual numbers for Prometheus on A6? Looks like DLR worked with 17.5% less ISP than Vulcain in the recently discussed reuseability study.  Even if the engineering was free it still has to make sense.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/30/2017 11:25 pm
How do you mean do the numbers of Prometheus on A6. that just doesn't work.
If you fill the Ariane 6 core with LOx and LCH4, you carry far to much LCH4. Because 1 LOx-LH2 has a higher mixture  ratio than LOx-LCH4 and LH2 is much less dense then LCH4. The stage also becomes much heavier.
Thus they basically start with a new design. I think they could use the 5.4m diameter and 7 or 9 Prometheus engines. With 7 engines take off thrust is 7000kN, so with T/W=1.2 gives ~583mT take off weight. ?? C460 C100 I don't know. won't get 7mT to GTO -1500m/s, possibly 5mT.
For me it's to late now to run a (very) basic ISP & volume calculation, possibly I'll do that tomorrow.
In the paper Calpine posted inside the Prometheus & Callisto topic, about the TSTO Reusable launchers, they studied multi engine launcher configurations, but they assumed more powerful engines.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 10/31/2017 01:52 am
Additionally: A6 being a rehash of A5 is also the result of the economic crisis hitting Europe between 2009 and 2014.
Which forced them to waste a huge pile of money on a useless dead-end launcher that will be already mostly obsolete on arrival instead of keeping A5 flying a few more years (with increased subsidies, if required) until the technology for a new architecture is there (and everybody sees more clearly WRT how well reuse works)?

How soon after A6 starts flying can they come back now with yet another 5bn€ program to develop an all new booster to stay competitive?

A6 might actually be what puts them out of business.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Pipcard on 10/31/2017 03:28 am
Additionally: A6 being a rehash of A5 is also the result of the economic crisis hitting Europe between 2009 and 2014.
Which forced them to waste a huge pile of money on a useless dead-end launcher that will be already mostly obsolete on arrival instead of keeping A5 flying a few more years (with increased subsidies, if required) until the technology for a new architecture is there (and everybody sees more clearly WRT how well reuse works)?

How soon after A6 starts flying can they come back now with yet another 5bn€ program to develop an all new booster to stay competitive?

A6 might actually be what puts them out of business.
Elon Musk was the one that pressured them to abandon A5, saying that it had "no chance."
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 10/31/2017 03:36 am
Well, of course it had a chance. It’s a question of cost, reliability is pretty good now for A5.
They are spending 4 or 5 bn€ on the A6 development, even if it had cost a billion to do a minor modernization they would have saved enough money to be able to subsidize the sheep out of A5 to keep it competitive until they do something new.
Now would have been the right time to start a new development, maybe stretching out somewhat longer to include some fundamental research but now they are in the middle of a horrendously expensive development program for a launcher that will likely be uncompetitive upon arrival.

So what they got was that they spend billions only to then have to sink subsidies into the operations instead of just sinking subsidies into the operations.

And all of that just because CNES wanted to play the big rocket developer game again.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/31/2017 05:56 am
Additionally: A6 being a rehash of A5 is also the result of the economic crisis hitting Europe between 2009 and 2014.
Which forced them to waste a huge pile of money on a useless dead-end launcher that will be already mostly obsolete on arrival instead of keeping A5 flying a few more years (with increased subsidies, if required) until the technology for a new architecture is there (and everybody sees more clearly WRT how well reuse works)?

How soon after A6 starts flying can they come back now with yet another 5bn€ program to develop an all new booster to stay competitive?

A6 might actually be what puts them out of business.
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/31/2017 05:59 am
Well, of course it had a chance. It’s a question of cost, reliability is pretty good now for A5.
They are spending 4 or 5 bn€ on the A6 development, even if it had cost a billion to do a minor modernization they would have saved enough money to be able to subsidize the sheep out of A5 to keep it competitive until they do something new.
Now would have been the right time to start a new development, maybe stretching out somewhat longer to include some fundamental research but now they are in the middle of a horrendously expensive development program for a launcher that will likely be uncompetitive upon arrival.

So what they got was that they spend billions only to then have to sink subsidies into the operations instead of just sinking subsidies into the operations.

And all of that just because CNES wanted to play the big rocket developer game again.
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EgorBotts on 10/31/2017 06:32 am
Well, sure, Ariane 6 will suffer a lot from the comparison with a reusable and optimised Falcon 9 in terms of costs, Falcon Heavy performance-wise. That is almost certain.
But please keep in mind that the communication operators want diversification and reliable options. Ariane 6 might offer them that, moreover in an environment where nothing has changed except SpaceX. In 2020, Proton will presumably continue to fly, Vulcan and H3 won't be ready and Ariane 6 will be really concurrential with those established players. It won't compete against SpaceX, sure. But that's not the point: a solid second place will assure them enough momentum to research and build the next gen, which will be reusable.
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.
ILS, ULA, MHI, even China Great Wall are probably more at risk...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 10/31/2017 10:49 am
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.

The problem is what did Ariane not win. The next big launch market are the internet constellations. The two internet constellations are OneWeb and Starlink. SpaceX will launch all Starlink satellites and at the moment Soyuz is scheduled to launch most of the OneWeb satellites. So far there are only 2 OneWeb missions manifested on Ariane 6.  There are more OneWeb missions scheduled to launch on NewGlenn than on Ariane 6.

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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/31/2017 11:30 am
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.

The problem is what did Ariane not win. The next big launch market are the internet constellations. The two internet constellations are OneWeb and Starlink. SpaceX will launch all Starlink satellites and at the moment Soyuz is scheduled to launch most of the OneWeb satellites. So far there are only 2 OneWeb missions manifested on Ariane 6.  There are more OneWeb missions scheduled to launch on NewGlenn than on Ariane 6.

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.
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/

Quote from: Stephen Clark
OneWeb’s deal with Arianespace covers 21 launch orders for the Russian-made Soyuz rocket, most of which will blast off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Arianespace’s agreement with OneWeb also includes options for five more Soyuz flights and three launches of the next-generation Ariane 6 rocket.

Arianespace has a subsidiary named Starsem for commercial Soyuz launches. Arianespace is more than just Ariane 5 and Ariane 6. Vega and commercial Soyuz are their other launchers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 10/31/2017 11:39 am
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.
You seriously believe they will just get the next 5bn program in 2021?
Baby steps, sure, but if they don’t want to end up with a launcher program like Japan had it in the early 2000s they will need a full-scale A6 replacement really soon, can’t wait for it to come online in 2035.
Or they will have to throw heavy operational subsidies at A6 for a long time, 15 years or so, I don’t see that happen the same way as in the past in the current political climate.

So my guess is 10 years from now we’re going to see a few A62 launches for European governments per year and that’s it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 10/31/2017 11:44 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 10/31/2017 11:51 am
Well, sure, Ariane 6 will suffer a lot from the comparison with a reusable and optimised Falcon 9 in terms of costs, Falcon Heavy performance-wise. That is almost certain.
But please keep in mind that the communication operators want diversification and reliable options. Ariane 6 might offer them that, moreover in an environment where nothing has changed except SpaceX. In 2020, Proton will presumably continue to fly, Vulcan and H3 won't be ready and Ariane 6 will be really concurrential with those established players. It won't compete against SpaceX, sure. But that's not the point: a solid second place will assure them enough momentum to research and build the next gen, which will be reusable.
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.
ILS, ULA, MHI, even China Great Wall are probably more at risk...

How’d you manage to forget Blue Origin who should start flying the New Glenn by 2020.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 10/31/2017 11:54 am
Well, sure, Ariane 6 will suffer a lot from the comparison with a reusable and optimised Falcon 9 in terms of costs, Falcon Heavy performance-wise. That is almost certain.
But please keep in mind that the communication operators want diversification and reliable options. Ariane 6 might offer them that, moreover in an environment where nothing has changed except SpaceX. In 2020, Proton will presumably continue to fly, Vulcan and H3 won't be ready and Ariane 6 will be really concurrential with those established players. It won't compete against SpaceX, sure. But that's not the point: a solid second place will assure them enough momentum to research and build the next gen, which will be reusable.
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.
ILS, ULA, MHI, even China Great Wall are probably more at risk...

You know, i suspect that’s the big gamble they did. They thought that reuse stuff would never work out and if they start early they will be in a good position with an optimized traditional architecture.
But it didn’t go off. Reuse seems to work and now they are developing something that’s already obsolete on arrival.
Others like BO will get ready while they start flying and they won’t find an environment where they will ever be competitive.

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)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EgorBotts on 10/31/2017 02:00 pm
Well, sure, Ariane 6 will suffer a lot from the comparison with a reusable and optimised Falcon 9 in terms of costs, Falcon Heavy performance-wise. That is almost certain.
But please keep in mind that the communication operators want diversification and reliable options. Ariane 6 might offer them that, moreover in an environment where nothing has changed except SpaceX. In 2020, Proton will presumably continue to fly, Vulcan and H3 won't be ready and Ariane 6 will be really concurrential with those established players. It won't compete against SpaceX, sure. But that's not the point: a solid second place will assure them enough momentum to research and build the next gen, which will be reusable.
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.
ILS, ULA, MHI, even China Great Wall are probably more at risk...

How’d you manage to forget Blue Origin who should start flying the New Glenn by 2020.

You are right I did not mention BO, because it is much so a new player in the field. I'm not saying it's not competitive, it's fresh and sexy but we don't know either prices or performances of the rocket, so it makes it hard to compare. Also I'll beleive in a New Glenn in 2020 when I'll see it, it will most certainly be delayed as this is their first orbital experience (and new pad, and new motor, and new assembly, etc).
To stay on Ariane 6, maybe the launcher will end up being the most efficient and low cost of the non-reusable launchers of the next decade. Depending on how the market orients itself, it might not be such a bad bargain if the europeans are researching better ways to reuse rockets on the background.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 10/31/2017 03:11 pm
Well, sure, Ariane 6 will suffer a lot from the comparison with a reusable and optimised Falcon 9 in terms of costs, Falcon Heavy performance-wise. That is almost certain.
But please keep in mind that the communication operators want diversification and reliable options. Ariane 6 might offer them that, moreover in an environment where nothing has changed except SpaceX. In 2020, Proton will presumably continue to fly, Vulcan and H3 won't be ready and Ariane 6 will be really concurrential with those established players. It won't compete against SpaceX, sure. But that's not the point: a solid second place will assure them enough momentum to research and build the next gen, which will be reusable.
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.
ILS, ULA, MHI, even China Great Wall are probably more at risk...

How’d you manage to forget Blue Origin who should start flying the New Glenn by 2020.

You are right I did not mention BO, because it is much so a new player in the field. I'm not saying it's not competitive, it's fresh and sexy but we don't know either prices or performances of the rocket, so it makes it hard to compare. Also I'll beleive in a New Glenn in 2020 when I'll see it, it will most certainly be delayed as this is their first orbital experience (and new pad, and new motor, and new assembly, etc).
To stay on Ariane 6, maybe the launcher will end up being the most efficient and low cost of the non-reusable launchers of the next decade. Depending on how the market orients itself, it might not be such a bad bargain if the europeans are researching better ways to reuse rockets on the background.

When talking of a company like Blue Origin and the backing it has from its founder to speak as if you’ll only believe in New Glenn when you see it does seem a little curious.

Anyway not as curious as Ariane 6 which seems to be a launcher developed in a vacuum as if the launcher market around it isn’t changing rapidly. I suppose that’s why we get this curious talk of literally trying to retrofit reusability to it at a later stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 10/31/2017 04:37 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/31/2017 05:11 pm
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.
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).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 10/31/2017 05:30 pm
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.
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.

It's even worse when you realize that the Ariane 6 pad cost more (650M€) than it took SpaceX to develop Falcon 9 (around 400M$)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/31/2017 05:37 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/31/2017 05:42 pm



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)
The  GEO market is not dissappearing but is changing. SES a planning to move to smaller (2000kg) and cheaper($50m) satelites.




Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 10/31/2017 06:15 pm
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.
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.
Well, let’s hope for the best. And that they won’t need yet another new pad for that evolution.
I agree A6 is not as bad as the original proposals were but I still don’t see your evolution flying in 2025.
And if it doesn’t, they’ll have to sink your 2bn of subsidies and we‘ll have to see how the member states‘ appetite for yet another huge program is after the last one was sold on them on the promise of becoming competitive without delivering.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 10/31/2017 06:17 pm
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.
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).
That’s not really relevant here, isn’t it? I mean, A6 was supposed to replace Soyuz and the question is: will it be able to and be cheaper?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 10/31/2017 06:21 pm



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)
The  GEO market is not dissappearing but is changing. SES a planning to move to smaller (2000kg) and cheaper($50m) satelites.

Right now it’s changing. But should these large LEO constellations really go online (still an ‚if‘ because after all it’s not the first time someone tries this. But the chances are much bigger this time) then it will go away because there‘s really very little use left for them.
It simply doesn’t make sense to then carry along an inherently limited additional infrastructure.

Of course current operators don’t want that, it will have them go out of business, after all.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/08/2017 06:54 pm
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 (https://www.google.nl/maps/@53.056,8.789,500m/data=!3m1!1e3)) 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 (https://www.google.nl/maps/place/ArianeGroup/@48.997,1.911,2000m/data=!3m1!1e3) was required.

2) What work is done for the Ariane 6 and Vega C development programs?
Off coarse they are developing the new stages and are proving them: P120c (As Vega C first stage and as ESR Ariane 6 booster), Z40c, LLPM (Vulcain 2.1), ULPM (Vince). But also the flight versions of Vulcain 2.1 and Vince are being tested and optimized.
The other well known project is the development of the ELA-4 launch site.
But I think most cost are involved with new production facilities in Europe and France Guiana.
I already wrote that a new factories for the upper-stage was build in Bremen, Germany for Ariane 5ME.
And for the LLPM the new factory in Les Mureaux, France.
For the upperstage also a new testbanch P5.2 has been build at DLR Lampoldshausen. Qualification will start next year.
For P120c production A new facility was build by Avio at Colleferro, Italy (https://www.google.nl/maps/@41.731,12.972,3008m/data=!3m1!1e3). During the transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6, when demand for P120c casings gets high enough, the MT Aerospace factory for ariane 5 steel booster casings will be converted into a second assembly line for P120c.
But this is far from all construction projects. There are two mayor once at CSG, new solid casting facilities and a horizontal stage stowage and integration building. I'm not even going to try to list the other construction projects.
The new Ruag Fairing factory is a well known one, it is already operational.

3) What will the development of a successor for Ariane 6 cost to ESA member-states / EU citizens?
I don't think ESA or member-states will directly fund the development of ArianeNext. What ESA/ EU/ Member-states do is committing to a number of launches annually.
With the Ariane 6 program production facilities are under construction that can relatively easy be modified to produce other launchers. I think the guaranteed demand for launchers should provide enough security so companies can fund the modifications of the facilities themselves. 
I think that ESA/EU is going to act the same as NASA and USAF are acting on commercial launcher development programs (COTS, CCV, New First stage engine development). CNES/AG and DLR/AG have engine test facilities, ESA/memberstates will fund the operating and development cost of these facilities.
Besides this, ESA is funding technology development programs under the FLPP program (https://www.eucass.eu/doi/EUCASS2017-248.pdf), and demonstrator projects: Prometheus, Callisto. (I don't know the % industry have to fund these programs, but it could be 0%, so fully payed, it are fixed scope projects.)
I think the transition to ArianeNext with Prometheus engines and Vega-E with Myra VUS, require only investment in LNG stowage and handeling facilities at CSG. This will be funded by ESA/ member-states. The development of the rocket must be funded by Industry. Thus development of Vega-E of Ariane Next it will be far cheaper than the Ariane 6 development program.

Edit: (I knew I forgot one)
4) Which European countries want to preserve solids?
Of coarse Italy, but I think France even more. And also Germany, but less then Italy.

I'm very skeptical that Arianespace will ever operate a reusable orbital launcher. I think suborbital is far more likely, but that is subject for another topic. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Notaris on 11/09/2017 01:54 pm
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.

Score-D was a staged combustion demonstrator in FLPP. Though a staged combustion first stage engine was never a baseline for A5ME and thus not part of the programme back in 2012!

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 (https://www.google.nl/maps/@53.056,8.789,500m/data=!3m1!1e3)) 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 so-called A6 PPH configuration was already selected at Council at Ministerial Level (C-Min) in 2012 at the programme inception. Industry "only" worked on the maturation of the concept, but had not freedom for other set-ups (e.g. such as the PHH configuration which was retained before/at C-Min 2014)


- 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 (https://www.google.nl/maps/place/ArianeGroup/@48.997,1.911,2000m/data=!3m1!1e3) was required.

Tank welding of A5 main stage tanks is performed horizontally! "Only" the stage integration is done in vertical. Though it is correct that a fully horizontal approach is baseline for A6.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/11/2017 12:26 am
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. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 11/11/2017 07:27 am
In the PPH concept there was not enough work for liquid propulsion thats why it failed in the end. It didn't fail because the people thought it was a bad idea. For the same reason a reusable concept will fail, because there is not enough work for solid propulsion.

In Europe we can only do PHH and nothing else. Too much has been invested in both liquid and solid propulsion to simply give it up. Even if some awesome new propulsion physics are discovered, ESA will still continue to do PHH for decades to keep jobs and know how.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mike Jones on 11/11/2017 11:59 am
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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/11/2017 12:02 pm
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.
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.


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 .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 11/11/2017 01:22 pm
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.

Vega is a separate rocket from Ariane and with big support from Italy.

Prometheus und Mira are just prototypes. That doesn't mean anything. SCORE-D was a prototype for staged combustion planned for Ariane 6 and it was canceled at the ministerial council 2012.

Also any new liquid propulsion is dangerous to the solid industry not only because of reusability potential but also because of thrust. Imagine a hypothetical Vulcain 3 with more thrust and Ariane 60 being a configuration with no solids. Then all the constellation and government launches would launch without solids and no money would go to those industries from government launches.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/11/2017 02:10 pm
Ariane 6 will start launching from 2020 or 2021. The first static firing test of the full Prometheus (FLPP demonstrator ) engine will also take place in 2020 if everything goes right.
The development of Vince started in June 1998, the ECA was a interim solution that used the HM7B engine from Ariane 4 until the ECB would become operational, this was planned for 2012. Then in the Early 2000's the internet bubble burst, reducing the demand for launches. Thus the ECB and Vince development were put on hold. The FLPP program continued development of Vince at a much lower phase, because it had less funding.

For Ariane 6 development, huge amounts of engine test have to take place, DLR has to at least double their employment at Lampoldshausen to be able to operate multiple test stands at the same time. (From 2018 - 2020 they have to qualify the flight versions of Vulcan 2.1, Vince ?, P5.2 test stand/ULPM. At the same time the FLPP engine projects: storable and Expander cycle upperstage also continue.)
In France qualification of Vulcain 2 and HM7B engines for Ariane 5 continue. In Italy the Z40c and Avum+ have to be qualified. And at CSG the P120c in two versions (the production facilities) and ELA-4 have to be qualified.
So there isn't funding nor manpower for another project.
To give you a indication of timeline for ArianeNext; Vega-E launcher development with the VUS upper-stage will start at the earliest in 2019, and it will not be operational before 2025. {I don't get the reasoning behind the choice to use the Myra engine, instead of a engine derived from the Expander demonstrator (LOxLH2 or LOxLCH4)}
Prometheus will test fire NET 2020, ArianeNext or a stage using it can't be operational before 2025.

Space Ghost 1962 you make the assumption that re-usability works economically, that has not been proven jet.
Production of Falcon 9 costs a lot more because it is reusable. It required ablative heat shielding, double the amount of IMU's and flight computers, it has to be larger, etz. I think this could easily add 20% to production cost. But this is assumed to be divided over multiple launches. (single use ~120%; 2x use = 60%; 3x use = 40%, etz. [only first stage cost])
But additional cost have to be made. Equipment and man-hours are required to recover and refurbish the stages.

I've stated before, that I think reusability can work at very low launch rate and at high launch rate. So from <8 & >20 annually. At the low rate serial production of stages isn't affordable in any case, so a batch of reusable first stages are build and annually some replacement and upper-stages are produced in batches. The factory has to be used for other purposes at the same time to make economics work. The other side where reusability works is when the launch rate is so high, multiple serial fabrication lines are required to keep up with production. Blue Origin and PLD space are now aiming for the low rate reusable case, SpaceX is aiming for high rate reusability.
I'm sorry, but I don't see Arianespace reach a launch rate above 16x annually for both Ariane 6 and Vega's.
European institutions have difficulty committing to five payloads for Ariane 6 and two for Vega annually (the later is not really the problem). 

AFAIK there is a lot of improvement possible to lower production cost for Vulcain 2 and Vince. The Vulcain 2.1 and Vince ? have been designed with higher priority for cheap and efficient production. ESA/ European industry are very conservative concerning new production methods, they first want to have a demonstrator firing successfully before they try to apply in to a operational rocket. The new nozzle for Vulcain 2.1 SWAN already had a TRL maturation test in Dec. 2009!   
I totally disagree that solids and Vulcain have to go away. Vulcain is comparable with the J-2X, (the later is more optimized as upper-stage engine). But for some reason Vulcain can be produced affordably and J-2X can't.
Solids are very affordable at the launch rate ArianeGroup is planning.
The demanded reduction in use of hydrazine by EU REACH regulations will most likely make hydrazine more expansive in Europe. This is good for green storable propallents because their cost comes closer to hydrazine systems. But a lot of development work has still to be done on green storable propallent engines.
I think AP-composite solids will remain in use until EU REACH also requires reduction in it's use. Alternatives have been developed by EU Horizon 2020 projects but those aren't market ready and price competitive jet.

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 .
Floss can you show documents proving this statement.

In all launcher documents I've read from ESA, CNES or DLR they have multiple launcher requirements, but non manrated, jet. The payloads are:
Small LEO ~1000kg to SSO, VEGA and Rockot were for this. This are Earth observation or techdomo sat's.
Small/medium LEO <2200kg SSO, radar satellites/Pride, Dnepr, Delta II and Vega-C (Vega-E?) are/were used for this.
Medium ~4.5mt to SSO, polar weather satellites. Soyuz now and Ariane 6 in the future.
Heavy LEO 20mT for ATV isn't required anymore
GTO: 3mt; 5mT; 7mT.  Soyuz can do <3mT GTO, A5 & A64 can do two satellites to GTO. (A5 <9.8mT)
MEO Galileo Satellites: dual = ~2.2mT; quad = ~4.5mT
Escape, moon, mars, Earth-Sun L1/L2: ? <5mT

In the future Vega and Vega C do the small(/medium) LEO satellites, Ariane 6 will do the rest.
Possibly constelations of small satellites in LEO will add demand for Heavy LEO, but I doubt this will succed. I think Pseudo-satellites are beter then giant LEO constellations. (This would mean trouble for SpX and BO).
Manned spaceflight is a very small market, where only Russia and China are capable of at this moment!
Possibly the US will regain this human launch capability in 2019/2020. But I don't expect another provider before 2030. (ArianeNext and a further evolution of Pride could leed to manned ESA launch capability, but) It's very likely ESA remains contributing astronauts to other nations space stations, instead of developing their own capability.

I agree with the first two point of Tobi453; not so much with the last one. An A60 configuration should at least have a sealevel thrust of 2400kN (considering a GLOW of 200mT & 1.2 T/W). That's more than 2x vulcain 2. That won't happen. An ArianeNext first stage with 7xPrometheus could replace the solids and LLPM and orbit >5mT SSO. AFAIK, this ArianeNext 1th stage has a performance like EAP (A5 SRB's) or a two segment solid from P120c size segments. The development of this two segment P120c solid is much cheaper than development of a reusable first stage.
If a smaller Vega remains used at low launch rate (<8/year) I think solid industry is fine. (except for the facilities at CSG, those will close.) Solids are cheap to develop, but more expansive to produce. It all depends on how launcher work-share is divided, if the pollution from solids remains accepted, and how the launcher market evolves. 
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 11/11/2017 11:55 pm
Re use of a low cost core stage is not going to save a lot of money reusing the incredible high cost Vinci

I think this is a case of [citation needed]
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 11/12/2017 03:41 am
Can we please keep SpaceX / Falcon 9 out of this thread?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mike Jones on 11/12/2017 08:26 am
Reuse has not yet bring a single additional customer from other launch service providers to SpaceX. They are just launching their own manifest at an increased pace but still each satellite is launched with months or even years of delays (just have a look at the SpaceX threads to see that target date at contract signature are almost systematically missed when launch occurs - very similar to ILS Proton in this regard). 

By the way, SpaceX was supposed to launch 30 times this year to recover from their 2 launch failures in 2015 and 2016 but they will reach 19 if everything goes according to plans in December. Launch rate 30 will not be the case until 2018 at best.

SpaceX did not launch considerably more missions than Arianespace in 2017, as Ariane 5 performed 5 dual launches (i.e 10 comparable missions on Falcon 9). 2 of these satellites (Viasat and Europasat) were transferred from SpaceX to Arianespace to be launched on time. And the Arianespace missions (except on Vega) are generating more revenues than the ones from SpaceX.

So the supposed commercial leadership from SpaceX is still to be demonstrated against the current generation of European launchers, which will be considerably improved with Ariane 6 and Vega-C in the very short term future. Arianespace will also start deploying the largest constellation ever (OneWeb) next year with Soyuz and then probably on Ariane 6. Arianespace is far from being cornered out of the commercial market.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/12/2017 09:42 am
The purpose of the Ariane and Vega launchers is to garante acces to space for European satellite technologies. Never again does Europe want to have the situation that occurred in the 70's (not sure about the date). Let me recall that the US denied European companies to sell their far superior satellites to customers with a US launch.
The European governments don't want that to happen EVER again.

After the ministerial conference in 2012 European launchers were forced to use current technologies, because the development of a new first stage engine; SCORE-D was stopped. At the 2016 ministerial the politicians decided to develop the Prometheus demonstrator engine. That will be in development at least until 2022. After development has been completed the stage stil has to be developed this takes another couple of years. So going for the full liquid path could at the earliest deliver a new launcher from 2025, but more likely 2030.
Ariane 6 will be operational in 2020 or 2021, the plan is NOT going to change!

I've written that there could be a scenario where the large solids would be phased out. But this will not happen soon. So start a new topic about ArianeNext/ what after Ariane 6 to discuss this, please.
In my opinion Ariane 6 is the best outcome of the situation that was created by "stupid" political decisions in 2012. Instead of two new launcher programs Ariane 5ME and Ariane 6 that both had to use current technologies; Ariane 5 got a small upgrade (A5 ECA+) and Ariane 5 ME became Ariane 6 (62&64) by replacing the EAP's with ESR's and eliminating the common (double) bulkhead. A62 can replace Soyuz, and A64 replaces A5 ECA & ES. And launch cost will reduce by ~40% for A64 compared to A5ECA.
FLPP will develop new technologies that will improve the Ariane and Vega launcher families. 

About the cost for Vince, I've a Snecma presentation from 2006 that states a comparable price with HM-7B and RL-10. They state it would cost 4.5mln, but new technologies could have lowered the price. Prometheus and Merlin most likely cost about 1mln. Vulcain, Raptor and BE-4 are most likely >8mln. I guess BE-3 is more expansive than RL-10, and Vince, but I could be wrong. BE-3 is a unique engine (tap-off cycle)
ESA's FLPP NEO, ETIP demonstrator is  proving improvements for expander cycle engines. (Prometheus is a GG LOxLNG demonstrator.)
I think that Vulcain can also benefit from for example new igniters (making it restart-able) and additive manufacturing (reducing production time, material usage and cost). That's why a Vulcain 2.2 and 2.3 are in planning stage.

When Arianespace stops using large solids: EAP; P80; P120c; ESR, two companies will directly go bankrupt:  Regulus and EuroPropulsion (Both are Joint ventures from ArianeGroup and Avio).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mike Jones on 11/12/2017 10:09 am
Vinci is not that expensive in recurring costs and clearly it has much cheaper price target than RL-10 (by far the most expensive upper stage engine in use today). The main issue for Vinci has been its never ending development and testing phase.
Of course it will depend of real life production cadence to reach Vinci cost target or not, as for any other rocket engines.
BE-3U recurring cost is probably a major question mark even for Blue Origin at this stage.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hauerg on 11/12/2017 10:28 am
... And the Arianespace missions (except on Vega) are generating more revenues than the ones from SpaceX.
....
Guess what, they are also generating a lot more costs.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mike Jones on 11/12/2017 11:07 am
Yes you are right on the cost side but the distribution of profits is just different in the European model. The industrial companies (ArianeGroup, Avio, OHB MT-Aeropace, Airbus DS, Thales Alenia Space and RUAG to name the major ones) are making a hefty profit (have a look at their respective annual reports) and as shareholders of Arianespace they manage the company so that it generates neither significant profits nor losses. It remains to be demonstrated that SpaceX is able to generate more profit with its low price model on Falcon 9 than its European counterparts involved on Ariane and Vega families. Russian suppliers of Soyuz rockets (RKTs Progress and Lavochkin) are probably making lots of profits on the Soyuz launches sold by Arianespace as these missions are sold at least 30% more than Soyuz launches for Russian government.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/12/2017 12:16 pm
Yes you are right on the cost side but the distribution of profits is just different in the European model. The industrial companies (ArianeGroup, Avio, OHB MT-Aeropace, Airbus DS, Thales Alenia Space and RUAG to name the major ones) are making a hefty profit (have a look at their respective annual reports) and as shareholders of Arianespace they manage the company so that it generates neither significant profits nor losses. It remains to be demonstrated that SpaceX is able to generate more profit with its low price model on Falcon 9 than its European counterparts involved on Ariane and Vega families. Russian suppliers of Soyuz rockets (RKTs Progress and Lavochkin) are probably making lots of profits on the Soyuz launches sold by Arianespace as these missions are sold at least 30% more than Soyuz launches for Russian government.

I see a lot of 'it remains to be demonstrated' arguments from SX's competitors worldwide, even for things that appear almost certain if you look at the trend or worse for things that have already been demonstrated. Respectfully, I don't think planning your business assuming the best for you and the worst from your competitor is a wise thing to do.
SX's business isn't 'low price', it's a 'low costs' model, and that's going to be even more clear in the imminent future. We know directly from the company's COO that the refurbishment cost for the FIRST ever reused booster was 'way less than half the cost of a new one'. Yet they're not standing still: they're about to introduce an updated version of F9 (and in one or two months, not years) with the goal of 10 reuses with close to negligible refurbishment costs and a 24 hour turnaround time. That's going to be a huge improvement even if not fully met. They were already cost competitive without reuse, what makes you think they won't be able to maximize their profits when it's probable they'll be constantly achieving the lowest internal cost per launch in the industry for the foreseeable future and by a considerable margin?
And the European business model of not only having, but being managed by a plethora of suppliers, each aiming to maximize the sales of the components they produce doesn't bode well for Arianespace's et al. ability to move towards a cost-competitive reuse model.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/12/2017 01:30 pm
To be fair: Space  Ghost, Mike Jones and AbuSimbel: Dislike this is off topic. Keep SpX out of this please!
Discussing the competition between Ariane 6 and other launch providers is okee. But Ariane 6 will be expendable! The expendable / reusable discussion is off topic here!

Ariane 6 is going to be the PHH configuration with the ESR's (P120c) boosters; LLPM (Vulcain 2.1) and ULPM (Vince).
This decision was made in 2014 and can't change. All alternatives won't be ready before 2025.
Ariane 62 and 64 launcher is, in my opinion, the best launcher that can be achieved with current technologies. It's far beter than Ariane 5ECA; ES and Soyuz, A5ME would only have replaced A5 ECA and ES, and would not have provided ESA/Europe with a 5mT GTO -1500m/s or 7mT to SSO, supplement to Arianespace launcher family.
I think a lot here are forgetting that Ariane 6 isn't developed by one company, although ArianeGroup is the design lead. They have to find a compromise to all the different stakeholders in the EU launcher industry. I think a fair comparison is comparing SLS or EELV (Atlas V; Delta II, IV and Vulkan) and H2/H3 (Japan) with Ariane5/6.
Ariane 6 will:
- Enable a decrease in launch cost by roughly 40% $/kg.
- It enables a higher launch rate (8 =>14) [Ariane 5 | Ariane 6].
- It is far more flexible so it can beter serve different launch requirements.
(ECA can do 10.7mT to GTO -1500m/s. It couldn't do ATV to ISS; Galileo to MEO, SSO wasn't a option.)

With the change from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6, ArianeGroup got a lot more responsibility. There is now price competition between different manufacturers. If a manufacturer makes it's profit margin to high, it risks losing it's work package to a different manufacturer. This wasn't the case with Ariane 5. Agreed that tooling is a hurdle to change work-package to another manufacturer.
It's just a fact that hardly any profit can be made on providing a launch service. Launch service is a low single digit percentage of the space market. Having Ariane 6 and Vega will garante that European satellites can be launched to orbit for a fair price. Not the lowest cost launch, but guaranteed acces is the purpose of ESA's launchers program.

Europe doesn't have the technology (engine and guidance) to make a reusable stage. So opting for it is very risky. 
Please stop bringing reuse into this topic, it's not a available option for Ariane 6.
Start a new topic for ArianeNext if you want to discuss this.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/12/2017 02:40 pm
So we are discussing Ariane 6 competitiveness in the commercial* market and talking about one of its biggest competitors, if not the biggest is Off-topic?
And, for the record, I don't think dismissing the overall importance of LSPs in the industry is a valid argument against other's concerns about Ariane competitiveness as a Launch Service. You're treating it like a lost cause.

Quote
The purpose of the Ariane and Vega launchers is to garante acces to space for European satellite technologies. Never again does Europe want to have the situation that occurred in the 70's (not sure about the date).
*mind that the post I was responding to, as well as the preceding discussion were about Ariane as a commercial launcher and its competitiveness, and not as EU's assured ride to space
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/12/2017 05:57 pm
Thanks Ed Kyle with the facts behind my statement.

Sorry Abu Simbel, I should have pointed my criticism to all people that participate in the expendable / reusable discussion.
The past three pages have been filled with misconceptions, and this discussion that takes place in nearly all topics on NSF.
Cloaking all topics with this discussion is bad for the quality of the discussions on NSF.

Back to Ariane 6.
I leave the honor to Calapine, she picked up the news again, and posted a tweet.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/12/2017 06:20 pm



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)
The  GEO market is not dissappearing but is changing. SES a planning to move to smaller (2000kg) and cheaper($50m) satelites.

Right now it’s changing. But should these large LEO constellations really go online (still an ‚if‘ because after all it’s not the first time someone tries this. But the chances are much bigger this time) then it will go away because there‘s really very little use left for them.
It simply doesn’t make sense to then carry along an inherently limited additional infrastructure.

Of course current operators don’t want that, it will have them go out of business, after all.

I expect GEO to remain cheaper when latency is not an issue. There's also MEO, which provides a middle ground. LEO constellations will exist alongside GEO and MEO sats.

Also, while Ariane 6 is not exactly optimized for LEO, Vega-C might fill that role.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 11/12/2017 10:43 pm



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)
The  GEO market is not dissappearing but is changing. SES a planning to move to smaller (2000kg) and cheaper($50m) satelites.

Right now it’s changing. But should these large LEO constellations really go online (still an ‚if‘ because after all it’s not the first time someone tries this. But the chances are much bigger this time) then it will go away because there‘s really very little use left for them.
It simply doesn’t make sense to then carry along an inherently limited additional infrastructure.

Of course current operators don’t want that, it will have them go out of business, after all.

I expect GEO to remain cheaper when latency is not an issue. There's also MEO, which provides a middle ground. LEO constellations will exist alongside GEO and MEO sats.

Also, while Ariane 6 is not exactly optimized for LEO, Vega-C might fill that role.
The problem is you need a secondary infrastructure. Little reason to keep big dishes on your roof and a separate receiver in your house if you can get the same result with a small antenna for the LEO network and data over internet. And that’s not even talking about the uplink.
There might be a few specialized applications but the bulk of the use cases will go away if LEO constellations succeed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/13/2017 12:06 am
The problem is you need a secondary infrastructure. Little reason to keep big dishes on your roof and a separate receiver in your house if you can get the same result with a small antenna for the LEO network and data over internet. And that’s not even talking about the uplink.
There might be a few specialized applications but the bulk of the use cases will go away if LEO constellations succeed.

SES will have terminals that route traffic between MEO/GEO sats (O3b mPower). Frankly I don't quite see the advantage LEO has over MEO, latency-wise it's a tiny improvement and LEO wastes a huge amount of capacity. The terminals for LEO are also going to be more complex, though I guess they need less power so they are more suitable for mobile applications (?).

http://spacenews.com/ses-building-a-10-terabit-o3b-mpower-constellation/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 11/13/2017 12:09 am
 MEO might be, but don’t you have more issues with radiation up there.
My argument was mainly about GEO. That GEO Comsat we are all used to, it will go away if (can’t stop to insist on that „if“) these new constellations succeed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/13/2017 12:47 am
MEO might be, but don’t you have more issues with radiation up there.
My argument was mainly about GEO. That GEO Comsat we are all used to, it will go away if (can’t stop to insist on that „if“) these new constellations succeed.

- At 8k km I don't think so.
- I don't understand your reasoning. I can see GEO/MEO as a backhaul for mobile in remote areas and LEO serving customers directly where the former is inpractical.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 11/13/2017 12:51 am
But what for? Maintain a secondary infrastructure just for some potential cost savings, having to coordinate different means of communication and separating out what is time critical and what is not?

Nah, none of this is going to happen. You have secondary networks if your primary network can’t provide the capacity you need but with these constellations that’s not going to be the case.

It’s like those ATM switched phone lines, once you had enough capacity on the packet networks everybody started to race to abandon them.

Simplicity always wins, given similar capabilities.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/13/2017 01:05 am
But what for? Maintain a secondary infrastructure just for some potential cost savings, having to coordinate different means of communication and separating out what is time critical and what is not?

As I have already said, SES will make terminals that work with both MEO/GEO sats, apparently they think its a good idea. Software-wise that is certainly not a problem. I think LEO sats will serve a different market, namely one where terminal size/power is critical. So if you need internet service on a cruise ship, you will go with the former, an emergency service might go with the latter. I don't see the problem.

Nah, none of this is going to happen. You have secondary networks if your primary network can’t provide the capacity you need but with these constellations that’s not going to be the case.

Obviously I assume GEO/MEO capacity will be cheaper, that doesn't mean there isn't a potential market for LEO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/13/2017 07:59 am
But Ariane 6 will be expendable! The expendable / reusable discussion is off topic here!
Unfortunately reusable boosters replacing the P120's is the best course of action for Ariane 6, not 7, not "next".

You have made it "not discussable" in any thread (this one is for Ariane 6 discussions).

Probably because it is too good a course of action to be countenanced.  I seem to remember similar nonsense about PPH being the only discussable course once too.
STOP. Reusable liquid boosters can only happen past 2025 more likely 2030! That's the fact.
For now: the path is the development of P120c that will be used on Vega-C (possibly Vega-E) and Ariane 62 and 62. AFAIK the facilities at Colleferro and at CSG are already completed. A inert P120c (http://www.avio.com/en/press-release/inert-propellant-casting-loading-of-the-first-full-scale-p120c-srm-completed/) has been  already has been completed. The first P120c motor will be cast early next year, for a static fire test in H1 2018. So P120c will be developed.
It's totally uncertain if Prometheus can be developed successfully. Also stage recovery technologies have to be developed and proven with Callisto. Only after these demonstrator projects, a VTVL Liquid booster becomes a option. This liquid booster could be developed between 2020 & 2030, but I doubt it will. 
It irritates me that this discussion is taking place in topics that run from 2014-2020 (2022).
That's why I would kindly request starting a new topic for Arianespace launcher family around 2030 / ArianeNext.

I also don't see the relevance of LEO or MEO / GEO comsats to Ariane6. It's a interesting discussion, but not on topic. Start a GEO; MEO; LEO; Pseudo-satellite comsat topic for this please. What becomes preferred could change the launch market, those implications could be on topic here.
I agree Ariane 64 is optimized for GTO launches (at least 12mT), but the restartable Vince also make the Ariane launchers capable of launching to other orbits.

Thank's to Calapine (A6 Update) we know that the construction of the mobile gantry at ELA 4 has started.
It has a 45mT overhead crane. Enough for all payloads and stages, but the solid's are a little bit to heavy.  ;)
Let's also post the link the CSG facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/CSGCentreSpatialGuyanais/photos/pcb.1619939948044347/1619935918044750/?type=3&theater)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 11/21/2017 06:19 pm
The French Minister of Economy is having second thoughts about Ariane 6, and worryies about SpaceX's reusable rockets:
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/la-bombe-de-bruno-le-maire-l-europe-a-t-elle-fait-le-bon-choix-avec-ariane-6-758746.html (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/la-bombe-de-bruno-le-maire-l-europe-a-t-elle-fait-le-bon-choix-avec-ariane-6-758746.html)

It's a little bit too late to think about that just now...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hernick on 11/21/2017 07:28 pm
Thank you Gosnold for pointing out this interesting article in La Tribune (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/la-bombe-de-bruno-le-maire-l-europe-a-t-elle-fait-le-bon-choix-avec-ariane-6-758746.html)

Here is my quick translation:

Edit/gongora:  Posting an entire copyrighted article is not allowed, even when it wasn't written in English.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: rcoppola on 11/21/2017 08:27 pm
If I'm ESA and I'm looking out across the Pond, watching as BO's New Glenn infrastructure is rapidly being put into place, SX doubling their launch rate, updating to Block 5, reusing launchers, getting ready for FH, Dragon2 let alone BFR, I'd be questioning my strategy as well. Actually, I'd be waaaaay beyond questioning and more into calling an emergency Ministerial Meeting. 

Alas...How many ministers does it take to...?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 11/21/2017 09:03 pm
At least somebody is able to see the elephant in the room.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/22/2017 06:19 am
STOP. Reusable liquid boosters can only happen past 2025 more likely 2030! That's the fact.

I believe you're confusing fact with opinion.  Statements about the future are inherently statements of opinion, not fact.

Decisions can be changed.  It's not against the laws of physics that next year Europe will reverse course and change Ariane 6 to use reusable boosters.

Is it likely they will do so?  I really don't know.  But I'm interested in hearing opinions about it.  Your opinion, and the opinions of others who disagree with you.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/22/2017 06:20 am
If I'm ESA and I'm looking out across the Pond, watching as BO's New Glenn infrastructure is rapidly being put into place, SX doubling their launch rate, updating to Block 5, reusing launchers, getting ready for FH, Dragon2 let alone BFR, I'd be questioning my strategy as well. Actually, I'd be waaaaay beyond questioning and more into calling an emergency Ministerial Meeting. 

Alas...How many ministers does it take to...?

You don't get it.
Development of Ariane 6 is co-funded between ESA and industry. However, operating A6 has been fully turned over to industry. In return industry asked ESA to fly a minimal number of ESA payloads on A6, per year. But those ESA payloads alone are not sufficient to make A6 a competitive vehicle. The shortfall is the responsibility of industry, not ESA.
There is no need to scramble the ESA ministers given that any un-competitiveness of A6 is the problem of Arianespace. Industry wanted a bigger say in A6 and ESA and CNES gave it to them. But with it came a nice set of disadvantages that previously befell ESA and CNES but now fall entirely on industry.

Basically: flying A6 as a competitive vehicle is now fully the problem of Arianespace and no longer the concern of ESA and CNES. ESA never held shares in Arianespace and the CNES share of Arianespace was sold to industry in 2016.
Additionally: with that minimum number of guaranteed ESA missions, per year, came a caveat: Arianespace is obliged to actually fly those missions, on Ariane 6.

So, suppose A6 becomes an un-competitive vehicle and Arianespace is losing  money on it. Normally that would result in phase-out of such a vehicle. However, they can't do that as they are forced to fly the guaranteed ESA payloads on A6.
So, there is a strong and urgent need and incentive for Arianespace to turn A6 into a successful vehicle.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/22/2017 11:41 am
I stick with what I've wrote before. Read the previous three pages, I've explained why a reusable launcher is very unrealistic for Europe at this moment. It's nearly 2018, Ariane 6 will launch 2020 or 2021 if delayed. AFAIK:
 - some of the new CSG solid facilities are finished,
 - ELA4 is planned to be finished somewhere in 2019.
 - The Upperstage factory in Germany is finished
 - The new Avio P120C factory is nearly completed
 - The LLPM (core) factory is under construction.
 - Early next year the P120C will be testfired in CSG
 - Engine qualification tests are planed for 2018 and 2019 (Vince, Vulcain 2.1, ULPM)
 - More then half of the 3.4 10^9 euro investment have already been spent.
What woods170 wrote is true, ArianeGroup is responsible for maintaining the Ariane 6 factories. But if A6, Vega(-C) and Soyuz fly at a low rate, the CSG range isn't used enough and the ESA member-states have to pay to maintain the launch range. This is the annual payment to Arianespace. (In the US the USAF maintains the ranges)

Any change in the Ariane 6 plan means a delay. ESA/ArianeGroup doesn't have a rocket engine for a VTVL Reusable rocket. Prometheus could become this rocket engine, but it's in very early development stage. The first engine run of Prometheus is planned NET2020. (They will do component test in France in 2018 and 2019.)
It's very uncertain if Prometheus will be developed successfully. I won't expect it ready before 2022.
After the Prometheus engine has been developed, the launcher still has to be developed. This takes at least another two or three years. That's why ArianeNext can't be ready before 2025.
If the plan is changed, ESA/Europe has to rely on Vega(-C), Ariane 5 and foreign launchers until the new launcher is operational.

With the Prometheus engine and Callisto VTVL rocket demonstrators ESA/Europe is developing the technologies for a reusable launcher. I highly doubt if more funding can accelerate these technology development projects. 

I also wonder what this France politician (Bruno Le Maire) prioritices:
A) Cheap acces to space (low launch cost)
B) Maintaining the jobs related to Arianespace launch offering.
The current Ariane 6 does B) while also lowering launch cost (by ~40%) and diversifying Arianespace launch offering. A reusable ArianeNext only does A). With a reusable ArianeNext >50% of the jobs will be lost, and half the launcher factories will become obsolete. 

SpaceX isn't lowering launch price by offering a previous used first stage, they are granting earlier acces to a launch opportunity. SpaceX factory doesn't allow the launch rate with expendable Falcon 9.
With the move form Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 Arianespace can increase launch rate from <8x A5 to <14x A6. But if ELA3 is modified, and additional solid casting facilities are build they could go even higher. 

Has anyone looked at the commercial launches Arianespace got contracted this year, and compared is to the launches awareded to SpaceX and Blue Origin. And don't forget ILS (Proton & Angara), Glavcosmos (Soyuz), India, China's LongMarch.
I'm not worrying to much. ESA & ArianeGroup should continue as planned and reconsider by 2022. If ArianeNext gets developed. Industry has to pay the largest part of the development cost. I expect it will cost less then 2 10^9 Euro. (a billion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion) is confusing)

Again far more words than this topic deserves.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/22/2017 01:02 pm
A tweet with the Ariane 6 production flow visualised.
https://twitter.com/AmazingSpace2/status/932969204113960960 (https://twitter.com/AmazingSpace2/status/932969204113960960)
I'm missing one thing: Igniters  :-X

This was a presentation at the new LLPM facility in Les Mureaux, France.
https://twitter.com/Mausonaut/status/932961518240567296 (https://twitter.com/Mausonaut/status/932961518240567296)

PS: This twitter ArianeGroup (https://twitter.com/ArianeGroup/status/931144216734027777) is in France, not in Germany.  :-X
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 11/23/2017 05:07 am
From the update thread

Something to read: OHB 9-month report 2017 (https://www.ohb.de/tl_files/ohb/pdf/finanzberichte_hauptversammlung/2017/2017-Q3_9m_OHB-en.pdf) {direct download} OHB SE website (https://www.ohb.de/financial-reports.html)
The German solid casing production proces was tested. Normal pressure is 100bar, tested at 125bar was fine. Later they did a burst test, the test casing failed at 212 bar.

There is a picture of the burst test article, and there are also pictures of the test over at MPA (https://www.mpa.uni-stuttgart.de/ariane/).
Looks like the burst test blew out the fitting out of the nozzle end. Not the sidewalls. Design or luck?

I wonder how much cheaper and lighter the new winding process actually will be. Not enough in the long run. Something to scale down for use in sounding rockets?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/23/2017 11:26 am
Copied from the update topic:
This new casing will not fly before 2023 at best on Ariane 6 and Vega-C (P120c SRMs) and the Italians do their best (and have heavy influence within ESA) to avoid that any work share transfer from Avio to MT-A ever occur. So we should not read too much into this news reported by MT-A

I think this is half true. Indeed MT-A only is going to produce casing when the demand for P120C boosters is high enough. This might very well be in 2023.
But I expect that Avio will adopt the new (German) production proces inside their new P120C factory. I think they are currently using the Vega tooling to produce the P120C test articles.
There are two P120c qualification test planned. Probably the first is with the same production proces as with P80. And the second test could be with the new production proces. But I could be wrong on this.

Scale down = S50  8)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 11/23/2017 06:40 pm
"Shaping the Future with Ariane 6"
A talk from the 68th IAC GNF on 27th September 2017

No slides shown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku2EUUo6YVc
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/25/2017 11:41 pm
I believe criticism on current Ariane 6 plan, with context, is quite appropriate and necessary for this thread. My sole interest.
Choice is either to up the game significantly or retreat from the battle to a "safe" position.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gongora on 11/25/2017 11:44 pm
I believe criticism on current Ariane 6 plan, with context, is quite appropriate and necessary for this thread. My sole interest.

The constant repetitive criticism of the current Ariane 6 plan really might be better suited for the ArianeNext thread.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/26/2017 01:05 am
I believe criticism on current Ariane 6 plan, with context, is quite appropriate and necessary for this thread. My sole interest.

The constant repetitive criticism of the current Ariane 6 plan really might be better suited for the ArianeNext thread.
Constant repetitive criticism?

Better suited for the ArianeNext thread? Strongly disagree.

However, I hadn't noticed that this was a discomfort to those here. Please let me know if there are any troubles with my commentary, especially any errors, as adding noise to this discussion is not intended.

And I'll refrain from further comments on Ariane. Its been a wonderful, storied LV family, and I wish it well for the future. As I always have.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gongora on 11/26/2017 03:10 pm
I have moved many of the recent posts in this thread to:

Space Intel Report - Squaring the circle: Europe wants launcher autonomy and low (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43202.0) launch prices
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/28/2017 04:01 pm
I looked again at the Ariane 6 users day presentations. It looks like Arianespace is planning for four qualification flights.
- First a Ariane 62 with single GTO payload (two Vince burns).
- 2th A62 with two Gallileo to MEO 22k km 56 deg. (two Vince burns, with long loiter time)
- 3th A62 with long fairing, A LEO rideshare, multiple orbits launch. (three vince burns)
- 4th Ariane 64 with dual GTO payloads.
Nice launch variety to qualify Ariane 6 for multiple missions.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/29/2017 10:05 am
Reusable liquid boosters can only happen past 2025 more likely 2030! That's the fact.

Why? The reasons upthread all seem to fall under the Sunk Costs Fallacy.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/29/2017 10:19 am
Reusable liquid boosters can only happen past 2025 more likely 2030! That's the fact.

Why? The reasons upthread all seem to fall under the Sunk Costs Fallacy.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy)

Well for a start what engine do you propose propelling it with?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/29/2017 12:51 pm
Reusable liquid boosters can only happen past 2025 more likely 2030! That's the fact.

Why? The reasons upthread all seem to fall under the Sunk Costs Fallacy.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy)
No, it's not aversion to write off investments. I think >70% of the investments for Ariane 6 will prove to be useful for ArianeNext. (read the A to Q from Germany document, for funding details.)

ESA/Arianegroup can't develop a reusable launcher before 2025 because:
1) They don't have a restart-able first stage engine.
The development of Vince took nearly two decades, because half way the development, the funding was dropt. Vince development was continued on low funding form ESA. Then they wanted to apply it to Ariane 5ME, but political decisions preferred the development of Ariane 6, which caused a maiden launch delay from 2018 to 2021. Now the Prometheus engine development has just started. For ~100mln this engine should be developed with a maiden static test firing in 2020. After this maiden static test, the engine has to gain lots of burn-time before it is qualified for a launch vehicle. Only then Arianespace is at a point to consider developing a reusable first stage.
2) After they have the engine, Arianegroup/ESA has to develop the technology and procedures to recover, refurbish and re-certify the stage. This has already started with the Calisto demonstrator.
3) With the developed engines it takes at least two years to develop and qualify a launcher. (2020+2+2=2024)

DLR has studied reusable launchers, and they concluded that with the European demand the business case doesn't work, unless the demand for launches increases a lot. SpaceX has their LEO Com-sat constellation plan that requires lots of annual launches. It's the SpaceX Leo Com-sat constellation that has to generate the funding for Musk's Mars ambitions, not their launch service. SpaceX needs a mayor cost reduction (reusable launcher) to make the LEO Comsat businesscase work. The SpaceX LEO Com-sat constellation has enough launch demand of it's own (>20 launches annually) to require continuous stage production while also reusing the first stage.
EUrope/ Arianespace doesn't have this demand.

So Europe has to invest a lot to develop a reusable launcher, while it's questionable if it will lower their launch cost. Don't forget that a Falcon 9 doesn't fulfill all requirements set by European institutions for their launcher. They would also require a larger launch vehicle (multi-stage or more engines on the first stage).

Ariane 6 will finally integrate the Vince with multiple burn capability into a european launcher. This has been hoped for for over a decade. Ariane 6 will be a fully European launch vehicle (I don't know if this is also true for VEGA-C). Ariane 6 will provide Arianespace with a capability to replace Soyuz, Ariane 5ES and Ariane 5 ECA. And in increases the maximum launch cadence while also costing >40% less.
Going directly for a reusable launcher is to risky for Europe. All it's technology still has to be developed and it would be designed for a speculated increase in launch demand.
And then we are neglecting that Ariane 6 is a jobs program in Europe.

So Ariane 6 first, at the same time developing the enabling technologies for ArianeNext. (2014-2022)
After these technologies have been proven, Arianegroup/ESA could develop a ArianeNext (reusable ??)

{I'm going to ignore Ariane 6 bashing post that don't counter what I wrote here}
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/29/2017 01:22 pm
 ;D Terraserver has a sat Image of ELA-4 under construction.
Terraserver (https://www.terraserver.com/view?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_text=&searchLat=&searchLng=&lat=5.25&lng=-52.78&bbox=&center=) Coordinate 5.25, -52.79
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 11/29/2017 01:52 pm
...
DLR has studied reusable launchers, and they concluded that with the European demand the business case doesn't work, unless the demand for launches increases a lot. SpaceX has their LEO Com-sat constellation plan that requires lots of annual launches. It's the SpaceX Leo Com-sat constellation that has to generate the funding for Musk's Mars ambitions, not their launch service. SpaceX needs a mayor cost reduction (reusable launcher) to make the LEO Comsat businesscase work. The SpaceX LEO Com-sat constellation has enough launch demand of it's own (>20 launches annually) to require continuous stage production while also reusing the first stage.
EUrope/ Arianespace doesn't have this demand.

So Europe has to invest a lot to develop a reusable launcher, while it's questionable if it will lower their launch cost. Don't forget that a Falcon 9 doesn't fulfill all requirements set by European institutions for their launcher. They would also require a larger launch vehicle (multi-stage or more engines on the first stage).
...

I don't understand the constraint to 'European' demand.  A competitive launcher, probably meaning a reusable launcher, should to supply whatever commercial demand that exists world-wide.  The reusable New Glenn, being built by a private company with zero orbital launch experience (and no engine yet), has already sold five launches for 400 satellites in early 2020s to OneWeb and two more launches to EutelSat.  The several (2-4?) other LEO constellations besides Starlink will have ongoing need for replacement or adding capability to their constellations.  On the other hand, all of this Buy European Act discussion, your repeated attempts to constrain the argument to your set of assumptions and boundaries, and the push beyond Ariane 6 to Ariane Next by the European community itself (before Ariane 6 is even built), seems to say that there is serious concern that Ariane 6 will not be world-market competitive when introduced in early 2020s.

Assuming this must have considerable truth to it -- since you and so many others are pointing at the same reality without naming it -- why build an intermediate rocket at all is the question.  Ariane 5 is a great launch vehicle that could continue to be as viable as it is now well into the 2020s, especially for pairs of GTO deliveries; Soyuz is winning constellation launches, too, so ArianeSpace is profiting.  If the 'lot' that Europe is investing in Ariane 6 would be used for accelerating the Ariane Next vehicle development and continuing to subsidize/increasingly subsidize European internal market launches, then maybe Europe could have a next launch system that doesn't need to be subsidized... by 2022-2024.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/29/2017 02:17 pm
Because Ariane 5 can't fulfill all institutional launch requirements. Ariane 6 can. That's why several institutional satellites launch on Soyuz, Rockot and Falcon 9. This will happen less with Ariane 6.
Ariane 5 ins't flexible enough. And the max 7/8 launch rate makes it expansive.
The decision to fund a new launcher/ develop a upgrade was made in 2012. (A5ME / A6)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/29/2017 02:53 pm
Assuming this must have considerable truth to it -- since you and so many others are pointing at the same reality without naming it -- why build an intermediate rocket at all is the question.

Because;

a) As has been pointed out numerous times the technology does not exist in Europe yet, to develop them will take the better part of a decade when changes to the launch industry need to happen now, not a few years time.

b) Part of what makes the European industry noncompetitive is industrial inefficiency.  Much of the cost in developing Ariane 6 is actually not directly related to the rocket design but altering the manufacturing process to improve launch cadence and cut costs.  This will be beneficial to any future launch system including Ariane Next.

c) Ariane 5 is not viable in a competitive commercial market (see below).  It has only succeeded in the past because there were few reliable alternatives.


Ariane 5 is a great launch vehicle that could continue to be as viable as it is now well into the 2020s, especially for pairs of GTO deliveries;


 :o

If Ariane 6 with a much higher launch rate and ~45% price reduction is not competitive as you claim, how on earth is Ariane 5?  This attitude is nonsensical.  Ariane 5 is NOT a great launch vehicle, that point is why Europe has ****ed around with Soyuz trying to recapture the institutional launch market that Ariane 5 simply couldn't cater for.  Ariane 5 is heavily reliant on capturing a significant fraction of the commercial market as it has no other way to stay financially afloat (past subsidies).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hkultala on 11/30/2017 03:10 pm
Assuming this must have considerable truth to it -- since you and so many others are pointing at the same reality without naming it -- why build an intermediate rocket at all is the question.

Because;

a) As has been pointed out numerous times the technology does not exist in Europe yet, to develop them will take the better part of a decade when changes to the launch industry need to happen now, not a few years time.

Ariane 5 could keep launching that better part of decade, wasting less money that Ariane 6 development wastes.

Quote
b) Part of what makes the European industry noncompetitive is industrial inefficiency.  Much of the cost in developing Ariane 6 is actually not directly related to the rocket design but altering the manufacturing process to improve launch cadence and cut costs.  This will be beneficial to any future launch system including Ariane Next.

Manufacturing technology improvements for SRBs are useless for reusable liquid-fueled rocket.

Quote

c) Ariane 5 is not viable in a competitive commercial market (see below).  It has only succeeded in the past because there were few reliable alternatives.


Ariane 6 is neither.

Quote
Ariane 5 is a great launch vehicle that could continue to be as viable as it is now well into the 2020s, especially for pairs of GTO deliveries;


 :o

If Ariane 6 with a much higher launch rate and ~45% price reduction is not competitive as you claim, how on earth is Ariane 5? 

It's not.

Quote
This attitude is nonsensical. 

No, what is nonsensical is to waste billions to develop another non-competitive launcher. It would be cheaper to keep flying Ariane 5 until they can create a truely competitive reusable launcher than waste billions to develop Ariane 6 which is a dead-end architecture.

Vinci is practically the only part of Ariane 6 that can be used for future reusable rocket, and it could also be used in Ariane 5.

They should just finish Ariane 5 ME, skip Ariane 6 and develop a true next-generation reusable rocket with hydrocarbon first stage.

Quote
Ariane 5 is NOT a great launch vehicle, that point is why Europe has ****ed around with Soyuz trying to recapture the institutional launch market that Ariane 5 simply couldn't cater for.

The reason they need Soyuz is that they lack a launcher in the low-end of the medium launch category, Ariane V is oversized and so over-expensive for many payloads.

Ariane 6 adds the 62-model which is smaller and considerably cheaper than Ariane 5 but even that is still more expensive than Soyuz.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/30/2017 04:47 pm
The development of Ariane 5ME would have cost at most one billion less then Ariane 6 development.
And ESA/European institutions still had to rely on foreign launchers for their institutional payloads.

With the development of Ariane 6 Arianegroup got the responsibility to design the launcher. The geographical return principle has been droped. If a subcontractor can't reach cost targets, it could lose it's work package.
(But replacing the tooling elsewhere is an obstacle in relocating a work package)

The reason they need Soyuz is that they lack a launcher in the low-end of the medium launch category, Ariane V is oversized and so over-expensive for many payloads.

Ariane 6 adds the 62-model which is smaller and considerably cheaper than Ariane 5 but even that is still more expensive than Soyuz.
A launch of a Soyuz from CSG and Ariane 62 will cost about the same to the costumer. But Ariane 62 has 1.4x the launch capability of Soyuz. (7mT instead of 4.5mT to SSO; 4.5mT instead of 3.2mT to GTO. And I expect Ariane 6 numbers are conservative.)

Let's also add that the Soyuz launches will be replaced by both Vega-C (<2.2mT) and Ariane 62. And Vega-C is cheaper because Ariane 6 uses the same P120C booster. Because P120C is produced at a rate ~35 annually, it's so affordable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GreenShrike on 11/30/2017 09:52 pm
If Ariane 6 with a much higher launch rate and ~45% price reduction is not competitive as you claim, how on earth is Ariane 5? 

It's not.

Quote
This attitude is nonsensical. 

No, what is nonsensical is to waste billions to develop another non-competitive launcher. It would be cheaper to keep flying Ariane 5 until they can create a truely competitive reusable launcher than waste billions to develop Ariane 6 which is a dead-end architecture.

At the risk of bringing math into it, the way that I look at it, A6 will take €2815M, €400M from industry and the rest from government to develop (figures from Wikipedia). There's also the €200M CNES contract for the new ELA-4 launch site, so say the total A6 development costs are €3000M.

If A64 is half the cost of A5 per launch, and A5 costs €150M to launch, then €75M is saved per A64 flight.

It will thus take €3000M / €75M = ~40 A64 flights before A6 has paid back its development costs in savings over A5 flights.

(I'm ignoring A62 flights because it's apparently a Soyuz replacement that doesn't save money over flying Soyuz -- flying it ultimately just helps bring down the cost of A64 flights.)

At 6 flights per year, and assuming that it takes 3 years to develop and start flying A64 exclusively over A5 (which seems unlikely, as there's a phase-in period), it'll take a full decade before ESA can say A64 has saved them any money.

But LM5/6/7, H3 and GSLV Mk3/ULV will all be wanting their own piece of the commercial spaceflight pie (as will, of course, the new American companies) so that decade is potentially longer if ESA can't round up 12 launch contracts per year to fill their 6 dual-launch A64s in the face of renewed world-wide competition -- and possibly never if A64 is retired before accumulating 40-odd launches.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/01/2017 01:30 am
At 6 flights per year, and assuming that it takes 3 years to develop and start flying A64 exclusively over A5 (which seems unlikely, as there's a phase-in period), it'll take a full decade before ESA can say A64 has saved them any money.

Math is good.  More math is better.  The pay-back for A6 is being chased relentlessly by the time value of money.  Musk put 5% for BFR (unrealistically low), but you might consider discounting 7-8% per annum for cost of capital for A6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/01/2017 11:01 am
Again read the Answers to Questions of Germany document.
Indeed the investment in Ariane 6 will most likely never return by savings on launch services.
Governments have other motivations and methods to justify the investments made for Ariane 6.
These investments give Europe independent acces to space, and beter control over launch cost and schedule.
The (sub-)contractors for Ariane 6 create high tech jobs in the member-states that have invested in Ariane 6. The employees will spend their money in the countries they live in, stimulating that economy (multiplier effect).
It's the increase in tax incomes that are the second justification for the investment in Ariane 6, next to the guaranteed European acces to space. (again: Expert, PAZ, Sentinel 5P, Sentinel 3B, QB-50, ...)

Governments have very different funding costs than companies. Several European nations have negative intrest rates on short term state loans.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 12/01/2017 06:09 pm
If Ariane 6 with a much higher launch rate and ~45% price reduction is not competitive as you claim, how on earth is Ariane 5? 

It's not.

Quote
This attitude is nonsensical. 

No, what is nonsensical is to waste billions to develop another non-competitive launcher. It would be cheaper to keep flying Ariane 5 until they can create a truely competitive reusable launcher than waste billions to develop Ariane 6 which is a dead-end architecture.

At the risk of bringing math into it, the way that I look at it, A6 will take €2815M, €400M from industry and the rest from government to develop (figures from Wikipedia). There's also the €200M CNES contract for the new ELA-4 launch site, so say the total A6 development costs are €3000M.

If A64 is half the cost of A5 per launch, and A5 costs €150M to launch, then €75M is saved per A64 flight.

It will thus take €3000M / €75M = ~40 A64 flights before A6 has paid back its development costs in savings over A5 flights.

(I'm ignoring A62 flights because it's apparently a Soyuz replacement that doesn't save money over flying Soyuz -- flying it ultimately just helps bring down the cost of A64 flights.)

At 6 flights per year, and assuming that it takes 3 years to develop and start flying A64 exclusively over A5 (which seems unlikely, as there's a phase-in period), it'll take a full decade before ESA can say A64 has saved them any money.

But LM5/6/7, H3 and GSLV Mk3/ULV will all be wanting their own piece of the commercial spaceflight pie (as will, of course, the new American companies) so that decade is potentially longer if ESA can't round up 12 launch contracts per year to fill their 6 dual-launch A64s in the face of renewed world-wide competition -- and possibly never if A64 is retired before accumulating 40-odd launches.

Numbers quoted are for a 40% savings, A6 over A5.  At $60M per flight, it will take 50 flights for pay back (i.e., never).

As Rik ISS-fan testifies:
Quote
Indeed the investment in Ariane 6 will most likely never return by savings on launch services.
'Most likely never' meaning 'Never'

Quote
These investments give Europe independent acces to space
So does staying with A-5.

Quote
...beter control over launch cost and schedule.
Spending double the funds on development instead of launch is not 'better control'...
Using an existing launcher is better control over schedule than using a newly developing one.

Quote
The (sub-)contractors for Ariane 6 create high tech jobs in the member-states that have invested in Ariane 6. The employees will spend their money in the countries they live in, stimulating that economy (multiplier effect).
So does developing a world-competitive launcher, while continuing to launch the existing systems.

Quote
Governments have very different funding costs than companies. Several European nations have negative intrest rates on short term state loans.
Doesn't justify throwing money at the wrong target, building a system that will be obsolete when it first launches. 

The USA has a very similar horrible habit -- but throws this much cash away each year -- so this isn't Euro-bashing.  Just have difficulty watching yet another intelligent group making the same exact mistake... for most of the same reasons.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/01/2017 10:43 pm
I forgot to and 'institutional' to my statement that the investments won't be earned back with launch cost.
The ~€1 billion additionally invested in development of A6 instead of A5ME will be earned back, by lower launch cost for institutional launches. This will take about a decade (Check the Q2A document).

Arianespace is able to offer it's services at ~40% lower prices with A6 than in could with A5. But the largest benefit is the fact that Ariane 6 can insert payloads into different orbits.
In 2016 Arianespace launched two A5ECA's with a single payload. With Ariane 6 they could offer a A62 instead of A64; and/or offer a increased perogee, thus lower dV and less time to reach GTO.
Ariane 6 is also far more suitable for deploying satellite constelations. Because with A62 half the capability of A64 or a A5ME can be offered.
A5ME wouldn't have had a lower launch price than A5ECA. And the European institutions would still have to rely on non-European  launchers for their satellites.

Arianegroup has doubt there will be enough launch demand for Ariane 6. They want to produce 35x P120c boosters and 11x LLPM, ULPM and Fairings. (Production rate of 1/month)
If launch requirement is lower, thus less has to be produced, the cost of Ariane 6 will increase. This is why they are very sceptical  about reuse.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JMSC on 12/08/2017 05:09 am
I forgot to and 'institutional' to my statement that the investments won't be earned back with launch cost.
The ~€1 billion additionally invested in development of A6 instead of A5ME will be earned back, by lower launch cost for institutional launches. This will take about a decade (Check the Q2A document).

Arianespace is able to offer it's services at ~40% lower prices with A6 than in could with A5. But the largest benefit is the fact that Ariane 6 can insert payloads into different orbits.


Just my 2 cents but the biggest issue with Ariane 6 at this time seems to be the assumed 40% reduction in prices.  This price is based on the assumption that Ariane 6 retaining Arianespace's current share of the comm sat business in the 2020s, and will have 7 commercial launches plus 5 institutional launches that will largely come from shutting down Soyuz.  But what happens if the 7 commercial launches a year don't materialize as many on this forum and the press currently speculate? After all US, Russian and Chinese companies can plan for a certain base case due to the fact the government in each country controls the majority of the market, for A6 this just isn't the case and they can't plan on fickle commercial providers to continue to support them the same way they have in past decades. 

If A64 does not capture the 7+/- assumed commercial launches each year, the 40% per flight cost reduction will not materialize and Arianespace is in the same spot they would be if Ariane 5 kept flying into the 2020s.  A cost prohibitive launcher, with prices for institutional launches which will be well above the advertised €70 million price for A62 and too expensive for the existing market just as A5 currently is.  Not only will A62 be affected but Vega's cost will become prohibitive as A64 is supposed to be taking the bulk of P120 production.  If A64s commercial flight rates drops to Proton levels, then all cost projections for A6 and Vega can just be thrown out the window.

To put my point in a little more perspective I definitely think Europe needs its own launcher capability, and I would certainly prefer a situation where the US would be buying seats to the ISS from ESA instead of Roscosmos.  However, the current market plan for A6 increasingly looks like a fantasy.  I think ESA and Arianespace need to start planning on not meeting the A64 launch target or their advertised cost goals.  That likely means increasing getting even more than 5 institutional launches per year for A62, and even looking at additional markets beyond the Comm Sat and European Institutional Launch Market.  A restart of ISS resupply flights would be great, along with possible more EU military cooperation on space and other markets.  Other questions are can the A62 be more optimized for the LEO market, can prometheus or lower cost engines be brought on board sooner, and how can a reusable technologies to support ESA's much more modest goals than SpaceX and BO be developed sooner and in parallel with A6.  I just think the sooner the ESA admits that the 7+5 formula for A6 is in trouble and starts working from let's say a more realistic market outlook, the better off they will be in the 2020s.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/08/2017 03:47 pm
JMSC I share this concern, a little bit.
ArianeGroup initially planned for 6x Ariane 62 and 5x Ariane 64 (12+20+3=35x P120C). Some institutional launches will also use A64 launches. The request from Arianegroup was for 5 institutional payloads (A62 launch / A64 payload).
According to this Air-Cosmos article (http://www.air-cosmos.com/l-europe-en-ordre-de-bataille-104299); from 2020-2022 there is an average institutional demand from 7 payloads.
If GEO comsat launch demand is lower, Arianespace could launch them individually on A62, with this method Arianespace will keep A6 launch rate at 11 +/-1.
 
I don't share your worry about the cost for Vega-C/E. I don't have the details about the P120C production sequence. But I expect multiple production-lines are required to produce 35 P120C stages annually. If the demand for P120C stages is lower than expected, less production-lines will be build. I expect the decision how many production-lines are required, will be made between 2020 and 2021. If a production line is used optimally, the P120C cost are low.
Forecasting the future is really difficult, I think Ariane 6 is the best Arianegroup could do at this moment.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/08/2017 04:18 pm
Again read the Answers to Questions of Germany document.
Indeed the investment in Ariane 6 will most likely never return by savings on launch services.
Governments have other motivations and methods to justify the investments made for Ariane 6.
These investments give Europe independent acces to space, and beter control over launch cost and schedule.
The (sub-)contractors for Ariane 6 create high tech jobs in the member-states that have invested in Ariane 6. The employees will spend their money in the countries they live in, stimulating that economy (multiplier effect).
It's the increase in tax incomes that are the second justification for the investment in Ariane 6, next to the guaranteed European acces to space. (again: Expert, PAZ, Sentinel 5P, Sentinel 3B, QB-50, ...)

Governments have very different funding costs than companies. Several European nations have negative intrest rates on short term state loans.
A lot of new space startups are started by people who have developed their skill set and contacts working on these projects.

Blue and SpaceX have had access to large pool of experienced workers from old space companies, most of which wouldn't exist without large government projects.
In turn Blue and SpaceX workers have gone onto creating new space startups.

Those startups result in large sums of private venture capital going into technology development.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/08/2017 04:24 pm
Let's post several links:
Again: Air-Cosmos (http://www.air-cosmos.com/l-europe-en-ordre-de-bataille-104299)
mausonaut at the Mureaux presentation part 3 (https://mausonaut.wordpress.com/2017/12/06/looking-behind-the-scenes-of-arianegroup-in-les-mureaux-part-3/) (lots of images)
France with worries about Ariane 6 competitiveness: Challenges.fr (https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/aeronautique/spacex-va-t-il-faire-exploser-ariane-6-des-son-lancement_518328)
The Challenges article linked to: institutmontaigne.org; Space: Europe counterattacks? (http://www.institutmontaigne.org/publications/espace-leurope-contre-attaque)
Peter B. de Selding tweet1 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/938327895759638528) & tweet2 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/938406632148668416)
Twitter #PerspectivesSpatiales (https://twitter.com/hashtag/PerspectivesSpatiales?src=hash)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 12/08/2017 09:52 pm
Personally I love Ariane 6  because it expands ESA capability and brings the launcher closer to becoming useful for Lunar work .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: e of pi on 01/12/2018 01:17 pm
Lengthy interview by brest.malville.com with Stephane Isreal

The topics discussed - SpaceX, constellations, buy European, etc... - have been raised before, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

Ariane reste "confiant" devant les ambitions de SpaceX (https://brest.maville.com/actu/actudet_-ariane-reste-confiant-devant-les-ambitions-de-spacex_54135-3357018_actu.Htm)

My attempt at translation is here: https://twitter.com/AuerSusan/status/951750445592121344
Thanks for the translation, calapine! I saw one thing that intrigued me: the interview subject described SpaceX as having an order book "two thirds institutional and one third commercial", and thus that Ariane with it's order book being 2/3 commercial and 1/3 institutional is "infinitely more engaged" in commercial launch. If that's translated correctly, it's a whopper of a misrepresentation by the subject: for instance, last year, SpaceX launched 18 payloads, of which 12 were commercial bid-and-won contracts. That's exactly the "2/3 commercial" ratio the subject is trying to claim SpaceX doesn't have. I get the feeling Ariane still doesn't grasp their situation entirely, or isn't willing to admit it if they have, at least externally.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JH on 01/12/2018 03:51 pm
I saw one thing that intrigued me: the interview subject described SpaceX as having an order book "two thirds institutional and one third commercial", and thus that Ariane with it's order book being 2/3 commercial and 1/3 institutional is "infinitely more engaged" in commercial launch. If that's translated correctly, it's a whopper of a misrepresentation by the subject: for instance, last year, SpaceX launched 18 payloads, of which 12 were commercial bid-and-won contracts. That's exactly the "2/3 commercial" ratio the subject is trying to claim SpaceX doesn't have.

To be fair, he did say "by value" and SpaceX's government launches tend to cost significantly more than their commercial ones. He might be counting the cost of dragons against Spacex in order to pad out the numbers. He is obviously trying to put a good spin on things.

Also, did you notice his suggestion that Arianespace should get a monopoly on European institutional payloads, as well as block buys? Seeking shelter rather than trying to survive in the real market.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/13/2018 04:17 pm
I saw one thing that intrigued me: the interview subject described SpaceX as having an order book "two thirds institutional and one third commercial", and thus that Ariane with it's order book being 2/3 commercial and 1/3 institutional is "infinitely more engaged" in commercial launch. If that's translated correctly, it's a whopper of a misrepresentation by the subject: for instance, last year, SpaceX launched 18 payloads, of which 12 were commercial bid-and-won contracts. That's exactly the "2/3 commercial" ratio the subject is trying to claim SpaceX doesn't have.

To be fair, he did say "by value" and SpaceX's government launches tend to cost significantly more than their commercial ones. He might be counting the cost of dragons against Spacex in order to pad out the numbers. He is obviously trying to put a good spin on things.

Also, did you notice his suggestion that Arianespace should get a monopoly on European institutional payloads, as well as block buys? Seeking shelter rather than trying to survive in the real market.

The SpaceX manifest has the same one third institutional launches as he claims.  Your point on the Dragons is right on... that is a second line of business that gains revenue for SpaceX.

Current manifest of 70 or so flights, when adjusted by the commercial flights SpaceX will fly to lift its constellation (about half of ArianeSpace launches, by the way, but mostly Soyuz) adds to something like 150 flights between now and 2022, 80% of which are commercial.

Interesting that he also recognizes the competitive position of Blue with New Glenn... and finally talks somewhat seriously about the European answer to reusable vehicles... but only 2030 and beyond.  Ariane 6 sales or lack thereof will challenge that timeline.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/14/2018 01:40 pm
First about the behavior in the Ariane 6 Update topic:
I find the comments about Update only way more annoying that a relevant counter question or comment. Please stop posting this these types of comments. Just reply on it on the discussion topic and let moderators (re)move the non-update posts.  Each page of the Ariane 6 update topic contains several of these (non-update) comments).

AFAIK Arianespace isn't allowed to offer the Ariane 6 commercially jet. Most likely this is also the case for Vega C. The Vega C and Ariane 6 launches are institutional ones. I think Arianespace is allowed to offer Ariane 6 after (Maturity Gate) MG7, End of Critical Design, planed for the middle of this year.
Arianespace and ESA are first doing four test launches (FM1-FM4) to qualify the two versions of Ariane 6 (source:  A6 User's Club slide 13.).
The first Gallileo launch is most likely FM2, the second launch is not a test/qualification launch.
From the same presentation (slide 12), we can see that there are already three order blocks planned. I think one has been awarded the QM+FM1 order. This involves ground qualification specimens and the first launch (a A62). (Start of QM Assembly is Maturity Gate 8.1 planned for April.)
The second order block, EIS involves FM2 - FM15, these will be used during the transition phase (2020-2022).
From 2023 Arianespace and industry will most likely have reached FOC (Full Operations Capability), this is the point where the Ariane 6 development projects ends. From 2023 Arianegroup will size production rate to launch demand.
I can't draw conclusions jet on the succes or failure of the Ariane 6 program. I am convinced that the Ariane 6 development was by far the best option ESA/European launcher industry had in 2012/2014.
The satellite and launcher market are changing considerably in the 2010-2020 period. I think there are far more important aspects to the market change than the introduction of Falcon 9 and New Glenn. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/14/2018 05:22 pm
First about the behavior in the Ariane 6 Update topic:
I find the comments about Update only way more annoying that a relevant counter question or comment. Please stop posting this these types of comments. Just reply on it on the discussion topic and let moderators (re)move the non-update posts.  Each page of the Ariane 6 update topic contains several of these (non-update) comments).

The reason those update-only reminders are in the update thread is that quite often non-update posts are posted in the update thread.

The reminder usually has the effect that the offending non-update post is retracted by the poster and placed into the discussion thread.

aka self-moderation, which makes life a little bit easier on the mods. They have their hands full on the busier threads, such as the million+ SpaceX threads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/14/2018 05:25 pm
Nothing goes above Lego!
twitter ArianeGroup (https://twitter.com/ArianeGroup/status/951842844519657472)
I had a very good laugh.

This proves Jim wrong, once and for all. Rockets really are LEGOs.   ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/14/2018 06:21 pm
So to summarise Stéphane Israel’s interview wrt SpaceX competition (with help from Google translate):

1. Ariane 6 being 40% cheaper than Ariane 5 is good enough
2. This is due to:
     a. meeting European institutional needs
     b. the market not wanting a monopoly provider
3. Good things (innovations) to come later in the 2020s
4. But need to get those European institutions (more) locked in to buying Ariane

No mention of reuse not being proven economically.

My interpretation: Arianespace thinks 2nd place is the best they can get in the international launch market and they’re ok with that providing Europe buys European.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hektor on 01/14/2018 06:37 pm
Well it works as long as Blue Origin does not materialize as a viable option.

You could have a SpaceX - Blue Origin duopoly which would sideline Arianespace.

So Arianespace sadly enough will have to hope for their competitors to fail.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/14/2018 07:23 pm
Here's the problem with Ariane 6:

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/

They have a competitor that is already reusing first stages successfully to compete against them and they have technology under development that they could choose to put into a program to develop their next production vehicle.  Instead, though, they're not going to change their plans for Ariane 6, which will not be in production use for five year, and instead "see where we are in 2025 or 2030".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/14/2018 08:33 pm
After selling Ariane 6 and it's not insignificant development tab so hard, and still needing commitments to 'exploitation' of this vehicle for institutional payloads, I can see why everyone is saying it is the only game in town.  Problem is, it isn't...  They best get into development on Ariane Next and then production for a mid-2020s introduction, or they'll never catch up. 

Waiting until 2025 or 2030 to 'see where we are' is crazy talk.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gongora on 01/15/2018 12:51 am
I saw one thing that intrigued me: the interview subject described SpaceX as having an order book "two thirds institutional and one third commercial", and thus that Ariane with it's order book being 2/3 commercial and 1/3 institutional is "infinitely more engaged" in commercial launch. If that's translated correctly, it's a whopper of a misrepresentation by the subject: for instance, last year, SpaceX launched 18 payloads, of which 12 were commercial bid-and-won contracts. That's exactly the "2/3 commercial" ratio the subject is trying to claim SpaceX doesn't have.

To be fair, he did say "by value" and SpaceX's government launches tend to cost significantly more than their commercial ones. He might be counting the cost of dragons against Spacex in order to pad out the numbers. He is obviously trying to put a good spin on things.

Also, did you notice his suggestion that Arianespace should get a monopoly on European institutional payloads, as well as block buys? Seeking shelter rather than trying to survive in the real market.

The SpaceX manifest has the same one third institutional launches as he claims.  ...

I count the current SpaceX manifest as just over 1/2 goverment payloads (not all U.S. government).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/15/2018 12:08 pm
I saw one thing that intrigued me: the interview subject described SpaceX as having an order book "two thirds institutional and one third commercial", and thus that Ariane with it's order book being 2/3 commercial and 1/3 institutional is "infinitely more engaged" in commercial launch. If that's translated correctly, it's a whopper of a misrepresentation by the subject: for instance, last year, SpaceX launched 18 payloads, of which 12 were commercial bid-and-won contracts. That's exactly the "2/3 commercial" ratio the subject is trying to claim SpaceX doesn't have.

To be fair, he did say "by value" and SpaceX's government launches tend to cost significantly more than their commercial ones. He might be counting the cost of dragons against Spacex in order to pad out the numbers. He is obviously trying to put a good spin on things.

Also, did you notice his suggestion that Arianespace should get a monopoly on European institutional payloads, as well as block buys? Seeking shelter rather than trying to survive in the real market.

The SpaceX manifest has the same one third institutional launches as he claims.  ...

I count the current SpaceX manifest as just over 1/2 goverment payloads (not all U.S. government).

All non-USG payloads are competed payloads (as are all USG payloads come to think of it).  The institutional payloads for ArianeSpace are not competed internally or externally.  This is a notable difference than what you are suggesting.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/15/2018 03:16 pm
A reality check for some people:
1) Never there is going to be a duopoly in the launch market. There will always be at least 7 launch providers;
Ariane / Vega - Arianespace - Europe
H2 / H3 - JAXA / MHI - Japan
Soyuz 2 / 5 (Zenit) | Angara / Proton - GL launch/ S7/ILS - Russia
PSLV /GSLV - ISRO - India
Long March (2/3/4/) 5/6/7/8/ 11 - CALC - China (and the Kuaizhou ICBM derivatives)

USA: multiple (2+)
Atlas V / Delta IV / Vulcan - ULA
Falcon 9 / Heavy / BFR - SpaceX
New Glenn / New Armstrong - Blue Origin
SLS - NASA (this has cost >50% of Ariane 6 total development cost, each year for the past 20 years !!!)
Pegasus / Minotour / Antares / NGL - Orbital ATK (Northrop Grumman)

No way China, India and Russia are going to rely on American launchers, the same holds for Europe and Japan. In the 1970's the US has shown to be totally unreliable launch provider.
So please quit speculating about a duopoly, it's not the case.

2) About competition on institutional launches.
AFAIK all US government satellites have to be launched on American launchers. Since there are multiple providers in the US there is a tender proces, but this isn't a commercial launch. This is also how the market works in Russia, India, China and Japan. Only in Europe governments search for the best launch opportunity globally.
If this is changed, and institutional satellites (from member-states that contribute to the production of Arianespace launchers) have to launch with Arianespace, there is still competition between Ariane and Vega (ArianeGroup and ELV).

3) On re-usability; only two providers on the list above (1) are seriously considering reusability.

They have a competitor that is already reusing first stages successfully to compete against them and they have technology under development that they could choose to put into a program to develop their next production vehicle.  Instead, though, they're not going to change their plans for Ariane 6, which will not be in production use for five year, and instead "see where we are in 2025 or 2030".
Read this one please: ArianeGroup (https://www.ariane.group/en/news/ariane6-production-en/), the Ariane 6 is in production. Construction of FM1 has just commenced. 
The current plan is that in 2023 the Ariane 5 is phased out and replaced by Ariane 6. The transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 takes place between mid 2020 and end 2022. That's 2.5 - 5 years from now.
Edit to add: The EIS lot involves FM2 - FM15 between 2020 and 2022.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hektor on 01/15/2018 03:54 pm
Of course there is a duopoly in the launch market. Most of the launchers you mention are anecdotical.

The duopoly used to be Proton - Ariane and has been so for quite some tine. It is now Falcon 9 - Ariane.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Khadgars on 01/15/2018 03:56 pm
I saw one thing that intrigued me: the interview subject described SpaceX as having an order book "two thirds institutional and one third commercial", and thus that Ariane with it's order book being 2/3 commercial and 1/3 institutional is "infinitely more engaged" in commercial launch. If that's translated correctly, it's a whopper of a misrepresentation by the subject: for instance, last year, SpaceX launched 18 payloads, of which 12 were commercial bid-and-won contracts. That's exactly the "2/3 commercial" ratio the subject is trying to claim SpaceX doesn't have.

To be fair, he did say "by value" and SpaceX's government launches tend to cost significantly more than their commercial ones. He might be counting the cost of dragons against Spacex in order to pad out the numbers. He is obviously trying to put a good spin on things.

Also, did you notice his suggestion that Arianespace should get a monopoly on European institutional payloads, as well as block buys? Seeking shelter rather than trying to survive in the real market.

The SpaceX manifest has the same one third institutional launches as he claims.  ...

I count the current SpaceX manifest as just over 1/2 goverment payloads (not all U.S. government).

All non-USG payloads are competed payloads (as are all USG payloads come to think of it).  The institutional payloads for ArianeSpace are not competed internally or externally.  This is a notable difference than what you are suggesting.

That is an excellent point.  I feel like the Europeans think SpaceX is just handed all of these "institutional" payloads, when in-fact they all had to be won via competitive bids.

There may not be a "duopoly" but Europe could very well find its self isolated and only launching its own, non-bid payloads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 01/15/2018 04:13 pm
There may not be a "duopoly" but Europe could very well find its self isolated and only launching its own, non-bid payloads.

Which is not the case today. Probably not in the future either. The Ariane Group move to change this faces strong opposition from the institutional payload providers.

US institutional payloads are competed between US providers.
EU institutional payloads are competed worldwide.

That is not the same, not even close.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gongora on 01/15/2018 04:24 pm
I think it's kinda ridiculous to see so many Americans complaining about Arianespace wanting guarantees of European government payloads.  The U.S. government payloads are only competed between U.S. launch companies.  Arianespace can't compete for them.  Same for Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and smaller Indian government payloads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Khadgars on 01/15/2018 05:05 pm
None of us are complaining.  We are just stating the obvious, that Europe will not compete well in the open market with their next Gen launch vehicle.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Toast on 01/15/2018 05:31 pm
A reality check for some people:
1) Never there is going to be a duopoly in the launch market. There will always be at least 7 launch providers

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find somebody who believes that there will literally be only two launch providers in the near-term future, but it's totally within the realm of possibility for there to be an effective duopoly, where the vast majority of launches (especially launches of commercial payloads) are performed by only two providers and all other players are relegated to small niche markets. I mean, last year half of all launches were performed by only three rocket families: Falcon 9, R-7, and CZ. The market is likely to get even more concentrated this year, as Falcon and CZ are both expecting a higher launch cadence, to say nothing of the market two or three years from now when Ariane 6 will be getting ready to fly.

And with that kind of competition, I just don't think Ariane 6 will be making much gains in terms of market share in the environment of the 2020's. Sure, Ariane 6 won't just go away--Europe will want to use their own launchers when possible, and they'll probably get some commercial contracts. But I highly doubt they'll even break 10% of the market, and maybe not even 5%.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/15/2018 05:41 pm
Of course there is a duopoly in the launch market. Most of the launchers you mention are anecdotical.

The duopoly used to be Proton - Zenit (SeaLaunch) -Ariane and has been so for quite some tine. It is now Falcon 9 - Ariane.
this is when you look to GTO.

If you look to LEO/SSO you'll need to mention: Soyuz, Delta II, Dnepr and Rockot.
Of you look at ride share by far the winner the last ~3 years is PSLV (and deployment from the ISS and EELV).
Spaceflight can hardly use US launches for their ride-share services, SpaceX has delayed their launch for over two years before Spaceflight canceled it. The satellites were moved to PSLV and Soyuz.

PS. I disagree with Toast.
Your argument is valid for 2017 only. R7(Soyuz) is a constant launch champion, but Atlas V has been second for years (because of the huge US institutional demand).
Ariane 6 and the Vega's will take over the demand from Europe, this was spread over:
Ariane 5, Soyuz (R7), Vega, Dnepr, Rockot and Falcon 9 (the last couple of years).
It was Arianespace_Starsem that launched the Globalstar and O3B networks, and will launch the first constellation of Oneweb (along with Launcher One and later New Glenn and Ariane6).

Edit to add: I've to admit that I've overlooked the Long March launcher family as well. I hope it will transition from the 2/3/4 to the 5/6/7 (8/9). But they can't compete for commercial launches because of the US ITAR regulations!!!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/15/2018 05:47 pm
Quote from: GreenShrike
At the risk of bringing math into it, the way that I look at it, A6 will take €2815M, €400M from industry and the rest from government to develop (figures from Wikipedia). There's also the €200M CNES contract for the new ELA-4 launch site, so say the total A6 development costs are €3000M.

If A64 is half the cost of A5 per launch, and A5 costs €150M to launch, then €75M is saved per A64 flight.

It will thus take €3000M / €75M = ~40 A64 flights before A6 has paid back its development costs in savings over A5 flights.

(I'm ignoring A62 flights because it's apparently a Soyuz replacement that doesn't save money over flying Soyuz -- flying it ultimately just helps bring down the cost of A64 flights.)

At 6 flights per year, and assuming that it takes 3 years to develop and start flying A64 exclusively over A5 (which seems unlikely, as there's a phase-in period), it'll take a full decade before ESA can say A64 has saved them any money.

But LM5/6/7, H3 and GSLV Mk3/ULV will all be wanting their own piece of the commercial spaceflight pie (as will, of course, the new American companies) so that decade is potentially longer if ESA can't round up 12 launch contracts per year to fill their 6 dual-launch A64s in the face of renewed world-wide competition -- and possibly never if A64 is retired before accumulating 40-odd launches.

Numbers quoted are for a 40% savings, A6 over A5.  At $60M per flight, it will take 50 flights for pay back (i.e., never).
Ariane 5 has been flying since 2002 and launched 96 times.
"Never" sounds pessimistic.
Quote from: AncientU
As Rik ISS-fan testifies:
Quote
Indeed the investment in Ariane 6 will most likely never return by savings on launch services.
'Most likely never' meaning 'Never'

Quote
These investments give Europe independent acces to space
So does staying with A-5.
Quote from: AncientU
So does developing a world-competitive launcher, while continuing to launch the existing systems.
Regrettably Europe's best hope of developing such a system is sitting on an island hell bent on leaving the EU  :(

Quote from: AncientU
Quote
Governments have very different funding costs than companies. Several European nations have negative intrest rates on short term state loans.
Doesn't justify throwing money at the wrong target, building a system that will be obsolete when it first launches. 
Since you've clearly given much thought to this question what launch architecture would you suggest they use?
Quote from: AncientU
The USA has a very similar horrible habit -- but throws this much cash away each year -- so this isn't Euro-bashing.  Just have difficulty watching yet another intelligent group making the same exact mistake... for most of the same reasons.
Indeed. Once again a group is gearing up to fight the last war with the same sorts of weapons when the battlefield has changed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/15/2018 05:55 pm
All non-USG payloads are competed payloads (as are all USG payloads come to think of it). 

Competed=/=commercial.

Institutional payloads are not treated as commercial in the space business. They are not open market, for instance European providers cannot compete for USG payloads. A closed market is not truly commercial. 

The institutional payloads for ArianeSpace are not competed internally or externally.

Actually they are, that's precisely why ArianeGroup wants a Buy European act.  This is why for instance Arianespace got into the Soyuz launch business because Ariane 5 was too expensive for European institutions which instead turned to Russian (Soyuz, Rokot) alternatives. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/15/2018 06:15 pm
They have a competitor that is already reusing first stages successfully to compete against them and they have technology under development that they could choose to put into a program to develop their next production vehicle.  Instead, though, they're not going to change their plans for Ariane 6, which will not be in production use for five year, and instead "see where we are in 2025 or 2030".
Read this one please: ArianeGroup (https://www.ariane.group/en/news/ariane6-production-en/), the Ariane 6 is in production. Construction of FM1 has just commenced.

Construction of a prototype does not mean something is in production.  It's in production when it's being used on a regular basis for customers.

The current plan is that in 2023 the Ariane 5 is phased out and replaced by Ariane 6. The transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 takes place between mid 2020 and end 2022. That's 2.5 - 5 years from now.

Which means that Ariane 6 will be in production in 2023, which is five years.  The "transition" means that they're doing development launches of Ariane 6, but they don't yet trust it to take over for Ariane 5 until 2023.  That's what "in production" means to most people.

And that's best case, if everything goes according to plan.  If things slip, it will be longer than 5 years.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/15/2018 06:17 pm
A reality check for some people:
1) Never there is going to be a duopoly in the launch market. There will always be at least 7 launch providers;
Ariane / Vega - Arianespace - Europe
H2 / H3 - JAXA / MHI - Japan
Soyuz 2 / 5 (Zenit) | Angara / Proton - GL launch/ S7/ILS - Russia
PSLV /GSLV - ISRO - India
Long March (2/3/4/) 5/6/7/8/ 11 - CALC - China (and the Kuaizhou ICBM derivatives)

USA: multiple (2+)
Atlas V / Delta IV / Vulcan - ULA
Falcon 9 / Heavy / BFR - SpaceX
New Glenn / New Armstrong - Blue Origin
SLS - NASA (this has cost >50% of Ariane 6 total development cost, each year for the past 20 years !!!)
Pegasus / Minotour / Antares / NGL - Orbital ATK (Northrop Grumman)

No way China, India and Russia are going to rely on American launchers, the same holds for Europe and Japan. In the 1970's the US has shown to be totally unreliable launch provider.
So please quit speculating about a duopoly, it's rubbish.

If that's your opinion, fine, I welcome it and want to hear why you believe it.

But telling other people to stop expressing their opinions to the contrary and telling them their opinions are rubbish is not necessary and doesn't help your case.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/15/2018 06:20 pm
No way China, India and Russia are going to rely on American launchers, the same holds for Europe and Japan. In the 1970's the US has shown to be totally unreliable launch provider.

Times change.  It's not the 1970s any more, and it hasn't been for a very long time.

Many countries today use U.S. launch providers and don't have bad experiences with them.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/15/2018 06:29 pm
SLS - NASA (this has cost >50% of Ariane 6 total development cost, each year for the past 20 years !!!)

SLS hasn't even existed for 20 years.  It was started in September 2011, just over 6 years ago.

Even if you count previous programs for Constellation (which aren't really SLS at all since they focused on Ares I, not Ares V), you can't get back farther than 2004, which is only 13 years ago.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 01/15/2018 07:23 pm
I saw one thing that intrigued me: the interview subject described SpaceX as having an order book "two thirds institutional and one third commercial", and thus that Ariane with it's order book being 2/3 commercial and 1/3 institutional is "infinitely more engaged" in commercial launch. If that's translated correctly, it's a whopper of a misrepresentation by the subject: for instance, last year, SpaceX launched 18 payloads, of which 12 were commercial bid-and-won contracts. That's exactly the "2/3 commercial" ratio the subject is trying to claim SpaceX doesn't have.

To be fair, he did say "by value" and SpaceX's government launches tend to cost significantly more than their commercial ones. He might be counting the cost of dragons against Spacex in order to pad out the numbers. He is obviously trying to put a good spin on things.

Also, did you notice his suggestion that Arianespace should get a monopoly on European institutional payloads, as well as block buys? Seeking shelter rather than trying to survive in the real market.

The SpaceX manifest has the same one third institutional launches as he claims.  ...

I count the current SpaceX manifest as just over 1/2 goverment payloads (not all U.S. government).

All non-USG payloads are competed payloads (as are all USG payloads come to think of it).  The institutional payloads for ArianeSpace are not competed internally or externally.  This is a notable difference than what you are suggesting.
This is wrong.
Arianespace wants to change this but right now EU institutional payloads are competed. Worldwide, actually, which is not the case even for „competed“ USG payloads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 01/15/2018 07:26 pm
I saw one thing that intrigued me: the interview subject described SpaceX as having an order book "two thirds institutional and one third commercial", and thus that Ariane with it's order book being 2/3 commercial and 1/3 institutional is "infinitely more engaged" in commercial launch. If that's translated correctly, it's a whopper of a misrepresentation by the subject: for instance, last year, SpaceX launched 18 payloads, of which 12 were commercial bid-and-won contracts. That's exactly the "2/3 commercial" ratio the subject is trying to claim SpaceX doesn't have.

To be fair, he did say "by value" and SpaceX's government launches tend to cost significantly more than their commercial ones. He might be counting the cost of dragons against Spacex in order to pad out the numbers. He is obviously trying to put a good spin on things.

Also, did you notice his suggestion that Arianespace should get a monopoly on European institutional payloads, as well as block buys? Seeking shelter rather than trying to survive in the real market.

The SpaceX manifest has the same one third institutional launches as he claims.  ...

I count the current SpaceX manifest as just over 1/2 goverment payloads (not all U.S. government).

All non-USG payloads are competed payloads (as are all USG payloads come to think of it).  The institutional payloads for ArianeSpace are not competed internally or externally.  This is a notable difference than what you are suggesting.

That is an excellent point.  I feel like the Europeans think SpaceX is just handed all of these "institutional" payloads, when in-fact they all had to be won via competitive bids.

There may not be a "duopoly" but Europe could very well find its self isolated and only launching its own, non-bid payloads.
It is not an excellent point, it’s a completely wrong point.
Europa has no „non-bid“ payloads right now.
Arianespace wants that (who would not) but there’s zero chance for them to get it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/15/2018 07:29 pm
It is a bit rich of American posters to complain about European protectionism when the US is currently the worst offender.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 01/15/2018 07:52 pm
Ariane 6 has one major positive thing going for it: Increased capability.
Easy to ignore but finally and for the first time any and all missions can be flown with European launchers. Going for synergy with Vega C and the prospect of Vega E also works for me.

40% cost reduction over A5 is ok.
Paying 2400 million € for the A6 development + another 600 million € for ELA4 ...Not so great. (Actual final bill may vary.)


As far as the Buy European initiative goes. I'm actually for it. The market is skewed, might as well level the playing field and start to play the same game as everyone else.
I want a slightly different version though: Launch from Kourou, or in nations that launch institutional payloads from Kourou.
That would bring the ISRO offerings into play. Success rate is not so good, but that is something to weight in the bid process. None the less it would create instant competition for and price pressure on Ariane. Lasting pressure too, ISRO is not going away any time soon. Much better than A6 vs Vega or a future paper competitor that might pop up.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Khadgars on 01/15/2018 08:03 pm
It is a bit rich of American posters to complain about European protectionism when the US is currently the worst offender.

I didn't realize one administration constitutes the entire american economy.  The U.S is not the worst offender, China is by far this and has been for quite some time. 

I don't think any of us "Americans" are stating anything crazy here, we just don't see how Ariane 6 will be competitive except within its own market.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Toast on 01/15/2018 08:11 pm
PS. I disagree with Toast.
Your argument is valid for 2017 only. R7(Soyuz) is a constant launch champion, but Atlas V has been second for years (because of the huge US institutional demand).
Ariane 6 and the Vega's will take over the demand from Europe, this was spread over:
Ariane 5, Soyuz (R7), Vega, Dnepr, Rockot and Falcon 9 (the last couple of years).
It was Arianespace_Starsem that launched the Globalstar and O3B networks, and will launch the first constellation of Oneweb (along with Launcher One and later New Glenn and Ariane6).
You're getting caught up too much in the specifics of last year's numbers, and I think you missed my overall point. I used those numbers as an example of how a market could be concentrated into the hands of a few big players, even if smaller players still exist. I'm not saying that those specific players will always be the ones on top, or that it's those rockets in specific that will compete against Ariane 6. Just pointing out that a small number of rocket families can be responsible for a disproportionate amount of launches, and that there's nothing preventing the market from being even more concentrated.

But as far as Ariane 6's place in a crowded market, I still don't see how they're expecting to win market share. The max production rate is supposed to be under a dozen per year. That's not really a breakneck pace considering Soyuz can fly 20 times a year or more and Falcon 9 is aiming to be over 30 launches annually by the time Ariane 6 flies (to say nothing of more speculative competitors like New Glenn). Since Ariane 6 isn't really positioned to strongly undercut its competitors on price, I don't know that they'll win many contracts outside of Europe, and even inside Europe I doubt it'll monopolize launches to the extent you expect.   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/15/2018 08:33 pm
I didn't realize one administration constitutes the entire american economy.

Having a closed internal space market has been US policy for years, nothing to do with one administration.  And strangely there appear to be a lot of American posters on here that a) assume Europe does have a closed internal market and b) do not seem to realise that the US does.

The U.S is not the worst offender, China is by far this and has been for quite some time. 

How is the US space sector any more of a free market?  I was talking about protectionism, I think you are confusing the issue with state ownership; which is not directly related to the question of international commercial competition. 

I don't think any of us "Americans" are stating anything crazy here, we just don't see how Ariane 6 will be competitive except within its own market.

And the European posters are pointing out that without the US's closed internal market SpaceX wouldn't be as competitive.  As I said it's a bit rich to be talking about lack of competitiveness when one's own market is not truly competitive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/15/2018 09:42 pm
I didn't realize one administration constitutes the entire american economy.

Having a closed internal space market has been US policy for years, nothing to do with one administration.  And strangely there appear to be a lot of American posters on here that a) assume Europe does have a closed internal market and b) do not seem to realise that the US does.

The U.S is not the worst offender, China is by far this and has been for quite some time. 

How is the US space sector any more of a free market?  I was talking about protectionism, I think you are confusing the issue with state ownership; which is not directly related to the question of international commercial competition. 

I don't think any of us "Americans" are stating anything crazy here, we just don't see how Ariane 6 will be competitive except within its own market.

And the European posters are pointing out that without the US's closed internal market SpaceX wouldn't be as competitive.  As I said it's a bit rich to be talking about lack of competitiveness when one's own market is not truly competitive.

Worth noting that the company which receives the largest portion of its launches from the USG -- ULA @ 100% these days* -- is completely un-competitive with ArianeSpace.

Maybe, just maybe, there is another reason SpaceX is succeeding that some here are papering over.


* ... and the bulk of these launches are from the block buy which wasn't competed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/15/2018 09:48 pm
Worth noting that the company which receives the largest portion of its launches from the USG -- ULA @ 100% these days* -- is completely un-competitive with ArianeSpace.

Maybe, just maybe, there is another reason SpaceX is succeeding that some here are papering over.


* ... and the bulk of these launches are from the block buy which wasn't competed.

That doesn't change the fact SpaceX has access to a far larger market than Arianespace due to US protectionism.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/15/2018 09:53 pm
Worth noting that the company which receives the largest portion of its launches from the USG -- ULA @ 100% these days* -- is completely un-competitive with ArianeSpace.

Maybe, just maybe, there is another reason SpaceX is succeeding that some here are papering over.


* ... and the bulk of these launches are from the block buy which wasn't competed.

That doesn't change the fact SpaceX has access to a far larger market than Arianespace due to US protectionism.

For the last dozen years, that has been true for one American launch company... could say that it is more of a disadvantage than advantage if you look at all the data points.  SpaceX is more competitive because they are building a superior product at at an affordable price... you should try it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/15/2018 10:05 pm
It effectively acts as a state subsidy to american launch providers; some as you say have been content to play purely in that internal market and live off the pork. 

But you realise that this still puts SpaceX at a massively unfair advantage when you are comparing with international commercial launch providers?  As I say, it's a bit rich to moan about Arianespace's competitiveness or lack thereof when SpaceX doesn't come from a level playing field.

For instance a few posts above Toast mentions flight rate; but you realise higher flight rates, and the lower launch costs they potentially allow, are in part dependant on the size of the market you have access to?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/15/2018 10:28 pm
It effectively acts as a state subsidy to american launch providers; some as you say have been content to play purely in that internal market and live off the pork. 

But you realise that this still puts SpaceX at a massively unfair advantage when you are comparing with international commercial launch providers?  As I say, it's a bit rich to moan about Arianespace's competitiveness or lack thereof when SpaceX doesn't come from a level playing field.

For instance a few posts above Toast mentions flight rate; but you realise higher flight rates, and the lower launch costs they potentially allow, are in part dependant on the size of the market you have access to?

ArianeSpace has been selling Soyuz launches provided by the most subsidized[1] space program with the highest flight rate (until recent loss of market share to the same 'subsidized' competitor) -- is this what you mean?

...in part dependent, yes.  There is something much more important -- the elephant in the room -- that no one seems to notice[2].

[1] what do you call the 4billion Euros subsidizing Ariane 6 development? or the subsidized per launch 'support' for Ariane 5?  Level playing field huh?[3]
[2] acknowledge, that is... everyone is painfully 'noticing.'
[3] similar subsidies have been provided to one American launch company which, in part, has made them completely un-competitive.  Maybe un-level playing fields have left ArianeSpace unable to compete, too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/15/2018 10:41 pm
ArianeSpace has been selling Soyuz launches provided by the most subsidized space program with the highest flight rate (until recent loss of market share to the same 'subsidized' competitor) -- is this what you mean?

What has this got to do with anything? As I explained it was Arianespace's attempt to win more of the european institutional market, which is far far smaller than the US internal market, which had left for Russian suppliers (because unlike in the US they could). And for, the record, the US has by far the most subsidized space program.

This does not change the fact that it's ridiculous to compare commercial competitiveness between Arianespace and SpaceX when the latter has access to a far larger market.

[1] what do you call the 4billion Euros subsidizing Ariane 6 development? or the subsidized per launch 'support' for Ariane 5?  Level playing field huh?'

Did I say Arianepsace is not subsidised?  No, I didn't. However over the lifetime of a SpaceX rocket the US payloads, which Arianespace has no access to, are worth far more than that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/15/2018 11:13 pm
ArianeSpace has lived in a lovely glass subsidized house with its subsidized Russian partner for the last dozen years.

Bottom line is it needs to become competitive or it will lose more international market share.

SpaceX's access to a larger market is simply a red herring.  They are competing with an excellent product at a better price -- even the USG* is winning on launch costs which had become unsustainably high.


* (along with some European institutions)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/15/2018 11:53 pm
SLS - NASA (this has cost >50% of Ariane 6 total development cost, each year for the past 20 years !!!)

SLS hasn't even existed for 20 years.  It was started in September 2011, just over 6 years ago.

Even if you count previous programs for Constellation (which aren't really SLS at all since they focused on Ares I, not Ares V), you can't get back farther than 2004, which is only 13 years ago.
14 years and counting, since it is a carry over from the Vision for Space Exploration of Bush II.

What is that? $12Bn and counting I think?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/16/2018 12:02 am
It effectively acts as a state subsidy to american launch providers; some as you say have been content to play purely in that internal market and live off the pork. 

But you realise that this still puts SpaceX at a massively unfair advantage when you are comparing with international commercial launch providers?  As I say, it's a bit rich to moan about Arianespace's competitiveness or lack thereof when SpaceX doesn't come from a level playing field.

For instance a few posts above Toast mentions flight rate; but you realise higher flight rates, and the lower launch costs they potentially allow, are in part dependant on the size of the market you have access to?
You  need to understand the American definition of a "free" market.

One they can enter and undercut any existing suppliers in.

It's funny how fast a free market turns into a closed market when US suppliers don't win US orders.  :(
WRT to Ariane 5 and ULA IIRC A5 is about 20 more successful launches than ULA Atlas V, but how many NSS payloads have launched on it?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: rcoppola on 01/16/2018 12:20 am
I have little concern over European and/or American Civil/Military Launch Capability Protectionism. I believe both should have the necessary capabilities to launch whatever Civil/Military payloads they deem in the best interest of their populace or that of important, like-minded allies who don't have said capabilities.

Besides, there is no guarantee that any launch company that is fed and nourished through these protections, will innovate and evolve beyond the constraints & expenses typically imposed by servicing these interests and remain a commercially viable/competitive entity. (if they ever were to begin with)

At the end of it, the US invested heavily in platforms such as the ISS and created a legislative/legal/regulatory framework to encourage and allow companies like SpaceX and others to service it and all the carryover benefits therein. If that's unfair, then your welcome to do the same.

But in the final analysis, I ask myself this question: What would it cost to design and build a reusable A6, a fleet of reusable capsules to put on top of it, then to launch and recover them 12 times? Would Arianespace have been able to compete with SpaceX's offer on that initial Commercial Cargo Contract, before they received the benefits of having done so in the first place? IMO...not a chance. And that's ok. 2020 will see the board do a reset of sorts with Vulcan, New Glenn, A6 competing against a fully mature F9/FH Block 5. Let the games begin.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: meberbs on 01/16/2018 12:30 am
[1] what do you call the 4billion Euros subsidizing Ariane 6 development? or the subsidized per launch 'support' for Ariane 5?  Level playing field huh?'

Did I say Arianepsace is not subsidised?  No, I didn't. However over the lifetime of a SpaceX rocket the US payloads, which Arianespace has no access to, are worth far more than that.
When you accused SpaceX of being subsidized as being unfair to Aianespace without mentioning that they are subsidized as well, then you are directly implying that Airanespace is unsubsidized.

While your new statement is slightly more honest by admitting that Airanespace is directly subsidized (rather than the at best indirect subsidy to SpaceX). You are still misrepresenting things since you were claiming the about 3 USG* launches per year, say $30 million in profit to be generous, is greater that the $150 million per year (http://spacenews.com/renewed-arianespace-subsidies-prompt-protest-threat-ils/) that Airanespace has received. Besides which, the 21 Soyuz launches Arianespace sold to One Web kills your whole "larger market" theory.

*3 is typical, for past years, last year with the increased cadence was 6 USG out of 18 total, and this year should be about 8 USG out of about 30. Compared to the 6 Ariane, 3 Vega, and 2 Soyuz last year, SpaceX still had more non-USG missions than Arianespace.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gongora on 01/16/2018 01:00 am
At the end of it, the US invested heavily in platforms such as the ISS and created a legislative/legal/regulatory framework to encourage and allow companies like SpaceX and others to service it and all the carryover benefits therein. If that's unfair, then your welcome to do the same.

Just setting up a framework like that doesn't guarantee the same result.  The other CRS provider made a launch vehicle that isn't even remotely competitive on the open market.  SpaceX is a bit of a fluke.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/16/2018 01:34 am
When you accused SpaceX of being subsidized as being unfair to Aianespace without mentioning that they are subsidized as well, then you are directly implying that Airanespace is unsubsidized.

Err...no, that logically doesn't follow, especially as the very point I was making and repeated several times was that it was a bit rich to complain about it happening in Europe when American companies are by far the greater winners out of subsidy.  That by definition implies it happens in Europe.

You are still misrepresenting things since you were claiming the about 3 USG* launches per year, say $30 million in profit to be generous, is greater that the $150 million per year (http://spacenews.com/renewed-arianespace-subsidies-prompt-protest-threat-ils/) that Airanespace has received.

 :o

Sorry but this is la la land.  And talking profit makes no sense on what effectively is a government grant since it is the total value, value available to SpaceX and not Arianespace, that matters. And as you yourself point out the number of USG flights is increasing.

Besides which, the 21 Soyuz launches Arianespace sold to One Web kills your whole "larger market" theory.

Err no, since SpaceX could compete for One Web too as it was a commercial launch contract. The US internal market, which arianespace cannot compete in, by value is by far the largest space launch market. 

*3 is typical, for past years, last year with the increased cadence was 6 USG out of 18 total, and this year should be about 8 USG out of about 30. Compared to the 6 Ariane, 3 Vega, and 2 Soyuz last year, SpaceX still had more non-USG missions than Arianespace.

Wait a second there, you are mixing issues.  This is not about how many non-USG missions SpaceX is flying compared to Arianespace.  It's about how many missions, and particularly their value, one company can compete for but the other cannot.

How many uncompeted missions (that SpaceX could not bid for) did Arianespace fly last year?  How much value (the launch costs) was in those 6 USG SpaceX missions last year?


Oh and btw since we are discussing Soyuz I would point out that Arianespace is only a minority shareholder in Starsem, the actual company that markets Soyuz.  There's a reason they want it replaced with a European alternative.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JH on 01/16/2018 03:44 am
As I say, it's a bit rich to moan about Arianespace's competitiveness or lack thereof when SpaceX doesn't come from a level playing field.

I think you're missing the point that's being made (at least by me, anyway). American posters aren't complaining that Arianespace has some unfair advantage by securing locked-in payloads. They are just observing that a product that requires both fully subsidized development and guaranteed institutional launches is probably doomed to irrelevance in a competitive market. I'd be shocked if anyone on this board actually believed that Europe would completely abandon having it's own launchers, even if Arianespace never signed another commercial launch contract again. The point is market relevance.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/16/2018 05:03 am
They are just observing that a product that requires both fully subsidized development and guaranteed institutional launches is probably doomed to irrelevance in a competitive market.

What are COTS/CRS etc if not subsidized development?  What is the difference between guaranteed institutional payloads and SpaceX having access to a noncompetitive domestic market protected from international competitors? 

Does this make SpaceX doomed to irrelevance?

SpaceX is no more "competitive", the simple fact is there isn't a level playing field in the first place.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/16/2018 06:47 am
Besides, there is no guarantee that any launch company that is fed and nourished through these protections, will innovate and evolve beyond the constraints & expenses typically imposed by servicing these interests and remain a commercially viable/competitive entity. (if they ever were to begin with)
Indeed.
Arianespace has. ULA has not.
Quote from: rcoppola
But in the final analysis, I ask myself this question: What would it cost to design and build a reusable A6, a fleet of reusable capsules to put on top of it, then to launch and recover them 12 times? Would Arianespace have been able to compete with SpaceX's offer on that initial Commercial Cargo Contract, before they received the benefits of having done so in the first place? IMO...not a chance. And that's ok.
That's mighty generous of you. I guess it depends on what side of the boundary wall you sit, how much you trust that a countries access to space will remain "assured."
Quote from: rcoppola
2020 will see the board do a reset of sorts with Vulcan, New Glenn, A6 competing against a fully mature F9/FH Block 5. Let the games begin.
"Fully mature" that is until F9 block 6 is introduced. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/16/2018 06:48 am
They are just observing that a product that requires both fully subsidized development and guaranteed institutional launches is probably doomed to irrelevance in a competitive market.

What are COTS/CRS etc if not subsidized development?  What is the difference between guaranteed institutional payloads and SpaceX having access to a noncompetitive domestic market protected from international competitors? 

Does this make SpaceX doomed to irrelevance?

SpaceX is no more "competitive", the simple fact is there isn't a level playing field in the first place.

Adding my two cents (make that two Euros...)

Folks here claiming that Falcon 9 is, unlike A6, NOT a subsidized rocket are incorrect.
Money from both COTS and CCP has been used to do development work on multiple iterations of Falcon 9.

It is however true that A6 is a subsidized rocket to a far greater extent than Falcon 9 is. But, both are subsidized rockets.

Also: Arianespace is honest in claiming they cannot be competitive in the commercial field if they don't have a guaranteed minimum number of institutional launches.
But, consider this: just how much life would there be in SpaceX if they didn't have institutional launches? Launches for the USG alone constitute HALF of the Falcon 9 launch manifest.

And that is funny, because Ariane 6 is projected to fly a minimum of 12 times per year - to be viable - with HALF of those launches being institutional.

Level playing-field? The answer to that is straightforward: No such thing exists. And the impact of that is substantially bigger (in terms of money) than the fact that A6 is subsidized with $4 billion while Falcon 9 was subsidized with only $1.0 billion.

SpaceX can compete on the US institutional market, the European institutional market and the global commercial market.

However, Arianspace canNOT compete on the US institutional market, but it can compete on the European institutional market and the global commercial market.

You see, the USA will never allow NSS missions to be launched by non-US launch service providers. But European countries in fact DO allow their NSS missions to be launched by non-European launch service providers.

It is for this particular hole/bump in the playing field that Arianespace is calling for "Buy European". To level the playing-field the majority of European institutional space missions should be launched by European launch service providers; similar to the situation in the USA.
But, it is unlikely this will ever happen.

Finally: ITAR adds quite a lot to un-leveling the playing field.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: CrashChris on 01/16/2018 07:42 am
After reading here for a long time, i finally signed up to present my (completely european biased) opinion:

I seems to me, that many here take it for granted, the Ariane 6 will not be commerically competitive at all, which I think is completely wrong.

Check this plot for $/kg using the prices fot GTO launches quoted on SpaceX's website and Wikipedia for Ariane.

As soon as Falcon Heavy has to be used, there is no big advantage in choosing SpaceX over Ariane 6 and above the 8t limit at which Falcon Heavy exceeds the first price category, A64 is acutually cheeper* or at least the same

Of course, the prices will change until A6 is ready to launch (I guess, SpaceX will be cheeper by then) but I think the plot gives a good idea about the relative price differences, which will be small.

So at least in the (Dual-Launch) GTO market, Arianespace will be able to compete as they can at the moment. And slightly higher launch prices are ok, as long as Ariane 6 can offer more services, e.g. smaller delta-v to GEO, no additional fee for not mounting the payload during tests ( ;) ), ...

Another important point in my opinion is, that Arianespace is targeting a much lower launch rate than SpaceX which will obviously result in a smaller relative market share. But this is not equivalent to beeing non-competetive.


As you talk about govermental payloads and the buy-european thing. Even if Arianespace gets their guaranteed launches, european governments are only willing to pay the commerical price (which in fact leads to commerical A64 launches have to subsidize govermental A62 launches). On the other hand, US government is paying much more than the commerical price. So the gain by having govermental payloads is completly different for US and european launch providers.


But on the other hand, I have to admit, that I also think, that the governmental investment for A6 is too high and that ArianeGroup/Airbus has to start to invest in own developments because governments are only willing to pay each 20 years but Ariane needs a steady improvement to stay competitive. Ariane 6 is a good start and reduces useless overhead but it will not be enough for the next 15 years or so.



*I set the FH price above 8t totaly randomly to 130ml$, which is just a guess
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: meberbs on 01/16/2018 07:57 am
When you accused SpaceX of being subsidized as being unfair to Aianespace without mentioning that they are subsidized as well, then you are directly implying that Airanespace is unsubsidized.

Err...no, that logically doesn't follow, especially as the very point I was making and repeated several times was that it was a bit rich to complain about it happening in Europe when American companies are by far the greater winners out of subsidy.  That by definition implies it happens in Europe.
I missed the one post you mentioned that when going back through the thread, but your claim is simply wrong, by any sensible metric Arianespace is more subsidized.

You are still misrepresenting things since you were claiming the about 3 USG* launches per year, say $30 million in profit to be generous, is greater that the $150 million per year (http://spacenews.com/renewed-arianespace-subsidies-prompt-protest-threat-ils/) that Airanespace has received.

 :o

Sorry but this is la la land.  And talking profit makes no sense on what effectively is a government grant since it is the total value, value available to SpaceX and not Arianespace, that matters. And as you yourself point out the number of USG flights is increasing.
Directly comparing competitively won contracts to direct subsidies is nonsense, so you have no business talking about "la la land." Until someone can provide a better metric, profit seems like the best way to estimate the value of these launches to SpaceX, Gross Revenue certainly would be a gross exaggeration. They are launching more USG flights by competitively taking them from ULA, so it is not like these are just free handouts, and most have been space station cargo resupply, which Arianespace had ATV as its share of that market.

Besides which, the 21 Soyuz launches Arianespace sold to One Web kills your whole "larger market" theory.

Err no, since SpaceX could compete for One Web too as it was a commercial launch contract. The US internal market, which arianespace cannot compete in, by value is by far the largest space launch market.
The point wasn't that SpaceX could or couldn't compete with it, the point is that there is a sufficiently large non-USG  market that your claim about the relative size of the USG market is simply false.

Try using some numbers: to start, those 21 launches are more than $1 billion. When flown on reasonably priced rockets, and not overpriced ULA block buys, this should be comparable or more than the US gov't market. This one contract is enough to show that U.S. launches aren't the all dominating factor you claim. (I am not going to spend time to add up what that cost should be right now, since I have provided my share of numbers, while you have studiously ignored all numbers.)

*3 is typical, for past years, last year with the increased cadence was 6 USG out of 18 total, and this year should be about 8 USG out of about 30. Compared to the 6 Ariane, 3 Vega, and 2 Soyuz last year, SpaceX still had more non-USG missions than Arianespace.

Wait a second there, you are mixing issues.  This is not about how many non-USG missions SpaceX is flying compared to Arianespace.  It's about how many missions, and particularly their value, one company can compete for but the other cannot.

How many uncompeted missions (that SpaceX could not bid for) did Arianespace fly last year?  How much value (the launch costs) was in those 6 USG SpaceX missions last year?
Again, if you want to talk about subsidy, the full contract price is not equal to a direct subsidy, and as I mentioned in this post, for 4 of those SpaceX missions, "could not compete" is a bit ambiguous, because if ATV was still flying, NASA would probably have ordered fewer cargo missions from SpaceX. (And money or favors (i.e. launch seats) would be passed around between agencies in payment)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/16/2018 12:00 pm
After reading here for a long time, i finally signed up...

Welcome to the forum!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JH on 01/16/2018 01:58 pm
As soon as Falcon Heavy has to be used, there is no big advantage in choosing SpaceX over Ariane 6 and above the 8t limit at which Falcon Heavy exceeds the first price category, A64 is acutually cheeper* or at least the same

Of course, the prices will change until A6 is ready to launch (I guess, SpaceX will be cheeper by then) but I think the plot gives a good idea about the relative price differences, which will be small.

So at least in the (Dual-Launch) GTO market, Arianespace will be able to compete as they can at the moment. And slightly higher launch prices are ok, as long as Ariane 6 can offer more services, e.g. smaller delta-v to GEO, no additional fee for not mounting the payload during tests ( ;) ), ...

Another important point in my opinion is, that Arianespace is targeting a much lower launch rate than SpaceX which will obviously result in a smaller relative market share. But this is not equivalent to beeing non-competetive.

Welcome! Also, nice first post!

It's true that A6 looks competitive on a $/kg basis in the higher mass end of the market. The problems are that—as you pointed out—SpaceX has long indicated that their prices can/will drop with the reflight of first stages and that large satellite launch customers have never been wild about having to share a ride into space. A6 will somewhat ameliorate the second issue because of the Vinci engine's multiple relight ability, but it can't be completely removed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tobi453 on 01/16/2018 05:17 pm
Many European missions are launched with Russian rockets, because ESA ministerial council failed to develop a cheaper medium sized launcher. Ariane 62 is also not medium sized.

SARAH launches with SpaceX because Airbus & OHB wanted to make more money. I think Airbus is using an old F1 option. They could also have selected the Soyuz launcher from Kourou.

All EU missions (Copernicus & Galileo) have launched with a (partial) european company like Starsem/Arianespace or Eurockot.

There are a few european government missions that are not launched with an entity that is at least partial european but Airbus is exaggerating.

Also Vega is attacking from below taking some missions that otherwise would have been on Ariane 62.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/17/2018 10:49 pm
It's true that A6 looks competitive on a $/kg basis in the higher mass end of the market. The problems are that—as you pointed out—SpaceX has long indicated that their prices can/will drop with the reflight of first stages
Except they haven't, have they?

SX dropped the price for 1 customer on first reflight of a stage.

Otherwise their prices are what they've been for the expendable.

Musk also said FH could launch for less than $1000/lb if it launches 4 times a year and it's fully loaded, IE 60+ tonnes.

Quote from: JH
and that large satellite launch customers have never been wild about having to share a ride into space.
Funny you should say that, as that looks to be exactly  what will happen with FH. At first I'd presumed the very large payload to LEO mean they'd have to make a multi way rideshare, which is very  tough to organize, even with 2 payloads. However when I saw the massive payload reduction for recovery of the 3 sages it still looks like a 2 way split.
Quote from: JH
A6 will somewhat ameliorate the second issue because of the Vinci engine's multiple relight ability, but it can't be completely removed.
I thought so to. Apparently at least one of the A5 US's did support re-light, but it seems to have been the hypergolics version. , with rather lower Isp.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JH on 01/17/2018 11:57 pm
Except they haven't, have they?

SX dropped the price for 1 customer on first reflight of a stage.

Otherwise their prices are what they've been for the expendable.

If you look closely, you will see that I said "can/will", not "will". Unless re-use is a massive bluff, they can drop prices as soon as the competition begins to close in on their current prices. They appear to plow profits back into development, so it makes sense for them to make hay while they can, before others catch up.

Funny you should say that, as that looks to be exactly  what will happen with FH. At first I'd presumed the very large payload to LEO mean they'd have to make a multi way rideshare, which is very  tough to organize, even with 2 payloads. However when I saw the massive payload reduction for recovery of the 3 sages it still looks like a 2 way split.

I'm skeptical of SpaceX going into ridesharing full sized comm satellites. They seem to be perfectly happy to have excess capacity on launches. As the cap to GTO -1800 with full recovery is given as 8 t for FH and ~5 t for F9, and given that GEO communication satellites are often under 5 t, and top out at ~6.5 t, it seems perfectly likely that they will just use FH for the very heaviest of communications satellites and stick everything else on F9s. If there is any evidence of them developing something like the Sylda payload adaptor used on the A5, I'll reconsider.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/18/2018 03:02 pm
I'm skeptical of SpaceX going into ridesharing full sized comm satellites. They seem to be perfectly happy to have excess capacity on launches. As the cap to GTO -1800 with full recovery is given as 8 t for FH and ~5 t for F9, and given that GEO communication satellites are often under 5 t, and top out at ~6.5 t, it seems perfectly likely that they will just use FH for the very heaviest of communications satellites and stick everything else on F9s. If there is any evidence of them developing something like the Sylda payload adaptor used on the A5, I'll reconsider.
So that would be basically a GEO comm sat for about $90m if it's too big for an F9.
With a much shorter flight history than an A5 or an F9.

As a customer what is the attraction of this option to me?

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JH on 01/18/2018 03:23 pm
So that would be basically a GEO comm sat for about $90m if it's too big for an F9.
With a much shorter flight history than an A5 or an F9.

As a customer what is the attraction of this option to me?

Hmmm, a good point. I'm eager to see what happens.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 01/18/2018 05:20 pm
As soon as Falcon Heavy has to be used, there is no big advantage in choosing SpaceX over Ariane 6 and above the 8t limit at which Falcon Heavy exceeds the first price category, A64 is acutually cheeper* or at least the same

Of course, the prices will change until A6 is ready to launch (I guess, SpaceX will be cheeper by then) but I think the plot gives a good idea about the relative price differences, which will be small.

So at least in the (Dual-Launch) GTO market, Arianespace will be able to compete as they can at the moment. And slightly higher launch prices are ok, as long as Ariane 6 can offer more services, e.g. smaller delta-v to GEO, no additional fee for not mounting the payload during tests ( ;) ), ...

Another important point in my opinion is, that Arianespace is targeting a much lower launch rate than SpaceX which will obviously result in a smaller relative market share. But this is not equivalent to beeing non-competetive.

Welcome! Also, nice first post!

It's true that A6 looks competitive on a $/kg basis in the higher mass end of the market. The problems are that—as you pointed out—SpaceX has long indicated that their prices can/will drop with the reflight of first stages and that large satellite launch customers have never been wild about having to share a ride into space. A6 will somewhat ameliorate the second issue because of the Vinci engine's multiple relight ability, but it can't be completely removed.

Higher payload end of the market could potentially be New Glenn's niche. 13 tonnes to GTO with first stage recovery... Superior performance to A6.4, and I'd be extremely surprised if it costs more.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/19/2018 10:26 am
Higher payload end of the market could potentially be New Glenn's niche. 13 tonnes to GTO with first stage recovery... Superior performance to A6.4, and I'd be extremely surprised if it costs more.
And the IOC of New Glenn is what exactly?

One of the lessons you learn watching this business is to be very wary of what might happen.
"Coulda. Woulda. Shoulda" is always trumped by "Didn't"  :(

When (and that's a pretty big presumption on my part) New Glen enters service it should offer launch services at a competitive price and in principle it's the right size that it could.

Time will tell if it did, or it didn't.

OTOH we know A6 is happening.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: avollhar on 01/19/2018 10:43 am
Arianespace and A62/64 does not need to be profitable. They have never been in the last decade (at least). SpaceX and Blue Origin do.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: SweetWater on 01/19/2018 11:11 am
Arianespace and A62/64 does not need to be profitable. They have never been in the last decade (at least). SpaceX and Blue Origin do.

I'd argue BO is closing to Arianespace in this regard than it is to SpaceX. Sure, SpaceX and BO are both privately held, but while Musk is wealthy by any reckoning, he doesn't have anywhere near Jeff Bezos' resources. Heck the current Blue Origin business plan is "Bezos sells a billion dollars of Amazon stock every year and spends it on Blue Origin."

Arianespace is supported by Europe because they want independent access to space, regardless of what is costs. Bezos started BO due to his long-standing interest in space and, yes, a desire to build a successful and profitable company. However, BO as been around since 2000 without EVER launching a vehicle for a paying customer. I'd argue that BO doesn't necessarily need to be that profitable to hold Bezos' long-term interest.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gongora on 01/19/2018 02:05 pm
SX dropped the price for 1 customer on first reflight of a stage.

Otherwise their prices are what they've been for the expendable.

Pretty sure that is not true.  Iridium said they got a discount, they just didn't say how much.  Contract modifications tend not to be publicized (just like most details of the original contracts.)

edit:  we also have never seen the price for a flight that requires expending the stage that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/19/2018 02:24 pm
Arianespace and A62/64 does not need to be profitable. They have never been in the last decade (at least). SpaceX and Blue Origin do.

Isn't the onus on commercial side (AriansSpace/Airbus/whatever) to make A-6 profitable and get away from the A-5 ongoing subsidy?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/19/2018 03:46 pm
Arianespace's push to secure European business for Ariane 6 continues:

Quote
Arianespace is well suited to the needs of EU institutions
Written by Stéphane Israël on 19 January 2018 in Thought Leader

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/partner_article/arianespace/arianespace-well-suited-needs-eu-institutions (https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/partner_article/arianespace/arianespace-well-suited-needs-eu-institutions)

Includes this:

Quote
While Arianespace’s backlog is two-thirds commercial and one-third institutional, this is the exact opposite of our main competitor across the Atlantic, which benefits from a closed US institutional market, allowing them to double their launch prices compared to that of export customers.

So not one to let the facts get in the way of a good story then ...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 01/19/2018 07:39 pm

Isn't the onus on commercial side (AriansSpace/Airbus/whatever) to make A-6 profitable and get away from the A-5 ongoing subsidy?

This round the industry has more influence than ever before. (And while Ariane as umbrella organization did not make any money to talk about in the past, all the suppliers certainly did!)
One of the "fun" things (for diminishing values of fun) that it is a bit ULAesque. Kicking things of with the 50/50 Safran Airbus joint venture. Then trying to get locked in for European institutional launches.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 01/22/2018 05:55 pm
To those very critical of Ariane 6  and the way forward... What would you do? Say as the head of Esa or Arianegroup.

Starting with today, that is, not going back years and the drawing up alternate history
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/23/2018 06:42 am
To those very critical of Ariane 6  and the way forward... What would you do? Say as the head of Esa or Arianegroup.

Starting with today, that is, not going back years and the drawing up alternate history

First: accept that Ariane 6 is a technological dead-end which will have a very short lifetime. Finish its development and fly it, and accept that it will be a loss-giving, interim vehicle.

Second: shift current small-scale initiatives with regards to reuse into high-gear AND set a very aggressive goal for matching SpaceX's current capabilities, say 2020 as IOC date. Don't call this vehicle Ariane as it will be a radical departure from anything that went before it.

Third: make the funds available to do point 2, thru ESA. Ariane Group will never be able to cough-up that money, given that they don't have it and won't earn it from the loss-giving Ariane 6.

Fourth: get rid of any political, technological, organizational and industrial hurdle that prevents making the aggresive 2020 IOC date. Specifically: get rid of the geographical return policy as it results in a WAAAAY too splintered industrial base. You can't quickly develop a vehicle if the contractor is dependent on (sometimes even held hostage by) a huge number of sub-contractors.

Fifth: "Sell" the above four points to the ESA member states by deducting the profits from the new vehicle from the annual ESA contribution
OR
Compensate those ESA member states who have lost jobs (via point 4) by reducing their required annual contribution and force those ESA member states who have gained from point 4 to pay more annual contribution.

Sixth: Once matching Falcon 9 capabilities immediately start expanding on this technology to keep up with changing market demand/developments. Keep developing whatever is needed to re-capture a significant market-share.



And yeah I know: the scenario I sketched above is never gonna happen. Not even when Ariane Group is reduced to a small launch service provider living from (heavily subsidized) institutional launches only.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/23/2018 05:04 pm
To those very critical of Ariane 6  and the way forward... What would you do? Say as the head of Esa or Arianegroup.

Starting with today, that is, not going back years and the drawing up alternate history

First: accept that Ariane 6 is a technological dead-end which will have a very short lifetime. Finish its development and fly it, and accept that it will be a loss-giving, interim vehicle.

Second: shift current small-scale initiatives with regards to reuse into high-gear AND set a very aggressive goal for matching SpaceX's current capabilities, say 2020 as IOC date. Don't call this vehicle Ariane as it will be a radical departure from anything that went before it.

Third: make the funds available to do point 2, thru ESA. Ariane Group will never be able to cough-up that money, given that they don't have it and won't earn it from the loss-giving Ariane 6.

I'd characterize the First as Ariane 6 being an insurance policy... to lower prices so that member payloads can be supported at near-market rates, and guarantee that there would not be a gap in this launch support as the uncertain timeline for a reusable vehicle replacement plays out.  Second and Third would be as stated, following the lines of ESA's recent $75M euro support traunche.


Quote
Fourth: get rid of any political, technological, organizational and industrial hurdle that prevents making the aggresive 2020 IOC date. Specifically: get rid of the geographical return policy as it results in a WAAAAY too splintered industrial base. You can't quickly develop a vehicle if the contractor is dependent on (sometimes even held hostage by) a huge number of sub-contractors.

This is the challenge.  Ariane 6 effort has already recognized this element and done partial mitigation.

Quote
Fifth: "Sell" the above four points to the ESA member states by deducting the profits from the new vehicle from the annual ESA contribution
OR
Compensate those ESA member states who have lost jobs (via point 4) by reducing their required annual contribution and force those ESA member states who have gained from point 4 to pay more annual contribution.

The latter.  Best would be to push for free market economics, but that simply won't happen.

Quote
Sixth: Once matching Falcon 9 capabilities immediately start expanding on this technology to keep up with changing market demand/developments. Keep developing whatever is needed to re-capture a significant market-share.

Don't go for Falcon 9's capabilities, go for international market competitive capabilities.  Lead the player...

Quote
And yeah I know: the scenario I sketched above is never gonna happen. Not even when Ariane Group is reduced to a small launch service provider living from (heavily subsidized) institutional launches only.

The ESA community and Ariane Group are not going to find a better time in the future to get into this competition.  It might not happen in 2018/2019 because of the political fall-out of changing directions after the hard-sell of Ariane 6, but the market is different and calls for a different solution.  Playing catch-up in 2020 and beyond will be more expensive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/24/2018 06:57 am
Fourth: get rid of any political, technological, organizational and industrial hurdle that prevents making the aggresive 2020 IOC date. Specifically: get rid of the geographical return policy as it results in a WAAAAY too splintered industrial base. You can't quickly develop a vehicle if the contractor is dependent on (sometimes even held hostage by) a huge number of sub-contractors.
This is the challenge.  Ariane 6 effort has already recognized this element and done partial mitigation.

Partial is the key-word here. The geographical return policy remains in effect virtually unchanged.
The number of major contractors had dropped only 60 percent (from 44 for A5 to 18 for A6), but mainly via mergers of contractors and not so much by choice. The number of sub-contractors remains virtually unchanged.
As a result, the industrial base for A6 is still large and unwieldly.

IMO, for a next-gen vehicle the geographical return policy will have to be dropped entirely to enforce a significant drop in the number of (sub)contractors.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: brickmack on 01/24/2018 06:28 pm
To those very critical of Ariane 6  and the way forward... What would you do? Say as the head of Esa or Arianegroup.

Starting with today, that is, not going back years and the drawing up alternate history

Keep Vulcain 2.1 and the new upper stage with Vinci, and the slightly improved fairings. Apply these to Ariane 5, a la A5ME, as each upgrade becomes flight-qualified. The biggest issues with Ariane 6 IMO are all related to the new boosters. The boosters themselves are new obviously, and they also force a new core stage and new launch site, but solid rockets are not relevant to reusable rockets so this money is just being thrown down the toilet. Much lower development cost and time, with all the performance gain of A6 and most of the per-flight cost savings. Also cancel the further upgrades of Vega, same reasons. Skip over Callisto as unnecessary (basic principles are already well-proven by SpaceX and Blue), maybe seek customer approval to do limited testing on Ariane 5 missions as secondary objectives. Throw the remaining development budget from these towards Ariane Next with a ~7x Prometheus reusable booster and an upper stage derived from A5ME's, to fly in the early 2020s. Iterate towards an ACES-style long-duration upper stage with propellant transfer to support high energy missions
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 01/24/2018 06:40 pm
Quote
basic principles are already well-proven by SpaceX and Blue

Both commercial companies not eager to share their knowledge. ESA is going to have to reinvent the wheel to some extent. Basic principles can be applied, but the devil's in the details.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/25/2018 10:07 am
Keep Vulcain 2.1 and the new upper stage with Vinci, and the slightly improved fairings. Apply these to Ariane 5, a la A5ME, as each upgrade becomes flight-qualified. The biggest issues with Ariane 6 IMO are all related to the new boosters. The boosters themselves are new obviously, and they also force a new core stage and new launch site, but solid rockets are not relevant to reusable rockets so this money is just being thrown down the toilet. Much lower development cost and time, with all the performance gain of A6 and most of the per-flight cost savings. Also cancel the further upgrades of Vega, same reasons. Skip over Callisto as unnecessary (basic principles are already well-proven by SpaceX and Blue), maybe seek customer approval to do limited testing on Ariane 5 missions as secondary objectives. Throw the remaining development budget from these towards Ariane Next with a ~7x Prometheus reusable booster and an upper stage derived from A5ME's, to fly in the early => End 2020s. Iterate towards an ACES-style long-duration upper stage with propellant transfer to support high energy missions
The new Vince upperstage is what required the development of a new core stage. The ballon type (pressure stabalized) Ariane 5 core tanks couldn't handle the loads of a Vince upper-stage and a 11mT payload. 
That's why A5ME would have cost >1,5 billion (10^9) Euro to develop.

With A5ME ESA could only replace A5 (A64); now also the A62 is developed. Canceling Vega-C is also in this same line. Ariane 5/ME can't launch institutional payloads. Because it's LOx-LH2 with a light payload, G-loads become to high. ESA/European institutions would still rely on Soyuz, PSLV, Anthares or Falcon 9 to launch their satellites.

The mayor cost saving is in the core stage, and the structural commonality between LLPM and ULPM.
The cost savings come also from the higher launch rate and the shorter assembly time, = ELA4.

Possibly Callisto is not the most efficient Reusability testbed approatch. But it's way faster than all alternatives. The Vulcain engine aren't restartable, so testing with Ariane5/ME/6 is impossible. Alternative small rockets (Arion2 or equivalent) aren't available jet. So a dedicated re-usability demonstrator is the only option.

AFAIK ULPM already has ACES-style duration capabilities.  :-X

I think that with the ~100mln for Prometheus and ~100mln for Callisto, and possibly ~250mln for VUS (Vega-E) and VENUS), and 100mln for Methane propalant facilities at CSG. ESA/European member-states have funded the development of the technologies required to develop ArianeNext.
ArianeGroup and ELV have to fund the development of the launchers with these engines. I expect they will be capable of doing this using the Ariane 6 and Vega-E production facilities.

This is how it also works in the rest of the Aerospace world; NASA/DOD/EU/ESA fund tech development projects. Companies make new systems using the developed technologies using their own funding.

Let me also add that a Falcon 9 even more so Soyuz, is very expansive compared to a Vega-C for a 2,2mT payload.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 01/25/2018 10:51 am
There‘s a lot of FUD in your post.
I, too, believe it’s too late to pivot back to an A5 evolution from A6 but some of these arguments are bogus.
A5 core can’t handle the upper stage loads? Only if you make full use of the increased payload, nothing to do with the engine.
G-loads too high? Ballast water is dirt cheap.

But now the are even already building the new pad it’s really too late, a lot of the money is already spent
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/28/2018 11:27 am
First: accept that Ariane 6 is a technological dead-end which will have a very short lifetime. Finish its development and fly it, and accept that it will be a loss-giving, interim vehicle.

I don't necessarily see it as a technological dead-end. If you look across the pond, there are launch vehicles in development using similar propulsion and structures in different configurations. The solids might be a dead-end in the long-term, but they're not the most expensive part.

The problem is that nobody knows how the market will look like 10 years from now. Falcon/Vulcan/NGL/New Glenn/BFR are all rather different vehicles targeting different markets.

A6 should definitely be cheaper than it is, otherwise I don't have fundamental problem with it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/28/2018 05:46 pm
...
Let me also add that a Falcon 9 even more so Soyuz, is very expansive compared to a Vega-C for a 2,2mT payload.

Total development costs for Vega/Vega-C are somewhere around $1.5B and it has flown a dozen times or so.  At its current price of around $40M for 2.2t, it is still a very expensive, light weight launch vehicle -- and that without amortizing any of the development cost which is currently over $100M per flight on the Vega model.  $395M is the price tag for upgrading to Vega-C for less than one tonne to LEO of increased capacity.

Hard to understand how you consider Falcon and Soyuz 'very expensive' in comparison, unless you have exactly the right payload and you didn't foot the development bill.  If you are a commercial company, planning a constellation of hundreds (or thousands) of satellites, Vega becomes wicked expensive.  This is why OneWeb chose to buy 21 Soyuz, plus 39 LauncherOne, and five New Glenn flights while Vega and Vega-C sat the bench.

What would be the tab for a Starlink competitor to field a 4,425 satellite constellation similar to Starlink using Vega-C, and how long would it take to deploy all 4,425 satellites if Vega-C flew nothing else?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Toast on 01/29/2018 05:19 pm
First: accept that Ariane 6 is a technological dead-end which will have a very short lifetime. Finish its development and fly it, and accept that it will be a loss-giving, interim vehicle.
I don't necessarily see it as a technological dead-end. If you look across the pond, there are launch vehicles in development using similar propulsion and structures in different configurations. The solids might be a dead-end in the long-term, but they're not the most expensive part.

I think most people who are of the opinion that Ariane 6 is a technological dead-end also think that said launch vehicles in development are also a technological dead-end.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/30/2018 06:54 am
First: accept that Ariane 6 is a technological dead-end which will have a very short lifetime. Finish its development and fly it, and accept that it will be a loss-giving, interim vehicle.
I don't necessarily see it as a technological dead-end. If you look across the pond, there are launch vehicles in development using similar propulsion and structures in different configurations. The solids might be a dead-end in the long-term, but they're not the most expensive part.

I think most people who are of the opinion that Ariane 6 is a technological dead-end also think that said launch vehicles in development are also a technological dead-end.

Quite. A6 is a technological dead-end because it uses solids for the initial boost-phase. Five decades of using solid propulsion has shown that solids cannot be economically reused. Which is likely to become a problem in this emerging age of economical reuse of rockets.

But, the fact that a rocket is a technological dead-end does not mean it is not usable in the here-and-now. Until it is out-competed by cheaper, reusable rockets Vega - for example - will continue to fly.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 01/30/2018 07:22 am
I think most people who are of the opinion that Ariane 6 is a technological dead-end also think that said launch vehicles in development are also a technological dead-end.

Indeed, according to said people everything but BFR is a dead end. In that case Prometheus would be a dead end as well.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/30/2018 08:09 am
I think most people who are of the opinion that Ariane 6 is a technological dead-end also think that said launch vehicles in development are also a technological dead-end.

Indeed, according to said people everything but BFR is a dead end. In that case Prometheus would be a dead end as well.

IMO you misunderstood. Ariane 6 represents a technological dead-end in that the vehicle is not reusable. There are several rockets in development, all over the world in fact, that do not include reusability. Examples: SLS, Vulcan, NGL, Long March 3B(a), Long March 9, etc. etc. As such, those vehicles can also be seen as technological dead-ends.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/30/2018 10:24 am
Please watch the video on ESA's youtube page; that was posted in the update topic (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1779158#msg1779158)
Launcher preparation with Ariane 5 takes 50 days; with Ariane 6 this will be reduced to 9 days.
With the other facilities that are being build besides ELA4, also the preparation time for Vega(-C) launches reduces from about two months to a couple of weeks.

Indeed; if someone is convinced that reusability is the way to go, Ariane 6 is a bad development.
If you doubt the potential of re-usability (in my oppinion a more realistic view), the Ariane 6 and Vega-C development are a mayor improvement to Europese or Arianespace launch offering.
Arianespace will be able to roughly double their launch rate, the launcher offering got much more versatile while also becoming cheaper. (Both in cost /launch and cost/kg)
Only time will tell who judged the potential or re-usability right, and if Ariane 6 was enough.
In the case that reusability is the way to go, I'm convinced most of the investments for Ariane 6 turn out to be very helpful for ArianeNext.

Prometheus development can't be accelerated because the new Vulcain 2.1, Vince ?, P120C and P40c still have to be tested and qualified. The small rocket engine engineers workpool will have their hands overfull with all this work. Prometheus will be developed at the same time as the qualification of all the other engines, but it can only be tested afterwards. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/30/2018 04:46 pm
Please watch the video on ESA's youtube page; that was posted in the update topic (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1779158#msg1779158)
Launcher preparation with Ariane 5 takes 50 days; with Ariane 6 this will be reduced to 9 days.
With the other facilities that are being build besides ELA4, also the preparation time for Vega(-C) launches reduces from about two months to a couple of weeks.

Indeed; if someone is convinced that reusability is the way to go, Ariane 6 is a bad development.
If you doubt the potential of re-usability (in my oppinion a more realistic view), the Ariane 6 and Vega-C development are a mayor improvement to Europese or Arianespace launch offering.
Arianespace will be able to roughly double their launch rate, the launcher offering got much more versatile while also becoming cheaper. (Both in cost /launch and cost/kg)
Only time will tell who judged the potential or re-usability right, and if Ariane 6 was enough.
In the case that reusability is the way to go, I'm convinced most of the investments for Ariane 6 turn out to be very helpful for ArianeNext.

Prometheus development can't be accelerated because the new Vulcain 2.1, Vince ?, P120C and P40c still have to be tested and qualified. The small rocket engine engineers workpool will have their hands overfull with all this work. Prometheus will be developed at the same time as the qualification of all the other engines, but it can only be tested afterwards.

I don't think anyone questions whether A-6/Vega-C are improvements over existing offerings.  They clearly are optimizing the technology established by the existing fleet, and the quicker processing is progress in the right direction.

The real question is, "Where are these 'double their launch rate' payloads coming from?"  This is where being competitive in the 2020-2025 market (launch service procurement in 2018-2023 -- **starting this year**) becomes the ball in play. 

You say that only time will tell.  Some here say that the time is now, and the results are rolling in -- not something that you can ignore until the mid-2020s.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Pipcard on 01/30/2018 06:00 pm
You say that only time will tell.  Some here say that the time is now, and the results are rolling in -- not something that you can ignore until the mid-2020s.
While others will continue to say "but the economic viability of reusability still isn't proven yet" no matter what happens.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/30/2018 08:39 pm
You say that only time will tell.  Some here say that the time is now, and the results are rolling in -- not something that you can ignore until the mid-2020s.
While others will continue to say "but the economic viability of reusability still isn't proven yet" no matter what happens.

Easier when reusability is still theoretical... somewhere off in the distance.  When you can count how many of the potential launches are sold for each technology, and stack them up against each other, opinions become irrelevant.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/30/2018 09:55 pm
May I return the question; "where are the payloads comming from?"
A reusable launcher requires a higher launch rate than a expendable one.

AFAIK making a profit with providig launch services is practicaly impossible.
Possibly Europe/Arianegroup view the develoment of Ariane5 as a mistake.
Ariane5 was initially developed as man-rated launcher for the Hermis shuttle. That project turned out to be far to embitious!
AFAIK, the Europian institutions have always looked around for the most affordable [sometimes dumped] launch oportunity.
Ariane 1-4 could launch all institututional payloads, Ariane 5 can not (at a exeptable cost).
But European institutions also remember what can happen when they become to rely on non European launchers!
Europes launchers provide above all assured acces to space for Europe.
If others buy launch services from Arianespace, thats an additional benefit.

All reusable launchers speculate that the demand for launches will increase a lot. SpaceX speculates on their Starlink constelation.
Ariane 62 will most likely launch several times anually for institutional payloads. It's a additional four or five launches for institutional payloads that are the increase in Ariane6 launch rate compared to Ariane5. These payloads come from launchers that:
- stop(ed) operating; Delta II, Dnepr, Kosmos, Rockot.
- Are more expansive, and have no European involvement; Soyuz, etz.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: deruch on 01/30/2018 11:28 pm
May I return the question; "where are the payloads comming from?"
A reusable launcher requires a higher launch rate than a expendable one.

I believe that may only be the case in terms of developing a reusable system, if you already have one then reusing should almost always be cheaper so long as recovery & refurbishment costs are kept down.  But, in my opinion, that irrelevant for SpaceX because I think SpaceX is really going to try to do their satellite constellation.  In addition to potentially being a major money maker in its own right, it acts as a hedge against an inelastic or shrinking commercial launch market (or increased competition from new providers/vehicles).  They can self-consume as many launches as are needed to make the reuse economics work out for them. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Pipcard on 01/31/2018 02:35 am
May I return the question; "where are the payloads comming from?"
A reusable launcher requires a higher launch rate than a expendable one.

I believe that may only be the case in terms of developing a reusable system, if you already have one then reusing should almost always be cheaper so long as recovery & refurbishment costs are kept down.  But, in my opinion, that irrelevant for SpaceX because I think SpaceX is really going to try to do their satellite constellation.  In addition to potentially being a major money maker in its own right, it acts as a hedge against an inelastic or shrinking commercial launch market (or increased competition from new providers/vehicles).  They can self-consume as many launches as are needed to make the reuse economics work out for them.
So all ArianeGroup needs to do is build their own internet constellation of thousands of satellites? Then they can justify a full RLV to effectively compete with SpaceX?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/31/2018 05:02 am
You say that only time will tell.  Some here say that the time is now, and the results are rolling in -- not something that you can ignore until the mid-2020s.
While others will continue to say "but the economic viability of reusability still isn't proven yet" no matter what happens.

Easier when reusability is still theoretical... somewhere off in the distance.  When you can count how many of the potential launches are sold for each technology, and stack them up against each other, opinions become irrelevant.
When that other company expends on purpose two of its most recent three "reusable" first stages - and five in the last year, maybe it's a sign?

If you're trying to imply that it's a sign that re-use isn't worth it, then the answer is clearly "no", it's not a sign of that at all.

It's a sign that we are in a transition period when reuse is only starting to replace expendable rockets.

Or do you think that the day the first automobile was driven everyone in the world shot all their horses and never rode a carriage again?

Meanwhile, the top half of that rocket is expended every single time

No, not half, far less than half.  Far less than half in terms of mass.  Far less than half in terms of engines.  Far less than half in terms of cost, which is what really matters.

The fact that we're not done with the transition to reusability doesn't mean it's not well underway.

- just like Ariane 6, and when flown "reusable" that other rocket can't lift as much as Ariane 64 to GTO.

Which is completely irrelevant.

It's like you're arguing that because the first diesel-electric locomotive was built with a smaller capacity than some other steam locomotive, that proves diesel-electric is somehow inferior to steam.

Whatever your payload size, you can build a reusable launcher to put that payload into GTO, and it will be cheaper per-launch than an expendable launcher for the same size payload, even if the launcher is bigger.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/31/2018 12:03 pm
You say that only time will tell.  Some here say that the time is now, and the results are rolling in -- not something that you can ignore until the mid-2020s.
While others will continue to say "but the economic viability of reusability still isn't proven yet" no matter what happens.

Easier when reusability is still theoretical... somewhere off in the distance.  When you can count how many of the potential launches are sold for each technology, and stack them up against each other, opinions become irrelevant.
When that other company expends on purpose two of its most recent three "reusable" first stages - and five in the last year, maybe it's a sign? Meanwhile, the top half of that rocket is expended every single time - just like Ariane 6, and when flown "reusable" that other rocket can't lift as much as Ariane 64 to GTO.

 - Ed Kyle

Dream on... (you have plenty company)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/31/2018 12:23 pm
May I return the question; "where are the payloads comming from?"
A reusable launcher requires a higher launch rate than a expendable one.
...

Keeping the cost of launches high and expending the launch vehicle on each flight is the basis for a self-fulfilling prophesy -- there will be no market growth to justify reusability.  The last few decades are solid proof of what you are saying, so there is validation by history. 

Of course, things change...

Where are the uses for smart phones coming from?  (Asked by land-line telephone phone companies.)
Why would anyone want a computer in their home? (Asked by industrial computer manufacturers.)
Who could need more than three channels on their TV? (Asked by CBS/NBC,ABC.)
Where are the users for a world-wide internet?
Why would cars need a broadband connection?
Why would 'things' need to communicate with 'things?'
Who would ever buy an autonomous car?
Who would ever want a Lunar Village?
Will there ever be space tourists?

The payloads will come out of the woods when the access to space becomes affordable.  At least that is what the reusable launch vehicle manufacturers are thinking.  Kinda Silicon Valley mentality... so may be crazy or flat wrong.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/31/2018 12:57 pm
Because a image is worth a lot of words; lets add slide 23 of the SpaceWorks 2018 SMALL SATELLITE REPORT (http://www.spaceworkscommercial.com/download-forecast/)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/31/2018 12:59 pm
Bingo.
That's the question.

Note that there are over 20,000 proposed sats in the various constellations -- shown here are only the earliest.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: deruch on 01/31/2018 06:27 pm
May I return the question; "where are the payloads comming from?"
A reusable launcher requires a higher launch rate than a expendable one.

I believe that may only be the case in terms of developing a reusable system, if you already have one then reusing should almost always be cheaper so long as recovery & refurbishment costs are kept down.  But, in my opinion, that irrelevant for SpaceX because I think SpaceX is really going to try to do their satellite constellation.  In addition to potentially being a major money maker in its own right, it acts as a hedge against an inelastic or shrinking commercial launch market (or increased competition from new providers/vehicles).  They can self-consume as many launches as are needed to make the reuse economics work out for them.
So all ArianeGroup needs to do is build their own internet constellation of thousands of satellites? Then they can justify a full RLV to effectively compete with SpaceX?
You're looking at the wrong thing.  All ArianeGroup needs to do is set their raison d'être to enabling the Colonization of the Moon (since that seems to be the European target of choice) by significantly reducing the cost of launch.  Then figure out what other uses would best leverage the cheap, reusable launcher that they've developed to make that larger goal possible.  :D


If you're treating your rocket development as a pure financial investment, there's probably not a good rationalization for building a reusable one in the current market.  The savings probably aren't going to be large enough for there to be an adequate ROI in a short enough period.  This is reasonable perspective if you're a company, but not for governments who have a goal/requirement of maintaining domestic launch capability. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/31/2018 09:01 pm
Sorry but I agree with Ed Kyle. The current Falcon 9 block 3 & 4 can only be used at most three times.
(really weird doing all the landing burns with the first stage without recovering it, by the way)
SpaceX hopes to improve the reusability of the Falcon 9 with the block 5 version.
Let me sceptical about the amount of times they will be able to reuse a stage. I'm very amazed if they can get into double digits.     Back on topic. 

Arianegroup only have the Vince as reusable engine. Only in the UK there was experience with LOx-RP1, and now PLDspace has started development of their engines that run on this. All other engines are solids, hypergolics or LOx-LH2. Arianegroup with IHI have been developing the ROMEO engine that would have run on LOx-LCH4.
So the technology for reusable engines doesn't exits jet in Europe, unfortunately.
Europe and Arianegroup are risk averse, so a reusable launcher isn't a option when:
A) there isn't a suitable first stage engine
B) There is no technology to recover the first stage
C) There is a industrial and political requirement to use solids. (might change in the future)

The mix of Vega and Ariane 5 ES & ECA aren't suitable for all institutional payloads. The Vega, Vega-C, Ariane 62 and Ariane 64 will be suitable for institutional payloads. (maybe the <500kg isn't served very well)
The launcher preparation time reduction and the move to vertical assembly will reduce cost.
I don't know the live expectancy of launch installations, but this might also play a role for the move from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 and the construction of a new launch installation.
I expect that the ELA3 launch zone will be re-purposed sometime in the future (not the near future though).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 01/31/2018 10:39 pm
Sorry but I agree with Ed Kyle. The current Falcon 9 block 3 & 4 can only be used at most three times.
(really weird doing all the landing burns with the first stage without recovering it, by the way)
SpaceX hopes to improve the reusability of the Falcon 9 with the block 5 version.
Let me sceptical about the amount of times they will be able to reuse a stage. I'm very amazed if they can get into double digits.     Back on topic. 

Arianegroup only have the Vince as reusable engine. Only in the UK there was experience with LOx-RP1, and now PLDspace has started development of their engines that run on this. All other engines are solids, hypergolics or LOx-LH2. Arianegroup with IHI have been developing the ROMEO engine that would have run on LOx-LCH4.
So the technology for reusable engines doesn't exits jet in Europe, unfortunately.
 
Europe and Arianegroup are risk averse, so a reusable launcher isn't a option when:
A) there isn't a suitable first stage engine
B) There is no technology to recover the first stage
C) There is a industrial and political requirement to use solids. (might change in the future)

...

First, don't have to apologize for agreeing with Ed... he's smarter than most of us here.

Second, the technology for reusable (inexpensive/no refurbishment) engines and recovering boosters didn't exist before SpaceX started down this path -- and they were neophytes in the launch business.  Europe has great experience and talent...

And third, I understand the political need to use solids. ::)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 02/01/2018 02:16 am
I think most people who are of the opinion that Ariane 6 is a technological dead-end also think that said launch vehicles in development are also a technological dead-end.

Indeed, according to said people everything but BFR is a dead end. In that case Prometheus would be a dead end as well.

IMO you misunderstood. Ariane 6 represents a technological dead-end in that the vehicle is not reusable. There are several rockets in development, all over the world in fact, that do not include reusability. Examples: SLS, Vulcan, NGL, Long March 3B(a), Long March 9, etc. etc. As such, those vehicles can also be seen as technological dead-ends.

Clearly one cannot separate the usefulness of technology from market expectations. If demand for mass to orbit explodes, the full reusability and sheer scale of BFR will render all other rockets obsolete. Whether that happens is anyone's guess, dead-end rockets have been launching for 60 years.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 02/03/2018 12:05 am
Some counter points.
Setting out to build another F9 is not good enough. Industry and ESA need to take a good look at what has been done, what other are doing, what they need for their own use, what others might need and buy from them. And then decide what to do. If the first step on that journey is to build another F9 then by all means do it, but don't start with that goal.


Ending geo return.
Geo return is an ugly hack, but it is THE hack that keeps ESA alive. When did GBR invest the most, with the least convincing needed, into ESA? Exactly. After brexit. Because they know that they'll get their money back. If Alabama had to pay every single cent that gets spend on SLS in Alabama to NASA in the first place there would be much less discussion about Alabama getting so much free tax money.

No, if geo return is the problem at all the required change is to spend geo return money more specifically. A5 had 12(?), A6 has 13 nations involved. Do not invite everyone into the new launcher project. As easy as that.

Who has required knowledge and major infrastructure for existing launchers? Who is working on reusable launchers and(!) got some results, today? Should be easy enough to pare it down to 4-5 nations.
France (launch infrastructure, first stage and engine manufacture), Germany (engine testing, upper stage), Switzerland (fairing reuse). Who does the avionics?
By all means buy stuff for the rocket from additional EU nations. Do put a gun to the head of the usual companies and make them work for the money. Upper stage mass fraction seems to be a long standing pet peeve of some observers.

Again, that is if geo return is the problem in the first place. I suppose the actual issue is in the way how decisions are made on the political side of things.
While the saying is "In Europe 100 miles is a long way. In the US 100 years is a long time." I think that some here are overestimating distances... If you ignore some outliers most of the various A5 manufacturing sites should fit roughly under an overlay of Texas.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/03/2018 11:33 am
Chasm your over simplifying things. The reality of the launcher industry is much more complicated. (EOportal (https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/ariane-6) figure 6
The European launcher industry is tructurend like the aviation industry. I invite you to search how Airbus manufactures their aircraft and how CFM and P&W develop and build their Single aisle engines. I think the resemblance between rocket engines and airplane engines on how they are developed and build, is stricing.
(http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2016/11/ariane_6_industrial_organisation/16477123-1-eng-GB/Ariane_6_industrial_organisation_node_full_image_2.png)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 02/03/2018 04:06 pm
That is the problem.  Distribution of contractors looks like SLS/Orion, another completely non-viable dead-end project.. Costs too much; achieves too little.

So, for a public works project, each serves its purpose.

WRT competition during 2020s -- which we are discussing -- both are non-starters.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Pipcard on 02/03/2018 04:46 pm
That is the problem.  Distribution of contractors looks like SLS/Orion, another completely non-viable dead-end project.. Costs too much; achieves too little.

So, for a public works project, each serves its purpose.

WRT competition during 2020s -- which we are discussing -- both are non-starters.
Might the only solution be scrapping the entire system and having the Ariane 6 assembled by only one company in one country? But then the other European countries won't get to have a piece.

I guess this is an inherent disadvantage for supranational space organizations.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 02/03/2018 06:57 pm
That is the problem.  Distribution of contractors looks like SLS/Orion, another completely non-viable dead-end project.. Costs too much; achieves too little.

So, for a public works project, each serves its purpose.

WRT competition during 2020s -- which we are discussing -- both are non-starters.
Might the only solution be scrapping the entire system and having the Ariane 6 assembled by only one company in one country? But then the other European countries won't get to have a piece.

I guess this is an inherent disadvantage for supranational space organizations.

Ariane 6 is too far along to change.

How about a COTS-like program to develop Europe's next launcher(s).  Have the institutional set of payloads be the 'cargo' and allow individual companies or consortia put skin in the game.  Bottom line could be much cheaper than the typical Ariane-X development effort and create an internationally competitive launch service or two.  Bonus points for reusable systems...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 02/04/2018 06:35 pm
Ariane 6 is too far along to change.

How about a COTS-like program to develop Europe's next launcher(s).  Have the institutional set of payloads be the 'cargo' and allow individual companies or consortia put skin in the game.  Bottom line could be much cheaper than the typical Ariane-X development effort and create an internationally competitive launch service or two.  Bonus points for reusable systems...

First, a COTS type programme would need several competitors and there aren't any other firms in Europe that have the capability.

Secondly, COTS requires a certain minimum demand. ESA/EU doesn't have enough payloads to close the business case for the 1bn+ a GTO launcher costs. As for international business, it looks like we are approaching a launcher-glut and can expect some shake-outs in the launch provider industry.

Thirdly, and this is just my personal opinion: COTS already produced two launch failures, including lost payloads. Neither institutional actors nor the general tax-paying public in Europe would willing to finance such a high risk programme.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 02/04/2018 06:56 pm
Ariane 6 is too far along to change.

How about a COTS-like program to develop Europe's next launcher(s).  Have the institutional set of payloads be the 'cargo' and allow individual companies or consortia put skin in the game.  Bottom line could be much cheaper than the typical Ariane-X development effort and create an internationally competitive launch service or two.  Bonus points for reusable systems...

First, a COTS type programme would need several competitors and there aren't any other firms in Europe that have the capability.

Secondly, COTS requires a certain minimum demand. ESA/EU doesn't have enough payloads to close the business case for the 1bn+ a GTO launcher costs. As for international business, it looks like we are approaching a launcher-glut and can expect some shake-outs in the launch provider industry.

Thirdly, and this is just my personal opinion: COTS already produced two launch failures, including lost payloads. Neither institutional actors nor the general tax-paying public in Europe would willing to finance such a high risk programme.

Good points all...

some comments:
1. I think you underestimate the tech talent pool in Europe.  Airbus suffers from the same incumbency inertia as American defense giants -- none of them were the COTS winners.

2. How about laying the foundation for a Lunar Village? 
The shake-out in launch providers is underway, in large part because of one of the COTS participants.  Choosing to be a part of it (or becoming part of it by default) is what I'd like to see avoided*.

3. Not encouraging innovation because failures could occur is a self-defeating stance.  If unwilling to take a chance, refer back to previous mention of shake-out.


* My underlying interest in Europe becoming a player in reusable rocketry is the same as my interest in the big US defense contractors (Boeing/LockMart and their offspring ULA) getting involved... that's where the talent in rocketry resides, so progress can be accelerated if more entities join in.  Would also like to see China, India, and Japan climb on board.  This is why kowtowing to the status quo is so frustrating...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/04/2018 08:54 pm
The starting point of COTS was that all participants had working LOx-RP-1 engines. (SpaceX got their engine from NASA via Tom Muller. I don't deny that SpaceX has improved their Merlin engine a lot. Orbital and Rocketplane Kistler both used refurbished leftover engines from N1.) In Europe the engines are still in early stage of development, so a COTS program isn't a option at this time.

The satellite and launch market are indeed expecting a shift. I think there are three drivers:
1) New launch vehicles, Falcon 9 /Heavy; Angara, Soyuz 5, GSLV mkIII, LM5,6,7... (Ariane 6, H3, Vulcan)
2) Expectancy of the roll out of LEO Comsats constellations. The uncertainty about the roll out of LEO comsat constalations has caused ComSat provider to delay their fleet replacement. Thus low GEO comsat orders = less commercial launches.
3) China and India are starting to offer ComSat + Launch (+ground architecture?) contracts, these replace orders for USA and EU satellite manufacturers and the launch services.

Tweets from Calapine lead me to a European institution I didn't jet knew. That institution has presentations that directly explain why Europe wants independent acces to space. They also explain the difference between the EU and the USA.
The EU announced they will very likely sign the buy European launchers act. So it's likely European Institutions will cluster their launch orders, getting large order discounts. (normal market practice)
In my opinion the Medium and Large launchers are not suitable for commercial development experiments like COTS. ESA and the EU have decided to choose the micro launchers for this. The PLDspace Arion 2 contract is to create a level playing field. :-X

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 02/11/2018 07:15 pm
The head of ESA suggests the upcoming Vega C and Ariane 6 may not be competitive in the global launch market: “it is essential that we now discuss future solutions, including disruptive ideas.”
Source (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/962778230322290688)

Original source. (http://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2018/02/11/europes-move/)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/11/2018 11:24 pm
There a few 1000kg LVs undevelopment eg Firefly Alpha. While smaller than Vega they are close enough in performance to compete directly with Vega for lot payloads. Especially if cost per kg is lot lower.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 02/11/2018 11:56 pm
Me oversimplifying? Not just outright wrong?  ;D

So what is my answer.
Decide on goals, then work to archive them.
Identify blockers early, prioritize them.

It has been said a few times and I concur, the biggest blocker right now is engines. Can't have a reuseable stage with the current ones. So what makes development hard? Not enough rocket scientists? Not enough test stand time? What changes once Vulcain 2.1 and Vinci are qualified? Has DLR Lampoldshausen enough capacity or will permitting / environmental concerns draw the required testing out? And so on and so forth.
I'd love to says let's just build a new rocket test center. Somewhere with a lot of nothing around it. Somewhere where you can make a lot of noise all day any day and where debris from an Oops can not hit anything other than your own stuff.
Doing so costs money and more importantly time. And will there be any work for it in the future? Not so simple...


Things like geo return are a distraction but can be worked around. In the meantime they keep the money coming in.
And it is all about money. Just like Boeing and Lockheed Martin in the USA Airbus and Safran have plenty money to fund their own reuseable launcher program. No geo return required there. Full commercial control. All of the good stuff mentioned upthread. If they just wanted to. Not that it is going to happen, free money is easier.


Which brings me to the next point. COTS for what?
If COTS as in "If you have the best offer, worldwide, chances are we may buy launches from you." perhaps. Don't forget that at the moment there is no rule forcing European payloads on European launchers. There are zero guarantees that institutional users will buy even a single  A62 (or A64 or Vega) launch more than currently contracted for. Chances are they will and rules might change, but that is not the same as the situation in the US.

There are not that many space companies either. The whole launcher sector is already working on Ariane or Vega with little duplication. Yes there are the sounding rockets and also a few small launcher projects but this has to be much larger to work out in the end. Will there be new companies looking great on paper? Absolutely! The mighty Vector rocket. Ooops, that is already a thing...

I tried to convey it earlier but one of the things I'd like to avoid is duplication of efforts. There are already products and companies, why concentrate them any further by brute force?
Giving *all* of Ariane 6 to one company does not really help.
Who owns the IP to all the various components that make up a rocket? AFAIK for the most part the companies that developed parts. Even if ESA had the IP to every part reinventing and requalifying the actual production methods and tooling is not cheap.

I think it is more important to find a way to force innovation into existing systems. If a company makes a better widget there should be a process to bump the encumbered supplier. The P120C winding process is an obvious example. More performance for less money.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 02/12/2018 12:20 am
How about starting to sell something? Something tangible. ;)

I happen to like Space Rider.
What is the price of Vega-C? What would ESA have to pay for an A62 to A64 upgrade? Hold that thought.

Looks to me like most A62 launches are something that fits into the lower level of an A64. So convert A62 where possible into A64 and stick a Space Rider in the top slot. Than sell space on that. Bad for the Vega-C launch count but as I understand several of those companies are also working on Space Rider. Esp. since the first and oversimplified version would also need an AVUM.

The primary mission is the primary mission, so just launch into an easy to reach low orbit, Space Rider can do the rest. If a customer needs something more specific they can buy a Vega launch.
I really like the idea to launch the experimental platform every quarter or more. Both for economy of scale and the development of a reuseable reentry vehicle that actually works financially...


Rocket lego for such a Space Rider 2.0.
Green propellants are a must. Keep the ground handling on the airport as simple possible. The green stuff is no dietary supplement by any means but definitely not as nasty. And of course the upcoming Hydrazine ban that got talked about.
Price matters. Major points for a version that be launched without a fairing. Because you have to look cool these days. ;)
I'd really love a self contained version that brings the engines back. Less of that service module rubbish. Starting from Vega-C take Space Rider and AVUM, skip the fairing. Shove them into a single product using green propellants. Then do a few iterations on the design spiral. When launching on the upper slot of an institutional A64 launch, is there usually performance left? If so add volume to the payload bay but keep small enough that a solo launch on VEGA-C is still feasible.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 02/12/2018 01:32 am
The head of ESA suggests the upcoming Vega C and Ariane 6 may not be competitive in the global launch market: “it is essential that we now discuss future solutions, including disruptive ideas.”
Source (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/962778230322290688)

Original source. (http://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2018/02/11/europes-move/)

Sounds familiar.
He's being kind in saying 'may not be'...

Folks are just reacting to the concept of reusable rockets -- they haven't even started flying yet, because these few (7-8 cores) are still R&D.  Block 5, if it lives up to any of its design(it will), will wipe out any 'may be' in these statements.

Time to get started -- falling further behind every day.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/12/2018 01:42 am
The head of ESA suggests the upcoming Vega C and Ariane 6 may not be competitive in the global launch market: “it is essential that we now discuss future solutions, including disruptive ideas.”
Source (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/962778230322290688)

Original source. (http://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2018/02/11/europes-move/)

Sounds familiar.
He's being kind in saying 'may not be'...

Folks are just reacting to the concept of reusable rockets -- they haven't even started flying yet, because these few (7-8 cores) are still R&D.  Block 5, if it lives up to any of its design(it will), will wipe out any 'may be' in these statements.

Time to get started -- falling further behind every day.
+1 for proper use of “further” instead of “farther”.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/12/2018 10:15 am
I think Jan Woerner's blog post (http://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2018/02/11/europes-move/) backs the current launchers program from ESA (and the EU).
some snipet and my comments:

Quote
ESA ministers decided in 2014 to develop a new launcher family comprising Ariane 6 and Vega C, based on the existing Ariane 5 and Vega. The promise to secure autonomous access to space and reduce the price by a factor of 2 proved sufficiently compelling to secure ESA member states’ agreement to finance the development.
Multiple times I've written here; that during the 2012 ministerial the path to a Ariane 6 with new liquid engines was blocked. So already in 2012 it became clear that the Ariane 6 could use the same technologies as Ariane 5 and Vega. In my opinion Ariane 62; 64 and Vega-C are very good launcher designs using the available engines.

Quote
At that time, I succeeded in placing environmental concerns and the possible development of reusability among the high-level requirements:
- Maintain and ensure European launcher competence with a long-term perspective, including possibility of reusability/fly-back.
- Ensure possibility to deorbit upper stage directly
Due to time and cost pressure, however, these aspects did not make it onto the agenda for Ariane 6 and Vega C.
I think the reusability and Fly-back are referring to Prometheus and Callisto.
AFAIK because AVUM and ULPM are restartable, the Vega and Ariane 6 will be able to deorbit the upperstages directly.

Quote
With Vega C, Ariane 62 and Ariane 64 approaching completion, it seems logical to complete these launchers in order to at least take that major step towards competitiveness.
This is followed by:
Quote
At the same time, it is essential that we now discuss future solutions, including disruptive ideas. Simply following the kind of approaches seen so far would be expensive and ultimately will fail to convince. Totally new ideas are needed and Europe must now prove it still possesses that traditional strength to surpass itself and break out beyond existing borders.
I think this refers to the FLPP NEO and Horizon 2020 SMILE; Altair and the EIC Pilot (http://ec.europa.eu/research/eic/index.cfm?pg=prizes_space).

There are already improvements for Vega in planning stage:
- The SSMS rideshare launch adapter is in development for Vega(-C/-E). Most likely ESA/Arianegroup will also develop rideshare options for Ariane 6.
- The Vega-E with the VUS upper-stage with the LOx Methane engine replacing the Z9A and AVUM+.
- Also part of Vega-E is the VEnUS solar electric (ion-thrusters) in orbit stage.
- SpaceRider the follow-on of IXV to develop a multiple times usable space test vehicle that can be launched with Vega-C. It can also launch on a Ariane 62.

Personally I think Vega will be phased out in the not to distant future. Most likely this will coincide with the Vega-E introduction around 2025. (Yes, that is the distant future, in space industry terms)
My opinion is that the Ariane 6 launchers are the not the category to do re-usability experiments with. The micro or small launchers are far beter for this.
Currently the lightest launcher developed and build in Europe is the Vega. ESA and the EU have made it a priority to develop smaller orbital launchers. I think it's also important to develop new sounding rockets. Currently all sounding rockets use surplus air-defense missiles or rocket motors imported from Brazil or the USA.
It's also a priority to develop alternatives to be able to phase out hydrazine, and other toxic fuels.

For solids; I think it's a national strategic decision if and which (sub-)orbital launcher should use solids. For the coming years P120C motors are going to be very cheap for their capability.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: jpo234 on 02/12/2018 11:11 am
In my opinion Ariane 62; 64 and Vega-C are very good launcher designs using the available engines.

Ariane 6 was conceived as the response to the expendable Falcon 9 of 2013/2014. But, to quote Woerner, "in the meantime, the world has moved on".

Falcon 9 Block 5 will launch this year. New Glenn will, if things stay on track, launch in 2020. Musk says that BFR development is progressing quickly and might launch in the same time frame.

These are the competitors that Ariane 6 will face in the early 2020s. And, as somebody wrote, if SpaceX achieves it's targets with BFR, a 150t launch will cost less than an Ariane 6 SRB (how much SpaceX charges their customers is a different question). This is the challenge and Ariane 6 is not the answer.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/12/2018 07:59 pm
Depends upon what market Space x focus upon . The worlds largest is US military not commercial  and there is plenty of satellites that will never fly upon a US launcher owing to US foreign policies misadventures . 

Besides which is the orbital market big enough to support Space x ? or will they become a PAN AM of the aerospace world .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Archibald on 02/13/2018 01:23 pm
Quote
the technology for reusable (inexpensive/no refurbishment) engines and recovering boosters didn't exist before SpaceX started down this path

It actually existed. Grid fins have been around since the 60's on Soviet AAMs like the R-27, or even earlier: Soyuz escape tower use them !

Saturn H-1 or Soyuz engines were / are dirt cheap. What was expensive was SSME high performance and unabated love for LH2.

As for landing a rocket on its tail - hard to guess if such a trick could have been pulled out earlier. What is sure is, it was not -  because of all that love for wings and piloted spacecrafts. But that isn't a technical issue.

On technical grounds, the  main roadblock was probably computing power and landing accuracy.

Someday on the historical section of this board, I'll ask, just for the fun of it "How early could have Falcon 9 flyback boosters happened ?"

Oh, and by the way, I've french newspaper La Tribune quoted (a while back) Well it is not a credible source, they know next to zero about aerospace.

That's the newspaper that for a decade, claimed, again and again, that France had sold Rafales combat jets to its first export customer, only to be tersely rebuked the next day by either Dassault or the French government.
 That was of course before the Rafale managed its real breakthrough in the UAE and India...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 02/13/2018 11:19 pm
To those very critical of Ariane 6  and the way forward... What would you do? Say as the head of Esa or Arianegroup.

Starting with today, that is, not going back years and the drawing up alternate history

Here's your direct answer.  (Maybe he's a lurker here.)
Quote
...
Maintain and ensure European launcher competence (comment: does this mean competitiveness?) with a long-term perspective, including possibility of reusability/fly-back.
...

Due to time and cost pressure, however, these aspects did not make it onto the agenda for Ariane 6 and Vega C. Yet in the meantime, the world has moved on and today’s situation requires that we re-assess the situation and identify the possible consequences. In many discussions on the political level, the strategic goal of securing European autonomous access to space has not changed, however there is a growing sense that pressure from global competition is something that needs to be addressed. With Vega C, Ariane 62 and Ariane 64 approaching completion, it seems logical to complete these launchers in order to at least take that major step towards competitiveness. At the same time, it is essential that we now discuss future solutions, including disruptive ideas.

Which is exactly what we've been saying...

Not that A-6 will be fine, and we should reassess where we are in 2025.

...
Only time will tell who judged the potential or re-usability right, and if Ariane 6 was enough.
...

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 02/14/2018 12:53 am
The (not actually that) snarky argument is that the point of no return of A6 has been passed while ago and now Falcon Heavy finally launched. That made it easier for the ESA leadership to change the tune. Before that the political price was much higher.

Now kick engine development into high gear. No reuse without that.
Work harder on small propulsive landing demonstrators. The software does not write itself.
Don't forget Space Rider, reentry technologies play a big role in the future.

With the recent small launcher awards take a look at the goals for a next phase (if any). Seems a bit all over the place to me. It's ok to shotgun initial studies but what comes after that?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 02/14/2018 09:38 pm
The (not actually that) snarky argument is that the point of no return of A6 has been passed while ago and now Falcon Heavy finally launched. That made it easier for the ESA leadership to change the tune. Before that the political price was much higher.

Now kick engine development into high gear. No reuse without that.
Work harder on small propulsive landing demonstrators. The software does not write itself.
Don't forget Space Rider, reentry technologies play a big role in the future.

With the recent small launcher awards take a look at the goals for a next phase (if any). Seems a bit all over the place to me. It's ok to shotgun initial studies but what comes after that?

I would immediately start designing the reusable vehicle powered by a set of maybe seven of the new methlox engines, and plan to have it ready to start testing when the engines are ready in 2020.  May have to adjust the tank lengths a bit, but that's relatively easy. 

Use the sub-scale demos to get the software right -- before 2020 -- just like Grasshopper was a software test bed for Falcon.

Run the development programs in parallel, not series, is the key.  The competition isn't breaking stride...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 02/15/2018 10:59 pm
Blog redo compelled by 'the establishment':
Quote
ESA's director general urges his colleagues to pull their heads out of the sand, gets kicked by ostriches.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/964210514921365504

New blog post:
Quote
This is the first time I have found myself adding a second part to one of my blog posts, and only a few days after publication at that. The reason is simple: the reaction generated and occasional misinterpretation require that I express myself on the subject once again in the clearest terms.

Quote
We will complete the Ariane 6 / Vega C family, ...
In parallel, we will think about further enhancements as well as turning our minds to systems still far off in the future, which today may seem more vision than reality. My fervent hope is that the spirit for such an approach still exists in Europe and that it is part of our responsibility to be completely transparent where taxpayers’ money is involved.
http://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2018/02/15/europes-move-part-2/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 02/16/2018 12:04 am
"Blog redo compelled by 'the establishment':"
  ::)  ::)

Edit: It's also worth to quote in full:

Quote
This is the first time I have found myself adding a second part to one of my blog posts, and only a few days after publication at that. The reason is simple: the reaction generated and occasional misinterpretation require that I express myself on the subject once again in the clearest terms.

Looking back to when I was Head of the German Delegation to ESA, when we developed the so-called High-Level Requirements. At that time, it was obvious that we should develop a cheaper launcher in order to remain in the commercial market while securing the strategic goal of European autonomous access to space. Based on those High-Level Requirements, industry proposed a launcher family consisting of at least three launchers: Ariane 64, Ariane 62 and Vega C. By introducing commonalities between the different launchers, by changing the governance and by introducing new production technologies and processes the goal was achievable to significantly reduce costs and at the same time have the new system ready in a rather short period of time.

The decision of ESA’s Member States to implement this proposal was the right choice.

Consequently, ESA is completely committed, together with its industrial partners, to doing its utmost to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves.

These points were made clear in Part 1 of “Europe’s move”. However, some people chose to interpret my words in such a way as to suggest that I see the launcher family as currently defined as the wrong solution. My call to look to the future and find disruptive solutions cannot come as a surprise coming from the Director General of ESA, an organisation which was founded to develop Europe in space. It would be irresponsible for me to announce that the current family will remain as is for all time. This is exactly what the Ministers asked for in 2014:

Maintain and ensure European launcher competence with a long-term perspective, including possibility of reusability/fly-back.

We will complete the Ariane 6 / Vega C family, fulfilling the demands of satellite providers, launch service customers and the European public for affordable and reliable launchers while at the same time securing for Europe autonomous access to space. In parallel, we will think about further enhancements as well as turning our minds to systems still far off in the future, which today may seem more vision than reality. My fervent hope is that the spirit for such an approach still exists in Europe and that it is part of our responsibility to be completely transparent where taxpayers’ money is involved.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 02/16/2018 12:25 am
I think the important part is "We will complete the Ariane 6 / Vega C family, fulfilling [...]".
The money spent A6x is GONE. Not completing it does not save money. You'd have to go back at least 2 years to make any impact with such cuts. Spending even more money on A5 in attempts to cut a little cost does not really help either.

Get A6 and Vega C done and then follow up ASAP with changes.
(I said upthread to cut A5 as fast as possible for A6, that seems to have happened. :P )
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 02/16/2018 01:22 am
I would immediately start designing the reusable vehicle powered by a set of maybe seven of the new methlox engines, and plan to have it ready to start testing when the engines are ready in 2020.  May have to adjust the tank lengths a bit, but that's relatively easy. 

Use the sub-scale demos to get the software right -- before 2020 -- just like Grasshopper was a software test bed for Falcon.

Run the development programs in parallel, not series, is the key.  The competition isn't breaking stride...

Not wrong but a bit big for my taste. Almost F9 ish. Crashing a bunch of them gets expensive.
Looking at what little I can find Prometheus has 300kN minimum throttle and no mention of restart. A bit high. I still like hover, at least to experiment. I guess adding lead is a choice. ;)

My idea is a bit more nuts. Another Antares. OATK style rocket lego.
Take Vega-C, replace P120C with a reusable methalox stage. It happens to be small enough and staging slow enough.
There is always the discussion about the importance of solids for military users. Z40C happens to be slightly larger than SLBM sized, that has to be good enough. Changing the Vega-C upper stages down the road is still possible.
For cheap space launch I'd offer SLBM disposal. The current French M51 SLBM happens to be -roughly- Z40C sized. The older M45 is smaller, roughly Z23 sized, but should be available in numbers. Call that current Vega performance. (What a coincidence that the diameters are within a few cm.)

Vega is staging the P80 at ~1.8km/s. That should be doable. I don't have Vega-C numbers at hand but they should be similar. If not eat the performance difference or compensate with a larger Vega-E upper stage down the road.
A thrust diagram for the initial P120C had 4250kN max, 2774kN average. 133 seconds, 370MN*sec total impulse. AVIO lists the current P120C as 4500kN average which seems unusually high for just another 20t of propellant.
So 3 stock Prometheus and 1 modded for lower minimal thrust and restart?

That turns out to be roughly half the engine power of a F9 stage. Roughly half the upper stage mass too. (On the order of 53t for Z40C, Z9, AVUM-C& fairing.) Interesting(tm).


Once recovery works reliably start to replace the A6 solids. Easier if it was possible to keep the length close. Ariane 5 stages solids at ~2km/s, no idea where A6 will be but again likely to be similar.

A lot of parts to recover but why not rise to the challenge. That part is supposed to be automated after all. :)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 02/16/2018 10:52 am
...
Crashing a bunch of them gets expensive.
...

Expendables ALL crash.
Use that given, and build reuse as a test-after-payload-delivery bonus.
This is the part of F9 development that everyone can get for free (or at least minimal cost).
Running a complete development program like a science experiment is expensive and time consuming, which is expensive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 02/16/2018 11:49 am
I think the important part is "We will complete the Ariane 6 / Vega C family, fulfilling [...]".
...

 think the important part is the bottom line sentence:
Quote
My fervent hope is that the spirit for such an approach still exists in Europe and that it is part of our responsibility to be completely transparent where taxpayers’ money is involved.

Both parts are in play here.
1. Spirit and heart for competition
2. Accountability for monies spent
Easy for governments to lose both... as we're well aware on this side of the pond.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 02/16/2018 05:06 pm
That sentence is also important, but not what made him write the clarification in the first place. :)

It is not an enviable position to be in. The show must go on. Politicians must be kept happy. The changes underway for A6 have to happen, they are required for future projects.  And yet everyone in the business with two brain cells to rub together knows that change is not coming, change is here.


I like replacing P120C for three reasons. Solids have to go, the sooner the better. The staging speed is just about right, even slow. No need to develop upper stages at the same time, keeping all focus on the important bit - getting the first stage back.
I also love the very unlikely idea of a fast paced development. Faster than payloads are willing to book on new launchers.
The required performance is well known. Size the new stage for RTLS. Build it and stat launching mass simulators(*) into the ocean.
Once launch itself works -no RUDs allowed- put the existing upper stages on top and search for payloads. Preferably replaceable ones to begin with. Not a lack of confidence but keeping expectations low. I think you have to actively treat this as an experimental system or the ability to make changes will go away.
In the meantime send some more mass simulators to the fishes and make landing reliable. Ships, RTLS, perhaps even moving ships.

This will take while. Once the system works ESA will know where to pivot next. Changes to A6? A new launcher? There are many options.

*: A water tank topped of with a detachable reentry capsule. With about twice the staging speed of New Shepard lets do some micro gravity experiments without having to pay Blue Origin for it. Reserve that for stuff that need fast recovery or manual interaction.
Learning how to operate and recover capsules is worthwhile in itself. ESA is always very much about new technology and abilities. Given the excess performance (~55t of total ballast required) it can be quite the battleship capsule.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pietro on 02/16/2018 05:56 pm
This was my comment on Mr. Wöener's blog:

Complete the current developments, but start developing a 100% reusable solution right now, based on SpaceX experience: a BFR class system using the same technology (methalox engines, propulsive vertical landing, carbon-fiber tanks). It is a very versatile solution that can competitively cover the whole launch market (probably with the exception of very small payloads <500kg) at very low cost, including future markets (solar system/planetary exploration and colonization, space resource extraction, space manufacturing, space hotels, micro-gravity research, etc.). At the moment this is the best technical solution so doing anything else is irresponsible (unless there are some new breakthrough inventions) – and *every* European citizen knows this who has any interest in space.

SpaceX took <5 years to develop Raptor for <$1B, so this should be doable roughly within the same timeframe. There are some hard decisions to make: there must be a new innovation and manufacturing infrastructure that is optimized for efficiency (for political reasons development cost is probably "non-optimizable").

Within 10 years space will start to be industrialized and real, mass volume cheap access (vs taxpayer-sponsored "looks-like" cheap access) will be a must. If Europe does not have a competitive solution by then (sooner is better) then the next industrial revolution and colonization will happen without us.

Edit: Of course ESA/Europe and SpaceX could cooperate by SpaceX focusing on launch and Europe developing interesting payloads (Moon village anyone?), but there is the guaranteed access angle.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/16/2018 06:57 pm
How SpaceX and Blue do reuseability is just one way of doing it. Doesn't mean it is best way. Copying competitors methods means always playing catch up as they will  be one generation of LV a head.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pietro on 02/16/2018 09:07 pm
How SpaceX and Blue do reuseability is just one way of doing it. Doesn't mean it is best way. Copying competitors methods means always playing catch up as they will  be one generation of LV a head.

Probably there is a better way, but BFR is still much better than the ESA is maybe-planning to do. So please ESA do copy (and who knows - they can come up with some better solutions in materials/etc. that would make their version better). If they started now they could almost catch up with a <5 year lag (i.e. they could fly in 10 years or less -- oh, I'm an optimist:).

BFR will be < $100/kg to LEO when in full production - Blue will have an answer for that, but no one else. ESA must have an answer (or I'll have to foot the bill of >$5,000/kg launches as an EU taxpayer).

Edit: spelling
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 02/16/2018 11:57 pm
How SpaceX and Blue do reuseability is just one way of doing it. Doesn't mean it is best way. Copying competitors methods means always playing catch up as they will  be one generation of LV a head.

I'm all for innovative solutions that improve on proven methods. 
Not doing anything is how to get two generations (Falcon + BFR) behind.

The suggestion of going with a BFR-sized vehicle may be a step too far... possibly applying similar approach (methlox, carbon fiber, autogenous pressurization, reusable of course) to a 5-7m diameter vehicle could produce a versatile booster core with lots of upper stage options.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 02/25/2018 02:40 pm
The head of Arianegroup was heard by the French parliament recently:
 
http://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.5584573_5a8c43be8d358.commission-de-la-defense--m-alain-charmeau-president-d-ariane-group-20-fevrier-2018 (http://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.5584573_5a8c43be8d358.commission-de-la-defense--m-alain-charmeau-president-d-ariane-group-20-fevrier-2018)

It's in French, but there is interesting stuff about Ariane 6 and future launchers. For instance, he admits that there was not enough investment in launcher technologies between 2004 and 2014, and that was a mistake.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: bolun on 03/12/2018 12:35 pm
http://www.arianespace.com/press-release/satellite-2018/

Quote
Arianespace steps up the pace with Ariane 6 and Vega C

The development of Arianespace’s future launchers is proceeding on schedule, with first launches planned as soon as 2019 for Vega C and as soon as 2020 for Ariane 6.

Ariane 6 and Vega C are perfectly suited to the new market opportunities offered by a number of planned satellite constellations designed to offer global connectivity or Earth observation services. Both launchers won their first launch services contracts in 2017:

- Two contracts for the Ariane 62 version awarded to Arianespace by the European Space Agency, on behalf of the European Commission, to launch four additional satellites, built by OHB, in the Galileo navigation system.

- Three Vega C contracts, including two to orbit satellites in the Airbus Earth observation constellation, and one to launch the COSMO-SkyMed second-generation satellite built by Thales Alenia Space for the Italian space agency (ASI) and Italian Ministry of Defense.

This trend should accelerate in 2018, in particular with the expected first commercial launch contracts for Ariane 6 in the pipeline.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/18/2018 10:50 am
The French President yesterday:

Quote
On est un espace ouvert mais on ne doit pas être naïfs. Les mêmes règles pour tous, y compris dans l'innovation spatiale entre Space X et Ariane 6 ! #QuelleEstVotreEurope
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/986321831044018180

Quote
We're an open space, but we don't have to be naïve. The same rules for all, including in space innovation between space X and Ariane 6! #QuelleEstVotreEurope

To which the following reply:

Quote
Towards a Buy European Act😀 for Ariane 6 and Vega C ? @EmmanuelMacron @EU_Commission @esa @DLR_de @ASI_spazio @CNES @eumetsat
https://twitter.com/arianespaceceo/status/986433008839352320

Quote
We target 5 Ariane 6 and 2 / 3 Vega per year for European institutions (ESA, EC, Eumetstat, National Projects). It is all about level playing field !!!
https://twitter.com/arianespaceceo/status/986466810689187841

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: su27k on 04/19/2018 11:25 am
Quote
We target 5 Ariane 6 and 2 / 3 Vega per year for European institutions (ESA, EC, Eumetstat, National Projects). It is all about level playing field !!!
https://twitter.com/arianespaceceo/status/986466810689187841

Conveniently forgetting they're getting $4B development fund for Ariane 6 and Vega-C for free.

And how many European institution payloads did SpaceX really have? My count is ESA: 0, EC: 0, Eumetstat: 0, National Projects: a handful. And I doubt anybody can force a national project to use Arianespace.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/19/2018 12:03 pm
Quote
We target 5 Ariane 6 and 2 / 3 Vega per year for European institutions (ESA, EC, Eumetstat, National Projects). It is all about level playing field !!!
https://twitter.com/arianespaceceo/status/986466810689187841 (https://twitter.com/arianespaceceo/status/986466810689187841)

Conveniently forgetting they're getting $4B development fund for Ariane 6 and Vega-C for free.


And to put your post in perspective: SpaceX has received almost $500 million in development funds from NASA and USAF for Falcon 9 development.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 04/19/2018 01:59 pm
...from scratch.  The $4B is only the A-5 to A-6 upgrade...
A-5 and previous versions development and subsidy are quite large, too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/19/2018 05:37 pm
There seems to be a breaking point among the Europeans with regard to "buy European."  I can remember a quote from a rep of a "non-core" country saying that it's OK to buy European on Ariane 6, unless SpaceX is half the price.  (Can't find the quote now, given that I think it's behind Peter B. de Selding's paywall.)

It may be close...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/19/2018 05:40 pm
...from scratch.  The $4B is only the A-5 to A-6 upgrade...
A-5 and previous versions development and subsidy are quite large, too.

Not exactly. For switching from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 and upgrading Falcon 9 to be human rated.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 04/19/2018 11:05 pm
Quote
Japan Week 2018: Arianespace is the Japanese market leader (http://www.arianespace.com/press-release/japan-week-2018-arianespace-is-the-japanese-market-leader/)
BSAT-4b ... With this new contract, the 32nd signed in 32 years, 75 percent of Japanese geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) launches open to competition have been entrusted to Arianespace.

Arianespace’s order book stands at 4.7 billion euros, including 56 launches for 29 customers (70 percent commercial and 30 percent institutional, in terms of the number of launches), with 17 by Ariane 5, 28 by Soyuz, nine by Vega/Vega C and two by Ariane 6.

European rockets are launching half of the Arianespace's manifest.  Assuming that all the Soyuz launches are commercial (is this a good assumption?), that leaves 20% of the commercial portion and all 30% of the institutional to be launched by A-5/6 and Vega/Vega-C.  Thus, European launchers are currently manifesting 60% institutional and 40% commercial launches.

Is this consistent with normal/historical percentages? 
Does the annual five Ariane 6 and 2-3 Vega-C launch target maintain this composition with 60% institutional and 40% (5 launches) commercial?


The French President yesterday:
...
Quote
We target 5 Ariane 6 and 2 / 3 Vega per year for European institutions (ESA, EC, Eumetstat, National Projects). It is all about level playing field !!!
https://twitter.com/arianespaceceo/status/986466810689187841
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 04/20/2018 03:22 am
What's odd to me is nearly every French language media source qualifies A6 challenges by explicitly saying that because SpaceX charges more for government launches they can afford breaks on commercial ones. Subsidies, subsidies I tell you! Nevermind that inconveint fact that their government rates are still cheaper than the competition even if they were allowed to bid. Spacex can charge whatever  to whomever, so long as they have customers and as long as they remain a going concern.Oheah, and a few billion in getting started money from Daddy and annual EGAS allowance. It's awe inspiring, in a way, how someone like Stephane can sit there saying this with a straight face.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/20/2018 06:43 am
What's odd to me is nearly every French language media source qualifies A6 challenges by explicitly saying that because SpaceX charges more for government launches they can afford breaks on commercial ones. Subsidies, subsidies I tell you! Nevermind that inconveint fact that their government rates are still cheaper than the competition even if they were allowed to bid. Spacex can charge whatever  to whomever, so long as they have customers and as long as they remain a going concern.Oheah, and a few billion in getting started money from Daddy and annual EGAS allowance. It's awe inspiring, in a way, how someone like Stephane can sit there saying this with a straight face.

Doing that is in fact what he gets paid for. And he is d*mn good at it.
Remember, Arianespace is very much a political vehicle. It channels the political wishes of the European spaceflight industry almost directly into the confines of ESA leadership. Arianespace has a LOT of political clout.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/20/2018 11:31 pm
Lot of misinformtion on here. The quality of this forum is really going down the drain.
Let's correct some statements, with links to news releases.
1)
Conveniently forgetting they're getting $4B development fund for Ariane 6 and Vega-C for free.
ESA, Ariane 6 and Vega-C begin development (https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Ariane_6_and_Vega_C_begin_development)
Quote
Today, ESA signed contracts for the development of the Ariane 6 new‑generation launcher, its launch base and the Vega C evolution of the current small launcher.

The contracts, signed at ESA’s Paris Head Office with Airbus Safran Launchers (ASL), France’s CNES space agency and ELV, respectively, cover all development work on Ariane 6 and its launch base for a maiden flight in 2020, and on Vega C for its 2018 debut.

The contract amounts are: €2400 million for Ariane 6 (ASL), €600 million for the launch base (CNES) and €395 million for Vega C (ELV).

So the development of Ariane 6 on the heritage of Ariane 5 cost €2400mln, not 4 billion. (€ to $ conversion is useless because the value fluctuates a lot.) The Vega-C isn't developed for free. And the new ELA-4 cost €600mln.

Let's also add this SpaceNews (http://spacenews.com/41939iss-expected-to-take-back-seat-to-next-gen-ariane-as-space-ministers-meet/) Article written by Peter B. de Selding.
Quote
With so many elements borrowed from other programs, the Ariane 6 could be operational as soon as 2019 or 2020 — just a year or two later than the Ariane 5 ME — at a cost that government officials said would be around 3 billion euros ($3.9 billion).

Ariane 5 ME’s development cost has been estimated at 1.2 billion euros. With self-imposed spending limit on rockets of 8 billion euros over 10 years, ESA likely cannot afford to build both Ariane 5 ME and Ariane 6 at the same time. The 8-billion-euro ceiling includes all launcher spending at ESA, including ESA’s share of Ariane 5 and Vega operations.

2)
What's odd to me is nearly every French language media source qualifies A6 challenges by explicitly saying that because SpaceX charges more for government launches they can afford breaks on commercial ones. Subsidies, subsidies I tell you! Nevermind that inconvenient fact that their government rates are still cheaper than the competition even if they were allowed to bid. Spacex can charge whatever  to whomever, so long as they have customers and as long as they remain a going concern. Oheah, and a few billion in getting started money from Daddy and annual EGAS allowance. It's awe inspiring, in a way, how someone like Stephane can sit there saying this with a straight face.
- EGAS allowances (cost of maintaining the facilities at CSG) will end during the transition to Ariane 6. And actually the DoD/NASA pay the bill for the same services at VdBAFB, Cape and KSC. 
- The whole point is that Arianespace (non US launch service providers) can't compete in US institutional launches . In China and Russia, and if I'm not mistaken India and Japan, institutional payloads are launched with their own launchers. A buy European launch service act would level the playingfield in the launchers market.
AFAIK if Arianespace would compete for US institutional payloads, launch cost even on Ariane 5 would drop considerably. But the launch has to be shared with another satellite.
In some cases a Vega or Vega-C could do the launch, in this case a Falcon 9 launch is more expansive than a Vega launch. Vega is really limited by it's launch rate. This will change with the investments made for Ariane 6 and Vega C. 
- AFAIK there are three European institutional launches awarded to SpX; PAZ and the SARah constellation. Besides this you have ExoMars going on Proton, and three missions using Atlas V, LM-2 and  PSLV. These launches went outside Europe because Arianespace couldn't offer a launch (or only on Soyuz, = outside Europe.)
I agree that the current numbers could be misleading, because it's valid for the current backlog. A lot of institutional payloads haven't booked their launch jet (officially).

I think Macron didn't use the right words. In case of Ariane 6 guaranteed institutional demand, it's payloads for a launch. If a institutional satellite requires a GTO launch, that launch can be shared with a second payload (when launching on a A64 instead of A62. The most likely case is that the second satellite will be commercial. And if it's a institutional satellite, I think this has to count for two launches.
The guaranteed demand will be like the agreement that the launchers program wouldn't exceed 8 billion in a decade. (I don't know the period for this agreement)
I think the guaranteed demand for launches will replace the EGAS allowances. I think it will work along these lines:
> In the preparation period for a ESA minitsterial conference the member-states will evaluate their institutional launch demand, and acces which payloads are suitable for the Guaranteed demand.
> During the ESA conference the payloads brought in by the member-states are grouped and a large order for launches is awarded to Arianespace. (the guaranteed demand). Currently there is only one launch service provider in Europe, so only Arianespace can receive the grouped launch order.
> In exchange for the guaranteed institutional demand, NO annual payments are made to Arianespace, and the launches are sold at a discounted rate. (Large volume discount)

If institutional payloads are launched by Arianespace, the cost of these launches flow back into the nations  via taxes. If the launch service provider is non-European a launch would only cost, it doesn't generate additional GDP in Europe, thus no tax income. Institutional launch contracts can be viewed as stimuli for the economy, but only if it works internally. I think the economy stimulus effect justifies abandoning the open market.
But the fact that it only works when the institution is also involved in the production of the launcher (or funded by a nation that has a company that...).   

This post is far to long again.  ::) :-X
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 04/24/2018 04:11 am
Lot of misinformtion on here. The quality of this forum is really going down the drain.
Let's correct some statements, with links to news releases.
1)
Conveniently forgetting they're getting $4B development fund for Ariane 6 and Vega-C for free.
ESA, Ariane 6 and Vega-C begin development (https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Ariane_6_and_Vega_C_begin_development)
Quote
Today, ESA signed contracts for the development of the Ariane 6 new‑generation launcher, its launch base and the Vega C evolution of the current small launcher.

The contracts, signed at ESA’s Paris Head Office with Airbus Safran Launchers (ASL), France’s CNES space agency and ELV, respectively, cover all development work on Ariane 6 and its launch base for a maiden flight in 2020, and on Vega C for its 2018 debut.

The contract amounts are: €2400 million for Ariane 6 (ASL), €600 million for the launch base (CNES) and €395 million for Vega C (ELV).

So the development of Ariane 6 on the heritage of Ariane 5 cost €2400mln, not 4 billion. (€ to $ conversion is useless because the value fluctuates a lot.) The Vega-C isn't developed for free. And the new ELA-4 cost €600mln.

Let's also add this SpaceNews (http://spacenews.com/41939iss-expected-to-take-back-seat-to-next-gen-ariane-as-space-ministers-meet/) Article written by Peter B. de Selding.
Quote
With so many elements borrowed from other programs, the Ariane 6 could be operational as soon as 2019 or 2020 — just a year or two later than the Ariane 5 ME — at a cost that government officials said would be around 3 billion euros ($3.9 billion).

Ariane 5 ME’s development cost has been estimated at 1.2 billion euros. With self-imposed spending limit on rockets of 8 billion euros over 10 years, ESA likely cannot afford to build both Ariane 5 ME and Ariane 6 at the same time. The 8-billion-euro ceiling includes all launcher spending at ESA, including ESA’s share of Ariane 5 and Vega operations.
What's odd to me is nearly every French language media source qualifies A6 challenges by explicitly saying that because SpaceX charges more for government launches they can afford breaks on commercial ones. Subsidies, subsidies I tell you! Nevermind that inconvenient fact that their government rates are still cheaper than the competition even if they were allowed to bid. Spacex can charge whatever  to whomever, so long as they have customers and as long as they remain a going concern. Oheah, and a few billion in getting started money from Daddy and annual EGAS allowance. It's awe inspiring, in a way, how someone like Stephane can sit there saying this with a straight face.
- EGAS allowances (cost of maintaining the facilities at CSG) will end during the transition to Ariane 6. And actually the DoD/NASA pay the bill for the same services at VdBAFB, Cape and KSC. 
- The whole point is that Arianespace (non US launch service providers) can't compete in US institutional launches . In China and Russia, and if I'm not mistaken India and Japan, institutional payloads are launched with their own launchers. A buy European launch service act would level the playingfield in the launchers market.
AFAIK if Arianespace would compete for US institutional payloads, launch cost even on Ariane 5 would drop considerably. But the launch has to be shared with another satellite.
In some cases a Vega or Vega-C could do the launch, in this case a Falcon 9 launch is more expansive than a Vega launch. Vega is really limited by it's launch rate. This will change with the investments made for Ariane 6 and Vega C. 
- AFAIK there are three European institutional launches awarded to SpX; PAZ and the SARah constellation. Besides this you have ExoMars going on Proton, and three missions using Atlas V, LM-2 and  PSLV. These launches went outside Europe because Arianespace couldn't offer a launch (or only on Soyuz, = outside Europe.)
I agree that the current numbers could be misleading, because it's valid for the current backlog. A lot of institutional payloads haven't booked their launch jet (officially).

I think Macron didn't use the right words. In case of Ariane 6 guaranteed institutional demand, it's payloads for a launch. If a institutional satellite requires a GTO launch, that launch can be shared with a second payload (when launching on a A64 instead of A62. The most likely case is that the second satellite will be commercial. And if it's a institutional satellite, I think this has to count for two launches.
The guaranteed demand will be like the agreement that the launchers program wouldn't exceed 8 billion in a decade. (I don't know the period for this agreement)
I think the guaranteed demand for launches will replace the EGAS allowances. I think it will work along these lines:
> In the preparation period for a ESA minitsterial conference the member-states will evaluate their institutional launch demand, and acces which payloads are suitable for the Guaranteed demand.
> During the ESA conference the payloads brought in by the member-states are grouped and a large order for launches is awarded to Arianespace. (the guaranteed demand). Currently there is only one launch service provider in Europe, so only Arianespace can receive the grouped launch order.
> In exchange for the guaranteed institutional demand, NO annual payments are made to Arianespace, and the launches are sold at a discounted rate. (Large volume discount)

If institutional payloads are launched by Arianespace, the cost of these launches flow back into the nations  via taxes. If the launch service provider is non-European a launch would only cost, it doesn't generate additional GDP in Europe, thus no tax income. Institutional launch contracts can be viewed as stimuli for the economy, but only if it works internally. I think the economy stimulus effect justifies abandoning the open market.
But the fact that it only works when the institution is also involved in the production of the launcher (or funded by a nation that has a company that...).   

This post is far to long again.  ::) :-X
From here it just looks like Ariane group is making up excuses and bitter about being derided in the media as having been caught with their pants down, same as ULA, over new space players. 2.4B for A6, 0.6B for Arianespace's launch facilities, and 0.4B for Vega sure does add up to close enought to 4B, who's counting millions at that point, of investment that benefits ArianeGroup.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/24/2018 06:58 am
From here it just looks like Ariane group is making up excuses and bitter about being derided in the media as having been caught with their pants down, same as ULA, over new space players. 2.4B for A6, 0.6B for Arianespace's launch facilities, and 0.4B for Vega sure does add up to close enought to 4B, who's counting millions at that point, of investment that benefits ArianeGroup.

Yes, Arianespace was caught with their pants down. However, their complaint about the lack of a level playing field is justified.
In the USA, government launches are always carried out by US launch service providers, on (mostly) US built rockets.
In Russia, government launches are always carried out by Russian launch service providers on Russian built rockets.
In Japan, government launches are always carried out by Japanese launch service providers on Japanese built rockets.

See the pattern?

And then comes Europe.
ESA launches are SOMETIMES carried out by European launch service providers and not all of those are on European built launchers.
In several cases ESA launches are carried out by Russian or US launch service providers.

It means that US and Russian launch service providers benefit from ESA launches, whereas the reverse is not happening.
Thus, there is not a level playing field with regards to Arianespace competing with other launch service providers for government launches.

The above is the very reason why Arianespace, and now several member states of ESA, are pushing for a "Buy European" provision with regards to ESA launches. It is all about leveling the playing field.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/24/2018 07:40 am
From here it just looks like Ariane group is making up excuses and bitter about being derided in the media as having been caught with their pants down, same as ULA, over new space players. 2.4B for A6, 0.6B for Arianespace's launch facilities, and 0.4B for Vega-C sure does add up to close enough to 4B, who's counting millions at that point, of investment that benefits ArianeGroup.
1) where is here?
2) In my opinion ULA and Arianespace still have advantages over SpX; higher succes reliability, beter schedule reliability, beter services (payload preparation & Vertical launcher mating)
3) AFAIK: 2.4 + 0.6 + 0.4 = 3.4 not 4. You're off 600mln or around five launches.
These 3.4billion (and the investments in Ariane 5ME) have gone for the mayor part to loans of Europeans. Load taxes are generally higher than in the US, so a lot if this already returns to the governments via loan taxes. If I remember correctly the multiplier of investments in launchers in Europe was around 2. (investment *2 = GDP increase)
I agree that the NASAs COTS program had a way higher multiplier effect. But NASA also is developing SLS and Orion, according to wiki SLS alone costed 7 billion between 2014 and 2018. Many here on NSF think the launcher market is fully open and globally competitive. AFAIK it just is not. The main reason are US ITAR regulations.
Ariane 6 is a Launcher developed in Europe mainly for the launch requirements of ESA, it's member-states and European satellite service providers. For European institutions (especially governments that have a work-share in Ariane 6 of Vega(-C)), awarding launches for satellites to Arianespace will increase GDP and thus tax-income. On the long run the launch pays for itself for a large part. This is not the case for a foreight launch that maybe has a lower launch cost.

I also dare to state that SpaceX doesn't have a large launch cost advantage. A Vega (-C) launch costs are about 35mln. A Falcon 9 launch between 60 and 100 mln. An Ariane 5 costs 150-175mln, and a Ariane 6 between 100 - 150 mln. But this is only looking at cost, all launchers have different capabilities. I don't have the details to make a fare comparison.

It would be nice if more people look at thinks with a more objective and positive attitude. Instead of a SpaceX is good every other launch service provider sucks attitude. Sorry I have a nickname for SpaceX; Delay-X. They just seem to always have to delay/postpone launches.

For the utmost time; The benefites of Ariane 6 and Vega-C are:
- Their launch cost are lower in the case of Ariane 6 and equal in the case of Vega-C
- They are more versatile, have beter launch capabilities.
- Ariane 62 and Vega-C can replace Soyuz, they can launch the payloads that couldn't be launched by Vega or Ariane 5. At the same or lower launch cost.
I agree it would be very nice if ESA/Europe could have a reusable Liquid first stage (? ArianeNext) by 2020 or 2025. But unfortunately that's just not realistic. And the reuse would result in uneconomical low production rates at the predicted launch demand.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: su27k on 04/25/2018 03:38 am
In the USA, government launches are always carried out by US launch service providers, on (mostly) US built rockets.

Not true, JWST is launching on Ariane 5. I don't have time to check, but I suspect several cases of so called "ESA launching on foreign launchers" is similar deal as JWST, i.e. the other country is providing the launcher for free as contribution to the project, ExoMars is one such example. I don't see how a "Buy European" rule can affect these.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: deruch on 04/25/2018 08:38 am
From here it just looks like Ariane group is making up excuses and bitter about being derided in the media as having been caught with their pants down, same as ULA, over new space players. 2.4B for A6, 0.6B for Arianespace's launch facilities, and 0.4B for Vega-C sure does add up to close enough to 4B, who's counting millions at that point, of investment that benefits ArianeGroup.
3) AFAIK: 2.4 + 0.6 + 0.4 = 3.4 not 4. You're off 600mln or around five launches.

The original comment was about 4 Billion Dollars.  Your math, showing a 600M shortfall, is about 3.4 Billion Euro.  In an earlier comment, you disclaimed any conversion on the basis that the exchange rate is always moving, but over the last 14 years there are only 3 where the exchange rate might result in the conversion being less than 4 Billion USD (2015, 2016, 2017).  3.4B Euro to 4B USD is a perfectly fair historical shorthand for conversion.  As ~1/3 the development did take place in those years, it would be fair to quibble over it being a slight overestimate.  But really we're not talking about too much now.  Likely less than 10% of the $4B.  So, I'm not sure why you're so determined to die for that particular hill.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/25/2018 09:13 am
In the USA, government launches are always carried out by US launch service providers, on (mostly) US built rockets.

Not true, JWST is launching on Ariane 5.

Invalid example. JWST is not an all-NASA project. It is an international cooperation between NASA, ESA and CSA, with NASA providing most of the funding, ESA providing the launcher as well as several of the scientific instruments and CSA providing instruments as well.
Remember that $8.8 billion cost cap for JWST, imposed by US Congress? Well, that cost cap is not for JWST, it is for the US contribution to the JWST project.

ExoMars is similar to JWST. It is an international cooperation between ESA and Russia, with ESA providing most of the funding and Russia providing the launcher as well as several of the scientific instruments.

TESS however is all-NASA, and thus a US government launch. No way in hell that ever could have launched on anything but a US launcher.

On the other hand:
Cluster-2 was an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a Russian launcher.
Gaia is an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a Russian launcher.
CHEOPS: the same.
EUCLID: the same.
PLATO: the same.
GOCE: the same.
SMOS: the same.
Cryosat-2: the same.
Swarm: the same.
Mars Express: the same.
Venus Express: the same.
Exosat was an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a US launcher.

And the list goes on.

This is why several ESA member states are now openly calling for mirroring US and Russian policies with regards to government launches. It is about leveling the playing field for Arianespace, and thus Ariane 6 (which is the subject of this thread).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Eric Hedman on 04/25/2018 01:56 pm
Interesting article in Aviation Week about Europe realizing they should look closer at reusability:

http://aviationweek.com/space/europe-accelerates-studies-reusable-launchers?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180425_AW-05_69&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&utm_rid=CPEN1000002507287&utm_campaign=14597&utm_medium=email&elq2=0069506344b64a37b3cf5ce641235229 (http://aviationweek.com/space/europe-accelerates-studies-reusable-launchers?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180425_AW-05_69&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&utm_rid=CPEN1000002507287&utm_campaign=14597&utm_medium=email&elq2=0069506344b64a37b3cf5ce641235229)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: su27k on 04/25/2018 04:12 pm
Invalid example. JWST is not an all-NASA project. It is an international cooperation between NASA, ESA and CSA, with NASA providing most of the funding, ESA providing the launcher as well as several of the scientific instruments and CSA providing instruments as well.
Remember that $8.8 billion cost cap for JWST, imposed by US Congress? Well, that cost cap is not for JWST, it is for the US contribution to the JWST project.

ExoMars is similar to JWST. It is an international cooperation between ESA and Russia, with ESA providing most of the funding and Russia providing the launcher as well as several of the scientific instruments.

ExoMars is the example Rik ISS-fan given above, his comment should be corrected as well.

Quote
On the other hand:
Cluster-2 was an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a Russian launcher.
Gaia is an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a Russian launcher.
CHEOPS: the same.
EUCLID: the same.
PLATO: the same.
GOCE: the same.
SMOS: the same.
Cryosat-2: the same.
Swarm: the same.
Mars Express: the same.
Venus Express: the same.
Exosat was an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a US launcher.

And the list goes on.

This is why several ESA member states are now openly calling for mirroring US and Russian policies with regards to government launches. It is about leveling the playing field for Arianespace, and thus Ariane 6 (which is the subject of this thread).

Thank you for the list, it's pretty interesting, it looks to me almost all of them went on Russian launcher, which kind of confirms my observation that SpaceX (or US company in general) is not stealing ESA launches. This whole "Buy European" thing has nothing to do with SpaceX, why don't you guys just rename it to "Stop sending launches to Russia"? That would greatly reduce the confusion (especially considering Russia is technically part of Europe...).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 04/25/2018 11:15 pm
Invalid example. JWST is not an all-NASA project. It is an international cooperation between NASA, ESA and CSA, with NASA providing most of the funding, ESA providing the launcher as well as several of the scientific instruments and CSA providing instruments as well.
Remember that $8.8 billion cost cap for JWST, imposed by US Congress? Well, that cost cap is not for JWST, it is for the US contribution to the JWST project.

ExoMars is similar to JWST. It is an international cooperation between ESA and Russia, with ESA providing most of the funding and Russia providing the launcher as well as several of the scientific instruments.

ExoMars is the example Rik ISS-fan given above, his comment should be corrected as well.

Quote
On the other hand:
Cluster-2 was an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a Russian launcher.
Gaia is an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a Russian launcher.
CHEOPS: the same.
EUCLID: the same.
PLATO: the same.
GOCE: the same.
SMOS: the same.
Cryosat-2: the same.
Swarm: the same.
Mars Express: the same.
Venus Express: the same.
Exosat was an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a US launcher.

And the list goes on.

This is why several ESA member states are now openly calling for mirroring US and Russian policies with regards to government launches. It is about leveling the playing field for Arianespace, and thus Ariane 6 (which is the subject of this thread).

Thank you for the list, it's pretty interesting, it looks to me almost all of them went on Russian launcher, which kind of confirms my observation that SpaceX (or US company in general) is not stealing ESA launches. This whole "Buy European" thing has nothing to do with SpaceX, why don't you guys just rename it to "Stop sending launches to Russia"? That would greatly reduce the confusion (especially considering Russia is technically part of Europe...).
Given that information it's also puzzling why comments from the likes of Stephane Israel & Jean-Yves Le Gall seem to generally imply SpaceX when they complain about this.

Maybe it's because they're so used to answering media questions about SpaceX and they're tired of it? Sick of SpaceX in the spotlight? I don't know. I would venture to guess more non-industry journalists are aware of "SpaceX as competition" than the Russian launch providers, by a decent margin. Disclaimer: I'm basically thinking out loud here, in no way do I intend to defend this "hypothesis" if evidence or even a convincing contrary hypothesis is proposed by anyone else.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/26/2018 06:56 am
Invalid example. JWST is not an all-NASA project. It is an international cooperation between NASA, ESA and CSA, with NASA providing most of the funding, ESA providing the launcher as well as several of the scientific instruments and CSA providing instruments as well.
Remember that $8.8 billion cost cap for JWST, imposed by US Congress? Well, that cost cap is not for JWST, it is for the US contribution to the JWST project.

ExoMars is similar to JWST. It is an international cooperation between ESA and Russia, with ESA providing most of the funding and Russia providing the launcher as well as several of the scientific instruments.

ExoMars is the example Rik ISS-fan given above, his comment should be corrected as well.

Quote
On the other hand:
Cluster-2 was an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a Russian launcher.
Gaia is an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a Russian launcher.
CHEOPS: the same.
EUCLID: the same.
PLATO: the same.
GOCE: the same.
SMOS: the same.
Cryosat-2: the same.
Swarm: the same.
Mars Express: the same.
Venus Express: the same.
Exosat was an all-ESA project. But it didn't launch on a European launcher. It was launched on a US launcher.

And the list goes on.

This is why several ESA member states are now openly calling for mirroring US and Russian policies with regards to government launches. It is about leveling the playing field for Arianespace, and thus Ariane 6 (which is the subject of this thread).

Thank you for the list, it's pretty interesting, it looks to me almost all of them went on Russian launcher, which kind of confirms my observation that SpaceX (or US company in general) is not stealing ESA launches. This whole "Buy European" thing has nothing to do with SpaceX, why don't you guys just rename it to "Stop sending launches to Russia"? That would greatly reduce the confusion (especially considering Russia is technically part of Europe...).

Given that information it's also puzzling why comments from the likes of Stephane Israel & Jean-Yves Le Gall seem to generally imply SpaceX when they complain about this.

It is not confusing at all. There are two separate issues at hand:

1. "Leveling the playing field" primarily applies to government launches. Which (currently) make up about one quarter of all Arianespace launches.
2. Competition from SpaceX, and others, for fully commercial launches. Commercial launches make up about three-quarters of all Arianespace launches.

The reason that both CNES and Arianespace are publically complaining about both issues is that both issues eat into (potential) Arianespace revenue. With Arianespace currently being unable to sufficiently respond to the threat of SpaceX the need for a healthy share of government launches is increasing. Hence the whole "leveling the playing field"-thing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/26/2018 11:48 am
ExoMars is the example Rik ISS-fan given above, his comment should be corrected as well.
I realized that ExoMars wasn't a good example when I posted it, because the project division between ESA and Roscosmos was the reason the two ExoMars missions launch on Proton rockets.
The JASON-CS / Sentinel 6 satellites will launch on Falcon 9, their launch cost are payed by the US. So I didn't state it. The same is the case for GRACE-FO. And also Solar Orbiter that will launch on a Atlas V 411.

Given that information it's also puzzling why comments from the likes of Stephane Israel & Jean-Yves Le Gall seem to generally imply SpaceX when they complain about this.

Maybe it's because they're so used to answering media questions about SpaceX and they're tired of it? Sick of SpaceX in the spotlight? I don't know. I would venture to guess more non-industry journalists are aware of "SpaceX as competition" than the Russian launch providers, by a decent margin. Disclaimer: I'm basically thinking out loud here, in no way do I intend to defend this "hypothesis" if evidence or even a convincing contrary hypothesis is proposed by anyone else.

It is not confusing at all. There are two separate issues at hand:

1. "Leveling the playing field" primarily applies to government launches. Which (currently) make up about one quarter of all Arianespace launches.
2. Competition from SpaceX, and others, for fully commercial launches. Commercial launches make up about three-quarters of all Arianespace launches.

The reason that both CNES and Arianespace are publically complaining about both issues is that both issues eat into (potential) Arianespace revenue. With Arianespace currently being unable to sufficiently respond to the threat of SpaceX the need for a healthy share of government launches is increasing. Hence the whole "leveling the playing field"-thing.

The situation from the past is actually more simpel then can be expected. Lets first add same more info, and afterwards I'll speculate what this is all about.

AFAIK Delta II was used for several European institutional payloads. Also Dnepr and Kosmos rockets were used multiple times. A lot of European institutional payloads can not be launched by Ariane 5. (They could with Ariane 4 but also then foreign launches were used besides Ariane 4). That why EADS (now Arianegroup) started the Starsem (Soyuz, France) and EURockot (Rocket-KM, Germany) joint-ventures with Russian launch service providers.
EUrockot executed their last mission yesterday with the Sentinel 3B launch, they will soon cease operations.
Dnepr can't launch anymore because the Russia - Ukraine conflict. And Kosmos has be phased out long ago.
I think the Vega and Vega-C rockets were developed to be able to have a European rocket available. They can do the launches that were divided between Rockot, Dnepr (,Kosmos) and Delta II.

Starsem has won the contract for the 21 launches for Oneweb. But they can't receive new orders. GK Launch is now selling commercial Soyuz launches from Russia, Arianespace can offer Soyuz launches from CSG (but GK Launch executes them with Russian personnel).
The Soyuz launch site at CSG was constructed to have more launch schedule control on Soyuz launches. But Soyuz is still a Russian launcher. The cost for a Soyuz rocket increased from ~40mln to ~80mln between the decision to construct the Soyuz launch site and 2014. This was a main reason for the development of Ariane 62.

That's the info part now I'm going to speculate.
It's CNES (France Space Agency) and the French CEO of the mostly French Arianespace that are lobbying for a law forcing European institutions to launch their satellites with Arianespace. They are indirectly complaining to Germany, Spain and Luxemburg. Only France has a stake in the Soyuz from CSG launch offering. That's why Germany decided to launch the ... constellation on Falcon 9, instead of the more expansive Soyuz. For PAZ Dnepr wouldn't launch; Vega-C wasn't available jet, and a ride-share on a Falcon 9 is a lot cheaper than being the main payload on a Soyuz launch.
I don't get why Luxemburg/SES awarded the GOVSAT-1 launch to SpaceX. Possibly Arianespace couldn't schedule the launch at the required time, and SpaceX could have undercut the launch price.
I think CNES and Arianespace are mainly complaining about these launches going to competitors.

I also want to add another complication for a law that directs European institutions to launch via Arianespace.
One of the main purposes of the EU is to create a fair and open European market. The EU can not approve a law that creates a monopoly.
That's why I think the buy European launch services act, will turn out to be block (grouped) launch orders during ESA ministerial conferences.

I'm convinced that if Germany would have had the option to launch the SARah constellation on Ariane 6 they would have chosen it, also when it would be more expansive. I'm also convinced that if PAZ could have launched on Vega-C that would have cost less then the current Falcon 9 launch.
The EU and ESA are considering a GOVSATCOM program, it's very likely that these GEO satellites will be launched by Ariane 6 if the program follows trough.

I think the countries that have a stake in the Ariane 6 and/or Vega(-C) programs already are very likely to award institutional satellite launches to Arianespace. But a EUMETSAT, for the weather satellites, or for example a government like Poland or the UK for a Military satellite doesn't have this a reference for Ariane of Vega.
It's this later category where the buy Arianespace launch services act, is going to conflict with the open market principle in the EU. In my opinion it shouldn't apply here.   

It was CNES that did a institutional market assesment for Ariane5ME and Ariane 6. They came to the conclusion that for Ariane 5ME there would be an annual institutional demand for 1 to 2 launches. Besides this there is a demand for ~2 annual soyuz launches. For Ariane 6 the annual demand would be 3 to 4 launches. (the sum of Soyuz and Ariane 5ME launches.) So AFAIK, the minimum of 5x Ariane 6 annually is unrealistic.
For Arianespace to be able to compete on the commercial market, the flight rate must increase.
With Ariane 5 and Vega Arianespace could only launch 8x Ariane 5 annually or 7x Ariane 5 and 4x Vega. This is going to change with the introduction of Ariane 6 and Vega-C. The launch cost are calculated assuming annually 5x A64, 6x A62 and 3x Vega-C, most likely the Vega-C can launch more often. If the demand for Ariane 6 launches is lower then expected, Arianespace has to increase the launch price. This will result in a vicious circle in decreasing launch demand for increasing launch price. AFAIK, that's why Arianespace wants a guaranteed demand of five annual launches / payloads. 
The same reasoning is why in my opinion a reusable first stage or complete launch system is very risky to pursue for Arianespace. They risk producing the launcher stages at a low rate causing higher launch cost than with the expendable stages.   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/27/2018 12:28 pm
Arianespace press release:
Arianespace signs frame contract with ESA for the procurement of launch services for European space agency missions (http://www.arianespace.com/press-release/arianespace-signs-frame-contract-with-esa-for-the-procurement-of-launch-services-for-european-space-agency-missions/)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: rcoppola on 04/27/2018 02:01 pm
Seems reasonable that ESA wants to support its premier EU launch provider. However, with Government Institutions looking to increase their use of private Sat imaging, weather, data, etc., the definition of what is and isn't a government launch could be made to blur and make any additional Institutional/government agreements of this nature unworkable if pushed too far beyond the kind of institutional market the ESA represents.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/27/2018 09:58 pm
... However, with Government Institutions looking to increase their use of private Sat imaging, weather, data, etc., the definition of what is and isn't a government launch could be made to blur and make any additional Institutional/government agreements of this nature unworkable if pushed too far beyond the kind of institutional market the ESA represents.
::) These three examples are actually three wrong ones. I'll explain.
- Sat imaging: On the one hand you have EU's copernicus program (the Sentinels), besides you have ESA's Living planet program. Aand the countries that have a stake in the production of Ariane 6 are collaborating on their military earth observation systems. Launching the satellites on European launchers could be arranged between these governments. (The EU/ESA satellites are covered by the arrangement between ESA and Arianespace)
- Weather; there is a intergovernmental organisation, EUMETSAT (https://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/AboutUs/WhoWeAre/index.html) that operates the meteorological satellite systems for many European countries. During a EUMETSAT council the member-states could decide to launch their satellites on European launchers. (I agree, it will be hard to reach a agreement at a EUMETSAT council)
- Data, search for GovSatCom, possibly the third EU satellite program besides Copernicus and Galileo. If this happens the GovSatCom satellites are covered by the ESA - Arianespace agreement.
 :o The institutional satellite market is not a open market.
Many European countries can't afford independent satellite programs. Many counties collaborate to get the capabilities more affordable, or capabilities are shared.
 
I expect ESA is also going to order annually a ride-share launch for Cubesats and micro satellites. Or these could be launched as ride share payloads on launches for larger payloads. Vega-C and Ariane 62 will often have a large reserve capacity on launches to SSO. Since the AVUM (, VUS) and ULPM will have the capability to fire multiple times, the ride-share payloads can be inserted into a lower orbit than the main payload. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: deruch on 04/28/2018 09:43 am
ExoMars is the example Rik ISS-fan given above, his comment should be corrected as well.
I realized that ExoMars wasn't a good example when I posted it, because the project division between ESA and Roscosmos was the reason the two ExoMars missions launch on Proton rockets.
The JASON-CS / Sentinel 6 satellites will launch on Falcon 9, their launch cost are payed by the US. So I didn't state it. The same is the case for GRACE-FO. And also Solar Orbiter that will launch on a Atlas V 411.

GRACE-FO's launch was procured by Germany's GFZ, not NASA.  First on 2 Dnepr launches and then moved to the Iridium rideshare on the F9 post Russia-Ukraine support breakdown.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 05/08/2018 11:14 am
In the recent Spaceflight magazine article on Ariane 6 it made specific mention of the fact that the UK wasn’t part of the program. Can anyone tell me the reason for this as it wasn’t given in the article.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: denis on 05/08/2018 11:22 am
The UK made the decision years ago to not be involved in European launchers. So it's nothing new.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 05/08/2018 07:03 pm
The UK had a very minor role in the early Ariane rockets but then pulled out completely with Ariane 5. Ariane was developed at the time the UK was deciding to leave the launch business.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/08/2018 07:43 pm
The UK had a very minor role in the early Ariane rockets but then pulled out completely with Ariane 5. Ariane was developed at the time the UK was deciding to leave the launch business.

For Ariane 1 thru 4 the UK contributed a little under 3 percent of the development cost. Very minor role indeed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 05/21/2018 06:24 pm
Last week in Paris there was a presentation about Ariane 6 and future launchers by CNES officials. I have taken some notes and put them on my blog:
https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/05/21/ariane-6-and-beyond/ (https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/05/21/ariane-6-and-beyond/)

There is new information even for those reading this thread often, for instance about what happened to Adeline.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 05/21/2018 07:26 pm
There is also a continuation of the stream of falsehoods. 
I count three four in the single answer below; the question remains unanswered.

Quote
Q: How did CNES get its assessment of reusability so wrong?

A: The market has changed, demand is increasing to reuse works better economically: we did not forecast the appearance of megaconstellations. SpaceX was also supported by captive US government launches, which Ariane does not have: SpaceX launches are 2/3rd government, 1/3rd commercial whereas for Ariane it is the opposite. Finally, we underestimated SpaceX’s technical prowess: they got a lot of skills and technologies from NASA’s R&D programs.

1. The market has changed... not yet; F9 is doing just fine in the traditional Ariane market
2. We did not forecast ... megaconstellations...  OneWeb was ordering satellites and launches in 2014-2015, and SpaceX plus others were tossing hats into the ring.  A-6 design was decided on in December 2014; Arianespace won 21 Soyuz launches for OneWeb in June 2015.
3. 2/3 government... just false; engineers should at least be able to count.
4. they got a lot of skills and technologies from NASA... again, simply false. SpaceX did get help from NASA, but nothing with respect to reusability except an example of what not to do. 

If you keep repeating something for long enough, people may begin to believe it is true.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 05/21/2018 08:16 pm
I think they realized they should have started Prometheus development a lot sooner. In 2014, it was too late to develop a new engine and design a rocket around it, so they went with what they knew.

Regarding your point 4., NASA did provide some reuse technology to SpaceX, for instance I was told the aerodynamic reentry model they use was obtained from NASA.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/22/2018 06:40 am
I think they realized they should have started Prometheus development a lot sooner. In 2014, it was too late to develop a new engine and design a rocket around it, so they went with what they knew.

Regarding your point 4., NASA did provide some reuse technology to SpaceX, for instance I was told the aerodynamic reentry model they use was obtained from NASA.

Aerodynamic reentry model obtained from NASA was for Cargo Dragon and is not specific to reuse purposes. The one used for reentry of F9S1 is nothing like the NASA model and almost completely developed in-house by SpaceX.

I would go as far as stating that it is in fact NASA benefiting from SpaceX reuse efforts, instead of the other way around. An example is NASA being allowed, by SpaceX, to observe the entry burns of F9S1 and have access to the telemetry (and other stage performance data) at no cost at all. NASA is using this data to do studies into super-sonic retro propulsion as a way of landing large masses on the surface of Mars.

And before someone starts asking "How did NASA and SpaceX end up in this thread?"

Well, courtesy of CNES (involved as ever in Ariane 6 development) having a Q&A session on everything Ariane 6, including how Ariane 6 is affected by SpaceX, even dragging NASA in on the answer:

https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/05/21/ariane-6-and-beyond/ (https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/05/21/ariane-6-and-beyond/)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mondagun on 05/23/2018 04:59 pm
Is is already known what kind of (main) payload the maiden flight of Ariane 6 will be carrying? A simple mass simulator? An actual high-value payload (like some Galileo satellites for example)? Something else entirely?

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 05/23/2018 07:32 pm
First launch is supposed to be Galileo.
Or rather 2 Galileo on an A62. Second launch might be the same, ESA signed for 2 A62 launching 4 Galileo satellites.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mondagun on 05/23/2018 08:10 pm
First launch is supposed to be Galileo.
Or rather 2 Galileo on an A62. Second launch might be the same, ESA signed for 2 A62 launching 4 Galileo satellites.
First launch as in 'first-ever launch' of the Ariane 6? Or first launch as in 'first operational launch' of the Ariane 6 (after a test launch without any payloads of paying customers)?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachS09 on 05/23/2018 09:26 pm
It would be logical for Ariane 6's maiden flight to carry a payload simulator before the second flight launches the two Galileo sats.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mike Jones on 05/23/2018 09:42 pm
Ariane 6 will have a commercial customer onboard its maiden flight. At least this has been the plan from ESA for 3 years. Same for Vega-C first flight in 2019. Arianespace will probably announce the contracts this year or early next year. They often announce big contracts at Euroconsult conference in September.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWH on 05/24/2018 12:06 am
Question and answer session from a recent CNES "cafe":
https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/05/21/ariane-6-and-beyond/

- Adeline fly back engine pod concept has been abandoned.
- Ariane 6.2 is to replace Soyuz for Arianespace's smaller commercial launches
- For mega constellations the Ariane 6 upper stage will have a smaller additional upper stage for increased maneuverability, like Fregat
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 05/24/2018 12:36 am
At ~40 million Euro a pop Galileo is definitely not in the same league as GPS.
The most recent order should be from 2017, 157.5 million Euro for a batch of 4. [Source, an OHB press release (https://www.ohb-system.de/press-releases-details/new-contract-award-for-ohb-european-commission-orders-a-further-four-galileo-satellites.html)]

~80 million Euro payload, ~80* million Euro launch. Mass produced stuff too. I see no reason not to launch the real stuff.

*: Or whatever it will turn out be.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: envy887 on 05/24/2018 04:25 pm
The PPH was an early Ariane 6 design that used a solid upper stage on solid boosters and core. Does anyone know if Ariane ever seriously considered a KPH or MPH, i.e. a hydrocarbon booster with a solid second stage, similar to what I've sketched below?

This offers a legitimate path to reuse, while having few staging events and fewer stages than other Araine 6 concepts, but while keeping the solids industry involved (which AIUI is a political requirement). The solid 2nd and LH2 3rd stage would be very similar to the current A6 SRB and upper stage, just with a vacuum nozzle on the solid.

I estimate it could do 10 tonnes to GTO with booster RTLS, assuming 9 to 11 Prometheus engines on the booster.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 05/30/2018 07:35 pm
An article (http://spacenews.com/germany-trades-p120-booster-production-for-ariane-6-turbopumps-upper-stage-carbon-fiber-research/) about horse trading

No 2nd P120 line in Germany, all production stays in Italy.
Ariane 6 turbo pump production moves to Germany. Previously Avio, Italy.
Funds slated for building the P120 production at OHB Germany are used for the development of an A6 carbon fibre upper stage upgrade at OHB Germany.


Not half bad. Now do a liquid booster and kill solids on A6. :P
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 06/04/2018 07:20 pm
I missed it when the news came out and I don't remember seeing it here: The Ariane 6 upper stage will have an Auxiliary Power Unit that burns oxygen and hydrogen to pressurize the tanks instead of using helium. It's the european version of ULA's IVF, and it's 3D-printed.
Arianegroup even made a video about it https://twitter.com/ArianeGroup/status/1001129689497337858
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 06/05/2018 07:48 pm
I missed it when the news came out and I don't remember seeing it here: The Ariane 6 upper stage will have an Auxiliary Power Unit that burns oxygen and hydrogen to pressurize the tanks instead of using helium. It's the european version of ULA's IVF, and it's 3D-printed.
Arianegroup even made a video about it https://twitter.com/ArianeGroup/status/1001129689497337858

So we are getting an Euro-ACES?  ;)

Together with the Johnny Walker Arianespace "Black Upperstage (https://twitter.com/ArianeGroup/status/992789003488448513)" quite an interesting development...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 06/05/2018 08:59 pm
Sorta, kinda, not really. That APU looks like a gas generator to me.
Similar goals but quite different ways to reach them. I hope we get some more information in the future.

Black stage is a bit exiting. The current upper stages are quite impressive in their dry weight.
The good thing is that it has been done before (by someone else). No need to invent the wheel when it comes to stuff like LOX and carbon fibre tanks. - Just find a way that is not patented by someone else. 8)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mike Jones on 06/14/2018 04:35 pm
ESA COUNCIL DECIDES ON THE COMPLETION OF ARIANE 6 AND ENDORSES START OF TRANSITION FROM ARIANE 5 TO ARIANE 6

14 June 2018

The ESA Council met today in Paris to discuss the path towards the future exploitation of Ariane 6.

In view of the progress made in the Ariane 6 programme, Participating States have decided on the completion of the development up to full operational capability and agreed to fund industrial incentives associated with the development of Ariane 6 and P120C solid rocket motor.

Participating States also committed to start with the first step of the Ariane 6 and P120C Transition Programme. This programme supports the evolution from Europe’s Ariane 5 to full operational capability of Ariane 6.

https://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/
ESA_Council_decides_on_the_completion_of_Ariane_6_and_
endorses_start_of_transition_from_Ariane_5_to_Ariane_6
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/14/2018 08:56 pm
Everything's coming up 2020.  Wonder if that will be the next "6 months".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: jpo234 on 07/04/2018 10:16 am
OpEd by Airbus CEO Tom Enders: Europe needs a radical change in space policy (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fdebatte%2Fkommentare%2Farticle178656568%2FTom-Enders-Europa-muss-sich-in-der-Raumfahrt-neu-erfinden.html&edit-text=)

Quote
In short: Europe has to reinvent itself in space because "New Space" is confronting us with great competitive dynamics.

Another wake up call after  Jan Wörner's Blog post: http://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2018/02/11/europes-move/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/04/2018 01:32 pm
It's interesting how he says that guaranteed access is important for European science and uses the US as an example.  However I think most of us would agree that the US pursued guaranteed access for military reasons not scientific ones.  Gotta fit your pitch to the market I guess.

He doesn't seem to actually talk about anything that really matters.  No CRS style block buys where the company finances the development to fill a contract.  No increase in the number of launches.  No reuse.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/04/2018 05:08 pm
It's interesting how he says that guaranteed access is important for European science and uses the US as an example.  However I think most of us would agree that the US pursued guaranteed access for military reasons not scientific ones.  Gotta fit your pitch to the market I guess.

He doesn't seem to actually talk about anything that really matters.  No CRS style block buys where the company finances the development to fill a contract.  No increase in the number of launches.  No reuse.

He is calling for a different access-to-space strategy for Europe, and why such a new strategy is necessary. That's it. He is not telling or dictating what that new strategy should be.

Which is a good thing given that he is likely to be biased, given his role as Airbus CEO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/04/2018 07:38 pm
He is calling for a different access-to-space strategy for Europe, and why such a new strategy is necessary. That's it. He is not telling or dictating what that new strategy should be.

Which is a good thing given that he is likely to be biased, given his role as Airbus CEO.

I'm pretty receptive to the notion of access to space myself.  Europe is big enough that it would be a waste of talent for them to not have a space program IMHO.  I just dont think that's what he is actually saying. 

You say he isn't telling or dictating the strategy but he is saying that Ariane and Vega shouldn't have to compete with non-European rockets, which is to say all other rockets.  This rules out the American strategy of buy a number of launches in advance but allow for competition on the rest.  He is saying that they need to embrace new technology and is also saying that American and Russian hardware should be off limits.  This is also contrary to the American strategy of allowing the hardware of Antares and Atlas to be sourced from Russia.  Literally every successful rocket that US government has supported in the past decade and a half was built under terms that he is explicitly ruling out.  This leaves one strategy and only one strategy: his company keeps it's monopoly and taxpayers pay for development costs.

It's also terribly hypocritical to say that European governments need to commit to buying Ariane launches then brag about OneWeb being "NewSpace" as it flies on a Russian built rocket.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/05/2018 07:49 am
He is calling for a different access-to-space strategy for Europe, and why such a new strategy is necessary. That's it. He is not telling or dictating what that new strategy should be.

Which is a good thing given that he is likely to be biased, given his role as Airbus CEO.

I'm pretty receptive to the notion of access to space myself.  Europe is big enough that it would be a waste of talent for them to not have a space program IMHO.  I just dont think that's what he is actually saying. 

You say he isn't telling or dictating the strategy but he is saying that Ariane and Vega shouldn't have to compete with non-European rockets, which is to say all other rockets.  This rules out the American strategy of buy a number of launches in advance but allow for competition on the rest.  He is saying that they need to embrace new technology and is also saying that American and Russian hardware should be off limits.  This is also contrary to the American strategy of allowing the hardware of Antares and Atlas to be sourced from Russia.  Literally every successful rocket that US government has supported in the past decade and a half was built under terms that he is explicitly ruling out.  This leaves one strategy and only one strategy: his company keeps it's monopoly and taxpayers pay for development costs.

It's also terribly hypocritical to say that European governments need to commit to buying Ariane launches then brag about OneWeb being "NewSpace" as it flies on a Russian built rocket.

I guess you've never heard of the "Buy American" mantra that is now fully embedded in the US spaceflight industry.
Also, at least one rocket, supported by the US government AND developed in the past decade was built under the "Buy American" mantra: Falcon 9.
Never mind the other new US rockets in development: New Glenn: all-American. Vulcan: all-American. Omega: all-American.
I do not find it surprising at all that the CEO of Airbus calls for a similarly level playing-field for future European launchers: all-European.

Also: there is precedent for calling for European payloads to be flown exclusively on European launchers: USAF and NRO fly their payloads exclusively on US launchers. NASA flies most (just a few exceptions) of its payloads on US launchers. China flies most (if not all) of its payloads on Chinese launchers. Russia flies most (if not all) of its institutional launches on Russian launchers.
Europe is currently the major exception to the rule with nearly one-third of its payloads flying on non-European launchers.
Given those facts I can very much understand why the Airbus CEO is saying the things he is saying.

What Europe really needs is the European version of SpaceX: an upstart with the b*lls and the private funding to take on the established and entrenched European politics and European aerospace giants.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 07/05/2018 10:47 am
It's interesting how he says that guaranteed access is important for European science and uses the US as an example.  However I think most of us would agree that the US pursued guaranteed access for military reasons not scientific ones.  Gotta fit your pitch to the market I guess.

He doesn't seem to actually talk about anything that really matters.  No CRS style block buys where the company finances the development to fill a contract.  No increase in the number of launches.  No reuse.

He is calling for a different access-to-space strategy for Europe, and why such a new strategy is necessary. That's it. He is not telling or dictating what that new strategy should be.

Which is a good thing given that he is likely to be biased, given his role as Airbus CEO.

One specific goal is for Europe to remain in the top three space nations -- which means Russia (or China, which is unlikely) needs to be pushed aside, and the likes of India and Japan be out competed as they gain momentum.
This is no small task.  I like it as a goal, though!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: jpo234 on 07/05/2018 10:51 am
What Europe really needs is the European version of SpaceX: an upstart with the b*lls and the private funding to take on the established and entrenched European politics and European aerospace giants.

It was killed in favor of Ariane: OTRAG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAG_(rocket))

Quote
The German minister of foreign affairs at that time, Hans Dietrich Genscher, is said to have finally stopped the project under pressure from France and the Soviet Union, and West Germany joined the co-financed "European rocket" Ariane project, which made the OTRAG project unnecessary and eliminated political entanglements of a still divided Germany in the early 1980s.

IMHO the lack of serious new space contenders in Europe is a second round effect of the missed dot.com boom. SpaceX and Blue Origin can directly trace their investment money to Internet startups: Paypal and Amazon.

Additionally, there would probably be the same political headwinds that killed OTRAG. A new space company would start small in a single country. Giving that fledgling company political support would be seen as backstabbing a common European solution.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pippin on 07/05/2018 10:59 am

What Europe really needs is the European version of SpaceX: an upstart with the b*lls and the private funding to take on the established and entrenched European politics and European aerospace giants.
Which brings us to the one big driver behind the different development speeds for startups and technology corporations of all kind on both sides of the Atlantic: access to (private) risk capital.
Im convinced there is one and ONLY one reason, why US companies can scale so fast when it comes to going from early early technology development (something Europe is pretty strong at, too) and full-scale rollout and development of a large-scale businesses and that’s the availability of an abundance of risk capital.

I don’t know what exactly can be done to give European investors more appetite for risk but usually regulations, tax schemes and also pension savings rules play a big role here.

Im convinced this would have a much bigger impact than space policy itself although - as we’ve seen with NASA and SpaceX - it might be needed as a catalyst, too
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AncientU on 07/05/2018 11:32 am
Space policy (maybe unstated) appears to be an opponent, not a proponent of leveraging risk capital.  Large, incumbent industries like Airbus -- and counterparts in the US -- and nations themselves are not the users of risk capital... it is the small upstart companies that accept the fact that they are likely to fail.

There is adequate risk capital available anywhere in the world. 
The at-home environment dictates how far you can run with it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: dante2308 on 07/05/2018 01:34 pm
This article talks to a risk assessment of factors that might delay the Ariane 6.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/l-esa-estime-possible-un-retard-de-plus-d-un-an-pour-le-premier-vol-d-ariane-6-783420.html (https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/l-esa-estime-possible-un-retard-de-plus-d-un-an-pour-le-premier-vol-d-ariane-6-783420.html)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/05/2018 03:10 pm
This article talks to a risk assessment of factors that might delay the Ariane 6.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/l-esa-estime-possible-un-retard-de-plus-d-un-an-pour-le-premier-vol-d-ariane-6-783420.html (https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/l-esa-estime-possible-un-retard-de-plus-d-un-an-pour-le-premier-vol-d-ariane-6-783420.html)

Interesting that the engine isn't considered a top risk.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/05/2018 03:29 pm
I guess you've never heard of the "Buy American" mantra that is now fully embedded in the US spaceflight industry.

Putting extra sarcasm into your words won't convince me that two things are synonymous when I've already stated my reasons for seeing them as different.

I dont think Airbus would like it if there was a "Buy Europe" policy modeled on the American policy.  The policy has basically boiled down to phasing out RD-180 purchases.  The closest European equivalent would be stopping those Soyuz launches and Airbus wants to keep those going.  What the policy hasn't done is prevent the purchase of launches from Europe, just look at the JWST which is the crown jewel of NASA.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Archibald on 07/05/2018 03:41 pm
What Europe really needs is the European version of SpaceX: an upstart with the b*lls and the private funding to take on the established and entrenched European politics and European aerospace giants.

It was killed in favor of Ariane: OTRAG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAG_(rocket))

Quote
The German minister of foreign affairs at that time, Hans Dietrich Genscher, is said to have finally stopped the project under pressure from France and the Soviet Union, and West Germany joined the co-financed "European rocket" Ariane project, which made the OTRAG project unnecessary and eliminated political entanglements of a still divided Germany in the early 1980s.

IMHO the lack of serious new space contenders in Europe is a second round effect of the missed dot.com boom. SpaceX and Blue Origin can directly trace their investment money to Internet startups: Paypal and Amazon.

Additionally, there would probably be the same political headwinds that killed OTRAG. A new space company would start small in a single country. Giving that fledgling company political support would be seen as backstabbing a common European solution.

No it was not killed because of Ariane. Lutz Kayser was a nazi nostalgic that tried to sold OTRAG to both Mobutu and Gaddhaffi, two among the most repugnant "human beings" in recent history. He was lucky enough not to be shot by MOSSAD like the unfortunate Gerald Bull (who tried to sell his giant guns to Saddam Hussein).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kryten on 07/05/2018 06:43 pm
I guess you've never heard of the "Buy American" mantra that is now fully embedded in the US spaceflight industry.

Putting extra sarcasm into your words won't convince me that two things are synonymous when I've already stated my reasons for seeing them as different.

I dont think Airbus would like it if there was a "Buy Europe" policy modeled on the American policy.  The policy has basically boiled down to phasing out RD-180 purchases.  The closest European equivalent would be stopping those Soyuz launches and Airbus wants to keep those going.  What the policy hasn't done is prevent the purchase of launches from Europe, just look at the JWST which is the crown jewel of NASA.
JWST is an international project, and the launch is part of the European contribution, it was not bought by NASA.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/05/2018 07:34 pm
I dont think Airbus would like it if there was a "Buy Europe" policy modeled on the American policy.  The policy has basically boiled down to phasing out RD-180 purchases.  The closest European equivalent would be stopping those Soyuz launches and Airbus wants to keep those going.

They do?  Why on earth would they prefer flying Soyuz over an Ariane 6 that they have far more involvement in?

What the policy hasn't done is prevent the purchase of launches from Europe, just look at the JWST which is the crown jewel of NASA.

As above, the JWST launch is paid for by ESA in exchange for access.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/05/2018 08:24 pm
They do?  Why on earth would they prefer flying Soyuz over an Ariane 6.2 that they have far more involvement in?

Yes, they do: http://spacenews.com/oneweb-shifts-first-launch-to-years-end/

I dont know why they prefer the Soyuz in this case.  I would think that this would be something the Ariane 5 would be pretty well suited for.

Maybe the EU should make an agreement that Airbus isn't allowed to build the OneWeb satellites or get paid to launch them unless the rockets are sourced from the EU.  That should be another 10, 12 launches which should solve the concerns about having enough business for Ariane.  And since Airbus is such a fan of "buy European" I'm sure there won't be any objections.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/05/2018 08:35 pm
They do?  Why on earth would they prefer flying Soyuz over an Ariane 6.2 that they have far more involvement in?

Yes, they do: http://spacenews.com/oneweb-shifts-first-launch-to-years-end/

I dont know why they prefer the Soyuz in this case.  I would think that this would be something the Ariane 5 would be pretty well suited for.

Maybe the EU should make an agreement that Airbus isn't allowed to build the OneWeb satellites or get paid to launch them unless the rockets are sourced from the EU.  That should be another 10, 12 launches which should solve the concerns about having enough business for Ariane.  And since Airbus is such a fan of "buy European" I'm sure there won't be any objections.
only the initial satellites are built in Europe by Airbus. The rest are all built in Florida by OneWeb in exchange for the Florida facility at the end of the manufacturing run.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/05/2018 10:06 pm
They do?  Why on earth would they prefer flying Soyuz over an Ariane 6.2 that they have far more involvement in?

Yes, they do: http://spacenews.com/oneweb-shifts-first-launch-to-years-end/

I dont know why they prefer the Soyuz in this case.  I would think that this would be something the Ariane 5 would be pretty well suited for.

Maybe the EU should make an agreement that Airbus isn't allowed to build the OneWeb satellites or get paid to launch them unless the rockets are sourced from the EU.  That should be another 10, 12 launches which should solve the concerns about having enough business for Ariane.  And since Airbus is such a fan of "buy European" I'm sure there won't be any objections.

That article does not support the assertion that Airbus prefers Soyuz...

For a start OneWeb is not Airbus, Airbus is the satellite manufacturer.  It's not Airbus' sole decision on what vehicle to launch the constellation on.  This is not evidence of what Airbus thinks re: Ariane 6 vs. Soyuz.

OneWeb selected Soyuz launches with Arianespace in mid-2015, before Ariane 6's design was even finalised.

The reason OneWeb selected Soyuz is simple, its business case is reliant on getting the constellation up ASAP.  Many of the launches were planned to occur before Ariane 6 will have been flight qualified.  Soyuz is the only "european" option at present. There are options to launch on Ariane 6 once it has been flight qualified.

(Ariane 5 to my knowledge would not be able to launch as many satellites as OneWeb require from its payload adaptor, and obviously there are no plans to fund development of a new one with Ariane 6 being imminent.)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/05/2018 10:46 pm
That article does not support the assertion that Airbus prefers Soyuz...

Whew, that would have been embarrassing to me if I had said they did.

Good thing I didn't!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/06/2018 01:08 pm
They do?  Why on earth would they prefer flying Soyuz over an Ariane 6.2 that they have far more involvement in?

Yes, they do: http://spacenews.com/oneweb-shifts-first-launch-to-years-end/

I dont know why they prefer the Soyuz in this case.  I would think that this would be something the Ariane 5 would be pretty well suited for.

Maybe the EU should make an agreement that Airbus isn't allowed to build the OneWeb satellites or get paid to launch them unless the rockets are sourced from the EU.  That should be another 10, 12 launches which should solve the concerns about having enough business for Ariane.  And since Airbus is such a fan of "buy European" I'm sure there won't be any objections.

That article does not support the assertion that Airbus prefers Soyuz...

For a start OneWeb is not Airbus, Airbus is the satellite manufacturer.  It's not Airbus' sole decision on what vehicle to launch the constellation on.  This is not evidence of what Airbus thinks re: Ariane 6 vs. Soyuz.

OneWeb selected Soyuz launches with Arianespace in mid-2015, before Ariane 6's design was even finalised.

The reason OneWeb selected Soyuz is simple, its business case is reliant on getting the constellation up ASAP.  Many of the launches were planned to occur before Ariane 6 will have been flight qualified.  Soyuz is the only "european" option at present. There are options to launch on Ariane 6 once it has been flight qualified.

(Ariane 5 to my knowledge would not be able to launch as many satellites as OneWeb require from its payload adaptor, and obviously there are no plans to fund development of a new one with Ariane 6 being imminent.)

Soyuz is a far smother launcher than any other launcher because it is all liquid and has no shaky solids .Can be shut off right up to liftoff and is manrated altogether a whole lot going for it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/08/2018 09:39 am
Sorry off topic, but I wouldn't call a Soyuz launch even from CSG a "European" launch service. Arianespace only operates range control (what the USAF does in the US). The real launch operation is executed by Russians that ar flown I  from Russia. (Hence the clustering of Soyuz launches from CSG in a short time period.)
Besides the majority of the oneweb launches will launch from Baikonur and/or Vostochny. Afaik; the Oneweb multiple launch contract was the last commercial launch contracy arranged via Starsem. Now Glovcosmos arranges the commercial launches from the russian launch sites, and only the launches from CSG are arranged via Starsem. It was the availability of many launch sites for soyuz and the high reliability (and acceptable cost) that drove Oneweb to Soyuz 2 launches. Starsem now only has one launch site (ELS @CSG).
A new version of Ariane 5 ES would have been required to launch the oneweb constellation. That would have been the 3th A5ES version besides the ATV (21mT to ISS) and Gallileo 3mT to 23.2k km MEO. The A5 ES hasn't launched more than once annually. So not a good option for oneweb / a large satellite constellation (Soyuz launched most  of the MEO / LEO comsat constellations).

I've the impression that many European institutions have a preference to use launch services from European providers. The exceptions are Falcon9, Delta II and Kosmos, reason: no other suitable option.

Back on topic:
Ariane 6 (62 &64) and Vega(-C) are able to launch nearly all satellites developed and build in Europe. With A62 and Vega-C the missions can be launched that now require a Soyuz launch. The heaviest Vega-C launches use timeshare on a Soyuz (CSG; Sentinel 1, etz.). The single Soyuz payloads can be launched with rideshare on A62 (MetOP/MSG; Gallileo 2x {=>4x?}, etz.
Possibly a new launch table can be build for ELA3, to make it suitable for Ariane6. A more extensive option is to convert ELA3 into a comparable launch facility as ELA4. This would provide two launch sites for Ariane6. I think the development of a A6 launch table for ELA3 could be part of a large constellation launch contract  If this ever occurs, I don't expect this to happen before 2021.
I expect A6 launch orders to be announced after the P120c static fireing test from BEAP, that is planned for this month. Data analisis of the test will take several months I guess.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 07/08/2018 10:51 pm
Flying A62 from ELA3 should be simple enough. Different launch mount for the solids but mostly switching out electronics and connections.

However I strongly suspect they will do the Themis demonstrator and early Ariane Next development on ELA3. Themis was mostly shown as #3 concept with the 5m tank.
Doing it on ELA4 would be irresponsible, if ELA3 has a major Oops expensive but so what.
The Ariane Next concept art is always two and never four boosters. (single stick, 2 small booster, heavy) [For extra fun the small boosters are more often than not solids rather than liquids, count the nozzle(s). ::) ]

Timing also works out. Prometheus flight ready mid 2021, A5 last flight in 2023, Themis demonstrator 2023-25
CSG NG demonstrator (only on 1 slide) 2025-2030. A6 evolution 2025-2030, Ariane Next 2028-30


I guess I have to post my ideas on the presentation thread before this one gets too OT.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/09/2018 09:43 pm
I think a Ariane-Next with solid boosters and heavy configurations with multi-engine core are bad concepts. This core stage can't be recovered. Better use Ariane 6 in this case (aka. a expendable Vulcan 2.? LOx-LH2 GG core.)
I've a preference for Themis concept #1. The single Prometheus configuration, or a 1:10 scale Ariane-next first stage. I think this can use technologies and facilities for Vega-E. And this could become a successor for Vega.
I think the sounding-rocket pads or the former Diamond launch site are the best locations for Calisto and Themis. But ELA3, ELS or ELV are the next best locations.
If launch demand increases enough, possibly Arianespace could offer six different launch vehicles. They currently offer five (Vega, Soyuz ST-A & ST-B, Ariane5 ES & ECA). With Ariane 6 (62 & 64) and Vega C Arianespace is going to have eight launcher options during the 2020-2023 transition period. After A5 phase out, they are back to four to six depending on Soyuz. Vega could be swapped for Vega-L. By mid 202x the launch offering could be : A64, A62 (Soyuz ST) Vega-E, Vega-L.
I also realised/read yesterday that for many years there was a option to increase the booster production facilities to allow 10 Ariane 5 (8x A5 + 8xVega) launches annually, instead of 8 (7×A5 +4×Vega). This option is most likely part of the Ariane6 CSG developments. Besides ELA4 and the new booster assembly, testing and storage facilities.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 08/23/2018 06:51 pm
So is there a finally a report saying that the flight meet the destruct criteria?
Or is that still a common sense opinion?

The flight did not meet the destruct-decision criteria that were in effect at that time.
However, thorough review of the incident has led to the destruct-decision criteria having been re-established.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 08/23/2018 08:07 pm
So is there a finally a report saying that the flight meet the destruct criteria?
Or is that still a common sense opinion?

The flight did not meet the destruct-decision criteria that were in effect at that time.
However, thorough review of the incident has led to the destruct-decision criteria having been re-established.

And that happens to be the important point.
Destruct rules for Kourou are ultimately set by the French government. (With input from from a whole lot of agencies and groups.)

There is a major difference between "Turns out the rules were too lax." and "The range safety officer(s?) did not do his/her job.".


The new automated system would not have destructed the rocket either. Esp. since it has reportedly an even wider safe track than the human. (Most likely because it can act faster than a human.)

As far as A6 goes I really hope that they have the alignment problem solved. Preferably with gyros that always get aligned the same way no matter the trajectory.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: envy887 on 08/23/2018 08:52 pm
Destruct isn't exactly perfectly safe either though, especially with solids (what happens if an SRB doesn't blow up, and is now flying uncontrolled? Thats way worse than an off-nominal but functioning rocket). Whats the debris radius from that sort of explosion anyway? There will be some time where that radius passes over the populated area in question, can the anomaly be detected and an abort triggered before that happens? If so, then abort is the correct decision. If the debris zone is *currently* over people, given a rocket as otherwise reliable as Ariane 5 you're probably better off letting it do its thing. And after the debris zone has passed over (assuming there is only 1 inhabited area being crossed, which IIRC was the case on that mission), theres not really any risk from letting the launch continue anyway

Destruct is safe if the bounds (in terms of azimuth, ascent rate, speed, position) are defined properly and the RSO actually pushes the big red button at once if the vehicle goes out of bounds.

Otherwise, what's the point of the destruct system? To wait until it's pointed at a civilian population, and then your only choices are to kill them with an intact vehicle or a shower of flaming SRB propellant?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 08/24/2018 06:03 am
So is there a finally a report saying that the flight meet the destruct criteria?
Or is that still a common sense opinion?

The flight did not meet the destruct-decision criteria that were in effect at that time.
However, thorough review of the incident has led to the destruct-decision criteria having been re-established.

And that happens to be the important point.
Destruct rules for Kourou are ultimately set by the French government. (With input from from a whole lot of agencies and groups.)

There is a major difference between "Turns out the rules were too lax." and "The range safety officer(s?) did not do his/her job.".

Emphasis mine.
It is beginning to look more-and-more like "the rules were too lax".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 09/29/2018 12:32 pm
Why are yea discussing launch failures on the Ariane 6 discussion thread?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 11/13/2018 08:50 am
Press release:

Quote
Rocket launcher ArianeGroup says to cut 2300 jobs by 2022

PARIS (Reuters) - ArianeGroup, the space launchers joint-venture between Airbus and Safran, on Monday said it plans to cut 2,300 jobs by 2022.

"The end of the development of Ariane 6 and the need to increase competitiveness in the European rocket launch business compel ArianeGroup to reduce its capacity by the equivalent of 2,300 full-time jobs by 2022," the company said in a statement.

The firm announced in December 2017 that it planned to move ahead with production of the first Ariane 6, Europe's next-generation rocket. The first flight of the replacement for the Ariane 5 government and commercial launcher is scheduled for mid-2020.

ArianGroup competes with U.S. entrepreneur Elon Musk's SpaceX and several other rocket launch firms.

https://www.euronews.com/2018/11/12/rocket-launcher-arianegroup-says-to-cut-2300-jobs-by-2022
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 11/13/2018 06:35 pm
Press release:

Quote
Rocket launcher ArianeGroup says to cut 2300 jobs by 2022


It seems logical, since most of the design job Ariane 6 will be done at that point. However they should find something to do for the people with skills hard to find on the market, they will need them for Ariane Next. So they will ask for ESA money for that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 11/15/2018 11:47 am
From additional news it looks like the 2300 jobs get cut without layoffs.
Retirements that don't get replaced and short term contracts that don't get extended.

I wonder how many of the retirements are from Ariane 5 operations that get streamlined with Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/15/2018 11:54 am
From additional news it looks like the 2300 jobs get cut without layoffs.
Retirements that don't get replaced and short term contracts that don't get extended.

I wonder how many of the retirements are from Ariane 5 operations that get streamlined with Ariane 6.

There is a term for such an approach: attrition.

Down the line it is going to present Arianespace with a serious problem, because influx of young and eager personnel is halted for a considerable amount of time.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/21/2018 06:56 pm
Every company goes through this in the private sector only difference is that retirements happen in bunches not a steady rate.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: jpo234 on 02/06/2019 02:33 pm
Moved to discussion thread.

Europe’s Ariane 6 Rocket Is Doomed Even Before First Flight, Auditor Finds (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-06/before-even-launching-ariane-6-rocket-journey-is-seen-as-doomed?srnd=hyperdrive)

So, is the article saying that Ariane 6 will be cancelled before its maiden voyage, or will they fly a certain number of them before calling it quits?

I know the title gives away the answer, but I would like to make sure that what the article said is actually true.

The article is a writeup on the report linked here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1908674#msg1908674

I think it accurately reflects the content of the report. There is nothing about cancelling Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/10/2019 03:51 pm
Funny sounds like the Shuttle arguments and Venture star again the market size cannot support 14 to 20 billion launchers without a large government investment either in R+D or opening new markets .

Basically  how many Ariane 5 can you launch for 14 billion as opposed your first reusable Shuttle .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: envy887 on 02/11/2019 05:54 pm
So if LEO constellations are the big market in the next decade or two (not a sure thing but what if) - How suitable and competitive is Ariane 6 for LEO work?

If they meet their goal of 90 million euros per launch for A64, which is 102 million dollars, they should do just fine. Wikipedia lists 14,900 kg to SSO, which would be about 100 147 kg One Web satellites fairing space permitting (and not counting the payload carrier). On the other hand, SpaceX lists $62 million for a first stage recoverable Falcon 9 launch with a LEO capacity of ~16,000 kg. SSO would be well south of that. Assuming it is something like 10,000 kg, you are looking at two thirds of the capacity in terms of mass for approximately two thirds of the cost. The fairing size ratio also comes out similarly. See attachment.

OneWeb is going to a polar orbit, not SSO. F9 FT can do 11585 kg to 550 km polar orbit per NASA LSP. That does not include Block 5 upgrades, and it does include LSP margins, so it is rather conservative.

Also, that $102M price is dependent on selling enough A62 to institutional customers, and it was released at a time when the Euro was slightly stronger against the dollar. If they don't get those institutional launches, they will need either subsidy, or will have to charge nearly double SpaceX's price for 30% more fairing volume and perhaps 20% more mass to orbit.

At this point, SpaceX's $50M per launch with reuse is probably a lot more solid than Ariane's 90M euro for an A64 (that is, SpaceX has actually sold launches for that price while Ariane has not).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 03/24/2019 04:41 pm
The timeline for launcher production in the Ariane-6 User's Manual begins at -24 month.
Means this, the first Galileo launch on Ariane 6 is already delayed to 2021?  :o

Has it ever been expected for 2020? The original Ariane 6 launch schedule is:

- FM1 on July 16, 2020
- FM2 in January 2021 <= first Galileo launch
- FM3 in April 2021
- FM4 (Ariane 64) in July 2021

https://academieairespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Ariane-6-lecture.pdf
page 24

Recently the wording for FM1 has changed to "second half of 2020". This may propagate to FM2 (Galileo) => NET Q1 2021.

AFAIK the planning is stil in place. The maiden launch (FM1) and the preceding demonstration modules have been ordered. The FM1 - FM4 launches are planned to take place between 2020 and early 2022. These launched are ordered I don't know if the launchers have been ordered. The initial plan was to order the FM2-FM15 as one batch.
I expect several orders at the end of 2019 for launch from 2021. Indeed the two years in advance.
May I view this an storm brewing in a glas of water!? If the orders won't come before the end of this year, than I would be alarmed. Please people calm down.
 ??? US media outlet spreading concerning news about European Ariane 6. Are they trying to manipulate the market? ...   :-X
Agreed the news from France is far from helpful but I fear they underestimate the effect their doubts about have on the demand. They are undermining the credibility of Ariane 6 and thus the European launcher market. The complete opposite I expect CNES and France are trying to achieve.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachS09 on 03/26/2019 12:51 pm
Why has Arianespace or any international launch providers outside the U.S. been so affected by SpaceX, that they decided to make reusable launchers?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 03/26/2019 05:23 pm
Space launch is politics and the providers are dependent on political support.

Elon is very good at mobilizing the masses for his ideas. *
In turn the masses put pressure on the politicians who really dislike the need to explain wtf they are doing.

There is also the chance that rocket reuse actually works (technological and financially) and even where adoption is slow nobody want's to miss out too badly on such a shift of technology.


*: Which inevitably leads to the usual problem with all things Elon. Too much talking, not enough delivering. There is always a new thing to talk about when the previous thing does not arrive on time. When the thing finally does a arrive the goal posts are already three towns over, making the achievement seem less grand...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 03/26/2019 05:31 pm
So much for those who buried Ariane 6 as hopeless against SpaceX. So, why is Oneweb using it, then?


Because the SpaceX amazing people have been wrong before.

There is a substantial number of clients out there that care just as much about spreading risk as they care about value-for-money.
That's why OneWeb is spreading its launches over multiple providers. That's why DoD wants multiple NSSL providers. That's why NASA uses multiple launch service providers. It is why companies like SES, Intelsat, Eutelsat, etc. use multiple providers.

How Iridium NEXT did things is NOT the norm in the launch services market.

Despite Ariane 6 being more expensive than Falcon 9 there will absolutely be business for Ariane 6. As will there be business for Atlas V and Vulcan and New Glenn and Omega.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 03/26/2019 06:12 pm
Why has Arianespace or any international launch providers outside the U.S. been so affected by SpaceX, that they decided to make reusable launchers?
This is an odd question. Arianespace is NOT developing a reusable launcher. So the answer is SpaceX didn't have that effect. All developments concerning reusability are just TRL improvement projects. It's O.T. for Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachS09 on 03/26/2019 06:24 pm
I didn't mean for it to be a non-question.

I just saw that those providers are developing technology that seems to be copying off of SpaceX's hardware.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 03/26/2019 07:06 pm
Or did SpaceX develop something that has been in low TRL level studies from European organisations since the 199x. ... The concept that is being developed further with the FALCon project has been around for 20years (https://www.dlr.de/irs/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-11311/).
But this is O.T. for the expendable Ariane 6, the production cost optimized launcher.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GreenShrike on 03/26/2019 09:51 pm

So much for those who buried Ariane 6 as hopeless against SpaceX. So, why is Oneweb using it, then ?

Although, this is an 'unusual' contract. First, its using a qualification launch - so I assume its getting a discount compared to what the normal price would be. Second, the other referred to launches, are options, for 2023. Which seems very much like a wait and see approach.

Historically, first launches have a success rate of about 50/50, so I'd certainly guess there's a discount for Ariane 6's test flight. As such, OneWeb may just end up with their cheapest per-satellite launch ever, or they may end up with a lot of shiny hardware scattered on the ocean's floor.

As always, ya pays your money and ya takes your chances...

That said, Ariane 6 was designed to compete with F9's pricing -- twice the capacity at twice the price, so the per-sat pricing is about a wash with SpaceX's current pricing. If SpaceX doesn't drop the price of F9 in the face of actual price competition, then Ariane 6 has a good chance at winning the commercial contracts its business case depends on. Of course, whether SpaceX can drop F9's pricing depends on the efficacy of their reusability efforts (on which opinions differ), and SpaceX's desire to maximize profits.

I do think SpaceX has little reason to change pricing right now, especially when Falcon 9 has now recorded Atlas V-like numbers of launches, and by the time Ariane 6 flies, it will likely have Ariane 5-like numbers. At that time, in stark contrast to when they were starting out, SpaceX will possess the veteran workhorse launcher and the "proven reliability" shoe will be on the other foot, while every other prospective commercial launch provider except ISRO and China* will be working to post launch numbers for their new vehicles requiring more than a hand or two to count.

*Assuming Proton actually does get retired and replaced.

Yes, Ariane 6 will win commercial business -- I don't think anyone would realistically bother arguing otherwise. But can they actually manage to sustain the multiple commercial flights per year they want? Each launch will have to be a heavily laden LEO constellation launch -- not what Ariane 6 is optimized for, at slightly more LEO capability than F9-ASDS for twice the price -- or a dual-sat GTO mission which will require not one but *two* contract wins to pull off, against not one or two also-rans (Proton and Zenit), but rather a globally revitalized field of a half-dozen vehicles?

I think they're insisting too forcefully for locked-in institutional orders for them to be confident of commercial success, but time, as always, will tell.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GreenShrike on 03/26/2019 09:56 pm
Despite Ariane 6 being more expensive than Falcon 9 there will absolutely be business for Ariane 6. As will there be business for Atlas V and Vulcan and New Glenn and Omega.

...and JAXA/Mitsubishi's H3, and ISRO's soon-to-be upgraded (yet again) GSLV, and either or both the old and new series of Long Marches, whatever China is flying then. Maybe even something Russian, too.

It will be an actual global marketplace, with lots of vendors to choose from for those "clients out there that care just as much about spreading risk as they care about value-for-money." It will be interesting to see where Ariane 6's value proposition falls within a field of a half-dozen valid choices among which to spread the risk.

Of course, that assumes in the future it's still going to be a thing. Iridium, for example, didn't bother during their recent upgrade, and has Telesat announced launching on anything other than New Glenn? Risk may look rather different when a lost flight doesn't mean lost years of service ordering and launching another sat, but merely keeping your small sat factory open another month or three to run another flight's worth of sats off the assembly line. No panic needed -- just shrug and keep launching.

Price was the incentive that sold early F9 flights. What other incentive do prospective clients have to fly on early Ariane 6 flights that don't exist on New Glenn or H3 or Vulcan or GSLV MkIII when, per-sat, their pricing -- and records -- will all be in the same ballpark?

After all, discounts may sell early missions, but such tactics cannot long sustain a launch business.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 03/27/2019 06:45 am
woods170, always the sane voice, albeit often alone in the wilderness... :p

Used to that. Being "alone in the wilderness" has been the core of one of my dayjobs for 20 years. Courtesy of having to deal with pigheaded software developers (of the "I am God"-variety) almost every day of the week.

But I digress.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 03/27/2019 06:56 am
Why has Arianespace or any international launch providers outside the U.S. been so affected by SpaceX, that they decided to make reusable launchers?
This is an odd question. Arianespace is NOT developing a reusable launcher. So the answer is SpaceX didn't have that effect. All developments concerning reusability are just TRL improvement projects. It's O.T. for Ariane 6.

Emphasis mine.

You are correct. Arianespace is not developing a reusable launcher.

In fact, Arianespace is not developing ANY launcher.

You see, development of Ariane 6 is done by ArianeGroup, of which Arianespace is just a subsidiary.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Archibald on 03/27/2019 12:22 pm
woods170, always the sane voice, albeit often alone in the wilderness... :p

Used to that. Being "alone in the wilderness" has been the core of one of my dayjobs for 20 years. Courtesy of having to deal with pigheaded software developers (of the "I am God"-variety) almost every day of the week.

But I digress.

ROTFLMAO
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/03/2019 09:22 am
Because the SpaceX amazing people have been wrong before.

Using a personally insulting term such as "amazing people" reduces the level of debate.  NSF deserves better from you and all posters.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/03/2019 09:30 am
So much for those who buried Ariane 6 as hopeless against SpaceX. So, why is Oneweb using it, then?

Because SpaceX is a direct competitor of Oneweb, thanks to Starlink.  It's often considered unwise to be entirely reliant on one's direct competition for a key part of one's business.

Then there's the fact that a major investor in Oneweb is Airbus, which is also one of the primary owners of Arianespace by way of ArianeGroup.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/03/2019 01:21 pm
So much for those who buried Ariane 6 as hopeless against SpaceX. So, why is Oneweb using it, then?

Because SpaceX is a direct competitor of Oneweb, thanks to Starlink.  It's often considered unwise to be entirely reliant on one's direct competition for a key part of one's business.

Then there's the fact that a major investor in Oneweb is Airbus, which is also one of the primary owners of Arianespace by way of ArianeGroup.


This.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Archibald on 05/04/2019 03:59 pm
Kind of Airbus/ Ariane feeding itself through OneWeb.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/04/2019 10:56 pm
Kind of Airbus/ Ariane feeding itself through OneWeb.
Much same as Virgin LauncherOne through OneWeb and SpaceX SS through Starlink. I think Jim Cantrell of Vector has financial interest in one of Vector's major customers.

There is nothing wrong with this business practice, why outsource something when a business can keep it and money inhouse.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/05/2019 05:17 am
Kind of Airbus/ Ariane feeding itself through OneWeb.
Much same as Virgin LauncherOne through OneWeb and SpaceX SS through Starlink. I think Jim Cantrell of Vector has financial interest in one of Vector's major customers.

There is nothing wrong with this business practice, why outsource something when a business can keep it and money inhouse.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with it.

It just means that OneWeb orders for A6 aren't good evidence for the commercial viablity of A6 versus other launchers.  Just like Starlink orders for Starship aren't good evidence for the commerical viability of Starship versus other launchers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: vhbmsp on 05/06/2019 01:52 pm
Ariane 6 Series Production Begins With First Batch Of 14 Launchers

Arianespace has signed an order with ArianeGroup to begin manufacturing
the first series-production batch of 14 Ariane 6 launchers across the European
space industry

Production of this initial batch of Ariane 6 launchers, which are to fly during
the 2021-2023 timeframe, will be in parallel with the final 10 Ariane 5 launchers

These first series-production Ariane 6 launchers will roll out of the
ArianeGroup plants from early 2021

Ariane 6 is a European Space Agency (ESA) program whose maiden flight,
under the terms of the development contract, is scheduled for 2020

Press Release:
https://www.ariane.group/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Ariane-6-series-production-ENG.pdf
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: envy887 on 05/09/2019 12:32 pm
Kind of Airbus/ Ariane feeding itself through OneWeb.
Much same as Virgin LauncherOne through OneWeb and SpaceX SS through Starlink. I think Jim Cantrell of Vector has financial interest in one of Vector's major customers.

There is nothing wrong with this business practice, why outsource something when a business can keep it and money inhouse.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with it.

It just means that OneWeb orders for A6 aren't good evidence for the commercial viablity of A6 versus other launchers.  Just like Starlink orders for Starship aren't good evidence for the commerical viability of Starship versus other launchers.

However, there is a direct connection between internal orders and improvements in commercial viability. More flights reduces the cost per flight, which allows the LSP to price the rocket lower for external customers without affecting their profit - even if they sell launches internally at cost.

You can see a similar effect in Ariane's requirement of a half-dozen or so institutional launches to hit the published per-launch price on Ariane 6. Internal orders do the same thing, though to a lesser extent if discounted or sold at cost.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/23/2019 11:03 am
Some fuel from Spacenews.com for this discussion: Five upgrades ArianeGroup wants Europe to consider for Ariane 6 (https://spacenews.com/five-upgrades-arianegroup-wants-europe-to-consider-for-ariane-6/)
1) Enhanced Payload adapter
2) Prometheus engine spinoff (into Vince & Vulcan 2.x)
3) Auxilliary Power Unit (longer livetime of upperstage)
4) Black upper stage (DLR longterm development, ? early introduction of CFRP inter tank structure.
5) Simpler solid rocket boosters (I don't get what this involves exactly)

Besides you have CNES that already is pussing for a full falcon 9 like Ariane Next.  ::) :-[ Politics  :-X
Let the discussion start.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 11/24/2019 02:45 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4SQdInZ-oY

Quote
Introducing Ariane 6's Auxiliary Power Unit (APU)

Fabien leads the team that's developing the Auxiliary Power Unit system for the upper stage of the Ariane 6 launcher. He explains how the APU will allow the stage's Vinci engine to restart, even in a vacuum, and why they are more efficient than earlier technology.
Very interesting video. What they are trying to accomplish very similar to ULA's ACES. They would use GH and GOx to both power and pressurize the upper stage. This autogenous pressurization would save a lot of helium (or eliminate it, if they don't need it to purge or spin up Vinci), and extend mission time significantly.
The other very interesting part is that they have already tested a 3D printed gas generator. This makes me deduce that they would have a turbine to drive power and use the outlets for pressurization. ACES uses an internal combustion engine so they might have to use a turbine to sidestep patents. That last part is wild speculation, though. But, the N1 Soviet rocket used a turbine for power generation (Lyulka designed, if I recall correctly).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/30/2020 10:40 pm
Sorry, I think answering this question is more appropriate here:
This may not be the exact perfect to ask this question but for those that follow closely when is A6 supposed to do it's first test flight? I have late 2020 in my head as the last projection that I recall hearing, is that still holding? If it has slipped right, is it 2021? I won't even ask if it has been moved left, everything has to obey the laws of space hardware development. I'm less interested in what the powers that be are pumping out and more interested in what close followers are projecting (unless of course management is actually being realistic with their projections).
According to Areanespace year opening press release, the maiden launch of Ariane 6. An Ariane 62 with a batch of oneweb satellites. Is planned for launch at the end of this year.
Afaik, the following tests are still pending:
- 3th P120C static test firing in the config. for Ariane 6.
- Fully integrated upperstage test at test banch P5.2
- Launch wet dress rehearsal at ELA4
- Fully integrated core stage test fire at ELA4
- Aborted countdown and launcher disassembly.
I don't have insight in the schedule and the exact tests.
AFAIK the first launcher won't be used for the static core firing test.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 01/31/2020 03:14 am
Thanks, so still aiming for late 2020.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/05/2020 01:41 am
Cross-post; please note the article is behind a pay wall:
Quote
Europe's #Ariane6 heavy-lift rocket's debut slips to late 2021; Covid-19 is only part of the reason.
https://bit.ly/3csCd52

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1268566155737862146
If the premier flight of Ariane 6 for OneWeb is a bust, which payload would replace it?
Ariane 62 or 64?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Jakdowski on 06/05/2020 08:46 pm
Its Peter Selding, pretty much the Eric Berger of Europe, I wouldn't pay to much attention to it
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: MoaMem on 06/06/2020 12:15 am
Being like Eric B means that he's almost always right but that people who supports some programs don't like it?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Asteroza on 07/01/2020 04:31 am
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-space-idUSKBN23Z0JC

European Commissioner Thierry Breton:
Quote
SpaceX has redefined the standards for launchers, so Ariane 6 is a necessary step, but not the ultimate aim: we must start thinking now about Ariane 7

So first nails in the coffin then...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 07/01/2020 08:57 am
No, he just made existing plans more concrete. Ariane 6 was always intended as a stopgap.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: daedalus1 on 07/01/2020 10:06 am
No, he just made existing plans more concrete. Ariane 6 was always intended as a stopgap.

Having Ariane 6 as a stop gap just ensures you increase the economic disadvantage compared to SpaceX for years into the future. Would've been better to go straight to reusable replacement for Ariane 5. The reason they didn't is because they didn't think SpaceX could do what they are doing until it was too late.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 07/01/2020 01:32 pm
It took SpaceX 10 years to achieve reusability. It's unrealistic to expect ESA to take less time. By the time it was clear SpaceX's experiment was going to succeed, ESA had a choice:
1. Keep using Ariane 5 while developing the tech needed for a reusable rocket (new engine, heat shielding, landing flight control software).
2. Switch to a cheaper derivative of Ariane 5 while developing the tech needed for a reusable rocket. This is the route they chose.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: daedalus1 on 07/01/2020 01:41 pm
It took SpaceX 10 years to achieve reusability. It's unrealistic to expect ESA to take less time. By the time it was clear SpaceX's experiment was going to succeed, ESA had a choice:
1. Keep using Ariane 5 while developing the tech needed for a reusable rocket (new engine, heat shielding, landing flight control software).
2. Switch to a cheaper derivative of Ariane 5 while developing the tech needed for a reusable rocket. This is the route they chose.

SpaceX didn't make a secret of what they were doing. Like I said Arianespace made a wrong decision thinking reusability would not be economical. They now reap the results of that wrong decision. Many more years of being relatively uncompetitive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/01/2020 01:49 pm
It took SpaceX 10 years to achieve reusability. It's unrealistic to expect ESA to take less time. By the time it was clear SpaceX's experiment was going to succeed, ESA had a choice:
1. Keep using Ariane 5 while developing the tech needed for a reusable rocket (new engine, heat shielding, landing flight control software).
2. Switch to a cheaper derivative of Ariane 5 while developing the tech needed for a reusable rocket. This is the route they chose.

What they chose was a derivative (Ariane 6) that is meant to be cheaper in the long term but that cost a huge amount in upfront investment.

What they should have done was whatever gave them the most money in the short term to immediately ramp up investment in a reusable vehicle.  And that is not Ariane 6 by any stretch of the imagination.  It will be years before the savings from Ariane 6 have paid for the investment made to develop Ariane 6 (including the new launch infrastructure).  Those years are all lost years.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/01/2020 01:54 pm
It took SpaceX 10 years to achieve reusability. It's unrealistic to expect ESA to take less time.

Why is it unrealistic to expect ESA to take less time?

SpaceX did it starting from zero.  SpaceX did it having nobody else to watch to show them how to do it.

ESA starts with a large organization with lots of experience, and they can see exactly what SpaceX did.  All they have to do is copy it.

The only reasons for ESA to take longer would be poor leadership and poor organizational culture, which is also ultimately due to poor leadership.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 07/01/2020 02:49 pm
SpaceX had a major stroke of fortune when a usable engine of the right size fell into their lap when SpaceX was founded. ESA has to design an engine from scratch.

Copying someone else is easy when that someone else, like NASA makes all kinds of data available to interested parties. SpaceX plays its cards much closer to the vest so while ESA can learn some general principles from what SpaceX does, it's going to take a lot of R&D to replicate the work.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/01/2020 04:04 pm
SpaceX had a major stroke of fortune when a usable engine of the right size fell into their lap when SpaceX was founded. ESA has to design an engine from scratch.

Neither of those statements is true.

Merlin is not Fastrac.  The idea that Merlin was just a copy of Fastrac has always just been propaganda from anti-SpaceX partisans.

And ESA doesn't have to design an engine from scratch.  They've been working on Prometheus since 2017.  They have just failed to work on the rocket for it at the same time with sufficient funding.

Copying someone else is easy when that someone else, like NASA makes all kinds of data available to interested parties. SpaceX plays its cards much closer to the vest so while ESA can learn some general principles from what SpaceX does, it's going to take a lot of R&D to replicate the work.

Nobody said it wouldn't take some R&D.  But they should be able to do it in a lot less time than SpaceX having seen so much of the broad outlines of what SpaceX has done.

And ESA has more resources available to it than SpaceX had.  SpaceX had to bootstrap from a pretty low starting point.  An organization already staffed up with so many engineers and so much money and an architecture to copy should be much, much faster than the 10 years SpaceX took.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Pipcard on 07/01/2020 04:59 pm
It took SpaceX 10 years to achieve reusability. It's unrealistic to expect ESA to take less time. By the time it was clear SpaceX's experiment was going to succeed, ESA had a choice:
1. Keep using Ariane 5 while developing the tech needed for a reusable rocket (new engine, heat shielding, landing flight control software).
2. Switch to a cheaper derivative of Ariane 5 while developing the tech needed for a reusable rocket. This is the route they chose.

SpaceX didn't make a secret of what they were doing. Like I said Arianespace made a wrong decision thinking reusability would not be economical. They now reap the results of that wrong decision. Many more years of being relatively uncompetitive.
This hubris comes from the fact that Ariane originally dominated the commercial launch market (up to 50%) due to not relying on reusability compared to the expensive Space Shuttle. The issue is that they assumed all RLVs will be like the Shuttle.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/01/2020 09:18 pm
About Ariane 6 maiden launch slipping from mid2020 to 2021. It has been stated from the beginning that Ariane6 development timeline was very ambitious. Of course there have been several setbacks, Corona being the final nail into the coffin.
Does anyone have info on the status of the P5.2 test bench and test going on over there. I think that is one of the setbacks. Another huge one is the construction of the ELA4 launch site. Covid-19 really halted that, but it was also already on a tight schedule.
And the failure of the Zefiro-23 on Vega VV-15 will likely have resulted in delays in the development of P120C.
European industry has not been coming forward with progress on Ariane 6 for some. Maybe they are just quiet.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 07/01/2020 09:56 pm
Those criticizing Ariane 6 forget that it is half the cost of Ariane 5, which means a lot of money saved on subsidies since Europe won’t allow them to go out of business.
Also, you seem to forget how fundamentally different was the organization of the rocket design. Rather than having national agencies design the rocket and have the industry build it, industry designed and then had each country supply chain bid to get the best price while keeping the national return policy. This is huge.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacenut on 07/01/2020 09:59 pm
Does anyone have a current sketch of what Ariane 6 will look like?  Has it changed any?  Is it still solids on the first and second stage?  Is it still expendable? 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/01/2020 10:47 pm
Does anyone have a current sketch of what Ariane 6 will look like?  Has it changed any?  Is it still solids on the first and second stage?  Is it still expendable?
Ariane 6 hasn't changed still the A62 and A64.
This is getting NUTS, I'm done.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Asteroza on 07/01/2020 11:22 pm
Those criticizing Ariane 6 forget that it is half the cost of Ariane 5, which means a lot of money saved on subsidies since Europe won’t allow them to go out of business.
Also, you seem to forget how fundamentally different was the organization of the rocket design. Rather than having national agencies design the rocket and have the industry build it, industry designed and then had each country supply chain bid to get the best price while keeping the national return policy. This is huge.

It's government, so halving the subsidy input means EU countries will be even less inclined to put up money for new work/Ariane 7, especially since RLV work is a lot of up front money, and once EU countries get used to less contributions it's going to be a hard sell to increase budgets again. They've guaranteed their domestic launch capability with Ariane 6 for the time being, so barring a substantial economic threat that could motivate them all together, any work on RLV/Ariane 7 will be SLOW.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/02/2020 01:31 am
When they decided to go with A6 in its current design, SpaceX weren't recovering booosters, let alone shown it could be down reliably. A6 was right design at time for them especially as it share equipment with Vega. SpaceX will not take all the commercial GEO missions, satellite operators like to share it around to make sure they have more than one supplier.

Sharing commercial GEO satellite market with SpaceX only isn't issue, its sharing with NG and Vulcan. Both of which are going be price competitive with A6.

The hope has been lower launch costs result in more satellites wanting to be launched. In a way it is right, problem is the new satellites are smallsats that use likes of Electron and rideshare not dedicated launches on likes of A6.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/02/2020 01:54 am
When they decided to go with A6 in its current design, SpaceX weren't recovering booosters

No, SpaceX wasn't recovering boosters then, but they were clearly getting close to doing so.  It was clear to many posters on here that it was highly likely they would succeed, and many posters on here were arguing that they should choose an A6 design that matched what Falcon 9 was close to achieving.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 07/02/2020 07:04 am
Does anyone have a current sketch of what Ariane 6 will look like?  Has it changed any?  Is it still solids on the first and second stage?  Is it still expendable?

The Ariane 6 design  (https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Launch_vehicles/Ariane_6)was frozen about 3 years ago (going by the various artist impressions I've downloaded).
First and second stages are liquid (LOX/LH), first stage uses a new Vulcain version, second stage uses Vinci. 2 or 4 solid boosters on the first stage, using a common design with Vega C.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: avollhar on 07/02/2020 07:40 am
People tend to forget, that Ariane 6 never was about being the cheapest on the market. It was and is about providing independent access to space for Europe and to make industrial stakeholders happy. Vulcain 2, Vinci is from France, soli                             ds are from Italy. A bit lite SLS, albeit on a *smaller* scale..
Of course politics are pushing them to reduce cost, but only to reduce the subsidies they received over the last decade. It's not really about actually making money.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: envy887 on 07/04/2020 02:56 am
Those criticizing Ariane 6 forget that it is half the cost of Ariane 5, which means a lot of money saved on subsidies since Europe won’t allow them to go out of business.
Also, you seem to forget how fundamentally different was the organization of the rocket design. Rather than having national agencies design the rocket and have the industry build it, industry designed and then had each country supply chain bid to get the best price while keeping the national return policy. This is huge.

It was projected to be a bit over half the price, but are any of the contracted prices for actual launches available to the public?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: LouScheffer on 07/04/2020 06:48 pm
Nobody said it wouldn't take some R&D.  But they should be able to do it in a lot less time than SpaceX having seen so much of the broad outlines of what SpaceX has done.

An organization already staffed up with so many engineers and so much money and an architecture to copy should be much, much faster than the 10 years SpaceX took.
The broad outlines should be *very* helpful.  How big do the grid fins need to be?  Just measure SpaceX's.  How much fuel do you need for the entry burn, versus how much slowdown you can get from the atmosphere?  Look at the SpaceX webcasts.  Is heat resistant cloth around the engines enough?  Apparently not, SpaceX seems to have switched to sliding plates.  How much time do you need for refurbishment, and how many missions can you count on?  SpaceX shows that's less than two months, and at least 5 missions.  How big does the barge need to be, and what thrusters are sufficient for it?  Look what SpaceX did; you can start the barge now.  Do you need a homing beacon on the barge?   No, but you need a radar altimeter.  And so on.

My guess (and it's only that) is that a competent team, with normal expendable rocket funding levels, could copy what SpaceX did in about 4 years.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GreenShrike on 07/04/2020 09:47 pm
Those criticizing Ariane 6 forget that it is half the cost of Ariane 5

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly haven't forgotten that Ariane 6 is half the cost of Ariane 5.

On the other hand, have you forgotten that the dubious "privilege" of said savings is costing €3000M in Ariane 6 rocket and launch complex development costs?

They're spending dollars to save dimes.


...which means a lot of money saved...


I doubt that any money will be saved at all, in the end. You need a lot of dimes to equal dollars.


Enough rhetoric -- here's some math. If A5 costs €150M to launch, A6 theoretically saves €75M. Sorry, I mean that A64 saves €75M -- A62 is replacing Soyuz yet costs more, so comparatively they'll actually be losing money per A62 flight. Which means they'll need 3000 / 75 = ~40 A64 flights before its vaunted "savings" have paid off its development costs.


If A64 manages an average of 5 flights per year -- however likely (or not) that is -- Europe wouldn't see any savings until around 2030. Since Europe is already talking about needing to replace A6 with a more cost effective Ariane Next, I'm thinking A6 will be done long before 2030. And that means Europe has spent rather a lot of tax payer money for no return, on a rocket design they're admitting is obsolete even before it ever flies.


The last few Ariane 5's were sold by Europe at Ariane 6 prices. Rather than developing A6, it would have been cheaper for Europe to just continue selling A5's at A6 pricing for a few years to maintain their "independent access to space", while also spending what they'll need to spend anyway on Ariane Next. Anything less than, as above, 40 (massively-subsidized) Ariane 5 flights, and Europe would be money ahead of where they are now.


Rather than having national agencies design the rocket and have the industry build it, industry designed...

With a €3000M budget, European "industry" should have been able to do a lot more with Ariane 6 than merely replicating 2015-2016 Falcon pricing a half-dozen years after the fact.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GreenShrike on 07/04/2020 10:40 pm
People tend to forget, that Ariane 6 never was about being the cheapest on the market.

That's too bad, as being the price leader would be a nice competitive advantage against JAXA's H3, ISRO's GSLV, China's new Long March 5/6/7 series, ULA's Vulcan and Blue Origin's New Glenn. In fact, pretty much every country with space launch capability has newly reduced-cost rocket vehicles on offer for commercial flights.

Tough crowd to stand out in.

Makes you nostalgic for those long ago days when Ariane just needed to compete against Russia's less-than-reliable Proton, doesn't it?


It was and is about providing independent access to space for Europe

No, Europe already had that in Ariane 5. They just thought it was getting too expensive for the market.


and to make industrial stakeholders happy.

The large ones, maybe. All the aerospace firms that contributed to Ariane 5 but didn't win Ariane 6 work are probably *not* happy, if they still exist.


It's not really about actually making money.

Sure it is -- Ariane 6's bills (i.e. fixed costs) will need to be paid.

If those costs can't be passed onto commercial clients, then they'll need to be picked up European tax payers. And with ArianeGroup insisting on having the European government launch market all to itself to guarantee sufficient A6 demand, it seems ArianeGroup is expecting the more of the latter than the former.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 07/05/2020 08:17 am
very negative here ... 


It was and is about providing independent access to space for Europe

No, Europe already had that in Ariane 5. They just thought it was getting too expensive for the market.


 ???
From the Arianespace launch schedule:
Quote
2020
July 28 - Galaxy 30, MEV-2, BSAT-4b - Ariane 5 ECA (VA253) [№L5112] - Kourou ELA-3
...
November 6 - CSO 2 - Soyuz-ST-A/Fregat-M (VS25) - Kourou ELS

The possibility of launching private GEO communication satellites is not yet an independent access to orbit.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/06/2020 03:00 am
This hubris comes from the fact that Ariane originally dominated the commercial launch market (up to 50%) due to not relying on reusability compared to the expensive Space Shuttle. The issue is that they assumed all RLVs will be like the Shuttle.
They could end up being right.  Super Heavy/Starship is essentially Shuttle-2. 

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Exastro on 07/06/2020 03:29 am
Nobody said it wouldn't take some R&D.  But they should be able to do it in a lot less time than SpaceX having seen so much of the broad outlines of what SpaceX has done.

An organization already staffed up with so many engineers and so much money and an architecture to copy should be much, much faster than the 10 years SpaceX took.
The broad outlines should be *very* helpful.  How big do the grid fins need to be?  Just measure SpaceX's.  How much fuel do you need for the entry burn, versus how much slowdown you can get from the atmosphere?  Look at the SpaceX webcasts.  Is heat resistant cloth around the engines enough?  Apparently not, SpaceX seems to have switched to sliding plates.  How much time do you need for refurbishment, and how many missions can you count on?  SpaceX shows that's less than two months, and at least 5 missions.  How big does the barge need to be, and what thrusters are sufficient for it?  Look what SpaceX did; you can start the barge now.  Do you need a homing beacon on the barge?   No, but you need a radar altimeter.  And so on.

My guess (and it's only that) is that a competent team, with normal expendable rocket funding levels, could copy what SpaceX did in about 4 years.

Do they have a suitable engine?  It would need to be in the right thrust range, air-startable when pointing into a hypersonic wind, with sufficient throttle control (depth as well as speed and precision), and amenable to tight clustering (so probably no radiatively cooled nozzle). 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/06/2020 04:20 am
This hubris comes from the fact that Ariane originally dominated the commercial launch market (up to 50%) due to not relying on reusability compared to the expensive Space Shuttle. The issue is that they assumed all RLVs will be like the Shuttle.
They could end up being right.  Super Heavy/Starship is essentially Shuttle-2.

Ed, you literally started a whole thread yourself on this subject:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51252.0

You say yourself in your first post on that thread:

Quote
Starting this as a place to post and discuss my thoughts about Super Heavy/Starship that almost always get locked out in other threads.

So you yourself are admitting that you post the same bashing of Super Heavy/Starship in thread after thread and get them locked.  This thread you started just for your bashing of Super Heavy/Starship got locked.

Could we please not infect this thread with the same thing?

Let's just say that you disagree with the vast majority of posters on this forum about this issue and not discuss it further, either in this thread or any other.  It's been debated to death.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GreenShrike on 07/06/2020 05:38 am
It was and is about providing independent access to space for Europe
No, Europe already had that in Ariane 5. They just thought it was getting too expensive for the market.

 ???
From the Arianespace launch schedule:
Quote
2020
July 28 - Galaxy 30, MEV-2, BSAT-4b - Ariane 5 ECA (VA253) [№L5112] - Kourou ELA-3

Would that be one of the Ariane 5 flights that Arianespace sold at Ariane 6 pricing? Inquiring minds want to know.

Because, you know, slashing a rocket's price in half is pretty much the opposite of having confidence in your ability to sell it at the original price. Or, in fact, in your ability to sell it at anything *over* half the original price.

Which means they thought A5, as originally priced, was too expensive for the market.

QED.

very negative here ...

From the above, I can quite plainly state that *I'm* not the one being negative. *I'm* just doing some simple maths like 3000 / (150/2).

But if you're looking for negativity, here's some: Arianespace. They're plainly very negative on the ability to sell A5s at anything other than a massive discount.

Here's more: ArianeGroup. One doesn't casually upset the politicians paying one's bills by insisting that they bar foreign launchers access to European government payloads. Whether you support the move or not, there would be no need to demand the reduction of competition to zero if one were confident in one's ability to win contracts on the basis of one's strengths against said competition. As such, ArianeGroup must be plainly negative on A6's chances in the commercial marketplace if they feel they must lock in government flights to ensure sufficient A6 production.


But *me*, negative? No, sir, not at all, please rest assured. I'm ecstatic at the global resurgence in aerospace -- though I can certainly understand if individual elements of that resurgence are less than pleased at the prospect of revitalized competition.


The possibility of launching private GEO communication satellites is not yet an independent access to orbit.

Sorry, you'll have to explain that one. Because from what I can see "independent access to orbit" consists of two items: first, being able to launch payloads into space and, second, being able to dictate which payloads those are with no one being able to deny you.

Ariane 5 can launch quite large payloads to orbit, which fits point one.

Ariane 5 launches solely at the whims of European authorities, which fits point two.

Ergo, Ariane 5 provides (or, provided, prior to the start of the Ariane 6 program and the winding down of the Ariane 5 program) Europe independent access to space.

If, rather, you're talking about *affordable* access to space, then that's the point I was making: Ariane 5 may be unpalatably expensive, but it's still independent access to space, and they could have skipped the current A6 design and continued flying it -- preferably while developing Ariane Next, which, as previously stated, they're going to have to do anyway.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 07/06/2020 08:53 am
Nobody said it wouldn't take some R&D.  But they should be able to do it in a lot less time than SpaceX having seen so much of the broad outlines of what SpaceX has done.

An organization already staffed up with so many engineers and so much money and an architecture to copy should be much, much faster than the 10 years SpaceX took.
The broad outlines should be *very* helpful.  How big do the grid fins need to be?  Just measure SpaceX's.  How much fuel do you need for the entry burn, versus how much slowdown you can get from the atmosphere?  Look at the SpaceX webcasts.  Is heat resistant cloth around the engines enough?  Apparently not, SpaceX seems to have switched to sliding plates.  How much time do you need for refurbishment, and how many missions can you count on?  SpaceX shows that's less than two months, and at least 5 missions.  How big does the barge need to be, and what thrusters are sufficient for it?  Look what SpaceX did; you can start the barge now.  Do you need a homing beacon on the barge?   No, but you need a radar altimeter.  And so on.

My guess (and it's only that) is that a competent team, with normal expendable rocket funding levels, could copy what SpaceX did in about 4 years.

Do they have a suitable engine?  It would need to be in the right thrust range, air-startable when pointing into a hypersonic wind, with sufficient throttle control (depth as well as speed and precision), and amenable to tight clustering (so probably no radiatively cooled nozzle).


They're working on one: R&D for Prometheus (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41330.0) started in 2017. The first test firing is expected late 2020 or early 2021.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/06/2020 10:28 am
Greenshike you are very negative towards Ariane 6. And you are dembarrassing yourself, because you clearly don't fully understand the situation. I'll advice you to study the difference between Ariane 5 ES and ECA.

The A5-ECA is GTO (and escape [E-S L2] only. The ES was required for SSO and MEO. But EU reach regulations and cost pushed it towards phase out.
From the Ariane5 getgo the goal was ECB (Ariane 5ME) It became clear in 2012 that that would cost >1,5.10^9 to develop. And it couldn't replace Soyuz. With Ariane6 in the A62 and A64 configuration both Soyuz can be replaced. Besides there is the P120c commonality for Vega and Ariane6 thus lowering cost for both.

Let me also point out that DLR studies from 2018 showed that European heavy launcher requirements can NOT be met by a Falcon9 like rocket.
The investments for Ariane6 100% aid development of Ariane Next. Instead of a very risky direct transition from Ariane5 to a launcher with a to be developed engine. Ariane6 is a incremental step. Reaching ~40% cost reduction and Ariane5ME capabilities.
For GTO launches Ariane 64 is at the same launch price as SpaceX Falcon9. I'm very confident European institutions  will pay comparable if not lower launch prices than US institutions. Vega will provide a more affordable launch option. The competition between Vega and Ariane will keep prices honest.
What European launch providers requested, was protection from US launchers pricing them out of the market. It looks like SpaceX is using US institutional demand to cover their fixed cost, so they can price much lower for commercial launches.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/06/2020 11:48 am
The A5-ECA is GTO (and escape [E-S L2] only. The ES was required for SSO and MEO. But EU reach regulations and cost pushed it towards phase out.

Your argument is incoherent.  Cost as a reason to phase out a variant of A5 in favor of A6 has already been shown to be illusory savings by posts upthread that you have ignored.  The development costs of A6 are so high that they are greater than any savings versus A5 for many years into the future.  By the time A6 starts actually paying off in cost savings ESA could have had a partial-reusable launch vehicle with even greater cost savings.

From the Ariane5 getgo the goal was ECB (Ariane 5ME) It became clear in 2012 that that would cost >1,5.10^9 to develop. And it couldn't replace Soyuz. With Ariane6 in the A62 and A64 configuration both Soyuz can be replaced. Besides there is the P120c commonality for Vega and Ariane6 thus lowering cost for both.

A cost savings that doesn't overcome the development cost for many years.

Let me also point out that DLR studies from 2018 showed that European heavy launcher requirements can NOT be met by a Falcon9 like rocket.

That argument makes no sense.

Making an exact clone of Falcon 9 in every respect is not the only option on the table.  ESA would have been free to size their launch vehicle to whatever requirements they liked.  They could also build a three-core variant and/or produce a hydrogen upper-stage that would be optimized for higher-energy launches.

The point is that ESA foolishly chose a dead-end, all-expendable solution instead of having the vision to see that they could get so much more by embracing reusability.

The investments for Ariane6 100% aid development of Ariane Next. Instead of a very risky direct transition from Ariane5 to a launcher with a to be developed engine. Ariane6 is a incremental step. Reaching ~40% cost reduction and Ariane5ME capabilities.

Risk aversion is not always the wisest course.

For GTO launches Ariane 64 is at the same launch price as SpaceX Falcon9.

Incorrect.  The cheapest A6 is more than $80 million.  Even the most expensive, fully-expendable Falcon 9 is $62 million, but many GTO launches have already been proven by Falcon 9 with the booster recovered, making it even cheaper.

I'm very confident European institutions  will pay comparable if not lower launch prices than US institutions.

That's a claim without evidence.

Vega will provide a more affordable launch option.

That's not relevant to the question of whether a poor decision was made in the design of A6.

The competition between Vega and Ariane will keep prices honest.

Vega and A5/A6 aren't anywhere close to the same payload class.  They can't possibly compete in a meaningful enough way to keep prices honest.

What European launch providers requested, was protection from US launchers pricing them out of the market. It looks like SpaceX is using US institutional demand to cover their fixed cost, so they can price much lower for commercial launches.

Whether that's true or not is not relevant to the points made earlier, which you have been ignoring, about A6 being a poor choice.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 07/06/2020 04:45 pm
It was and is about providing independent access to space for Europe
No, Europe already had that in Ariane 5. They just thought it was getting too expensive for the market.

 ???
From the Arianespace launch schedule:
Quote
2020
July 28 - Galaxy 30, MEV-2, BSAT-4b - Ariane 5 ECA (VA253) [№L5112] - Kourou ELA-3

Would that be one of the Ariane 5 flights that Arianespace sold at Ariane 6 pricing? Inquiring minds want to know.

Because, you know, slashing a rocket's price in half is pretty much the opposite of having confidence in your ability to sell it at the original price. Or, in fact, in your ability to sell it at anything *over* half the original price.

Which means they thought A5, as originally priced, was too expensive for the market.

QED.

very negative here ...

From the above, I can quite plainly state that *I'm* not the one being negative. *I'm* just doing some simple maths like 3000 / (150/2).

But if you're looking for negativity, here's some: Arianespace. They're plainly very negative on the ability to sell A5s at anything other than a massive discount.

Here's more: ArianeGroup. One doesn't casually upset the politicians paying one's bills by insisting that they bar foreign launchers access to European government payloads. Whether you support the move or not, there would be no need to demand the reduction of competition to zero if one were confident in one's ability to win contracts on the basis of one's strengths against said competition. As such, ArianeGroup must be plainly negative on A6's chances in the commercial marketplace if they feel they must lock in government flights to ensure sufficient A6 production.


But *me*, negative? No, sir, not at all, please rest assured. I'm ecstatic at the global resurgence in aerospace -- though I can certainly understand if individual elements of that resurgence are less than pleased at the prospect of revitalized competition.


The possibility of launching private GEO communication satellites is not yet an independent access to orbit.

Sorry, you'll have to explain that one. Because from what I can see "independent access to orbit" consists of two items: first, being able to launch payloads into space and, second, being able to dictate which payloads those are with no one being able to deny you.

Ariane 5 can launch quite large payloads to orbit, which fits point one.

Ariane 5 launches solely at the whims of European authorities, which fits point two.

Ergo, Ariane 5 provides (or, provided, prior to the start of the Ariane 6 program and the winding down of the Ariane 5 program) Europe independent access to space.

If, rather, you're talking about *affordable* access to space, then that's the point I was making: Ariane 5 may be unpalatably expensive, but it's still independent access to space, and they could have skipped the current A6 design and continued flying it -- preferably while developing Ariane Next, which, as previously stated, they're going to have to do anyway.

You cut out the CSO-2 from the quote. That was the crucial point.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/06/2020 05:29 pm
Ariane 6 is developed to provide independant acces to space for Europe. It's what is developed. Let's see how it will perform the comming years.


Is anyone enjoying this discussion. I'm totally NOT. It leads me to stop sharing info/news on NSF. I'm only getting frustrated here.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/06/2020 06:48 pm
For GTO launches Ariane 64 is at the same launch price as SpaceX Falcon9.
Incorrect.  The cheapest A6 is more than $80 million.  Even the most expensive, fully-expendable Falcon 9 is $62 million, but many GTO launches have already been proven by Falcon 9 with the booster recovered, making it even cheaper.
I see Ariane 64 at EU115M (~$US130M) for 11.5 tonnes to GEO-1500 m/s.  Falcon 9R can only lift around 4.8 tonnes, maybe, to the same GEO-1500 m/s.  So one Ariane 64 is going to be performing the equivalent of 2.3+ Falcon 9R launches.  $US130M/2.3 is about $US56.5M.  So the price comparison is closer than one might think.  That near-equatorial site is a secret weapon for Arianespace.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 07/06/2020 10:47 pm
This hubris comes from the fact that Ariane originally dominated the commercial launch market (up to 50%) due to not relying on reusability compared to the expensive Space Shuttle. The issue is that they assumed all RLVs will be like the Shuttle.
They could end up being right.  Super Heavy/Starship is essentially Shuttle-2.

Ed, you literally started a whole thread yourself on this subject:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51252.0

...
Could we please not infect this thread with the same thing?

Let's just say that you disagree with the vast majority of posters on this forum about this issue and not discuss it further, either in this thread or any other.  It's been debated to death.

Normally I disagree with Ed, but I think there is a different angle here. Keep in mind that despite what ESA would like to believe, the success of Ariane 5 in the commercial launch market was not due to a superior product, but mostly from luck... The US rolled a hard six for the Shuttle program, but that bet failed, which caused them to essentially give up the commercial market for 3 decades when the Shuttle did not provide the cost savings they are hoping for.

So are they making that same bet again, that re-usability (the sequel!) will fail? It seems that way. But it seems less likely to succeed now, since the US competitive threat is far less homogeneous that it was back then. Both Blue Origin and SpaceX are doing reuse, and SpaceX working on full re-use. And the Indian and Chinese launchers also add extra competition. The market is just VERY different than it was when Ariane 5 arrived.

Even IF SS/SH fails, it seems like a veeeery risky proposition to just try to match where your competitors were yesterday instead of meeting them where they will be tomorrow. Betting on your competitors failing is not a good business or strategical decision.

Having said that, the cost savings of A6 and shared components with Vega is a smart choice. And the development cost doesn't really matter - this is money that the members states would want to spend to keep their workforce busy anyway. But could they have done something even better? We'll see how it turns out.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: envy887 on 07/06/2020 10:49 pm
For GTO launches Ariane 64 is at the same launch price as SpaceX Falcon9.
Incorrect.  The cheapest A6 is more than $80 million.  Even the most expensive, fully-expendable Falcon 9 is $62 million, but many GTO launches have already been proven by Falcon 9 with the booster recovered, making it even cheaper.
I see Ariane 64 at EU115M (~$US130M) for 11.5 tonnes to GEO-1500 m/s.  Falcon 9R can only lift around 4.8 tonnes, maybe, to the same GEO-1500 m/s.  So one Ariane 64 is going to be performing the equivalent of 2.3+ Falcon 9R launches.  $US130M/2.3 is about $US56.5M.  So the price comparison is closer than one might think.  That near-equatorial site is a secret weapon for Arianespace.

 - Ed Kyle

Ariane 64 can't launch 2.3 satellites. The best it can do is an uneven cost and mass split between the upper and lower berths, but that means that every customer with a 4.8 t satellite has to be matched by one willing to pay for 6.7 t of performance, and vice versa.

The A64 lower berth is competing mainly against F9R. The A64 upper berth is competing against FHR, Vulcan, New Glenn, and others. ISTM that this is a little bit of a pickle, because F9R is tough to beat in the 4 to 5 t market, but the cost to cover the whole launch without a lower berth payload would push the upper above the FHR and Vulcan price point of $90-$100M.

Vulcan and New Glenn are in a slightly better position in the dual launch market, since they can lift 2 upper berth payloads at once if necessary, and don't need to fill a 4 to 5 t slot to make the launch pay like A64 does.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 08/15/2020 05:26 pm
For GTO launches Ariane 64 is at the same launch price as SpaceX Falcon9.
Incorrect.  The cheapest A6 is more than $80 million.  Even the most expensive, fully-expendable Falcon 9 is $62 million, but many GTO launches have already been proven by Falcon 9 with the booster recovered, making it even cheaper.
I see Ariane 64 at EU115M (~$US130M) for 11.5 tonnes to GEO-1500 m/s.  Falcon 9R can only lift around 4.8 tonnes, maybe, to the same GEO-1500 m/s.  So one Ariane 64 is going to be performing the equivalent of 2.3+ Falcon 9R launches.  $US130M/2.3 is about $US56.5M.  So the price comparison is closer than one might think.  That near-equatorial site is a secret weapon for Arianespace.

 - Ed Kyle

Ariane 64 can't launch 2.3 satellites. The best it can do is an uneven cost and mass split between the upper and lower berths, but that means that every customer with a 4.8 t satellite has to be matched by one willing to pay for 6.7 t of performance, and vice versa.

The A64 lower berth is competing mainly against F9R. The A64 upper berth is competing against FHR, Vulcan, New Glenn, and others. ISTM that this is a little bit of a pickle, because F9R is tough to beat in the 4 to 5 t market, but the cost to cover the whole launch without a lower berth payload would push the upper above the FHR and Vulcan price point of $90-$100M.

Vulcan and New Glenn are in a slightly better position in the dual launch market, since they can lift 2 upper berth payloads at once if necessary, and don't need to fill a 4 to 5 t slot to make the launch pay like A64 does.


Point I have always said  .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/15/2020 09:58 pm
Let's agree to disagree. I view the launch market much less open than many view it here.
Ariane 6 will have double the launch rate capability of Ariane 5, with 11/12 instead of 6/7. Demand for Ariane 6 launches isn't sufficient for the launch rate capability. And I think a reusable first stage with continuous spread production only works at a rate above 20/year.
There are already improvements in work for Ariane 6; Icarus and IOS. As written before, because of the negativity towards all other than reusable, I don't share a lot anymore. I'm very happy with the development of the IOS. Read back what I wrote about Ariane 6 Galileo launches.
That 0,3 satellite could be direct GEO injection and/or servicing to another GEO satellite. And Ariane 6 launch capability will grow, like it did with Ariane 5. I would be pleasantly surprised if demand for Ariane 6 or launches in general justify an ArianeNext with reusable first stage. But I'm very skeptical.

I think the LEO comsat bubble will burst, because there are beter alternatives to provide global fast data acces. >70% of the earth is inhabited / water, hardly any data demand there. LEO sats are >50% in the wrong location, static HAPS or GEO satellites aren't. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/15/2020 11:44 pm
Demand for Ariane 6 launches isn't sufficient for the launch rate capability.

While it's a myth that IBM CEO Thomas Watson said there was a demand for only five computers in the world, what isn't a myth is that IBM's top leadership, and many others, believed that computers only had a very limited market.  All they knew was very expensive computers.  When all you know is something that is very expensive and what the market for that thing is when it is very expensive, it's often hard for people to realize that if it becomes less expensive the market can expand enormously.

I think the LEO comsat bubble will burst, because there are beter alternatives to provide global fast data acces. >70% of the earth is inhabited / water, hardly any data demand there. LEO sats are >50% in the wrong location, static HAPS or GEO satellites aren't.

It's true that LEO comsats are most not very useful more than 50% of the time.  But they are 65 times closer to the surface of the Earth.  A factor of 65 beats a factor of 2, or even a factor of 10, lower duty cycle.

Being close to the Earth not only lowers power requirements and antenna size requirements by a staggering degree, it also lowers latency to a level that is competitive with other internet connectivity options.  GEO comsats can't do that.

Plus, getting to GEO is way more expensive.  A single launch can put much more mass into LEO more cheaply than GEO.

There are lots of threads where people have run the numbers in detail.  The numbers clearly show Starlink being fantastically profitable.  And that's thanks largely to the high volume, low cost launch ability of SpaceX.

People in Europe will eventually realize that they have missed out because their leaders made the wrong choice in Ariane 6.  The same amount of money spent on Ariane 6, spent more wisely from the start, could have given Europe the equivalent of Starlink.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/20/2020 10:24 am
[repeat mode: on]
Launch cost is only a portion of a satellite mission cost. So if only launch cost goes down, the satellite mission cost only goes down a portion. Thus launch demand isn't very sensitive to launch cost.
[repeat mode: off]

A question; what is more important in your oppinion; A) lowering launch price, B) diversifying launch capability ?

A reusable (first stage) rocket (might) lower launch price. A higher flight rate also lowers launch price, because the fixed cost for the ground equipment are divided over more launches.

Ariane5 could launch to LEO and MEO with the G(+/S)/ES versions, these have been phased out because the ~150mln Euro launch cost weren't competitive. The Soyuz launches from CSG were a more affordable alternative. Ariane 5 ECA can launch to GTO-1500m/s or escape trajectories (for example L2). Thus Ariane 5 wasn't flexible. The reason for this, is the fact that the HM7B 67kN LOx/LH2 ECA upperstage engine is NOT restartable.
From roughly 2000 to 2014 the Vince engine (180kN LOx/LH2 expander cycle) was developed with uncertain funding. This should have lead to the ECB upperstage, later known as the Ariane 5 ME.
In 2010-2014 it became clear that the development of the Ariane 5 ME would cost >1,5.10^9 Euro. This was because the core stage tank structure needed to be stronger for the higher upperstage + payload mass on top. But the launch cost wouldn't go down a lot. Besides the Ariane 5 ME was over qualified, and thus expansive for European institutional payloads for LEO/SSO/MEO orbits. Hence the development of Ariane 6.

Now development setbacks and covid-19 have delayed the maiden launch of Ariane 6 by a year. (The real reason for the delay isn't discussed here ???) But there are ideas and plans to improve Ariane 6.
This could go two paths, 1) reusable first stage =>?lower cost. 2) diversification of mission capabilities. What is more important?
- Does Europe require a moon lander capability?
- Does Europe require the capability to service satellites in orbit or deorbit old satellites?
- Does Europe require an in orbit propulsion system, that can be used as propulsion bus for a ISS/gateway resupply vehicle.
- Does Europe require smaller launchers, and it's own sounding rockets?
Can any of these developments been funded given de Covid-19, EU state debt and upcoming financial crises.?
I think diversification is the better aim for now. Especially given the uncertainty around launch requirement.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: envy887 on 08/20/2020 05:53 pm
[repeat mode: on]
Launch cost is only a portion of a satellite mission cost. So if only launch cost goes down, the satellite mission cost only goes down a portion. Thus launch demand isn't very sensitive to launch cost.
[repeat mode: off]

Repeating something doesn't make it true.

When launch cost is reduced, satellites are built cheaper.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ulm_atms on 08/20/2020 06:17 pm
A question; what is more important in your oppinion; A) lowering launch price, B) diversifying launch capability ?

Lower launch price....period.

When the launch price is lower, more people/companies can launch.  The more people/companies that can now afford launches, the demand for launches increase.  The more the demand for launches increase, the more companies are willing to get into the launch business......which diversifies launch capability in the end.

The small sat market is showing this now.  The medium/heavy market is bigger now then ever.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/20/2020 09:23 pm
When launch cost is reduced, satellites are built cheaper.
Please explain how this works. I can't comprehend how reduced launch cost can result in cheaper satellite build cost.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/20/2020 09:55 pm
When launch cost is reduced, satellites are built cheaper.
Please explain how this works. I can't comprehend how reduced launch cost can result in cheaper satellite build cost.

There are multiple ways.

For one thing, you don't have to have as much margin and as much redundancy when launch is cheap.  When launch is super expensive, there's no room for failure.  You'd better make sure everything works right the first time, because if not, you have to pay for another super-expensive launch to put up a replacement.  With cheap launch, you can be more relaxed.  Having to be super-reliable drives costs up enormously.

Another thing is that when launch is cheap you can afford to spend more mass to make the satellites cheaper.  Maybe you even put the functionality on 3 different satellites instead of just 1.

Also, your satellite doesn't have to last as long if launch is cheap.  It's OK to design it for 5 years instead of 15 if launch is cheap.  Then you can put up an even better satellite in 5 years.

That just scratches the surface.  There are all kinds of design decisions made throughout a satellite.  When launch is super-expensive, that puts very tight constraints on many of these design decisions.  Relaxing these constraints frees up the satellite to optimize more for cost instead.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/20/2020 09:57 pm
A couple of days ago, I posted a newsrelease from OHB/MTaerospace on the Ariane 6 update topic. Because of the delayed maiden launch of Ariane 6, the production requirement has been reduced. They are bagging for government support.
They argue commercial (GTO) launch demand has reduced, because China, India and Russia are selling cheap GTO comsat with launch packeges. Besides increased competition required reduced launch prices, eating away profit margins.
They are worried Ariane 6 will only launch 4 or 5 times annually for institutional demand.
I think they are hugely exaggerating the situation. AFAIK Arianespace has still plenty of GTO payloads in their backlog.
I also think their under performance  is a reason for the delayed maiden launch of Ariane 6.
Nobody discussed the OHB complain. And neither the real reason for the delayed maiden launch  is discussed here.

Why isn't the ULPM being tested on the P5.2 testbench jet?
Does this have something to do with the 400mln the industry had to contribute to the Ariane6 development program?

The only thing discussed is "Ariane 6 will fail because it isn't reusable." Really a low quality discussion in my opppinion. Sorry
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tbellman on 08/20/2020 10:31 pm
Please explain how this works. I can't comprehend how reduced launch cost can result in cheaper satellite build cost.

First, if launches are expensive, then you will make sure that your payload is very reliable, and have a long lifetime, both of which drive costs for the payload.  To take your own argument, just reversing roles, the cost of the satellite is just a portion of the total mission cost, so you can't save more than a certain percentage by making the satellite cheaper.

But if launches are cheap, you can afford to make the satellites less reliable and have shorter lifetimes; you just launch more of them

Second, once you have lowered the mission costs (launch+payload) enough to be able to afford multiple satellites, you get scaling effects.  Buying two identical satellites is likely to be significantly cheaper than twice the price of one satellite.  Even if they are manufactured entirely by hand, you only need to design once.

Third, if launches are cheap, you can start thinking about entirely different architectures for your payloads.  A dozen small, and cheap, but individually less capable satellites, instead of one large, very expensive satellite.  Large communication constellations in LEO instead of a handful of geostationary satellites is an obvious example, but there are several Earth observation examples as well.  And this will of course drive down the payload costs even further, due to now not buying two or three identical satellites, but ten or twenty (or thousands, in the case of some).

Fourth, if people can afford to launch more, more satellite builders will crop up, increasing innovation, and adding competitive pressure to keep the prices down.

But, it requires launch prices to be lowered significantly to get these effects.  Dropping from (e.g.) 150 M€ to 100 M€ will likely not press the satellite costs down by very much, but if they drop from 150 to 50 M€, I believe the effects will be noticable.  And if they drop to 20 M€ it will be even more noticable.

It also takes time for the market to react.  Customers will need some time before they can trust that the low prices are permanent (i.e, that the new low-cost provider will not go out of business), and they will need some time to consider how to best take advantage of the new situation, and so on.  I would expect about a five year "reaction time" before effects start being noticable, and at least ten years to fully take advantage of the new conditions.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/20/2020 10:53 pm
@ ChrisWilson68
I think you're overlooking several aspects. You are writing cheap vs expansive, this are subjective terms. For me personally a million is really expansive. But a million is nothing in terms of launch cost.
Rocketlabs Electron can launch 200kg to SSO for $5mln, that's $25 000/kg.
SpaceX rideshare offers this launch for €1mln or $5 000/kg. (50mln with 8mT to SSO is 6250/kg)
Ariane 62 can launch 6.5mT to SSO, if this cost €100mln it's €15 400/kg.
Ariane 64 can launch 14.9mT to SSO at a cost of €120mln it's €8000/kg.
Vega-C can launch 2.3mT to SSO for €35mln that's ~15 200/kg.
But what happens when a Vega C is used to launch a 1200kg satellite or A62 launches a 5mT satellite. It's TBD what the rideshare cost from Arianespace will be.
The real counter example is the Icarius upprestage, that will cost more but improves payload capability. Let's assume A62I will cost 105mln and payload increases 1mT to 7.5mT, this is 14k/kg.

Designing a satellite for shorter service live is a bad practice in my oppinion. For LEO/SSO it mandates reentry at end of service live. For MEO and GTO it's not acceptable because to much defunct satellites will build up in orbit.
Besides the CO2, NOx and aerosols emissions per launch all contribute to human induced global warming. Shortening satellite service live and increasing mass (less lightweight satellites) aren't sustainable.
Sorry I view shorter lifetimes and less lightweight designs as unacceptable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/20/2020 11:10 pm
AFAIK currently the increase of small satellite demand has caused a larger reduction in larger satellites. Thus the cheaper mass produced satellites have AFAIK cause a reduction in launch demand.
And I really doubt replacing a single GTO or MEO sat by >10 LEO comsat's is a more affordable system. Besides with a HAPS one can be used to provide low latency service for an area, instead of a couple of hundred satellites at least. (But that has global coverage, but is providing the service permitted?)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/20/2020 11:18 pm
AFAIK currently the increase of small satellite demand has caused a larger reduction in larger satellites. Thus the cheaper mass produced satellites have AFAIK cause a reduction in launch demand.

SpaceX is currently churning out 120 Starlink satellites per month.  That requires 24 Falcon 9 launches a year to satisfy.  There has not been a corresponding cut in larger satellite launch.

And I really doubt replacing a single GTO or MEO sat by >10 LEO comsat's is a more affordable system.

SpaceX, OneWeb, and Amazon disagree.  They have experts who have worked the detailed numbers, and they're in a position to know better than you or I.

Besides with a HAPS one can be used to provide low latency service for an area, instead of a couple of hundred satellites at least. (But that has global coverage, but is providing the service permitted?)

The market disagrees with your assessment.  We'll see who is right.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 08/21/2020 09:06 pm
AFAIK currently the increase of small satellite demand has caused a larger reduction in larger satellites. Thus the cheaper mass produced satellites have AFAIK cause a reduction in launch demand.
And I really doubt replacing a single GTO or MEO sat by >10 LEO comsat's is a more affordable system. Besides with a HAPS one can be used to provide low latency service for an area, instead of a couple of hundred satellites at least. (But that has global coverage, but is providing the service permitted?)

What I've seen in the GTO market is that the bandwidth/launch mass has increased dramatically. This has meant that the supply (on an annual launch mass capability basis) has greatly surpassed demand of bandwidth. Even with significant increase in demand. HTS and SEP have caused much of the launch reduction. Ariane 6 is particularly sensitive because it needs many passengers in this scenario.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: envy887 on 08/26/2020 06:25 pm
When launch cost is reduced, satellites are built cheaper.
Please explain how this works. I can't comprehend how reduced launch cost can result in cheaper satellite build cost.

If you want a case study, look at Starlink. ~$30M/Tbps instead of ~$600M/Tbps for ViaSat 3, only possible because launch costs of $1000/kg instead of $20,000/kg drive massively different design and operational decisions.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/26/2020 10:45 pm
 The commercial satellite launch of mass to orbit per year hasn't gone up enough to support all new Arianne 6 class LVs available. There a plenty of smallsats but their combined mass isn't great with lot choosing to use smaller LVs. The odd rideshare mission a year isn't enough for likes of A6. Without government missions A6 and F9 would struggle to be commercially viable.

Starlink is not commercial launch market but business gamble by SpaceX, we are yet to see if it is success.

I don't see owners of GEO sats lowering replacement life from 15yrs because launch costs have come down, in fact I see their expected life being extended. With NGSS MRV capabilities there is no reason future GEO satellites can't be used well past 15yrs with upgrades being possible inspace. NB most GEOs are retired due to lack of fuel not because they are obsolete or have a fault.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/26/2020 10:56 pm
Starlink is not commercial launch market but business gamble by SpaceX, we are yet to see if it is success.

Risk doesn't mean something isn't commercial.  Businesses take risks all the time with new products.  Starlink is commercial because it's meant to make money.

I don't see owners of GEO sats lowering replacement life from 15yrs because launch costs have come down, in fact I see their expected life being extended. With NGSS MRV capabilities there is no reason future GEO satellites can't be used well past 15yrs with upgrades being possible inspace. NB most GEOs are retired due to lack of fuel not because they are obsolete or have a fault.

You're not seeing the lifetimes come down because you're explicitly excluding LEO, where, in fact, Starlink satellites have a 5 year lifetime.

Anyway, the effects of lower costs take time to have effect.  The satellite industry doesn't change overnight.  And most of the cost savings from reusable launch have yet to show up.  Wait until 5-10 years after we have a fully, rapidly reusable launch vehicle in operation and then you'll see the change.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: envy887 on 08/27/2020 06:12 pm
The commercial satellite launch of mass to orbit per year hasn't gone up enough to support all new Arianne 6 class LVs available. There a plenty of smallsats but their combined mass isn't great with lot choosing to use smaller LVs. The odd rideshare mission a year isn't enough for likes of A6. Without government missions A6 and F9 would struggle to be commercially viable.

Starlink is not commercial launch market but business gamble by SpaceX, we are yet to see if it is success.

I don't see owners of GEO sats lowering replacement life from 15yrs because launch costs have come down, in fact I see their expected life being extended. With NGSS MRV capabilities there is no reason future GEO satellites can't be used well past 15yrs with upgrades being possible inspace. NB most GEOs are retired due to lack of fuel not because they are obsolete or have a fault.

Ariane 6 hasn't reduced the cost of launch enough to have a significant impact on the design and operational decisions that drive satellite cost. In fact, Ariane 6 hasn't reduced the cost of launch at all, since 1) it isn't even flying yet and 2) once operational it will at best only match the $10k/kg to GTO price available 5+ years ago on Falcon.

Falcon reduced of cost to LEO by 10-fold from Ariane 5/Atlas V, from $10k/kg to $1k/kg, and this is driving Starlink's low build cost. We will probably need to see GTO prices take a similar 10-fold drop from $20k/kg on Ariane 5/Atlas V to around $2k/kg to see the same build cost reduction in GEO comm sats. But even Falcon isn't even close to $2k/kg to GTO now... F9R is at best about $5k/kg to GTO now. And satcomm operators want to see at least two LV operators in a given price range before factoring in that launch price to their long term plans.

So I agree that we're still a ways from seeing major changes in GEO. None of the current crop of expendable and partially reusable vehicles (Ariane 6, Vulcan, H3, New Glenn, F9/FH) can hit the necessary prices. Maybe Starship and other next-generation vehicles will.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/28/2020 07:45 am
Falcon reduced of cost to LEO by 10-fold from Ariane 5/Atlas V, from $10k/kg to $1k/kg, and this is driving Starlink's low build cost.

Price differences are greatly exaggerated. Typical Ariane 5 launch price is $150M ($137M in 2014) for 20 t to LEO is $7,500/kg compared to $62M (from SpaceX price guide) for 15.6 t (Starlink payload) or $3,970/kg. So the difference is not by a factor of 10, it is a factor of 1.9. Ariane 64 price is $136.4M (€115) for 21.65 t to LEO or $6,300/kg, with SpaceX being 1.6 times less. For GTO, the differences are even smaller, with Ariane 6 being only 5% greater than Falcon 9.

Note that the $52M that SpaceX charged to NASA for launching IXPE was a special deal as they were competing against the insanely expensive in terms of $/kg Pegasus XL. That price is not available to customers seeking to launch large payloads.

LEO
Atlas 551 $8,130/kg
Ariane 5 $7,500/kg
Ariane 64 $6,300/kg
Falcon 9 $3,970/kg

GTO
Atlas 551 $17,190/kg
Ariane 5 $14,290/kg
Ariane 64 $11,860/kg
Falcon 9 $11,270/kg

https://www.space.com/41936-ariane-5-rocket-aces-100th-launch.html
https://www.arianespace.com/vehicle/ariane-5/
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld7Dz__7_VjqMd2uZNgANL38BnWCetYGA5F-ykDjkvc/edit#gid=0
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/12/01/les-europeens-s-appretent-a-mettre-ariane-6-en-chantier_4532259_3234.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: soyuzu on 08/28/2020 08:31 am
Falcon reduced of cost to LEO by 10-fold from Ariane 5/Atlas V, from $10k/kg to $1k/kg, and this is driving Starlink's low build cost.

Price differences are greatly exaggerated. Typical Ariane 5 launch price is $150M ($137M in 2014) for 20 t to LEO is $7,500/kg compared to $62M (from SpaceX price guide) for 15.6 t (Starlink payload) or $3,970/kg. So the difference is not by a factor of 10, it is a factor of 1.9. Ariane 64 price is $136.4M (€115) for 21.65 t to LEO or $6,300/kg, with SpaceX being 1.6 times less. For GTO, the differences are even smaller, with Ariane 6 being only 5% greater than Falcon 9.

Note that the $52M that SpaceX charged to NASA for launching IXPE was a special deal as they were competing against the insanely expensive in terms of $/kg Pegasus XL. That price is not available to customers seeking to launch large payloads.

LEO
Atlas 551 $8,130/kg
Ariane 5 $7,500/kg
Ariane 64 $6,300/kg
Falcon 9 $3,970/kg

GTO
Atlas 551 $17,190/kg
Ariane 5 $14,290/kg
Ariane 64 $11,860/kg
Falcon 9 $11,300/kg

https://www.space.com/41936-ariane-5-rocket-aces-100th-launch.html
https://www.arianespace.com/vehicle/ariane-5/
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld7Dz__7_VjqMd2uZNgANL38BnWCetYGA5F-ykDjkvc/edit#gid=0
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/12/01/les-europeens-s-appretent-a-mettre-ariane-6-en-chantier_4532259_3234.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

As mentioned before, the $62M price cannot represent actual contract price of reused F9s nowadays.

Actually, SpaceX seems to have offered price far lower than this earlier than many of us think. For example, SpaceX charges 40 percent less for launch of Merah Putih In 2018 than its predecessor, Telekom-3S, [1] which is a 3.5t satellite launched on the lower position of an Ariane5 ECA [2], that has a price tag of $60M around 2013. [3]

Please note Merah Putih is a 5.8t satellite used up almost all capacity of F9 ASDS, thus the GTO1800 price per kg for Falcon 9 can be as low as $6207/kg.

In other words, SpaceX may have been selling launch at lower than $40M for “customers seeking to launch large payloads” for several years. Consider government  launches usually costs 30-50% more for extra services, etc. this lines up with the price of IXPE quite well.

[1]https://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/

Quote
Direktur Utama Telkom Alex J. Sinaga memperkirakan penghematan biaya untuk roket peluncur mencapai sekitar 40 persen dibanding yang mereka keluarkan untuk meluncurkan satelit Telkom 3S. Faktor roket SpaceX yang bisa dipakai berulang kali jadi penyebab utamanya

Translation by Google:

Quote
President Director of Telkom, Alex J. Sinaga, estimates that the cost savings for the launcher rocket will reach around 40 percent compared to what they spent on launching the Telkom 3S satellite. The factor of the SpaceX rocket that can be used repeatedly is the main cause

[2]https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/telkom-3s.htm
[3]https://web.archive.org/web/20140310123118/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_03_10_2014_p48-668592.xml
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/28/2020 09:24 am
Actually, SpaceX seems to have offered price far lower than this earlier than many of us think. For example, SpaceX charges 40 percent less for launch of Merah Putih In 2018 than its predecessor, Telkom-3S, [1] which is a 3.5t satellite launched on the lower position of an Ariane5 ECA [2], that has a price tag of $60M around 2013. [3]

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20140310123118/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_03_10_2014_p48-668592.xml

That article is about SpaceX titled "SpaceX Says Falcon 9 To Compete For EELV This Year" from March 2014, which is before Arianespace won the Telkom-3S launch contract in September 2014. I can't find any reference to the launch price of Telkom-3S or the lower berth of Ariane 5.

https://www.seradata.com/arianespace-gets-telkom-3s-launch-contract/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: soyuzu on 08/28/2020 10:00 am
Actually, SpaceX seems to have offered price far lower than this earlier than many of us think. For example, SpaceX charges 40 percent less for launch of Merah Putih In 2018 than its predecessor, Telkom-3S, [1] which is a 3.5t satellite launched on the lower position of an Ariane5 ECA [2], that has a price tag of $60M around 2013. [3]

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20140310123118/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_03_10_2014_p48-668592.xml

That article is about SpaceX titled "SpaceX Says Falcon 9 To Compete For EELV This Year" from March 2014, which is before Arianespace won the Telkom-3S launch contract in September 2014. I can't find any reference to the launch price of Telkom-3S or the lower berth of Ariane 5.

https://www.seradata.com/arianespace-gets-telkom-3s-launch-contract/

Quote
Advertised at $56.5 million per launch, Falcon 9 missions to GTO cost almost $15 million less than a ride atop a Chinese Long March 3B and are competitive with the cost to launch a midsize satellite in the lower position on a European Ariane 5 ECA (see graphic on page 49).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: envy887 on 08/29/2020 12:59 am
Falcon reduced of cost to LEO by 10-fold from Ariane 5/Atlas V, from $10k/kg to $1k/kg, and this is driving Starlink's low build cost.

Price differences are greatly exaggerated. Typical Ariane 5 launch price is $150M ($137M in 2014) for 20 t to LEO is $7,500/kg compared to $62M (from SpaceX price guide) for 15.6 t (Starlink payload) or $3,970/kg. So the difference is not by a factor of 10, it is a factor of 1.9. Ariane 64 price is $136.4M (€115) for 21.65 t to LEO or $6,300/kg, with SpaceX being 1.6 times less. For GTO, the differences are even smaller, with Ariane 6 being only 5% greater than Falcon 9.

Note that the $52M that SpaceX charged to NASA for launching IXPE was a special deal as they were competing against the insanely expensive in terms of $/kg Pegasus XL. That price is not available to customers seeking to launch large payloads.

LEO
Atlas 551 $8,130/kg
Ariane 5 $7,500/kg
Ariane 64 $6,300/kg
Falcon 9 $3,970/kg

GTO
Atlas 551 $17,190/kg
Ariane 5 $14,290/kg
Ariane 64 $11,860/kg
Falcon 9 $11,270/kg

https://www.space.com/41936-ariane-5-rocket-aces-100th-launch.html
https://www.arianespace.com/vehicle/ariane-5/
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld7Dz__7_VjqMd2uZNgANL38BnWCetYGA5F-ykDjkvc/edit#gid=0
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/12/01/les-europeens-s-appretent-a-mettre-ariane-6-en-chantier_4532259_3234.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

That's a rather optimistic price for Ariane 5 according to more recent sources, but it doesn't really matter to my point. All those prices are too similar to have a significant effect on the design and operational decisions that drive satellite cost.

The question was about the effect of launch cost on satellite cost. SpaceX is making those decisions for Starlink and isn't basing those on list price, but the internal marginal cost which is more like $1k/kg to LEO.

That of course doesn't help other customers much, since they can't access that price until multiple LV operators hit it. But it does show that driving down launch cost also drives down optimum satellite cost.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/29/2020 08:19 am
Quote
Advertised at $56.5 million per launch, Falcon 9 missions to GTO cost almost $15 million less than a ride atop a Chinese Long March 3B and are competitive with the cost to launch a midsize satellite in the lower position on a European Ariane 5 ECA (see graphic on page 49).

Here's a better reference that I managed to find today.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/comparison-of-current-and-planned-heavy-space-launch-systems.html

"As of November 2014, the Ariane 5 commercial launch price for launching a “midsize satellite in the lower position” is approximately US$60 million,"

So, assuming that Telkom 3S was launched at $60M, that is $65.7M in 2020 for a 3,550 kg payload or $18,500/kg, which is quite expensive. For Merah Putih, the launch cost is claimed to be 40% less than Telkom 3S in 2014 or $36M for a launch mass of 5800 kg. I couldn't find when SpaceX won the launch contract, but if it was similar to Telkom 3S at three years before launch, then inflating from 2015 to 2020 gives $39.4M or $6,800/kg, which is 2.7 times less than Ariane 5.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/telkom-3s.htm
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/telkom-4.htm
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: soyuzu on 08/29/2020 10:38 am
Quote
Advertised at $56.5 million per launch, Falcon 9 missions to GTO cost almost $15 million less than a ride atop a Chinese Long March 3B and are competitive with the cost to launch a midsize satellite in the lower position on a European Ariane 5 ECA (see graphic on page 49).

Here's a better reference that I managed to find today.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/comparison-of-current-and-planned-heavy-space-launch-systems.html

"As of November 2014, the Ariane 5 commercial launch price for launching a “midsize satellite in the lower position” is approximately US$60 million,"

So, assuming that Telkom 3S was launched at $60M, that is $65.7M in 2020 for a 3,550 kg payload or $18,500/kg, which is quite expensive. For Merah Putih, the launch cost is claimed to be 40% less than Telkom 3S in 2014 or $36M for a launch mass of 5800 kg. I couldn't find when SpaceX won the launch contract, but if it was similar to Telkom 3S at three years before launch, then inflating from 2015 to 2020 gives $39.4M or $6,800/kg, which is 2.7 times less than Ariane 5.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/telkom-3s.htm
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/telkom-4.htm
Well, my source of estimation actually comes from a citation in Wikipedia article of Ariana 5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Launch_pricing_and_market_competition

Given that the article you cite also use Wikipedia as source heavily, I suspect it all went back to that rough information in aviationweek.

Meanwhile, I found another pair of sources stated the cost of lower position on Ariane 5 as €56M.


https://spacenews.com/with-eye-on-spacex-cnes-begins-work-on-reusable-rocket-stage/
 (https://spacenews.com/with-eye-on-spacex-cnes-begins-work-on-reusable-rocket-stage/) in 2015 mentioned:

Quote
Today the Ariane 5 is sold for about 150 million euros, but it costs about 170 million euros per launch

and in the the thread
  https://spacenews.com/with-eye-on-spacex-cnes-begins-work-on-reusable-rocket-stage/
 (https://spacenews.com/with-eye-on-spacex-cnes-begins-work-on-reusable-rocket-stage/)
user GWR64 claimed Eutelsat told him/her the lower position is 40% cheaper than the upper position before 2019

These gives the price of lower position as 0.6/1.6*150M=€56.25M in 2014, €59.4M, or $70.7M in 2020. Then Merah Putih should be contracted at $42M.

However, Merah Putih was actually sent into sub-GTO (about 30000km apogee if I remembered correctly), so the equivalent payload to GTO-1800 will be lower, at ~5.5t.
This gives $7714/kg, 2.4 times lower than the PRICE, and 2.7 times lower than the COST of Ariane 5, according to the Spacenews report. Comparing cost may give a even greater difference.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 08/29/2020 11:29 am
Quote
user GWR64 claimed Eutelsat told him/her the lower position is 40% cheaper than the upper position before 2019

Eutelsat claimed that, not me  ;)
one source, page 10 (Eutelsat 172B)
https://de.eutelsat.com/files/live/sites/eutelsatv2/files/contributed/investors/pdf/Capital-Markets-Day-2015/Technology_enhancing%20growth%20and%20efficiency.pdf
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Jakdowski on 08/29/2020 04:46 pm
Combined Tests

https://ariane6.cnes.fr/fr/lanceurs-les-essais-combines-antichambre-du-premier-tir-dariane-6
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/31/2020 10:43 am
Since this is the Ariane 6 discussion topic, I'll reply to the maiden launch delay here.
I think the largest error in the Ariane 6 and Vega-C development programs were unrealistic timelines. The Vega VV-15 failure and Covid-19 didn't help, I think they're not the real reason for the delays.
The cost comparison for Ariane 6 and Falcon 9 (1.0) isn't justified in my oppinion. The situation isn't comparable.
Besides AFAIK Americans don't have a right to judge this, since NASA is and has been funding both SLS and Orion with >1billion annually for over a decade. Besides the USAF just spend ~2billion on the development of Vulcan, New Glenn and OmegA.
In this context the ~4 billion development cost for Ariane 6 (factories in europe), ELA4, and Vega-C over 6-8 years is in my oppinion acceptable. Especially since the USA has proven they can NOT be relied upon (Symphony).
With a development delay of >1,5 years, the 230mln additional development cost isn't very huge. But the european launcher industry has made a fool of myself.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 10/31/2020 12:29 pm
Will this schedule remain? To me, the roadmap looks relatively tight.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2148335#msg2148335

In this context, is it now officially known how many Ariane 5 ECA there will be?
Arianespace wrote in 2019 that final batch are only 8 rockets. Is this still up-to-date?
I've read this similar at Avio in the past.
The Vulcain turbopumps 9 and 10 from the final batch are to be used in the Ariane 6.

I think, 4 Ariane 5 launches 2021 and 4 in 2022.
The Ariane 64 won't start until 2023, I'm pretty sure. So there is no more reserve!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/31/2020 06:34 pm
The initial planning had this planned between early 2020 and the maiden launch in Q4 2020. I think this is a realistic schedule.
But setbacks and problems could still cause delays.

I expect that ESA/EU/Arianespace will make a big launch order announcement before the end of 2020. I expect this will also include conversion of launches from Ariane 6 to Soyuz-ST or Ariane 5.
It's rumoured that some of the Galileo launches have been converted to Soyuz-ST.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Chasm on 11/01/2020 06:09 pm
Chances are that there will be more delays. Covid is not over and has the potential to shut down things at any time.
How much depend on whether ESA can keep construction of the launch site and major blockers like hot fire and integration test moving along nicely.

There is only so much the engineers can do from their home office. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And it looks very much like there will be a lot of that in the coming months all across the EU.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: tenkendojo on 11/03/2020 06:04 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/europes-challenger-to-the-falcon-9-rocket-runs-into-more-delays/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/europes-challenger-to-the-falcon-9-rocket-runs-into-more-delays/)
"European space officials announced late last week that the debut of the Ariane 6 rocket will be delayed again—this time until the second quarter of 2022."

According to the article the delay was mostly caused COVID-19.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Oli on 11/06/2020 11:22 am
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/europes-challenger-to-the-falcon-9-rocket-runs-into-more-delays/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/europes-challenger-to-the-falcon-9-rocket-runs-into-more-delays/)
"European space officials announced late last week that the debut of the Ariane 6 rocket will be delayed again—this time until the second quarter of 2022."

According to the article the delay was mostly caused COVID-19.

2022? Covid or not, this is getting embarrassing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/06/2020 02:17 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/europes-challenger-to-the-falcon-9-rocket-runs-into-more-delays/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/europes-challenger-to-the-falcon-9-rocket-runs-into-more-delays/)
"European space officials announced late last week that the debut of the Ariane 6 rocket will be delayed again—this time until the second quarter of 2022."

According to the article the delay was mostly caused COVID-19.

2022? Covid or not, this is getting embarrassing.

Agreed. Covid plays a role but losing the first customer didn't help either. The shift to the right is partially there to free up time to find a new customer for the first launch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 11/06/2020 02:29 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/europes-challenger-to-the-falcon-9-rocket-runs-into-more-delays/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/europes-challenger-to-the-falcon-9-rocket-runs-into-more-delays/)
"European space officials announced late last week that the debut of the Ariane 6 rocket will be delayed again—this time until the second quarter of 2022."

According to the article the delay was mostly caused COVID-19.

2022? Covid or not, this is getting embarrassing.

Agreed. Covid plays a role but losing the first customer didn't help either. The shift to the right is partially there to free up time to find a new customer for the first launch.

According to the roadmap, Ariane 6 and the launch system are far from ready.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2148335#msg2148335
The costumer for the first launch, OneWeb might have been gone without bankruptcy.
Others will follow, if only they switch to Soyuz-ST.
The delay of Ariane 6 is at least twice as long as the Covid-19 pandemic.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/11/2020 08:24 am
Europe's New Space Rocket Is Incredibly Expensive (https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/11/10/europe-space-rocket-incredibly-expensive-airbus/)

That article is assuming that Arianespace needs to pay back the $4.4B development cost to ESA. Is that true?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/11/2020 02:12 pm
Europe's New Space Rocket Is Incredibly Expensive (https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/11/10/europe-space-rocket-incredibly-expensive-airbus/)

That article is assuming that Arianespace needs to pay back the $4.4B development cost to ESA. Is that true?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Ariane 6 development is primarily funded by ESA member states to assure continued independent access to space. Meaning: ESA is willing to cough up multiple billions of Euros to make sure that ESA has assured access to space on an ESA-controlled European launch vehicle.
The wish to have independent access to space arose in the early 1970s when ESA's ambitions in space (and those of its predecessors ELDO and ESRO) were stifled by the USA. Both the US government and US launch service providers viewed the European space activities as competition.
When the Americans additionally managed to destroy two European satellites in launch mishaps the need for European independent access to space became even more acute.
The result is the Ariane series of launchers. And yes, the desire for European independent access to space is still there. Which is why ESA pays for the development of Ariane 6.
Arianespace was founded by ESA and the Ariane (sub)contrators to operate the Ariane launchers and sell launches in the commercial launch business. Being profitable is not a goal for Arianespace; ESA has always made up the losses with yearly subsidies.

It's all about independent acces to space and ESA is willing to pay for that. Even if it costs 4 billion Euros to develop a rocket that cannot adequately compete with SpaceX.


Which is why people uttering doomsday predictions like "Arianespace is screwed" or "Ariane 6 is a dead-end for Arianespace" really don't get it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/12/2020 02:31 pm
It's all about independent acces to space and ESA is willing to pay for that. Even if it costs 4 billion Euros to develop a rocket that cannot adequately compete with SpaceX.

Which is why people uttering doomsday predictions like "Arianespace is screwed" or "Ariane 6 is a dead-end for Arianespace" really don't get it.

The strength of that imperative might fluctuate over time.  But in any event, my thinking has been:  why not choose to be much less screwed?  If you're spending $4.4 billion no matter, you might as well get your money's worth!  Ariane 6 is not getting your money's worth.  Further, it doesn't provide any obvious technology optionality.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 11/12/2020 04:38 pm
It's all about independent acces to space and ESA is willing to pay for that. Even if it costs 4 billion Euros to develop a rocket that cannot adequately compete with SpaceX.

Which is why people uttering doomsday predictions like "Arianespace is screwed" or "Ariane 6 is a dead-end for Arianespace" really don't get it.

The strength of that imperative might fluctuate over time.  But in any event, my thinking has been:  why not choose to be much less screwed?  If you're spending $4.4 billion no matter, you might as well get your money's worth!  Ariane 6 is not getting your money's worth.  Further, it doesn't provide any obvious technology optionality.
It seems to be investing taxpayer money in a technological dead end for launcher technology. Even if I understand the imperative to maintain independent access to space.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: butters on 11/12/2020 04:58 pm
European prestige requires the development of Ariane 62 to end the embarrassment of launching Galileo and other European prestige missions on the badge-engineered Russian Soyuz rockets. They're not doing this to compete with SpaceX, they're doing this because the most competitive product they offer (especially for the growing LEO market) is not a product of European ingenuity.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: daedalus1 on 11/12/2020 05:04 pm
European prestige requires the development of Ariane 62 to end the embarrassment of launching Galileo and other European prestige missions on the badge-engineered Russian Soyuz rockets. They're not doing this to compete with SpaceX, they're doing this because the most competitive product they offer (especially for the growing LEO market) is not a product of European ingenuity.

I think you mean 'Western European', Russians are also European.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mandrewa on 11/12/2020 05:29 pm
Europe's New Space Rocket Is Incredibly Expensive (https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/11/10/europe-space-rocket-incredibly-expensive-airbus/)

That article is assuming that Arianespace needs to pay back the $4.4B development cost to ESA. Is that true?

No, it doesn't.  That article does not assume that Arianespace needs to pay back it's $4.4 billion development cost.

The only way you can possibly get prices like $77 million per launch of an Ariane 62 is to assume that Ariane 6 will not have to pay back its development cost.  That $77 million has to include the cost of building an Ariane 62 rocket, launching it, and then giving some return to the company and its investors. (And a better way to estimate the cost of doing this would be to try to count the number of people employed once the Ariane 6 is operational, because people are the main cost.)

Frankly I wonder if this is even possible -- I mean to do all of that for $77 million.

The proof is simple.  Suppose over the life of the Ariane 6 program they do 100 launches (and I think it's going to be much less than that).  Dividing $4.4 billion by 100 gives $44 million per launch for development costs alone, and we are assuming the money is interest free.  And if its only 50 launches over the life of the program (or Ariane 6 for 7 years at 7 launches per year) then it would be $88 million per launch for the development costs.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/13/2020 02:07 pm
The Ariane 6 development cost is state funded except for a small portion that was contributed by the industry. It's sunk cost, it does not have to be returned. Launch isn't commercial it's state permitted and largely state funded.
Ariane 5 ECA has been operational much longer than initially envisioned, because Vince and A5ME development didn't go well. A5ME and A6 PPH wouldn't have a future development path, Ariane 6 has.
Hardly any SpaceX launches to the US government have a launch package cost less than $100mln.
I think many have missed the news; Arianespace won the launch contract from Intelsat for three C-band clear-out satellites. So again Arianespace beat US launch service providers on launches for US funded comsats.
Let that sink in.

For now Ariane 6 in the 62 and 64 configuration are what Europe requires. The lighter weight upper-stage and the in orbit stage (and moon lander) are the next step. Parralel to the Ariane 6 implementation the Prometheus engine is being developed. Introducing that into an Ariane Next isn't very expansive because the production assets constructed for Ariane 6 can be used. The Ariane 5 production assets weren't reconfigurable.

I'm hopeful BOOST! (C-STS) will be successful and will prove technologies for the large (Ariane) launchers. But I'm skeptical there is enough launch demand in Europe for a large reusable launcher.   
I hope (European) government funding can transition from launcher development to missions.
AFAIK Artemis is risking the permanent human presence in space for the non-scientific ambition to land humans again on the moon. Sorry but I think this is a mistake.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 11/13/2020 03:55 pm
The Ariane 6 development cost is state funded except for a small portion that was contributed by the industry. It's sunk cost, it does not have to be returned. Launch isn't commercial it's state permitted and largely state funded.
Ariane 5 ECA has been operational much longer than initially envisioned, because Vince and A5ME development didn't go well. A5ME and A6 PPH wouldn't have a future development path, Ariane 6 has.
Hardly any SpaceX launches to the US government have a launch package cost less than $100mln.
I think many have missed the news; Arianespace won the launch contract from Intelsat for three C-band clear-out satellites. So again Arianespace beat US launch service providers on launches for US funded comsats.
Let that sink in.

For now Ariane 6 in the 62 and 64 configuration are what Europe requires. The lighter weight upper-stage and the in orbit stage (and moon lander) are the next step. Parralel to the Ariane 6 implementation the Prometheus engine is being developed. Introducing that into an Ariane Next isn't very expansive because the production assets constructed for Ariane 6 can be used. The Ariane 5 production assets weren't reconfigurable.

I'm hopeful BOOST! (C-STS) will be successful and will prove technologies for the large (Ariane) launchers. But I'm skeptical there is enough launch demand in Europe for a large reusable launcher.   
I hope (European) government funding can transition from launcher development to missions.
AFAIK Artemis is risking the permanent human presence in space for the non-scientific ambition to land humans again on the moon. Sorry but I think this is a mistake.
Take away the factor of humans landing on the moon and so does much of the political interest and money in this area.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mandrewa on 11/13/2020 04:14 pm
I think many have missed the news; Arianespace won the launch contract from Intelsat for three C-band clear-out satellites. So again Arianespace beat US launch service providers on launches for US funded comsats.
Let that sink in.

I think that misses a bit of context.  From an article in SpaceNews, https://spacenews.com/intelsat-taps-maxar-for-fifth-c-band-satellite-capping-order-spree/ ,

Quote
Intelsat said Sept. 17 it signed contracts with Arianespace and SpaceX to launch its seven C-band replacement satellites. Arianespace will launch two satellites on an Ariane 5 in 2022, and the just-ordered Galaxy-37 on an Ariane 6 in 2023. SpaceX will launch four satellites across two missions starting in 2022, Intelsat said.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 04/03/2021 10:56 am
According to press reports in Germany, there are further delays on Ariane 6 schedule. Nothing is official yet.
But so far such reports have been officially confirmed a little later.

Josef Aschbacher says here:
https://www.spektrum.de/news/neuer-esa-chef-wir-muessen-bereit-sein-mehr-risiko-einzugehen/1848406
(Google translate)
Quote
The goal is still mid-2022. I haven't been in office that long, but I set up a working group on the first day to verify the date. We absolutely have to start Ariane 6 in 2022 - to limit further expenses for its development, but also to finally be able to use it. In this respect, this topic has top priority.

The Weser-Kurier writes:
https://www.weser-kurier.de/bremen/bremen-wirtschaft_artikel,-finanzspritze-fuer-rakete-ariane-6-_arid,1966284.html
(Google translate)
Quote
...If everything had gone according to plan last year, the Ariane 6 would have already made its maiden flight; the European space agency Esa, politics and business were happy and thanked each other for the great cooperation. But nothing came of this if-if scenario, the schedule was too tight and then Corona intervened. Above all, this has brought supply companies into trouble. They simply lack money because the first flight has been postponed to the second half of 2022. ...

If that turns out to be true, I'll be curious what happens with the launch of CSO-3.
I think planned on Ariane 62 #2.
https://twitter.com/Thales_Alenia_S/status/1377536369883553793
And the first flight of Ariane 64 will most likely be postponed to 2023.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 04/15/2021 05:45 pm
The French governement has sent a report to ESA asking for a reusable successor to Ariane 6, with the Prometheus engine, and potentially a second-stage reuse:

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/ce-que-veut-vraiment-la-france-en-matiere-de-lanceurs-apres-2025-882354.html (https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/ce-que-veut-vraiment-la-france-en-matiere-de-lanceurs-apres-2025-882354.html)

https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/vols-spatiaux-pourquoi-ariane-a-ete-detrone-par-spacex-1399785 (https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/vols-spatiaux-pourquoi-ariane-a-ete-detrone-par-spacex-1399785)

They say Ariane 6 will not be competitive with SpaceX and the institutional launches of Europe are not enough to keep a high enough cadence.

I have always thought that Ariane 6 was a missed opportunity, and that if we had spent more money on R&D work for Prometheus in early 2010, it would have been ready by the time the A6 program was launched and we would have had a competitive launcher. Instead, we will have spent billions on an obsolete rocket and launch pad, and we will have to develop a methalox launcher anyway.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Pipcard on 04/16/2021 02:13 am
I have always thought that Ariane 6 was a missed opportunity, and that if we had spent more money on R&D work for Prometheus in early 2010, it would have been ready by the time the A6 program was launched and we would have had a competitive launcher. Instead, we will have spent billions on an obsolete rocket and launch pad, and we will have to develop a methalox launcher anyway.
But people had to go and dismiss reusability as if it will always be like the Space Shuttle.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 04/16/2021 04:09 am
The French governement has sent a report to ESA asking for a reusable successor to Ariane 6, with the Prometheus engine, and potentially a second-stage reuse:

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/ce-que-veut-vraiment-la-france-en-matiere-de-lanceurs-apres-2025-882354.html (https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/ce-que-veut-vraiment-la-france-en-matiere-de-lanceurs-apres-2025-882354.html)

https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/vols-spatiaux-pourquoi-ariane-a-ete-detrone-par-spacex-1399785 (https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/vols-spatiaux-pourquoi-ariane-a-ete-detrone-par-spacex-1399785)

They say Ariane 6 will not be competitive with SpaceX and the institutional launches of Europe are not enough to keep a high enough cadence.

I have always thought that Ariane 6 was a missed opportunity, and that if we had spent more money on R&D work for Prometheus in early 2010, it would have been ready by the time the A6 program was launched and we would have had a competitive launcher. Instead, we will have spent billions on an obsolete rocket and launch pad, and we will have to develop a methalox launcher anyway.

Ariane 6 is actually a win over the mostly solid project that CNES was pushing. ArianeGroup had to fight really hard to get them to actually work on making it half the cost of the the previous version. If you expect government to have entrepreneurial vision, you will be sorely disappointed your whole life.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: grdja on 04/16/2021 11:09 am
I have always thought that Ariane 6 was a missed opportunity, and that if we had spent more money on R&amp;D work for Prometheus in early 2010, it would have been ready by the time the A6 program was launched and we would have had a competitive launcher. Instead, we will have spent billions on an obsolete rocket and launch pad, and we will have to develop a methalox launcher anyway.
But people had to go and dismiss reusability as if it will always be like the Space Shuttle.
It wasn't just the Space Shuttle. NASP, X-33, DC-X, Sanger, HOTOL, Skylon, all the failed new space startups of dotcom era. If it was going to be reusable it had to have aerodynamic surfaces and preferably to be a SSTO. Even Soviet Baikal fly back booster was going to turn itself into an airplane.

In early 2010's any serious discussion about reusability would be about how much it had proven itself to not work and even when it works it's not economic.

On this very website we had endless arguments about how "build it and they will come" was a business suicide logic.

And with internet mega constellations both BO and SpaceX are creating demand for themselves.

Sent from my M2007J3SG using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 07/10/2021 11:15 am
cross post from Ariane 6 update thread
Cross-post; my bold:
Quote
ARIANE 6
Access to space for all applications under the best conditions!
https://www.arianespace.com/vehicle/ariane-6/#in-depth
Quote
Ariane 6 will provide Arianespace with new levels of efficiency and flexibility to meet customers' launch services needs across a full range of commercial and institutional missions, with first flight planned for the end of 2022.

"end of" has been removed from the Arianespace website; it now just says "in 2022". The only other clue about first Ariane 6 launch is this:

Quote
Aschbacher suggested that schedule could see more delays. The independent assessment, he said, will “make sure that we can do everything we need to do to launch on time.” He later defined “on time” as being before the next ESA ministerial meeting, which is tentatively scheduled for late 2022.
https://spacenews.com/europe-proposes-launcher-alliance/

Eric Berger - who generally reports agressive against European and Russian space activities - confused the date of the meeting with the date of the launch and wrote "Europe hopes for a late 2022 launch (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/europes-space-chief-appoints-task-force-to-assess-ariane-6-schedule-concerns/)". Which then spread over Wikipedia and other media.

There is no (more) communicated "late 2022" launch target. They try to launch it before the meeting, which in past years happend in October, November or December.

Quote
Soyuz-ST-B/Fregat-MT Galileo pair launches = FM23 & 24 late Nov/early Dec 2021; FM25 & 26 mid-2022; FM27 & 28 late 2022/early 2023.
Second Ariane 6 flight = Ariane 62, Galileo FM29 and 30.

Besides of Ariane 6 availability, Galileo payload readiness might slip as well. So I don't see clear evidence yet that FM27 & 28 switch to Soyuz.

context: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2261439#msg2261439

I think Galileo will be ready. 2 are already in storage, 4 more are obviously at ESTEC for testing.
https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/1400382129498959874

The next candidate for Soyuz is CSO-3.

Otherwise I cannot see fundamental differences between the individual statements to the Ariane 6 maiden flight.
I compare the ESA roadmap with the current reports.
The Ariane 6 is already months behind the milestones.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2148335#msg2148335
I believe Q2/2022 is no longer possible. We'll see whether Q3 or Q4 or end of 2022.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/10/2021 03:31 pm
Reusability adds nothing to ESA capability while locking ESA into a multi-billion rocket development program for the next ten years thereby stoping any investment in payloads for the next twenty years .
 If they invested in recycling in low earth orbit it would add capability .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/10/2021 04:52 pm
Please God I really hope the French rocket engineers do not get to copy space x it has been fifty years years of stagnant Nasa development to get far less than if they kept with the Saturn 5 .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 07/12/2021 04:59 pm
Please God I really hope the French rocket engineers do not get to copy space x it has been fifty years years of stagnant Nasa development to get far less than if they kept with the Saturn 5 .
? ? ? That makes no sense.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/12/2021 05:08 pm
We would have had the second skylab module launched an probably esa and Russian modules basically iss in the 80s
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 07/12/2021 05:15 pm
Please God I really hope the French rocket engineers do not get to copy space x it has been fifty years years of stagnant Nasa development to get far less than if they kept with the Saturn 5 .
? ? ? That makes no sense.

Humor and sarcasm do not work well on the internet.

Every rocket company must do what SpaceX does but not copy SpaceX. No one else is allowed to have methane SC engines on Stainless Steel fully reusable rockets. No one else is allowed mega-constellations or go to Mars either. I don't make the rules of the Internet.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/12/2021 05:48 pm
I tried to say the budget will be tied up for 10 years building it and no payload will be financed while it is in development.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DreamyPickle on 07/13/2021 04:45 pm
Do we have more information about this BERTA engine? Stuff like exact propellants, engine cycle, isp and so on. All I could find is that they 3d-printed a prototype.

There seems to be a weird shortage of good high-performance vacuum-optimized hypergolic engines.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/13/2021 09:49 pm
Do we have more information about this BERTA engine? Stuff like exact propellants, engine cycle, isp and so on. All I could find is that they 3d-printed a prototype.

There seems to be a weird shortage of good high-performance vacuum-optimized hypergolic engines.
BERTA Demonstrator research, development and testing:
https://industryeurope.com/esa-tests-3d-printed-storable-propellant-rocket-engine/

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/3D-printed_storable-propellant_rocket_engine_design_tested
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/13/2021 11:57 pm
The first time I read about the BERTA engine was in the paper:
IAC-11-D2.3.4 : VENUS - Conceptual Design for VEga New Upper Stage.
VENUS was a DLR SART/Astrium (now Arianegroup) study for improvements for Vega.
In this paper Berta is a 2-8kN MMH/NTO engine, mixture ratio 2.0-2.1, operating at 8-15 bar, weighing 15-67kg.

This is a decade ago, so I don't know what has changed since.
I think ESA FLPP; Storable Propulsion Technology Demonstrator is another name for the Berta engine.

I hope ASTRIS will NOT be using: Hydrazine, MMH, UDMH or NTO.
I think by 2024 less harmful propellent using engines could/should be available.
ESA FLPP funded the development of such a engine for <0.4mln last year, and there is footage the engine works.
And I think there are more experienced companies that have this technology available as well.

There is another critic I've got. I think there should be two versions. The one proposed, and a smaller two tank in line one. This could be used for Oneweb/constellation launches (propulsion module inside the satellite dispenser structure) or it could be used as basis for a ISS cargo resupply vehicle (a ATV2).
I expect ASTRIS funding mostly comes from Germany. Thus experienced German companies/players got the work. This is still structured in the classic ESA optional program fashion.
I think an open competition (EU funding)1 would have lower costs and would have better results.
1: ESA(Germany) BOOST! or better the EU EIC Horizon Price: Low-Cost Space Launch
But better something than nothing, right!? Progress goes slow.

Possibly ASTRIS could be used to launch 4x Gallileo (Gen.1) Batch 3 satellites on a single Ariane 62. (didn't I post that a couple years back?)
In the 2019 links in my previous post they completed demonstration of green bipropellant mode on the updated demonstrator engine. Outside of the VENUS proposal the BERTA engine was also supposed to debut with the Ariane 5 family replacing the A5ES(A)'s Aestus engine version with BERTA on the proposed A5ES(B) cersion. This plan was dropped in favour of the now cancelled A5ME version which is in the process of being replaced by the successor A62 and A64 base versions.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 07/14/2021 06:39 am
There is another critic I've got. I think there should be two versions. The one proposed, and a smaller two tank in line one.

I don't know if they want to go that far, but they want to offer the stage in different configurations:

Quote
The modular architecture of Astris makes it versatile, giving potential for even more capabilities. Structures will include a flight proven family of propellant tanks. This approach makes it possible to develop mission specific kits that offer a tailored solution to each customer.

I interpret that as being able to vary the number of propellant tanks.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: libra on 07/14/2021 02:04 pm
Considering the disaster that was the previous ASTRIS - Europa deeply flawed third stage - the Germans could really have picked another name...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 07/14/2021 05:07 pm
I don't understand what Astris brings. With Vinci and the APU, the upper stage is restartable anyway, so it should be able to do direct to GEO and multi-plane deployments anyway. Or is the low dry mass of Astris offsetting the lower Isp?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/14/2021 05:28 pm
I don't understand what Astris brings. With Vinci and the APU, the upper stage is restartable anyway, so it should be able to do direct to GEO and multi-plane deployments anyway. Or is the low dry mass of Astris offsetting the lower Isp?
AFAIU: It allows them to dispose of the second cyrogenic stage for certain mission types which each payload(s) having it own provided as a optional service kick stage to reach direct GEO. the kick stage then deorbits, inserts itself into a graveyard orbit or escape obit. The kick stage can also function long term like the expendable propulsion module used on a recent ESA mission which was a validation of mission concept for the upcoming Hera mission. ASTRIS can also have optional solar array(s) to not rely on the host spacecrafts power for its operations and battery charging. The main point is that it can also host Payloads and function like LDPE (Rooster), Photon, Agena, et al.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/14/2021 10:32 pm
In the 2019 links in my previous post they completed demonstration of green bipropellant mode on the updated demonstrator engine. Outside of the VENUS proposal the BERTA engine was also supposed to debut with the Ariane 5 family replacing the A5ES(A)'s Aestus engine version with BERTA on the proposed A5ES(B) cersion. This plan was dropped in favour of the now cancelled A5ME version which is in the process of being replaced by the successor A62 and A64 base versions.
AFAIK; Ariane 5ME has developed into Ariane 6 in two versions. The reason was that during early development of A5ME they discovered that the core stage had to be redesigned; because it couldn't handle the higher loads of the A5ME/A6 upperstage and the ~20mT payload. By changing form the multiple segment EAP P241 boosters to the P120C developed for Vega-C, cost reduced and the A62 version became a possibility.

Sorry but I think you misinterpreted what was written.
From the ESA article (https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/3D-printed_storable-propellant_rocket_engine_design_tested):
Quote
...
Further activities will focus on the application of green, environmentally friendly propellants for a larger engine delivering 5 kN of thrust.
Doesn't this mean that the green propulsion is future work!?
But Arianegroup writes that the BERTA engine has 4 to 5 kN of thrust, thus that's in line with the engine that still had to be developed and tested in 2019.
__________________________________________________

I don't understand what Astris brings. With Vinci and the APU, the upper stage is restartable anyway, so it should be able to do direct to GEO and multi-plane deployments anyway. Or is the low dry mass of Astris offsetting the lower Isp?
I think there are three advantaged with adding ASTRIS on top of ULPM.
- Lower G-loads for the last propulsion step.
- Indeed that the lower dry mass offsets the lower ISP. I think more accurately stated; the staging (adding a stage) adds dV capability. For payloads to GEO, Ariane 6 UPLM delivers the payload to GTO, ASTRIS does the latest propulsion step; delivering to GEO and inserting into graveyard orbit. I think the difference is more than 2mT of payload mass.
- Instead of ULPM ending up into GEO or a above GEO graveyard orbit, it can be deorbited. Only ASTRIS ends up into the graveyard orbit. That's a lot smaller junk stage into the graveyard orbit.

I expect that an A62 with ASTRIS could launch 4x~740kg Gallileo satellites to one of the three MEO 23.2km orbits. Where A62 alone could only launch two satellites. I think with the Gen.2 satellites A62 could only launch one, while A64 or A62+ASTRIS could launch two. The Galileo system minimal constellation consists of 24 satellites with 12year design life. So ASTRIS could half the amount of required launches.
__________________________________________________

I wonder how the size of ASTRIS compares to AVUM+?
And I'm annoyed by the low amount of details provided about ASTRIS.
- Why create the unclarity about the propellant's
- Why no details on fuel mass, system mass and dV capability.
And I disagree with ASTRIS being part of Ariane 6, it's a independent system. Like Fregat for Soyuz and Briz for Angara A5; Proton or Rockot. The Ariane 6 launch control hardware is inside ULPM, ASRTIS will be deployed as payload and will have it's own set of attitude control hardware. That's why I think any company could develop this kick-stage.
AFAIU: The final nozzle design and to flight scale is what remains work wise. Subscale testing and MCC/power pack was previously tested. Finalising and scaling is the main work remaining.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 07/15/2021 07:06 am
In the 2019 links in my previous post they completed demonstration of green bipropellant mode on the updated demonstrator engine. Outside of the VENUS proposal the BERTA engine was also supposed to debut with the Ariane 5 family replacing the A5ES(A)'s Aestus engine version with BERTA on the proposed A5ES(B) cersion. This plan was dropped in favour of the now cancelled A5ME version which is in the process of being replaced by the successor A62 and A64 base versions.
AFAIK; Ariane 5ME has developed into Ariane 6 in two versions. The reason was that during early development of A5ME they discovered that the core stage had to be redesigned; because it couldn't handle the higher loads of the A5ME/A6 upperstage and the ~20mT payload. By changing form the multiple segment EAP P241 boosters to the P120C developed for Vega-C, cost reduced and the A62 version became a possibility.

Sorry but I think you misinterpreted what was written.
From the ESA article (https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/3D-printed_storable-propellant_rocket_engine_design_tested):
Quote
...
Further activities will focus on the application of green, environmentally friendly propellants for a larger engine delivering 5 kN of thrust.
Doesn't this mean that the green propulsion is future work!?
But Arianegroup writes that the BERTA engine has 4 to 5 kN of thrust, thus that's in line with the engine that still had to be developed and tested in 2019.


The IAC article is from 2011. It describes BERTA as an 8 kN engine with MMH/N2O4 propellant, intended for VENUS (third stage for an upgraded Vega).

In 2019 they tested a BERTA core with 2.45 kN thrust. I assume that's subscale (because that thrust is lower than the 5 kN goal), but it could be to do with the propellant as well. Or maybe they didn't run the test at full throttle.
This article (https://innovationorigins.com/en/esa-delivers-first-successful-test-of-a-rocket-engine-made-from-3d-printing/) claims they ran it on cryogenic propellants:

Quote
BERTA is designed for operations with storable fuels. This means that the fuels can be stored at room temperature. Engines of this type are very reliable and can be ignited several times. They are therefore suitable for longer missions. This means that this engine can be used not only for near-earth missions on small to medium-sized missiles but also for missions beyond the Earth’s orbit. However, common storable fuels are highly toxic. Cryogenic fuels are therefore used for the test runs on the test bench in Lampoldshausen.

you're right, the 2019 ESA article indicates the green propellant is part of 'future activities'.

Using BERTA to replace Aestus is new to me as well, and I'd like to know more.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 07/15/2021 10:52 am
I don't understand what Astris brings. With Vinci and the APU, the upper stage is restartable anyway, so it should be able to do direct to GEO and multi-plane deployments anyway. Or is the low dry mass of Astris offsetting the lower Isp?

Astris is a kick stage, so it's largely taking over the job of precise orbit insertion which has typically been done by the satellites themselves. This removes that job from satellites allowing smaller/less expensive platforms, increasing the potential market. Smaller all-electric propulsion satellites are becoming increasingly common. Without the kick stage an all-electric satellite in GTO would take months to reach money-making GEO. If you can offer a standardised orbit insertion kit you can greatly increase the satellites fuel reserves/lifetime and it gets the service up to GEO fast. These things are very attractive to smaller operators.

You mention Vinci can go to GEO. Yes, but the direct to GEO payload mass of 64 is 5000 Kg, so generally speaking that means you can only put up one large telecoms sat on a single ~€115m launch. Although some customers may take it, that's a significant premium for getting your service up immediately/+ added lifetime. It would be far more financially viable to send a primary satellite(s) to GTO as normal and then send a secondary satellite(s) with simple electric-only propulsion direct to GEO with Astris.  That way you can offer a direct to GEO service cost-effectively to the customers that most want it.

The restartable Vinci enables access to all orbit types, but that doesn't mean it alone is efficient at getting multiple payloads to radically different orbits.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 07/15/2021 04:18 pm
Look at the rocket equation: a third stage gives a lot more delta-v to high energy orbits. It will greatly expand the A62 envelop, and enable a lot more for A64.
The only real question is: at what price? May be they have run the numbers and have Galileo Gen2 act as main tenant and thus get enough economies of scale to be competitive on other fronts. Or the manufacturer might have excellent German lobbyist.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 10/08/2021 10:49 am
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hoku on 10/08/2021 05:21 pm
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901
According to Karl-Heinz Servos (Chief Operating Officer Arianegroup Germany) by the midst of July they had encountered about 2 months of delays, with - at that time - the 1st (out of 3) hot fires planned for the end of August/early September. Haven't seen any more recent updates.

Die erste heiße Zündung soll Ende August oder Anfang September stattfinden – etwa zwei Monate später als geplant. Das liegt einerseits an den Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Arbeitsabläufe und Lieferketten, andererseits an "kleineren Rückschlägen beim ersten Testmodell", so Servos.
https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/ (https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 10/09/2021 07:59 am
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901
According to Karl-Heinz Servos (Chief Operating Officer Arianegroup Germany) by the midst of July they had encountered about 2 months of delays, with - at that time - the 1st (out of 3) hot fires planned for the end of August/early September. Haven't seen any more recent updates.

Die erste heiße Zündung soll Ende August oder Anfang September stattfinden – etwa zwei Monate später als geplant. Das liegt einerseits an den Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Arbeitsabläufe und Lieferketten, andererseits an "kleineren Rückschlägen beim ersten Testmodell", so Servos.
https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/ (https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/)

Yes, nothing to be found. A hot firing test would have been reported.
That means it probably hasn't happened until now.
The plan was Q2/2021.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/14/2021 01:59 am
Cross-post; my bold:
https://spacenews.com/launch-companies-optimistic-about-future-demand/
[dated September 9]
Quote
Between GEO satellites and demand from constellations and other customers, he said he was optimistic about the prospects of the Ariane 6, scheduled to make its [Ariane 62?] first launch in the second quarter of 2022. The business plan for the rocket was based on 11 launches a year. “With the perspective we have now for demand, it’s not a dream to consider that we can make it and maybe go beyond.”
Could the first Ariane 6 launch (also first Ariane 62 launch) be a commercial payload to GTO?  (Instead of assumed destination LEO or SSO.)

There's first flight risk, but perhaps if Arianespace offered a substantial discount it would provide sufficient enticement?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 10/16/2021 06:49 am
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901
According to Karl-Heinz Servos (Chief Operating Officer Arianegroup Germany) by the midst of July they had encountered about 2 months of delays, with - at that time - the 1st (out of 3) hot fires planned for the end of August/early September. Haven't seen any more recent updates.

Die erste heiße Zündung soll Ende August oder Anfang September stattfinden – etwa zwei Monate später als geplant. Das liegt einerseits an den Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Arbeitsabläufe und Lieferketten, andererseits an "kleineren Rückschlägen beim ersten Testmodell", so Servos.
https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/ (https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/)

Yes, nothing to be found. A hot firing test would have been reported.
That means it probably hasn't happened until now.
The plan was Q2/2021.


But now there is an update.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2300749#msg2300749

"soon" she says in the video. The hot firing tests have not yet started.

For comparison, the Ariane 6 roadmap from October 29, 2020. The launch base stayed on schedule.
But the Ariane 6 (test) models are almost half a year behind the milestones, until now.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2148335#msg2148335
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/06/2022 03:47 pm
Cross posting
Quote
ArianeGroup
@ArianeGroup
·
4. Jan.
RaketeThe #Ariane6 core stage and upper stage intended for the combined tests on the launch pad in French Guiana have left the #ArianeGroup sites in Les Mureaux and Bremen and begun their journey to Europe’s Spaceport.
https://twitter.com/ArianeGroup/status/1478302944231665664

Quote
@AfifRocketMario
·
4. Jan.
When will those 2 arrive at the spaceport?
https://twitter.com/AfifRocketMario/status/1478303744282357760
Quote
Paul Montagne
@AstroPolo_Space
...
Mid-January. Beginning of combined tests (Launcher+Pad) in April
https://twitter.com/AstroPolo_Space/status/1478442106523987973

I have seen in previous schedules that around 6 months were allowed for these combined tests.
Is that right?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/06/2022 09:05 pm
same thoughts:
Quote
Peter B. de Selding
@pbdes
.#Ariane6 stages en route to @ESA @CNES  spaceport for
months-long tests starting April. Parallel test-firing
w/ upper stage at @DLR_de site under way. Keeping
late-2022 inaugural flight date is now in doubt.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1479084957222019077

Apart from the CSO-3 launch, I wonder what will become with Galaxy-37.
The satellite is scheduled to launch on an Ariane 64.
It must be in service by December 5, 2023. Otherwise Intelsat violates the deadline for the C-band cleaning.
An Ariane-64 will probably take off in mid-2023 at the earliest.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 01/06/2022 10:30 pm
<snip>
Apart from the CSO-3 launch, I wonder what will become with Galaxy-37.
The satellite is scheduled to launch on an Ariane 64.
It must be in service by December 5, 2023. Otherwise Intelsat violates the deadline for the C-band cleaning.
An Ariane-64 will probably take off in mid-2023 at the earliest.


Intelsat can move Galaxy-37 to the other possible launch provider if the Ariane 6 program gets delay or to be sure of start of service by Dec 5th 2023. Alternatively Intelsat can get a deadline extension.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/06/2022 10:52 pm
Quote
the other possible launch provider

= SpaceX ?
Or is ILS also an "possible launch provider". What do the current rules and ITAR regulations say?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/06/2022 11:38 pm
Quote
the other possible launch provider

= SpaceX ?
Or is ILS also an "possible launch provider". What do the current rules and ITAR regulations say?
ILS and MHLS are the alternate launch providers. Payloads have been transferred to ILS in the past. I do not know if the entire alliance pact is still in good standing. GKLS has taken over control of ILS but gas not yet consolidated the organisation structure and functions of the Russian side as has already occurred with Starsem and S7 Space Transport Systems LLC (S7 Space for short (S7 Sea Launch Limited in the USA)).

Current state of ILS: https://www.ilslaunch.com/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/07/2022 02:47 am
Unless Intelsat already has a launch license, they won't be launching with ILS. The deadline for license applications was 1 September 2021. After that date, no satellites with US components can launch on Russian rockets.

https://www.akingump.com/en/news-insights/licenses-for-exports-to-russia-related-to-commercial-space-launches-must-be-granted-by-september-1-2021.html
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 01/27/2022 03:39 pm
Arianespace  has released photos (https://www.ariane.group/en/news/ariane-6-is-getting-into-shape-for-combined-tests-with-the-launch-pad/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=en_US has released photos) of the first test articles arriving in Kourou.


I was rather surprised to see an ULPM with an aft skirt attached. On the Ariane 5 this skirt on the second stage is one of the reasons for its mediocre performance (dead weight), and I thought they were going to fix that for Ariane 6. Are we looking at the separation plane that will be used in flight, or will the aft skirt stay attached to the first stage?



Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/27/2022 05:57 pm
High resolution image of the Vinci engine on the Combined Test Model (CTM).
As far as I understand, this engine will not fired.
That is the task of the Hot Firing Model (HFM) in Lampoldshausen.
Is the CTM Vinci a fully functional engine and what happens to it after the combined tests?
For the CTM's Vulcain 2 engine is a static fire test planned.


Quote
Ariane 6 upper stage at Europe's Spaceport
21/01/2022

The central core of ESA’s new generation Ariane 6 launch vehicle arrived by boat in French Guiana from Europe on 18 January 2022. This enables combined tests at Europe’s Spaceport where Ariane 6 parts will come together on the launch pad for the first time.

Ariane 6’s central core comprises a lower stage and upper stage. The lower stage is from ArianeGroup’s Les Mureaux site in France; the upper stage is from ArianeGroup’s Bremen factory in Germany.

Upon arrival by boat at Pariacabo harbour, two containers were transported by road to the new Ariane 6 launch vehicle assembly building – part of the Ariane 6 launch complex at Europe’s Spaceport. Here, the rocket stages were unpacked and installed on the assembly line machinery for integration, to form the Ariane 6 central core. After this, they will be used in ‘combined’ tests which will verify all the interfaces and functions between the Ariane 6 launch vehicle and ground facilities at the spaceport.

From arrival to hot-firing tests on the launch pad, operational procedures will follow as closely as possible those for any Ariane 6 launch campaign.

Text and image source ESA:
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/01/Ariane_6_upper_stage_at_Europe_s_Spaceport2
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/27/2022 06:21 pm
Arianespace =https://www.ariane.group/en/news/ariane-6-is-getting-into-shape-for-combined-tests-with-the-launch-pad/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=en_US has released photos (http://=https://www.ariane.group/en/news/ariane-6-is-getting-into-shape-for-combined-tests-with-the-launch-pad/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=en_US has released photos) of the first test articles arriving in Kourou.


I was rather surprised to see an ULPM with an aft skirt attached. On the Ariane 5 this skirt on the second stage is one of the reasons for its mediocre performance (dead weight), and I thought they were going to fix that for Ariane 6. Are we looking at the separation plane that will be used in flight, or will the aft skirt stay attached to the first stage?




The skirt, in this case interstage, appears to remain bolted to the LLPM given all of the bolt holes on the mating interface. The skirts upper separation joint appears to be located at the site of the stand mounts in the middle of the transport stand. The rear mount was removed when the rear cap was separated from the skirt.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/29/2022 10:08 am
https://twitter.com/BBE_Europe/status/1485984493659897861?cxt=HHwWioCy5cPBo58pAAAA

Daniel Neuenschwander, ESA Director of Space Transportation:
mid February: hot firing test of the upper stage in Lampoldshausen,
maiden flight Ariane 6 ... by the end of the year, depending on the tests

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 02/20/2022 08:23 am
<snip>
Apart from the CSO-3 launch, I wonder what will become with Galaxy-37.
The satellite is scheduled to launch on an Ariane 64.
It must be in service by December 5, 2023. Otherwise Intelsat violates the deadline for the C-band cleaning.
An Ariane-64 will probably take off in mid-2023 at the earliest.


Intelsat can move Galaxy-37 to the other possible launch provider if the Ariane 6 program gets delay or to be sure of start of service by Dec 5th 2023. Alternatively Intelsat can get a deadline extension.

It happened, Arianespace lost this contract to SpaceX.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg2343405#msg2343405
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Runerdieker on 03/05/2022 08:26 pm
Press releases from the ArianeGroup at the end of januari 2022 mentioned the following:
The first Ariane 6 specimen is intended for combined testing of the rocket with its new launchpad, and at the same time the Hot Firing Model (HFM) of the upper stage will be hot-fire tested in Lampoldshausen.
The stages of the first flight model are already being integrated in the plants of ArianeGroup in France and Germany.

So I guess the testing model of the central core will never fly and the Hot Firing Model wil also not fly?
Will anything of these models be re-used for future Ariane 6 rockets? It seems such a waste of expensive materials.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 03/06/2022 07:54 am
Most of the cost of a rocket is not in the material, but in man-hours. Reusing these test articles may require as many man-hours as building new stages: the test articles may not be complete (skipping systems that won't be needed for the tests), they may not be flight-qualified (using preliminary designs that are good enough for the test, but must be replaced if the stage were to fly). The test articles are also a test run of the manufacturing process.

It's quite common when gearing up for production of a new, complex system to build prototypes that never go into service. Car manufacturers build hundreds of preproduction vehicles that can't be sold. Airplane manufacturers build at least one complete airframe that's used for fatigue testing only, etc.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Timber Micka on 04/06/2022 08:46 pm
According to Space News (https://spacenews.com/amazon-launch-contracts-drive-changes-to-launch-vehicle-production/) and this article (https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/68805/lesa-prepare-moteur-p120c-pour-ariane-6-et-vega-c) ESA and Ariane are going forward with the P120C+ solids. This will have more propellant and allow 2 additional tonnes to LEO on Ariane 64. It will also increase performance for Vega.

Quote
“ Plans for a more powerful version of this engine, called P120C+, are already underway ,” says the European Space Agency. “ With an additional 14 t of solid propellant in a case that is approximately one meter longer, the P120C+ allows for a larger payload ”.

That's very good news ! This means that Ariane will finally be able to launch 23 t to LEO. 23 t was supposed to be Ariane 5's maximum payload capacity to LEO but this goal was never realized for several reasons.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: litton4 on 04/08/2022 09:05 am
According to Space News (https://spacenews.com/amazon-launch-contracts-drive-changes-to-launch-vehicle-production/) and this article (https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/68805/lesa-prepare-moteur-p120c-pour-ariane-6-et-vega-c) ESA and Ariane are going forward with the P120C+ solids. This will have more propellant and allow 2 additional tonnes to LEO on Ariane 64. It will also increase performance for Vega.

Quote
“ Plans for a more powerful version of this engine, called P120C+, are already underway ,” says the European Space Agency. “ With an additional 14 t of solid propellant in a case that is approximately one meter longer, the P120C+ allows for a larger payload ”.

That's very good news ! This means that Ariane will finally be able to launch 23 t to LEO. 23 t was supposed to be Ariane 5's maximum payload capacity to LEO but this goal was never realized for several reasons.

What reasons?

Just curious....
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Timber Micka on 04/08/2022 11:03 pm
According to Space News (https://spacenews.com/amazon-launch-contracts-drive-changes-to-launch-vehicle-production/) and this article (https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/68805/lesa-prepare-moteur-p120c-pour-ariane-6-et-vega-c) ESA and Ariane are going forward with the P120C+ solids. This will have more propellant and allow 2 additional tonnes to LEO on Ariane 64. It will also increase performance for Vega.

Quote
“ Plans for a more powerful version of this engine, called P120C+, are already underway ,” says the European Space Agency. “ With an additional 14 t of solid propellant in a case that is approximately one meter longer, the P120C+ allows for a larger payload ”.

That's very good news ! This means that Ariane will finally be able to launch 23 t to LEO. 23 t was supposed to be Ariane 5's maximum payload capacity to LEO but this goal was never realized for several reasons.

What reasons?

Just curious....

They needed the Vinci engine to achieve this payload capacity. Ariane 5 ECA with 20 tons to LEO was already more than enough for their needs and the development of Vinci was postponed many times until it was transferred to Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: libra on 04/09/2022 07:05 am
The Ariane 5 ECA maiden flight failure in December 2002 threw ESA into chaos and panic mode. Vinci was a collateral victim. Plain old HM-7 had to hang on longer.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: libra on 04/10/2022 08:17 am
There it is. Vinci was a collateral victim of the December 2002 ECA maiden flight failure.

Quote
Originally known as the Ariane 5ECB, Ariane 5ME was to have its first flight in 2006. However, the failure of the first ECA flight in 2002, combined with a deteriorating satellite industry, caused ESA to cancel development in 2003.

Development of the Vinci engine continued, though at a lower pace. The ESA Council of Ministers agreed to fund development of the new upper stage in November 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Variants

https://www.flightglobal.com/esa-cancels-plans-for-uprated-ariane-5-ecb/46749.article

In a sense, Ariane ECB lost a decade (2002-2012) before returning as Ariane 5ME: that also became a collateral victim, this time of SpaceX ascent to stardom.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/10/2022 10:07 pm
Arianespace (https://www.arianespace.com/press-release/arianespace-signs-unprecedented-contract-with-amazon-for-18-ariane-6-launches-to-deploy-project-kuiper-constellation/)
Quote
Under the terms of the contract, Arianespace will perform 18 Ariane 6 launches for Amazon’s Project Kuiper over a period of three years from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana. Among the 18 launches planned for the deployment of the Project Kuiper, 16 will be carried out with an advanced version of the Ariane 64.
...
Out of the 18 A64 launches, 16 A64 will benefit from an increase in the power of the P120C solid boosters (called “P120C+” version).

The P120C+ will be a project with involvement for Italy and France (Guiana); Avio, ArianeGroup & Regulus.
Is the Amazon project Kuiper order enough for industry to fund the develpment of P120C+ (P156)?

The Icarus composite upper-stage is a development where Germany has been working on for several years.
Instead of investing in a second production line for P120C casings Germany/DLR/MT Aerospace invested in the development of a lighter weight ULPM. (and RFA)
Each kilogram of weight saved on the ULPM structure is additional payload capability.
Most likely the result of both approaches are quite similar.

According to Space News (https://spacenews.com/amazon-launch-contracts-drive-changes-to-launch-vehicle-production/) and this article (https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/68805/lesa-prepare-moteur-p120c-pour-ariane-6-et-vega-c) ESA and Ariane are going forward with the P120C+ solids. This will have more propellant and allow 2 additional tonnes to LEO on Ariane 64. It will also increase performance for Vega.
So with 4x14mT = 56mT additional solid propellent only 2mT additional payload can be launched to LEO.

The plan for P120C production was up to 35 P120C's annually. (AVIO 2018 (https://www.avio.com/press-release/successful-test-firing-p120c-solid-rocket-motor)) How is this going to be impacted by introducing P120C+? What are the consequences for P120C(+) production capability?

With the Amazon project Kuiper order, the launch demand shifts more the the Ariane 64 than initially planned. Institutional payloads often require SSO or escape orbit's, those are best served by Vega C/Ariane 62. Besides this they accounted for several GTO comsat launches (duo launch on Ariane 64).
I think the P120C production capability already is required to be higher than the 35 initially planned.
A launch scenario for 2023 to 2025 annually:
A64: 6x Amazon + 2x GTO = 8x 4 P120C(+) = 32 P120C(+)
A62: 2x SSO /odd orbits + 1xMEO Gallileo = 3x 2 P120C(+) = 6 P120C(+)
Vega C/E 4x P120C(+).
This requires 42x P120C+; 4x Zefiro40/Z9A/Avum+ and 11x LLPM and ULPM.
The historic high has been 7x Ariane 5 this required 7x 4 107.4mT grains to be casted by Regulus. ~3000 mT
And 7x 2 ~23.4mT forward grains at Avio. 327.6mT (4x Z40&Z9A (36+10.5) = 186mT at Avio)
The 35 P120C (P142) equates to 4970 mT of solid fuel casting. the extreme case of 42x P120C+ = 6552mT
Do others also see a problem here with the potential solution being a P40-P65; a stretched Z40 booster?

About the qualification models of Ariane 6 LLPM and ULPM. I don't think they will be reused.
I think the main reason for this is material degradation with thermal cycling. A stage can only be filled and drained a limited amount of times, because the thermal stressed (shrinking because of the cold fuel and oxidizer) degrade the material. The qualification model is worn out when launch site qualification is complete.   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hoku on 05/26/2022 09:22 am
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901
According to Karl-Heinz Servos (Chief Operating Officer Arianegroup Germany) by the midst of July they had encountered about 2 months of delays, with - at that time - the 1st (out of 3) hot fires planned for the end of August/early September. Haven't seen any more recent updates.

Die erste heiße Zündung soll Ende August oder Anfang September stattfinden – etwa zwei Monate später als geplant. Das liegt einerseits an den Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Arbeitsabläufe und Lieferketten, andererseits an "kleineren Rückschlägen beim ersten Testmodell", so Servos.
https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/ (https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/)
I'm wondering if I did miss any updates on the hot-fire tests of the upper stage? A news release by DLR from 3 weeks ago stated that they were preparing tests: "Zurzeit bereitet ein DLR-Team am Prüfstand P5.2 Tests der Oberstufe der europäischen Trägerrakete Ariane 6 vor."

Will this be the 1st (or 2nd/3rd) of the planned hot-fire tests?

https://www.dlr.de/content/de/artikel/news/2022/02/20220505_besuch-mp-kretschmann-dlr-la.html (https://www.dlr.de/content/de/artikel/news/2022/02/20220505_besuch-mp-kretschmann-dlr-la.html)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 05/26/2022 11:38 am
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901
According to Karl-Heinz Servos (Chief Operating Officer Arianegroup Germany) by the midst of July they had encountered about 2 months of delays, with - at that time - the 1st (out of 3) hot fires planned for the end of August/early September. Haven't seen any more recent updates.

Die erste heiße Zündung soll Ende August oder Anfang September stattfinden – etwa zwei Monate später als geplant. Das liegt einerseits an den Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Arbeitsabläufe und Lieferketten, andererseits an "kleineren Rückschlägen beim ersten Testmodell", so Servos.
https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/ (https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/)
I'm wondering if I did miss any updates on the hot-fire tests of the upper stage? A news release by DLR from 3 weeks ago stated that they were preparing tests: "Zurzeit bereitet ein DLR-Team am Prüfstand P5.2 Tests der Oberstufe der europäischen Trägerrakete Ariane 6 vor."

Will this be the 1st (or 2nd/3rd) of the planned hot-fire tests?

https://www.dlr.de/content/de/artikel/news/2022/02/20220505_besuch-mp-kretschmann-dlr-la.html (https://www.dlr.de/content/de/artikel/news/2022/02/20220505_besuch-mp-kretschmann-dlr-la.html)

The tests keep getting pushed back.
The last statements, mid-February, then at the end of March.
No hot firing test.
Tests with the combined test model have not yet started in Kourou either.

I think if everything goes smoothly from next week,
then a first launch of Ariane 6 will be possible in the second quarter of 2023.
If not, it will be later.
Other opinions?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/26/2022 07:38 pm
Explain, why you think there is a year between the P5.2 integrated upper stage test and the maiden launch?
There are test articles for the P5.2 and ELA-4 qualification and the maiden launcher has different hardware.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 05/26/2022 08:18 pm
I look at past schedules.
The duration of the individual sections remains the same, doesn't get shorter if they beginning late.
About 6 months were planned for the tests with the combined test model on ELA-4.
After that a few more months until the launch.

ARIANE 6 USER’S CLUB 7TH & 8TH SEPTEMBER 2017
https://docplayer.net/docview/65/53200174/#file=/storage/65/53200174/53200174.pdf

2020 ESA
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/ESA_lays_out_roadmap_to_Vega-C_and_Ariane_6_flights
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/27/2022 10:47 am
In my opinion there are two technological risky components.
The MANG's (pyrotechnic quick disconnects) and the ULPM APU's.
I hope they have developed the backup plan for the case the APU's need further work. This is just adding COPV's with helium and some payload capability penalty.
It would be a shame if they didn't have this on hand to start launch services with Ariane 6 by early 2023.

I think the MANG's have been the reason for the years of delay, they need to work. Also for the P5.2 ULPM test.
I'm no expert but they did this test in April. I can't judge it. This was a earlier test of the integrated test campaign. AFAIK the assembled LLPM+ULPM are waiting for final series of integrated tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGdyOvI70gU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGdyOvI70gU)

I still think the Q4 2022 timeframe for Ariane 6 maiden launch is realistic.

Use translate:
may 5th First cryogenic tests for Ariane 6 (https://ariane6.cnes.fr/fr/lanceurs-premiers-essais-cryogeniques-pour-ariane-6)
may 13th CNES: Vulcain 2.1 ignition system partially tested on ELA-4 (https://cnes.fr/fr/lanceurs-une-partie-du-systeme-dallumage-du-vulcain-21-teste-sur-lela-4)

edit: The integrated test ULPM and LLPM stages arrived at the BAL in Februari 2022. I find it unlikely they didn't do anything with these stages to prepare for the integrated tests. We'll know after June 22th. But without images if ESA/Arianegroup/Arianespace won't allow sharing them.
ESA N° 23–2022: Invitation to media: Join pre-launch press programme to see Vega-C and preparations for Ariane 6 at Europe’s Spaceport (https://www.esa.int/Newsroom/Press_Releases/Invitation_to_media_Join_pre-launch_press_programme_to_see_Vega-C_and_preparations_for_Ariane_6_at_Europe_s_Spaceport)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 05/28/2022 09:20 am
The development of Ariane 6 is described in great detail there.
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane6/index.htm

On the 2022 page is an overview of the combined tests with the Ariane-6 CTM launcher.

http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane6/developpement_2022.htm

As already written, these tests have not started yet.
I haven't seen any pictures of the fully integrated CTM.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/29/2022 07:08 am
(http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane6/2022%20combinated%20test.jpg)
Capcomespace.net Ariane6 development 2022 (http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane6/developpement_2022.htm)
(the fifth, 3th row) This graphic shows all the phases of the combined test.
The first part: dummy payloads encapsulation test, was finished in may 2021. Arianegroup (https://www.ariane.group/en/news/the-very-first-ariane-6-fairing-is-put-through-its-paces-at-the-european-spaceport/)
The second part, launcher integration, is in progress. The LLPM and ULPM stages are inside the BAL. We don't know the assembly status, I think by June 22th the combined test article will be fully assembled at ELA-4.
Next is the propellent phase, composed of three wet dress rehearsals (countdown until Vulcain 2.1 Ignition) and an aborted launch test (Vulcain 2.1 ignition and shutdown after a couple of seconds).
Possibly they have to disassemble the test article afterwards for Vulcain 2.1 refurbishment, but possibly this isn't necessary.     
Than they are going to do a (long) hot firing test. Possibly full Vulcain 2.1 engine firing duration.
To finish out the test they have to de-mate the payload and disassemble the launcher (combined test article).

If all goes according to plan, they can start the maiden launch campaign. Is an anomaly takes place, they might have to redo a test. I think they should go into the test hardware rich. If needed they should sacrifice a launcher so they don't have to wait for a new test article.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 06/17/2022 12:15 pm
Eric Berger writes:
Quote
The official declined to provide a new, specific launch target for Ariane 6's debut flight. (A separate source has told Ars the working date is no earlier than April 2023). The new launch target is expected to be revealed on July 13 during a joint news conference with European space officials.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/europes-major-new-rocket-the-ariane-6-is-delayed-again/

Peter de Selding SpaceIntelReport:
Quote
ESA official: No single event caused the latest Ariane 6 delay, and it’s unclear who will have to pay for it
written by Peter B. de Selding June 16, 2022

PARIS — The months-long delay in the inaugural flight of Europe’s heavy-lift Ariane 6 rocket, confirmed the week of June 13, came after technical reviews of the vehicle’s upper-stage testing and the launch-sequence software managing the rocket and its launch pad, a European Space Agency (ESA) official said.

There was no single event that precipitated the announcement that Ariane 6’s first flight would slip into 2023, with a more-precise estimate to await further review between now and mid-July, the official said.

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/esa-official-no-single-event-caused-the-latest-ariane-6-delay-and-its-unclear-who-will-have-to-pay-for-it/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/15/2022 06:54 pm
What is Ariane 64 payload now?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/18/2022 08:23 pm
What is Ariane 64 payload now?
Arianespace Publications (https://www.arianespace.com/publications/) : Ariane 6 Brochure (https://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ARIANESPACE-GB-FLYER-ARIANE-6-JUNE-2022.pdf), June 13, 2022.
Arianespace Ariane 6 (https://www.arianespace.com/vehicle/ariane-6/)

Funny that they don't know payload capability for Ariane 64 to MEO 23200km. And because it's in early development they haven't added the capability with Astris kick-stage. I think that will show interesting results.
Like 4mT to MEO with A62+Astris, and 4mT to GEO with A62 and Astris.

What's holding back progress at Lampoldshausen? It's nearly two years behind schedule. This requires an explanation. Integrated testing at CSG are continuing. Why can't the maiden launch of Ariane 6 happen in 2022. The MANG ULPM is part of the delay, the APU's is another part, but it doesn't explain the full story.
Ariane 6 is government funded, so public deserves a propper explanation. Sorry, no new projects without propper explanation. Let's not promote piss-por performance.
Over ambitious timeline is a propper explanation, in my opinion. Just state it, and prevent it from happening again. Mistakes and mishaps can happen, it doesn't really matter if lessons are learned from it. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 08/07/2022 11:12 am
...

What's holding back progress at Lampoldshausen? It's nearly two years behind schedule. This requires an explanation. Integrated testing at CNES are continuing. Why can't the maiden launch of Ariane 6 happen in 2022. The MANG ULPM is part of the delay, the APU's is another part, but it doesn't explain the full story.
Ariane 6 is government funded, so public deserves a propper explanation. Sorry, no new projects without propper explanation. Let's not promote piss-por performance.
Over ambitious timeline is a propper explanation, in my opinion. Just state it, and prevent it from happening again. Mistakes and mishaps can happen, it doesn't really matter if lessons are learned from it.

The latest rumors from France are very depressing.
Let's see what the ESA announces in autumn for the Ariane 6 maiden flight.
Actually, one should assume that the Ariane 6 should become cheaper and also easier to handle.
Instead, a complicated device was created, the technology of which Ariane Group apparently does not understand itself.

 :(
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rondaz on 09/03/2022 10:30 am
Tonight, we invite you behind the scenes to the new Ariane 6 Launcher Assembly Building (BAL) at the French Guiana Space Center (CSG) in Kourou, a building unlike any other.

https://twitter.com/ArianeGroup/status/1565407053694308352
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hoku on 09/20/2022 06:58 pm
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901
According to Karl-Heinz Servos (Chief Operating Officer Arianegroup Germany) by the midst of July they had encountered about 2 months of delays, with - at that time - the 1st (out of 3) hot fires planned for the end of August/early September. Haven't seen any more recent updates.

Die erste heiße Zündung soll Ende August oder Anfang September stattfinden – etwa zwei Monate später als geplant. Das liegt einerseits an den Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Arbeitsabläufe und Lieferketten, andererseits an "kleineren Rückschlägen beim ersten Testmodell", so Servos.
https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/ (https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/)
I'm wondering if I did miss any updates on the hot-fire tests of the upper stage? A news release by DLR from 3 weeks ago stated that they were preparing tests: "Zurzeit bereitet ein DLR-Team am Prüfstand P5.2 Tests der Oberstufe der europäischen Trägerrakete Ariane 6 vor."

Will this be the 1st (or 2nd/3rd) of the planned hot-fire tests?

https://www.dlr.de/content/de/artikel/news/2022/02/20220505_besuch-mp-kretschmann-dlr-la.html (https://www.dlr.de/content/de/artikel/news/2022/02/20220505_besuch-mp-kretschmann-dlr-la.html)
My apologies if I should sound like a broken record: there was a statement by Josef Aschbacher, ESA Director General, at the end of June that hot fire tests for the upper stage would finally start by mid July.

Have these (3?) hot fire tests in the meantime been completed?

https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/vor-beginn-der-kombinierten-tests-ariane-6-nimmt-gestalt-an/ (https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/vor-beginn-der-kombinierten-tests-ariane-6-nimmt-gestalt-an/)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Try_NBS on 09/21/2022 05:48 am
No, they didn't test the UPLM. I don't found any source or official ESA newspaper what say they tested it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/10/2022 09:37 am
Moved this discussion from the SUSIE thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57201.0):

I don't want to sound like a broken record but A6 is actually a wonderful achievement in comparison to the four solids monster that CNES was pushing. I think they actually saved the program with that.

I don't think it matters. The CNES design and the current design are already obsolete.

Current A6 design is barely competitive in a segment that's not very well aligned with demand, but can do albeit at a high cost while they actually do what needs to be done. The CNES (PPC was it called?) was an atrocious design that would have meant A7 would have to be a new start cost ESA a lot more.

Emphasis mine.
I disagree with that statement. Like Ariane 6, the Vulcan vehicle is not reusable, not even partially. For Vulcan that status might change to partially reusable (SMART) in the later years of this decade. But right now both Vulcan and Ariane 6 are old-style, fully expendable launch vehicles.

But despite both vehicles being fully expendable, both are quite competitive. Before the Kuiper launch contracts were awarded earlier in 2022, Vulcan already had a backlog of 35 launches, primarily for US government launches, mixed with a good number of commercial launches.
Ariane 6 already had a backlog of 25 launches, primarily for ESA government launches, but also mixed with a good number of commercial launches.

And then came the Kuiper constellation. Which added 38 more launches to the Vulcan manifest and 18 more launches to the Ariane 6 manifest. ULA now has a backlog of 73 launches for Vulcan, before even its first launch. Ariane 6 now has a backlog of 43 launches, before even its first launch. Those numbers don't match with the phrase "barely competitive".

What people continue to overlook is that SpaceX is not eating everyone's lunch. Both government entities and commercial entities want redundancy in launch providers. Which is why not all launches are awarded to SpaceX (who already beats most other launch providers hands down on price). Even after Starship becomes operational, this situation will continue to exist.

Both ULA and Arianespace know this. And they also know that the most serious threat to the status quo is another (partially) reusable F9 class vehicle coming online, provided by a non-SpaceX provider.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/10/2022 10:13 am




Both ULA and Arianespace know this. And they also know that the most serious threat to the status quo is another (partially) reusable F9 class vehicle coming online, provided by a non-SpaceX provider.

Which is Neutron, Beta/Antares and Terran R.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: libra on 10/10/2022 12:12 pm
Moved this discussion from the SUSIE thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57201.0):

I don't want to sound like a broken record but A6 is actually a wonderful achievement in comparison to the four solids monster that CNES was pushing. I think they actually saved the program with that.

I don't think it matters. The CNES design and the current design are already obsolete.

Current A6 design is barely competitive in a segment that's not very well aligned with demand, but can do albeit at a high cost while they actually do what needs to be done. The CNES (PPC was it called?) was an atrocious design that would have meant A7 would have to be a new start cost ESA a lot more.

Emphasis mine.
I disagree with that statement. Like Ariane 6, the Vulcan vehicle is not reusable, not even partially. For Vulcan that status might change to partially reusable (SMART) in the later years of this decade. But right now both Vulcan and Ariane 6 are old-style, fully expendable launch vehicles.

But despite both vehicles being fully expendable, both are quite competitive. Before the Kuiper launch contracts were awarded earlier in 2022, Vulcan already had a backlog of 35 launches, primarily for US government launches, mixed with a good number of commercial launches.
Ariane 6 already had a backlog of 25 launches, primarily for ESA government launches, but also mixed with a good number of commercial launches.

And then came the Kuiper constellation. Which added 38 more launches to the Vulcan manifest and 18 more launches to the Ariane 6 manifest. ULA now has a backlog of 73 launches for Vulcan, before even its first launch. Ariane 6 now has a backlog of 43 launches, before even its first launch. Those numbers don't match with the phrase "barely competitive".

What people continue to overlook is that SpaceX is not eating everyone's lunch. Both government entities and commercial entities want redundancy in launch providers. Which is why not all launches are awarded to SpaceX (who already beats most other launch providers hands down on price). Even after Starship becomes operational, this situation will continue to exist.

Both ULA and Arianespace know this. And they also know that the most serious threat to the status quo is another (partially) reusable F9 class vehicle coming online, provided by a non-SpaceX provider.

I'm delighted to hear that !

(https://media.giphy.com/media/2mFEm2gafweuzZv8iG/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/10/2022 12:57 pm
<snip>
And then came the Kuiper constellation. Which added 38 more launches to the Vulcan manifest and 18 more launches to the Ariane 6 manifest. ULA now has a backlog of 73 launches for Vulcan, before even its first launch. Ariane 6 now has a backlog of 43 launches, before even its first launch. Those numbers don't match with the phrase "barely competitive".
<snip>
The only reason for the high number of Ariane 6, Atlas V and Vulcan Centaur rides booked by the Kuiper Project is a certain bald person objects to using the industry leading launch provider.

The launch totals of 35 for ULA and 25 for Arianespace spread over many years before Project Kuiper showing up. Probably will resulted in lower annual launch rates than the Ariane 5 for Arianespace and the Atlas V/Delta IV for ULA currently.

Much of the future launches for Vulcan Centaur was from the premature USAF "Block Buy" that allocated 60% of upcoming launches to ULA. Don't think ULA could win that high a percentage of future launches if they were bid for competitively.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/10/2022 01:00 pm




Both ULA and Arianespace know this. And they also know that the most serious threat to the status quo is another (partially) reusable F9 class vehicle coming online, provided by a non-SpaceX provider.

Which is Neutron, Beta/Antares and Terran R.


Neutron: No. Neutron has only 60% of the performance of F9 and Ariane 64, and only a bit more than half of the performance of Vulcan Heavy. Lower class of vehicle.

Beta/Antares: No, for the same reasons listed for Neutron: lack of performance compared to F9, Ariane 6 and Vulcan. Lower class of vehicle.

Terran R: Now that is beginning to look more like it. Similar performance as F9 and Ariane 64, and only slightly below the performance of Vulcan. But of the three vehicles mentioned it is the one furthest out from becoming operational (Relativity has yet to launch the Terran 1 precursor vehicle).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edzieba on 10/10/2022 01:17 pm
Much of the future launches for Vulcan Centaur was from the premature USAF "Block Buy" that allocated 60% of upcoming launches to ULA. Don't think ULA could win that high a percentage of future launches if they were bid for competitively.
NSSL Phase 2 was bid competitively. ULA won the majority of that bid. 'Block buy' has been dead for years.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/10/2022 01:59 pm
<snip>
And then came the Kuiper constellation. Which added 38 more launches to the Vulcan manifest and 18 more launches to the Ariane 6 manifest. ULA now has a backlog of 73 launches for Vulcan, before even its first launch. Ariane 6 now has a backlog of 43 launches, before even its first launch. Those numbers don't match with the phrase "barely competitive".
<snip>
The only reason for the high number of Ariane 6, Atlas V and Vulcan Centaur rides booked by the Kuiper Project is a certain bald person objects to using the industry leading launch provider.

Bezos' objections are legitimate. You don't launch on the vehicle of your direct competitor unless you absolutely have no other choice. See OneWeb. They did not choose SpaceX, until Russia decided to throw a tantrum and blocked access to Soyuz. And OneWeb is only launching the absolute minimum number of sats on Falcon 9. They also contracted with India's GLSV Mk.3. Their next generation satellites are contracted to launch not on SpaceX rockets, but on Relativity's Terran R.

So, there is precedent for Kuiper choosing ULA, Blue Origin and Arianespace and not choosing SpaceX. You simply don't spend money on the service of a competitor, if (part of) that money will be used to compete with your own service. In case of Amazon's Kuiper it was easy: money spent by Amazon on ULA, Blue and Arianespace does not go into a competing mega constellation. However, money spent by Amazon on launching on F9 is partially funneled (the profit part that is) by SpaceX into developing Starlink, which is a direct competitor to Kuiper.

The launch totals of 35 for ULA and 25 for Arianespace spread over many years before Project Kuiper showing up. Probably will resulted in lower annual launch rates than the Ariane 5 for Arianespace and the Atlas V/Delta IV for ULA currently.

Emphasis mine.
Sorry, no, but you are wrong.
New launch vehicles always start slowly. Just look at the initial flight history of Falcon 9: it took 4 years for its first 7 launches. Than two more years with "just" seven launches per year, before it really began to fly often.

Same for Ariane 5: in its first 4 years it flew just four times, with a single mission in each of the years 1996 - 1999. The next four years it flew on average 3 missions each year. Only after 2004, 8 years after its introduction, did it begin to routinely fly more than 5 missions per year.

In contrast: the first 22 missions of Ariane 5 are scheduled to be flown in just 4 years: an average of a little over 5 missions per year, from the Get-Go.

Same for Atlas V: In its first 4 years it launched just 6 times. The next six launches took two years. After that it spent several more years at flying on average just 3 missions per year. Only after 2010, 8 years after its introduction, did it begin to routinely fly more than 5 missions per year.
 
Vulcan on the other hand is scheduled to launch 5 missions per year in its first 3 years of service. And ramping up flight cadence after that.


Much of the future launches for Vulcan Centaur was from the premature USAF "Block Buy" that allocated 60% of upcoming launches to ULA. Don't think ULA could win that high a percentage of future launches if they were bid for competitively.

That is a moot argument. DoD does not care how much it costs to launch its satellites. The only reason that there are now TWO NSSL certified contractors is because U.S. law dictated that DoD should allow another entrant into the NSSL market: for redundancy, not for cost-savings through competition. The same legislation does not force DoD to use competition to contract the launches. That is why 60% of the launches was appointed to ULA, with SpaceX getting only 40%. So, until the law is changed ULA will be fine, despite the fact that SpaceX does things cheaper.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/10/2022 02:05 pm
Much of the future launches for Vulcan Centaur was from the premature USAF "Block Buy" that allocated 60% of upcoming launches to ULA. Don't think ULA could win that high a percentage of future launches if they were bid for competitively.
NSSL Phase 2 was bid competitively. ULA won the majority of that bid. 'Block buy' has been dead for years.

There is not much of a competitive process if only the two incumbent providers stood any realistic chance of winning. NSSL phase 2 never was about competition. It was just about which of the two current contractors would get the most launches. And, as expected by many, the majority went to ULA.

But I agree with you that "Block Buy" went out the window the minute SpaceX was allowed to enter the NSSL arena as the second provider. The monopoly improved only ever so slightly to a duopoly.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/10/2022 03:05 pm
Bezos' objections are legitimate. You don't launch on the vehicle of your direct competitor unless you absolutely have no other choice. See OneWeb. They did not choose SpaceX, until Russia decided to throw a tantrum and blocked access to Soyuz. And OneWeb is only launching the absolute minimum number of sats on Falcon 9. They also contracted with India's GLSV Mk.3. Their next generation satellites are contracted to launch not on SpaceX rockets, but on Relativity's Terran R.

So, there is precedent for Kuiper choosing ULA, Blue Origin and Arianespace and not choosing SpaceX. You simply don't spend money on the service of a competitor, if (part of) that money will be used to compete with your own service. In case of Amazon's Kuiper it was easy: money spent by Amazon on ULA, Blue and Arianespace does not go into a competing mega constellation. However, money spent by Amazon on launching on F9 is partially funneled (the profit part that is) by SpaceX into developing Starlink, which is a direct competitor to Kuiper.

There is lots of precedent for Kuiper choosing ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.  It's almost always an error to overspend and delay launch because it hurts you more than it hurts your competitor.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/10/2022 03:56 pm
Much of the future launches for Vulcan Centaur was from the premature USAF "Block Buy" that allocated 60% of upcoming launches to ULA. Don't think ULA could win that high a percentage of future launches if they were bid for competitively.
NSSL Phase 2 was bid competitively. ULA won the majority of that bid. 'Block buy' has been dead for years.
Reply moved to a ULA thread. It is off-topic here. See:
     https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48584.0
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edzieba on 10/10/2022 04:05 pm
Point-of-order with Oneweb: the "anyone but SpaceX" Soyuz buy-in was made when Wyler was still CEO, and he had a beef with SpaceX over Starlink. When Wyler was forced out in the 2020 bankruptcy, that policy vanished but because the money for the Soyuz launches had already been spent there was no reason to try and back out and re-bid (adding extra costs for the bid process, and for a new payload adapter for whatever the new vehicle was, on top of any cancellation fees). When Soyuz launches became untenable, the new owners announced the launch agreement with SpaceX before starting to bid out to other providers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/10/2022 04:07 pm
Point-of-order with Oneweb: the "anyone but SpaceX" Soyuz buy-in was made when Wyler was still CEO, and he had a beef with SpaceX over Starlink. When Wyler was forced out in the 2020 bankruptcy, that policy vanished but because the money for the Soyuz launches had already been spent there was no reason to try and back out and re-bid (adding extra costs for the bid process, and for a new payload adapter for whatever the new vehicle was, on top of any cancellation fees). When Soyuz launches became untenable, the new owners announced the launch agreement with SpaceX before starting to bid out to other providers.
Off-topic. I will reply in a OneWeb thread.
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37814.0
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: John Santos on 10/10/2022 04:10 pm
What do all these posts about One Web and SpaceX and Souyz and GSLV and NSSL have to do with Ariane 6?  Nothing!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edzieba on 10/10/2022 05:35 pm
What do all these posts about One Web and SpaceX and Souyz and GSLV and NSSL have to do with Ariane 6?
Demonstrating that the crime of "not being SpaceX" is not sufficient for a launch vehicle to not be viable, even on the commercial market. Including Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: friendly3 on 10/11/2022 02:42 am
What do all these posts about One Web and SpaceX and Souyz and GSLV and NSSL have to do with Ariane 6?
Demonstrating that the crime of "not being SpaceX" is not sufficient for a launch vehicle to not be viable, even on the commercial market. Including Ariane 6.

It only shows how far you have to go in order to make that "demonstration".
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 10/11/2022 03:56 am
Moved this discussion from the SUSIE thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57201.0):

I don't want to sound like a broken record but A6 is actually a wonderful achievement in comparison to the four solids monster that CNES was pushing. I think they actually saved the program with that.

I don't think it matters. The CNES design and the current design are already obsolete.

Current A6 design is barely competitive in a segment that's not very well aligned with demand, but can do albeit at a high cost while they actually do what needs to be done. The CNES (PPC was it called?) was an atrocious design that would have meant A7 would have to be a new start cost ESA a lot more.

Emphasis mine.
I disagree with that statement. Like Ariane 6, the Vulcan vehicle is not reusable, not even partially. For Vulcan that status might change to partially reusable (SMART) in the later years of this decade. But right now both Vulcan and Ariane 6 are old-style, fully expendable launch vehicles.

But despite both vehicles being fully expendable, both are quite competitive. Before the Kuiper launch contracts were awarded earlier in 2022, Vulcan already had a backlog of 35 launches, primarily for US government launches, mixed with a good number of commercial launches.
Ariane 6 already had a backlog of 25 launches, primarily for ESA government launches, but also mixed with a good number of commercial launches.

And then came the Kuiper constellation. Which added 38 more launches to the Vulcan manifest and 18 more launches to the Ariane 6 manifest. ULA now has a backlog of 73 launches for Vulcan, before even its first launch. Ariane 6 now has a backlog of 43 launches, before even its first launch. Those numbers don't match with the phrase "barely competitive".

What people continue to overlook is that SpaceX is not eating everyone's lunch. Both government entities and commercial entities want redundancy in launch providers. Which is why not all launches are awarded to SpaceX (who already beats most other launch providers hands down on price). Even after Starship becomes operational, this situation will continue to exist.

Both ULA and Arianespace know this. And they also know that the most serious threat to the status quo is another (partially) reusable F9 class vehicle coming online, provided by a non-SpaceX provider.

Let's go directly here because my statement was made in the context of SUSIE, in other words, looking into the next 10 years. I know A6 will have a full manifest at first. The ESA one is its reason d'etre, so that was expected and I disregarded as I was meaning the commercial market. Regarding the Kuiper order, I'm pretty sure it's an artifact of the 2020/2021 events. I still think it is a bit too big, GEO sats are getting leaner and are being seriously attacked by the LEO constellations. Even in its 62 form, it's too big and expensive for 90% of EO that are actually the bread and butter of ESA.
I think that we will know how competitive it is when the next fleet replenishment happens in a few years, and the market supply has enough capacity that the operators won't be asking bids "to whomever might have some launches available".

Let's recap something: Ariane 5 was sized and designed the way it was because of Hermés. And they were really lucky that GEO birds grew in size and popularity right at the same time Boeing, LM, MHI and Khrunichev (both Proton and Angara) and Yuzhnoye failed to get their rockets cheap and/or reliable enough to compete.
Ariane 6 was a cheap, industry-driven Ariane 5. Same requirements, same environment. I don't really think that Europe has any strategic need for 11.5 tonnes to GTO if not for "let's keep it as similar as Ariane 5 as possible". I'm pretty sure that something on the 62 performance but cheaper would have been a much better specification to both Europe and the GTO market.
And regarding pricing, I don't see how adding two SRB increases the 64 cost by 40M. I mean, I don't think the quoted prices of 75M and 115M are actually related to cost and I suspect that 64 launches were supposed to subsidize 62. I know, that each SRB on an Atlas V usually cost about 10M.
To summarize, I think a 5 tonnes to GTO/8tonne SSO LV at 55M/60M would have been perfect for ESA's need and the current market. Yes, predicting 202x market in 2015 would have been really difficult. But I still think A6 is too big and expensive now that GTO birds are way smaller and Europe needs to cover the EO market.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/11/2022 06:25 pm
To summarize, I think a 5 tonnes to GTO/8tonne SSO LV at 55M/60M would have been perfect for ESA's need and the current market. Yes, predicting 202x market in 2015 would have been really difficult. But I still think A6 is too big and expensive now that GTO birds are way smaller and Europe needs to cover the EO market.

GTO birds are only smaller to the point that a 20-metric-ton-to-LEO launcher can launch two of them in a single launch. As recently demonstrated by both F9 AND Atlas V.

Launching two GTO sats in a single launch is exactly what the 20-metric-ton-to-LEO Ariane 5 has been doing for the vast majority of its career. It is therefore not surprising that Ariane 6 was given similar performance requirements: it can (like F9 just recently also did) lift two 4.5 metric ton GTO sats in a single launch in its 6.4 configuration. Or lift a single 4.5 metric ton GTO sat in its 6.2 configuration. Eight-metric-ton-to-GTO class is therefore exactly the wrong size. It is overkill for the new generation 4.5 metric ton GTO sats and lacks the "Oomph" to lift two of those sats.

Also: by far not all GTO sats are getting smaller: just look at the upcoming launch of Eutelsat 10B (6.2 metric tons), or Viasat 3 (6.4 metric tons), or Intelsat 40e (6.3 metric tons), or Echostar-24 (9.2 (!) metric tons), or Satria 1 (6.1 metric tons)
Like Ariane 5 has been doing for over a decade the Ariane 6.4 can launch most of those heavier GTO sats, combined with a lighter 4.5 metric ton class GTO sat.

Combining two of such GTO sats on a single launch is what Arianespace excels at.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 10/12/2022 12:12 pm
To summarize, I think a 5 tonnes to GTO/8tonne SSO LV at 55M/60M would have been perfect for ESA's need and the current market. Yes, predicting 202x market in 2015 would have been really difficult. But I still think A6 is too big and expensive now that GTO birds are way smaller and Europe needs to cover the EO market.

GTO birds are only smaller to the point that a 20-metric-ton-to-LEO launcher can launch two of them in a single launch. As recently demonstrated by both F9 AND Atlas V.

Launching two GTO sats in a single launch is exactly what the 20-metric-ton-to-LEO Ariane 5 has been doing for the vast majority of its career. It is therefore not surprising that Ariane 6 was given similar performance requirements: it can (like F9 just recently also did) lift two 4.5 metric ton GTO sats in a single launch in its 6.4 configuration. Or lift a single 4.5 metric ton GTO sat in its 6.2 configuration. Eight-metric-ton-to-GTO class is therefore exactly the wrong size. It is overkill for the new generation 4.5 metric ton GTO sats and lacks the "Oomph" to lift two of those sats.

Also: by far not all GTO sats are getting smaller: just look at the upcoming launch of Eutelsat 10B (6.2 metric tons), or Viasat 3 (6.4 metric tons), or Intelsat 40e (6.3 metric tons), or Echostar-24 (9.2 (!) metric tons), or Satria 1 (6.1 metric tons)
Like Ariane 5 has been doing for over a decade the Ariane 6.4 can launch most of those heavier GTO sats, combined with a lighter 4.5 metric ton class GTO sat.

Combining two of such GTO sats on a single launch is what Arianespace excels at.

You misread my post: 5 to GTO, 8 to SSO. I could see a point for 5.5 or even 6 for GTO, but today with SEP 5 should be enough. Yes Ariane 6 can compete in the big GTO bird market thanks to dual launch. Which was an artifact of Ariane 5 being designed for Hermés. But it has limited numbers.
Yet, ESA launches a lot of SSO and generally speaking the military ones fit (or could be made to fit) into a 5 tonne margin trading some circularization time.
I'm talking here about Ariane 6 as an ESA self-reliance launcher. As smaller launcher that's cheap enough to take most SSO launches without problem, would have been a much better fit for ESA.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/12/2022 09:18 pm
To summarize, I think a 5 tonnes to GTO/8tonne SSO LV at 55M/60M would have been perfect for ESA's need and the current market. Yes, predicting 202x market in 2015 would have been really difficult. But I still think A6 is too big and expensive now that GTO birds are way smaller and Europe needs to cover the EO market.

GTO birds are only smaller to the point that a 20-metric-ton-to-LEO launcher can launch two of them in a single launch. As recently demonstrated by both F9 AND Atlas V.

Launching two GTO sats in a single launch is exactly what the 20-metric-ton-to-LEO Ariane 5 has been doing for the vast majority of its career. It is therefore not surprising that Ariane 6 was given similar performance requirements: it can (like F9 just recently also did) lift two 4.5 metric ton GTO sats in a single launch in its 6.4 configuration. Or lift a single 4.5 metric ton GTO sat in its 6.2 configuration. Eight-metric-ton-to-GTO class is therefore exactly the wrong size. It is overkill for the new generation 4.5 metric ton GTO sats and lacks the "Oomph" to lift two of those sats.

Also: by far not all GTO sats are getting smaller: just look at the upcoming launch of Eutelsat 10B (6.2 metric tons), or Viasat 3 (6.4 metric tons), or Intelsat 40e (6.3 metric tons), or Echostar-24 (9.2 (!) metric tons), or Satria 1 (6.1 metric tons)
Like Ariane 5 has been doing for over a decade the Ariane 6.4 can launch most of those heavier GTO sats, combined with a lighter 4.5 metric ton class GTO sat.

Combining two of such GTO sats on a single launch is what Arianespace excels at.

You misread my post: 5 to GTO, 8 to SSO. I could see a point for 5.5 or even 6 for GTO, but today with SEP 5 should be enough. Yes Ariane 6 can compete in the big GTO bird market thanks to dual launch. Which was an artifact of Ariane 5 being designed for Hermés. But it has limited numbers.

"Limited" to the point that dual-payload launches constituted the bulk of all Ariane 5 launches. So, not actually all that limited.

Yet, ESA launches a lot of SSO and generally speaking the military ones fit (or could be made to fit) into a 5 tonne margin trading some circularization time.

Most military payloads launched by Arianespace are military comsats, often derived from commercial comsat platforms, generally having similar mass figures as the commercial comsats. Which makes them just as suited for dual launch on A6.4 as their commercial cousins. Or single launch on A6.2. in case of the lighter ones.

I'm talking here about Ariane 6 as an ESA self-reliance launcher. As smaller launcher that's cheap enough to take most SSO launches without problem, would have been a much better fit for ESA.

Ariane is there to provide independent access to space for Europe. BUT, from the very first iteration of Ariane (thus: since the end of the 1970s) this requirement has been married to the requirement of having to be commercially viable. As such Ariane is there to provide ESA with an independent means to access space, but at the same time commercial launches must be its bread and butter. And THAT is why Ariane is primarily optimized for commercial business. The fact that it may be overkill for ESA SSO launches is much less important.
And this has been the case throughout the history of Ariane, from Ariane 1 to Ariane 5. And the same rule was once again enforced for Ariane 6. "Better fit for ESA" is not the prime driver behind the performance requirements of Ariane 6. "Best fit for commercial business" very much IS the prime driver behind the A6 performance requirements.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/12/2022 09:51 pm
The path towards Ariane 6 was fixed in concreet after the 2011 ESA ministerial. ESA memberstates didn't fund a new first stage engine development (SCORE-D). Thus only solids, Vulcan and Vince were available for the successor of Ariane 5 ECA. Ariane 5 ES was used for the LEO and MEO launches, Ariane 5 ECA is used for GTO and escape launches. ESA tried to develop Ariane 5 ECB/ A5 ME, simple swap of upper stage from ESC-A with HM-7B engine to ESC-B with Vince engine. It turned out the Ariane 5 core had to be reinforced. And Ariane 5 ME would have had similar performance as Ariane 64. To much for many missions.

@Baldusi, please also look at the masses for SSO/ earth observation and Gallileo (Gen2) MEO satellites.
Most of the SSO payloads can be launched by Vega-C. By developing P120C+/P160 and M10/VUS for Vega E, SSO payloads over 3mT can be launched. Only MetOP-SG satellites are to heavy. So Ariane 62 will launch multiple SSO payloads.
I think the Astris kick-stage is vital for Ariane 6 succes. It makes Ariane 6 much more versitile and capable.
Most likely Ariane 64 with Astris will be able to lift a ~6mT to GTO -1500m/s and a 4mT satellite directly to GEO.
Ariane 62 with Icarus, and 2x P160 can most likely lift 6mT to GTO -1500m/s.
For service launch cost, I think Ariane 6 starts at >100mln. Because of the dual launch capability, Ariane 6 is launch price competitive with reusable launchers. 
AFAIK reusable launchers are required and require huge LEO/SSO constellations. I'm not sure of the business case for the LEO comsat constellations. There aren't concrete plans for European LEO comsat constellations. And the technology for reusable launchers still has to be developed in Europe. So reuse was not a option for Ariane 6/ Ariane 5ME. And still shouldn't be considered for Ariane 6, because of the launch demand uncertainty.

The US governments demands US launchers (ULA or SpaceX for institutional satellites. This demand isn't the case in Europe. Each European mission shops for the most appropriate launch option. But on the other hand it has been proven that, partners can't be relied upon for acces to space. ESA/Europe needs independant acces to space. Because a next USA president can go woke and prohibit a USA launch of a European satellite with superior technology than the USA has.
I think with the current plan for Ariane 6 with all the new factories. By funding engine developments now and small scale (suborbital) demonstrators. (not large ones like Themis) A first stage reusable launcher could be developed for less then 2.10^9 with maiden launch around 2030, if Europe has the launch demand for it.
By wanting to have the capability earlier, cost will spiral upwards. Large demonstrators (Themis) will also cause costs to spiral upwards. The launch startups and academia/ student teams are better equipped to develop stage reuse technologies than the European launch industry giants. In that aspect Arianegroup is rightfully complaining they lose funding to startups.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/12/2022 10:06 pm
AFAIK both European institutional launch demand and commercial launch demand were considered when capability requirements were selected for Ariane 6 (and Vega C). Europe also wants the capability to launch heavy payloads, so Ariane is the heavy launcher and Vega C the smaller.

What I really don't get is the fact that European launch industry has allowed a nearly two year production stop, because of Ariane 6 development delays. Also causing European institutions to have to launch on non-european launchers. They planned for a transition period of several years from Arian 5 to Ariane 6. The delays in Ariane 6 development completely removed the transition period. And even cause a period of not having launch capability.
Why hasn't another small batch of Ariane 5 ECA been produced, so Europe has launch capability and a transition period between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/13/2022 01:10 am
<snip>
Why hasn't another small batch of Ariane 5 ECA been produced, so Europe has launch capability and a transition period between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.
My guess is that production lines for the various components of Ariane 5 ECA has transition to Ariane 6. Any more Ariane 5 ECA will require setting up new production lines in addition to the Ariane 6 production lines. Which is to say ESA was too optimistic with Ariane 6 development schedule.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/13/2022 03:23 am


<snip>
Why hasn't another small batch of Ariane 5 ECA been produced, so Europe has launch capability and a transition period between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.
My guess is that production lines for the various components of Ariane 5 ECA has transition to Ariane 6. Any more Ariane 5 ECA will require setting up new production lines in addition to the Ariane 6 production lines. Which is to say ESA was too optimistic with Ariane 6 development schedule.

Cheaper to buy the odd F9 than setup for small run of Ariane 5s.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Timber Micka on 10/13/2022 02:37 pm


<snip>
Why hasn't another small batch of Ariane 5 ECA been produced, so Europe has launch capability and a transition period between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.
My guess is that production lines for the various components of Ariane 5 ECA has transition to Ariane 6. Any more Ariane 5 ECA will require setting up new production lines in addition to the Ariane 6 production lines. Which is to say ESA was too optimistic with Ariane 6 development schedule.

Cheaper to buy the odd F9 than setup for small run of Ariane 5s.

The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.Being cheap or commercially competitive is a secondary goal. That's why buying rides on SpaceX's rockets is a decision of last resort. Many Americans fail to understand this.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/13/2022 03:25 pm




&lt;snip&gt;
Why hasn't another small batch of Ariane 5 ECA been produced, so Europe has launch capability and a transition period between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.
My guess is that production lines for the various components of Ariane 5 ECA has transition to Ariane 6. Any more Ariane 5 ECA will require setting up new production lines in addition to the Ariane 6 production lines. Which is to say ESA was too optimistic with Ariane 6 development schedule.

Cheaper to buy the odd F9 than setup for small run of Ariane 5s.

The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.Being cheap or commercially competitive is a secondary goal. That's why buying rides on SpaceX's rockets is a decision of last resort. Many Americans fail to understand this.

How much extra is ESA willing to pay for 100%  independent access.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/13/2022 04:08 pm
The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.

For some meanings of "independent access to space."  And why should it be confined to ESA?  Shouldn't it also be to guarantee European industry has independent access to space?

When Ariane 6 finally comes on line, it should be judged on whether or not it can orbit a LEO megaconstellation of the size of Starlink's Gen2.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edzieba on 10/13/2022 04:23 pm
The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.

For some meanings of "independent access to space."  And why should it be confined to ESA?  Shouldn't it also be to guarantee European industry has independent access to space?

When Ariane 6 finally comes on line, it should be judged on whether or not it can orbit a LEO megaconstellation of the size of Starlink's Gen2.
Ariane 6 has already been contract to launch part of an LEO megaconstellation.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/13/2022 04:36 pm
The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.

For some meanings of "independent access to space."  And why should it be confined to ESA?  Shouldn't it also be to guarantee European industry has independent access to space?

When Ariane 6 finally comes on line, it should be judged on whether or not it can orbit a LEO megaconstellation of the size of Starlink's Gen2.
ESA isn't going be building Starlink type constellation. Their constellations typically consist of few satellites.
European industry is under no obligation to use A6 or Vega for privately funded projects.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/13/2022 09:44 pm
No European satellite is obligated to launch on a European launch vehicle. I think this fact is not understood my many people. ArianeGroup, Avio and hopefully some micro-launcher startup have to compete with other launch service providers. (Ariane 6 and Vega C were not designed by ESA, but by these companies.)
But because of the huge investments required to develop Ariane 6, governmental funding was required. The funding came from different ESA memberstate nations and as a result production is spread out over Europe. The disadvantage from this is that this adds cost and production scale benefits come later.
So the deck is stacked against Ariane 6.

In my opinion; For this ESA ministerial. Where project are funded for the 2023-2025 period. The focus for the launcher program should be getting Ariane 6 operational with Astris and Icarus. Possibly add P120C+/P160 to the list of improvements. Avio should continue developing Vega E and Spacerider. And European micro-launchers should get operational (Boost!). Besides this; (FLPP; Future Launcher Preparatory Program)
- engine development should continue. M10, M60, Prometheus M/H, etz.
- Eliminating toxic propellant's is important. ...
- Gaining experience/ mature stage recovery technologies (on suborbital rockets?)
- Develop/ mature a lot of technology.
I think this already doesn't fit into the budget made available by ESA member-states.
So indeed Boost!/ micro-launcher development is eating funding for Arianegroup and Avio. But I think, on the long run, the large companies will be able to buy the technologies developed by the startups (students) for much less than it would have cost them to develop it themselves.
Arianegroup has to focus on getting Ariane 6 operational. Launchers aren't important for European society. The applications, enabled by satellites in orbit, are what is important. In my opinion funding for launcher development and launch service cost should decrease. So more funding is available for space applications.
So a smaller piece of the institutional space budget should go to launchers, so more is available for what really maters satellites providing data/services.

I agree Europe shouldn't pursue a LEO comsat constellation the size of Oneweb let alone Starlink. Let's prevent Kessler syndrome.   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Asteroza on 10/14/2022 01:08 am
The current commercial basis seems more a result of the US ITAR regulations and geopolitical considerations. If you want to avoid ITAR, russia is sanctioned by your country, and china is unpalatable, and you are not somehow beholden to a domestic launcher, that only leaves a EU-UK based option (and thus A6 and Vega-C). So aside from the EU, that crudely defines the market as basically South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.

Frontloading that, the likely richest potential customers (who can afford big sats needing A6) then are EU countries, persian gulf states, Singapore, and Taiwan. India is off doing their own thing, and Australia tolerates ITAR.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 10/14/2022 11:44 am
How much extra is ESA willing to pay for 100%  independent access.

Billions of Euros, over time.

Both Ariane 5 and Ariane 6 development has been quite a bit more expensive than originally anticipated. And even despite being succesfull at attracting commercial business Ariane 5 still had to be subsidized by ESA to the tune of Euro 100M, each year, for its entire career. That adds up to another couple of billion Euros. The same will happen with Ariane 6, despite "intentions" to NOT have the Ariane 5 situation repeat with Ariane 6.
So, when Ariane 6 starts losing money ESA will pay for the difference anyway. They can't afford to NOT have Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Timber Micka on 10/18/2022 02:35 pm
The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.

For some meanings of "independent access to space."  And why should it be confined to ESA?  Shouldn't it also be to guarantee European industry has independent access to space?

When Ariane 6 finally comes on line, it should be judged on whether or not it can orbit a LEO megaconstellation of the size of Starlink's Gen2.

Because ESA runs the whole program. ESA is Ariane's main customer, it is them who set its specifications. The Ariane 6 specs are mostly inherited from Ariane 5, which were defined according to ESA's Hermès and Colombus programs back in the 80s. Most European national space agencies are subsidiaries of ESA, including CNES, which is the main designer of Ariane 6.

As other posters have said before, A6 launches half of Bezos' Kuiper megaconstellation.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Timber Micka on 10/18/2022 02:50 pm
(Ariane 6 and Vega C were not designed by ESA, but by these companies.)

Not true. ESA is leading the design of Ariane. You even say so in the next paragraph.

Quote
In my opinion; For this ESA ministerial. Where project are funded for the 2023-2025 period. The focus for the launcher program should be getting Ariane 6 operational with Astris and Icarus. Possibly add P120C+/P160 to the list of improvements. Avio should continue developing Vega E and Spacerider. And European micro-launchers should get operational (Boost!). Besides this; (FLPP; Future Launcher Preparatory Program)
- engine development should continue. M10, M60, Prometheus M/H, etz.
- Eliminating toxic propellant's is important. ...
- Gaining experience/ mature stage recovery technologies (on suborbital rockets?)
- Develop/ mature a lot of technology.
I think this already doesn't fit into the budget made available by ESA member-states.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 10/18/2022 04:37 pm
(Ariane 6 and Vega C were not designed by ESA, but by these companies.)

Not true. ESA is leading the design of Ariane. You even say so in the next paragraph.


https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ariane_6_and_Vega_C_begin_development

Quote
Ariane 6 and Vega C begin development
12/08/2015
Today, ESA signed contracts for the development of the Ariane 6 new‑generation launcher, its launch base and the Vega C evolution of the current small launcher.
...
ESA is overseeing procurement and the architecture of the overall launch systems, while industry is developing the rockets, with ASL as prime contractor and design authority for Ariane 6, and ELV for Vega C. ...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DreamyPickle on 10/18/2022 07:11 pm
Regarding the ESA proposal for an 100% European starlink-like network: wasn't there a specific thread for that project? I can't find it.

I was previously very skeptical about that proposal, it seems like nothing more than manufacturing demand for European space industry.

Recent events showed that a LEO communication constellation is far more resilient to jamming that the alternatives so it has high military value. There is now sufficient reason to invest in duplicating Starlink functionality.

It's difficult to imagine scenarios in which the US would outright refuse to provide communication services to EU members but it is possible. After some political changes the US *could* decide it simply doesn't want to fight a land war in Europe; the EU might not have that choice.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/18/2022 09:32 pm
There are a lot of misconceptions here on NSF. In my opinion Ariane IV was the good versatile launcher for European space activities. It became commercially successful with duo GTO comsat launches. Because the USA/NASA went all in on the reusable space shuttle. The superior USA launchers were phased out for STS.
Ariane 5 was developed for Hermes. Because of this it was to heavy for many institutional payloads. The Ariane 5 had two different upper-stages. The versatile Ariane 5 used the  restartable, hypercolic EPS upperstage. The GTO and L2 missions used the single fire ESC-A upperstage. The development of the Vince engine took very long time because of low funding. Development the Ariane ECB/ME would have cost at least €1,5 billion. It would have delivered a ver heavy and expansive launcher. For nearly all institutional launches it would have been overkill.
New first stage engine development was not funded in 2012. In 2014 the current Ariane 6 was conceptualised. The development of Ariane 6 has taken two years longer than initially planned.

I think; if you look at the launchers used to orbit European institutional satellites. >20% used a no European launch. With Vega(-C) and the two Ariane6 versions. A higher percentage op institutional payloads will utilize a European launcher.
But foreign launch services most likely remain to be used by some institutional satellites.
So EUCLID launched by SpX Falcon 9 isn' that odd.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: su27k on 10/19/2022 02:14 am
Regarding the ESA proposal for an 100% European starlink-like network: wasn't there a specific thread for that project? I can't find it.

I assume you meant this thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52600.0), it was locked by mods, probably due to (ironically) fighting between European posters over this constellation...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 10/19/2022 03:21 pm
Quelle surprise (not)

https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1582750512784769031

Quote
#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.

(Credit: @brickmack)

That means first operational Arianespace Ariane 6 launch NET Q2/2024!
( x Galileo, CSO-3, Optus-11, Viasat ...   ? :-\  )
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/19/2022 03:26 pm
Hmm, latter half of the decade when block I probably won’t fly until 2024? I suspect end of the decade is more likely for block II.

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1582754153402892288

Quote
"Ariane 6 Block II" is the name Arianespace is giving to the upgraded Ariane 6 rocket they're envisioning for the later half of the decade.

20% increase in performance to LEO with new upper stage and solid rocket motors.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 10/19/2022 04:08 pm
Quelle surprise (not)

[...]

Quote
#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.

(Credit: @brickmack)
I am the only one surprised? I thought they where doing NET Q2. How they got to Q4 2022 for a project supposed to launch on 2020?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: baldusi on 10/19/2022 04:10 pm
Quelle surprise (not)

https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1582750512784769031

Quote
#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.

(Credit: @brickmack)

That means first operational Arianespace Ariane 6 launch NET Q2/2024!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 10/19/2022 04:29 pm
Quelle surprise (not)

[...]

Quote
#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.

(Credit: @brickmack)
I am the only one surprised? I thought they where doing NET Q2. How they got to Q4 2022 for a project supposed to launch on 2020?

I had read this rumor a while ago, so I wasn't surprised.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/19/2022 05:55 pm
Quelle surprise (not)

https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1582750512784769031

Quote
#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.

(Credit: @brickmack)

That means first operational Arianespace Ariane 6 launch NET Q2/2024!
( x Galileo, CSO-3, Optus-11, Viasat ...   ? :-\  )
Think the phone at Hawthorne is getting a lot of calls to secured future launch slots.  ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DreamyPickle on 10/19/2022 07:43 pm
This places the Ariane 6 debut many months after the last Ariane 5 flight, and the interval might grow to an year or more.

Can we start talking of a gap in EU mid-heavy launch capability? ESA's only offer right now is the Vega-C, or wait for *years* until a slot opens up.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/19/2022 10:52 pm
Sorry but ArianeGroup, CNES and Avio really have to explain how what caused their pis por performance.
If ESA/European memberstate ministers are wise (they are not) they demand this explanation. Without proper explanation no additional funding should go to project from these companies. So
NO THEMIS. Contract the France startup's Opus Aerospace and Sirius Space Services, to use the first stage of their microlaunchers to develop a reusable first stage demonstrator. [1]
NO P120C+/P160,
NO SUSIE, fund [1] and finally the launch of the EXPERT demonstrator on a microlauncher.
NO AVIO demonstrator micro launcher and M60 engine development.

Let's give the launcher startups 10% of the funding requested for this and Europe will get independent acces to space. Arianegroup and AVIO really need to explain why:
- Vega C launched four years late (2018 => 2022. (Vega VV15 & VV17)
- Ariane 6 launched >3 years late (2020 => NET Q4 2023
I really don't get how European launch industry screwed up the Ariane 6 development this much.

Let's look back at a ArianeGroup press release from May 2019.
Quote
Ariane 6 series production begins with first batch of 14 launchers (https://www.ariane.group/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Ariane-6-series-production-1.pdf)
Following the initial institutional and commercial launch orders for Ariane 6 obtained by
Arianespace since the autumn of 2017, and the resolution of the ESA Council on April 17, 2019,
related to the rocket’s exploitation framework, ArianeGroup is starting to build the first seriesproduction batch of 14 Ariane 6 launchers.
These 14 launchers, scheduled to fly between 2021 and 2023, will be built in ArianeGroup plants
in France and Germany, as well as in those of its European industrial partners in the 13 countries
taking part in the Ariane 6 program.
In parallel, ArianeGroup is proceeding with manufacturing of the model to be used for ground
qualification tests on the launch pad in French Guiana, as well as the Ariane 62’s first flight
vehicle, for which the inaugural launch is planned for 2020.

So all factories purposly build for Ariane 6 have been laying dormant for three years, while they anticipated building 14 launchers for Arianespace. How much will this have cost the different Ariane 6 subcontractors?
Spacenews (https://spacenews.com/ariane-6-first-launch-slips-to-late-2023/) has the answer:
Quote
At the November ESA ministerial meeting, Neuenschwander said ESA would seek 600 million euros for a “transition program” for the Ariane 6 to support an increase in production of the rocket as it enters commercial service. ESA member states, he said, have already committed two-thirds of the funding for that program.
The ones responsible for the Ariane 6 development delays should be covering these costs. NOT the European tax payers!
The companies could also have improved launcher technologies with the funding waisted by the Ariane 6 development delay.

Quote
15/10/2020: All engines for Ariane 6 complete qualification tests. (https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ariane/All_engines_for_Ariane_6_complete_qualification_tests#:~:text=All%20three%20engines%20developed%20to,Vinci%20for%20the%20upper%20stage.)
All three engines developed to power Europe’s future Ariane 6 rocket have completed extensive tests – the P120C solid rocket motor for the boosters, the Vulcain 2.1 engine for the core stage and the Vinci for the upper stage.

- P120C Okt. 2020
- Vulcain 2.1 July 2019
- Vince October 2018

... what went wrong?
How to prevent this from happening again?
This needs to be answered before more funding can go to ArianeGroup and ELV/Avio in my opinion.
Pis por performance should be punished, not promoted.

The engineering talent are better utilized at other companies than ArianeGroup. So let them move to startups so they can advance technology. Instead of cause delays. They need to explain why this isn't true.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/19/2022 11:03 pm
This places the Ariane 6 debut many months after the last Ariane 5 flight, and the interval might grow to an year or more.

Can we start talking of a gap in EU mid-heavy launch capability? ESA's only offer right now is the Vega-C, or wait for *years* until a slot opens up.
Yes, I think Europe lost acces to space because of the screw ups with Ariane 6 development.

Why wasn't there a backup plan for the EMU and thruster systems?
What was the cause of the MANG, and QD arms development problems?

Of the 14 launches planned for Ariane 6 between 2020 and 2023 about half of these needed to go to alternative launchers. Some of these went to SpaceX, others can't launch. 
Thanks SpaceX for disrupting the launch market. The overlooked downside of this, is that: (Atlas V,) Delta IV, Ariane 5 ECA, HII are no longer available.
With Soyuz also no longer available, and engine supply for Vega AVUM in jeopardy, acces to space has degraded a lot.

I think the EU needs to launch several >3x 2 Gallileo satellites on P/GLSV. Or accept the Gallileo GNSS to have degraded service. Thank you ArianeGroup! You really harmed the European space program.
With this sentiment, proposing SUSIE is really really rude.

I think it would be wise to develop a HTP-kerosine upper-stage. This could be used instead of AVUM on Vega C(+) or serve as ASTRIS on Ariane 6. I've Dawn aerospace with Nammo in mind for this.
I think there isn't a scenario where this will turn out to be a waist of funding. This is the basis to work from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8xmMVExpqI

While Arianegroup delayed Ariane 6. Some students in the Netherlands did this.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VEOCAJw1cIY
Are these students this good or is Space industry practice that bad?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: friendly3 on 10/20/2022 12:39 am
Sorry but ArianeGroup, CNES and Avio really have to explain how what caused their pis por performance.
If ESA/European memberstate ministers are wise (they are not) they demand this explanation. Without proper explanation no additional funding should go to project from these companies. So
NO THEMIS. Contract the France startup's Opus Aerospace and Sirius Space Services, to use the first stage of their microlaunchers to develop a reusable first stage demonstrator.
NO P120C+/P160,
NO SUSIE, fund [1] and finally the launch of the EXPERT demonstrator on a microlauncher.
NO AVIO demonstrator micro launcher and M60 engine development.

Emphasis mine.
Why not the German companies Rocket Factory Augsburg, Isar Aerospace or HyImpulse? They're far more advanced than these french startups and their launchers are much more capable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hog on 10/20/2022 01:32 am
Hmm, latter half of the decade when block I probably won’t fly until 2024? I suspect end of the decade is more likely for block II.



Quote
"Ariane 6 Block II" is the name Arianespace is giving to the upgraded Ariane 6 rocket they're envisioning for the later half of the decade.

20% increase in performance to LEO with new upper stage and solid rocket motors.

Space is hard.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWH on 10/20/2022 03:20 am
Hmm, latter half of the decade when block I probably won’t fly until 2024? I suspect end of the decade is more likely for block II.



Quote
"Ariane 6 Block II" is the name Arianespace is giving to the upgraded Ariane 6 rocket they're envisioning for the later half of the decade.

20% increase in performance to LEO with new upper stage and solid rocket motors.

Space is hard.

...and it's extra hard when you build massive hydrogen sustainer cores with giant solid rocket motors/booster on the side.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 10/20/2022 08:06 am
Is there anyone on here that is seriously expecting Ariane 6 to actually fly in any part of 2023, because I am sure not.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DreamyPickle on 10/20/2022 11:52 am
Sorry but ArianeGroup, CNES and Avio really have to explain how what caused their pis por performance.
If ESA/European memberstate ministers are wise (they are not) they demand this explanation. Without proper explanation no additional funding should go to project from these companies.

This sounds a lot like "the beating will continue until morale improves".

People like to pretend this isn't so but Ariane 6 isn't just *late*, it's *obsolete*. The entire architecture is focused on building a "better Ariane 5" but since then reusability has been thoroughly proven and Ariane 6 first stage has no serious path to reuse. The hydrolox core + solid booster design can't be made reusable, you need to restart from scratch using different fuel and engines.

If the EU wants independent access to space at a reasonable price then continued investments in THEMIS and SUSIE are essential. Otherwise around 2025 the market will have multiple reusable providers that undercut each other to launch constellations and all of which will be priced much lower than Ariane 6 costs.

There is also the temptation to dismiss LEO constellation as a mere fad - this is would be worse than ignoring reusability. Together the factors of reusable launchers and high demand from LEO constellations will absolutely crush expendable rockets.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 10/20/2022 01:10 pm
Is there anyone on here that is seriously expecting Ariane 6 to actually fly in any part of 2023, because I am sure not.

Based on this announcement, I’d expect the first launch in Q2 2024 and the second launch sometime in 2025…


It’s honestly amazing how terribly this program is going. I mean, Starship is going to handily beat it to orbit, which is probably something I would not have believed a few years ago.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 10/20/2022 01:12 pm
Quelle surprise (not)

https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1582750512784769031

Quote
#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.

(Credit: @brickmack)

That means first operational Arianespace Ariane 6 launch NET Q2/2024!
( x Galileo, CSO-3, Optus-11, Viasat ...   ? :-\  )
Think the phone at Hawthorne is getting a lot of calls to secured future launch slots.  ;)

Probably related news:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1583048671733878784?s=21
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Tywin on 10/20/2022 02:20 pm
Questions, why not give the money from Ariane7 to RFA or Isar Aerospace?

Why not give Susie's money to SpaceRider-ThalesAlenia to improve a crew spacecraft?

Why not stop funding ArianeGroup?

If Europe's solution is Maia Space, it will be a disaster... Maia is ArianeGroup...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: abaddon on 10/20/2022 04:17 pm
As a US citizen I try not to comment here very often as I am often uneducated about nuances of European matters.  (But I read the thread because I want to be educated about same, particularly in space matters!).

That said, while I understand some consternation, a ~three year slip from the target date at inception back in 2015 seems within the range of normalcy for the industry, especially when factoring in the unprecedented world-wide pandemic we all have just been going through and coming out of.  I think that pandemic hit projects like Ariane 6 even harder than e.g. new rockets from ULA or SpaceX or Blue Origin (let alone NASA's SLS), because of the built-in nature of sourcing components across a wide array of companies distributed across many countries.  Even being part of the same economic zone, that's going to be harder to do in a pandemic.  And those rockets from ULA and SpaceX and Blue Origin are also delayed from their original target dates by varying amounts.  It's really hard to make new rockets, especially big ones, and it seems like dates are always optimistic (no, it's not just "Elon Time", it's "Rocket Time").

So... disappointing, sure.  But it feels like it's not outside the bounds of expected results.  And due to the more conservative nature of the design, it feels like A6 will be able to get off the ground and ramp up its flight cadence more quickly than some of the other competitors.  (I'd bet Vulcan and A6 are pretty quick for this reason, Starship will take longer, and New Glenn will take even longer).  It should be a fine rocket supporting European access to space and already has a commercial backlog long enough to sustain it for a reasonable period of time.  Long enough to hopefully give Europe a chance to design an A7 that will be more competitive in a partially/fully reusable future.  Which all seems... ok?

Just my two cents and change.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/20/2022 10:18 pm
Sorry but ArianeGroup, CNES and Avio really have to explain how what caused their pis por performance.
If ESA/European memberstate ministers are wise (they are not) they demand this explanation. Without proper explanation no additional funding should go to project from these companies. So
NO THEMIS. Contract the France startup's Opus Aerospace and Sirius Space Services, to use the first stage of their microlaunchers to develop a reusable first stage demonstrator.
...

Emphasis mine.
Why not the German companies Rocket Factory Augsburg, Isar Aerospace or HyImpulse? They're far more advanced than these french startups and their launchers are much more capable.

AFAIK Themis was and is mainly funded by France, thus work would be done in France. If a German startup is selected Germany needs to fund a larger portion of Themis.
I've also a technical reason to prefer these French startups. They utilize pressure feed engines, these are much less difficult to develop. This is shown by the fact that a group of DARE students can develop a engine in two years time.

The smaller, simpler launchers are less expansive, thus for the same funding more testing can be done. But I've no problem with any microlauncher company getting the contract. I think for 10% of the funding required for Themis, two startups can do the tests, in much less time.
Also don't forget launchers from the UK. Both Orbex Prime first stage and the Skyrora XL first stage are candidates.

In my opinion, ESA/Europe needs the capability to land a first stage, put a payload on the moon and on mars. Thus propulsive landing technology. Europe needs to set up project like the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge (NG-LLC). But in my opinion with the minimal requirement to launch a 100kg payload above 100km. (
There are two test locations the Diamond pad at CSG and LZ-3 at SSC Esrange.

Has anyone any info on the Callisto reusable rocket demonstrator. Wasn't that supposed to launch in 2020?
What happned with this project from CNES, DLR & JAXA?

I don't see any technological progress being made by funding Themis and/or SUSIE. This will only involve desk studies by the legacy industrial giants. Themis requires Prometheus, that won't be ready by 2025. Susie requires the results from Themis. For this ministerial that funds projects for 2023 to 2025 Themis and Susie should be rejected. The technology that could be developed by Themis can be developed by the reusable stage competition.
Susie also benefits from this competition. And the Expert reentry demonstrator needs to be flown. It's a micro launcher payload.
Possibly the results from Expert and the reusable stage can be used for scaled down Susie launched on a micro launcher or Vega E (by around 2028). But that's for the next ESA ministerial.
This is what can be done to mature reusable technology in Europe. Besides getting Space Rider operational.
But very likely several hundred mln euro will be waisted on Themis and Susie. instead of actually progressing technology.

The Astris Kick-stage, P120C+/P160 and the Icarus upper stage will allow the block 2 version of Ariane 62 to launch more payloads. Thus less boosters used per launch allowing higher launch rate. The most expansive/ limiting system to increase production are the P120C solid rocket motors. I think with higher production efficiency the Ariane 6 LLPM and ULPM can be produced at higher rates after some years.
I think these three projects could be funded during the ESA ministerial. With conditions that Ariane 6 get's operational by Q4 2023. I don't expect and do not accept further delays. Lawsuits should start when that happens, for abuse of taxpayer money.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/22/2022 05:56 am
Has anyone any info on the Callisto reusable rocket demonstrator. Wasn't that supposed to launch in 2020?
What happned with this project from CNES, DLR & JAXA?

Callisto has been delayed to 2024. See the Callisto thread below for more information.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41330.msg2405556#msg2405556
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/23/2022 08:01 am
Ariane boss insists Europe’s new rocket can compete with Musk’s SpaceX (https://www.politico.eu/article/ariane-boss-insists-europee-new-rocket-can-compete-with-elon-musks-spacex/)

Quote from: politico.eu
The new Ariane 6 rocket system will be competitive with Elon Musk’s SpaceX despite it lagging behind on reusable technology, said André-Hubert Roussel, CEO of Ariane Group, which runs the aerospace project.

The long-delayed Ariane 6 system should finally launch in the fourth quarter of 2023, and Roussel said that while it won't include such cost-slashing technology as SpaceX it could eventually be possible to carry out a launch every two weeks, though only up to 12 in a full calendar year.

“Ariane 6 is the guarantee of autonomous access to space for Europe,” Roussel told POLITICO, while confirming tentative plans to carry out a maiden launch of the next-generation rocket by the close of next year, though the first full-scale commercial launch will only happen in 2024.
"guarantee of autonomous access to space for Europe"
True.
Guarantee sustainable access to space to space? Guarantee competitively priced access to space to space (so people other than European governments want to buy launches)?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/24/2022 02:52 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1584546744506916864

Quote
Fab overview of the Ariane 6 delay by @ESpaceflight:

https://www.getrevue.co/profile/andrewparsonson/issues/who-should-take-responsibility-for-ariane-6-delay-1412780

"As a father who is trying to teach my daughter to accept responsibility ... I am so very disappointed with how little of that attribute was shown by the adults in the room during the Ariane 6 update"
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rondaz on 12/11/2022 01:14 pm
Last Thursday at dawn: the @Ariane6 #Combined #Test model is proudly standing into the #ZL4 #Mobile #Gantry.

https://twitter.com/thivallee/status/1601931479528898565
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rondaz on 12/12/2022 02:36 pm
Last week, the #ELA4 gantry opened its doors to us again to reveal a most spatial spectacle: #Ariane6 complete and erected under the mobile gantry since mid-October. One of the highlights of this year 2022 at Europe's spaceport!

https://twitter.com/EuropeSpacePort/status/1602263993929826304
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 12/22/2022 08:04 pm
From the Updates thread, this photo of the new ship that will transport Ariane 6 parts to Kourou:

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31484.0;attach=2152409;image)

Quite astonishing they're switching to an open-deck design. MV Toucan had a closed Ro-Ro deck.
Or are those panels aft of the bridge covers for the Ro-ro deck ?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 12/22/2022 08:19 pm
All renders depicting the finished ship I have ever seen retain the open deck layout.
So does this real life model presented by Arianegroup.
Assuming that's the final design.

(https://i.imgur.com/F8M6epT.png)

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/23/2022 09:28 am
From the Updates thread, this photo of the new ship that will transport Ariane 6 parts to Kourou:

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31484.0;attach=2152409;image)

Quite astonishing they're switching to an open-deck design. MV Toucan had a closed Ro-Ro deck.
Or are those panels aft of the bridge covers for the Ro-ro deck ?

I think these covers are for a tween deck. Cargo can be placed on top of it. But these covers could also serve as deck covers for the lower deck. This is a more versatile design than a standard single deck Ro-Ro ship.
I think the same ship design can be used for short sea container shipping.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 01/06/2023 02:22 pm
From the Updates thread, this photo of the new ship that will transport Ariane 6 parts to Kourou:

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31484.0;attach=2152409;image)

Quite astonishing they're switching to an open-deck design. MV Toucan had a closed Ro-Ro deck.
Or are those panels aft of the bridge covers for the Ro-ro deck ?

Looks expensive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mamut on 01/06/2023 06:31 pm
This thing will be potentialy used for transporting Ariane 6 components across Europe before shiping to South America.
https://twitter.com/_FLYING_WHALES_/status/1610998374022500352
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: darkenfast on 01/06/2023 07:08 pm
From the Updates thread, this photo of the new ship that will transport Ariane 6 parts to Kourou:

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31484.0;attach=2152409;image)

Quite astonishing they're switching to an open-deck design. MV Toucan had a closed Ro-Ro deck.
Or are those panels aft of the bridge covers for the Ro-ro deck ?

Looks expensive.

Any new ship is expensive. But this new ship should be more economical to operate. Minimal crew, sail-assisted, and versatile.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: su27k on 01/07/2023 02:51 am
Two uncomfortable truths: Europe’s launch sector is in crisis, and no one knows how to end it (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/two-uncomfortable-truths-europes-launch-sector-is-in-crisis-and-no-one-knows-how-to-end-it/)

Quote from: spaceintelreport.com
The French aerospace industries association, GIFAS, said Europe’s launch sector was in an “unprecedented crisis situation” with the delayed availability of Ariane 6 and the recent failure of the medium-lift Vega-C rocket.

But the organization, whose members include all major French launcher contractors, had no answer to the question: Now what?

Instead, during a Jan. 5 press briefing here, GIFAS officials painted a picture of an industry in passive mode, waiting until the governments of France, Germany and Italy . . .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/07/2023 12:45 pm
I'm not sure this is a crisis (though I have not read the article - it's behind a paywall).  A crisis would be having payloads sitting on the ground that cannot get a ride.  However SpaceX would be happy to sell you a ride now, Japan and India have launchers, Vulcan will be on-line soon, and Blue Origin, RocketLab, and StarShip are coming.  So there will be no shortage of vendors bidding on launches.  And at least two of them (SpaceX and Vulcan) can offer military grade security, and the ability to launch any mission the Ariane 6 could handle.

So just as the pandemic taught us that many can work from home, perhaps this "crisis" will teach Europe that you don't really need independent access to space.

The same has happened in chip manufacturing.  For a long while each country had to have their own fab.  Now state of the art manufacturing is concentrated in countries such as Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore.  These are far more precarious partners than the USA or Japan.  Of course this is a worry but it's one that's accepted, as a national facility would be very expensive and struggle to be competitive.  Perhaps this situation will be mirrored in space launch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: volker2020 on 01/07/2023 01:45 pm
Two uncomfortable truths: Europe’s launch sector is in crisis, and no one knows how to end it (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/two-uncomfortable-truths-europes-launch-sector-is-in-crisis-and-no-one-knows-how-to-end-it/)
...
I am not sure, if waiting is not the best option at this point. If Starship works and only archive 50% of the performance, any rocket currently in service is completely obsolete. If you have a rocket that can start multiple times the week, each time carrying 10 times the maximum load of the direct competition and does that cheaper than the smallest other available orbital rocket, there is simply no business case any more, apart from a few military payloads.
So waiting to see, what is happening with Starship seems to be the best move.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: AmigaClone on 01/07/2023 02:03 pm
Two uncomfortable truths: Europe’s launch sector is in crisis, and no one knows how to end it (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/two-uncomfortable-truths-europes-launch-sector-is-in-crisis-and-no-one-knows-how-to-end-it/)
...
I am not sure, if waiting is not the best option at this point. If Starship works and only archive 50% of the performance, any rocket currently in service is completely obsolete. If you have a rocket that can start multiple times the week, each time carrying 10 times the maximum load of the direct competition and does that cheaper than the smallest other available orbital rocket, there is simply no business case any more, apart from a few military payloads.
So waiting to see, what is happening with Starship seems to be the best move.

Instead of waiting, I would suggest that any serious competitor to SpaceX start making plans for a rocket that can meet or exceed the expectations of Starship performance. Waiting might mean that you would never be able to catch up.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/07/2023 02:09 pm
It's fun to watch JAXA and MHI develop the H-3.
They've had problems too, but they've keep their heads down and want that rocket, now!
I don't see any doubts there, for example that it is not modern or not necessary.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 01/07/2023 03:01 pm
I'm not sure this is a crisis (though I have not read the article - it's behind a paywall).  A crisis would be having payloads sitting on the ground that cannot get a ride.  However SpaceX would be happy to sell you a ride now, Japan and India have launchers, Vulcan will be on-line soon, and Blue Origin, RocketLab, and StarShip are coming.  So there will be no shortage of vendors bidding on launches.  And at least two of them (SpaceX and Vulcan) can offer military grade security, and the ability to launch any mission the Ariane 6 could handle.

So just as the pandemic taught us that many can work from home, perhaps this "crisis" will teach Europe that you don't really need independent access to space.

The same has happened in chip manufacturing.  For a long while each country had to have their own fab.  Now state of the art manufacturing is concentrated in countries such as Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore.  These are far more precarious partners than the USA or Japan.  Of course this is a worry but it's one that's accepted, as a national facility would be very expensive and struggle to be competitive.  Perhaps this situation will be mirrored in space launch.

China's attitude towards Taiwan and Russia's invasion of Ukraine were wakeup calls for the perils of relying on precarious partners. They have put domestic chip manufacturing back on the agenda for USA and EU.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/07/2023 03:20 pm

The same has happened in chip manufacturing.  For a long while each country had to have their own fab.  Now state of the art manufacturing is concentrated in countries such as Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore.  These are far more precarious partners than the USA or Japan.  Of course this is a worry but it's one that's accepted, as a national facility would be very expensive and struggle to be competitive.  Perhaps this situation will be mirrored in space launch.
Europe and USA are investing heavily in new local IC plus other electronic component manufacturing facilities.  They've discovered being dependant on overseas manufacturers has show how vulnerable their supply chain is.

Having domestic LV is critical for deploying satellites on demand in times of crisis.
Don't rely on allies as they have their own agendas which may not be in your best interests.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 01/07/2023 04:20 pm

The same has happened in chip manufacturing.  For a long while each country had to have their own fab.  Now state of the art manufacturing is concentrated in countries such as Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore.  These are far more precarious partners than the USA or Japan.  Of course this is a worry but it's one that's accepted, as a national facility would be very expensive and struggle to be competitive.  Perhaps this situation will be mirrored in space launch.
Europe and USA are investing heavily in new local IC plus other electronic component manufacturing facilities.  They've discovered being dependant on overseas manufacturers has show how vulnerable their supply chain is.

Having domestic LV is critical for deploying satellites on demand in times of crisis.
Don't rely on allies as they have their own agendas which may not be in your best interests.
Didn’t the pandemic point out the vulnerability of supply chains before even these latest crises appeared.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/07/2023 04:55 pm

So just as the pandemic taught us that many can work from home, perhaps this "crisis" will teach Europe that you don't really need independent access to space.

The same has happened in chip manufacturing.  For a long while each country had to have their own fab.  Now state of the art manufacturing is concentrated in countries such as Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore.  These are far more precarious partners than the USA or Japan.  Of course this is a worry but it's one that's accepted, as a national facility would be very expensive and struggle to be competitive.  Perhaps this situation will be mirrored in space launch.

It's not because it was accepted that it's not purely suicidal, and that everybody is struggling to backtrack now. Independent access to space is one highly strategic domain (as proven once more by the ongoing war) that we still have and we should protect and a necessity for any self-respecting power . Anybody suggesting otherwise has no place in decision-making.


Instead of waiting, I would suggest that any serious competitor to SpaceX start making plans for a rocket that can meet or exceed the expectations of Starship performance. Waiting might mean that you would never be able to catch up.

Europe (CNES, DLR, AG... in cooperation with JAXA) is, slowly, and in a sadly very centralised and institutionalised manner, pursuing methalox first stage reuse.

Starship (S2) is basically the fabled Rapidly Reusable VTOL SSTO with positive payload everybody has been dreaming off for 80 years, nobody even knows if it's physically possible. It's better to wait and see before seriously going into it. Even CALT is extremely cautious with its CZ-9 design
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/07/2023 05:22 pm
The same has happened in chip manufacturing.  For a long while each country had to have their own fab.  Now state of the art manufacturing is concentrated in countries such as Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore.  These are far more precarious partners than the USA or Japan.  Of course this is a worry but it's one that's accepted, as a national facility would be very expensive and struggle to be competitive.  Perhaps this situation will be mirrored in space launch.
Europe and USA are investing heavily in new local IC plus other electronic component manufacturing facilities.  They've discovered being dependant on overseas manufacturers has show how vulnerable their supply chain is.
This has been tried several times, and it has never worked as of yet.  Yes, you can spend a few tens of billions and put these facilities in place.  But then in a few years they are obsolete, and the government's attention span is not enough to keep pouring money into them in tranquil times (as opposed to commercial vendors, who always have a huge incentive to keep current).  So in a few years you are right back where you started, except poorer.
Quote
Having domestic LV is critical for deploying satellites on demand in times of crisis.
Don't rely on allies as they have their own agendas which may not be in your best interests.
In the only case where this has approached "crisis" (OneWeb) it was not merely a foreign ally's rocket, but a competitor's that came to the rescue.  At some point it's better to strengthen your agreements rather than build your own facility at great expense.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/07/2023 05:51 pm
Independent access to space is one highly strategic domain (as proven once more by the ongoing war) that we still have and we should protect and a necessity for any self-respecting power . Anybody suggesting otherwise has no place in decision-making.
I fully agree countries need access to space, but independent access?  As long as you can get the payload you want to the orbit you want on the schedule you want, who cares whether it's the rocket of your own country or an ally?  Can you name a payload for Europe that the USA would refuse to launch?  And in terms of launch on demand, dealing with commercial companies will likely give you a shorter lead time at less expense, when compared to a national facility.

Furthermore, buying on the commercial market likely provides more assured access.  After all, if the Ariane 6 is grounded, or blows up on the launch pad, access may not be possible for a year or more.  But on the commercial side, it is much less likely that Falcon or Vulcan are grounded simultaneously.   And as high-volume vendors, they would likely agree (if paid to do so) to build a booster and hold it in reserve for quick access.  Ariane has never considered this, to my knowledge, which also shows that assured access on a quick schedule is not considered super important.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/07/2023 07:03 pm
Independent access to space is one highly strategic domain (as proven once more by the ongoing war) that we still have and we should protect and a necessity for any self-respecting power . Anybody suggesting otherwise has no place in decision-making.
I fully agree countries need access to space, but independent access?  As long as you can get the payload you want to the orbit you want on the schedule you want, who cares whether it's the rocket of your own country or an ally?  Can you name a payload for Europe that the USA would refuse to launch?  And in terms of launch on demand, dealing with commercial companies will likely give you a shorter lead time at less expense, when compared to a national facility.


Symphonie, 1974, an entire generation of european aerospace engineers, managers and decision makers swore to never depend on foreign launch capabilities because of it.
I'm sorry to tell you that, but if you believe that europe does not need independent access to space, then you stand against 50 years of successful european spaceflight.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/07/2023 10:27 pm
There wasn't another option than Ariane 6, the current PPH PHH design was (and is) the best option available.
>80% of investments for Ariane 6 were made before 2020. So the funding has already been spent.
Getting the launcher and launch site operational took at least three years longer than planned.
These three years the production facilities for Ariane 6 (sometimes modified Ariane 5 facilities) have been nearly dormant.
So already for more than two years the European launch industrie has been in crisis.

In my opinion European launch industry very poorly executed the Ariane 6 and ELA4 development.
I've not read a propper explanation for this FAILURE of the European launch industrie.
Thanks to the screw up on Ariane 6 and ELA4 development, the Vega C VV22 failure & Soyuz from CSG termination
Europe lost it's independent acces to space for at least the year 2023.
It's likely by 2024 Europe will regain launch capability.
The 600mln for the Ariane 6 transition is to compensate industry for being dormant for nearly three years.
That's the sad fact, AFAIK. I demand a propper explanation for this FAILURE of the European launch industrie.
Thanks to the screw up on Ariane 6 and ELA4 development and the Vega C VV22 failure, and no Soyuz-ST
Europe lost it's independent acces to space for at least the year 2023.
It's likely by 2024 Europe will regain launch capability.

There isn't a law in Europe enforcing launching institutional payloads on European launchers. (there is in the USA)
The Arianespace launch offering has been kept honest on price by this.
But the deck is stacked against Ariane 6. If you compare how Ariane 6 production needed to be set up.
Cost per launch can never reach the low levels of a streamlined setup by a single commercial company.
But the service offered still can still be market competitive.
I think the ESA Boost! program is a example for how launchers need to be developed in the future.

The pipedream of SpaceX Starship has similarities of what they thought the Space Shuttles would bring the USA. Ariane 4 and 5 only became so market dominant because USA politics terminated the technically superior Atlas and Delta (II) in favor of the STS.
SpaceX with Falcon 9 have disrupted the launch market. Together with some other factors, falcon 9 have caused the phase out of all western launchers from the 20's. Ariane 5 =>Ariane 6; H2=>H3, ULA Delta IV & Atlas V => Vulcan. Besides there are other new entries to the market; Firefly, Rocketlabs and Reletivity.
In Europe the market also has transitioned. The commercial development of micro-launchers will significantly change how Ariane 6 improvements and the successor of Ariane 6 will be developed.
Besides there is the ideocracy in disruptive regulations to prevent 'climate change' in the EU.

The wind of change is blowing far to strong for the dust to settle. This makes predicting the future very difficult.     
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/07/2023 11:32 pm
There wasn't another option than Ariane 6, the current PPH design was (and is) the best option available.
>80% of investments for Ariane 6 were made before 2020. So the funding has already been spent.
Getting the launcher and launch site operational took at least three years longer than planned.
These three years the production facilities for Ariane 6 (sometimes modified Ariane 5 facilities) have been nearly dormant.
So already for more than two years the European launch industrie has been in crisis.

In my opinion European launch industry very poorly executed the Ariane 6 and ELA4 development.
I've not read a propper explanation for this FAILURE of the European launch industrie.
Thanks to the screw up on Ariane 6 and ELA4 development, the Vega C VV22 failure & Soyuz from CSG termination
Europe lost it's independent acces to space for at least the year 2023.
It's likely by 2024 Europe will regain launch capability.
The 600mln for the Ariane 6 transition is to compensate industry for being dormant for nearly three years.
That's the sad fact, AFAIK. I demand a propper explanation for this FAILURE of the European launch industrie.
Thanks to the screw up on Ariane 6 and ELA4 development and the Vega C VV22 failure, and no Soyuz-ST
Europe lost it's independent acces to space for at least the year 2023.
It's likely by 2024 Europe will regain launch capability.

There isn't a law in Europe enforcing launching institutional payloads on European launchers. (there is in the USA)
The Arianespace launch offering has been kept honest on price by this.
But the deck is stacked against Ariane 6. If you compare how Ariane 6 production needed to be set up.
Cost per launch can never reach the low levels of a streamlined setup by a single commercial company.
But the service offered still can still be market competitive.
I think the ESA Boost! program is a example for how launchers need to be developed in the future.

The pipedream of SpaceX Starship has similarities of what they thought the Space Shuttles would bring the USA. Ariane 4 and 5 only became so market dominant because USA politics terminated the technically superior Atlas and Delta (II) in favor of the STS.
SpaceX with Falcon 9 have disrupted the launch market. Together with some other factors, falcon 9 have caused the phase out of all western launchers from the 20's. Ariane 5 =>Ariane 6; H2=>H3, ULA Delta IV & Atlas V => Vulcan. Besides there are other new entries to the market; Firefly, Rocketlabs and Reletivity.
In Europe the market also has transitioned. The commercial development of micro-launchers will significantly change how Ariane 6 improvements and the successor of Ariane 6 will be developed.
Besides there is the ideocracy in disruptive regulations to prevent 'climate change' in the EU.

The wind of change is blowing far to strong for the dust to settle. This makes predicting the future very difficult.     
I'm sure it's just a typo, but the current design is "PHH", PPH was the rejected CNES-ESA favoured one.

I'm not sure if the current design is "the best", the Big P120s force a half-vertical, half-horizontal integration. The Vinci upper stage is also not optimised for constellation deployment (which will probably be the bread and butter of A6 in the 2nd half of this decade), requiring the Astris third stage, especially since the upper stage is a large source of delays right now. 
Well it's certainly better than PPH, but then we know that the industrial consolidation and reasons for PPH's rejection were probably not for the best....
The lack of consideration (Even if it had little chances of happening) for methane propulsion back in 2010-2014 despite certain french/italian progresses (ACE-42R/M10) back then was also a lack of foresight. But can't rewrite history!


The delays definitely predate 2020! There certainly was a big planning problem with the ordering of the last "PC" Ariane 5 batch back in 2018-2019, especially since it was downsized (original plans were for 16 new A5, then 10, then it settled to 8...) Even 2 more A5 would have greatly smoothed out the transition to A6! This there is not lack of foresight, but lack of communication and honesty about deadlines.

I'm not sure I would call arianespace's A5/A6 offer "honest" about the price, it's as subsidised as everyone else's, although I may be misunderstanding you.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/08/2023 12:18 pm
During the 2012 ESA ministerial. The combination of Euro and banking crisis were happening.
There wasn't funding available for the FLPP SCORE-D new core stage engine development. That could have turned into Europees version of the Blue Origin BE-4. Indeed we can't change the past.

I think Prometheus is build on the technology developed with the ACE-42R Gas Generator LOx LNG test campaign. I expect the Avio M60 engine will also heavily rely on it.

We also can't change the decision made in 2020, to skip the helium pressurize ULPM and directly introduce the APU version. I think the direct consequence of this decision is two years delay in maiden Ariane 6 launch. Thus the year of no acces to space for Europe. I want to know who are responsible for this decision.
There were also problems with MANG quick fluid disconnects, and the disconnect mechanisms of the ELA4 launch installation. Add covid and there is plenty reason for maiden launch delay. 
But the three year development delay is totally unacceptable.   
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/08/2023 01:04 pm
Independent access to space is one highly strategic domain (as proven once more by the ongoing war) that we still have and we should protect and a necessity for any self-respecting power . Anybody suggesting otherwise has no place in decision-making.
I fully agree countries need access to space, but independent access?  As long as you can get the payload you want to the orbit you want on the schedule you want, who cares whether it's the rocket of your own country or an ally?  Can you name a payload for Europe that the USA would refuse to launch?  And in terms of launch on demand, dealing with commercial companies will likely give you a shorter lead time at less expense, when compared to a national facility.
Symphonie, 1974, an entire generation of european aerospace engineers, managers and decision makers swore to never depend on foreign launch capabilities because of it.
I'm sorry to tell you that, but if you believe that europe does not need independent access to space, then you stand against 50 years of successful european spaceflight.
For those not familiar with this story, Symphonie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonie) was a pair of early comsats in geosynchronous orbit.  It was intended to be launched on the European Europa II launcher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(rocket)).  But the Europa program was cancelled after several failures.   NASA agreed to launch Symphonie, but the US state department demanded a restriction of no commercial use.  This angered the Europeans who proceeded to build their own launcher, the Ariane 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_1).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/08/2023 01:31 pm
Independent access to space is one highly strategic domain (as proven once more by the ongoing war) that we still have and we should protect and a necessity for any self-respecting power . Anybody suggesting otherwise has no place in decision-making.
I fully agree countries need access to space, but independent access?  As long as you can get the payload you want to the orbit you want on the schedule you want, who cares whether it's the rocket of your own country or an ally?  Can you name a payload for Europe that the USA would refuse to launch?  And in terms of launch on demand, dealing with commercial companies will likely give you a shorter lead time at less expense, when compared to a national facility.
Symphonie, 1974, an entire generation of european aerospace engineers, managers and decision makers swore to never depend on foreign launch capabilities because of it.
I'm sorry to tell you that, but if you believe that europe does not need independent access to space, then you stand against 50 years of successful european spaceflight.
For those not familiar with this story, Symphonie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonie) was a pair of early comsats in geosynchronous orbit.  It was intended to be launched on the European Europa II launcher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(rocket)).  But the Europa program was cancelled after several failures.   NASA agreed to launch Symphonie, but the US state department demanded a restriction of no commercial use.  This angered the Europeans who proceeded to build their own launcher, the Ariane 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_1).

Probably worth noting negociations to launch them on Proton (in 1973!) went pretty far (and had managed to have a slightly cheaper price than Thor-Delta), but stopped when the USSR refused to have a Franco-German delegation at baikonur (Proton was still a top-secret launcher that was only known through american spy satellites) and wanted to handle the integration &  launch alone. The negociations around it did succeed in the sale of soviet UDMH for Ariane however.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Harry Cover on 01/08/2023 02:01 pm
Very interesting above post(s) ! Didn't knew negociations to launch Symphonie on a Soviet rocket had gone that far.

 France had a "special relationship" with the Soviets since De Gaulle visit to Baikonur in the summer of 1966. Ambitious plans were drawn but a post Mai 68 budget crunch at CNES and elsewhere got cooperation with the Soviets scaled down. Among the most incredible plans was the ROSEAU satellite, and even a proposal for a Soviet-French Luna orbiter. France flew laser reflectors on Lunokhod, and instruments on Mars 71 and lots of Venera probes.

So not so surprising France tried to play the Soviet card to rescue Symphonie after Europa F11 miserable failure in November 1971.

And Symphonie for sure enraged the Europeans and helped the case of Ariane in difficult times: 1974-1978 when the flight manifest was hopelessly empty and ESA member states balked at the development costs. That was one of the reasons behind the creation of Transpace, then Arianespace, circa 1979.

French non-gaullist President Giscard (1974-81, our very own Jimmy Carter with the same pros and cons) wanted to cut big and expensive De Gaulle / Pompidou megaprojects. A former finance minister, Giscard became president merely six months after the first oil shock, and inherited a traumatized French economy. Ariane development costs were on the chopping block along with the civilian nuclear program, Concorde, Airbus and Mercure airliners, the TGV High Speed Rail project.
Giscard early feelings was that Delta or Atlas could very well fly out of Kourou instead of Ariane - at far lower cost. And yes, there were plans to launch Thor-Delta from Kourou's ELA-1, orphan of Europa 2.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JayWee on 01/08/2023 08:41 pm
During the 2012 ESA ministerial. The combination of Euro and banking crisis were happening.
There wasn't funding available for the FLPP SCORE-D new core stage engine development. That could have turned into Europees version of the Blue Origin BE-4. Indeed we can't change the past.
...

But let's not forget the attitude of Arianespace CEO at that time:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170328025906/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ-7nNw-04Q
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/17/2023 12:00 pm
Arianespace is hiring a new CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER.
https://newsroom.arianespace.com/steven-rutgers-is-appointed-the-chief-commercial-officer-at-arianespace/
There is nothing for sale. What should he sell?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 01/17/2023 02:39 pm
Arianespace is hiring a new CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER.
https://newsroom.arianespace.com/steven-rutgers-is-appointed-the-chief-commercial-officer-at-arianespace/
There is nothing for sale. What should he sell?
I was unaware Ariane 6 had been taken off of the commercial launch market.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/17/2023 03:21 pm
Arianespace is hiring a new CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER.
https://newsroom.arianespace.com/steven-rutgers-is-appointed-the-chief-commercial-officer-at-arianespace/
There is nothing for sale. What should he sell?
I was unaware Ariane 6 had been taken off of the commercial launch market.

In November 2022 in Bremen, the FM1 upper stage was not yet been fully integrated.
Fuel tanks and maybe some parts existed from the FM2. That's all.
Everything is going slowly with a reduced number of employees, everyone is waiting for something, nobody says for what exactly.
https://www.hr-inforadio.de/podcast/weltraumwagner/verspaetung-bei-ariane-6---startprobleme-fuer-europas-xxl-rakete,podcast-episode-111272.html  in German, sorry
How quickly can the production and the launch cadence be ramped up?
ESA's Ariane 6 FM 1 will be launched at the end of 2023 at the earliest, FM 2 (Arianespace) half a year later.
So now calculate how many Ariane 6 launches are necessary in the years 2024, 2025, 2026 for Kuiper, Galileo, CSO-3, Metop, Meteosat, Viasat, Optus, Intelsat etc.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/18/2023 09:10 am
First warning from Philippe Baptiste (CNES) that the Ariane 6 initial launch may not take place in 2023.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/premier-vol-d-ariane-6-en-2023-la-mise-en-garde-de-philippe-baptiste-cnes-948239.html
Google translate:
Quote
First flight of Ariane 6 in 2023: warning from Philippe Baptiste (CNES)
The inaugural flight of the European heavy launcher will take place "probably at the end of 2023" but there are "possible hazards" in the event of problems discovered during its tests, warned CNES CEO Philippe Baptiste.

Will we see Ariane 6 take off in 2023? Maybe, maybe not. Even if he says he is confident about seeing Ariane 6 take off before the end of this year, the CEO of CNES Philippe Baptiste remains cautious, considering that it was necessary to have "a speech of truth". The first flight of Ariane 6, "if all goes well, will take place in 2023, probably at the end of 2023". This first launch of the future European heavy launcher, which is one of the tools of sovereignty...

The rest of the article is behind a paywall.
(I read the whole article/translation, details were not given.)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edzieba on 01/18/2023 12:44 pm
All of which means very little, launches being sold years in advance (and even years in advance of launcher debut) is not exactly unusual.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/18/2023 02:33 pm
First warning from Philippe Baptiste (CNES) that the Ariane 6 initial launch may not take place in 2023.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/premier-vol-d-ariane-6-en-2023-la-mise-en-garde-de-philippe-baptiste-cnes-948239.html (https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/premier-vol-d-ariane-6-en-2023-la-mise-en-garde-de-philippe-baptiste-cnes-948239.html)

Absolutely not a first warning from CNES. They, and the Ariane 6 main contractor, have been indicating this since fall of 2022.
And yes, IMO, it is a given that the first launch of Ariane 6 will move well into 2024.

Basically:
IF a launch providers says that first launch is planned for the last quarter of a given year
AND that planned launch date is more than one year into the future
THEN it is guaranteed that the first launch will move into the next year after the given year

We've seen this happen lots of times. Therefore, IMO, no launch of Ariane 6 this year. I voiced this opinion to some Airbus people just a few days ago. I received a load of flack in return. But I will make them eat their words coming January 1, 2024.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/18/2023 03:05 pm
First warning from Philippe Baptiste (CNES) that the Ariane 6 initial launch may not take place in 2023.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/premier-vol-d-ariane-6-en-2023-la-mise-en-garde-de-philippe-baptiste-cnes-948239.html (https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/premier-vol-d-ariane-6-en-2023-la-mise-en-garde-de-philippe-baptiste-cnes-948239.html)

Absolutely not a first warning from CNES. They, and the Ariane 6 main contractor, have been indicating this since fall of 2022.
And yes, IMO, it is a given that the first launch of Ariane 6 will move well into 2024.

Basically:
IF a launch providers says that first launch is planned for the last quarter of a given year
AND that planned launch date is more than one year into the future
THAN it is guaranteed that the first launch will move into the next year after the given year

We've seen this happen lots of times. Therefore, IMO, no launch of Ariane 6 this year. I voiced this opinion to some Airbus people just a few days ago. I received a load of flack in return. But I will make them eat their words coming January 1, 2024.

I think the tone has changed a bit.
In autumn 2022 it was said that a launch in 2023 would work, when all tests in Kourou and Lampoldshausen were completed and launch pad is ready, by the end of first quarter 2023. Hope dies last.
Rumors that it could be late 2023 or even later were already circulating in summer of 2022.
Since we are currently hearing nothing from hotfire tests in Lampoldshausen or from tests on ELA-4, you are probably right. Unfortunately.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/18/2023 03:48 pm
Arianespace is hiring a new CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER.
https://newsroom.arianespace.com/steven-rutgers-is-appointed-the-chief-commercial-officer-at-arianespace/
There is nothing for sale. What should he sell?
I was unaware Ariane 6 had been taken off of the commercial launch market.
Not sure if its off market, more case of no spare LVs for few years. Between Kuiper and other missions going be busy until end of 2026.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/23/2023 06:22 pm
Europa already from februari 2022 doesn't have independent acces to space. It will take at least untill 2024 before Europe has regained this. Vega C, Ariane 6 with Astris are required for this.
But apperently two full mission simulations of the ULPM have been performed. One on 5th October and one on 20th Januari. Two more to go before ULPM is certified for launch.
Combined tests of the ELA4 with the Ariane 6 ground qualification module are also progressing.
There is progress; but it is painstakingly slow.

I don't expect Soyuz from CSG launch service to resume. Ariane 62 will take over the heavy missions and Vega C the lighter ones. But both aren't available to launch now. Vega C will resume launch in about half a year.
2023 will be a very painful year for the European space program. But there is light at the end of the dark tunnel.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Blackhavvk on 01/23/2023 07:51 pm
Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/23/2023 08:38 pm
Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?
Same reason Europe is discovering being dependant on Russia for energy isn't good idea.
Best keep most of critical stuff inhouse.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Blackhavvk on 01/23/2023 09:15 pm
Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?
Same reason Europe is discovering being dependant on Russia for energy isn't good idea.
Best keep most of critical stuff inhouse.
Every time I ask a question, they tell me something about Russia. Probably it is worth hiding my position, it has nothing to do with my questions. It's still not obvious to me. If you see a situation in which this may be needed, please show it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/24/2023 12:07 am
Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?
Same reasons the USA need to?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 01/24/2023 05:34 am
Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?

In the 1970s, France and Germany built their first telecommunications satellites. It was intended to use these commercially. When they approached the USA for launching them, the USA demanded these satellites only be used for non-commercial purposes.
In reaction, Europe got serious about developing its own launches to assure independent access to space.

The energy crisis Europe is facing right now is another illustration of why it's bad to rely on outsiders for industries that are strategically important.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/24/2023 05:55 pm
Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?
No, because the USA is a very unreliable partner!
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: su27k on 01/25/2023 10:16 am
Europe grappling with space access challenges (https://spacenews.com/europe-grappling-with-space-access-challenges/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
The European Space Agency is grappling with multiple issues that could leave Europe temporarily without its own access to space by this summer.

In a Jan. 23 press briefing, ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher said that space transportation issues, including the December failure of a Vega C and the delayed introduction of the Ariane 6, are among his biggest problems entering the new year

“This is something that, let me just be very clear with you, is one of the biggest challenges we have in Europe today,” he said of space transportation. That is a combination of the Vega failure and Ariane 6 delays, along with the loss of the Soyuz rocket last year as fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the impending retirement of the Ariane 5, slated to make its final launch in June.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: su27k on 01/25/2023 10:17 am
European launch chief insists there be no competition with Ariane rockets (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/european-launch-chief-insists-there-be-no-competition-with-ariane-rockets/)

Quote from: Eric Berger
However, at the 15th European Space Conference on Tuesday in Brussels, Arianespace chief executive Stéphane Israël took issue with this notion.

"It is not possible to copy-paste the US model," he said. "It is not possible. The level of space spending in the United States is five times higher than in Europe, and the private capital is not the same. So if the answer is to say let's do what the US has done, I think we will not manage to do it."

Moreover, Israël said the European Space Agency must resist supporting microlaunchers to the point where these companies might compete with the existing capabilities.

"A huge mistake would be that this focus on microlaunchers destabilizes Ariane 6 and Vega C—it would be a historic mistake," he said. "Microlaunchers can be of support to boost innovation. But we should not make any confusion. This launcher will never give autonomous access to space to Europe. They're on a niche market representing maybe 10 percent of the market, and less than that when it comes to European needs."
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Michel Van on 01/25/2023 11:56 am
What happen in Brussels
Was desperate attempt of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to keep their decade old Monopol.
Since 1979 both build Rockets and launch satellites for ESA and Customers.

But all good things have to end. As in 2015 a Falcon 9 rocket return to launch site and landed.
SpaceX launch now 200 Falcon 9 and landed save 90 time in row, dropping launch cost.
Suddenly Russian and ArianeGroup launch cost were expensive.
ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace made fatal decision 10 years ago to keep Ariane 6 expendable,
and therefore keep their industry running.
now Ariane 6 was build lower cost for Ariane 62 is 90 million euros and Ariane 64 its 115 million euros.
only problem Falcon 9 has launch cost 48 million euros while Falcon Heavy 89 million euros !!!

Ariane 6 need 72 launches to recover R&D cost of 5 billion euro.
currently it got only 42 launches contracts (18 from Kuiper system because Bezos not want launch with SpaceX)
also in 2022 ArianeSpace launch THREE Ariane 5, while SpaceX launch SIXTY Falcon 9
as Customers who you take, the expensive one with new rocket, or the cheaper reliable rocket ?

Ariane 6 is delay again, because issue of Vega-C that use same hardware on Solid booster.
in Mean time SpaceX is testing a 5000 tons booster at Texas,
and Rocket Lab building in there Bond Lair a reusable rocket...

and there Micro launcher
In Europe, USA and China, building dozen start up companies small satellite launcher, with plans for bigger rockets !
now this is real danger for  ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to lose more Customers.
once those start up successfully launch, Vega-C is trouble do competition

Stéphane Israël made fatal mistake, even ESA drop the Europans Micro launcher in favour of Vega-C.
The start up companies in USA and China will succeed, providing lower launch cost compare to Vega-C,
but ArianeGroup need Vega-C to keep  high production of P120 needed also by Ariane 6.
once the demand for Vega-C/E drops the production cost rise also Launch cost of Ariane 6
making launching Falcon 9 a bargain...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/25/2023 02:28 pm
What happen in Brussels
Was desperate attempt of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to keep their decade old Monopol.
Since 1979 both build Rockets and launch satellites for ESA and Customers.
Your post seems to be a concise statement of the current situation, which appears to be dire. What you you think ESA and the European space industry should do?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/25/2023 03:49 pm
What happen in Brussels
Was desperate attempt of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to keep their decade old Monopol.
Since 1979 both build Rockets and launch satellites for ESA and Customers.
Your post seems to be a concise statement of the current situation, which appears to be dire. What you you think ESA and the European space industry should do?

Well, I'm not Michel Van, but personally I have a pretty good idea where ESA will eventually end up, with regards to ESA-grown launcher development.

First of all: Arianespace & ArianeGroup are entrenched companies. Don't expect change to come from them. They are similar to Boeing, LockMart and ULA. They have only now begun work on a "demonstrator" copy of Falcon 9 (Themis). And then only because ESA is paying them to do so.

So, if ESA wants to stay relevant, with regards to launchers, they will have to go the route of full reusability. Not just some Falcon 9 redo, but a scaled-down version of Starship.

Trouble is that NONE of the current established European space industry is willing to take such a risk, even if it was to be fully covered (financially that is) by ESA. A major player like ArianeGroup (a joint-venture between Airbus and Safran) won't go there: it is simply too far outside of their comfort zone. And even if they had the gonads to take that risk, the program would be delayed many times. Because unlike SpaceX, both ESA and its traditional industry partners (ArianeGroup and others) are not willing to take risks. So, instead of doing fast development, break things, learn from the failures, and fly again rapidly, they will continue to do things the old way. Which will only serve to make them fall even further behind SpaceX and others.

What I think will happen ultimately is that ESA will swallow its pride, and start bearing ALL the costs to keep Ariane 6 flying for as long as it takes to develop a replacement. The requirement to have it succeed in the commercial market place will be dropped eventually IMO. And like Ariane 6, its replacement (even if it is just partially reusable) will mostly just fly institutional missions for ESA, EU and European government agencies. Kinda like how Delta IV and Atlas V mostly just served the US government.

Is this a bad thing? Well, not necessarily. But it will impact the ESA budget in a negative manner. Launcher sustainment will take a bigger bite out of the budget, which means that other stuff will get less money.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/25/2023 03:55 pm
What happen in Brussels
Was desperate attempt of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to keep their decade old Monopol.
Since 1979 both build Rockets and launch satellites for ESA and Customers.
Your post seems to be a concise statement of the current situation, which appears to be dire. What you you think ESA and the European space industry should do?

Well, I'm not Michel Van, but personally I have a pretty good idea where ESA will eventually end up, with regards to ESA-grown launcher development.
You are discussing what you think they will do. I asked what Michel thinks they should do.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Michel Van on 01/25/2023 04:28 pm
What happen in Brussels
Was desperate attempt of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to keep their decade old Monopol.
Since 1979 both build Rockets and launch satellites for ESA and Customers.
Your post seems to be a concise statement of the current situation, which appears to be dire. What you you think ESA and the European space industry should do?

First let's run the Ariane 6 like planned,

Then ending this Monopoly where they got fat and greedy and
trow ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to the Sharks in Launch Market Business !
because ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace are like Boeing or Lockheed/Martin  inflexible to change.

But that own fault they became the dinosaurs of Space Age, now surviving the Impact Elon Musk made... 

One of those Europeans start up companies will survive,
and produce first micro launcher, later cheaper reusable rocket in role of Ariane 6.
Those should  European Union support with launch site ans support for that growing aerospace industry.
 
off course ESA, ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will try everything to stop them,
like using political connection to prevent use of Kourou spaceport for Privates launch provider,
also political meddling inside ESA to protect there Aerospace industry, will intervene for AirbusSpace
Only to see the European competition take Brasil, Spain or England to launch satellites.

I think that in 2030s the faith of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will decide.
either a French subsidise dinosaur that launch French military satellite and few ESA probes.
or they goes bankrupt and bought by french HyPr-Space the manufactor of Baguette 6 rocket
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/25/2023 11:13 pm
So, if ESA wants to stay relevant, with regards to launchers, they will have to go the route of full reusability. Not just some Falcon 9 redo, but a scaled-down version of Starship.
I agree with this.  Starship may be relatively cheap, but it's big - much bigger than needed for many applications.  A smaller (7 meter?) version would be big enough for most uses, and cheaper than Starship (per launch, if not $/kg).  It should be commercially viable as well as supporting Europe's needs.  It also seems likely to remain state of the art over the next few decades, barring any unforeseen advances.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/25/2023 11:43 pm


Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?
No, because the USA is a very unreliable partner!

While USA and most of ESA members are allies doesn't mean USA policies will always be in ESA's best interests. Especially with fickle USA government which switches parties on regular basis.

As example Biden recent dealings with Australia meant France lost $60B submarine deal with Australia.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/25/2023 11:46 pm
So, if ESA wants to stay relevant, with regards to launchers, they will have to go the route of full reusability. Not just some Falcon 9 redo, but a scaled-down version of Starship.
I agree with this.  Starship may be relatively cheap, but it's big - much bigger than needed for many applications.  A smaller (7 meter?) version would be big enough for most uses, and cheaper than Starship (per launch, if not $/kg).  It should be commercially viable as well as supporting Europe's needs.  It also seems likely to remain state of the art over the next few decades, barring any unforeseen advances.
This is the niche that BO intends to fill with New Glenn, right?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/26/2023 01:03 am
IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: su27k on 01/26/2023 03:22 am


Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?
No, because the USA is a very unreliable partner!

While USA and most of ESA members are allies doesn't mean USA policies will always be in ESA's best interests. Especially with fickle USA government which switches parties on regular basis.

As example Biden recent dealings with Australia meant France lost $60B submarine deal with Australia.

You don't need the approval of US president to buy commercial launches from US companies.

In fact recent events shows US launch companies are very reliable, OneWeb and ESA was able to get a good spot in the launch queue in a very short time after they lost their Soyuz rides, this is despite the fact that a single US company dominates the launch market and said company is a competitor to OneWeb and ESA launchers. With more US medium and heavy launch vehicles coming to market in the near future, Europe's choice of US launchers would only widen and their access to space if relying on US launchers would become even more reliable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: JayWee on 01/26/2023 04:48 am
You don't need the approval of US president to buy commercial launches from US companies.
...
Europe's choice of US launchers would only widen and their access to space if relying on US launchers would become even more reliable.
You need FAA approval.

As we are slowly moving towards NatSec megaconstellations - there might be some friction.
Say - would the US allow launch of a foreign optical/IR megaconstellation allowing 24/7 live high-res view of the entire planet?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/26/2023 12:05 pm
First let's run the Ariane 6 like planned,

Then ending this Monopoly where they got fat and greedy and
trow ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to the Sharks in Launch Market Business !
because ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace are like Boeing or Lockheed/Martin  inflexible to change.

But that own fault they became the dinosaurs of Space Age, now surviving the Impact Elon Musk made... 

One of those Europeans start up companies will survive,
and produce first micro launcher, later cheaper reusable rocket in role of Ariane 6.
Those should  European Union support with launch site ans support for that growing aerospace industry.
 
off course ESA, ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will try everything to stop them,
like using political connection to prevent use of Kourou spaceport for Privates launch provider,

also political meddling inside ESA to protect there Aerospace industry, will intervene for AirbusSpace
Only to see the European competition take Brasil, Spain or England to launch satellites.

I think that in 2030s the faith of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will decide.
either a French subsidise dinosaur that launch French military satellite and few ESA probes.
or they goes bankrupt and bought by french HyPr-Space the manufactor of Baguette 6 rocket

Emphasis mine.

ArianeGroup won't need political connections to prevent Kourou being used by private launch providers. CSG is wholly owned by CNES, the French national space agency. So, unless those private launch providers are fully owned by ArianeGroup (which is a French company with very strong ties to the French governement), or are partially owned by the French governement, none of them will ever get permission to launch from CSG.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Harry Cover on 01/26/2023 12:25 pm


Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?
No, because the USA is a very unreliable partner!

While USA and most of ESA members are allies doesn't mean USA policies will always be in ESA's best interests. Especially with fickle USA government which switches parties on regular basis.

As example Biden recent dealings with Australia meant France lost $60B submarine deal with Australia.

TBH
- Naval Group (the french company that got the Attack subs contract back in 2015) behaved like arrogant dickheads and alienated the australians (and I say that as french, if you wanna know)
- The Australians doesn't really know their real needs - between AIP and nuclear subs, to deal with the Chinese threat. - TBH again, it is an almost impossible choice: AIP can't assume long patrols near China, nuclear can - but brings a whole bunch of new issues.
- Australia is culturally closer from GB and USA than France, also on military matters.

A pity, because Attack was very much a non-nuclear Barracuda, and a swap could have been made: or some kind of mixed fleet. Alas, it will not happen.

Back to Arianespace...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/26/2023 12:50 pm
First let's run the Ariane 6 like planned,

Then ending this Monopoly where they got fat and greedy and
trow ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to the Sharks in Launch Market Business !
because ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace are like Boeing or Lockheed/Martin  inflexible to change.

But that own fault they became the dinosaurs of Space Age, now surviving the Impact Elon Musk made... 

One of those Europeans start up companies will survive,
and produce first micro launcher, later cheaper reusable rocket in role of Ariane 6.
Those should  European Union support with launch site ans support for that growing aerospace industry.
 
off course ESA, ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will try everything to stop them,
like using political connection to prevent use of Kourou spaceport for Privates launch provider,

also political meddling inside ESA to protect there Aerospace industry, will intervene for AirbusSpace
Only to see the European competition take Brasil, Spain or England to launch satellites.

I think that in 2030s the faith of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will decide.
either a French subsidise dinosaur that launch French military satellite and few ESA probes.
or they goes bankrupt and bought by french HyPr-Space the manufactor of Baguette 6 rocket

Emphasis mine.

ArianeGroup won't need political connections to prevent Kourou being used by private launch providers. CSG is wholly owned by CNES, the French national space agency. So, unless those private launch providers are fully owned by ArianeGroup (which is a French company with very strong ties to the French governement), or are partially owned by the French governement, none of them will ever get permission to launch from CSG.

CNES and Arianegroup have diverging interests (and some bad blood), CNES has been more than open to and promoted other european launch providers (HyImpulse, RFA, Isar, PLD all are on track to get access to Kourou's ELA-1), forbiding them from launching from Kourou won't kill them when there are so many upcoming alternatives in europe and beyond (yes none that can launch anything more than a microlauncher, but who knows in 10 years), it'll just result in less activity and revenue loss for the CSG and Guyane.

In the context of a dwindling Arianespace activity, then allowing competitors to use kourou WILL bring down AG, AS, CNES, Avio's individual ground service and maintenance cost, while pushing them away WILL bring it up. Hopefully everybody in charge realise that, hopefully.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/26/2023 03:46 pm
First let's run the Ariane 6 like planned,

Then ending this Monopoly where they got fat and greedy and
trow ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to the Sharks in Launch Market Business !
because ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace are like Boeing or Lockheed/Martin  inflexible to change.

But that own fault they became the dinosaurs of Space Age, now surviving the Impact Elon Musk made... 

One of those Europeans start up companies will survive,
and produce first micro launcher, later cheaper reusable rocket in role of Ariane 6.
Those should  European Union support with launch site ans support for that growing aerospace industry.
 
off course ESA, ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will try everything to stop them,
like using political connection to prevent use of Kourou spaceport for Privates launch provider,

also political meddling inside ESA to protect there Aerospace industry, will intervene for AirbusSpace
Only to see the European competition take Brasil, Spain or England to launch satellites.

I think that in 2030s the faith of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will decide.
either a French subsidise dinosaur that launch French military satellite and few ESA probes.
or they goes bankrupt and bought by french HyPr-Space the manufactor of Baguette 6 rocket

Emphasis mine.

ArianeGroup won't need political connections to prevent Kourou being used by private launch providers. CSG is wholly owned by CNES, the French national space agency. So, unless those private launch providers are fully owned by ArianeGroup (which is a French company with very strong ties to the French governement), or are partially owned by the French governement, none of them will ever get permission to launch from CSG.

CNES and Arianegroup have diverging interests (and some bad blood), CNES has been more than open to and promoted other european launch providers (HyImpulse, RFA, Isar, PLD all are on track to get access to Kourou's ELA-1), forbiding them from launching from Kourou won't kill them when there are so many upcoming alternatives in europe and beyond (yes none that can launch anything more than a microlauncher, but who knows in 10 years), it'll just result in less activity and revenue loss for the CSG and Guyane.

In the context of a dwindling Arianespace activity, then allowing competitors to use kourou WILL bring down AG, AS, CNES, Avio's individual ground service and maintenance cost, while pushing them away WILL bring it up. Hopefully everybody in charge realise that, hopefully.

ELA-1 is the old Ariane 1/2/3 launch pad. It is currently being used exclusively for Vega and Vega-C. So, no, HyImpulse, RFA, Isar, PLD are NOT on track to get access to ELA-1.

Which leads me to believe that you intended to refer to the old Diamant launch site (ELD). But the CNES competition from 2022 was merely intended to get an idea how much interest there is to fly from Kourou. Actual agreements to adapt the ELD for use by another rocket only exists for Themis (the reusability demonstrator being developed by....ArianeGroup).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/26/2023 04:20 pm
First let's run the Ariane 6 like planned,

Then ending this Monopoly where they got fat and greedy and
trow ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to the Sharks in Launch Market Business !
because ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace are like Boeing or Lockheed/Martin  inflexible to change.

But that own fault they became the dinosaurs of Space Age, now surviving the Impact Elon Musk made... 

One of those Europeans start up companies will survive,
and produce first micro launcher, later cheaper reusable rocket in role of Ariane 6.
Those should  European Union support with launch site ans support for that growing aerospace industry.
 
off course ESA, ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will try everything to stop them,
like using political connection to prevent use of Kourou spaceport for Privates launch provider,

also political meddling inside ESA to protect there Aerospace industry, will intervene for AirbusSpace
Only to see the European competition take Brasil, Spain or England to launch satellites.

I think that in 2030s the faith of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will decide.
either a French subsidise dinosaur that launch French military satellite and few ESA probes.
or they goes bankrupt and bought by french HyPr-Space the manufactor of Baguette 6 rocket

Emphasis mine.

ArianeGroup won't need political connections to prevent Kourou being used by private launch providers. CSG is wholly owned by CNES, the French national space agency. So, unless those private launch providers are fully owned by ArianeGroup (which is a French company with very strong ties to the French governement), or are partially owned by the French governement, none of them will ever get permission to launch from CSG.

CNES and Arianegroup have diverging interests (and some bad blood), CNES has been more than open to and promoted other european launch providers (HyImpulse, RFA, Isar, PLD all are on track to get access to Kourou's ELA-1), forbiding them from launching from Kourou won't kill them when there are so many upcoming alternatives in europe and beyond (yes none that can launch anything more than a microlauncher, but who knows in 10 years), it'll just result in less activity and revenue loss for the CSG and Guyane.

In the context of a dwindling Arianespace activity, then allowing competitors to use kourou WILL bring down AG, AS, CNES, Avio's individual ground service and maintenance cost, while pushing them away WILL bring it up. Hopefully everybody in charge realise that, hopefully.

ELA-1 is the old Ariane 1/2/3 launch pad. It is currently being used exclusively for Vega and Vega-C. So, no, HyImpulse, RFA, Isar, PLD are NOT on track to get access to ELA-1.

Which leads me to believe that you intended to refer to the old Diamant launch site (ELD). But the CNES competition from 2022 was merely intended to get an idea how much interest there is to fly from Kourou. Actual agreements to adapt the ELD for use by another rocket only exists for Themis (the reusability demonstrator being developed by....ArianeGroup).

Yes, sorry I forgot the name of the ELD

The current plan, if I remember correctly, is for CNES to hold a second round of selections to downselect, of course Maiaspace will get selected for obvious reasons, but I'm sure CNES will push to maximise the number of launches from ELD within the feasible; It's not like all 5 of the PLD/Isar/RFA/Lat/HyImpulse will equally want Kourou, since it's probably disadvantageous logistically and in term of inclination for some of them.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/26/2023 04:49 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/26/2023 05:57 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.


In the hypothetical that Starhsip succeeds, The alternative to not building a high cadence Very-Heavy to Super-heavy launcher is accelerated information and military demotion, which probably will happen anyway, but the current political and military context make it seems likely there will be attempts at making one or several.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/28/2023 01:38 pm
Each and everyone here believes there is near unlimited launch demand. I think there isn't.
The problem is launchers need dedicated production lines.
 (Additional complication in Europe, member states funding launchers demand work-packeges in return.
So the production lines are spread between the different funding member states.)
I think the study by RUAG (now beyond Gravity) in 2016 about the possibility to recover payload fairings is exemplary. (Note that this was before SpaceX started attempting to recover their Falcon 9 payload fairings.) Technically it is possible to recover the payload fairings, but economically it doesn't make sense at the launch rates of European launch vehicles. So they didn't develop this capability.
The same is true for the full stages of the launchers. SpaceX with falcon 9 has a lower break-even point for stage reuse. Because Falcon 9 uses similar engines, tank structures and avioics on the first and second stages. Both stages are manufactures on the same assembly line. First stage reuse makes production spots available for several second stages.
In Europe for Ariane 6 a factory has been set up for the first stage in France. The upperstage has a production complex in Germany and the P120C boosters are produces at Italy and France (Guiana). (Payload fairings Swiss and composite payload structures Spain) 
l believe the factories for LLPM (France) and ULPM (/Icarus) Germany can produce more than the currently planed rate of 11-12 launchers annually. The launch site ELA4 can most probably also sustain a higher launch rate. And there is the possibility to convert ELA3 (Ariane 5 launch site) for Ariane6 use.
The launch rate limiting factor for the Ariane 6 launch rate will be the P120C casting capability at France Guiana.
Solids are more polluting than liquid rocket engines, and they are technically also more risky.

Italy and Avio are developing the M10 and VUS (Vega E 3th stage).
They have a plan to develop a reusable launcher demonstrator. I believe this is a first stage with multiple SeaLevel optimized M10 engines and VUS as 2th stage. They also have a plan to develop the M60 (600kN LOx LNG/LCH4) engine.
A Ø3.4m diameter stage with 7x600kN = 4200kN has similar size and thrust as the P120C/P120C+.
Develop a vacuüm optimized M60 for use on a Ø3.4m upperstage or a Ø3.4m Vince powered upperstage and Europe has the replacement for Soyuz. I think this is Vega Next Gen.
I think the Vega Next Gen first stage, used on a soyuz replacement and as booster for Ariane 6. Has high enough use rate to require serial production (>6/year) while being reused several times.
The SUSIE concept can be used to make the Vega Next Gen. upper-stage, thus the system fully reusable.
(I guess payload capability ~2.5mT to SSO 700km, >3.5mT without reusable upper-stage).
I think this is the most realistic plan for reusable launcher development in Europe.
The propellent consumption of this launcher will be a fraction of what Starship requires. The empty weight of starship+booster is likely higher then the full liftoff mass of the Vega Next Gen. This means much lower emissions (NOx, CO2, Steam [H2O(g)], yes this is some idiotic European politics metric.
I expect ELA3 and ELA4 to be used for Ariane 6/next and ELV (converted ELA1) and converted ELV for Vega.   

The German launcher companies (ISAR and RFA) are also likely to develop stage reuse. They are likely to launch from pads at the CSG diamant site and European main land launch sites (for SSO/polar orbits).
The site to test stage landing technologies opened earlier this month. I do not expect orbital launches from this site. Even without orbital launches, the site will be used very frequently.
I think Europe requires a test campaign(s) with launchers simular to the Masten Space Systems Terrestrial landers to develop reusable stages and planetary landers. 

The path to Ariane 6 in the PHH or PPH configuration were fixed during the 2011 ESA ministerial. By not funding the development of a new liquid first stage engine (SCORE-D).
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 01/29/2023 01:41 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

Because if Starship succeeds the definition “independent access to space” will change completely.

Will europe really functionally have independent access to space if they have well under 1% of global launch capability?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 01/29/2023 01:51 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.


In the hypothetical that Starhsip succeeds, The alternative to not building a high cadence Very-Heavy to Super-heavy launcher is accelerated information and military demotion, which probably will happen anyway, but the current political and military context make it seems likely there will be attempts at making one or several.

Europe needs to start taking this stuff more seriously, as it is falling further and further behind the US and Asia technologically and economically. Europe used to have the largest economy in the world, now it’s third largest headed to distant third. The risk of Europe becoming a functional non-entity in the space sector is rising rapidly every day.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/29/2023 02:04 pm
I don't understand why Starship keeps getting brought in here.
The ESA/Europe/Ariane Group should focus on itself and not be distracted.
Like Jaxa and MHI are doing when developing the H3.
There is neither the time frame nor the financial scope for this.

And I come out: I don't want a rocket that burns ~4000 t of fuel to take off weekly or more often and put as much objects/mass into orbit as possible.
How long is this supposed to work?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 01/29/2023 04:55 pm
I don't understand why Starship keeps getting brought in here.
The ESA/Europe/Ariane Group should focus on itself and not be distracted.
Like Jaxa and MHI are doing when developing the H3.
There is neither the time frame nor the financial scope for this.

And I come out: I don't want a rocket that burns ~4000 t of fuel to take off weekly or more often and put as much objects/mass into orbit as possible.
How long is this supposed to work?

So you want to imitate laggards on the road to obsolescence and don’t want humanity to have the space lift capability to push space exploration  past the novelty stage?

Starship keeps getting brought up because if it’s successful it will obsolete everything else… the savings from full reusability dwarf booster reuse, and SpaceX is already launching as much tonnage as the rest of the world combined 2x with that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/29/2023 04:55 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

Because if Starship succeeds the definition “independent access to space” will change completely.

Will europe really functionally have independent access to space if they have well under 1% of global launch capability?
Still not answered the question, why does Europe need 150t RLV?. Just as importantly who will be paying for payloads to be built that need this launch capability.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 01/29/2023 04:59 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

Because if Starship succeeds the definition “independent access to space” will change completely.

Will europe really functionally have independent access to space if they have well under 1% of global launch capability?
Still not answered the question, why does Europe need 150t RLV?. Just as importantly who will be paying for payloads to be built that need this launch capability.

This statement will age about as well as IBM saying there is a demand for maybe 4-5 computers worldwide.

Payloads will adjust to the launch market (get heavier), and Europe will eventually no longer be able to serve it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 01/29/2023 05:44 pm
I don't understand why Starship keeps getting brought in here.
The ESA/Europe/Ariane Group should focus on itself and not be distracted.
Like Jaxa and MHI are doing when developing the H3.
There is neither the time frame nor the financial scope for this.

And I come out: I don't want a rocket that burns ~4000 t of fuel to take off weekly or more often and put as much objects/mass into orbit as possible.
How long is this supposed to work?

So you want to imitate laggards on the road to obsolescence and don’t want humanity to have the space lift capability to push space exploration  past the novelty stage?

Starship keeps getting brought up because if it’s successful it will obsolete everything else… the savings from full reusability dwarf booster reuse, and SpaceX is already launching as much tonnage as the rest of the world combined 2x with that.

Well then you can also stomp the Vulcan Centaur. Much luck ...  ;D
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/29/2023 06:57 pm
So you want to imitate laggards on the road to obsolescence and don’t want humanity to have the space lift capability to push space exploration  past the novelty stage?
Meanwhile, you are imitating those who made wild claims about Space Shuttle cost effectiveness before the reality of flight showed the truth.  I'm not convinced either way at present, but a lot more things have to go right - and not just the act of reaching orbit - before SH/SS can approach the claims.  It could just as easily bankrupt its developer. 

Ariane 6 just needs to succeed to be successful.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/29/2023 09:39 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.



How can you look at what is happening in Ukraine, the investments in constellations , Starlink's success and valuation , Europe's past history in earth observation and communications (Sarsat, galileo, copernicus, its entire communication satellites industry...), the absolutely massive enthusiasm for satellite-based communications in the entirety of telecom industry, Ariane 6 being almost saved by Kuiper, Iris²'s recent massive funding, and say, with a straight face, that European entities are not going to attempt launching and maintaining Starlink-sized constellations in the near future,

I honestly don't know, this is a near-certainty and everybody knows it.

So you want to imitate laggards on the road to obsolescence and don’t want humanity to have the space lift capability to push space exploration  past the novelty stage?
Meanwhile, you are imitating those who made wild claims about Space Shuttle cost effectiveness before the reality of flight showed the truth.  I'm not convinced either way at present, but a lot more things have to go right - and not just the act of reaching orbit - before SH/SS can approach the claims.  It could just as easily bankrupt its developer. 

Ariane 6 just needs to succeed to be successful.

 - Ed Kyle

Hence the hypothetical at the start of this comment chain, and also why european industries and space agencies must (and mostly are) be extremely active in technology intelligence, already lay out plans, and try to not become too disunited to be able to have a common, well organised and funded, answer to the rapidly changing launch capabilities competition and market if needed.

 We can afford to not be the first, after all De Havilland making the first airliner didn't prevent their fall... But we cannot afford to offer a longer term, lame and disunited answer to the global evolutions of heavy and super-heavy launch capabilities. It would be terrible if European ""starship"" (in a wider sense of the term) becomes needed (in the same way a launcher larger than Diamant or Black arrow became needed in europe by 1970) and ends up a failure in large part due to national disagreement like Europa and Hermes were.

This is why I am depressed at the recent european space conference and don't just point and laugh at arianespace and arianegroup trying to defend their backyard.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 01/29/2023 09:51 pm
So you want to imitate laggards on the road to obsolescence and don’t want humanity to have the space lift capability to push space exploration  past the novelty stage?
Meanwhile, you are imitating those who made wild claims about Space Shuttle cost effectiveness before the reality of flight showed the truth.  I'm not convinced either way at present, but a lot more things have to go right - and not just the act of reaching orbit - before SH/SS can approach the claims.  It could just as easily bankrupt its developer. 

Ariane 6 just needs to succeed to be successful.

 - Ed Kyle

Copium, unfortunately.

Ariane 6 is already obsolete vs Falcon 9, nevermind Falcon’s successor, and Ariane’s answer to that is probably at least a decade away.

The strategy of sitting back and hoping for SX to fail has so far failed harder than just about any strategy.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Asteroza on 01/29/2023 11:09 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

Well, there is the SOLARIS space solar power satellite program, which will ostensibly need both high flight rate and big tonnage. That's why the EHLL european heavy launcher program is supposedly being spun up for.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56997.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56997.0)

EU SPS needs an EHLL for an all domestic sourcing imperative , which by the economics of it needs be a RLV of starship class, thus EHLL is basically "Le Starship" unless Skylon comes in out of left field. If SOLARIS/EHLL is the excuse to phase out Ariane 6 that ESA internally needs to move forward beyond business as usual, that's their prerogative.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/29/2023 11:34 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

Well, there is the SOLARIS space solar power satellite program, which will ostensibly need both high flight rate and big tonnage. That's why the EHLL european heavy launcher program is supposedly being spun up for.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56997.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56997.0)

EU SPS needs an EHLL for an all domestic sourcing imperative , which by the economics of it needs be a RLV of starship class, thus EHLL is basically "Le Starship" unless Skylon comes in out of left field. If SOLARIS/EHLL is the excuse to phase out Ariane 6 that ESA internally needs to move forward beyond business as usual, that's their prerogative.
While I'm a fan of Space Solar Power not sure its a given especially as there isn't even pilot plant fly at present.

At least you've replied with valid reason for RHLV unlike ZachF.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/29/2023 11:39 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

Because if Starship succeeds the definition “independent access to space” will change completely.

Will europe really functionally have independent access to space if they have well under 1% of global launch capability?
Still not answered the question, why does Europe need 150t RLV?. Just as importantly who will be paying for payloads to be built that need this launch capability.

This statement will age about as well as IBM saying there is a demand for maybe 4-5 computers worldwide.

Payloads will adjust to the launch market (get heavier), and Europe will eventually no longer be able to serve it.
Still not answered the question.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: su27k on 01/30/2023 12:51 am
You don't need the approval of US president to buy commercial launches from US companies.
...
Europe's choice of US launchers would only widen and their access to space if relying on US launchers would become even more reliable.
You need FAA approval.

As we are slowly moving towards NatSec megaconstellations - there might be some friction.
Say - would the US allow launch of a foreign optical/IR megaconstellation allowing 24/7 live high-res view of the entire planet?

SpaceX has launched military satellites for European countries before, Paz and SARah for example. And NRO has contracts with European companies such as Airbus and Iceye to buy their remote sensing products, so I don't see this is an area of contention.

So yes, you need FAA approval, but there're a lot of interconnectivity between US and Europe, I don't see why access to space is special. Europe doesn't have its own desktop CPU/GPU, its own desktop OS, its own internet search engine, or its own 5th generation fighter. One could make a reasonable argument that any of these is more important than launch vehicles. Of course Europe can also offer unique products that US doesn't have, such as extreme ultraviolet lithography machines. Maybe Europe should focus on what it does best, finding its own niche, instead of blindly copying everything US does.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/30/2023 02:26 am
Ariane 6 is already obsolete vs Falcon 9, nevermind Falcon’s successor, and Ariane’s answer to that is probably at least a decade away.
Ariane 6 can outlift Falcon Heavy (Recoverable).  The last two Falcon Heavy missions expended an entire Falcon 9-worth of rocket to get less payload to GEO than is possible with Ariane 64, for example.  GTO capability is 11.5 tonnes versus 8 tonnes in favor of Ariane 64.  If you can lift more payload, you're not obsolete. 

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/30/2023 08:04 am


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

Because if Starship succeeds the definition “independent access to space” will change completely.

Will europe really functionally have independent access to space if they have well under 1% of global launch capability?
Still not answered the question, why does Europe need 150t RLV?. Just as importantly who will be paying for payloads to be built that need this launch capability.

This statement will age about as well as IBM saying there is a demand for maybe 4-5 computers worldwide.

Payloads will adjust to the launch market (get heavier), and Europe will eventually no longer be able to serve it.


Emphasis mine.

No offense, but that is almost never the case. Particularly not in the world of comsats. First those got heavier and heavier, driving the development of more capable launch vehicles (instead of the other way around). But in recent years a reverse trend has emerged: Guess what became less heavy in recent years? That's right: comsats. Tugging along a cr*pload of propellant for GTO-to-GEO is on the way out. Tugging along much lighter solar electric propulsion for GTO-to-GEO is in.

The reason Starship has such massive upmass capability is primarily for their own purposes: Starship is being built first-and-foremost to serve the SpaceX endgoal: Mars. Such massive upmass secondly serves to get the rest of the Starlink constellation up in as few launches as possible (economics driven).

But other than that there are NO non-SpaceX payloads - existing or in development - that make full use of the massive Starship upmass capability. Heck, even the way less capable Falcon Heavy is struggling to find payloads that make full use of its capabilities. That reality applies to both commercial and DoD/NRO payloads.

So, I am not buying your narrative. And that should tell you that I think that Europe does not need its own 150-ton-to-LEO, full reusable launch vehicle. What I do think is that Europe should be working on is a 50-ton-to-LEO full reusable launch vehicle.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/30/2023 08:27 am
DoD is moving away from large GEOSat as they are expensive and make great target in time of war.

Even commercial data GEOsats are getting smaller with Astranis building 350kg model.
https://www.astranis.com/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 01/30/2023 09:03 am
DoD is moving away from large GEOSat as they are expensive and make great target in time of war.

Even commercial data GEOsats are getting smaller with Astranis building 350kg model.
https://www.astranis.com/


DoD and NRO are indeed moving towards proliferated architectures. Buth those will never be even close to the scale of Starlink. A Starhip-sized launch vehicle won't be needed to get them in orbit; current NSSL sized vehicles will be sufficient.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/30/2023 09:41 am

So, I am not buying your narrative. And that should tell you that I think that Europe does not need its own 150-ton-to-LEO, full reusable launch vehicle. What I do think is that Europe should be working on is a 50-ton-to-LEO full reusable launch vehicle.

I always found it interesting that, once you get away from "Big Solid" propulsion into Full Cryogenic (whether hydrogen or methane), the thrust level of Ariane 5 and A64 (>1500 tons thrust) would fit a 40-50 tons to LEO launcher.

Hopefully the “next Ariane" is not a downgrade in term of thrust level, even if it means a whole lot of engines down there

As a aside what exactly is the liftoff thrust of A64? All sites give 1500 tons but when I sum up vulcain (100 tons) and 4 P120C (4*450 tons, "average thrust" on Avio’s site)  it gives closer to 1900 tons, are the P120C burning at a lower thrust at liftoff?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Timber Micka on 01/30/2023 01:31 pm
People, wait until heavy single stick launch vehicles like Starship and New Glenn are operational before claiming they will make the whole industry obsolete. That is a possibility but many things can go wrong, like full reusability/on-orbit propellant transfer being harder than expected.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edzieba on 01/30/2023 02:20 pm
Will europe really functionally have independent access to space if they have well under 1% of global launch capability?
Yes. Independent capability has nothing whatsoever to do with global launch capacity.

The goal of Ariane is to have an independent launch capability that cannot be vetoed by another nation's internal interests again, nothing more and nothing less. Doing so whilst selling commercial launches to offset the cost is nice in terms of budget, but not mandatory to achieve that capability. Even if that capability is rarely needed, just having it is a powerful international negotiating tool.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 01/30/2023 02:51 pm


IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

Because if Starship succeeds the definition “independent access to space” will change completely.

Will europe really functionally have independent access to space if they have well under 1% of global launch capability?
Still not answered the question, why does Europe need 150t RLV?. Just as importantly who will be paying for payloads to be built that need this launch capability.

This statement will age about as well as IBM saying there is a demand for maybe 4-5 computers worldwide.

Payloads will adjust to the launch market (get heavier), and Europe will eventually no longer be able to serve it.


Emphasis mine.

No offense, but that is almost never the case. Particularly not in the world of comsats. First those got heavier and heavier, driving the development of more capable launch vehicles (instead of the other way around). But in recent years a reverse trend has emerged: Guess what became less heavy in recent years? That's right: comsats. Tugging along a cr*pload of propellant for GTO-to-GEO is on the way out. Tugging along much lighter solar electric propulsion for GTO-to-GEO is in.

The reason Starship has such massive upmass capability is primarily for their own purposes: Starship is being built first-and-foremost to serve the SpaceX endgoal: Mars. Such massive upmass secondly serves to get the rest of the Starlink constellation up in as few launches as possible (economics driven).

But other than that there are NO non-SpaceX payloads - existing or in development - that make full use of the massive Starship upmass capability. Heck, even the way less capable Falcon Heavy is struggling to find payloads that make full use of its capabilities. That reality applies to both commercial and DoD/NRO payloads.

So, I am not buying your narrative. And that should tell you that I think that Europe does not need its own 150-ton-to-LEO, full reusable launch vehicle. What I do think is that Europe should be working on is a 50-ton-to-LEO full reusable launch vehicle.

Yes, there are NO non-SpaceX payloads that make full use of the massive Starship upmass capability.  But that just means that Europe isn't being ambitious enough with regard to payloads.  I notice that a roadmap has been laid out by Starlink where its payloads keep getting bigger as well.  I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing Starlink or Starshield satellites equally as big as the GEO-sats.

In order to be viable in the launch business, collectively Europe needs one or more Starlink-like megaconstellation.  The table stakes for launch have been raised by billions a year and it's no use trying to adapt to a world that no longer exists.

The problem for Europe and others, including the Chinese, is that you are competing against a builder with conviction about where this game is going and who has been building an answer relentlessly for more than 8 years, spending billions a year and expecting to spend billions a year in perpetuity.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edzieba on 01/30/2023 04:05 pm
Remember that even Ariane 5 is 'oversized' for GEO payloads, and double-stacks make up the vast majority of launches.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Harry Cover on 01/30/2023 04:20 pm
Remember that even Ariane 5 is 'oversized' for GEO payloads, and double-stacks make up the vast majority of launches.

And this is because of a bloated and DOA Hermes circa 1991-92. It ended weighing close from 25 mt, only to get canned. Yet only after it made Ariane 5 seriously overpowered.

Back in the day when Flight International archive was online for free (sigh), I checked Ariane 5 numbers circa 1986. Biggest difference with 1996 Ariane 5 : the SRMs. French naming system for rocket stages is pretty dumb: P for solids, L for liquid, non hydrogen; and H for hydrogen. With the propellant mass after.

So, 1986 Ariane 5 solid rocket motors were P170s. They ended as P240s (or close) a decade later. The reason they grew ? Hermes. The only way of countering its deadly obesity was: "add more solid fuel !"

And then Hermes was canned at Granada ESA Ministerial Council in November 1992. LEaving Ariane 5 orphan and very overpowered. ZachF : you should really some get cheese with your whinne...  ;D

Arianespace put that extra power to good use however, as comsats grew heavier and heavier.
Have a look at this page
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sat/ssloral-1300.htm

Loral 1300 comsat series are typical of communication satellites weight spiral. Starts at 3775 kg in 1995, ends with nearly twice the weight 15 years later !

Arianespace excelled at jumbling with comsats combinations of different weights - small small small, medium-medium, medium-big, one very big - and on.

And then THIS happened (well said)
Quote
No offense, but that is almost never the case. Particularly not in the world of comsats. First those got heavier and heavier, driving the development of more capable launch vehicles (instead of the other way around). But in recent years a reverse trend has emerged: Guess what became less heavy in recent years? That's right: comsats. Tugging along a cr*pload of propellant for GTO-to-GEO is on the way out. Tugging along much lighter solar electric propulsion for GTO-to-GEO is in.

Plus Falcon 9. Readily agree that both trends made Ariane 5 an expensive dinosaur. Ariane 6 should have been better, but some bad mistakes in 2012-2015 (plus Falcon 9, again) have put it in trouble...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/30/2023 06:12 pm
People, wait until heavy single stick launch vehicles like Starship and New Glenn are operational before claiming they will make the whole industry obsolete. That is a possibility but many things can go wrong, like full reusability/on-orbit propellant transfer being harder than expected.

SpaceX is pushing the boundaries of F9's reuse capability with each new starlink launch, Kuiper has 56 (!) planned launches on Vulcain and A6, two *heavy* launchers each supposed to carry 35-45 satellites, about reaching their own limits, it's clear that satellite constellation deployment would benefit for at least somewhat  larger and reusable launchers. Aiming for the 20-30 tons range with first stage reuse seems like a minimum, and that already needs a rocket heavier than the usual A5/An5/DIVH/Proton/CZ5 range. And maybe some additional margin in the (IMO unlikely) case quick S2 reuse turns out to work out.

 I'm a bit worried the early studies for Ariane Next involved a <700 tons thrust design, but oh well, that was years ago, before the recent Prometheus thrust increase.



Will europe really functionally have independent access to space if they have well under 1% of global launch capability?
Yes. Independent capability has nothing whatsoever to do with global launch capacity.


I agree in the current or near future context, but it's not a generalization, if the launch capacity needs evolves dramatically  (say, maintaining 10,000 satellites at all times becomes necessary to even claim to be a military power with global reach) then even something like A5/A6 cannot provide effective independent access to space. The Symphonie affair happened at a time France flew Diamant, but Diamant was not enough. Again, having to develop a much heavier european launcher MAY be a need in the future, and we must avoid political and industrial fragmentation for this possibility. 

This statement is true now and was true in at in the 70s, but in the (mid-late) 70s the american reusable launcher underdelivered and the european launcher was well managed and had international support behind it. We must avoid the opposite happening now.



Aside again, but does anyone know the status of the "vinci evo" program?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/31/2023 08:38 pm
...
As a aside what exactly is the liftoff thrust of A64? All sites give 1500 tons but when I sum up vulcain (100 tons) and 4 P120C (4*450 tons, "average thrust" on Avio’s site)  it gives closer to 1900 tons, are the P120C burning at a lower thrust at liftoff?
Yes, this can be clearly seen in the P120C static firing tests. After P120C ignition, the thrust level increases for some time. Than it decreases to a lower point untill burnout.

I'm very doubtfull about the long term succes of leo comsat constellations. I think that if/when Europe desides to launch one, it will look more like oneweb than starlink.
The LEO comsat constellations cause problems for astronomy/ ground based telescopes.
And Parabolicarc posted this article: ozone layer report raises fears about expansion of space activities (https://parabolicarc.com/2023/01/27/ozone-layer-report-raises-fears-about-expansion-of-space-activities/)
Short summary: environmental consequences of reentering satellites are unknown. They could cause the ozone layer to stop healing/ closing.
This environmental aspect weight much more heavily in Europe than in the USA.

We might end up requiring satellites with multi-decade operational lifetime. This might be enabled by satellite servicing. This would indeed mean much larger satellites (no cubesats).
I still view a fleet of Stratobus, Stratospheric pseudo satellites, as viable alternative for leo comsat constellations.

For the 202x's Ariane 6, Vega (C/E) and some small/microlaunchers could provide europe with independent acces to space. If Europe decides to develop a reusable launcher, i expect it to have a launch capability simular to SpX Falcon9 or RocketLab Neutron, not BO New Glenn, let alone Starship. Possibly the upperstage could be recovered as well.
I'm not aware of a propulsive landing technology in Europe. So Europe can't propulsivly recove a stage. Land a rover on the moon or on Mars.
Yes, the sad fact is that Europe is over a dacade behind on SpaceX, BlueOrigin and Rocketlab.
Mistakes in the Ariane 6 development mean no-acces to space from H2 2022 to at least H1 2024. And 700mln Euro being waisted on the Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 transition. (Three years hardly any launcher production.) What could have been developed with this funding alternatively.
Rocket engine test sites are heavily restricted in test time for noice and other environmental reasons. The same will be the case for stage recover testing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 02/01/2023 02:07 pm
...
As a aside what exactly is the liftoff thrust of A64? All sites give 1500 tons but when I sum up vulcain (100 tons) and 4 P120C (4*450 tons, "average thrust" on Avio’s site)  it gives closer to 1900 tons, are the P120C burning at a lower thrust at liftoff?
Yes, this can be clearly seen in the P120C static firing tests. After P120C ignition, the thrust level increases for some time. Than it decreases to a lower point untill burnout.

I'm very doubtfull about the long term succes of leo comsat constellations. I think that if/when Europe desides to launch one, it will look more like oneweb than starlink.
The LEO comsat constellations cause problems for astronomy/ ground based telescopes.
And Parabolicarc posted this article: ozone layer report raises fears about expansion of space activities (https://parabolicarc.com/2023/01/27/ozone-layer-report-raises-fears-about-expansion-of-space-activities/)
Short summary: environmental consequences of reentering satellites are unknown. They could cause the ozone layer to stop healing/ closing.
This environmental aspect weight much more heavily in Europe than in the USA.

We might end up requiring satellites with multi-decade operational lifetime. This might be enabled by satellite servicing. This would indeed mean much larger satellites (no cubesats).
I still view a fleet of Stratobus, Stratospheric pseudo satellites, as viable alternative for leo comsat constellations.

For the 202x's Ariane 6, Vega (C/E) and some small/microlaunchers could provide europe with independent acces to space. If Europe decides to develop a reusable launcher, i expect it to have a launch capability simular to SpX Falcon9 or RocketLab Neutron, not BO New Glenn, let alone Starship. Possibly the upperstage could be recovered as well.
I'm not aware of a propulsive landing technology in Europe. So Europe can't propulsivly recove a stage. Land a rover on the moon or on Mars.
Yes, the sad fact is that Europe is over a dacade behind on SpaceX, BlueOrigin and Rocketlab.
Mistakes in the Ariane 6 development mean no-acces to space from H2 2022 to at least H1 2024. And 700mln Euro being waisted on the Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 transition. (Three years hardly any launcher production.) What could have been developed with this funding alternatively.
Rocket engine test sites are heavily restricted in test time for noice and other environmental reasons. The same will be the case for stage recover testing.

Thanks for your answer. I'd appreciate some documentation because after quick searches on the internet it doesn't seem obvious.

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/231529548884344852/1070341727363285002/IMG_1822.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/231529548884344852/1070341726889332857/IMG_1823.png)

These graphs show the Pressure in the P120C during the first and second test, available on youtube,  , So the first graph shows that the P120C starts at 90% of its maximum pressure (if 1:1 to thrust, 4 MN) and quickly reaches its maximum within ~7 seconds

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/231529548884344852/1070342248224534600/image.png)

At least on the P80, pressure and thrust are closely correlated (Giliberti, Francesco (2013)), the P80 and P120C have the same star powder shape.

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/231529548884344852/1070356564776595476/image.png)

This thrust curve is from Brügge's sites (not the best I know), it starts just below 4 MN, reaches it within a second and reaches its maximum within 10.

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/231529548884344852/1070343341079793675/image.png)

http://www.academie-air-espace.com/upload/doc/ressources/Launchers/slides/lasagni.pdf
this is from this powerpoint and shows that the P120C was supposed (in 2015) to ignite in an enveloppe of 3.5-4 MN and reach its maximum also very quickly. It shows the references of the A6 and Vega C too

When you add the Vulcain 2.1's thrust (not throttlable) or 1 MN at sea level, at least to me it seems that the liftoff thrust of A64 isn't "1500 tons", but rather an enveloppe of 1500 tons minimum to 1700+ tons, with an average definitely above 1500 tons.

Anyway I'm sorry if some of my comments derailled this discussion, I didn't want to turn this into the merits of A6 vs Starship, two very different launchers, I just wanted to say there is a possibility the winds of changes blow too strong and force european policy and decision makers to order a much heavier launcher than anything before, something only AG would be equipped to, and that such decision may either reconsolidate the european industry around AG (for better or worse results, probably worse given their recent management) if it succeeds, at the cost of small launcher funding, or splinter the whole industry into national interests if it fails.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/23/2023 07:54 pm
Space x is all about getting people to mars the way I see it is that Ariane 6 will grow to 28 to 30 told to Leo and 12 launches a year six light six heavy .

Vega will grow to 8 tons and replace Ariaine 6.2 launches they buy freeing up six launches a year for lunar work

And Ela 2 will host several reusable rocket research companies .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mn on 02/23/2023 08:33 pm
...

No offense, but that is almost never the case. Particularly not in the world of comsats. First those got heavier and heavier, driving the development of more capable launch vehicles (instead of the other way around). But in recent years a reverse trend has emerged: Guess what became less heavy in recent years? That's right: comsats. Tugging along a cr*pload of propellant for GTO-to-GEO is on the way out. Tugging along much lighter solar electric propulsion for GTO-to-GEO is in.

The reason Starship has such massive upmass capability is primarily for their own purposes: Starship is being built first-and-foremost to serve the SpaceX endgoal: Mars. Such massive upmass secondly serves to get the rest of the Starlink constellation up in as few launches as possible (economics driven).

But other than that there are NO non-SpaceX payloads - existing or in development - that make full use of the massive Starship upmass capability. Heck, even the way less capable Falcon Heavy is struggling to find payloads that make full use of its capabilities. That reality applies to both commercial and DoD/NRO payloads.

So, I am not buying your narrative. And that should tell you that I think that Europe does not need its own 150-ton-to-LEO, full reusable launch vehicle. What I do think is that Europe should be working on is a 50-ton-to-LEO full reusable launch vehicle.

Comsats have traded cost for speed of getting on station. That is a tradeoff because heavier sats cost more to launch.

IF starship is successful and launch cost drop dramatically, (not guaranteed but at least that is the plan if starship succeeds), I would expect to see a return to heavier comsats using chemical propulsion to get on station quicker.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: joek on 02/23/2023 09:10 pm
...
IF starship is successful and launch cost drop dramatically, (not guaranteed but at least that is the plan if starship succeeds), I would expect to see a return to heavier comsats using chemical propulsion to get on station quicker.

Not necessarily. Customer may trade heavier sat (more capability) mass vs. more propellant mass. IF talking about mega constellations with regular replenishment, getting on station quicker is going to be less of a factor, as there will be an onging pipeline.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 02/24/2023 08:55 am
There will always be satellites that will never fly on American launchers .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: soyuzu on 02/24/2023 09:34 am

I'm very doubtfull about the long term succes of leo comsat constellations. I think that if/when Europe desides to launch one, it will look more like oneweb than starlink.
The LEO comsat constellations cause problems for astronomy/ ground based telescopes.
And Parabolicarc posted this article: ozone layer report raises fears about expansion of space activities (https://parabolicarc.com/2023/01/27/ozone-layer-report-raises-fears-about-expansion-of-space-activities/)
Short summary: environmental consequences of reentering satellites are unknown. They could cause the ozone layer to stop healing/ closing.
This environmental aspect weight much more heavily in Europe than in the USA.

We might end up requiring satellites with multi-decade operational lifetime. This might be enabled by satellite servicing. This would indeed mean much larger satellites (no cubesats).
I still view a fleet of Stratobus, Stratospheric pseudo satellites, as viable alternative for leo comsat constellations.


Large, long life-expectancy LEO platform would still require low cost launch capability, as long as electronic technology continues to progress and photovoltaic suffers significant decay in space. It would be even better to have cheap, fully reusable down mass capability like Starship in that case.

And there will always be cases where airship cannot replace satellites, a lot.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/25/2023 11:44 am
Vega E with P120C+/P160, will only be able to launch <4000 kg to LEO. The 8mT is a different launcher.

An idea for delivering Electric ComSats faster to GEO, is a storable propallent in orbit stage/ satellite satellite servicing bus. An Astris stage extended with satellite servicing system.
Launch a new comsat and extend the life of another one during the same mission.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 02/25/2023 12:25 pm
I watch the rise of the O3b mpower satellites after launch with a Falcon-9. I thought beforehand it would be faster.
An Ariane 62 in Kourou could have launched the two satellites directly into their MEO target orbit, I think.
Maybe SES would have been worth a few extra millions for using the satellites earlier.
But the Ariane 6 is not ready, that's the main problem.
A good customer has gone. Will he come back?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/15/2023 06:26 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636085936889946112

Quote
Israël: hopefully have the first Ariane 6 launch by the end of the year, but some risk to that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 03/25/2023 05:25 pm
Would not a wider single first stage be more efficient than the six engines 3 booster reusable final evolution of a Ariane 6 ?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 04/02/2023 10:28 am
Marco Fuchs, CEO of OHB, does not believe that Ariane 6 will be launched in 2023.
MT Aerospace, a subsidiary of OHB, builds fuel tanks for the Ariane 6.

Quote
A column by Marco Fuchs: thoughts about time and space
"I strongly believe in the Rocket Factory – withdrawal is out of the question"
No space flight without rockets. Why this is the hour of the microlauncher.

20 March 2023.
...
Ariane 6, the successor to Ariane 5, is in a crisis, and in my estimation it will be at least another year before the first launch.
...
source: https://www.ohb.de/en/magazine/space-encounter-i-strongly-believe-in-rocket-factory-augsburg-withdrawal-is-out-of-the-question

Meanwhile, move chairs (or roll heads?) at ESA ...:

Quote
...Mr Daniel Neuenschwander is reassigned as Director of Human and Robotic Exploration Programmes (D/HRE) as of 1 July 2023 and renewed for four years as of 1 July 2024. He will be based at the European Astronaut Centre (EAC) in Cologne.
...
Mr Toni Tolker-Nielsen is nominated as acting Director of Space Transportation as of 1 July 2023.
...
source: https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Corporate_news/Council_approves_senior_management_changes
press conference: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2023/03/Media_information_session_from_ESA_s_315th_Council

...and at Arianegroup:

Quote
Andre-Hubert Roussel will step down as CEO of ArianeGroup- a French aerospace joint venture between Airbus and Safran – French newspaper La Tribune reported on the 30th of March.
...
The current CEO of ArianeGroup will be replaced by Martin Sion, the president of Safran Electronics and Defence.

source: https://spacewatch.global/2023/03/arianegroup-ceo-to-step-down/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/02/2023 06:46 pm
Would not a wider single first stage be more efficient than the six engines 3 booster reusable final evolution of a Ariane 6 ?

Can you elaborate? I don't understand what your question actually is.

For now they (European launcher industry) are developing Ariane 6 with P120C (142mT solid propellent), LLPM (first stage with aluminium tanks and one Vulcain 2.1 engine) and ULPM (2th stage, aluminium tanks & one Vince engine) in two configurations A62 and A64 with 2 or 4 P120C boosters.

There are three follow on developments:
- ASTRIS the in orbit kick stage, with storable propellent.
- ICARUS a replacement for ULPM with composite tanks.
- P120C+/P160 longer boorster with 156mT solid propellent.
AFAIK these are the funded developments for Ariane 6.
Besides this ArianeGroup is developing the Prometheus engine with institutional funding, and Themis, a reusable stage demonstrator will use three LOxLNG Prometheus engines.

ArianeGroup published several ideas for further developments.
One proposal is to use a stage derived from Themis as boosters, that could be reusable.
[@floss were you refering to this proposal?]
They also published a concept of a family of reusable launchers that utilize the prometheus engine.
I think the Heavy reusable launcher, with 9 Prometheus engines in the first stage, could use the LLPM tank structure tooling. There is also concept for a 7x prometheus engine LOxLNG stage. 
 I don't know if the reusable launchers ArianeGroup is proposing would still be called Ariane 6 when they are developed.

Another idea that goes around is the development of a cheaper engine to replace Vulcain 2.1, the hydrogen version of Prometheus. They could also make a two (or more) Prometheus (H) engine version of the Core stage (LLPM). Possibly this could launch without boosters. That could be an A60 configuration. Or the two engines in LLPM it could increase payload capability.

I think a 50mT payload to LEO could be achieved by a Heavy Ariane with two heavy reusable boosters (7x Prometheus on Ø5.4m stage) and LLPM and Icarus as core and upper stages. For heavier payloads; I don't see demand in Europe. There is a simple method named segmentation that could be utilized to launch heavier space systems/ infrastructure.
Increasing stage diameter will require new tooling, thus this is very expansive. So I think it's unlikely A wider stage than Ø5.4m (Ariane 5 & 6 core and upperstage) will be developed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 04/14/2023 12:34 pm
From comments during today's JUICE launch: 28 Ariane 6 launches sold so far, of which 18 are for Kuiper.

Not all that impressive actually. It means that besides Kuiper, Arianespace has managed to sell only 10 Ariane 6 launches to other customers so far.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: niwax on 04/14/2023 01:25 pm
From comments during today's JUICE launch: 28 Ariane 6 launches sold so far, of which 18 are for Kuiper.

Not all that impressive actually. It means that besides Kuiper, Arianespace has managed to sell only 10 Ariane 6 launches to other customers so far.

And four of those are guaranteed institutional launches that Arianespace demanded in order to invest some of "their own" money in the project.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/14/2023 01:54 pm
From comments during today's JUICE launch: 28 Ariane 6 launches sold so far, of which 18 are for Kuiper.

Not all that impressive actually. It means that besides Kuiper, Arianespace has managed to sell only 10 Ariane 6 launches to other customers so far.

Is the first Ariane 62 and the first Ariane 64 launches included in the 28 Ariane 6 launches sold total?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 04/14/2023 07:50 pm
From comments during today's JUICE launch: 28 Ariane 6 launches sold so far, of which 18 are for Kuiper.

Not all that impressive actually. It means that besides Kuiper, Arianespace has managed to sell only 10 Ariane 6 launches to other customers so far.
It looks more like 28 *planned* without kuiper looking at various contract.
When did they say the part about "18 for kuiper"? I didn't hear that at around the 1:02:00 mark
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 04/15/2023 07:11 pm
From comments during today's JUICE launch: 28 Ariane 6 launches sold so far, of which 18 are for Kuiper.

Not all that impressive actually. It means that besides Kuiper, Arianespace has managed to sell only 10 Ariane 6 launches to other customers so far.
It looks more like 28 *planned* without kuiper looking at various contract.
When did they say the part about "18 for kuiper"? I didn't hear that at around the 1:02:00 mark

Why do you think the 18 Kuiper launches aren't included?

I guess,
Ariane 64 launches:
18 Kuiperlaunches (LEO)
1   Viasat-3 (GTO+, single payload for better performance, I think)
1   Intelsat 41+44 (GTO)
0.5 Optus 11 (GTO)
0.5 MTG-S1 (GTO)
0.5 MTG-I2 (GTO)
=21.5 so 22 launches, a payload for GTO has yet to be found.

Ariane 62 launches confirmed: (without first flight, because this is an ESA launch)
1  CSO-3 (SSO)
3  Galileo (6 satellites MEO)
2  Metop-SG A1 and  B1 (SSO) -> https://www.arianespace.com/press-release/eumetsat-confirms-the-choice-of-arianespaces-european-launchers-for-its-future-missions/
=6 launches

I'm unsure about former Soyuz contracts:
2  Galileo (4 satellites MEO)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/18/2023 12:46 pm

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1648306055301005313

Quote
Wow. The Ariane 6 is proving to be a disaster for European space policy. Hard to say it is otherwise at this point.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-elon-musk-replace-stalled-france-rocket-galileo-satellite/

Quote
EU turns to Elon Musk to replace stalled French rocket
Brussels is looking to negotiate a ‘security agreement’ with US to keep its space program running.
BY JOSHUA POSANER AND LAURENS CERULUS
APRIL 17, 2023  5:40 PM CET

The European Commission wants to cut deals with private American space companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX to launch cutting-edge European navigation satellites due to continued delays to Europe's next generation Ariane rocket system.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Stan-1967 on 04/18/2023 02:22 pm
I'd change up Eric Berger's quote a bit & say "European space policy has been a disaster for Ariane 6 rocket development". It's not the fault of an inanimate object that Europe struggles to meet their space aspirations.  They have had all the vision & technological know how to take a different path & refused.  Opting instead to make A6 into a more manufacturable & modern A5 to preserve their existing industrial base & supply chains.  This sounds familiar to followers of SLS & American Space policy, so no special poking of the Europeans on this matter is intended.

I've read great papers dating back to 2018 from Europe sponsored authors on the trades of methane, propane, & H2 for reusable rockets.  They had people with the right vision and were arguably in a much better position that Rocketlab, Relativity, or any other company or nation state to pivot to a re-use model.  Policy decisions kept them from that path, A6 is a just symptom of the policy & self interested stakeholders.   

It is sad to me that they may in fact be farther behind being competitive with a reusable vehicle today than they were in 2018.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Ravenger on 04/18/2023 04:39 pm
The big missed opportunity was not backing and investing in Reaction Engines Sabre engine technology and Skylon spaceplane.

With sufficient funding and governmental backing it might well have been flying by now, and who knows, it could have been a competitor for SpaceX in terms of rapid, responsive and reusable launch. Though obviously Starship massively outclasses it in terms of potential heavy payloads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Lars-J on 04/18/2023 09:34 pm
The big missed opportunity was not backing and investing in Reaction Engines Sabre engine technology and Skylon spaceplane.

With sufficient funding and governmental backing it might well have been flying by now, and who knows, it could have been a competitor for SpaceX in terms of rapid, responsive and reusable launch. Though obviously Starship massively outclasses it in terms of potential heavy payloads.
Not this again. If they had invested in RE they might have been even further behind. Ariane 6 will be late, but it will actually be able to launch payloads.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 04/19/2023 12:04 am
The big missed opportunity was not backing and investing in Reaction Engines Sabre engine technology and Skylon spaceplane.

With sufficient funding and governmental backing it might well have been flying by now, and who knows, it could have been a competitor for SpaceX in terms of rapid, responsive and reusable launch. Though obviously Starship massively outclasses it in terms of potential heavy payloads.

Rule #1 of SSTO: A marginal SSTO is a fantastic TSTO waiting to happen

So where do you put the SABRE?
S2: It being airbreathing will be useless
S1: Sure, but SABRE is only useful for a HTHL S1 with its poor atmospheric Thrust-to-weight ratio (normal, it's a jet engine), which will be much more weight-limited than a VTVL one. S2 will also be much more volume limited than a VTVL equivalent since it has to be more aerodynamical.
The result is a big vehicle requiring unique infrastructure that can't launch much to orbit.

I do wish the UK were more involved in the launch business since they left Europa... But Skylon isn't the way to do it.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Stan-1967 on 04/19/2023 12:20 am
The big missed opportunity was not backing and investing in Reaction Engines Sabre engine technology and Skylon spaceplane.

With sufficient funding and governmental backing it might well have been flying by now, and who knows, it could have been a competitor for SpaceX in terms of rapid, responsive and reusable launch. Though obviously Starship massively outclasses it in terms of potential heavy payloads.
Not this again. If they had invested in RE they might have been even further behind. Ariane 6 will be late, but it will actually be able to launch payloads.

Yes, A6 will be late just like Vulcan, but it will fly successfully, albeit in limited missions.  Vulcan will have greater success than A6 I think.   Not funding SABRE is in fact the pony in the pile of crap that is Europe's space policy. 

Hindsight makes one realize how amazingly lucky the US got with COTS for SpaceX to leverage in building F9, then in providing core missions.  It was so cheap that it ran under the radar of the political powers who never saw what was coming for the meager spend they let slip through budgets.  Europe had no Euro's to spare for anything similar, & innovative EU companies like RF or Isar have kind of withered in startup mode forever. 

I do pity the political reality the European politicians have to deal with.  My experience with Europeans is mainly within Scandinavia, but also with some work & private associates in other EU countries.  The population really has no interest in space as a general rule.  If Europeans had even 10% of the enthusiasm as the Copenhagen Suborbitals team, they would be on Luna reading this post.

I think Europe's technical error was in not moving quickly to integrate a Methalox Prometheus onto a small launch vehicle quickly, then pivot to a larger 5.4m core reusable single stick architecture.  If they had done that, they could be on par, or even likely ahead of where Rocketlab is with Neutron, or where Relativity is with Terran.  Was this politically or financially possible?  We will never know.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 04/19/2023 01:01 am


I do pity the political reality the European politicians have to deal with.  My experience with Europeans is mainly within Scandinavia, but also with some work & private associates in other EU countries.  The population really has no interest in space as a general rule.  If Europeans had even 10% of the enthusiasm as the Copenhagen Suborbitals team, they would be on Luna reading this post.


I really do hope Europeans find the enthusiasm to invest in the new space market, and quick… because right now they are on the path to becoming a rounding error.

SpaceX alone is one pace to quite literally lifting more mass into space, more people, and more satellites by mass in one year than Europe did in a whole decade. In a few years SpaceX might be beating the entire history of European space flight on an annual basis.

The time to get serious is now.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 04/19/2023 01:04 am

I think Europe's technical error was in not moving quickly to integrate a Methalox Prometheus onto a small launch vehicle quickly, then pivot to a larger 5.4m core reusable single stick architecture.  .

Prometheus only succesfuly test fired last november, And CNES-Arianegroup-ONERA Themis & Maiaspace *are* supposed to be using it, first hop in Kiruna in a year, first RTLS in Kourou in two, first orbital launch in 3, or at least that's the plan.

One could criticise the pace of development of ACE/Romeo/Prometheus, an engine that started development in 2007, heavily based on IHI's work since the 80s which had already achieved decent Open-cycle Methalox engines in the same thrust class, taking 15 years to get to first firing... Funding priorities were definitely elsewhere
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: gosnold on 04/24/2023 06:30 pm
One could criticise the pace of development of ACE/Romeo/Prometheus, an engine that started development in 2007, heavily based on IHI's work since the 80s which had already achieved decent Open-cycle Methalox engines in the same thrust class, taking 15 years to get to first firing... Funding priorities were definitely elsewhere

That's the root cause of this whole mess. Prometheus was not mature enough to propose an alternative to PPH and PHH, because ESA did not fund it seriously, in fact even Vinci funding was low and it took three decades to design it in.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 04/25/2023 01:08 am
One could criticise the pace of development of ACE/Romeo/Prometheus, an engine that started development in 2007, heavily based on IHI's work since the 80s which had already achieved decent Open-cycle Methalox engines in the same thrust class, taking 15 years to get to first firing... Funding priorities were definitely elsewhere

That's the root cause of this whole mess. Prometheus was not mature enough to propose an alternative to PPH and PHH, because ESA did not fund it seriously, in fact even Vinci funding was low and it took three decades to design it in.

Even if it was mature I'm not sure it could have been politicaly considered before the Airbus Safran Launcher Joint Venture creation tbh. But the past is the past.
Prometheus is the only actual large liquid fuel engine in europe today (Vulcain is old gen, fine when the competitors were Delta IV and H-II, not so much fine today, too low volume, performances, high cost, no capability for reuse; and all the micro launchers have tiny puny <10 tons engines), maybe M60 will join it someday but it's unlikely to be for more than medium launchers.

And Since Arianegroup is selling the Prometheus to its subsidiary Maiaspace, I think there's a good case that it should be compelled to sell it to any potential buyer for fair competition, that's one of many requirement for  an european MLV/HLV manufacturer that isn't Avio or Arianegroup could appear before 2040.

The rate and volume of development of rocket engines in europe, compared to America, Russia (more so historically) and China is unbelievably slow, China develops more large liquid engines in a year than we do in 20!

I still find the AG proposals for Prometheus powered Ariane 6 funny, this has even less chance of happening than Liquid boosters on the shuttle.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/25/2023 06:08 pm
[Repeat mode = on] AFAIK the rocket engine technologies that could be used by Ariane 6 were frozen during the (november) 2012 ESA Ministerial. So over a year and a half before Arianegroup's predecessors changed the plans from the PPH to the PHH design. At that time with a smaller tank diameter. (But most likely that was only to get funding for the required new core stage factory in France.
In hindsight there was the FLPP SCORE-D staged combustion engine demonstrator proposal, that didn't get funding. This would have resulted in an engine similar to RS-25 or BE-4. At this time there was the duo financial crisis; banks & Euro/ state debt. ESA memberstate had to cut funding, thus there wasn't funding for a new liquid core engine development.
Thus ESA/ launcher industry could only use Solid rocket motors Vulcain 2.1 and Vince (and Aestus engine) for Ariane 6.
I think the current Ariane 6 design is the best that could have come out of this.
[Repeat mode = off]
 
In my non expert interpretation the transition from Ariane 5 launched from ELA3 to Ariane 6 launched from the new ELA4, was low risk. The Vulcain and Vince engines were qualified. The P120C was far along in it's development. And industry planned for a three year transition period. (from H2 2020 to end 2023).
Because SpaceX was succesful with the development of the reusable Falcon 9 launch service cost propped. At the same time LEO comsat constellations were proposed, resulting in lower demand for geostationary communication satellites. The combination of these two factors resulted in the decision to reduce the final Ariane 5 ECA batch from 10 to 6.
And than the Vega launch failures happend. The Covid pandemic happened. The decision was made to skip the initial version of Ariane 6 and directly develop the version with APU and autogenus pressurization. And there were several development setbacks. All these factors resulted in the three year delay of the first launch of Ariane 6. I do not understand what is the cause of the slow progress this year, I would like to learn the reason why ULPM and ELA4 qualification are taking so much more time than on the original timeline.

For several missions ESA/Europe (memberstates) were relying on Soyuz, and then Russia invaded Ukraine. And because of the political sanctions Soyuz is no longer a launch option. Thus several payloads are looking for an alternative to Soyuz or an earlier launch opportunity than Ariane 6 can provide. I think there are only two options SpaceX Falcon 9 and ISRO PSLV/GSLV.     

Long term launch demand is AFAIK very uncertain. With: SpaceX Falcon9 (and Starship?), Rocketlab Neutron, Blue Origin New Glenn, NGIS/Firefly Antares 330 / MLV and Relativity Terran R there are a lot of reusable launchers in development. Currently Falcon 9 is launching >80% of USA and European launch demand.
With the introduction of the other launchers Falcon 9 launch market share will reduce. If launch demand increases enough for all there launchers to launch at a high rate, I think is very unlikely. Thus I expect a higher overall annual amount of launches, but lower launch rates per launcher because the launch demand is spread between the available launch options.
Arianespace has never in it's history launched more than 12 launches annually. This isn't enough demand to break even on the cost to develop a reusable launcher. Then there is the complicating factor that Ariane 6 / launcher production has been spread across Europe according to how much member states (contributed) to the development of the launcher. And the break even point on reuse went to a higher annual launch rate because of this.

In Europe the stage reentry control technology isn't mature. There is no restart-able first/core stage engine available. So the risk with the development of an large reusable European launcher are to large.
Already with the low risk transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6, the Vega mishaps and the non-availability of Soyuz, Europe lost it's independent acces to space. Gallileo, a vital European space infrastructure can't be maintained because of this. Apparently the transition to Ariane 6 was already to ambitious, thus European acces to space was harmed. And than forum members here dare to claim that Europe should have developed a reusable rocket.
Let's agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/25/2023 06:15 pm
I dare someone to share details on the burn duration made with the Prometheus engine demonstrators.
Afaik there are years of development ahead before Prometheus is proven enough to be used in a launcher.
That's the main reason I'm against the Themis demonstrator.
There isn't a level playing field when rocket development in the USA is compared to Europe. Afaik, (in Europe) there are ridiculous restrictions at the main rocket engine test sites. To such an extend; that startup's had to invest in their own test facilities at other locations than the established test sites.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/25/2023 07:08 pm


I dare someone to share details on the burn duration made with the Prometheus engine demonstrators.
Afaik there are years of development ahead before Prometheus is proven enough to be used in a launcher.
That's the main reason I'm against the Themis demonstrator.
There isn't a level playing field when rocket development in the USA is compared to Europe. Afaik, there are ridiculous restrictions at the main rocket engine test sites. So such an extend that startup's had to invest in their own test facilities at other locations than the established test sites.

I assume you are talking about access to European test sites. NASA is very willing to lease out Stennis engine test facilities to USA new space companies.. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 04/25/2023 08:54 pm


I dare someone to share details on the burn duration made with the Prometheus engine demonstrators.
Afaik there are years of development ahead before Prometheus is proven enough to be used in a launcher.
That's the main reason I'm against the Themis demonstrator.
There isn't a level playing field when rocket development in the USA is compared to Europe. Afaik, there are ridiculous restrictions at the main rocket engine test sites. So such an extend that startup's had to invest in their own test facilities at other locations than the established test sites.

I assume you are talking about access to European test sites. NASA is very willing to lease out Stennis engine test facilities to USA new space companies..
Precisely proving the strawman nature of the OP’s argument.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 04/25/2023 08:59 pm
I dare someone to share details on the burn duration made with the Prometheus engine demonstrators.
Afaik there are years of development ahead before Prometheus is proven enough to be used in a launcher.
That's the main reason I'm against the Themis demonstrator.
There isn't a level playing field when rocket development in the USA is compared to Europe. Afaik, (in Europe) there are ridiculous restrictions at the main rocket engine test sites. To such an extend; that startup's had to invest in their own test facilities at other locations than the established test sites.

I'm not quite sure I follow Prometheus being young -> Themis is not worth doing. It's still mainly an Arianegroup Private & French Public program, not so much of ESA program, Prometheus still has a lot of development ahead but the timescale of some small hop in 2024 and operational orbital launch use in 2026 (4 years after first firing) is ambitious but not unheard of, even in europe. You say that the knowledges and capability to make restartable & reusable booster doesn't exist but it never will if nobody tries (and Callisto is not nearly in the same class).

Yes the lack of accessible rocket test sites is unbelievable, Latitude, the french start up, had to test their tiny, piston pump, Rutherford-sized, engine in the middle of nowhere in Saxavord because of "French administrative slowness"*
Saxavord (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0wkNsfseuY), all for 35 seconds of firing!  It becomes even a bit funny when one compares it with the recent movie "L'Astronaute" Astronaute (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaGAVVmR1mU) , made in cooperation with Arianegroup,  showing the protagonist testing his 100kN+ engine in his garden!

I've been seeing on some AG trade union sites (specifically, Force Ouvrière (https://www.fo-arianegroup.fr/actus/c/0/i/71901265/arianegroup-un-changement-incomprehensible-de-l-equipe-dirigeante)) that the recent change of CEO of AG has come with a wider reshuffling of the upper management of the Joint Venture... a Safran CEO resulted in some (sometimes forced) departures to "keep the balance".

I have no knowledge to do "Airbus kremlinology" but it gets a bit concerning when said trade union, despite repeated disagreement with the previous management, says that the change is incomprehensible and hurtful to the stability and development of Ariane 6...


*I'm not making this up
See "We wanted to test in Vernon, but there was too much waiting time in their schedule, we decided to make our own test bench, on private ground... Impossible to authorise in a new rocket test area in reasonable time (https://twitter.com/stan_maximin/status/1618559641914605568)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Asteroza on 04/25/2023 11:16 pm


I dare someone to share details on the burn duration made with the Prometheus engine demonstrators.
Afaik there are years of development ahead before Prometheus is proven enough to be used in a launcher.
That's the main reason I'm against the Themis demonstrator.
There isn't a level playing field when rocket development in the USA is compared to Europe. Afaik, there are ridiculous restrictions at the main rocket engine test sites. So such an extend that startup's had to invest in their own test facilities at other locations than the established test sites.

I assume you are talking about access to European test sites. NASA is very willing to lease out Stennis engine test facilities to USA new space companies..

But wouldn't that risk ITAR contamination by using a facility located in the USA? Reaction Engines had a hell of time with testing their stuff within the USA.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hoku on 04/30/2023 03:43 pm
Any recent updates on Ariane 6 progress?

Have opto-pyro problems been solved? Are ELA4 cryo-arms fully operational? What is the new/current schedule for the two Vulcain 2.1 hot fires at Kourou? Have all ULPM APU problems been solved? Is the next ULPM hot fire at Lamboldshausen still on schedule for early June?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GewoonLukas_ on 04/30/2023 10:41 pm
Arianespace is losing the contract for ViaSat-3 APAC:

Quote
Viasat seeks replacement for Ariane 6 for launch of third ViaSat 3 satellite (https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/04/30/viasat-seeks-replacement-for-ariane-6-for-launch-of-third-viasat-3-satellite/)

April 30, 2023

On the eve of launching its first ViaSat 3 internet satellite on a SpaceX rocket, Viasat says it has moved the launch of an identical spacecraft off of Europe’s long-delayed Ariane 6 rocket, and is considering bids from other rocket companies.

The decision means the launch contract is up for grabs for the third ViaSat 3 internet satellite, the last of a three-satellite constellation Viasat is deploying to provide global broadband connectivity from space.

Viasat announced in 2018 it selected SpaceX, United Launch Alliance, and Arianespace to each launch one ViaSat 3 satellite, awarding launch contracts to three industry leaders.

SpaceX is set to launch the first ViaSat 3 satellite on a Falcon Heavy rocket as soon as Sunday night from Kennedy Space Center, following a series of delays throughout April for technical and weather concerns. The second ViaSat 3 satellite remains booked to launch on ULA’s Atlas 5 rocket in late 2023 or early 2024.

The first two ViaSat 3 satellites will provide internet service over the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

But the third ViaSat 3 satellite, designed to serve the Asia-Pacific region and called ViaSat 3 APAC, will no longer launch on Arianespace’s Ariane 6 rocket, according to Dave Ryan, Viasat’s president of space and commercial networks.

[...]

“The Ariane, unfortunately, we had to change because they were having difficulties getting the Ariane 6 ready to go, and then secondly, when the war broke out, some of the launches that they were responsible for on Russian launchers had to be transferred over to their Ariane vehicles,” Ryan said in an interview with CBS News.

“That pushed us later in line,” Ryan said. “So it got so late that we had to put that third satellite out for bid, and we’re evaluating the proposals right now.”

[...]

The final Ariane 5 rocket is set for launch in June, and all of ULA’s remaining Atlas 5 rockets are booked until the company retires the vehicle in favor of the new Vulcan Centaur rocket. Japan’s new H3 rocket, which could be technically capable of launching a satellite as heavy as a ViaSat 3 spacecraft, failed on its inaugural launch in February.

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket is not expected to be available for a commercial mission in time for when Viasat says the third ViaSat 3 satellite will be ready for launch in mid-2024.

That leaves SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy and ULA’s Vulcan rocket as the most likely contenders for the contract to launch the ViaSat 3 satellite for the Asia-Pacific region.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 05/07/2023 09:43 am
Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.
Quote
Fusée Ariane 6 : "le vol inaugural est prévu avant la fin de l'année", annonce Stéphane Israël
(Ariane 6 rocket: "the maiden flight is scheduled before the end of the year", announces Stéphane Israël)

In French, I don't understand anything.  :(
from the translation, topics e.g.: inflation -> cost increases? reuse and 3D print on the next generation of launchers in 10 years or so. surprise
quality problems with the Vega and Vega-C

https://youtu.be/59s5oEACMMY
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: oomrubl on 05/07/2023 10:17 am
An #ArianeGroup tweet from 15 hours ago had

"A few months away from a new era, Ariane 6 opens it's doors to it's Universe"

Are they a bit optimistic or just not talking of lauchtime?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/08/2023 02:42 am
Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.
Quote
Fusée Ariane 6 : "le vol inaugural est prévu avant la fin de l'année", annonce Stéphane Israël
(Ariane 6 rocket: "the maiden flight is scheduled before the end of the year", announces Stéphane Israël)
<snip>

Most launch providers has posted scheduled flight dates previously that is usually too optimistic.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 05/08/2023 06:28 pm
Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.
Quote
Fusée Ariane 6 : "le vol inaugural est prévu avant la fin de l'année", annonce Stéphane Israël
(Ariane 6 rocket: "the maiden flight is scheduled before the end of the year", announces Stéphane Israël)
&lt;snip&gt;

Most launch providers has posted scheduled flight dates previously that is usually too optimistic.
No way will it fly this year.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 05/08/2023 06:47 pm
Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.
Quote
Fusée Ariane 6 : "le vol inaugural est prévu avant la fin de l'année", annonce Stéphane Israël
(Ariane 6 rocket: "the maiden flight is scheduled before the end of the year", announces Stéphane Israël)
&lt;snip&gt;

Most launch providers has posted scheduled flight dates previously that is usually too optimistic.
No way will it fly this year.

It's just the title of the video.
I can no longer derive any meaning from these statements. Excuse me. cut
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/08/2023 08:30 pm
Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.
Quote
Fusée Ariane 6 : "le vol inaugural est prévu avant la fin de l'année", annonce Stéphane Israël
(Ariane 6 rocket: "the maiden flight is scheduled before the end of the year", announces Stéphane Israël)
&lt;snip&gt;

Most launch providers has posted scheduled flight dates previously that is usually too optimistic.
No way will it fly this year.

Explain why not!?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/09/2023 08:22 am
Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.
Quote
Fusée Ariane 6 : "le vol inaugural est prévu avant la fin de l'année", annonce Stéphane Israël
(Ariane 6 rocket: "the maiden flight is scheduled before the end of the year", announces Stéphane Israël)
&lt;snip&gt;

Most launch providers has posted scheduled flight dates previously that is usually too optimistic.
No way will it fly this year.

Explain why not!?

Too many open check boxes on the to-do list, each of them holding the potential for further delays. Some of those WILL cause delays.

Much like how they didn't see something as mundane as an APU on the ULPM, cause problems. But it did. Same for the ULPM cryo arms.
The only way in which Ariane 6 will launch this year is if NOTHING goes wrong during all the planned testing and integration work. To expect that nothing will go wrong is an unrealistic expectation, particularly in spaceflight.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 05/09/2023 08:50 am
Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.
Quote
Fusée Ariane 6 : "le vol inaugural est prévu avant la fin de l'année", annonce Stéphane Israël
(Ariane 6 rocket: "the maiden flight is scheduled before the end of the year", announces Stéphane Israël)
<snip>

Most launch providers has posted scheduled flight dates previously that is usually too optimistic.
No way will it fly this year.

Explain why not!?

Too many open check boxes on the to-do list, each of them holding the potential for further delays. Some of those WILL cause delays.

Much like how they didn't see something as mundane as an APU on the ULPM, cause problems. But it did. Same for the ULPM cryo arms.
The only way in which Ariane 6 will launch this year is if NOTHING goes wrong during all the planned testing and integration work. To expect that nothing will go wrong is an unrealistic expectation, particularly in spaceflight.
Precisely and there’s only a remote possibility that no issues come up.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mamut on 05/09/2023 10:57 am
As far as Im concerned, one of the thing to be checked out of the list for the launch to happen before the end of the year was completion of upper stage fire tests before the end of Q1. We have may now, and still at mleast half of the the fire tests to perform, so expect march 2024 as a date launch, if tests are done today. It's not gonna happen so half of the next year would be date I would expect.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/09/2023 11:41 am
As far as Im concerned, one of the thing to be checked out of the list for the launch to happen before the end of the year was completion of upper stage fire tests before the end of Q1. We have may now, and still at mleast half of the the fire tests to perform, so expect march 2024 as a date launch, if tests are done today. It's not gonna happen so half of the next year would be date I would expect.

Yes. Any realistic chance of Ariane 6 launching in Q1 2024 hinges around the speedy completion of the ULPM test firing campaign. Right now that campaign is going slow, partly because of the aforementioned APU problem. Only two (AFAIK) of the four planned test firings have been completed. The first was in October last year. The second in January this year. Since then: 4 months of no action. If they continue by that pace, Arianespace could consider itself lucky if they complete the hot firing campaign this year. Which rules out a launch this year.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/10/2023 05:53 pm
Afaik in Europe companies have the tendency to share info only after tests have been completed successfully. In my opinion Arianegroup and Germany have some serious explaining to do when they haven't done ULPM tests between January and now.

Why do expect there to be a year between ULPM certification and maiden flight?

Afaik Arianegroup should have 15 launchers build. So they should test hardware rich.
Arianegroup might beter use new build flight hardware instead of correcting test hardware.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: friendly3 on 05/10/2023 07:31 pm
Afaik in Europe companies have the tendency to share info only after tests have been completed successfully. In my opinion Arianegroup and Germany have some serious explaining to do when they haven't done ULPM tests between January and now.

Why do expect there to be a year between ULPM certification and maiden flight?

Afaik Arianegroup should have 15 launchers build. So they should test hardware rich.
Arianegroup might beter use new build flight hardware instead of correcting test hardware.

Huh, do you really believe that?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/10/2023 08:54 pm
No.
The European taxpayer is contributing 700mln so the factories for Ariane 6 (several repurposed from Ariane 5) were practically dormant from 2020 to end 2023. And now the initial batch of 14 launchers will be build from 2024 to 2025

Woods, you named the APU a mundane technology. But can you point me to an US equivalent?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/11/2023 01:36 pm
Afaik in Europe companies have the tendency to share info only after tests have been completed successfully. In my opinion Arianegroup and Germany have some serious explaining to do when they haven't done ULPM tests between January and now.

The first ULPM hot-fire test was performend on October 5, 2022 and reported by ESA the day after (https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ariane/Ariane_6_takes_next_step_to_first_flight_with_upper_stage_hot_fire_tests), on October 6, 2022.
The second ULPM hot-fire test was performed on January 20, 2023 and reported by DLR on Twitter 3 days later (https://twitter.com/DLR_en/status/1617540481574912004).

So, the two hot fire tests done were reported within mere days from taking place. No such further hot fire reporting has taken place and the reason for this is that NO further ULPM hot fire tests have taken place since January 20, 2023. I know that for a fact: I talk to people who are involved in Ariane 6 development and they have confirmed that so far only two ULPM hot fire tests have been performed.

And no, ArianeGroup and Germany and (by extension) ESA have NO explaining to do, least of all to you and me. Although Ariane 6 is being developed with taxpayer's money from many countries around Europe, the obligation to explain what that money is used for lies at a different level of transparency than what people are used from the USA and NASA. ESA reports once per year to the public what they have spent funds on (financial reckoning)
Until several years ago ESA issued the magazine "ESA Bulletin" four times per year. Each issue included a section where progress on development programs was reported in some detail. But since "ESA Bulletin" was cut (due to cost considerations) the progress reporting (to the general public) has gone from 4 times per year to annually only (I'm not counting tweets and posts on other social media).

Why do expect there to be a year between ULPM certification and maiden flight?

I am NOT expecting a year. ESA and ArianeGroup have long since established that final preparations, as wel as concluding the certification paperwork, will take at least 4 months between wrapping up of the ULMP hot fire test series and the first lauch attempt. So, based on ESA's own assessment: if ESA and its contractors manage to wrap up ULMP hot fire testing at the end of this year, then Ariane 6 will have its first launch attempt No Earlier Then sometime Q2 of 2024.

Afaik Arianegroup should have 15 launchers build. So they should test hardware rich.
Arianegroup might beter use new build flight hardware instead of correcting test hardware.

ArianeGroup has only 6 launchers produced or in production at this time. One is the test vehicle that is now sitting on the launch pad in French Guyana. Another consists of hot-fire test articles. Then there is the first flight vehicle. And further are three more flight vehicles in production.

The thing is: ArianeGroup can't go stockpiling lots of flight hardware. If they do and testing and first flight reveal significant problems, requiring re-design or different manufacturing, then ArianeGroup would have to throw away up to a dozen sets of built flight hardware. That's expensive and something ESA and ArianeGroup will avoid at all cost.

Mind you, ESA and ArianeGroup do development of Ariane 6 the old-fashioned way. That is: NOT hardware rich. They are not like SpaceX. They are like ULA and Boeing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/11/2023 02:08 pm
No.
The European taxpayer is contributing 700mln so the factories for Ariane 6 (several repurposed from Ariane 5) were practically dormant from 2020 to end 2023. And now the initial batch of 14 launchers will be build from 2024 to 2025

Woods, you named the APU a mundane technology. But can you point me to an US equivalent?

APU's have been used in US spaceflight for half a century. The Ariane 6 ULPM APU is a based off the HM-7B gas generator, which in itself was developed in the 1970s. The only difference is that instead of driving a turbo pump, the hot gases produced by the gas generator are now used to pressurize the ULPM propellant tanks. Additionally, the hot gases can be routed to a nozzle, to provide thrust for propellant settling, as well as for gradual deorbiting of the ULPM. Those latter two functions are not exactly "new" for this APU. Excessive gas produced by APUs has always been funneled down an exhaust pipe to provide extra thrust. For example: Falcon 9 is famous for its 18 plumes: 9 from the engines exhaust and 9 from the gas-generators. Same for HM-7B gas generator: its excessive gas was funneled down the lenght of the engine bell and then exhausted to provide extra thrust. Same for Vulcain 1.
Funneling hot gas to a tank to pressurize it, is not new technology either. Guess what Ariane 5 does: it takes hot gas from the main combustion chamber, as well as from a turbopump to pressurize both propellant tanks.

All things considered the ULPM APU is merely a glorified LH2-driven gas generator, doing a slightly different thing than it normally does. But the idea behind it is just a mash-up of already (long) existing technologies. And it is certainly not as "innovative" as the ArianeGroup news releases from 2021 pretend it to be.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 05/12/2023 01:10 am

ArianeGroup has only 6 launchers produced or in production at this time. One is the test vehicle that is now sitting on the launch pad in French Guyana. Another consists of hot-fire test articles. Then there is the first flight vehicle. And further are three more flight vehicles in production.


There definitely is hardware (at least for the ESR, that I’ve read of) beyond the first four flight that are in production right now.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mamut on 05/12/2023 09:27 am
New update from ESA:
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ariane_6_joint_update_report_12_May_2023

Key milestones towards inaugural flight:

Starting May 2023: Flight software qualification tests - Software tests in anticipation of the inaugural flight mission, in nominal and degraded conditions.

Starting May 2023: Ground combined tests sequence, at Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana - This test sequence notably includes two wet rehearsals and a long firing test of the lower stage on the launch pad. The successful achievement of this sequence is a main prerequisite for the inaugural flight.

Completion of outstanding qualification reviews of the different products and sub-systems.

Starting late-June 2023: Overall launch system qualification review - Unified qualification review of the launcher, launch system and launch base.

Early July 2023: Upper stage additional test at DLR Lampoldshausen, Germany - This test on the P5.2 test bench will simulate a nominal flight profile like the one planned for the inaugural flight, to confirm the expected behaviour of the upper stage. A further test is planned to examine stage behaviour in degraded cases.

Starting November 2023: Launch vehicle assembly and beginning of the inaugural flight launch campaign - Following sea transportation of lower and upper stages from France and Germany to French Guiana, this process will include in a full-fledged flight configuration a final dress rehearsal.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 05/12/2023 11:59 am
So most likely mid 2024 at the earliest.

Considering Kuiper’s 2026 deadline how long until it starts losing those launches too? God help the program if they have a failure (which is common on new vehicles) with the truly glacial pace they move.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 05/12/2023 01:23 pm
So most likely mid 2024 at the earliest.

Considering Kuiper’s 2026 deadline how long until it starts losing those launches too? God help the program if they have a failure (which is common on new vehicles) with the truly glacial pace they move.

Considering the vast majority of A6 Kuiper launches were always supposed to be on A6+ or whatever they call it, I’d think that even during the negociations for that contract, A6 was never supposed to make a meaningful contribution to the first half of the constellation.

Amazon may cancel contracts but I’d be very surprised if it’s because AS doesn’t launch enough Kuiper A6 before Mid-2026
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/13/2023 04:12 am
So most likely mid 2024 at the earliest.

Considering Kuiper’s 2026 deadline how long until it starts losing those launches too? God help the program if they have a failure (which is common on new vehicles) with the truly glacial pace they move.

Considering the vast majority of A6 Kuiper launches were always supposed to be on A6+ or whatever they call it, I’d think that even during the negociations for that contract, A6 was never supposed to make a meaningful contribution to the first half of the constellation.

Amazon may cancel contracts but I’d be very surprised if it’s because AS doesn’t launch enough Kuiper A6 before Mid-2026

Don't think ArianeSpace will lose any launch contracts with Project Kuiper. But it is quite likely that Project Kuiper will have to supplement their launch options to meet the 2026 deadline with the folks from Hawthorne. The Ariane 6 launches will be use to replenished the Kuiper constellation later on, maybe with late launcher availability discounts. Since it is very likely that Amazon has inserted such a clause in the contract.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 05/13/2023 08:41 am
So most likely mid 2024 at the earliest.

Considering Kuiper’s 2026 deadline how long until it starts losing those launches too? God help the program if they have a failure (which is common on new vehicles) with the truly glacial pace they move.

Considering the vast majority of A6 Kuiper launches were always supposed to be on A6+ or whatever they call it, I’d think that even during the negociations for that contract, A6 was never supposed to make a meaningful contribution to the first half of the constellation.

Amazon may cancel contracts but I’d be very surprised if it’s because AS doesn’t launch enough Kuiper A6 before Mid-2026

Don't think ArianeSpace will lose any launch contracts with Project Kuiper. But it is quite likely that Project Kuiper will have to supplement their launch options to meet the 2026 deadline with the folks from Hawthorne. The Ariane 6 launches will be use to replenished the Kuiper constellation later on, maybe with late launcher availability discounts. Since it is very likely that Amazon has inserted such a clause in the contract.

Sorry if this may be off topic for this thread, but considering satellite constellation have a higher margin than launches, what prevents SpaceX from refusing any contract if they are confident it would cause Kuiper to fail?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DreamyPickle on 05/13/2023 08:42 am
The last Ariane 5 launch is almost a month away and then there will be a signficant gap until Ariane 6; almost an year.

Looking back from this point it seems that Ariane 5 was cancelled prematurely. Do we know why that decision was taken - just cost cutting or something else? If it was cost-cutting then it was a bad idea - profitable missions ended up having to be dropped.

ULA can't build more of Atlas 5 because there are no more engine. But Ariane 5 production could have continued unimpeded.

SpaceX is also working on a new rocket that might reach orbit in a similar timeframe but there was been no mention of cancelling the Falcon 9.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/13/2023 09:45 am
<snip>
Sorry if this may be off topic for this thread, but considering satellite constellation have a higher margin than launches, what prevents SpaceX from refusing any contract if they are confident it would cause Kuiper to fail?
Various governments and the EU will take a dim view of predatory antitrust actions by a company with a monopoly. Hence SpaceX will take on launch contract from anyone not on the sanction lists.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 05/13/2023 09:54 am

Looking back from this point it seems that Ariane 5 was cancelled prematurely. Do we know why that decision was taken - just cost cutting or something else? If it was cost-cutting then it was a bad idea - profitable missions ended up having to be dropped.


I suspect this is due to retooling the production facilities for Ariane 6. At some point you have to start reconfiguring the factory. Keeping the old tooling around and available for continued production in parallel with Ariane 6 production would mean adding a lot of floor space to the factory, hiring more people etc. This is expensive.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 05/13/2023 11:09 am
https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/premier-vol-d-ariane-6-je-suis-confiant-philippe-baptiste-cnes-962197.html

First launch of Ariane 6 : " I am confident " (Philippe Baptiste, CNES)

Worried at the beginning of the year about a possible major delay of Ariane 6, the president of CNES seems more reassured about the progress of the program. Europe's future heavy launcher is currently undergoing combined tests.


CNES President Philippe Baptiste is much more optimistic about a first flight of Ariane 6 (Ariane 62 version) close to the official schedule ( last quarter of 2023) than at the beginning of the year "I find that we are at the moment on a good dynamics on the Ariane 6 program (...) I am rather confident ", confided Philippe Baptiste on Thursday.
said Thursday Philippe Baptiste

[paywall]
"Since a few months, several good news have arrived. And technical problems, which had appeared, were solved one after the other", assured the president of CNES, Philippe Baptiste.

For reference he had been cautious about A6 in last January https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/premier-vol-d-ariane-6-en-2023-la-mise-en-garde-de-philippe-baptiste-cnes-948239.html
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/13/2023 11:30 am
New update from ESA:
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ariane_6_joint_update_report_12_May_2023

Key milestones towards inaugural flight:

Starting May 2023: Flight software qualification tests - Software tests in anticipation of the inaugural flight mission, in nominal and degraded conditions.

...

Early July 2023: Upper stage additional test at DLR Lampoldshausen, Germany - This test on the P5.2 test bench will simulate a nominal flight profile like the one planned for the inaugural flight, to confirm the expected behaviour of the upper stage. A further test is planned to examine stage behaviour in degraded cases.

Is it odd to think; the last two ULPM test require the certified flight software!?
Thus the flight software is holding back ULPM testing.

AFAIK both stages of Ariane 5 used Helium to pressurize the oxygen tanks and (autogenous) Hydrogen gas for the Hydrogen tanks. ULPM will use the APU to vaporize both prepollents from liquid to gas, and use those gasses for pressurization. I thought this initially was an update planned for Ariane 6. But the heavier and more expansive initial version was skipped. 
I thought this technology (autogenous pressurization) could only be use with cryogenic propellant's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFyABYjachc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFyABYjachc)

I think Europe / ESA hadn't matured autogenus LOx (LH2) pressurization before 2021. I think this was the most risky aspect of Ariane 6 development. Autogenus pressurization on LOx- LNG / CH4 / Propane should be a high priority for ESA's FLPP program. This reduces risk for all launchers using there propellent combinations.

Does anyone disagree with the following statement?
'Of all launcher transition programs, the transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 was the least risky one. Because in theory all technologies were already mature. H2 to H3 uses a new core engine; LE-7 => LE-9. And ULA Vulcan uses the new BE-4 engines.'
Agreed that the new launch site (ELA4) added risk, while the other projects reused the existing launch infrastructure. (ELA-3 and BIL/BAF were not flexible enough.) But still Ariane 6 development should have taken less time than the other programs.'

In my opinion European launch industry showed incompetence here.
ArianeGroup promised a fast development and transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6. Development signed in 2014, Maiden launch in 2020 and transition period to 2023. Thus the last batch of Ariane 5 was only 6 launchers. And factories were constructed with thigh datelines (thus more expansive). 
The result of >3years of delays is that there isn't a transition period but a launch capability gap. The speedy constructed factories have been practically dormant for three years. (requiring the 700mln Ariane 5 to 6 transition program.)
And as a result of no launch capability: EUMETSAT can't transition to it's next generation of weather satellites. The Galileo system is breaking down, because the replacement satellites are not launched in time. Etz.

I think the Q4 2023 => Q1 2024 is a realistic timeframe for the maiden launch of Ariane 6.
With the condition that there aren't mayor setbacks during the coming tests.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/13/2023 12:19 pm
The last Ariane 5 launch is almost a month away and then there will be a signficant gap until Ariane 6; almost an year.

Looking back from this point it seems that Ariane 5 was cancelled prematurely. Do we know why that decision was taken - just cost cutting or something else? If it was cost-cutting then it was a bad idea - profitable missions ended up having to be dropped.

I agree in hindsight the transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 was planned to ambitious.
But there were several market factors leading to the taken approach.
The transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 was (apparently mistakenly) judged as low risk / straight forward. All engines were certified from the start. But they misjudged the construction time for the launch site, the complexity of the APU and launch release system. And they didn't account for three Vega (C) failures, Covid-19 and several other conditions.

The transition plan from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 was decided in 2018. The initial plan, with 4 year development time (2016-2020) and three year transition period (2020-2023) seemed reasonable. They had 23 Ariane 5 ECA left to launch and ordered 14 Ariane 6. This all was to be used between 2018 and 2023.
But somehow European launch industry showed their incompetence and the maiden Ariane 6 launch got >3years delayed.

Already in 2016 launch demand for GTO payloads (the main destination for Ariane 5 launches) was low, because of the development of LEO comsat constellations. For the 2005 to 2015 period Ariane 5 launched on average 6x annually. This was reduced to 3x annually for the 2016 to 2022 period. I think European launch industry forecasted an average of 4 Ariane 5 launcher for the 2016 to 2020 period. There were paring difficulties with Ariane 5. And there was a not to be named competitor that could offer lower launch service cost, and better schedule reliability.
European launch industry didn't want to be left with unused Ariane 5 launch hardware.
For the 2020 to 2023 period European launch industry planned to produce 10x Ariane 5 ECA and 14x Ariane 6. In 2018 there were 19 Ariane 5 left to be launched an 14 Ariane 6 planned to launch. Where they were used to build 6x Ariane 5 ELA annually. But now required only three. Thus they produced the last batch of Ariane 5 hardware and then converted the tooling for the production of Ariane 6. Or they ended production, as was the case for the metal casings for the solids.
I think those casing are the problem now for building extra Ariane 5 launchers.

Arianespace also had Soyuz on offer, so they assumed that Soyuz could launch payloads when Ariane 6 was delayed. And since there isn't reculation mandating launching institutional payloads on European launchers. Commercial launch was also viewed as launch alternative. 
We all know why Soyuz is no longer en European launch option. An that is causing most harm to European space projects right now. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 05/13/2023 12:46 pm
The last Ariane 5 launch is almost a month away and then there will be a signficant gap until Ariane 6; almost an year.

Looking back from this point it seems that Ariane 5 was cancelled prematurely. Do we know why that decision was taken - just cost cutting or something else? If it was cost-cutting then it was a bad idea - profitable missions ended up having to be dropped.

ULA can't build more of Atlas 5 because there are no more engine. But Ariane 5 production could have continued unimpeded.

SpaceX is also working on a new rocket that might reach orbit in a similar timeframe but there was been no mention of cancelling the Falcon 9.

Well, only ArianeGroup/Arianespace can answer that.
It is possible that Arianespace could only have sold further Ariane 5s with loss.
However, these losses would certainly not have been as high as they are now, where there are no or very few launches. The fixed costs, salaries, etc. continue.
In addition, the disappointed regular customers have run away and may not come back when the Ariane 6 is ready.

In 2019 for example, Arianespace did not bid for O3b-mpower, although they had a chance against SpaceX due to the geographic location of the launch site, i believe. Energetically is the direct injection into the O3b orbit at the launch in Kourou about equal to GTO.

So I think in 2019 it was already clear internally that there would be major delays with Ariane 6. (before Covid!)
At that time one might still have been able to react, and order further Ariane-5s. A mix of ECA and ES.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/13/2023 02:19 pm
Looking back from this point it seems that Ariane 5 was cancelled prematurely. Do we know why that decision was taken - just cost cutting or something else? If it was cost-cutting then it was a bad idea - profitable missions ended up having to be dropped.
Over-optimistic schedule projections seem to be the norm in the LV industry. Vulcan Centaur and Starship join Arianne 6 as current examples. It's hard for the program managers to insist on maintaining the older launcher if higher-ups in the organization have accepted these schedules, because maintaining it causes higher costs and stranded assets.

ULA had no alternative, so their decision was forced: Vulcan was intended as a fairly conservative Atlas V-like architecture. SpaceX did have plans to shift most launches (Starlinks) to Starship from F9, and the delay forced sudden unplanned adjustments and caused Elon to say "we risk bankruptcy". I suspect outsiders like me have no idea of the extent of the cost and upheaval within SpaceX caused by all this. It is masked by the fact that F9 remains the most profitable LV in service.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/13/2023 05:42 pm
Does anyone have any info on the Astris Kick-stage development?
Could that still be tested in 2024 for use that same year?
I think Galileo could highly use it; to reduce the amount of launches required to orbit the remaining gen.1 satellites ASAP. I think Ariane 6 could launch 4 Galileo gen.1 satellites when they are placed on top or a Astris or other kick stage. The Galileo system requires all Gen. 1 satellites launched by end 2025, earlier would be preferable. 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 05/13/2023 08:50 pm
Does anyone have any info on the Astris Kick-stage development?
Could that still be tested in 2024 for use that same year?
I think Galileo could highly use it; to reduce the amount of launches required to orbit the remaining gen.1 satellites ASAP. I think Ariane 6 could launch 4 Galileo gen.1 satellites when they are placed on top or a Astris or other kick stage. The Galileo system requires all Gen. 1 satellites launched by end 2025, earlier would be preferable.

An Ariane 64 should be able to launch at least four first generation Galileo satellites. Without Astris.
But so far this is not planned.
I have doubts that an Ariane-62 + Astris can do that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/15/2023 01:22 pm

Looking back from this point it seems that Ariane 5 was cancelled prematurely. Do we know why that decision was taken - just cost cutting or something else? If it was cost-cutting then it was a bad idea - profitable missions ended up having to be dropped.


I suspect this is due to retooling the production facilities for Ariane 6. At some point you have to start reconfiguring the factory. Keeping the old tooling around and available for continued production in parallel with Ariane 6 production would mean adding a lot of floor space to the factory, hiring more people etc. This is expensive.

Emphasis mine.

NO, that's not it.

Like the contractors did last time, when they switched production from Ariane 4 to Ariane 5, they built new production facilities for Ariane 6 right next to the Ariane 5 production facilities. In other words: they added floor space to the factory. Which eliminated the need to reconfigure the factory. The one thing they did not was bring in more people (at least not many). Production crews for Ariane 6 are mainly the same that work(ed) on Ariane 5.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/16/2023 10:28 am
Sorry if this may be off topic for this thread, but considering satellite constellation have a higher margin than launches, what prevents SpaceX from refusing any contract if they are confident it would cause Kuiper to fail?

A whole bunch of anti trust laws, both in the USA and international, say that SpaceX cannot do this.

Besides, SpaceX won't refuse the extra launch business. They did afterall launch part of their current direct competitor (OneWeb) after the latter lost access to Soyuz. It is pretty much a given that IF Kuiper asks SpaceX to launch their satellites, THEN SpaceX will gladly accept Kuiper's dollars and provide the launch service.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/17/2023 03:24 pm
https://twitter.com/andrewparsonson/status/1658853119793541124

Quote
Interesting development road map for the @ArianeGroup Ariane 6 evolutions. A four liquid fuel booster version would be wild. Also interesting that they're going to replace Vulcain 2.1 with Prometheus.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 05/17/2023 06:35 pm
This is the first indication I've seen of two versions of Prometheus: the slide has Prometheus H and M versions. Heavy and Medium?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: spacenuance on 05/17/2023 07:06 pm
This is the first indication I've seen of two versions of Prometheus: the slide has Prometheus H and M versions. Heavy and Medium?

Hydrolox and methalox iirc
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: c4fusion on 05/18/2023 01:46 am
This is the first indication I've seen of two versions of Prometheus: the slide has Prometheus H and M versions. Heavy and Medium?

Hydrolox and methalox iirc

Is that really the same engine at that point?  You might as well call it different things.  Or is this an optics thing where they want it to seem less risky so they have the same name?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edzieba on 05/18/2023 12:33 pm
This is the first indication I've seen of two versions of Prometheus: the slide has Prometheus H and M versions. Heavy and Medium?

Hydrolox and methalox iirc

Is that really the same engine at that point?  You might as well call it different things.  Or is this an optics thing where they want it to seem less risky so they have the same name?
It's not unheard of for engines to be modified to run different propellants. RL-10 has run Hydrolox, LH2+F2, LCH4 + O2/F2 mix, C3H8 + O2, etc. I would not be all that surprised if someone had modified one to fire hypergols.
And in operational use, the LR87 went from a Kerolox engine to Hypergolic (Aerozine 50/N2O4), with a brief stint as a Hydrolox competitor to the J-2.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: daedalus1 on 05/18/2023 01:08 pm
This is the first indication I've seen of two versions of Prometheus: the slide has Prometheus H and M versions. Heavy and Medium?

Hydrolox and methalox iirc

Is that really the same engine at that point?  You might as well call it different things.  Or is this an optics thing where they want it to seem less risky so they have the same name?
It's not unheard of for engines to be modified to run different propellants. RL-10 has run Hydrolox, LH2+F2, LCH4 + O2/F2 mix, C3H8 + O2, etc. I would not be all that surprised if someone had modified one to fire hypergols.
And in operational use, the LR87 went from a Kerolox engine to Hypergolic (Aerozine 50/N2O4), with a brief stint as a Hydrolox competitor to the J-2.

Do you have a link for those other versions. I can't find anything.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 05/18/2023 08:55 pm
This is the first indication I've seen of two versions of Prometheus: the slide has Prometheus H and M versions. Heavy and Medium?

Hydrolox and methalox iirc

Is that really the same engine at that point?  You might as well call it different things.  Or is this an optics thing where they want it to seem less risky so they have the same name?
It's not unheard of for engines to be modified to run different propellants. RL-10 has run Hydrolox, LH2+F2, LCH4 + O2/F2 mix, C3H8 + O2, etc. I would not be all that surprised if someone had modified one to fire hypergols.
And in operational use, the LR87 went from a Kerolox engine to Hypergolic (Aerozine 50/N2O4), with a brief stint as a Hydrolox competitor to the J-2.

Same for the RS-88 engine used by Boeing as the abort engine for CST-100 Starliner. It began life as an engine running on ethanol and LOX, but was adapted for Starliner to run on hypergolic propellants.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edzieba on 05/19/2023 08:09 am
This is the first indication I've seen of two versions of Prometheus: the slide has Prometheus H and M versions. Heavy and Medium?

Hydrolox and methalox iirc

Is that really the same engine at that point?  You might as well call it different things.  Or is this an optics thing where they want it to seem less risky so they have the same name?
It's not unheard of for engines to be modified to run different propellants. RL-10 has run Hydrolox, LH2+F2, LCH4 + O2/F2 mix, C3H8 + O2, etc. I would not be all that surprised if someone had modified one to fire hypergols.
And in operational use, the LR87 went from a Kerolox engine to Hypergolic (Aerozine 50/N2O4), with a brief stint as a Hydrolox competitor to the J-2.

Do you have a link for those other versions. I can't find anything.
p.187 of attached PDF summarises some of the early testing, wish I had reports of the actual test results.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: daedalus1 on 05/19/2023 09:11 am
Thanks
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/27/2023 01:58 pm
A hydrolox and a methalox engine definetly are not identical. Prometheus engines are AFAIK gas generator cycle running fuel rich.
The fuel turbopumps will differ a lot.
Because Oxidizer/fuel mass ratio is ~6 for Hydrolox and ~3.4 for Methalox. And has a higher density than Hydrogen. The hydrogen turbopump is much larger than the methane turbopump.
The density difference results is the same oxidizer mass flow (turbopump) being usable for both motors. I'm not knowlageble enough to determain the differences/simularity in gas generator, regenerative cooled nozzle (only fuel, with also oxidizer cooling it's a different nozzle) and main combustion chamber injection system.

I think the Prometheus H (hydrolox) was called Vulcain 2.3 about a decade ago, it's very simular to Vulcain 2.1 (used on Ariane 6 LLPM). But with very high % of the motor parts being additive manufactured. So it's an engine less expensive to produce.

I think both Prometheus H and N (?&P) could be manufactured and assembled with the same tooling.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/06/2023 12:38 pm
[Regarding hypothetical reusable propulsive kerolox boosters for Ariane 6]
I wonder where the factory to build the new boosters for Ariane 6 should be established .
 Pity Ukraine is not available .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/07/2023 12:47 am
I wonder where the factory to build the new boosters for Ariane 6 should be established .
 Pity Ukraine is not available .
You need to provide information behind this thread title given you created it. Link to article or webpage maybe.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: catdlr on 07/07/2023 01:42 am
I wonder where the factory to build the new boosters for Ariane 6 should be established .
 Pity Ukraine is not available .
You need to provide information behind this thread title given you created it. Link to article or webpage maybe.

TrevorMonty,  I have no idea why someone would start a thread as an opinion without credibility.  Here is some factual information on Booster production in Italy.

SITE Link (https://www.roth-composite-machinery.com/en/4479.htm)


PDF Source Link (https://www.roth-composite-machinery.com/en/files/005%20-%20Roth-Composite-Machinery/RCM_Ariane_EN.pdf)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/07/2023 02:52 am
I wonder where the factory to build the new boosters for Ariane 6 should be established .
 Pity Ukraine is not available .
You need to provide information behind this thread title given you created it. Link to article or webpage maybe.

TrevorMonty,  I have no idea why someone would start a thread as an opinion without credibility.  Here is some factual information on Booster production in Italy.

SITE Link (https://www.roth-composite-machinery.com/en/4479.htm)


PDF Source Link (https://www.roth-composite-machinery.com/en/files/005%20-%20Roth-Composite-Machinery/RCM_Ariane_EN.pdf)
Thanks for links Catdlr but that is solid rocket boosters. Whats the story behind Kerolox boosters?.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: catdlr on 07/07/2023 03:38 am
Thanks for links Catdlr but that is solid rocket boosters. What's the story behind Kerolox boosters?.

I don't have anything in particular as there is a wealth of suppliers for the construction of this.  Here is the overall chart to start with.  It 7 years old (take with a grain of salt).

Ariane 6 Industrial Organisation (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2016/11/Ariane_6_industrial_organisation)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 07/07/2023 06:46 am
We will be talking about various type of spacecraft but the politicians will not fumd any spacecraft without a good reason .
 Reusable boosters are the best choice for the for the next evolution at ariane 6 but the way  ESA is funded we will need a new country to champion the construction of them no matter what their fueled with .
There is not a politician who will fund a new launcher for 20 years even if it costs a little less .without good reason that is why skylon  will not be funded until the market grows by a large amount Not a 14 billion euro anyway .
 Right after Ariane 6 launches  we should develop  small reauseble  grasshopper launching out of Guyana with the landing pad near the coast so Landing can be undertaken would be of benefit to all .
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Skyrocket on 07/07/2023 09:05 am
We will be talking about various type of spacecraft but the politicians will not fumd any spacecraft without a good reason .
 Reusable boosters are the best choice for the for the next evolution at ariane 6 but the way  ESA is funded we will need a new country to champion the construction of them no matter what their fueled with .
There is not a politician who will fund a new launcher for 20 years even if it costs a little less .without good reason that is why skylon  will not be funded until the market grows by a large amount Not a 14 billion euro anyway .
 Right after Ariane 6 launches  we should develop  small reauseble  grasshopper launching out of Guyana with the landing pad near the coast so Landing can be undertaken would be of benefit to all .
 

So this is just an opinion thread and there is no actual information on any reusable Kerolox-booster project for Ariane-6?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 07/07/2023 11:22 am
TrevorMonty,  I have no idea why someone would start a thread as an opinion without credibility.

Moderator:
I don't know either.

Speculation/wishful fantasy thread merged to Ariane 6 discussion thread.

So this is just an opinion thread and there is no actual information on any reusable Kerolox-booster project for Ariane-6?
Yes.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/07/2023 06:37 pm
https://youtu.be/iUTf0LWNSag
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/08/2023 09:03 am
If European launch industry develops (partially) reusable launchers they are much more likely to use MethaLox than KeroLox.
Why: The engines in development, Arianegroup Prometheus (M), Avio M10 (& M60/HTE) and Pangea Arcos burn methalox.
RFA, PLD space and Latitude are using KeroLox as fuel for their small launchers. Isar and Orbex are using PropaneLox.

For Ariane6 I expect the P120C(+) production capability to be the launch rate limiting factor. The P120C(+) production is shared between Italy and France. I think a stage utilizing P120C diameter tanks with multiple ~M60 (Avio HTE/Arianegroup ACE) engines could be a drop replacement.

With the problems with the Zefiro40 stage, a two stage (let's call it Vega F); with P120C(+) as first stage and second stage with HTE engine. Could be a better improvement than Vega-E. Also on this Iauncher could benefit from the MethaLOx P120C replacement stage. I expect this can be availabe NET 2028.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 07/08/2023 09:27 am
If European launch industry develops (partially) reusable launchers they are much more likely to use MethaLox than KeroLox.
Why: The engines in development, Arianegroup Prometheus (M), Avio M10 (& M60/HTE) and Pangea Arcos burn methalox.
RFA, PLD space and Latitude are using KeroLox as fuel for their small launchers. Isar and Orbex are using PropaneLox.

For Ariane6 I expect the P120C(+) production capability to be the launch rate limiting factor. The P120C(+) production is shared between Italy and France. I think a stage utilizing P120C diameter tanks with multiple ~M60 (Avio HTE/Arianegroup ACE) engines could be a drop replacement.

With the problems with the Zefiro40 stage, a two stage (let's call it Vega F); with P120C(+) as first stage and second stage with HTE engine. Could be a better improvement than Vega-E. Also on this Iauncher could benefit from the MethaLOx P120C replacement stage. I expect this can be availabe NET 2028.

Half the world now thinks methane is better than kerosene.
Whether this is really the case in first stages or boosters has yet to be proven.
In view of the current performance of Avio, one can carefully consider alternatives to the P120C(+).
But in my opinion, the ESA and also the national space organizations cannot make independent decisions.
It is determined by national interests and industrial politics.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: oomrubl on 07/09/2023 10:06 am
If European launch industry develops (partially) reusable launchers they are much more likely to use MethaLox than KeroLox.
Why: The engines in development, Arianegroup Prometheus (M), Avio M10 (& M60/HTE) and Pangea Arcos burn methalox.
RFA, PLD space and Latitude are using KeroLox as fuel for their small launchers. Isar and Orbex are using PropaneLox.

For Ariane6 I expect the P120C(+) production capability to be the launch rate limiting factor. The P120C(+) production is shared between Italy and France. I think a stage utilizing P120C diameter tanks with multiple ~M60 (Avio HTE/Arianegroup ACE) engines could be a drop replacement.

With the problems with the Zefiro40 stage, a two stage (let's call it Vega F); with P120C(+) as first stage and second stage with HTE engine. Could be a better improvement than Vega-E. Also on this Iauncher could benefit from the MethaLOx P120C replacement stage. I expect this can be availabe NET 2028.

Half the world now thinks methane is better than kerosene.
Whether this is really the case in first stages or boosters has yet to be proven.
In view of the current performance of Avio, one can carefully consider alternatives to the P120C(+).
But in my opinion, the ESA and also the national space organizations cannot make independent decisions.
It is determined by national interests and industrial politics.

Just wondering. As far as I know there are no issues with P120C nor with the still in progress P120C+. Considering alternatives therefore doesn't seem 'logical' because of Avio's performance. There may be other reasons of course, like moving away from solid fuel boosters to liquids and reusability..

 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 07/09/2023 10:59 am
If European launch industry develops (partially) reusable launchers they are much more likely to use MethaLox than KeroLox.
Why: The engines in development, Arianegroup Prometheus (M), Avio M10 (& M60/HTE) and Pangea Arcos burn methalox.
RFA, PLD space and Latitude are using KeroLox as fuel for their small launchers. Isar and Orbex are using PropaneLox.

For Ariane6 I expect the P120C(+) production capability to be the launch rate limiting factor. The P120C(+) production is shared between Italy and France. I think a stage utilizing P120C diameter tanks with multiple ~M60 (Avio HTE/Arianegroup ACE) engines could be a drop replacement.

With the problems with the Zefiro40 stage, a two stage (let's call it Vega F); with P120C(+) as first stage and second stage with HTE engine. Could be a better improvement than Vega-E. Also on this Iauncher could benefit from the MethaLOx P120C replacement stage. I expect this can be availabe NET 2028.

Half the world now thinks methane is better than kerosene.
Whether this is really the case in first stages or boosters has yet to be proven.
In view of the current performance of Avio, one can carefully consider alternatives to the P120C(+).
But in my opinion, the ESA and also the national space organizations cannot make independent decisions.
It is determined by national interests and industrial politics.

Just wondering. As far as I know there are no issues with P120C nor with the still in progress P120C+. Considering alternatives therefore doesn't seem 'logical' because of Avio's performance. There may be other reasons of course, like moving away from solid fuel boosters to liquids and reusability..

Not so far, right. They have enough other problems.
The failed Z-40 test in late June was the fourth failure of an Avio rocket stage within the last few years. (as far as we know)
The production volume of the P120C(+) cases is to be increased to 35 per year. The nozzles are produced in France.
That is about a tenfold increase compared to the P80FW + P120C number now.
Avio Spa. is a small company with many ambitious plans. (share value about $250 million, much of it in free float)
But doubts are slowly emerging as to whether all of this is feasible.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 07/09/2023 11:17 am
Regarding that Scott Manley video I’ve never understood why the didn’t upgrade the upper stage of Ariane 5 so that it could be re-started in orbit.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 07/09/2023 01:23 pm
If European launch industry develops (partially) reusable launchers they are much more likely to use MethaLox than KeroLox.
Why: The engines in development, Arianegroup Prometheus (M), Avio M10 (& M60/HTE) and Pangea Arcos burn methalox.
RFA, PLD space and Latitude are using KeroLox as fuel for their small launchers. Isar and Orbex are using PropaneLox.

For Ariane6 I expect the P120C(+) production capability to be the launch rate limiting factor. The P120C(+) production is shared between Italy and France. I think a stage utilizing P120C diameter tanks with multiple ~M60 (Avio HTE/Arianegroup ACE) engines could be a drop replacement.

With the problems with the Zefiro40 stage, a two stage (let's call it Vega F); with P120C(+) as first stage and second stage with HTE engine. Could be a better improvement than Vega-E. Also on this Iauncher could benefit from the MethaLOx P120C replacement stage. I expect this can be availabe NET 2028.

Half the world now thinks methane is better than kerosene.
Whether this is really the case in first stages or boosters has yet to be proven.
In view of the current performance of Avio, one can carefully consider alternatives to the P120C(+).
But in my opinion, the ESA and also the national space organizations cannot make independent decisions.
It is determined by national interests and industrial politics.

Just wondering. As far as I know there are no issues with P120C nor with the still in progress P120C+. Considering alternatives therefore doesn't seem 'logical' because of Avio's performance. There may be other reasons of course, like moving away from solid fuel boosters to liquids and reusability..

Not so far, right. They have enough other problems.
The failed Z-40 test in late June was the fourth failure of an Avio rocket stage within the last few years. (as far as we know)
The production volume of the P120C(+) cases is to be increased to 35 per year. The nozzles are produced in France.
That is about a tenfold increase compared to the P80FW + P120C number now.
Avio Spa. is a small company with many ambitious plans. (share value about $250 million, much of it in free float)
But doubts are slowly emerging as to whether all of this is feasible.

I wonder if that proposed second P120C casing production line in Germany that was proposed a few years ago could have helped production,
probably only a limited one considering all the other potential SRB bottlenecks in Madrid, Bordeaux, Brussels, Klatovy, Kourou and others....

Regarding that Scott Manley video I’ve never understood why the didn’t upgrade the upper stage of Ariane 5 so that it could be re-started in orbit.

That was tried, twice, it was cancelled, twice, in 2003 and 2014.





Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 07/09/2023 01:28 pm
Regarding that Scott Manley video I’ve never understood why the didn’t upgrade the upper stage of Ariane 5 so that it could be re-started in orbit.

the plan was for ESC-A to be an interim solution only, pending the development of ESC-B using the restartable Vinci engine. Unfortunately that was cancelled, IIRC after the failure of the first ECA launch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/10/2023 07:00 am
Regarding that Scott Manley video I’ve never understood why the didn’t upgrade the upper stage of Ariane 5 so that it could be re-started in orbit.

That wouldn't have solved the one fundamental problem with Ariane 5: its price tag.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Star One on 07/10/2023 09:17 am
Regarding that Scott Manley video I’ve never understood why the didn’t upgrade the upper stage of Ariane 5 so that it could be re-started in orbit.

That wouldn't have solved the one fundamental problem with Ariane 5: its price tag.
I thought it’s price was effectively subsidised and it was only when Space X turned up that even subsidies couldn’t help.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 07/10/2023 10:18 am
Regarding that Scott Manley video I’ve never understood why the didn’t upgrade the upper stage of Ariane 5 so that it could be re-started in orbit.

That wouldn't have solved the one fundamental problem with Ariane 5: its price tag.
I thought it’s price was effectively subsidised and it was only when Space X turned up that even subsidies couldn’t help.

Arianespace was still operating at a loss in the late 2000s/early 2010s when it had 50%+ of the GSO Comsat launch market share, earned more than that share in contracts, did 6-7 A5 launches a year, and received 200 million € (later a bit reduced iirc) of EGAS subsidies per year
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: niwax on 07/10/2023 10:39 am
Regarding that Scott Manley video I’ve never understood why the didn’t upgrade the upper stage of Ariane 5 so that it could be re-started in orbit.

That wouldn't have solved the one fundamental problem with Ariane 5: its price tag.
I thought it’s price was effectively subsidised and it was only when Space X turned up that even subsidies couldn’t help.

Arianespace was still operating at a loss in the late 2000s/early 2010s when it had 50%+ of the GSO Comsat launch market share, earned more than that share in contracts, did 6-7 A5 launches a year, and received 200 million € (later a bit reduced iirc) of EGAS subsidies per year

The bigger (indirect) subsidy is that development costs were completely covered. Earning those back can easily be the biggest chunk of the final price while the actual marginal cost to launch is minimal. Case in point, Ariane is receiving $5 billion to cut $50 million of the cost. If this were a commercial company, they'd need to keep selling at Ariane 5 prices for over a decade just to break even.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 07/10/2023 11:04 am
Regarding that Scott Manley video I’ve never understood why the didn’t upgrade the upper stage of Ariane 5 so that it could be re-started in orbit.

That wouldn't have solved the one fundamental problem with Ariane 5: its price tag.
I thought it’s price was effectively subsidised and it was only when Space X turned up that even subsidies couldn’t help.

Arianespace was still operating at a loss in the late 2000s/early 2010s when it had 50%+ of the GSO Comsat launch market share, earned more than that share in contracts, did 6-7 A5 launches a year, and received 200 million € (later a bit reduced iirc) of EGAS subsidies per year

The bigger (indirect) subsidy is that development costs were completely covered. Earning those back can easily be the biggest chunk of the final price while the actual marginal cost to launch is minimal. Case in point, Ariane is receiving $5 billion to cut $50 million of the cost. If this were a commercial company, they'd need to keep selling at Ariane 5 prices for over a decade just to break even.


Ariane 5 actually brought significant new capabilities to ESA and member states (unlike... Ariane 6), it did qualify as a necessary public infrastructure just like rail transport, water utilities... There's absolutely no problem with European taxpayer funding the €7 billion+ it cost and not expecting any return on that.

I don't have a problem either in a government investing in "commercial companies*" if they can provide unmatched/new infrastructures and services, that's just normal.

*seriously I don't get it, the whole Ariane industrial consortium has stopped being public owned since the great european aerospace-defense consolidations a couple decades ago, Arianespace has been 90%+ private for a decade and always had a commercial goal, Arianespace *is* a commercial company, and a private one at that.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: deltaV on 07/10/2023 04:59 pm
*seriously I don't get it, the whole Ariane industrial consortium has stopped being public owned since the great european aerospace-defense consolidations a couple decades ago, Arianespace has been 90%+ private for a decade and always had a commercial goal, Arianespace *is* a commercial company, and a private one at that.

A key part of a healthy commercial ecosystem is competition that forces companies to improve or get replaced. The European heavy lift launch market doesn't have that - Ariane 6 is falling behind and yet it will continue to be supported by European taxpayers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 07/13/2023 08:07 pm
First static fire is reportedly scheduled (or at least was earlier this week) for today, let's hope it goes/went well...

At least the mobile gantry has been withdrawn and a WDR seemed to be ongoing

https://twitter.com/thivallee/status/1679452551371005953
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/14/2023 01:25 pm
First static fire is reportedly scheduled (or at least was earlier this week) for today, let's hope it goes/went well...

At least the mobile gantry has been withdrawn and a WDR seemed to be ongoing

https://twitter.com/thivallee/status/1679452551371005953

A static fire is not planned for this particular event. The announced Wet Chronology is the first in a series of tanking tests, that will eventually lead up to a static fire campaign later this year.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 07/14/2023 01:49 pm
First static fire is reportedly scheduled (or at least was earlier this week) for today, let's hope it goes/went well...

At least the mobile gantry has been withdrawn and a WDR seemed to be ongoing

https://twitter.com/thivallee/status/1679452551371005953

A static fire is not planned for this particular event. The announced Wet Chronology is the first in a series of tanking tests, that will eventually lead up to a static fire campaign later this year.

Weird, local medias (Guyane 1ere, France-Guyane) were reporting a "short duration static fire of main stage" for yesterday, July 13th, in front of an interview of Toni Tolker-Nielsen.

As did, separately,  the CNES ground sections leader Pierre Guilhem in an interview to science&avenir a week ago, which I assume knows his stuff.

And I was hearing the same from inhabitants in kourou.

...

Communication seems a problem internally, too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 07/14/2023 08:38 pm
First static fire is reportedly scheduled (or at least was earlier this week) for today, let's hope it goes/went well...

At least the mobile gantry has been withdrawn and a WDR seemed to be ongoing

https://twitter.com/thivallee/status/1679452551371005953

A static fire is not planned for this particular event. The announced Wet Chronology is the first in a series of tanking tests, that will eventually lead up to a static fire campaign later this year.

Weird, local medias (Guyane 1ere, France-Guyane) were reporting a "short duration static fire of main stage" for yesterday, July 13th, in front of an interview of Toni Tolker-Nielsen.

As did, separately,  the CNES ground sections leader Pierre Guilhem in an interview to science&avenir a week ago, which I assume knows his stuff.

And I was hearing the same from inhabitants in kourou.

...

Communication seems a problem internally, too.

None of those statements match with the June 2023 Ariane 6 development update (https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ariane_6_joint_update_report_8_June_2023). There it was announced that Arianespace and ESA would first perform TWO wet rehearsals and then do a static fire. And the mentioned tweet clearly states that the event yesterday was the FIRST wet chronology. So, where the notion came from that the first wet chronology would include a short static fire is beyond me.
Unless ESA and Arianespace very recently decided to change plans...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 07/16/2023 01:52 pm
First static fire is reportedly scheduled (or at least was earlier this week) for today, let's hope it goes/went well...

At least the mobile gantry has been withdrawn and a WDR seemed to be ongoing

https://twitter.com/thivallee/status/1679452551371005953

A static fire is not planned for this particular event. The announced Wet Chronology is the first in a series of tanking tests, that will eventually lead up to a static fire campaign later this year.

Weird, local medias (Guyane 1ere, France-Guyane) were reporting a "short duration static fire of main stage" for yesterday, July 13th, in front of an interview of Toni Tolker-Nielsen.

As did, separately,  the CNES ground sections leader Pierre Guilhem in an interview to science&avenir a week ago, which I assume knows his stuff.

And I was hearing the same from inhabitants in kourou.

...

Communication seems a problem internally, too.

None of those statements match with the June 2023 Ariane 6 development update (https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ariane_6_joint_update_report_8_June_2023). There it was announced that Arianespace and ESA would first perform TWO wet rehearsals and then do a static fire. And the mentioned tweet clearly states that the event yesterday was the FIRST wet chronology. So, where the notion came from that the first wet chronology would include a short static fire is beyond me.
Unless ESA and Arianespace very recently decided to change plans...

This could have been a transcription error, or an inadvertence by the project manager for Ariane 6 ground facilities during the interview.

https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/espace/une-fusee-pour-l-europe-adieu-ariane-5-a-quand-ariane-6_172486.amp

But since this was separately repeated by local medias and inhabitants, who would likely directly get their sources from the personel rather than from a mainlander scientific journal, I'd tend to believe this "communication mistake" ran deeper.

On a side note, the ESA timeline isn’t exhaustive, it  does omit (indeed, "notably includes" ) the short static fires, which were not only reported by these media’s, but also by CNES a year ago  (https://cnes.fr/fr/lanceurs-essais-combines-ariane-6-en-route-vers-la-qualification), this page does list a "full chronology with 4 seconds vulcain ignition" before the full 460 seconds chronology, interestingly back then there were not supposed to be WDR before this full chronology with Short static fire.

Plans likely changed since, since the order of these events don’t fit at all with what ESA said last month. 

I asked a worker at ELA4 (@AstroPolo_Space) and he could confirm that a short static fire is still planned separately from the long one, although the circumstances may have changed since last years, he obviously couldn’t answer in more details.

CNES has the responsibility and is the "prime contractor" of all A6 ground infrastructure, since the current combined Ground test Closely involve CNES.
Since ESA does have the final say in PR, but CNES is also the majority funder (52%) of ground infrastructures, that could be a source of confusion in PR...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 07/16/2023 03:05 pm

On a side note, the ESA timeline isn’t exhaustive, it  does omit (indeed, "notably includes" ) the short static fires, which were not only reported by these media’s, but also by CNES a year ago  (https://cnes.fr/fr/lanceurs-essais-combines-ariane-6-en-route-vers-la-qualification), this page does list a "full chronology with 4 seconds vulcain ignition" before the full 460 seconds chronology, interestingly back then there were not supposed to be WDR before this full chronology with Short static fire.


There it was repeated again:
https://cnes.fr/fr/lanceurs-ariane-6-la-qualification-des-moyens-sol-est-prononcee
July 5, 2023
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 07/16/2023 04:11 pm

On a side note, the ESA timeline isn’t exhaustive, it  does omit (indeed, "notably includes" ) the short static fires, which were not only reported by these media’s, but also by CNES a year ago  (https://cnes.fr/fr/lanceurs-essais-combines-ariane-6-en-route-vers-la-qualification), this page does list a "full chronology with 4 seconds vulcain ignition" before the full 460 seconds chronology, interestingly back then there were not supposed to be WDR before this full chronology with Short static fire.


There it was repeated again:
https://cnes.fr/fr/lanceurs-ariane-6-la-qualification-des-moyens-sol-est-prononcee
July 5, 2023

Oh thanks I didn’t notice the "did you know" at the end

So ESA said a month ago : the combined test Notably include Two WDR and a Long Static fire, in this sequence.

CNES said 10 days ago: the qualification opens the way for A short static fire, which would include the first full chronology.

The later fits more with the interview, than the former.

And for reference, CNES said last year that the order was Short static fire, Long static fire, WDR in cold conditions with abort, Oxygen Links jettison, Cryoarm&MANG jettison without Propellant. This could be outdated however.

I guess either
-ESA didn’t consider the first full chronology with short fire as "notable"
-CNES doesn’t consider a WDR without ignition as a "full chronology"
-One or both statements are wrong/outdated


Weird
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 07/25/2023 08:05 pm
https://twitter.com/AstroPolo_Space/status/1683925558466596864

A summary of the events of the first countdown on July 18.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/02/2023 09:44 pm
twitter.com/arianegroup/status/1686833399879626752

Quote
When the two stages of #Ariane6 are ready, they are joined together. The upper stage and the core stage are brought together on the Horizontal Assembly Line. Their axes are aligned perfectly using 6 groups of 3 lasers, then they make contact.
#ArianeGroup

https://twitter.com/arianegroup/status/1686833402706546688

Quote
The Horizontal Assembly Line is nicknamed the HAL, in your opinion, what other science fiction character shares the same moniker?
#ArianeGroup #Ariane6

Need to finish the rocket before worrying about getting the pod bay days open.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 08/03/2023 02:53 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/esa-still-seems-shy-about-sharing-news-on-ariane-6-rocket-testing/

This article confirms that the aforementioned July 13 test had been aborted before restarting 5 days later.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 08/03/2023 03:23 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/esa-still-seems-shy-about-sharing-news-on-ariane-6-rocket-testing/

This article confirms that the aforementioned July 13 test had been aborted before restarting 5 days later.

Arianespace are just not serious people. I don’t know how else to describe it.

Europe is headed for a permanent <1% share of global space lift capacity unless the pull their head out of the sand.

Ariane + Vega share of DV-adjusted tonnage to orbit:

2014: 22.4%
2015: 20.3%
2016: 19.4%
2017: 19.3%
2018: 16.7%
2019: 14.1%
2020: 8.0%
2021: 6.8%
2022: 4.8%
2023(proj): 2.1%

Next year it will certainly be under 1%… does Europe really have “independent space lift” if they are 5% of world population and 15% of the world economy with a fraction of a percent of world space lift?

This year SpaceX is on pace to launch more adjusted tonnage than Ariane has from 2012 to now, and a reminder 6x 62 + 6x 64 launches are roughly equal to ~1.5 Starship launches in space lift capacity…

Europe needs more than Arianespace.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/03/2023 04:30 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/esa-still-seems-shy-about-sharing-news-on-ariane-6-rocket-testing/

This article confirms that the aforementioned July 13 test had been aborted before restarting 5 days later.


Another point from the article:

https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1687137415117381632

Quote
ESA doesn't plan to live-stream the Ariane 6 rocket's upcoming long-duration hotfire test on its launch pad in French Guiana.

This is an unfortunate decision, and should be reconsidered. NASA, SpaceX, and ULA have live-streamed comparable tests.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/03/2023 04:38 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/esa-still-seems-shy-about-sharing-news-on-ariane-6-rocket-testing/

This article confirms that the aforementioned July 13 test had been aborted before restarting 5 days later.

Arianespace are just not serious people. I don’t know how else to describe it.

Europe is headed for a permanent <1% share of global space lift capacity unless the pull their head out of the sand.

Ariane + Vega share of DV-adjusted tonnage to orbit:

2014: 22.4%
2015: 20.3%
2016: 19.4%
2017: 19.3%
2018: 16.7%
2019: 14.1%
2020: 8.0%
2021: 6.8%
2022: 4.8%
2023(proj): 2.1%

Next year it will certainly be under 1%… does Europe really have “independent space lift” if they are 5% of world population and 15% of the world economy with a fraction of a percent of world space lift?

This year SpaceX is on pace to launch more adjusted tonnage than Ariane has from 2012 to now, and a reminder 6x 62 + 6x 64 launches are roughly equal to ~1.5 Starship launches in space lift capacity…

Europe needs more than Arianespace.
This is an inappropriate comparison. Those numbers mostly reflect the rise of Falcon 9 in general and Starlink in particular, and not the fading of Arianespace. There are three effectively separate launch markets: SpaceX, China, and everyone else. So how is Ariane+Vega doing in the "everyone else" market?

I think "everyone else" as a whole is fading away.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 08/03/2023 06:08 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/esa-still-seems-shy-about-sharing-news-on-ariane-6-rocket-testing/

This article confirms that the aforementioned July 13 test had been aborted before restarting 5 days later.

Arianespace are just not serious people. I don’t know how else to describe it.

Europe is headed for a permanent <1% share of global space lift capacity unless the pull their head out of the sand.

Ariane + Vega share of DV-adjusted tonnage to orbit:

2014: 22.4%
2015: 20.3%
2016: 19.4%
2017: 19.3%
2018: 16.7%
2019: 14.1%
2020: 8.0%
2021: 6.8%
2022: 4.8%
2023(proj): 2.1%

Next year it will certainly be under 1%… does Europe really have “independent space lift” if they are 5% of world population and 15% of the world economy with a fraction of a percent of world space lift?

This year SpaceX is on pace to launch more adjusted tonnage than Ariane has from 2012 to now, and a reminder 6x 62 + 6x 64 launches are roughly equal to ~1.5 Starship launches in space lift capacity…

Europe needs more than Arianespace.
This is an inappropriate comparison. Those numbers mostly reflect the rise of Falcon 9 in general and Starlink in particular, and not the fading of Arianespace. There are three effectively separate launch markets: SpaceX, China, and everyone else. So how is Ariane+Vega doing in the "everyone else" market?

I think "everyone else" as a whole is fading away.

It’s not just Starlink.

SpaceX is eating everyone’s lunch on just about everything.

IIRC they are >50% of the GEO market this year as well.

They also launch >50% of people into space.

So far this year SpaceX has lifted ~75% of the world’s DV adjusted payload to spacex. That’s 3x the entire world combined… Once Starship starts flying it’ll probably be 90%+.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 08/03/2023 08:32 pm
For example, here is this year’s geostationary sat launch tallies:

DV adjusted mass for GTO payloads is calculated by e^((4300-GTO deficit)/3136) * mass

Mass (DV adjusted value) name, LV:
(Italics denotes estimates)

6,000kg (13,813) Shijian-23, CZ-7A 🇨🇳
3,500kg (13,572) USSF-67, Falcon 9 🇺🇸
2,094kg (8,250) Elektro-L4, Proton-M/DM-03 🇷🇺
4,500 (10,611) Amazonias Nexus, Falcon 9 🇺🇸
5,470 (12,256) Inmarsat-2 F6, Falcon 9 🇺🇸
5,500 (11,994) ZX 26, CZ-3B/E 🇨🇳
3,000 (11,820) Luch-2/Olymp-K, Proton-M/Briz 🇷🇺
5,250 (11,340) Gaofen 13-02, CZ-3B/E 🇨🇳
3,605 (7,043) SES-18, Falcon 9 🇺🇸
3,650 (7,130) SES-19, Falcon 9 🇺🇸
5,800 (12,389) Intelsat 40e, Falcon 9 🇺🇸
6,418 (24,887) ViaSat 3.1, Falcon Heavy 🇺🇸
300 (1,163) Arcturus (Aurora 4A), Falcon Heavy 🇺🇸
4,600 (10,015) Beidou-3 G4, CZ-3B/E 🇨🇳
4,500 (10,510) Arabsat 7A, Falcon 9 🇺🇸
2,232 (5,213) IRNSS 1J, GSLV Mk.2 🇮🇳
4,600 (10,590) Nusantara-2, Falcon 9 🇺🇸
6,500 (25,610) Orion-11, Delta IV Heavy 🇺🇸
3,408 (8,349) Heinrich Hertz, Ariane-5 ECA 🇪🇺
3,572 (8,751) Syracuse 4B, Ariane-5 ECA, 🇪🇺
9,200 (26,309) Jupiter-3/EchoStar 24, Falcon Heavy 🇺🇸
5,063 (11,600) Galaxy 37, Falcon 9 🇺🇸

Total:
98,762 (263,215) World

56,606 (147,059) SpaceX 🇺🇸
21,350 (47,162) China 🇨🇳
6,500 (25,610) ULA 🇺🇸
5,094 (20,074) Proton 🇷🇺
6,980 (17,100) Ariane 🇪🇺
2,232 (5,213) GSLV 🇮🇳

SpaceX is ~56% of the world total for GEO launch payload mass.

So far this year, the APV for the whole world is 990,837 of which 734,105 is SpaceX and 256,732 is non-SX.

Of that 734,105 total, 473,597 is Starlink launches, and 260,508 is the rest… so even if you take out Starlink, SpaceX is *still* out-lifting the entire world combined.

SpaceX has also sent up 8 of 14 people who have gone into space this year.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/03/2023 08:32 pm
With A5, A6, Atlas and Vulcan all unavaliable, F9 and GSLV are about it for western launch at present. Even when A6 and Vulcan are operational, between government and Kuiper contracts there isn't any spare vehicles for awhile.
F9 is about it for medium - GTO commercial satellites until 2025. After that Neutron and MLV will be avaliable for medium lift with F9 still only option for GTO.



Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/03/2023 08:56 pm
With A5, A6, Atlas and Vulcan all unavaliable, F9 and GSLV are about it for western launch at present. Even when A6 and Vulcan are operational, between government and Kuiper contracts there isn't any spare vehicles for awhile.
F9 is about it for medium - GTO commercial satellites until 2025. After that Neutron and MLV will be avaliable for medium lift with F9 still only option for GTO.
You appear to think that Starship and NG will not compete for the medium-lift business. Is this correct?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 08/03/2023 09:08 pm
With A5, A6, Atlas and Vulcan all unavaliable, F9 and GSLV are about it for western launch at present. Even when A6 and Vulcan are operational, between government and Kuiper contracts there isn't any spare vehicles for awhile.
F9 is about it for medium - GTO commercial satellites until 2025. After that Neutron and MLV will be avaliable for medium lift with F9 still only option for GTO.
You appear to think that Starship and NG will not compete for the medium-lift business. Is this correct?

And it should be noted again that an entire year worth of planned A6 production capacity (12) is only equal to a little over *one* Starship launch in capability… important when talking constellations.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/04/2023 03:59 pm
Next year it will certainly be under 1%… does Europe really have “independent space lift” if they are 5% of world population and 15% of the world economy with a fraction of a percent of world space lift?

This year SpaceX is on pace to launch more adjusted tonnage than Ariane has from 2012 to now, and a reminder 6x 62 + 6x 64 launches are roughly equal to ~1.5 Starship launches in space lift capacity…

Europe needs more than Arianespace.

I agree that "fraction of global adjusted tons launched" is the most meaningful figure of merit right now.  As you say, Europe is going to zero on that graph.  Ariane 6 will do nothing to arrest the fall and therefore is not relevant on the world stage.

We need to be clear what Arianespace's and Europe's competition is turning out to be:  A reusable SpaceX launcher plus an enormous commercial communications megaconstellation.  You can't build one without the other and expect to be successful.  They are a natural pair.

I feel like this natural pairing has been known for at least three decades, but we have seen success only now because it's extremely difficult to put all of the technological pieces together on the launcher side, the megaconstellation side, and the terminal side.  And then you have to harmonize the timing very well, lining up all the necessary financial and organizational resources.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pochimax on 08/04/2023 07:34 pm
I wonder why so much sudden interest in European rockets
Is this a self-serving attack to demoralize European taxpayers and lose our independent access to space, in favor of SpaceX?
why not the same interest in the Japanese H-3, which looks just as messy?

For a European to attack Arianespace like this borders on treason.

Let's get Ariane 6 up and running first, then we'll see how we can improve the situation.

And if necessary, access in Europe to foreign communications constellations will have to be closed.

Europe has to have its own independent access to space, no matter the price.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/04/2023 10:06 pm
I wonder why so much sudden interest in European rockets
Is this a self-serving attack to demoralize European taxpayers and lose our independent access to space, in favor of SpaceX?
why not the same interest in the Japanese H-3, which looks just as messy?

For a European to attack Arianespace like this borders on treason.

Let's get Ariane 6 up and running first, then we'll see how we can improve the situation.

And if necessary, access in Europe to foreign communications constellations will have to be closed.

Europe has to have its own independent access to space, no matter the price.
The issue is how noncompetitive the Ariane 6 is in putting up satellites in launch price and launch frequency in the future. Which make deploying an European LEO satcom constellation really hard. Since the Ariane 6 probably can optimistically launch about 15 times annually.

As I see it. Europe can have limited non commercial access to space at a high cost with the launch hardware currently in development.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pochimax on 08/05/2023 07:32 am
Quote
The issue is how noncompetitive the Ariane 6 is in putting up satellites in launch price and launch frequency in the future. Which make deploying an European LEO satcom constellation really hard. Since the Ariane 6 probably can optimistically launch about 15 times annually.

As I see it. Europe can have limited non commercial access to space at a high cost with the launch hardware currently in development.

Currently in development we hava a future competitive reusable launcher, Themis and is derivatives

Ariane 6 is almost finished. And price is not important when you have to do sovereing launches, as it was when USA rely on Delta's and Atlas for launching DOD birds.

More fiber and less LEO satcom is also a good solution to this problem.

The main important thing here is not to undermine our own current assets: Ariane 6. And try to improve future better solutions, but not at the cost of what we have.
There is some collateral talk even promoting to launch our sovereing satcom constellation on foreing launchers. It should not happen, whatever the cost. European birds shall be launched from european soil on european made rockets.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: deltaV on 08/05/2023 09:21 pm
Currently in development we hava a future competitive reusable launcher, Themis and is derivatives

Europe is unlikely to develop a truly competitive medium or heavy launcher if ArianeGroup retains its monopoly in European medium and heavy launch vehicles.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/05/2023 09:39 pm
<snip>
There is some collateral talk even promoting to launch our sovereing satcom constellation on foreing launchers. It should not happen, whatever the cost. European birds shall be launched from european soil on european made rockets.
It isn't the cost of launching European LEO satcoms with the upcoming Ariane 6 that start the talks to launch with alternate high volume launcher.

The timely deployment and replenishment of an European LEO satcom constellation is the main reason, IMO.

For the rest of the 2020s the only European high capacity LEO satcom launcher is the Ariane 64. Which once fully operational could launch about 10 times annually, in my estimation. There just isn't enough European launch capacity to efficiently deploy a LEO satcom constellation and also launch European Institutional payloads. Plus there are the European commercial payloads that also need rides up.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pochimax on 08/06/2023 05:04 pm
I don't know if the Iris2 constellation has so many satellites to need so many launchers. I don't think the number of satellites is known yet, but it seems modest in size (compared to Starlink).

The requirement to launch the constellation on European launchers and European territory is for the part of the constellation intended for government communications. For the rest of the satellites the requirements are less demanding.

I would not like them to launch on non-European rockets, I hope that the European Commission will invest money, if necessary, to develop other launchers already in the pipeline and speed up Themis.

They can also be launched on rockets from India, as OneWeb has already done.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: pochimax on 08/06/2023 05:08 pm
Currently in development we hava a future competitive reusable launcher, Themis and is derivatives

Europe is unlikely to develop a truly competitive medium or heavy launcher if ArianeGroup retains its monopoly in European medium and heavy launch vehicles.

I don't think there exist market (now, not; in the near future also not) for more than a reusable rocket in Europe.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: deltaV on 08/09/2023 01:53 pm
Europe is unlikely to develop a truly competitive medium or heavy launcher if ArianeGroup retains its monopoly in European medium and heavy launch vehicles.

I don't think there exist market (now, not; in the near future also not) for more than a reusable rocket in Europe.

NASA's commercial crew program has succeeded despite the market for space station crew transport being very small. This suggests that a well-done program with two competing European reusable rockets would be cheaper than 1 monopoly European reusable rocket. This is especially the case in the long term since competing companies will innovate a lot more.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/10/2023 04:44 am
Is the commercial crew program really successful? Only SpaceX has brought their system to market. Boeing hasn't jet and has designed the system for Atlas V, a launcher that's being phased out.
And it cost the USA taxpayer >$6×10^9.
In my opinion it's to early to draw a conclusion.

For medium to heavy launchers only SpaceX Falcon and ISRO PSLV/GSLV are avialable. All other launchers by other launch services providers are in transition or in development.
It comes down to SpaceX currently practically having a monopoly position for Westers medium to heavy launch.
We don't know if launch demand remains as high as it currently is. And what the consequences will be of more launch service providers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/10/2023 03:57 pm
Is the commercial crew program really successful? Only SpaceX has brought their system to market. Boeing hasn't jet and has designed the system for Atlas V, a launcher that's being phased out.
And it cost the USA taxpayer >$6×10^9.
In my opinion it's to early to draw a conclusion.

CCP is successful. There is no need for multiple providers: ISS has operated with either zero or one US crew transport for its entire history. CCP (Crew Dragon) has been transporting and maintaining ISS crew continuously since November 2020. It started 3 years late. The development costs were high because NASA insisted on funding two providers instead of one. The outcome shows that this was the correct choice: If they had downselected to only one provider in 2014, that provider would have been Boeing. In my opinion NASA should now cancel Starliner due to non-performance, which would reduce the total cost.

Starliner was not designed for only Atlas V. It was designed for Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, and Vulcan Centaur, When it was being designed, Atlas V was not being retired and Vulcan Centaur was projected to be available long before a transition was needed.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/10/2023 04:14 pm
Is the commercial crew program really successful? Only SpaceX has brought their system to market. Boeing hasn't jet and has designed the system for Atlas V, a launcher that's being phased out.
And it cost the USA taxpayer >$6×10^9.
In my opinion it's to early to draw a conclusion.

Overall, it was not a good value to the American taxpayer.  Even the SpaceX system is gold-plated.  The taxpayer would have been much better off had NASA exercised the COTS-D crew option for Dragon, or, at a minimum, supported Dragon propulsive landing in the commercial cargo and commercial crew programs.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: abaddon on 08/10/2023 04:49 pm
Honestly, the ISS is probably not a good value to the US taxpayer.  Nor was Apollo.  I'm not sure that's the lens we want to judge these types of programs on as space enthusiasts.

Regardless of opinion on "value", Commercial Crew has absolutely succeeded.  That doesn't necessarily make it a good model for others to follow.

This all seems pretty off-topic for an Ariane 6 discussion thread, which is not and never will be reusable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/10/2023 05:56 pm
The CCP is a wrong comparison to a reusable launcher. Both Dragon V2 and starliner crew vehicles are batch produced.
Boeing build 3 Starliner vehicles and SpaceX 5.
For a reusable launcher you want serial production. So no discontinuation of production. That's why the business case is hard to close.

The Ariane 6 engines were selected in 2012. There wasn't funding for the development of a new first stage engine. Thus Vulcain 2.1, Vince and a single segment solid were the available engine/motor options.

Apparently European launch industry is barely capable to develop Ariane 6 on the basis of Ariane 5. So how would they be capable to develop a reusable launcher?
Europe/ESA never landed a both the moon and Mars. They have not tested full size, free flying landers.

I have the impression that environmental regulations are restricting utilisation of the engine test facilities.
Why else would practically all launcher startups go the distance to setup new test facilities abroad.
What engines could be used by a reusable launcher?
Prometheus won't be certified before 2026, most likely several years later. The Avio HTE will only start development in 2027, when the M10 develoment has been finished. The HTE engine might be certified by 2030.

Themis has to wait for the certification of the prometheus engine. That makes it a very stupid project.

The sad truth is that the European industry seems barely capable to produce the Ariane 6.

We have to rely on it, because the USA launch providers might be blocked by presidential directive to offer launch services to ESA memberstates.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/11/2023 03:25 pm
.

I have the impression that environmental regulations are restricting utilisation of the engine test facilities.
Why else would practically all launcher startups go the distance to setup new test facilities abroad.

Inteview with RFA owner from a year ago said it was easier to test their engines in northern Sweden or Norway (can't remember which) than Germany thanks to regulations.

Thanks to US taxpayer, US companies have access to Stennis with its existing facilities.
"Want to test a 200klbs engine.  No problem,  how many stands do you want?"
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/11/2023 06:25 pm
It's Esrange Sweden, both RFA and Isar Aerospace build engine test there. There is one other zone for a test stand.

Europe is unlikely to develop a truly competitive medium or heavy launcher if ArianeGroup retains its monopoly in European medium and heavy launch vehicles.
What is your definition of a medium launcher?
Vega-C and even more Vega-E could be viewed as medium launch vehicles. Arianespace provides launch services on both (non-operational) Vega-C from ELV/Avio and Ariane 6 from Arianegroup.
Arianespace also used to sell Soyuz launches from CSG via Starsam. But then Russia invaded Ukraine ...
So there already is competition on medium launch between Arianegroup and Avio.

How launch services are going to be marketed/ arranged in the future; if/when small launchers start launching from the Diamond launch zone, remains to be seen.
Arianegroup is developing the Prometheus engine and Themis. Avio is developing the P120C+; M10; HTE/M60 engine and their Next Gen. launcher. So there already are two competing development lines for future improvements to Ariane 6; or it's successor.

I hope to be proven wrong; an the demand for European launch services being high enough for reusable launch systems to make sense. I don't see how a European company can bring to market a medium of heavy launch vehicle. (>2000kg to SSO 700km) before the 2030's.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 08/13/2023 04:23 pm
Quote
The issue is how noncompetitive the Ariane 6 is in putting up satellites in launch price and launch frequency in the future. Which make deploying an European LEO satcom constellation really hard. Since the Ariane 6 probably can optimistically launch about 15 times annually.

As I see it. Europe can have limited non commercial access to space at a high cost with the launch hardware currently in development.

Currently in development we hava a future competitive reusable launcher, Themis and is derivatives

Ariane 6 is almost finished. And price is not important when you have to do sovereing launches, as it was when USA rely on Delta's and Atlas for launching DOD birds.

Emphasis mine.

No offense, but that's a load of BS. Plenty of European institutional launches, even ones from ESA itself, went to non-European rockets (like Rockot, Soyuz and Falcon 9) because those launch options were cheaper than ESA's own Vega and Ariane 5.
Price therefor very much DOES matter for sovereign and institutional launches. ESA is not the USA DoD. I suggest you keep that in mind.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 08/13/2023 04:26 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/esa-still-seems-shy-about-sharing-news-on-ariane-6-rocket-testing/

This article confirms that the aforementioned July 13 test had been aborted before restarting 5 days later.

Arianespace are just not serious people. I don’t know how else to describe it.

Europe is headed for a permanent <1% share of global space lift capacity unless the pull their head out of the sand.

Ariane + Vega share of DV-adjusted tonnage to orbit:

2014: 22.4%
2015: 20.3%
2016: 19.4%
2017: 19.3%
2018: 16.7%
2019: 14.1%
2020: 8.0%
2021: 6.8%
2022: 4.8%
2023(proj): 2.1%

Next year it will certainly be under 1%… does Europe really have “independent space lift” if they are 5% of world population and 15% of the world economy with a fraction of a percent of world space lift?

This year SpaceX is on pace to launch more adjusted tonnage than Ariane has from 2012 to now, and a reminder 6x 62 + 6x 64 launches are roughly equal to ~1.5 Starship launches in space lift capacity…

Europe needs more than Arianespace.


"Independent space lift" has ZERO to do with the amount of tonnage lifted into orbit. Its about Europe having its own means of getting stuff into orbit. How much Europe actually lifts into orbit is totaly irrelevant.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 08/13/2023 04:32 pm
I wonder why so much sudden interest in European rockets
Is this a self-serving attack to demoralize European taxpayers and lose our independent access to space, in favor of SpaceX?
why not the same interest in the Japanese H-3, which looks just as messy?

For a European to attack Arianespace like this borders on treason.

Let's get Ariane 6 up and running first, then we'll see how we can improve the situation.

And if necessary, access in Europe to foreign communications constellations will have to be closed.

Europe has to have its own independent access to space, no matter the price.
The issue is how noncompetitive the Ariane 6 is in putting up satellites in launch price and launch frequency in the future. Which make deploying an European LEO satcom constellation really hard. Since the Ariane 6 probably can optimistically launch about 15 times annually.

As I see it: Europe can have limited non commercial access to space at a high cost with the launch hardware currently in development.

Exactly. With A6 and Vega-C Europe will have its required independent access to space BUT at a huge cost. And unlike the times of Ariane 1 thru Ariane 5, ESA won't be able to keep the costs for institutional launches down. Courtesy of having lost the commercial launch market to SpaceX. So, the institutional launches going up on Ariane 6 and Vega-C will pay hefty launch prices.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 08/13/2023 06:23 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/esa-still-seems-shy-about-sharing-news-on-ariane-6-rocket-testing/

This article confirms that the aforementioned July 13 test had been aborted before restarting 5 days later.

Arianespace are just not serious people. I don’t know how else to describe it.

Europe is headed for a permanent <1% share of global space lift capacity unless the pull their head out of the sand.

Ariane + Vega share of DV-adjusted tonnage to orbit:

2014: 22.4%
2015: 20.3%
2016: 19.4%
2017: 19.3%
2018: 16.7%
2019: 14.1%
2020: 8.0%
2021: 6.8%
2022: 4.8%
2023(proj): 2.1%

Next year it will certainly be under 1%… does Europe really have “independent space lift” if they are 5% of world population and 15% of the world economy with a fraction of a percent of world space lift?

This year SpaceX is on pace to launch more adjusted tonnage than Ariane has from 2012 to now, and a reminder 6x 62 + 6x 64 launches are roughly equal to ~1.5 Starship launches in space lift capacity…

Europe needs more than Arianespace.


"Independent space lift" has ZERO to do with the amount of tonnage lifted into orbit. Its about Europe having its own means of getting stuff into orbit. How much Europe actually lifts into orbit is totaly irrelevant.


Absolute nonsense.

As world payload capacity increases and price decreases, what it *actually* means to have “independent spacelift” will change, as this will allow new capabilities that did not previously exist, and that Europe will not have access to with limited spacelift capacity at multiple times the price.

The space sector is now a rapidly advancing segment, and the more lazy Europe is about catching up, the more likely it is they never will.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/13/2023 09:41 pm
I dare posters to back up their claims about Vega C and Ariane 6 launch cost being not competitive.
A Vega C launch costs ~€35mln, that's for <2.4mT to SSO 700km.
SpaceX stated Falcon 9 costs $67mln it can launch 14mT to SSO 560km (Starlink). A higher SSO/polar orbit Falcon 9 launched 6,6mT (225] Iridium-Next & Oneweb) Most likely the payload to 700km SSO is over 7mT.

Cost for Ariane 6 are uncertain.
The SSO 700km payload of A62 is 7,2mT, A64 is 15,5mT.
Payload capability to GTO for A62 is 4.5mT; and A64 11.5mT.
How payload capability will develop with Astris, Icarus and P120C+ remains to be see. Also unknown are the cost associated with these improvements.

For SSO missions Vega-C  or Ariane 62 are going to be used. (When they become available and reliable.)
To GTO Ariane 64 will be used mostly, in duo launch. I think Ariane 62 with Astris is the launcher most suitable for MEO/Galileo launches.

I wouldn't be surprised when Arianespace requires 150mln for an Ariane 64 to GTO. Divided between two payloads this is a very attractive launch offering. 75mln for a 5,5mT satellite. Or 65mln for 4.5mT and 85mln for a 6.5mt satellite.

Several payloads planned to be launched by Soyuz ST-A or ST-B. Because Soyuz from Kourou is no longer available, these payloads need to find another launch option.
I think a lot can be learned from these launch contracts.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 08/13/2023 11:20 pm
I wonder why so much sudden interest in European rockets
Is this a self-serving attack to demoralize European taxpayers and lose our independent access to space, in favor of SpaceX?
why not the same interest in the Japanese H-3, which looks just as messy?

For a European to attack Arianespace like this borders on treason.

Let's get Ariane 6 up and running first, then we'll see how we can improve the situation.

And if necessary, access in Europe to foreign communications constellations will have to be closed.

Europe has to have its own independent access to space, no matter the price.
The issue is how noncompetitive the Ariane 6 is in putting up satellites in launch price and launch frequency in the future. Which make deploying an European LEO satcom constellation really hard. Since the Ariane 6 probably can optimistically launch about 15 times annually.

As I see it: Europe can have limited non commercial access to space at a high cost with the launch hardware currently in development.

Exactly. With A6 and Vega-C Europe will have its required independent access to space BUT at a huge cost. And unlike the times of Ariane 1 thru Ariane 5, ESA won't be able to keep the costs for institutional launches down. Courtesy of having lost the commercial launch market to SpaceX. So, the institutional launches going up on Ariane 6 and Vega-C will pay hefty launch prices.

Given the 28 launches backlog, and since A6 isn't supposed to be more expensive (how cheaper, we won't know for a bit but there are enough industrial and processing changes we can hope that) than A5 at equal launch rate (which we hope can at least reach 6-7/y of A5 at the peak of its commercial success),
It's likely IMO that ESA won't have to pay more than what they paid for ~2016 Ariane 5, adjusted for inflation, until 2030 or so.

After 2030? Well I wouldn't even dare making predictions in any field past that date given the past few years...

Of course, 2016 Ariane 5 was already too expensive for ESA, and backlog evaporating overnight isn't unheard of (Delta IV, although we can hope the satellite market doesn't suffer like in 2001)...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 08/18/2023 11:15 am
Moon exploration is the next market
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 09/05/2023 08:28 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/no-firm-date-on-ariane-6s-debut-and-no-public-talk-on-prices-either/

Quote
...

"Of course there is a crisis of launchers in Europe; that is why we are all focused on Ariane 6," said Philippe Baptiste, chairman and CEO of the French space agency CNES. "As far as institutional launch is concerned, the root of the crisis is mostly the Soyuz. The war in Ukraine had tremendous consequences, including the end of the Soyuz in French Guiana."

Europe recently launched its Euclid space telescope on a Falcon 9 rocket, and its EarthCARE planetary science mission will also launch next year on the SpaceX rocket. However, during the news conference, Israël seemed to have a difficult time saying the name of his competitor out loud. "Euclid has been launched by another launcher," he said. "It will be the same for EarthCARE."

Still to be determined is the fate of four Galileo navigation satellites. That decision remains under consideration by the European Commission, but it seems most probable that the four satellites will be launched on two Falcon 9 missions since that is the only Western rocket with any spare capacity for the next couple of years.
...

The background was the question of how to proceed with the launch of the Galileo satellites and CSO-3.
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2023/09/Ariane_6_media_briefing_September_2023
around at 46:00
Regarding CSO-3, Stéphane Israël passed the question to Philippe Baptiste, who was sitting next to him.
He said the above writen, basically a repetition of what Israël said before, but didn't answer the actual question about the CSO-3 launch.
...one second silence in the room...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 09/22/2023 10:00 am
Ariane 6 update thread:
https://twitter.com/aschbacherjosef/status/1704875460000129370

Quote
Ariane 6 task force update: great data and results from the hot-fire September tests for #Ariane6 both in French Guiana and Germany. However, an anomaly was detected in the thrust control vector hydraulics when preparing for the next test and the long-duration hot firing test will no longer take place on 3 October as teams investigate the causes. We will come back to you with more updates when available.

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ariane/Ariane_6_joint_update_report_21_September_2023

Oh dear, I was still hoping that the launch might take place in the first half of the year 2024.
This new delay will be directly reflected in the date of the maiden flight, and more importantly, of the second launch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mamut on 09/22/2023 06:48 pm
Anomaly? That might be anything, weeks, months or years of delay. Let's wait for more detailed updates.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 10/08/2023 05:40 pm
The following was published in a French newspaper today. It has been translated into English using whatever the built-in translation service for MS Edge is.

Quote
Space: Airbus and Safran want more public money to operate Ariane 6


According to corroborating sources, ArianeGroup, owned by Airbus and Safran, is negotiating with the member states of the European Space Agency a very clear reassessment of support for the operation of Ariane 6 due to the consequences of inflation. The manufacturer is asking for €350 million per year, corresponding to an increase of ... 150%.

Michel Cabirol
08 Oct 2023, 5:00 pm



A complete paradigm shift. In 2014, when they announced that they wanted to take control of the Ariane 6 program, Airbus and Safran proclaimed loud and clear that they did not need public aid for the operation of the future European heavy launcher, this is no longer the case. This is the original sin of the two industrialists, who in order to "privatize" Ariane 6 at all costs, have promised mountains and wonders to the Member States of the European Space Agency (ESA), in particular to France, which has always ensured European leadership in the field of launchers.

And François Hollande, seduced by the very uncertain promises of the two industrialists on the basis of a simple project hastily set up to torpedo the project of a CNES PPH launcher (two solid rocket base stages and a cryogenic stage), offered them the keys to Ariane 6. Airbus and Safran, now united in a joint subsidiary ArianeGroup, had also promised to develop and design a low-cost launcher that was due to be operational by 2020. The goal has been largely missed: the European heavy launcher is supposed to fly for the first time in 2024, three and a half years late.

A decision at the beginning of November?

Battered by competition from SpaceX, which is launching satellites like hotcakes (68 launches since the beginning of the year, compared to three for European space from French Guiana) and exhausted by the Covid-19 crisis and the repeated delays of Ariane 6, ArianeGroup succeeded in 2021 in convincing ESA Member States to grant it financial support for the operation of Ariane 6 estimated at around €140 million per year. Two years later, the European manufacturer is back at it again because of the hyperinflation that has been raging for two years.

A few weeks before a space summit to be held on 7 November in Seville, he is in the process of negotiating a very clear reassessment of support for the operation of Ariane 6. It is asking ESA Member States for €350 million per year. That's an incredible 150% increase. "We do not want a non-decision in Seville," insists France. This aid would allow it to remain competitive in the commercial market in which SpaceX is extremely aggressive. Among other things, the American manufacturer is taking advantage of extremely generous orders from the Pentagon and NASA to lower its prices on the commercial market and sign a slew of contracts with private operators.

ArianeGroup's request is not completely illegitimate, despite original sin. Because sovereign access to space has a cost that all countries with launchers afford with different public aid, including the United States by signing generous contracts for SpaceX, in particular. That's what Tom Enders and Jean-Paul Herteman, the bosses of Airbus and Safran respectively at the time, should have known when they got their hands on Ariane 6 in 2014. They showed a certain arrogance in believing that the industrialists knew how to manage these major programmes better than the public authorities.

A request that makes you cringe

This reassessment of operating aid is causing a lot of criticism, especially in Germany. However, the Germans could seize this opportunity to make the French accept in return the principle of intra-European competition for the purchase of launch services. This would allow Berlin, which strongly supports its German NewSpace start-ups such as Isar Aerospace and HyImpulse Technologies, to create a competitor to Ariane 6 in the medium term. However, a launcher that has already struggled to break even due to the geographical return imposed by ESA.
But taking the lead in the space sector, and more particularly in the field of launchers, has been a stated objective of Germany for several years. Finally, Italy, the third major European nation in space, which has developed the Avio family of launchers (Vega and then Vega-C), is also very interested in stronger operational support from ESA. Especially if France succeeds. The discussions between France, Germany and Italy are going to be tight, very tight. But each of them will have to remember above all that the best interest in this matter is Europe, a space power...


https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/airbus-et-safran-veulent-plus-d-argent-public-pour-exploiter-ariane-6-979126.html
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/08/2023 07:40 pm
The following was published in a French newspaper today. It has been translated into English using whatever the built-in translation service for MS Edge is.

Quote
Space: Airbus and Safran want more public money to operate Ariane 6


According to corroborating sources, ArianeGroup, owned by Airbus and Safran, is negotiating with the member states of the European Space Agency a very clear reassessment of support for the operation of Ariane 6 due to the consequences of inflation. The manufacturer is asking for €350 million per year, corresponding to an increase of ... 150%.

Michel Cabirol
08 Oct 2023, 5:00 pm



A complete paradigm shift. In 2014, when they announced that they wanted to take control of the Ariane 6 program, Airbus and Safran proclaimed loud and clear that they did not need public aid for the operation of the future European heavy launcher, this is no longer the case. This is the original sin of the two industrialists, who in order to "privatize" Ariane 6 at all costs, have promised mountains and wonders to the Member States of the European Space Agency (ESA), in particular to France, which has always ensured European leadership in the field of launchers.

And François Hollande, seduced by the very uncertain promises of the two industrialists on the basis of a simple project hastily set up to torpedo the project of a CNES PPH launcher (two solid rocket base stages and a cryogenic stage), offered them the keys to Ariane 6. Airbus and Safran, now united in a joint subsidiary ArianeGroup, had also promised to develop and design a low-cost launcher that was due to be operational by 2020. The goal has been largely missed: the European heavy launcher is supposed to fly for the first time in 2024, three and a half years late.
<snip>
Heh, both the original PPH configuration and the current  configuration for the Ariane 6 would wind up with about the same results, IMO. Since there is a limit to number of casting pours for the solid motors at Kourou.

Note - Please add a link to the original newspaper article.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 10/09/2023 02:04 am
Note - Please add a link to the original newspaper article.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/airbus-et-safran-veulent-plus-d-argent-public-pour-exploiter-ariane-6-979126.html
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/09/2023 04:56 pm
A clear NO to the increased support for Arianegroup. Their pis por performance should be punished not promoted.
Do your job Arianegroup get Ariane 6 operational.
Ariane 62 will cost probably 120mln and Ariane 64 150mln.
Just do your job, get Ariane 6 operational and launch contracts will come your way.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: friendly3 on 10/09/2023 10:58 pm
A clear NO to the increased support for Arianegroup. Their pis por performance should be punished not promoted.
Do your job Arianegroup get Ariane 6 operational.
Ariane 62 will cost probably 120mln and Ariane 64 150mln.
Just do your job, get Ariane 6 operational and launch contracts will come your way.

If your cost estimations are correct (which I think they are) launch contracts won't come their way as easily, only governmental ones.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: deltaV on 10/10/2023 12:51 am
Quote
Space: Airbus and Safran want more public money to operate Ariane 6

However, the Germans could seize this opportunity to make the French accept in return the principle of intra-European competition for the purchase of launch services. This would allow Berlin, which strongly supports its German NewSpace start-ups such as Isar Aerospace and HyImpulse Technologies, to create a competitor to Ariane 6 in the medium term.

The main lesson to be learned from SpaceX is competition, not re-usability. Competition is Europe's only realistic hope of getting launch costs that aren't embarrassing. It would therefore be great if German pressure leads to ESA creating intra-European competition.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/10/2023 01:39 am
A clear NO to the increased support for Arianegroup. Their pis por performance should be punished not promoted.
Do your job Arianegroup get Ariane 6 operational.
Ariane 62 will cost probably 120mln and Ariane 64 150mln.
Just do your job, get Ariane 6 operational and launch contracts will come your way.

If your cost estimations are correct (which I think they are) launch contracts won't come their way as easily, only governmental ones.

Even government entities want reasonable launch availability as in how long they have to wait for a launch slot.

There is a big difference between a launch provider able to offer about a dozen launches annually to a certain company able offer an launch opportunity every few days.

Finally think the cost estimates of the Ariane 6 by @Rik ISS-fan is probably correct. One must take into account the rate of annual inflation. Which by the time Ariane 6 is operational might bump the launch cost up by at least 15%, in my estimation.

The Ariane 62 seems to be excessively expensive for a medium launcher for even governments.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 10/11/2023 01:05 pm
https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/ariane-6-vers-un-premier-vol-en-avril-mai-2024-977533.html
[Oct 11]

-ESA is aiming for a April-May launch windows of the first Ariane 6
-Anomaly that delayed Long test fire is caused by an impermeability issues in the hydraulic systems of the Vulcan's TVC, Arianegroup expects a quick fix that should not affect the first launch's schedule
-WDR in deteriorated conditions planned for October 24-25
-Long test fire is planned for Late november, pending repairs of the Vulcain's nozzle.
-First launch A6's fairing arriving in Kourou on November 3, its core stage and upper stage on December 10
-Planned launch rate: 2 A6 in 2024, 6 in 2025, 8 in 2026, 10 in 2027; First 4 will be Ariane 62
-2 of the 18 kuiper launches seem to have been shifted to Ariane 62 (instead of the previous 16 A64+ plus 2 A64)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mamut on 10/11/2023 02:30 pm
Looks like we're on the final stretch. Not much can really go wrong since that point. 4 years behind the schedule but finally we're gonna see mighty Ariane 6 flying soon. And if you take into account 2 years of covid pandemic, the delay is not that bad at all.
Whether the rocket is good or bad, a lot has been already said, I just want to mention, that first time in 25 years, Europe managed to assemble a team of ingenieurs, who actually designed and build a big rocket. Many seem not notice significance of this.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/11/2023 04:13 pm
https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/ariane-6-vers-un-premier-vol-en-avril-mai-2024-977533.html

-ESA is aiming for a April-May launch windows of the first Ariane 6
-Anomaly that delayed Long test fire is caused by an impermeability issues in the hydraulic systems of the Vulcan's TVC, Arianegroup expects a quick fix that should not affect the first launch's schedule
-WDR in deteriorated conditions planned for October 24-25
-Long test fire is planned for Late november, pending repairs of the Vulcain's nozzle.
-First launch A6's fairing arriving in Kourou on November 3, its core stage and upper stage on December 10
-Planned launch rate: 2 A6 in 2024, 6 in 2025, 8 in 2026, 10 in 2027; First 4
-2 of the 18 kuiper launches seem to have been shifted to Ariane 62 (instead of the previous 16 A64+ plus 2 A64)
Think Amazon is choosing Ariane 62 for some the early Kuiper launches due to availability issues with the Ariane 64. There are customers ahead of Amazon in the launch queue for the Ariane 64, which might not debut until 2025.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: friendly3 on 10/11/2023 05:57 pm
Looks like we're on the final stretch. Not much can really go wrong since that point. 4 years behind the schedule but finally we're gonna see mighty Ariane 6 flying soon. And if you take into account 2 years of covid pandemic, the delay is not that bad at all.
Whether the rocket is good or bad, a lot has been already said(...)

The rocket is bad, already technologically obsolete and economically uncompetitive.

I just want to mention, that first time in 25 years, Europe managed to assemble a team of ingenieurs, who actually designed and build a big rocket. Many seem not notice significance of this.

Count me in.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mamut on 10/11/2023 08:26 pm
The rocket is bad, already technologically obsolete and economically uncompetitive.(...)

Do we really need to drag on this argument foerever? It's not competitive to what? SpaceX? Nothing is. It's better then previous one thou. They have more launches already contracted, then are able to provide. It's competitive enough. We couldn't use Ariane 5 for next 25 years, Ariane 6 was a must.

Count me in.
Arianespace has just proven that is capable of building rocket stuff. It was critical. Without Ariane 6, it would be difficult to convince private or public investors to give more money on Themis project. Now I can see bright future.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/11/2023 08:43 pm
<snip>
-Planned launch rate: 2 A6 in 2024, 6 in 2025, 8 in 2026, 10 in 2027; First 4 will be Ariane 62
-2 of the 18 kuiper launches seem to have been shifted to Ariane 62 (instead of the previous 16 A64+ plus 2 A64)
What will the second Ariane 6 launch be?  A62 or A64?  Payload?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 10/11/2023 09:13 pm
<snip>
-Planned launch rate: 2 A6 in 2024, 6 in 2025, 8 in 2026, 10 in 2027; First 4 will be Ariane 62
-2 of the 18 kuiper launches seem to have been shifted to Ariane 62 (instead of the previous 16 A64+ plus 2 A64)
What will the second Ariane 6 launch be?  A62 or A64?  Payload?

A62 with CSO-3
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/11/2023 11:15 pm
Why bother with referbishing the test article?
The factories have been practically dormant for over three years. They should have build additional launchers that would now become test hardware. Peny wise, >0,7 billion fulish.
Why the slow rampup?
Because the Arianegroup & Avio prefered the incompetence path?
Let taxpayers bankroll doing nothing for over three years!
The infastructure is designed for 14 annual launches. My cost estimates are with this launch rate in mind.

I get the impression; the solids that are the ramp-up bottleneck.
I totally don't understand this. Who messed up setting up their production proces?
As European taxpayer I demand a propper explanation.
Without it, industry does not deserve to be compencated for their incompetence in the transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6.

Industry wanted more responsebility. That also means financial risk. They aren't capable of reaching the planned 11-14 annual launches before 2027, while 2023 was promised in 2019. 
Than that financial burden should fall on them, or we should know who is to blame. We are talking about billions additional tax funding.

Lessons to be learned ESA (member states):
When working with public funding; the contracts should be published with only minor reductions. This reduces risk on purposely  pis por performance to get higher payments for doing the job badly.
I get the impression some actors purposely performed badly. If this is true; that actor should be held accountable.

Both Arianegroup  and Avio should know they are not to big to fail.
The 340mln annual subsidation is unacceptable in my opinion. If this is required , Arianegroup should be nationalized by Germany and France.
And I do 't get why Avio got any launcher development contract the past three years. They don't deserve it, given their pis por performance.

I'll end this rent, from an European space enthusiast turned sour.

I don't want Arianegroup to offer the launches at lower prices with the aid annual subsidation. I think when Arianegroup has prove Ariane 6 is reliable launcher. With 120mln for Ariane 62 and 150mln for A64, demand will be there.
If not; let's throw that 1.8 billion public funding into the development of Ariane next. But that's an item for after 2025.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/11/2023 11:20 pm
The rocket is bad, already technologically obsolete and economically uncompetitive.(...)

Do we really need to drag on this argument foerever? It's not competitive to what? SpaceX? Nothing is. It's better then previous one thou. They have more launches already contracted, then are able to provide. It's competitive enough. We couldn't use Ariane 5 for next 25 years, Ariane 6 was a must.

Count me in.
Arianespace has just proven that is capable of building rocket stuff. It was critical. Without Ariane 6, it would be difficult to convince private or public investors to give more money on Themis project. Now I can see bright future.
Will disagree. The Ariane 6 isn't that much different from the Ariane 5 ECA, just the manufacturing of the components is updated to modern methods.

Think ESA would be better off re-branding the Ariane 5 ME as the Ariane 6 as an interim launcher and come up something that is somewhat reusable after SpaceX landed on down range  barges in early 2016.

All Arianespace prove is that they can continuing building something like the Ariane 5 ECA that is pricey and fully expendable with the Ariane 6.

Finally one must wonder if the customers will wait in the Arianespace launch queue if the Ariane 6 can not ramp up launch rate quick enough. There is always the folks from Hawthorne ready to take up the slack.  ;)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/12/2023 12:06 am
<snip>
I get the impression; the solids that are the ramp-up bottleneck.
I totally don't understand this. Who messed up setting up their production proces?
As European taxpayer I demand a propper explanation.
Without it, industry does not deserve to be compencated for their incompetence in the transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6.
<snip>
AIUI the locals around Kourou do not want further expansion to the casting of the solids. The industry under-estimated the local opposition to increase solid motor production, IMO. Understandably, since non-minor issues with casting the solids will contaminated the local area with semi-spend solid propellants.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 10/12/2023 01:33 am

-2 of the 18 kuiper launches seem to have been shifted to Ariane 62 (instead of the previous 16 A64+ plus 2 A64)

That’s probably 100% down to availability… I mean A64 probably won’t fly until 2025 and be available for Kuiper payloads until like 2027+.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Asteroza on 10/12/2023 01:46 am
<snip>
I get the impression; the solids that are the ramp-up bottleneck.
I totally don't understand this. Who messed up setting up their production proces?
As European taxpayer I demand a propper explanation.
Without it, industry does not deserve to be compencated for their incompetence in the transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6.
<snip>
AIUI the locals around Kourou do not want further expansion to the casting of the solids. The industry under-estimated the local opposition to increase solid motor production, IMO. Understandably, since non-minor issues with casting the solids will contaminated the local area with semi-spend solid propellants.


The current casting facilities are actively contaminating the area in a substantial manner?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/12/2023 02:59 am
<snip>
I get the impression; the solids that are the ramp-up bottleneck.
I totally don't understand this. Who messed up setting up their production proces?
As European taxpayer I demand a propper explanation.
Without it, industry does not deserve to be compencated for their incompetence in the transition from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6.
<snip>
AIUI the locals around Kourou do not want further expansion to the casting of the solids. The industry under-estimated the local opposition to increase solid motor production, IMO. Understandably, since non-minor issues with casting the solids will contaminated the local area with semi-spend solid propellants.


The current casting facilities are actively contaminating the area in a substantial manner?
Only a bit within the casting facility from the gaseous outflow when you pour the molten propellants into the casing during normal manufacturing.

However the solid propellant mix can go ka-boom during casting if handled improperly. Since during casting the open end of the casing is pointed up. A ka-boom event will ejected varying amount and varying density of propellant grains into the air like a super-sized Roman Candle.

A ka-boom is a non-minor issue.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: deltaV on 10/12/2023 03:34 am
The 340mln annual subsidation is unacceptable in my opinion. If this is required , Arianegroup should be nationalized by Germany and France.

Nationalizing Ariane wouldn't solve the problem; it would just make a European SLS. The only solution that has a chance of getting Europe a competitive launcher is intra-European competition like the intra-American competition that enabled SpaceX.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 10/12/2023 08:56 am
If the Privatisation, Consolidation and Europeanisation of the european aerospace industry was anything to go by, then by the time an eventual De-Europeanisation and Nationalisation succeeds, NASA/SX will already have a colony on mars.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/12/2023 03:53 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/

Quote
Oops—It looks like the Ariane 6 rocket may not offer Europe any launch savings
Europe is subsidizing the launch of Internet satellites for Jeff Bezos.

by Eric Berger - Oct 12, 2023 3:26pm GMT
10

Nearly a decade ago the European Space Agency announced plans to develop the next generation of its Ariane rocket, the Ariane 6 booster. The goal was to bring a less costly workhorse rocket to market that could compete with the likes of SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster and begin flying by 2020.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 10/12/2023 05:06 pm
I understand the sentiment, but the math in that article is not convincing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: joek on 10/12/2023 05:06 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/

Hate to reinforce the "all threads come back to SpaceX", but really... This is like the European version of the US and ULA redux, but worse. 10+ years on and they still have not figured it out? Arriane-6 was and is a boat anchor, with little purpose other than to support a sinking status-quo.

Highly recommend the article linked in Ars: ArianeGroup Wants €210M Per Year More to Operate Ariane 6 (https://europeanspaceflight.substack.com/p/arianegroup-wants-210m-per-year-more). Read it and weep.

Am ambivalent about the conclusion, but more government funding-subsidies to quasi-government firms certainly does not appear to be the answer.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: joek on 10/12/2023 05:07 pm
I understand the sentiment, but the math in that article is not convincing.
Please be more specific.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/12/2023 05:36 pm
ULA Vulcan is closes competing LV in configuration and performance. How much has that cost to develop compared to A6?

If you want an even cheaper LV program, RL are expecting to spend $250M to get Neutron to pad. That is 15mt in ELV mode, would be more if they had designed it as ELV.
Firefly MLV is similar performance to Neutron and my guess its well under <$500M. NB MLV may yet support SRBs which would bring closer to A6 in performance.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: joek on 10/12/2023 05:54 pm
ULA Vulcan is closes competing LV in configuration and performance. How much has that cost to develop compared to A6?
...

Maybe less, maybe more. So what? Would not hold up Vulcan or A6 as a shining light to follow (if anything, the opposite). Two sinking bricks is not a good example of a successful path forward, even if one is sinking a bit less faster than the other.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Barley on 10/15/2023 01:51 am
Arriane-6 was and is a boat anchor, with little purpose other than to support a sinking status-quo.
With all that liquid hydrogen Arriane-6 is less dense than water, so a poor boat anchor, but perhaps it could serve as a floatation device.

I'll see myself out.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/15/2023 06:44 am
Arriane-6 was and is a boat anchor, with little purpose other than to support a sinking status-quo.
With all that liquid hydrogen Arriane-6 is less dense than water, so a poor boat anchor, but perhaps it could serve as a floatation device.
<snip>
A leaky and embrittle floatation device. It is liquid Hydrogen after all.  :P
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: oomrubl on 10/15/2023 09:34 am
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/

Hate to reinforce the "all threads come back to SpaceX", but really... This is like the European version of the US and ULA redux, but worse. 10+ years on and they still have not figured it out? Arriane-6 was and is a boat anchor, with little purpose other than to support a sinking status-quo.

Highly recommend the article linked in Ars: ArianeGroup Wants €210M Per Year More to Operate Ariane 6 (https://europeanspaceflight.substack.com/p/arianegroup-wants-210m-per-year-more). Read it and weep.

Am ambivalent about the conclusion, but more government funding-subsidies to quasi-government firms certainly does not appear to be the answer.

All coming back to SpaceX?

Revenue   US$4.6 billion (2022)[4]
Net income   −US$559 million (2022)[4]
Wiki got that from a WSJ article which is behind a paywall.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Angry_cat on 10/15/2023 11:29 pm
I am looking forward to this launch vehicle flying after many years in development. It is a measured and logical advancement of the Ariane program which began with the Ariane 1 all the way back in the 70s. Reusability can always be worked into a future variant or maybe a Ariane 7 down the line. It is not as big a deal as certain critics are trying to make it out to be.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: friendly3 on 10/16/2023 01:02 am
I am looking forward to this launch vehicle flying after many years in development. It is a measured and logical advancement of the Ariane program which began with the Ariane 1 all the way back in the 70s. Reusability can always be worked into a future variant or maybe a Ariane 7 down the line. It is not as big a deal as certain critics are trying to make it out to be.

All right, no big deal.
Thank you.::)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: calapine on 10/16/2023 09:45 am
I feel the main issue isn't the design but the mishandling of the development.

Ariane 6 is an industrialized Ariane 5.

If that took Arianegroup 10 years, how long do think the programme for a newly developed reusable launcher (with completely new engines) would have taken?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Mamut on 11/04/2023 11:45 pm
Quote
https://archive.ph/XldxI#selection-2217.0-2225.299

Google translate:

Europe's space rockets on the verge of implosion

The Europeans are torn apart over public aid for the operation of Ariane 6. Berlin and Rome want to put an end to ArianeGroup's monopoly in heavy launchers.
It is a summit of European space ministers, accompanied by a council of the European Space Agency (ESA), which will be held on November 6 and 7 in Seville, Spain. In the background, the unprecedented European rocket crisis. Europe no longer has independent access to space. Ariane 6, four years late, will not fly before 2024. It is therefore not yet ready to take over from Ariane 5, which carried out its final mission last July.

Vega C, the new version of the small Italian Vega rocket, is unavailable until the end of next year, since the failure of its first commercial mission at the end of 2022. And it is no longer possible to count on Soyuz, since the cessation of cooperation with Russia, in the wake of the aggression of Ukraine.
Rethinking European strategy
Hence the urgency to fundamentally rethink the European strategy in terms of space transport. And, in the short term, to do everything possible to make Ariane 6 a success, by agreeing on its operating conditions. These have given rise, for weeks, to a standoff between the 13 ESA member states out of 22, which finance the program, and ArianeGroup, the prime contractor for Ariane 6, as well as its subcontractors. . The industry is in fact calling for a reassessment of public support, in order to balance the operation of the new rocket. In short: a substantial annual subsidy so as not to lose money on the commercial market. ArianeGroup is asking for 350 million per year, more than double the amount granted in 2021.
Also read|Space tourism, giant rockets, constellations... The rush for the stars is causing risks to explode⁠
However, when Ariane 6 was launched in 2014, ESA and Cnes (National Center for Space Studies), to which the European agency had until now delegated project management of the Ariane rockets, had agreed to leave this responsibility of project management at ArianeGroup, just created by Airbus and Safran. In return, the latter had promised to no longer request public support for exploitation. “Industrialists have not kept this commitment and have requested public support from 2021,” specifies Toni Tolker-Nielsen, director of space transport at ESA.

Request accepted due to a profound change in the market since 2014, with the rise of SpaceX, which cut prices with the Falcon 9 launcher, and the arrival of high-speed internet constellations. Without forgetting the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. “In 2021, we estimated the need for Ariane 6 at 140 million per year for a launch rate of 9 rockets per year,” specifies the director of space transport at ESA. This help covers the first 16 missions.
The rule of geographic return
Since then, manufacturers have had to deal with the return of inflation, the rise in energy prices and the additional costs linked to Ariane 6 delays. “As it is not possible to pass on the entirety of inflation on commercial customers, States are once again called to the rescue,” summarizes Toni Tolker-Nielsen of the ESA. The fact remains that the 13 states do not want to sign a blank check. In particular France and Germany, the two biggest contributors to the Ariane 6 program, from which their industry captures the largest benefits. “Industrialists from these two countries share 50% and 20% respectively of the added value of Ariane 6,” specifies the ESA. “There will be no new subsidy without compensation. It will be give and take,” we summarize.
ESA requires an effort to reduce industrial costs. According to our information, ArianeGroup has accepted “a double-digit reduction in its costs”. Negotiations are proving more difficult with the 600 European subcontractors. They are protected by the Geographic Return (GEO) rule, which states that each State contributing to a program receives a workload aligned with its financial commitment. This benefits its manufacturers, without ArianeGroup being able to choose them or negotiate prices. “Certain price increases made by suppliers are not justified. They must make an effort adapted to their size,” emphasizes Toni Tolker-Nielsen.

The ESA also requires new governance which gives it the right to review and audit Ariane 6. This is to ensure that all manufacturers respect a fair price policy. And that Ariane 6 is not sold off on the commercial market, to the detriment of institutional customers. The ESA, the European Commission, Eumetsat, which operates the weather satellites, and the States have already agreed to pay more than commercial satellite operators. The Europeans have adopted the same logic as NASA and the Pentagon, who often buy their launches twice as much, so that SpaceX is ultra-competitive on the commercial market. It is therefore via a massive and overpaid public order that SpaceX is in reality also subsidized. The American institutional market is in fact five times larger than the European one.
Price and competition
But, on the Old Continent, “the institutional prices defined in 2021, which have not increased since with significant inflation, cover the launch costs, no more”, specifies Toni Tolker-Nielsen, of the ESA. However, if the price charged to institutional clients increases further, they will be tempted to turn to American, Indian or Japanese rockets. In the absence of an equivalent to the Buy American Act, a federal law that came into force in… 1933, European countries are not obliged to buy Ariane 6, which they nevertheless finance! A grotesque situation. Berlin has never been without it: in April 2021, an observation satellite was entrusted to SpaceX, to the detriment of Ariane 5.

The ESA hopes to reach an agreement on the operation of Ariane 6 (subsidy, cost reduction, new governance) by next Monday. This new psychodrama around Ariane 6 makes it more necessary than ever to overhaul the space transport strategy. Germany, which dreams of stealing leadership in heavy launchers from France, sees this as an opportunity to obtain the introduction of intra-European competition on this market. Which, in the eyes of several specialists, would create emulation beneficial to innovation.

In mid-2021, Berlin has already obtained a competitive bid from Paris in the mini and microlauncher segment. ArianeGroup immediately reacted by creating a new entity, MaiaSpace, in start-up mode, with the mission of developing a mini-launcher, ready to fly in 2025. And starting point for a new family of rockets. “France is not afraid of competition, it draws on decades of expertise in a complex and risky industry. But it requires its corollary: total freedom for the industry, which was not the case for Ariane 6, whose difficulties can be explained by maintaining the geographical return,” explains a person close to ArianeGroup.

Across the Rhine, where it is repeated that the historic manufacturer has not kept its cost and deadline commitments, Berlin is counting on Isar Aerospace or RFA to take the lead. The German outsiders are developing mini-rockets which are expected to give rise to a range of increasingly powerful launchers.

In its fight, Germany is joined by Italy. Avio, the manufacturer of Vega, has, on good authority, received the creation of MaiaSpace very poorly. “A decision taken against Italy, aiming to do without Vega rockets,” according to a person close to the Italian group. The latter is developing Vega E, a version 20% more powerful than VegaC, which is due to make its first flight in 2026. It will be a direct competitor to one of the two versions of Ariane 6. This encourages Rome to regain its independence commercial. So no longer go through Arianespace, which markets European rockets, revealed La Tribune at the end of October. In order to calm things down and get Avio on board in preparing for the future, he was asked to become a shareholder in MaiaSpace. Proposal declined at this stage.
Ariane 6 delays and difficulties
For its part, the ESA has decided to rethink its role. The delays and difficulties of Ariane 6 “show that the next launchers will have to be developed in a radically different framework from the one we know today,” predicted, in the spring, Philippe Baptiste, president of Cnes.
Should rockets be taken out of the ESA framework? The idea is promoted by certain manufacturers. From a very good source, launchers should be considered as objects of sovereignty, treated at community level by the European Commission, and not by the ESA. Brussels has already equipped the Union with strategic infrastructure with Galileo (navigation and positioning) in order to free itself from American GPS, Copernicus, the world number one in Earth observation, and the future Iris2 constellation. However, there is no consensus on this path. Or should ESA be transformed into a real EU agency, modeled on NASA, which buys rockets and manned capsules without getting involved in their design?

On the verge of implosion, Europe's launchers must urgently put everything back together. And create new effective governance and put an end to the GEO return rule, which undermines the competitiveness and speed of execution of the industry, without taking into account real skills. The system is running out of steam. The shock wave caused by SpaceX's successes highlighted this.
In Seville, the Europeans must succeed in going beyond their divisions. Otherwise, they risk fratricidal wars. To the greatest benefit of SpaceX… whose ultra-domination (68 successful launches at the end of October, out of 100 planned for 2023) worries customers, eager to have the choice.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/05/2023 07:08 am
The mats of launchers does not change what ESA needs is a 10 ton manned leo cheap or reusable launcher that they launch every day .
 And a heavy launcher  that they launch once in a blue moon.
  What can be done cheaply is an evolved Vega and Ariane six with reusable boosters .
Hundreds of millions in upgrades not billions for a new rocket project

Big lump somes are hard for politicians to stomach hence skylon will never fly unless private money is used not at 14 billion anyway .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/05/2023 09:55 am
@Mamut what was the source of the article you translated and shared?
I disagree with the statement that Vega E and Ariane 62 will be in direct competition.
Vega E will be able to launch ~3mT to SSO800km; where Ariane 62 launches >6mT to this orbit.

Isn't it the case that Satellite service providers want:
 affordable launch, with high reliability for successful launch and on schedule!?
To the detriment or Avio's Vega (C) rockets Arianespace has a bad reliability track record for the past 5 years.
Europe will have all new launchers; so there isn't a track record to base the flight succes reliability on.
To the detriment of the whole industry Arianespace has a very bad schedule reliability.

The main competitor is SpaceX. In 2014 they were new, they had no track record and couldn't launch much.
By now, Falcon 9 FT has launched ~250x consecutively and successfully.
Their launch reliability, schedule reliability and low cost are unmatched. And they launch more than 75x annually.
European industry will not be able to catch up. But Europe needs independent acces to space.

The demand for launch in Europe isn't even large enough for Ariane 6 (9 to 12 launches annually).
So I don't see how competition on large launchers would aid anything.
I think that when European launch industry has proven they can launch Ariane 6 reliably and on schedule, that the demand will return. So industry must shollow their pride, go trough the financial pain of underperformance for over 3 years.
I don't want this financial talk untill Ariane 6 has launched 5 times.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/05/2023 11:23 am
No buck no Nick Rogers
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/05/2023 11:30 am
Quote
https://archive.ph/XldxI#selection-2217.0-2225.299

Google translate:

Europe's space rockets on the verge of implosion

The Europeans are torn apart over public aid for the operation of Ariane 6. Berlin and Rome want to put an end to ArianeGroup's monopoly in heavy launchers.
It is a summit of European space ministers, accompanied by a council of the European Space Agency (ESA), which will be held on November 6 and 7 in Seville, Spain. In the background, the unprecedented European rocket crisis. Europe no longer has independent access to space. Ariane 6, four years late, will not fly before 2024. It is therefore not yet ready to take over from Ariane 5, which carried out its final mission last July.

Vega C, the new version of the small Italian Vega rocket, is unavailable until the end of next year, since the failure of its first commercial mission at the end of 2022. And it is no longer possible to count on Soyuz, since the cessation of cooperation with Russia, in the wake of the aggression of Ukraine.
Rethinking European strategy
Hence the urgency to fundamentally rethink the European strategy in terms of space transport. And, in the short term, to do everything possible to make Ariane 6 a success, by agreeing on its operating conditions. These have given rise, for weeks, to a standoff between the 13 ESA member states out of 22, which finance the program, and ArianeGroup, the prime contractor for Ariane 6, as well as its subcontractors. . The industry is in fact calling for a reassessment of public support, in order to balance the operation of the new rocket. In short: a substantial annual subsidy so as not to lose money on the commercial market. ArianeGroup is asking for 350 million per year, more than double the amount granted in 2021.
Also read|Space tourism, giant rockets, constellations... The rush for the stars is causing risks to explode⁠
However, when Ariane 6 was launched in 2014, ESA and Cnes (National Center for Space Studies), to which the European agency had until now delegated project management of the Ariane rockets, had agreed to leave this responsibility of project management at ArianeGroup, just created by Airbus and Safran. In return, the latter had promised to no longer request public support for exploitation. “Industrialists have not kept this commitment and have requested public support from 2021,” specifies Toni Tolker-Nielsen, director of space transport at ESA.

Request accepted due to a profound change in the market since 2014, with the rise of SpaceX, which cut prices with the Falcon 9 launcher, and the arrival of high-speed internet constellations. Without forgetting the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. “In 2021, we estimated the need for Ariane 6 at 140 million per year for a launch rate of 9 rockets per year,” specifies the director of space transport at ESA. This help covers the first 16 missions.
The rule of geographic return
Since then, manufacturers have had to deal with the return of inflation, the rise in energy prices and the additional costs linked to Ariane 6 delays. “As it is not possible to pass on the entirety of inflation on commercial customers, States are once again called to the rescue,” summarizes Toni Tolker-Nielsen of the ESA. The fact remains that the 13 states do not want to sign a blank check. In particular France and Germany, the two biggest contributors to the Ariane 6 program, from which their industry captures the largest benefits. “Industrialists from these two countries share 50% and 20% respectively of the added value of Ariane 6,” specifies the ESA. “There will be no new subsidy without compensation. It will be give and take,” we summarize.
ESA requires an effort to reduce industrial costs. According to our information, ArianeGroup has accepted “a double-digit reduction in its costs”. Negotiations are proving more difficult with the 600 European subcontractors. They are protected by the Geographic Return (GEO) rule, which states that each State contributing to a program receives a workload aligned with its financial commitment. This benefits its manufacturers, without ArianeGroup being able to choose them or negotiate prices. “Certain price increases made by suppliers are not justified. They must make an effort adapted to their size,” emphasizes Toni Tolker-Nielsen.

The ESA also requires new governance which gives it the right to review and audit Ariane 6. This is to ensure that all manufacturers respect a fair price policy. And that Ariane 6 is not sold off on the commercial market, to the detriment of institutional customers. The ESA, the European Commission, Eumetsat, which operates the weather satellites, and the States have already agreed to pay more than commercial satellite operators. The Europeans have adopted the same logic as NASA and the Pentagon, who often buy their launches twice as much, so that SpaceX is ultra-competitive on the commercial market. It is therefore via a massive and overpaid public order that SpaceX is in reality also subsidized. The American institutional market is in fact five times larger than the European one.
Price and competition
But, on the Old Continent, “the institutional prices defined in 2021, which have not increased since with significant inflation, cover the launch costs, no more”, specifies Toni Tolker-Nielsen, of the ESA. However, if the price charged to institutional clients increases further, they will be tempted to turn to American, Indian or Japanese rockets. In the absence of an equivalent to the Buy American Act, a federal law that came into force in… 1933, European countries are not obliged to buy Ariane 6, which they nevertheless finance! A grotesque situation. Berlin has never been without it: in April 2021, an observation satellite was entrusted to SpaceX, to the detriment of Ariane 5.

The ESA hopes to reach an agreement on the operation of Ariane 6 (subsidy, cost reduction, new governance) by next Monday. This new psychodrama around Ariane 6 makes it more necessary than ever to overhaul the space transport strategy. Germany, which dreams of stealing leadership in heavy launchers from France, sees this as an opportunity to obtain the introduction of intra-European competition on this market. Which, in the eyes of several specialists, would create emulation beneficial to innovation.

In mid-2021, Berlin has already obtained a competitive bid from Paris in the mini and microlauncher segment. ArianeGroup immediately reacted by creating a new entity, MaiaSpace, in start-up mode, with the mission of developing a mini-launcher, ready to fly in 2025. And starting point for a new family of rockets. “France is not afraid of competition, it draws on decades of expertise in a complex and risky industry. But it requires its corollary: total freedom for the industry, which was not the case for Ariane 6, whose difficulties can be explained by maintaining the geographical return,” explains a person close to ArianeGroup.

Across the Rhine, where it is repeated that the historic manufacturer has not kept its cost and deadline commitments, Berlin is counting on Isar Aerospace or RFA to take the lead. The German outsiders are developing mini-rockets which are expected to give rise to a range of increasingly powerful launchers.

In its fight, Germany is joined by Italy. Avio, the manufacturer of Vega, has, on good authority, received the creation of MaiaSpace very poorly. “A decision taken against Italy, aiming to do without Vega rockets,” according to a person close to the Italian group. The latter is developing Vega E, a version 20% more powerful than VegaC, which is due to make its first flight in 2026. It will be a direct competitor to one of the two versions of Ariane 6. This encourages Rome to regain its independence commercial. So no longer go through Arianespace, which markets European rockets, revealed La Tribune at the end of October. In order to calm things down and get Avio on board in preparing for the future, he was asked to become a shareholder in MaiaSpace. Proposal declined at this stage.
Ariane 6 delays and difficulties
For its part, the ESA has decided to rethink its role. The delays and difficulties of Ariane 6 “show that the next launchers will have to be developed in a radically different framework from the one we know today,” predicted, in the spring, Philippe Baptiste, president of Cnes.
Should rockets be taken out of the ESA framework? The idea is promoted by certain manufacturers. From a very good source, launchers should be considered as objects of sovereignty, treated at community level by the European Commission, and not by the ESA. Brussels has already equipped the Union with strategic infrastructure with Galileo (navigation and positioning) in order to free itself from American GPS, Copernicus, the world number one in Earth observation, and the future Iris2 constellation. However, there is no consensus on this path. Or should ESA be transformed into a real EU agency, modeled on NASA, which buys rockets and manned capsules without getting involved in their design?

On the verge of implosion, Europe's launchers must urgently put everything back together. And create new effective governance and put an end to the GEO return rule, which undermines the competitiveness and speed of execution of the industry, without taking into account real skills. The system is running out of steam. The shock wave caused by SpaceX's successes highlighted this.
In Seville, the Europeans must succeed in going beyond their divisions. Otherwise, they risk fratricidal wars. To the greatest benefit of SpaceX… whose ultra-domination (68 successful launches at the end of October, out of 100 planned for 2023) worries customers, eager to have the choice.

Very good analysis by Le Figaro. I agree with almost all of it:

- Geo return must leave the stage
- Arianespace's monopoly must end
- ESA, like NASA, needs to get the hell out of the launcher development business.
- If European launcher industry can't compete with the Americans, so be it. Launch is becoming a commodity anyway. Industry either adapts or dies.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 11/06/2023 11:18 am
https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1721428542905303444
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/06/2023 02:50 pm
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/

Quote
Oops—It looks like the Ariane 6 rocket may not offer Europe any launch savings
Europe is subsidizing the launch of Internet satellites for Jeff Bezos.

by Eric Berger - Oct 12, 2023 3:26pm GMT
10

Nearly a decade ago the European Space Agency announced plans to develop the next generation of its Ariane rocket, the Ariane 6 booster. The goal was to bring a less costly workhorse rocket to market that could compete with the likes of SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster and begin flying by 2020.

The nice thing about this thread is that it goes back to the beginning of the Ariane 6 program.  This potential outcome had a plan attached:  to the extent that Ariane 6 was uncompetitive, it would be subsidized in order to fill its manifest with commercial launches.  The only surprising aspect to the outcome we are experiencing is that the European space industry has not corrected course in any serious manner and therefore the annual subsidy will be the maximum.  These subsidy requests will only grow.

The launch market of today is not like other aerospace markets.  It probably is a winner-takes-all market.  In order to be competitive in launch, you must also be competitive in payloads.  Fundamentally, Europe has only a minor need for the bulk of payloads that are launching today.  China and India also have only a minor need, by the way.  The US has a great need for these types of payloads, which is currently underwriting its launch industry.

One saving grace for Europe is that its non-aerospace technology is fundamental to the leading edge payloads and ground segment.  Looked at broadly, Europe (mostly the French) is increasingly benefitting indirectly.  My guess is that it will more than compensate for the loss of the launch business, but I don't know all of the details to be sure.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: deltaV on 11/06/2023 02:55 pm
https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1721428542905303444

Quote
The head of the French space agency CNES, Philippe Baptiste, identified a complex governance structure and ESA’s geographic return rule as the primary reasons why the development of Ariane 6 has failed to meet projected deadlines and price targets.

Mr. Baptiste appears to be right that designing a launcher by an international committee and the geographic return rule are both problematic. However those factors aren't new and should have been accounted for when the Ariane 6 program was started so they don't fully explain why it has "failed to meet projected deadlines and price targets."

I don't see any great solutions currently. ESA has a lot fewer good options than the US space programs have because Europeans mostly identify with their country rather than Europe, Europeans aren't as tolerant of capitalistic creative destruction as Americans, and European politicians choose to fund only relatively small space programs.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 11/06/2023 11:42 pm

One saving grace for Europe is that its non-aerospace technology is fundamental to the leading edge payloads and ground segment.  Looked at broadly, Europe (mostly the French) is increasingly benefitting indirectly.  My guess is that it will more than compensate for the loss of the launch business, but I don't know all of the details to be sure.

At least until SpaceX starts building/offering satellite buses leveraging it’s now gigantic economies of scale and it eats that market too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: StarshipTrooper on 11/07/2023 03:30 am
Ariane 6 cost and delays bring European launch industry to a breaking point
ERIC BERGER

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/ariane-6-cost-and-delays-bring-european-launch-industry-to-a-breaking-point/ (https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/ariane-6-cost-and-delays-bring-european-launch-industry-to-a-breaking-point/)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/07/2023 09:37 am
https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1721428542905303444 (https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1721428542905303444)

Quote
The head of the French space agency CNES, Philippe Baptiste, identified a complex governance structure and ESA’s geographic return rule as the primary reasons why the development of Ariane 6 has failed to meet projected deadlines and price targets.

Mr. Baptiste appears to be right that designing a launcher by an international committee and the geographic return rule are both problematic. However those factors aren't new and should have been accounted for when the Ariane 6 program was started so they don't fully explain why it has "failed to meet projected deadlines and price targets."

Not quite. The "international committee" didn't apply during Ariane 1 - 5 development. CNES was in the lead for development of those and made ALL the major decisions, including ALL the design decisions. Back then, only the "juste retour" (geographic return) rule impeded development.

That changed when, for Ariane 6 development, the role of leading development agency shifted from CNES to ESA. Suddenly, all 13 member states contributing to Ariane 6 had a say. So, instead of one entity making all the decisions (there is something to be said for those kinds of "dictatorships") there suddenly was a "international committee" of 13 entities that had to agree on everything. That came on top of the stupiditiy (IMO) that is geographic return.
Needless to say that such an arrangement slows things down considerably.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Emmettvonbrown on 11/07/2023 01:12 pm
Quote
So, instead of one entity making all the decisions (there is something to be said for those kinds of "dictatorships")

Dictatorship ? WDF.

Please chose your words more carefully. That CNES "dictatorship" - I'd rather call it "leadership" was necessary, for a simple reason. The three other big players - Great Britain, Germany and Italy - were never reliable partners. All three of them often would have thrown Ariane 1 to 5 under a bus to buy American rockets.

Other countries were peanuts, except perhaps Belgium.

Case in point: Spacelab (Germany) Scout rockets (Italy). As for Great Britain: was never a reliable partner. Brexit was long a reality for both Airbus and Ariane (as early as 1966 and 1970, respectively)

So yes, French leadership was necessary. In crisis such as Symphony, 1973.  I wouldn't call that a dictatorship. Just like Airbus, at some point or another somebody had to shake European partners - with a few kicks in the rear end. Worked stupendously for Airbus. Still working. Ariane - not so much, admittedly. The crisis is real...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/07/2023 03:08 pm

One saving grace for Europe is that its non-aerospace technology is fundamental to the leading edge payloads and ground segment.  Looked at broadly, Europe (mostly the French) is increasingly benefitting indirectly.  My guess is that it will more than compensate for the loss of the launch business, but I don't know all of the details to be sure.

At least until SpaceX starts building/offering satellite buses leveraging it’s now gigantic economies of scale and it eats that market too.

The semiconductor market is too big for SpaceX to eat, at least in one sitting.  I do imagine a sizeable strategic investment or two, on the other hand.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/08/2023 07:10 am
Afaik It was France pushing for the implementation of inmature technology, that are the root couse of Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 transition delay. When the delays became apparent, it was decided to skip the lower risk simpler inert gas pressurized ULPM. A couse of further delays.
Other memberstates subsidised the development of Ariane 6 components and the factories with tooling to manufacture these components. These factories had to be realized in a hurry (2017 to 2020), because the fast transition timeline from Ariane 5 to 6.
These new factories have practically been dormant for three years.
Now it appears some suppliers can't ramp up production to the agreed levels soon. Cousing further underutilization at other companies/subsidiaris.
The whole European space program is a giant waist of taxpayer money! There is no acountability whatsoever. And I'm a space enthousiast.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/08/2023 07:21 am
I can write down an example of Ariane production optimization. But that would require France and Germany to compensate the Netherlands.
Germany and France aren't willing to commit enough funding. Thus they require funding from smaller ESA memerstates. This is the reason behind the georeturn existing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/09/2023 09:02 am
Replacing Soyuz should be a priority.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/09/2023 07:43 pm
Replacing Soyuz should be a priority.
This is somewhat off topic.

AIUI the Ariane 62 is supposedly taking over the Soyuz role as medium launcher.

ESA have in a way replaced the Russian Soyuz with the Falcon 9. Which is also stepping in to relief the Vega-C launch queue backlog. :-X
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 11/09/2023 11:34 pm
Afaik It was France pushing for the implementation of inmature technology, that are the root couse of Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 transition delay. When the delays became apparent, it was decided to skip the lower risk simpler inert gas pressurized ULPM. A couse of further delays.

Given the delays in the ELA 4 and the Combined tests, would it really have mattered that much had they not skipped it?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 11/10/2023 03:50 am
It's all fine and well to yell (on NSF/the media) about the disadvantages of geo return or blame it for all of Ariane6's delays (like many ESA/cnes/political officials and ArianeGroup execs) but in the end this is an expensive , strategic industrial endeavor, which is why multiple states are funding it and have an interest in capturing the industrial/economic/technological fruits. Simply, if you need to ask for money from various states, they will want something in return. It is a political non-starter to just send money to the Franco-French ArianeGroup (Airbus and Safran) and be content with paying EUR 100M+ per launch to use whatever they come up with 7-10 years later. This is nearly a universal law of physics in international consortiums, so until/unless EU members concede sovereignty to a federalized EU, that's how it is going to be, period. So everyone should get used to it, states go their own way and fund their own vehicles, or figure out a way to convince private money to fund these things.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/10/2023 06:59 am
It's all fine and well to yell (on NSF/the media) about the disadvantages of geo return or blame it for all of Ariane6's delays (like many ESA/cnes/political officials and ArianeGroup execs) but in the end this is an expensive , strategic industrial endeavor, which is why multiple states are funding it and have an interest in capturing the industrial/economic/technological fruits. Simply, if you need to ask for money from various states, they will want something in return. It is a political non-starter to just send money to the Franco-French ArianeGroup (Airbus and Safran) and be content with paying EUR 100M+ per launch to use whatever they come up with 7-10 years later. This is nearly a universal law of physics in international consortiums, so until/unless EU members concede sovereignty to a federalized EU, that's how it is going to be, period. So everyone should get used to it, states go their own way and fund their own vehicles, or figure out a way to convince private money to fund these things.

Emphasis mine.

IMO that's the way to go as far as launch is concerned. Launch is becoming a commodity. ESA, like NASA, needs to get out of the launcher development business. Industry can take care of that. And if the European spaceflight industry fails at it, then they lost their right to bitch about Euros going to the USA for launching European payloads. If they fail to properly develop a competitive launcher out of their own pockets, then it is also their fault that they no longer get to fly stuff. In other words: it's time for the European spaceflight industry to put their money where their mouths are. In case of Airbus that shouldn't be all that difficult: they have $21B cash on hand, which makes them one of the stinking richest aerospace companies on the planet. They could take on development of the next Ariane entirely out of their own pockets, and it wouldn't even put so much as a dent in their bottom line.

But instead Airbus acts like a bunch of jokers and comes begging at ESA for development Euros again. I'm thoroughly disgusted with them at this point. They have become Europe's Boeing.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/10/2023 05:37 pm
The problem is, that Europe can not rely on Amarican (private) launches. Symphony...
The ESA memberstates committed to order annually 4x Ariane6 and 3x VegaC. This in practically the full institutional launch demand. Nasa and the US military have significantly more launch demand than European institutions.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: friendly3 on 11/11/2023 01:44 am
The problem is, that Europe can not rely on Amarican (private) launches. Symphony...
The ESA memberstates committed to order annually 4x Ariane6 and 3x VegaC. This in practically the full institutional launch demand. Nasa and the US military have significantly more launch demand than European institutions.

The Symphony story took place half a century ago when the US government and the Soviet Union were the only players.
It's time for the Europeans to live in 2023.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hektor on 11/11/2023 09:14 am
Precisely, the situation is worse now than in the 1970s.

At the time the US, or Soviet Union were ruled by pragmatic, experienced leaders
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/11/2023 10:10 am
First the disclaimer that this is all hypothetical;
And then a new president is chosen that rightfully has USA intrest in mind. Not European intrest.
Europe has a superior satellite technology that isn't available to US satellite manufacturers jet.
The European company want's to sell this technology, but because Europe doesn't have it's own launchers;
they can't. Because the USA protects it's satellite manufacturers by prohibiting commercial launch of the superior European satellites. USA practice in this hasn't changed; I think this even has worsened.
The political mood swings in the USA make you a unreliable partner.
(It's politics that might be the problem, not the commercial launch service providers)

I think; with the decisions made during ESA Space summit; Europe has three paths towards (partially) reusable launchers.
1) Arianegroup/ Maiaspace, developing Ariane 6 into 7/next by implementing the Prometheus engine. And Susie.
2) Avio, with their M10 /M60 engines and their in-flight demonstrator rocket.
3) A new commercial entry.

European launchers to high inclination (SSO/polar) can launch from Europe. Launches to lower inclination, GTO and escape can't, so a further away launch site (i.a. CSG France Guiana) is required.
Because of the larger distance that the components need to be transported; the cost of providing a launch service are likely higher. So I rule out the idea of attempting to offer launcher at lower cost than competitors.
I think good sales point's are:
- Being a one stop shop (selling launch service along with payload preparation services as a package deal).
- Being European / not USA.
- European launch industry needs to prove the reliability of Ariane 6 and Vega-C/E; both in mission succes and schedule. (The track record on schedule reliability has always been underwhelming.)

I sincerely hope that the public support is linked, inversely to commercial succes of the launchers.
So European public institutions committed to order 4x Ariane 6 launches and 3x Vega C/E launches annually.
When the industry is not able to offer/sale further launches commercially,
Ariane6 is supported by 340 mln; and Vega C with 21 mln. But when they are, the support reduces accordingly to additional demand.
I think the maximum flight rates are 11x Ariane 6 and 6x Vega C/E.
In my opinion with 8 annual Ariane 6 launches and 4 annual Vega C/E launches there shouldn't be public support (required). (~80% of maximum annual launch capability). With the requirement of the (sub)contractors making loses at the lower launch rate.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/11/2023 11:15 am
Let's try to make a list of links to Press releases about the outcome of the ESA Space summit on 6 & 7 November 2023.
ESA: ESA Vision - Space summit 2023 (https://vision.esa.int/category/space-summit-2023/) / ESA WebTV video's (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Sets/Space_Summit_2023/(result_type)/videos)
ESA press release No. 52-2023 (https://www.esa.int/Newsroom/Press_Releases/Ministers_back_Europe_s_sustainable_and_competitive_space_ambitions) Inside the the ESA Press release is a link to the attached: Resolution summit 2023.
Here is a quote from the ESA Resolution Summit 2023, Page5 ch3.
Quote
20.REITERATES that, for the decade to come, Europe’s independent and autonomous access to space will strongly rely on the Ariane 6 and Vega-C/E launchers; STRESSES the importance of using these launchers for Europe’s institutional missions, enabling European autonomy of action in space alongside their exploitation on the commercial market; INVITES, therefore, the Director General, together with all involved actors, to take urgent action and deliver utmost efforts to ensure a successful Ariane 6 inaugural flight and ramp-up as well as a return to flight, ramp-up and increased launch rate of Vega-C;

DLR: European Space Summit in Seville (https://www.dlr.de/en/latest/news/2023/04/more-sustainability-and-additional-competition-for-european-spaceflight)

Avio: ESA MINISTERIAL COUNCIL: IMPORTANT DECISIONS REGARDING ARIANE 6, VEGA C AND VEGA E (https://www.avio.com/press-release/esa-ministerial-council-important-decisions-regarding-ariane-6-vega-c-and-vega)

Help finding further press releases would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: friendly3 on 11/11/2023 04:28 pm
First the disclaimer that this is all hypothetical;
And then a new president is chosen that rightfully has USA intrest in mind. Not European intrest.
Europe has a superior satellite technology that isn't available to US satellite manufacturers jet.
The European company want's to sell this technology, but because Europe doesn't have it's own launchers;
they can't. Because the USA protects it's satellite manufacturers by prohibiting commercial launch of the superior European satellites. USA practice in this hasn't changed; I think this even has worsened.
The political mood swings in the USA make you a unreliable partner.

Emphasis mine.
It's unfortunate that with such technological superiority you're not able to develop a superior launcher, or even a remotely competitive one. ::)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: jpo234 on 11/11/2023 05:08 pm
First the disclaimer that this is all hypothetical;
And then a new president is chosen that rightfully has USA intrest in mind. Not European intrest.

This analysis " Without the United States, Europe Is Lost  (https://cepa.org/article/without-the-united-states-europe-is-lost/)" claims that in the hypothetical case that a future US president withdraws from NATO, Europe would have to spend up to 7% of its GDP to close the security gap. That amounts to about €800..€1200bn for each year over the next decade. That would mean a huge surge in security related launches to duplicate the space infrastructure the US has build over decades.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 11/12/2023 01:34 pm

European launchers to high inclination (SSO/polar) can launch from Europe. Launches to lower inclination, GTO and escape can't, so a further away launch site (i.a. CSG France Guiana) is required.


It’s not required.

Angara can do direct GEO insertion from Plesetsk (63N)

GEO is also declining rapidly in importance as a total percentage of the market as well.

A reusable methalox first stage and hydrolox second stage that could get a Falcon-esque 5.5t to GTO-1800 from say, Scotland, would be able to service just about the entire market fine.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 11/12/2023 01:44 pm
First the disclaimer that this is all hypothetical;
And then a new president is chosen that rightfully has USA intrest in mind. Not European intrest.

This analysis " Without the United States, Europe Is Lost  (https://cepa.org/article/without-the-united-states-europe-is-lost/)" claims that in the hypothetical case that a future US president withdraws from NATO, Europe would have to spend up to 7% of its GDP to close the security gap. That amounts to about €800..€1200bn for each year over the next decade. That would mean a huge surge in security related launches to duplicate the space infrastructure the US has build over decades.


Objectively, the US-EU relationship benefits the EU far more than the US.

-The US spends hundreds of billions directly defending Europe’s borders.
-The US spends hundreds of billions keeping energy supplies flowing, of which Europe is the world’s largest importer.
-The US spends hundreds of billions keeping the sea lanes safe for European exports.
-on top of this, the US tolerates EU protectionism and allows it to run hundred billion $ trade surpluses to the US.

Sorry if I seem a little curt, but hearing 27hr workweek Euros complain about how we are “unreliable partners” when we’ve subsidized them to the tune of tens of trillions over the last few decades that could’ve been spent here (and we need it) irks me.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/12/2023 04:34 pm
There was a reason I started the post with a disclaimer.
I stand by the point that Europe needs independent acces to Space. Because differing political intrest might prevent Europe rolling out space infrastructure with foreign (commercial) launchers.
I wasn't trying to offend anyone, sorry it it did. Let's get back on the Ariane 6 discussion.

With the decision made during the ESA space summit, ESA (memberstate) decided how they want to  get their independent acces to space. Ariane 6 and Vega C/E will be the medium/heavy and small/medium launchers for the 2024 to at least the 2028 period.
For the successors to Ariane 6 and Vega C/E; ESA doesn't want to fund the development and subsidize the production sustainment. They wants to be an anchor customer for European commercial launchers. A small team of ESA employees is going to prepare proposals with (future) commercial launch service providers for funding proposals for the 2025 ESA ministerial conference.

If I understand the situation correctly;
ESA member states commit funding once every three years during the ESA ministerial conference.
Program adjustments are agreed upon annually during ESA summits.
So the launchers program was adjusted without funding commitments.
ESA's geo return principle; stems from the fact that funding for optional ESA projects is supplied by several ESA member states. These member states should get work-packages in return that reflect the size of their financial contribution.
 
For 2024 & 2025 the commercial launch service proposals can be worked out without geo-return issues.
But the proposals have to take the georeturn principle into consideration.
The ESA memberstate are attempting to get more commercial funding commitments on the new launchers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/12/2023 04:54 pm
Please god not another new rocket development program while the present one has not even launched the multi-billion price tag of another new launcher will kill payload proposals for 20 years.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/12/2023 04:59 pm
"Independent access to space" is merely a slogan.  It could mean anything.

My definition of that slogan includes the capability to manufacture and launch cutting edge payloads.  Today, that implies a megaconstellation the size and scope of Starlink.  The price tag for that runs into the tens of billions of dollars and would stretch the means of even those such as Airbus.  Because of its geography and ambitions, Europe has no great need for such a megaconstellation, so it may be better, as woods170 suggests, for Europe to place a few speculative bets on the next generation of launch companies and cut its losses on the old generation.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: floss on 11/12/2023 05:27 pm
"Independent access to space" is merely a slogan.  It could mean anything.

My definition of that slogan includes the capability to manufacture and launch cutting edge payloads.  Today, that implies a megaconstellation the size and scope of Starlink.  The price tag for that runs into the tens of billions of dollars and would stretch the means of even those such as Airbus.  Because of its geography and ambitions, Europe has no great need for such a megaconstellation, so it may be better, as woods170 suggests, for Europe to place a few speculative bets on the next generation of launch companies and cut its losses on the old generation.

Don't invent a new wheel when the old one works fine .
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: friendly3 on 11/12/2023 07:42 pm
[deleted]

Tell us where you're talking from, Emmett. If it were up to me that would be mandatory on this forum, especially on threads related to European stuff.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/12/2023 08:54 pm
Europe doesn't have a functional wheel (launcher) at this moment. The functional wheel that Europe had (Ariane 5) was abandoned before the replacement wheel was ready (Ariane 6). The new wheel that is still in development need annual support to be a bit competitive.
There are already three improvement projects to Ariane 6; the industry is already talking about a Ariane 6 block 2.
The three developments are: ASTRIS; ICARUS (PHOEBUS) & P160C.
Besides this Arianegroup gets funding for the Prometheus and Themis developments.
If I'm not mistaken there is a Prometheus M and a Prometheus H (Vulcan 2.3) engine in development.
I think the new idea is that commercial companies invest into the required tooling to produce the launchers. The ESA member states fund demonstration launches, demonstration rocket motors or stages.
So the development is much more in line with the FLPP (Future Launchers Preparation Program) and less in the case of separate launcher developments. Possibly ESA is planning future launcher programs in with milestone payments similar to how NASA works with commercial companies.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 11/13/2023 01:22 pm
I'd be curious if anyone has any real/actual insight into the reasons ArianeGroup created the new entity MaiaSpace for what would appear to be the next gen. From what I can tell, they're not expecting to develop something in parallel, under the ArianeGroup name. Large legacy companies in the US do this sort of thing in order to justify a different organizational structure/rules/payscale and to escape from costly legacy liabilities and commitments like union deals, pension plans, etc.. But this is France we're talking about, so I have a feeling that might not be possible in the way it is in the US. So does anyone have some insight, that can be backed by a plausible and trustworthy source/citation, as to why MaiaSpace was created as a discrete entity as opposed to just a department within Ariane? I know executive platitudes are along the lines of "we're funding a new company that will be entirely focused on ground breaking, innovative, and disruptive launcher technologies... blah blah" but what is the REAL reason/ thinking behind the creation of MaiaSpace as opposed to just some organizational changes and funding to R&amp;D departments at ArianeGroup/Space?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/14/2023 03:19 am
Moderator:
No cr*p-posting.  Deleted.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Asteroza on 11/14/2023 03:50 am
I'd be curious if anyone has any real/actual insight into the reasons ArianeGroup created the new entity MaiaSpace for what would appear to be the next gen. From what I can tell, they're not expecting to develop something in parallel, under the ArianeGroup name. Large legacy companies in the US do this sort of thing in order to justify a different organizational structure/rules/payscale and to escape from costly legacy liabilities and commitments like union deals, pension plans, etc.. But this is France we're talking about, so I have a feeling that might not be possible in the way it is in the US. So does anyone have some insight, that can be backed by a plausible and trustworthy source/citation, as to why MaiaSpace was created as a discrete entity as opposed to just a department within Ariane? I know executive platitudes are along the lines of "we're funding a new company that will be entirely focused on ground breaking, innovative, and disruptive launcher technologies... blah blah" but what is the REAL reason/ thinking behind the creation of MaiaSpace as opposed to just some organizational changes and funding to R&amp;D departments at ArianeGroup/Space?

Might be for financing reasons as VC and institutional investors may want to pile in like their american counterparts, but don't want to touch Arianes group? Someone may have thought if MaiaSpace was marginally successful, then having it IPO may be attractive. There may be other but similar structural+financial reasons?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/14/2023 04:49 am
Objectively, the US-EU relationship benefits the EU far more than the US.

-The US spends hundreds of billions directly defending Europe’s borders.
-The US spends hundreds of billions keeping energy supplies flowing, of which Europe is the world’s largest importer.
-The US spends hundreds of billions keeping the sea lanes safe for European exports.
-on top of this, the US tolerates EU protectionism and allows it to run hundred billion $ trade surpluses to the US.

You seem to be saying the US is spending at least $600B on European defence, energy and sea lanes?! This is roughly equal to the US Defence Budget of $643B! Here's some facts.

1) US funding of NATO is only $42.8B (16.2% of $264B) per year.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/3-charts-that-show-who-pays-most-for-the-defence-of-europe-b63fb5f2f4/
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

2) The US is providing LNG to Europe, but its not for free! Europe paid $35B to the US in 2022 for LNG.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-exports-both-lifeline-drain-europe-2023-maguire-2022-12-20/

3) US Navy spending is $255.8B per year. I'm pretty sure the US Navy doesn't spend at least 78% of its budget keeping European sea lanes open!

https://www.govconwire.com/articles/navys-fy-2024-budget-a-look-at-the-key-priorities/

4) European goods and services trade surplus with the US was $131.3B in 2022, so this fact is correct.

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/european-union
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: eeergo on 11/14/2023 09:49 am
Sorry if I seem a little curt, but hearing 27hr workweek Euros complain about how we are “unreliable partners” when we’ve subsidized them to the tune of tens of trillions over the last few decades that could’ve been spent here (and we need it) irks me.

Not really in the mood to deal with lazy, inaccurate flameposts, but since Steven has made a good job with the first part above, so just setting the record straight on the most impulsively nationalist part:

- "27h-workweek" is not only inaccurate, but straight silly. Surely patently abusive conditions such as those found in some companies in the US (not generally in the aerospace sector, fortunately, although "somewhere" they are there) aren't generally favored, or indeed allowed in most Western societies -not just the EU, where thankfully regulations codify it more clearly. Still, beyond flexes it's quite possible many EU companies have higher productivity and know-how than their equivalents elsewhere, including the US, due to talent retention and the obvious fact intellectual and high-performance work is not a positive function of work hours.

- "Unreliable partners" is not an opinion, it's just descriptive - especially in space endeavors. Not really hard to find examples, from robotic to HSF to tech to rockets. Mind you, many of the "reliable" projects that did go ahead during the Space Age were primarily in US interest, which might have been shared and mutually beneficial - but others, like in launcher development, were either a way to prevent independent access to technology (60s-70s launchers exported/sold to Europe, with more or less open sabotages to indigenous projects) or a straight-up prohibition (in the sense of threatening to swiftly break off collaborations unilaterally if European endeavors strayed beyond US interests).

On the same tune...

It's unfortunate that with such technological superiority you're not able to develop a superior launcher, or even a remotely competitive one. ::)

Funny Ariane 5 was the market leader until about 3 years ago, even during the era of cheap-abundant-marketable Russian LVs, and Ariane 4 was likewise pretty successful commercially - in spite of ITAR and the likes.

F9 is the only "remotely competitive" launcher these days. Nobody else seems to "be able to develop a superior or even remotely competitive one" - not even the US.

It's a bit beyond the scope of this thread that as we all know should be about Ariane 6, but since we're in general geopolitics and juridical territory, let me also add: the launcher business, in spite of the focus of this forum and it being the most visible part in the aerospace industry, is by far not the most economically relevant in a direct way, much less the most profitable. So it is also not crazy in the grander scheme of things to give it a secondary priority in case of need, and in "perfect storm" conditions like those lived in the EU area right now, in spite of the logistics trouble it spells, it's not unreasonable to devote more attention in the current context to the other more competitive sides of the EU space economy.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Emmettvonbrown on 11/14/2023 11:01 am
Amen to all that, bro'   8)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: launchwatcher on 11/14/2023 03:56 pm
I'd be curious if anyone has any real/actual insight into the reasons ArianeGroup created the new entity MaiaSpace for what would appear to be the next gen. From what I can tell, they're not expecting to develop something in parallel, under the ArianeGroup name. Large legacy companies in the US do this sort of thing in order to justify a different organizational structure/rules/payscale and to escape from costly legacy liabilities and commitments like union deals, pension plans, etc..
There are also engineering/project management motivations why you'd want to separate an advanced development group away from the legacy sustaining group - the separation means that the engineers (perhaps pulled from old projects on the sustaining side) freedom from distraction from the sustaining side of the business, whether it's simply interruptions, unhelpful process, irrelevant product requirements, etc.; the separation gives the freedom to ignore people who would think they were stakeholders were the separation not be present.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunkworks_project
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 11/14/2023 10:36 pm
I'd be curious if anyone has any real/actual insight into the reasons ArianeGroup created the new entity MaiaSpace for what would appear to be the next gen. From what I can tell, they're not expecting to develop something in parallel, under the ArianeGroup name. Large legacy companies in the US do this sort of thing in order to justify a different organizational structure/rules/payscale and to escape from costly legacy liabilities and commitments like union deals, pension plans, etc..
There are also engineering/project management motivations why you'd want to separate an advanced development group away from the legacy sustaining group - the separation means that the engineers (perhaps pulled from old projects on the sustaining side) freedom from distraction from the sustaining side of the business, whether it's simply interruptions, unhelpful process, irrelevant product requirements, etc.; the separation gives the freedom to ignore people who would think they were stakeholders were the separation not be present.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunkworks_project

And Maiaspace is largely derived from Arianegroup's skunkwork.
I'd probably look into the IP and rights of Themis, also Maiaspace's planned commercialisation outside of Arianespace for answers.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/17/2023 08:39 am
https://twitter.com/arianegroup/status/1725231211591737763

Quote
We've been discussing the deluge system, but maybe you'd like to see it in action. It's a system of huge valves at the base of #Ariane6 that open simultaneously as the rocket lifts off. It's an incredible sight to watch in slow motion. @esa @cnes @arianespace @europespaceport
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: HVM on 11/23/2023 07:56 pm
Was the static test burn ~one minute too short?

Chris seems to agree:
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1727792384887382347

ESA sounds like that everything is ok:
https://twitter.com/ESA_transport/status/1727793147713843281
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: HVM on 11/23/2023 09:03 pm
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1727806234600878396

"The test includes the ignition of the core stage Vulcain 2.1 engine, followed by 470 seconds of stabilised operation covering the entire core stage flight phase, as it would function on a launch into space."

Shutdown at 7:03, 423 seconds - 3s start = still 44 seconds short?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hoku on 11/26/2023 02:23 pm
<snip>
"The test includes the ignition of the core stage Vulcain 2.1 engine, followed by 470 seconds of stabilised operation covering the entire core stage flight phase, as it would function on a launch into space."

Shutdown at 7:03, 423 seconds - 3s start = still 44 seconds short?
Ariane 62 VA262 aims for LEO. I couldn't find any official Ariane 6 mission timeline for LEO. The 2021 draft of the "Multi Launch Service" User's manual specifies that for GEO the LLPM should fire 472s, and 467s for LTO (Lunar Transfer Orbit). Thursday's test firing duration indeed might seem a bit short (unless they uprated Vulcain 2.1's performance/ISP compared to what has been assumed for the 2021 draft manual)?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 11/26/2023 03:40 pm
<snip>
"The test includes the ignition of the core stage Vulcain 2.1 engine, followed by 470 seconds of stabilised operation covering the entire core stage flight phase, as it would function on a launch into space."

Shutdown at 7:03, 423 seconds - 3s start = still 44 seconds short?
Ariane 62 VA262 aims for LEO. I couldn't find any official Ariane 6 mission timeline for LEO. The 2021 draft of the "Multi Launch Service" User's manual specifies that for GEO the LLPM should fire 472s, and 467s for LTO (Lunar Transfer Orbit). Thursday's test firing duration indeed might seem a bit short (unless they uprated Vulcain 2.1's performance/ISP compared to what has been assumed for the 2021 draft manual)?

https://air-cosmos.com/article/le-premier-etage-d-ariane-6-passe-le-cap-du-combined-test-hot-fire-en-guyane-67983

"It operated nominally at steady state for 426 seconds (7 minutes and 6 seconds), i.e. the entire flight phase - the stated target of 470 seconds firing time (7 minutes and 50 seconds) was a maximum target, and the minimum to be achieved was 250 seconds (4 minutes and 10 seconds)."

According to a CSG worker, 427 seconds "largely exceeded minimum requirements"
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 11/26/2023 05:05 pm
<snip>
"The test includes the ignition of the core stage Vulcain 2.1 engine, followed by 470 seconds of stabilised operation covering the entire core stage flight phase, as it would function on a launch into space."

Shutdown at 7:03, 423 seconds - 3s start = still 44 seconds short?
Ariane 62 VA262 aims for LEO. I couldn't find any official Ariane 6 mission timeline for LEO. The 2021 draft of the "Multi Launch Service" User's manual specifies that for GEO the LLPM should fire 472s, and 467s for LTO (Lunar Transfer Orbit). Thursday's test firing duration indeed might seem a bit short (unless they uprated Vulcain 2.1's performance/ISP compared to what has been assumed for the 2021 draft manual)?

https://air-cosmos.com/article/le-premier-etage-d-ariane-6-passe-le-cap-du-combined-test-hot-fire-en-guyane-67983

"It operated nominally at steady state for 426 seconds (7 minutes and 6 seconds), i.e. the entire flight phase - the stated target of 470 seconds firing time (7 minutes and 50 seconds) was a maximum target, and the minimum to be achieved was 250 seconds (4 minutes and 10 seconds)."

According to a CSG worker, 427 seconds "largely exceeded minimum requirements"

I don't understand the statement. What made the test end early? Was the fuel used up, was the time programmed that way beforehand, was there a problem?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: cpushack on 11/27/2023 04:12 am
Quote
"The test includes the ignition of the core stage Vulcain 2.1 engine, followed by 470 seconds of stabilised operation covering the entire core stage flight phase, as it would function on a launch into space."

Yet 250 seconds (which would be a failed launch) was acceptable for the test?

I guess steady state is what they were after, and anything more then 250 seconds was a nice bonus.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: catdlr on 11/27/2023 09:02 am
Inside Ariane 6 Launch Pad

"almost as tall as the Statue of Liberty" is obviously targeted for American viewers.  (I know France constructed it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U3f969hfDQ
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: hoku on 11/28/2023 09:51 am
Inside Ariane 6 Launch Pad
"almost as tall as the Statue of Liberty" is obviously targeted for American viewers.  (I know France constructed it)
<snip>
How high is this in fractional tour Eiffel?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 11/28/2023 10:02 am
Inside Ariane 6 Launch Pad
"almost as tall as the Statue of Liberty" is obviously targeted for American viewers.  (I know France constructed it)
<snip>
How high is this in fractional tour Eiffel?

The Statue of Liberty, including its base and pedestal, has a height of 93 meters.
The Ariane 6 Mobile Gantry has a height of 90 meters.
La tour Eiffel has a height of 300 meters (330 meters if you include the tip).

So, the Ariane 6 Mobile Gantry is less than one-third the height of the Eiffel tower.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Targeteer on 11/29/2023 12:00 pm
How common are full duration, on the pad tests for new launchers?  I can't recall any previously, but I'm probably wrong, as usual.  The stress on both the vehicle and ground infrastructure would seem extreme and what is gained at this cost besides proving the propulsion system will operate full duration, while on the ground not undergoing acceleration, not in space?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/29/2023 08:10 pm
Also for Ariane 5 the first stage had a full duration burn test on ELA-3.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: mn on 11/29/2023 09:38 pm
How common are full duration, on the pad tests for new launchers?  I can't recall any previously, but I'm probably wrong, as usual.  The stress on both the vehicle and ground infrastructure would seem extreme and what is gained at this cost besides proving the propulsion system will operate full duration, while on the ground not undergoing acceleration, not in space?

It's worth noting that the test is only running the Vulcain engine, which generates only a fraction of the regular liftoff thrust with at least 2 SRBs
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: briantipton on 11/30/2023 12:37 am
How common are full duration, on the pad tests for new launchers?  I can't recall any previously, but I'm probably wrong, as usual.  The stress on both the vehicle and ground infrastructure would seem extreme and what is gained at this cost besides proving the propulsion system will operate full duration, while on the ground not undergoing acceleration, not in space?
The SLS conducted a full duration static firing (aka "Green Run") prior to its first launch. Like the Ariane, this was for the core liquid fueled stage only, not the Solid Rocket Boosters so the vehicle and ground infrastructure did not experience the stress of an actual launch.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 12/03/2023 10:32 am
<snip>
"The test includes the ignition of the core stage Vulcain 2.1 engine, followed by 470 seconds of stabilised operation covering the entire core stage flight phase, as it would function on a launch into space."

Shutdown at 7:03, 423 seconds - 3s start = still 44 seconds short?
Ariane 62 VA262 aims for LEO. I couldn't find any official Ariane 6 mission timeline for LEO. The 2021 draft of the "Multi Launch Service" User's manual specifies that for GEO the LLPM should fire 472s, and 467s for LTO (Lunar Transfer Orbit). Thursday's test firing duration indeed might seem a bit short (unless they uprated Vulcain 2.1's performance/ISP compared to what has been assumed for the 2021 draft manual)?

https://air-cosmos.com/article/le-premier-etage-d-ariane-6-passe-le-cap-du-combined-test-hot-fire-en-guyane-67983 (https://air-cosmos.com/article/le-premier-etage-d-ariane-6-passe-le-cap-du-combined-test-hot-fire-en-guyane-67983)

"It operated nominally at steady state for 426 seconds (7 minutes and 6 seconds), i.e. the entire flight phase - the stated target of 470 seconds firing time (7 minutes and 50 seconds) was a maximum target, and the minimum to be achieved was 250 seconds (4 minutes and 10 seconds)."

According to a CSG worker, 427 seconds "largely exceeded minimum requirements"

I don't understand the statement. What made the test end early? Was the fuel used up, was the time programmed that way beforehand, was there a problem?

The answer in the article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/12/ariane6-2024-launch/) by Karin Sturm:
Quote
...
ESA officials also revealed the reason behind the early shutdown of the Vulcain 2.1 engine during the Nov. 23 long-duration hot-fire test. The engine had been expected to fire for 470 seconds, “nearly eight minutes,” as reported frequently before the test. However, the test ultimately lasted for only 426 seconds.

According to ESA Director of Space Transportation Toni Tolker-Nielsen, the cause of the early shutdown was a combination of a faulty sensor and conservatively set fuel limit parameters. “One of the sensors, based on this very narrow threshold, was declared invalid,” explained Tolker-Nielsen. The subsequent early shutdown occurred “in order to protect the launch pad.”

This problem, however, would not present itself during actual flight conditions. “This is not an issue whatsoever on the performance because this is linked to the test on the ground. This early switch-off would not happen in flight,” said Aschbacher. “It would only have happened 1.5 seconds before the planned shutdown. We are very confident that the test was a full success.”...
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: GWR64 on 12/03/2023 10:41 am
Does anyone know which Ariane 6 contractor(s) is (are) meant here?

Quote
.@CNES, @esa to #Ariane6 contractors: Price gouging will be found out, audited and rejected. You agreed to an average 11% price cut. That starts now.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1730229331115303332
___

Quote
The European Space Agency (ESA) issued a strong warning to contractors supplying components for its new Ariane 6 rocket. They will be barred from raising prices over and above their originally quoted costs – and that ESA expects prices to be reduced.

Phillippe Baptiste, head of France’s CNES space agency, said this was not the time to be politically correct, and was blunt in stating “We will not accept that some suppliers take advantage of this programme. This is not acceptable and not possible. There have been some suppliers that have increased their costs by incredible amounts. We all know this. This is unacceptable. Competitiveness starts by reducing the cost of the supply chain all over Europe. This has to be done now. Not in 10 years’ time but now.”
Source: https://advanced-television.com/2023/12/01/esa-issues-warning-to-ariane-6-suppliers/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 12/06/2023 02:06 am
Does anyone know which Ariane 6 contractor(s) is (are) meant here?

Quote
.@CNES, @esa to #Ariane6 contractors: Price gouging will be found out, audited and rejected. You agreed to an average 11% price cut. That starts now.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1730229331115303332

I love the thought/attitude but it's hard to believe when there's a loooong history of capitulation on exactly this. Part of the problem with uncompetitive public procurement markets. What are they going to do if the contractors say "no, the price is the price, take it or leave it!"? Are they willing to wait, thus delaying A6 even further, for an alternative supplier? The home country of the supplier might even have a fit. This has always been the trouble of space unfortunately, until recently there was never any sort of competition within a political/sovereign territory to provide space services, it was either full on government or just one or two contractors. Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/06/2023 03:37 am
......Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.

Sadly, the window for Europe to have it's own "New Space" as part of the future space launch provider market have passed.

Much more important for Europe now is getting Ariane 64 operational as quickly as possible. It is the only somewhat viable near future commercial launcher for Europe.

The less capable Ariane 62 and Vega-C/E have price themselves out of the future commercial market.

Unless the current leading launch provider falters badly. There will be no major commercial competitors for the foreseeable future, IMO.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/06/2023 10:24 am
......Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.

Sadly, the window for Europe to have it's own "New Space" as part of the future space launch provider market have passed.

Much more important for Europe now is getting Ariane 64 operational as quickly as possible. It is the only somewhat viable near future commercial launcher for Europe.

The less capable Ariane 62 and Vega-C/E have price themselves out of the future commercial market.

Unless the current leading launch provider falters badly. There will be no major commercial competitors for the foreseeable future, IMO.

Emphasis are mine. Time to back up this statement with launch service cost information. ...
I agree Ariane 62 will be expansive, but for  Vega C/E this remains to be seen.

Let's quote spacenews: EU finalizing contract with SpaceX for Galileo launches (https://spacenews.com/eu-finalizing-contract-with-spacex-for-galileo-launches/)
Quote
...
In press briefings during the European Space Summit in Seville, Spain, Nov. 7, Thierry Breton, commissioner for the internal market for the European Commission, said he was “finalizing the discussions” for a pair of Falcon 9 launches, each carrying two Galileo satellites, tentatively scheduled for April and July of 2024.
...
He said the European Commission would spend 180 million euros ($192 million) on the Falcon 9 launches.

Yes that's 90mln for each Falcon 9 launch.
That's the same as Ariane 62 had promised to cost, but it might cost 40% more.
The 75mln for a Soyuz-ST launch is significantly less, and the Vega C/E cost of <40mln ....
So present actual launch contract data before stating these claims about launchers being not competitive again.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/06/2023 12:35 pm
Does anyone know which Ariane 6 contractor(s) is (are) meant here?

Quote
.@CNES, @esa to #Ariane6 contractors: Price gouging will be found out, audited and rejected. You agreed to an average 11% price cut. That starts now.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1730229331115303332

I love the thought/attitude but it's hard to believe when there's a loooong history of capitulation on exactly this. Part of the problem with uncompetitive public procurement markets. What are they going to do if the contractors say "no, the price is the price, take it or leave it!"? Are they willing to wait, thus delaying A6 even further, for an alternative supplier? The home country of the supplier might even have a fit. This has always been the trouble of space unfortunately, until recently there was never any sort of competition within a political/sovereign territory to provide space services, it was either full on government or just one or two contractors. Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.

Emphasis mine.

IMO one absolute requirement to pull-off a Euro COTS successfully, is to do away with "juste retour" (geo return). Only when companies from multiple countries compete with each other for ESA's Euros, will prices go down.

Unfortunately, the way ESA is structured, doing away with "juste retour" is virtually impossible without severe repercussions to ESA's budget. It would be reduced to only the larger ones still contributing. All the smaller contributors would bail out.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/06/2023 01:06 pm
Unless the current leading launch provider falters badly. There will be no major commercial competitors for the foreseeable future, IMO.

To put a finer point on it, how can Ariane 6 compete against the marginal launch cost of a rocket family that plans to fly once a day in a couple of years?
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Asteroza on 12/06/2023 09:58 pm
Does anyone know which Ariane 6 contractor(s) is (are) meant here?

Quote
.@CNES, @esa to #Ariane6 contractors: Price gouging will be found out, audited and rejected. You agreed to an average 11% price cut. That starts now.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1730229331115303332

I love the thought/attitude but it's hard to believe when there's a loooong history of capitulation on exactly this. Part of the problem with uncompetitive public procurement markets. What are they going to do if the contractors say "no, the price is the price, take it or leave it!"? Are they willing to wait, thus delaying A6 even further, for an alternative supplier? The home country of the supplier might even have a fit. This has always been the trouble of space unfortunately, until recently there was never any sort of competition within a political/sovereign territory to provide space services, it was either full on government or just one or two contractors. Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.

Emphasis mine.

IMO one absolute requirement to pull-off a Euro COTS successfully, is to do away with "juste retour" (geo return). Only when companies from multiple countries compete with each other for ESA's Euros, will prices go down.

Unfortunately, the way ESA is structured, doing away with "juste retour" is virtually impossible without severe repercussions to ESA's budget. It would be reduced to only the larger ones still contributing. All the smaller contributors would bail out.

This seems to echo NASA as well, with their development/budgeting purposely being split to the various regional NASA centers who are guarded by their respective representatives in the US congress, leading to workforce maintenance being a major objective, rather than other goals.

The US having multiple launch providers in the same class seems as much luck as much as the economics of having sufficient payload demand to sustain at least 2 launchers per major class type, but even there we saw consolidation leading to duopolies/near monopolies. Does europe really generate sufficient payloads to ultimately support a healthy multi-provider domestic ecosystem? If OneWeb had been locked into EU launch (a partial form of geo-return),  that might have accelerated the development of a healthy COTS ecosystem.

If you look at it from a different perspective, the necessary anchor customer payload mass to sustain a COTS ecosystem seems to also stem primarily (in whole or part) from the same nations that possess nuclear weapons, thus the UK and France. This natural duopoly circumstance, with Germany and Italy struggling to be relevant, would seem to suggest the source of a commercial duopoly to support a healthy COTS ecosystem is by definition primarily limited to the UK and France. Whether Brexit actually helps or hurts this situation (turning the duopoly into UK or EU) is certainly debatable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 12/07/2023 03:09 am
......Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.

Sadly, the window for Europe to have it's own "New Space" as part of the future space launch provider market have passed.

Much more important for Europe now is getting Ariane 64 operational as quickly as possible. It is the only somewhat viable near future commercial launcher for Europe.

The less capable Ariane 62 and Vega-C/E have price themselves out of the future commercial market.

Unless the current leading launch provider falters badly. There will be no major commercial competitors for the foreseeable future, IMO.

Emphasis are mine. Time to back up this statement with launch service cost information. ...
I agree Ariane 62 will be expansive, but for  Vega C/E this remains to be seen.

Let's quote spacenews: EU finalizing contract with SpaceX for Galileo launches (https://spacenews.com/eu-finalizing-contract-with-spacex-for-galileo-launches/)
Quote
...
In press briefings during the European Space Summit in Seville, Spain, Nov. 7, Thierry Breton, commissioner for the internal market for the European Commission, said he was “finalizing the discussions” for a pair of Falcon 9 launches, each carrying two Galileo satellites, tentatively scheduled for April and July of 2024.
...
He said the European Commission would spend 180 million euros ($192 million) on the Falcon 9 launches.

Yes that's 90mln for each Falcon 9 launch.
That's the same as Ariane 62 had promised to cost, but it might cost 40% more.
The 75mln for a Soyuz-ST launch is significantly less, and the Vega C/E cost of <40mln ....
So present actual launch contract data before stating these claims about launchers being not competitive again.
If I am one of a handful of widget suppliers in the world but I have an innovative way to produce a widget for $20M while the cost to my competition is $60M and they like having a 50% profit margin so they charge their customers $90M for a widget, what price do you think I will sell a widget to customers for?

A) $30M (50% profit on my $20M cost)

or

B) $89.99M (one dollar less than my competition and a healthy 350% profit)


Never mind that in this case SpaceX's competition literally doesn't have a product available at the moment.

My guess is SpaceX offered what they believed to be the maximum amount Thierry Breton was willing to stomach without simply walking away and risking reputational damage from a degradation in Galileo service by waiting for a functional European launcher.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/07/2023 03:10 am
......Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.

Sadly, the window for Europe to have it's own "New Space" as part of the future space launch provider market have passed.

Much more important for Europe now is getting Ariane 64 operational as quickly as possible. It is the only somewhat viable near future commercial launcher for Europe.

The less capable Ariane 62 and Vega-C/E have price themselves out of the future commercial market.

Unless the current leading launch provider falters badly. There will be no major commercial competitors for the foreseeable future, IMO.

Emphasis are mine. Time to back up this statement with launch service cost information. ...
I agree Ariane 62 will be expansive, but for  Vega C/E this remains to be seen.

Let's quote spacenews: EU finalizing contract with SpaceX for Galileo launches (https://spacenews.com/eu-finalizing-contract-with-spacex-for-galileo-launches/)
Quote
...
In press briefings during the European Space Summit in Seville, Spain, Nov. 7, Thierry Breton, commissioner for the internal market for the European Commission, said he was “finalizing the discussions” for a pair of Falcon 9 launches, each carrying two Galileo satellites, tentatively scheduled for April and July of 2024.
...
He said the European Commission would spend 180 million euros ($192 million) on the Falcon 9 launches.

Yes that's 90mln for each Falcon 9 launch.
That's the same as Ariane 62 had promised to cost, but it might cost 40% more.
The 75mln for a Soyuz-ST launch is significantly less, and the Vega C/E cost of <40mln ....
So present actual launch contract data before stating these claims about launchers being not competitive again.
Ain't you forgetting the subsidies that Arianespace want to increase to €350M from €110M annually just for the Ariane 6. Plus national security missions always cost more than the listed price. Also why bring up the Soyuz-ST, since it is no longer under consideration for Western payloads now and in the future.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 12/07/2023 03:19 am
If I am one of a handful of widget suppliers in the world but I have an innovative way to produce a widget for $20M while the cost to my competition is $60M and they like having a 50% profit margin so they charge their customers $90M for a widget, what price do you think I will sell a widget to customers for?

A) $30M (50% profit on my $20M cost)

or

B) $89.99M (one dollar less than my competition and a healthy 350% profit)


Never mind that in this case SpaceX's competition literally doesn't have a product available at the moment.

My guess is SpaceX offered what they believed to be the maximum amount Thierry Breton was willing to stomach without simply walking away and risking reputational damage from a degradation in Galileo service by waiting for a functional European launcher.
I agree in principle, but we don't really know the details. Complex (and expensive) payloads often have specialized handling requirements, so unless we could look at the actual contracts, we don't know everything that the $192 million covers. The customer may be getting a reasonably good price for what they require.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 12/07/2023 12:10 pm
......Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.

Sadly, the window for Europe to have it's own "New Space" as part of the future space launch provider market have passed.

Much more important for Europe now is getting Ariane 64 operational as quickly as possible. It is the only somewhat viable near future commercial launcher for Europe.

The less capable Ariane 62 and Vega-C/E have price themselves out of the future commercial market.

Unless the current leading launch provider falters badly. There will be no major commercial competitors for the foreseeable future, IMO.

Emphasis are mine. Time to back up this statement with launch service cost information. ...
I agree Ariane 62 will be expansive, but for  Vega C/E this remains to be seen.

Let's quote spacenews: EU finalizing contract with SpaceX for Galileo launches (https://spacenews.com/eu-finalizing-contract-with-spacex-for-galileo-launches/)
Quote
...
In press briefings during the European Space Summit in Seville, Spain, Nov. 7, Thierry Breton, commissioner for the internal market for the European Commission, said he was “finalizing the discussions” for a pair of Falcon 9 launches, each carrying two Galileo satellites, tentatively scheduled for April and July of 2024.
...
He said the European Commission would spend 180 million euros ($192 million) on the Falcon 9 launches.

Yes that's 90mln for each Falcon 9 launch.
That's the same as Ariane 62 had promised to cost, but it might cost 40% more.
The 75mln for a Soyuz-ST launch is significantly less, and the Vega C/E cost of <40mln ....
So present actual launch contract data before stating these claims about launchers being not competitive again.
Ain't you forgetting the subsidies that Arianespace want to increase to €350M from €110M annually just for the Ariane 6. Plus national security missions always cost more than the listed price. Also why bring up the Soyuz-ST, since it is no under consideration for Western payloads now and in the future.

€350m a year on top of €4 billion in development costs already paid. If A6 launches 100x in 10 years that would be ~$80m *per launch* in just subsidies… that’s more than the ENTIRE price of an F9 launch, and it still isn’t competitive!

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/07/2023 01:38 pm
......Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.

Sadly, the window for Europe to have it's own "New Space" as part of the future space launch provider market have passed.

Much more important for Europe now is getting Ariane 64 operational as quickly as possible. It is the only somewhat viable near future commercial launcher for Europe.

The less capable Ariane 62 and Vega-C/E have price themselves out of the future commercial market.

Unless the current leading launch provider falters badly. There will be no major commercial competitors for the foreseeable future, IMO.

Emphasis are mine. Time to back up this statement with launch service cost information. ...
I agree Ariane 62 will be expansive, but for  Vega C/E this remains to be seen.

Let's quote spacenews: EU finalizing contract with SpaceX for Galileo launches (https://spacenews.com/eu-finalizing-contract-with-spacex-for-galileo-launches/)
Quote
...
In press briefings during the European Space Summit in Seville, Spain, Nov. 7, Thierry Breton, commissioner for the internal market for the European Commission, said he was “finalizing the discussions” for a pair of Falcon 9 launches, each carrying two Galileo satellites, tentatively scheduled for April and July of 2024.
...
He said the European Commission would spend 180 million euros ($192 million) on the Falcon 9 launches.

Yes that's 90mln for each Falcon 9 launch.
That's the same as Ariane 62 had promised to cost, but it might cost 40% more.
The 75mln for a Soyuz-ST launch is significantly less, and the Vega C/E cost of <40mln ....
So present actual launch contract data before stating these claims about launchers being not competitive again.
Ain't you forgetting the subsidies that Arianespace want to increase to €350M from €110M annually just for the Ariane 6. Plus national security missions always cost more than the listed price. Also why bring up the Soyuz-ST, since it is no under consideration for Western payloads now and in the future.

€350m a year on top of €4 billion in development costs already paid. If A6 launches 100x in 10 years that would be ~$80m *per launch* in just subsidies… that’s more than the ENTIRE price of an F9 launch, and it still isn’t competitive!

Wrong. It would be Euro 35M in subsidies per launch. You can't add to the equation the Euro 4B in development funding. You see, that's sunk cost. And adding that to the PER LAUNCH cost equation would be you stepping into the sunk cost fallacy. That is because that Euro 4B is gone, regardless of Ariane 6 launching 100 times or just 1 time.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: ZachF on 12/07/2023 05:24 pm
......Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.

Sadly, the window for Europe to have it's own "New Space" as part of the future space launch provider market have passed.

Much more important for Europe now is getting Ariane 64 operational as quickly as possible. It is the only somewhat viable near future commercial launcher for Europe.

The less capable Ariane 62 and Vega-C/E have price themselves out of the future commercial market.

Unless the current leading launch provider falters badly. There will be no major commercial competitors for the foreseeable future, IMO.

Emphasis are mine. Time to back up this statement with launch service cost information. ...
I agree Ariane 62 will be expansive, but for  Vega C/E this remains to be seen.

Let's quote spacenews: EU finalizing contract with SpaceX for Galileo launches (https://spacenews.com/eu-finalizing-contract-with-spacex-for-galileo-launches/)
Quote
...
In press briefings during the European Space Summit in Seville, Spain, Nov. 7, Thierry Breton, commissioner for the internal market for the European Commission, said he was “finalizing the discussions” for a pair of Falcon 9 launches, each carrying two Galileo satellites, tentatively scheduled for April and July of 2024.
...
He said the European Commission would spend 180 million euros ($192 million) on the Falcon 9 launches.

Yes that's 90mln for each Falcon 9 launch.
That's the same as Ariane 62 had promised to cost, but it might cost 40% more.
The 75mln for a Soyuz-ST launch is significantly less, and the Vega C/E cost of <40mln ....
So present actual launch contract data before stating these claims about launchers being not competitive again.
Ain't you forgetting the subsidies that Arianespace want to increase to €350M from €110M annually just for the Ariane 6. Plus national security missions always cost more than the listed price. Also why bring up the Soyuz-ST, since it is no under consideration for Western payloads now and in the future.

€350m a year on top of €4 billion in development costs already paid. If A6 launches 100x in 10 years that would be ~$80m *per launch* in just subsidies… that’s more than the ENTIRE price of an F9 launch, and it still isn’t competitive!

Wrong. It would be Euro 35M in subsidies per launch. You can't add to the equation the Euro 4B in development funding. You see, that's sunk cost. And adding that to the PER LAUNCH cost equation would be you stepping into the sunk cost fallacy. That is because that Euro 4B is gone, regardless of Ariane 6 launching 100 times or just 1 time.

Getting your entire development paid for by public funds IS a form of subsidy.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DeimosDream on 12/07/2023 07:48 pm
If I am one of a handful of widget suppliers in the world but I have an innovative way to produce a widget for $20M while the cost to my competition is $60M and they like having a 50% profit margin so they charge their customers $90M for a widget, what price do you think I will sell a widget to customers for?

A) $30M (50% profit on my $20M cost)

or

B) $89.99M (one dollar less than my competition and a healthy 350% profit)


Never mind that in this case SpaceX's competition literally doesn't have a product available at the moment.

My guess is SpaceX offered what they believed to be the maximum amount Thierry Breton was willing to stomach without simply walking away and risking reputational damage from a degradation in Galileo service by waiting for a functional European launcher.
I agree in principle, but we don't really know the details. Complex (and expensive) payloads often have specialized handling requirements, so unless we could look at the actual contracts, we don't know everything that the $192 million covers. The customer may be getting a reasonably good price for what they require.

Do we know if the F9 Galileo flights will be ASDS recovery or expended? I know F9-ASDS is superior up through GTO, but if A62 can deliver a direct to MEO payload that would require F9(expended) then Ariane might be able to claim to be competitive for that niche (ignoring subsidies).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/07/2023 07:57 pm
The point I wanted to make is that there isn't enough information to back claims about launch service costs.
It's possible SpaceX sells commercial launches for a price for the launch service and a Starlink launch.
I have not seen a SpaceX launch service contract for less than 90mln per launch.

We are in the Ariane 6 discussion topic. AFAIK the three reasons for the current Ariane 6 design are.
- No new engine availability other than Vince, because of low funding between 2010 and 2016, the combination of Bank and Euro crisis.
- Soyuz-ST got really expansive at >75mln per launch where they initially thought ~60mln.
- Ariane 5 wasn't flexible, for Ariane 5ME (implementation of Vince in the upper stage) very extensive and expansive modifications were required. And Ariane 5ME would be a very heavy >20mT to LEO / >10mT to GTO launcher.

The Ariane 6 is completely developed with public funding, hardly any commercial funding went into it. And that is the real problem that needs to be tackled. ArianeGroup is also the Group of companies manufacturing the majority of Ariane 6 components. It's old space. Georeturn is required because there is/was hardly any commercial funding for launchers. The mayor ESA memberstates France, Germany, Italy and the UK don't provide enough public funding for the development of a launcher, so the smaller memberstates are needed to contribute. And rightfully they demand work packages in return. This is the Geo return.
I could describe the case of Airbus Defence and Space the Netherlands (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Airbus+Nederland+B.V./@52.1650063,4.444487,1361m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x47c5c7111ada2043:0xf954dabeed92d2e1!8m2!3d52.1649715!4d4.4473381!16s%2Fg%2F11f30y4762?entry=ttu).

I'm mordicus against the huge, up to 350mln annual public funding to . I much rather have realistic priced Ariane 6 launch services that cover the cost. I much rather have Ariane 62 costing >120mln per launch and the public funding going to technology development that could eventually bring ArianeNext to market. Than the Ariane 62 launching for 90mln and the public funding being wasted on making Ariane 6 barely cost competitive.
This hides the inferiority of the Ariane6. It consumes the funding needed for the launcher revolution.

I see a path towards launchers being competative with SpaceX Falcon 9, Rocketlab Neutron, NGIS/Firefly Antares 300/ NGL and/or Relativity Terran R. But this won't be ready before the 2030's, and with the huge annual public funding for Ariane 6 this will be later.
 
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/07/2023 08:21 pm
Ariane 5 ES Galileo could launch those 4 Galileo Gen 1 satellites on a single launch, that would have cost ~150mln.
But the Ariane 5 ES was taken out of production already in 2016.
For Galileo launches I think Ariane 6 would also mayorly benefit from the Astris Kick stage. I think Ariane 62 with the Astris kick stage could also launch four gen 1 satellites.
Sorry but SpaceX falcon 9 is actually unsuited for the Galileo launches. It's outperformed by the Soyuz ST on this mission. The huge mass of the upper stage is a huge disadvantage, and will cause a giant space debris item.
Also Falcon 9 would benefit mayorly by a kick stage for this mission type. Instead of launching the 2x 750kg Galileo satellites with the ~4mT empty mass of the second stage to MEO. Falcon 9 FT could launch 4x 750kg satellites + ~1000kg kickstage to a MTO (MEO trajectory orbit ~23200 x 600km 56deg. inclination). The kick stage would circularize the orbit (@23222 km altitude 56deg. inclination), afterwards the satellites deploy. The kick stage might even have enough capability to deorbit, and otherwise it's a <250kg instead of ~4mT item of space debris.
The Gallileo system urgently needs replacement satellites, the >30mln higher launch service cost by opting for the SpaceX Falcon 9 is well worth it. This just shown who much the European launch industry has let down the European space program. These launches were planned for Ariane 62 (without Astris) with Soyuz-ST as backup.
 :-X :-[ :'(
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 12/08/2023 02:54 am
A French aerospace forum posted an English transcript of an interview that CEO of Safran gave to French media in the last day or so (Challenges.fr). The topics were wide ranging but below is a part where he touched upon the topic of Ariane 6 in relation to ballooning costs from suppliers that the Peter B Deseldig tweet was about a few posts up). I gotta say this man has an alternative history of how Ariane responsibilities became Safran's and his comments about specific subcontractors is like pouring gasoline on an existing dumpster fire, I don't see how in the world this won't make cooperation even more contentious and dysfunctional. Without further ado, here's Safran CEO, Olivier Andries.

==================================

The "Seven Mercenaries of Space"

A few minutes later, it was the turn of the Ariane 6 subcontractors to be scattered "like a puzzle". What for? The head of Safran has little taste for the permanent music within the space microcosm about the lack of competitiveness of ArianeGroup, the prime contractor for the Ariane rockets co-owned 50-50 by Safran and Airbus. Admittedly, the Member States of the ESA (European Space Agency) had to agree, at the last ministerial summit in Seville in November, an annual subsidy of 340 million euros to ArianeGroup to ensure the economic balance of Ariane 6. This is yet another blow to the original contract, which provided for the end of all operational support for the new European heavy launcher. But ArianeGroup is far from being the only one responsible, according to Olivier Andriès.

"The problem with Ariane 6 is that it was launched in 2014 in a hybrid mode: industry has taken control of development, but ESA member states have maintained the principle of geographical return (according to which a state receives an industrial burden proportional to its investment). The reality today is that the subcontractors have been imposed on ArianeGroup by their countries, and that these partners hide behind the geographical return in order not to make any effort to be competitive. »

He is asked for names. The Safran boss is quick to point to Germany's OHB-System, Switzerland's Beyond Gravity (formerly RUAG) and Sweden's GKN Aerospace Sweden. "There are seven of them, I call them the 'Magnificent Seven'. Some were calling for price increases of 50 to 60% in 2022, under the pretext of offsetting inflation, which was truly delusional. ESA has been asked to impose cost cuts, but some countries, such as Germany, are balking.

==================================
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/08/2023 07:31 am
€350m a year on top of €4 billion in development costs already paid. If A6 launches 100x in 10 years that would be ~$80m *per launch* in just subsidies… that’s more than the ENTIRE price of an F9 launch, and it still isn’t competitive!

Wrong. It would be Euro 35M in subsidies per launch. You can't add to the equation the Euro 4B in development funding. You see, that's sunk cost. And adding that to the PER LAUNCH cost equation would be you stepping into the sunk cost fallacy. That is because that Euro 4B is gone, regardless of Ariane 6 launching 100 times or just 1 time.

Getting your entire development paid for by public funds IS a form of subsidy.

No, it isn't. It is not a subsidy, because ESA is the main customer of Ariane, due to the "assured independent access to space" requirement. Without ESA requiring a launcher, none of the Ariane vehicles would have ever existed. ESA paying for the vast majority of Ariane 6 development is no different than NASA paying for the vast majority of Space Shuttle development.

Even if Ariane would have never launched commercial payloads, an Ariane launcher would have existed anyway, to serve ESA's "assured independent access to space" needs.
That particularly applies to Ariane 6: it is totally non-competitive in a world ruled by SpaceX. But despite this, ESA invested Euro 4.5B in Ariane 6 development. And on top of that ESA agreed to pay Euro 350M annually, to cover its operational costs.

Have you never wondered WHY ESA would be willing to do that?

It's not because they want Arianespace to be able to compete with SpaceX. ESA d*mn well knows that Arianespace is incapable of doing so. The reason ESA coughs up all that money is because they don't ever want Europe to be blackmailed by the USA again, like they were in the early 1970s with the Intelsat-Symphonie story.

Only when you have fully read and learned about what happened back in the 1970s, including the loss of two early European satellites in U.S. launch vehicle failures, will you be able to understand why ESA's "assured independent access to space" requirement exists and why it is one of the corner stones of ESA policy-making. Only when you have fully grasped THAT, will you be able to understand why ESA is willing to invest billions of Euros in a launcher that will never be profitable.

And ESA doing so is not a new thing. It has happened before: Ariane 5 was never profitable. Yet ESA kept that launcher going for over 25 years. Because no matter how operations and formal ownership are structured, Ariane is ESA's launcher first and a commercial launcher second.


(and that's something that Americans usually are incapable of wrapping their heads around)
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/08/2023 03:16 pm
It's not because they want Arianespace to be able to compete with SpaceX. ESA d*mn well knows that Arianespace is incapable of doing so. The reason ESA coughs up all that money is because they don't ever want Europe to be blackmailed by the USA again, like they were in the early 1970s with the Intelsat-Symphonie story.

Ariane 6 is at best only an expensive, small shield against being blackmailed by the USA (or SpaceX if they would ever wish to cause problems), given today's and tomorrow's payloads.

Europe with regard to payloads is like Rip Van Winkle, who falls asleep and wakes up 20 years later to a different world.  The only cold comfort Europe may have is that there's lots of inertia on payloads in the US too.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/10/2023 03:01 pm
That Safran CEO is blaming all others that the Arianegroup owning companies.
But AFAIK Ruag/Beyond Gravity (payload fairings), OHB (tank structures) and GKN Aerospace (Vulcain nozzle, and vulcain and Vince turbines) had their production in order to deliver the initial 15 launchers between 2020 and 2023. They had a steady demand for work on Ariane 5. Because of the delays in Ariane 6 development they had to stand down production for several years. Those sunken cost have to be recovered, thus huge price increases. This is commercially justified!
Arianegroup broke production contract, they didn't take delivery of products the ordered.
Arianegroup together with ESA requested subcontractors to deliver 15 launchers between 2020 and 2023. All of this production demand has been pushed to the 2024 to 2026 period. So
In my opinion the companies; that planned to implement immature technologies and didn't develop and deliver the work packages on time, should cover the cost of the three year production interruption. I expect this to be a bill with nine figures. Because of the hybrid contract, the main contractor (ArianeGroup) is spared from paying this huge bill.
 
I think the real problem was an unrealistic schedule for the Ariane 6 development. (that was a decision by ESA and Arianegroup). As a result new factories were build in a hurry, making them more expansive to construct. (That's the sunken ~4*10^9 Euro Ariane 6 development cost.)
Some of the Arianegroup companies failed to deliver on the production and development of the launcher components. (the upper stage unbiblical arm design issue. the MANG fluid quick disconnects, etz.)
Besides the launcher hardware issues; the software development was really slow. And the launch zone and the upper-stage test bench in Germany were ready very late. (the real reasons for the 4year development delay have not been made public, and this costs the European tax payer 0.7 to 1.5 billion.)

In my opinion; it could be justified that ESA memberstate cover the cost to maintain the CSG launch range. AFAIK the USAF covers this for the USA launch zones. But I think that would cost less than the up to 350mln annual public contribution to maintain Ariane6 launch capability. I fear several Ariane 6 launch contracts have already been sold below launch service cost, so at a loss to Arianegroup. (ArianeGroup pays the subcontractors for their work-packages).
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/10/2023 03:27 pm
If and when Airbus and or Safran get the ambition to roll out a LEO comsat constellation, they might fund the development of a ArianeNext themselves. But currently the risks are to high for this. The businesscase for LEO comsat constellations has not been proven.  Arianegroup requires flight certified engines before they can commit to start development of ArianeNext.
The Ariane 6 PPH design wouldn't have had further growth potential. The current Ariane 6 PHH design has growth potential; further improvements can be gradually implemented.

There are already three funded improvements:
- The enlargement of the P120C solid rocket motor boosters into the P160C.
- A weight reduced upperstage by replacing the aluminium tank structures by composite tank structures. ICARUS
- The in orbit kick-stage Astris.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: freddo411 on 12/10/2023 03:57 pm
...

The businesscase for LEO comsat constellations has not been proven. 

...

SpaceX runs a profitable business providing high speed, low latency global internet access to about 2 million customers.   It's called Starlink.   You should check it out.

Also Iridium has been around a long time, and is currently profitable.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/10/2023 04:05 pm
...

The businesscase for LEO comsat constellations has not been proven. 

...

SpaceX runs a profitable business providing high speed, low latency global internet access to about 2 million customers.   It's called Starlink.   You should check it out.

Also Iridium has been around a long time, and is currently profitable.
News reports say Starlink has fallen short of projections (2 million subscribers but they wanted 20 million) and Elon Musk only said that it had “achieved breakeven cash flow" only recently, whatever that means.  It lost money in 2022 on $1.2 billion revenue.  There have been 61 Starlink launches this year so far this year.  Even with reuse that is a big chunk of change.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: DanClemmensen on 12/10/2023 04:08 pm
...

The businesscase for LEO comsat constellations has not been proven. 

...

SpaceX runs a profitable business providing high speed, low latency global internet access to about 2 million customers.   It's called Starlink.   You should check it out.

Also Iridium has been around a long time, and is currently profitable.
SpaceX has asserted that Starlink is now cash-flow positive.  This is a good sign but is not necessarily the same as "profitable", which can get really murky, especially when the launch company, the satellite manufacturing company, and the satellite Internet operating company are all the same company. But yes, It looks like a spectacular success which will show a very rapid increase in profits.

This says very little about the profit potential of a new constellation. The up-front costs are horrendous, and Starlink is already in place.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/10/2023 05:33 pm


...

The businesscase for LEO comsat constellations has not been proven. 

...

SpaceX runs a profitable business providing high speed, low latency global internet access to about 2 million customers.   It's called Starlink.   You should check it out.

Also Iridium has been around a long time, and is currently profitable.

Research Iridium constellation history and you will discover it wouldn't be profitable if it still had to repay original $5B investment.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 12/10/2023 05:37 pm

Arianegroup broke production contract, they didn't take delivery of products the ordered.


In my opinion; it could be justified that ESA memberstate cover the cost to maintain the CSG launch range. AFAIK the USAF covers this for the USA launch zones. But I think that would cost less than the up to 350mln annual public contribution to maintain Ariane6 launch capability. I fear several Ariane 6 launch contracts have already been sold below launch service cost, so at a loss to Arianegroup. (ArianeGroup pays the subcontractors for their work-packages).

Why didn't Arianegroup take delivery? They physically couldn't store the components for years? Or was it for accounting reasons.

ESA has been covering the cost of the CSG since the 70s.  It is the European space center and not the French space center for a reason, ESA has invested 760 millions euros into it for the 2020-2024 period, bo
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2023/06/14/au-centre-spatial-guyanais-une-baisse-de-l-activite-en-attendant-la-reprise_6177681_3234.html

"Subsidies for the base from the twenty-two ESA member states is growing: 760 million euros from 2020 to 2024, "including 140 million to modernize the base", he explains, then 850 million until 2027, including 100 million "to make the CSG more flexible, more informatized and more sustainable"."


.  Arianegroup requires flight certified engines before they can commit to start development of ArianeNext.



There are already three funded improvements:
- The enlargement of the P120C solid rocket motor boosters into the P160C.
- A weight reduced upperstage by replacing the aluminium tank structures by composite tank structures. ICARUS
- The in orbit kick-stage Astris.

Hence Themis/Maiaspace, whose goal is to prepare for ArianeNext (both technically and politically), including flight testing Prometheus.

I forgot, has ICARUS officialy been funded by ESA? PHOEBUS has, of course, but I don't remember if its implementation as part of ICARUS has.


Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/10/2023 06:01 pm
...
I forgot, has ICARUS officialy been funded by ESA? PHOEBUS has, of course, but I don't remember if its implementation as part of ICARUS has.
PHOEBUS is the technology maturation (testing and qualification program) for the Icarus stage tank structures. I think the development has not jet been fully funded. Germany took the right development approach on this (as opposed to France with the MANG and APU). They take their the required time to test and certify the composite tank structure. Only when this has been done they can start the development of the ICARUS stage and the tooling for serial production.
I also expect that the Netherlands will lose a work package with the transition from ULPM to ICARUS.
I'm oké with that, when we don't have to subsidize each and every Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: woods170 on 12/11/2023 03:53 pm
<snip>
ESA has been covering the cost of the CSG since the 70s.  It is the European space center and not the French space center for a reason...<snip>

Three things:
- CNES is official owner of CSG
- ESA covers only two-thirds of the annual budget for CSG, including the annual lease of CSG facilities.
- ESA only owns the specific infrastructure for Ariane, Soyuz and Vega. All other stuff is property of the government of France.

CSG is as much France's spaceport as it is Europe's spaceport
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Emmettvonbrown on 12/11/2023 05:36 pm
Quite logical (at least from an history point of view) as it was  opened in 1968 for Véronique and Diamant. At the time ELDO included Australia and its Woomera launch base. Europa finally came to Kourou, albeit its first (and only) launch there was a rather pathetic failure (F11, 05/11/1971: guidance went down because of electrostatic discharges not handled properly - a lesson that was remembered for Ariane )

Plus it's French Guiana - an oversea territory.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 12/12/2023 07:20 am
€350m a year on top of €4 billion in development costs already paid. If A6 launches 100x in 10 years that would be ~$80m *per launch* in just subsidies… that’s more than the ENTIRE price of an F9 launch, and it still isn’t competitive!

Wrong. It would be Euro 35M in subsidies per launch. You can't add to the equation the Euro 4B in development funding. You see, that's sunk cost. And adding that to the PER LAUNCH cost equation would be you stepping into the sunk cost fallacy. That is because that Euro 4B is gone, regardless of Ariane 6 launching 100 times or just 1 time.

Getting your entire development paid for by public funds IS a form of subsidy.

No, it isn't. It is not a subsidy, because ESA is the main customer of Ariane, due to the "assured independent access to space" requirement. Without ESA requiring a launcher, none of the Ariane vehicles would have ever existed. ESA paying for the vast majority of Ariane 6 development is no different than NASA paying for the vast majority of Space Shuttle development.

Even if Ariane would have never launched commercial payloads, an Ariane launcher would have existed anyway, to serve ESA's "assured independent access to space" needs.
That particularly applies to Ariane 6: it is totally non-competitive in a world ruled by SpaceX. But despite this, ESA invested Euro 4.5B in Ariane 6 development. And on top of that ESA agreed to pay Euro 350M annually, to cover its operational costs.

Have you never wondered WHY ESA would be willing to do that?

It's not because they want Arianespace to be able to compete with SpaceX. ESA d*mn well knows that Arianespace is incapable of doing so. The reason ESA coughs up all that money is because they don't ever want Europe to be blackmailed by the USA again, like they were in the early 1970s with the Intelsat-Symphonie story.

Only when you have fully read and learned about what happened back in the 1970s, including the loss of two early European satellites in U.S. launch vehicle failures, will you be able to understand why ESA's "assured independent access to space" requirement exists and why it is one of the corner stones of ESA policy-making. Only when you have fully grasped THAT, will you be able to understand why ESA is willing to invest billions of Euros in a launcher that will never be profitable.

And ESA doing so is not a new thing. It has happened before: Ariane 5 was never profitable. Yet ESA kept that launcher going for over 25 years. Because no matter how operations and formal ownership are structured, Ariane is ESA's launcher first and a commercial launcher second.


(and that's something that Americans usually are incapable of wrapping their heads around)

To add to the Symphonie story. Recent geopolitical events again reaffirmed how important independent access to space really is. Europe has depended upon cheap Soyuz launches for medium lift launches for about two decades, partly because Ariane 5 was just far too big and expensive for those missions. That capability is now gone, and it shows how vulnerable dependence on foreign providers can make you, forcing ESA to launch on Falcon 9.

If Ariane 6 was nothing but a European Soyuz-class vehicle for Soyuz-class prices, it would still be worth most of the development costs. Any commercial satellites or heavy payloads it can lift are just a nice bonus.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: M129K on 12/12/2023 04:00 pm
I was unable to find previous discussions on this topic, so apologies if this is misplaced.

https://www.ariane.group/en/news/ariane-6-a-launcher-designed-to-evolve/

ArianeGroup has this interesting little page hidden on their website about potential upgrades to the Ariane 6 design. Ariane 5 was iteratively developed, so it should be no surprise that Ariane 6 would be as well. Some of these are rather small upgrades like increasing the booster propellant load by 10% for +2 tons to LEO, the Icarus composite upper stage at +2 tons to GTO, as well as two rather big upgrades: replacing Vulcain with two (presumably) sea level optimized Prometheus-H engines and replacing the solid P120C boosters with a Themis-derived, reusable methalox booster, powered by three Prometheus-M engines. The dual engined A62 would increase payload by another +2 tons to GTO.

Looking at this, it seems to me that ArianeGroup thinks Ariane 62 has the most potential. A dual engine, Icarus upper stage Ariane 62 would be able to lift ~8,5 tons to GTO at little extra cost.

Is there any serious material about these upgrades? Or should I interpret them mostly as notional ideas floated by a main contractor looking for development money?

Finally, I wonder if liquid flyback boosters even be politically viable. Deriving them from Themis is probably the easiest to do in the short term, but that would mean a major blow to Italy's and Avio's main contribution to the program.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/12/2023 10:24 pm
I was unable to find previous discussions on this topic, so apologies if this is misplaced.

https://www.ariane.group/en/news/ariane-6-a-launcher-designed-to-evolve/

ArianeGroup has this interesting little page hidden on their website about potential upgrades to the Ariane 6 design. Ariane 5 was iteratively developed, so it should be no surprise that Ariane 6 would be as well. Some of these are rather small upgrades like increasing the booster propellant load by 10% for +2 tons to LEO, the Icarus composite upper stage at +2 tons to GTO, as well as two rather big upgrades: replacing Vulcain with two (presumably) sea level optimized Prometheus-H engines and replacing the solid P120C boosters with a Themis-derived, reusable methalox booster, powered by three Prometheus-M engines. The dual engined A62 would increase payload by another +2 tons to GTO.

Looking at this, it seems to me that ArianeGroup thinks Ariane 62 has the most potential. A dual engine, Icarus upper stage Ariane 62 would be able to lift ~8,5 tons to GTO at little extra cost.

Is there any serious material about these upgrades? Or should I interpret them mostly as notional ideas floated by a main contractor looking for development money?
<snip>
Think all the Ariane 6 upgrades mention above was discuss separately in many threads.

Getting the budget to develop them will not be easy or quick, IMO.

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: TheKutKu on 12/13/2023 12:14 am
I was unable to find previous discussions on this topic, so apologies if this is misplaced.

https://www.ariane.group/en/news/ariane-6-a-launcher-designed-to-evolve/

ArianeGroup has this interesting little page hidden on their website about potential upgrades to the Ariane 6 design. Ariane 5 was iteratively developed, so it should be no surprise that Ariane 6 would be as well. Some of these are rather small upgrades like increasing the booster propellant load by 10% for +2 tons to LEO, the Icarus composite upper stage at +2 tons to GTO, as well as two rather big upgrades: replacing Vulcain with two (presumably) sea level optimized Prometheus-H engines and replacing the solid P120C boosters with a Themis-derived, reusable methalox booster, powered by three Prometheus-M engines. The dual engined A62 would increase payload by another +2 tons to GTO.

Looking at this, it seems to me that ArianeGroup thinks Ariane 62 has the most potential. A dual engine, Icarus upper stage Ariane 62 would be able to lift ~8,5 tons to GTO at little extra cost.

Is there any serious material about these upgrades? Or should I interpret them mostly as notional ideas floated by a main contractor looking for development money?

Finally, I wonder if liquid flyback boosters even be politically viable. Deriving them from Themis is probably the easiest to do in the short term, but that would mean a major blow to Italy's and Avio's main contribution to the program.

As far as I know, The last Ariane 6 Block 2/P120C+ (renamed P160C, they are also to be used on Vega-C and Vega-E giving +200kg of payload) updates are from June 2023, with Arianespace's CEO reiterating the date of H2 2025, and Avio announcing a schedule for the tests of the new boosters. Note that A6 Block 2 also has a slightly uprated Vinci engine, which I've heard nothing about.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/ariane-6-vers-un-premier-vol-en-avril-mai-2024-977533.html
Interestingly, since there are only 6 A6 launches planned in 2025, that the first four are planned to be A62, and that A64 Block 2 will be available in H2 2025, then it's likely that the baseline A64 will only launch 1-3 times.

---

I am not sure how viable Themis-derived boosters would be, 3 Prometheus-M are 300 tons of thrust, vs 450 tons for a P120C while Themis has similar propellant loading and probably much higher dry mass when counting the landing fuel and reuse equipment. Open cycle, medium pressure Methalox engines are also not that much more efficient than Butalane SRB at sea level. I fear it would mean a significant performance drop.

Édit: https://www.eucass.eu/component/docindexer/?task=download&id=7070

This paper estimates a 22.5% payload drop with Prometheus powered RTLS boosters on A6

Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: HVM on 12/14/2023 01:31 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1735295703327322392

"... there was an abort during an Ariane 6 upper stage test last week that is still being investigated, but right now the issue would not delay the first launch in the June-July timeframe."
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: HVM on 12/19/2023 05:07 pm
19 December statement from ESA

“Two minutes after the Vinci engine and APU were fired up, the test was automatically aborted when sensors detected that some parameters had gone beyond predetermined thresholds. The engines were shut down with the nominal sequence, the upper stage test model and test bench entered a safe condition, and the tanks were emptied.”

“This HFT-4 test went beyond the normal flight profile for Ariane 6. The stage will not operate in such a test configuration on the inaugural flight. Teams are analysing test hardware and investigating possible root causes of the abort, with results expected mid-January 2024.”

https://europeanspaceflight.com/ariane-6-upper-stage-test-aborted-prematurely/
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here
Post by: Craigles on 01/03/2024 01:54 am
Quote
€40M to be Invested to Produce Greener Hydrogen for Ariane 6
By Andrew Parsonson -January 2, 2024
... via the solar-powered electrolysis of water ...
https://europeanspaceflight.com/e40m-to-be-invested-to-produce-greener-hydrogen-for-ariane-6/