First, please note that "Ariane 6" is NOT an official name.
The only official name of this project is "NGL" (Next-Gen Launcher).
I still don't see how will they scale down performance. Unless they can do a PPH with a single solid at the base.
Something tells me this "thing" will never be built.
First, please note that "Ariane 6" is NOT an official name.
The only official name of this project is "NGL" (Next-Gen Launcher).
Something tells me this "thing" will never be built.
Let assume that they don't build NGL.
Then what? Ariane 5 stays or new rocket? What rocket?
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".
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.
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):QuoteD'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).
<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.
<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.
<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.
Many launchers in-development have become more expensive once the people involved really started cracking the numbers.
In the end, both parties will be way off.
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.
EuroCryoSpace crying foul over Ariane 6 not being a liquid launcher has one, and one reason only
On Falcon 9 and similar I think the ESA needs to look into RLV technology if they wish to remain relevant.
Quote from: woods170In 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: woods170Solids 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.
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.Quote from: PatchouliOn 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I tend to think that a major attraction of solids for ESA/CNES is their synergy with missiles.
And I can't see what that has to do with how Ariane 6 will look?
Ignoring politics...
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.
Which apparently hasn't stopped them from buying Soyuzes...
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.
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.
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.
Really, the only way to make the economics work out is do the Soyuz route, buy a foreign rocket and resell it.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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?
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)
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.
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?
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.) ???
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.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.
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>
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?
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.) ???
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.) ???
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.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.
Nobody commented on my 25 vinci first stage... :'(
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.
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 )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...
;-)
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...
;-)
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.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?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 )
Hmmm...why does that sound so familiar...
;-)
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.
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.
^
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.
They will loose lift capacity with Ariane 6.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.
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.
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 will loose lift capacity with Ariane 6.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.Sorry, but my English isn't good enough to discuss this in detail.
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.QuoteAriane 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.
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.QuoteWho 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.
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.
Quote from: simonbpReally, 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.
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.
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?
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
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 becauseitIF you are exposed to this bureaucratic reasoning for long enough it kind of starts to make sense to you.
<snip>
We hope the price tag will be less than half of Ariane 5.
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.
QuoteWith 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.
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.
"Solids it is" ;D
"But liquids are better" ???
"Who cares?" ::)
Where have I heard this story before? :P
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.
"Solids it is" ;D
"But liquids are better" ???
"Who cares?" ::)
Where have I heard this story before? :P
Nice recap! Basically says it all.
... you will never be able to completely avoid uncertainty.
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?
What a ridiculous name
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
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.
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.
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. ::)
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.
However the reality is that SpaceX uses much more modern stage construction techniques than Ariane 5 while Orbital uses staged-combustion engines in Antares.
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.
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.
They are of importance simply because the vast majority of people will blindly accept those reasons as being 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.
...
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)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.
A new launchpad built by Guyanese workers which helps the french hold onto their colony is always a good idea.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Ariane 5 is competative only because it is supported with an average of 120 million Euros in taxpayers money... each year.
Quote from: cheesybagelHowever 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BTW, SpaceX didn't used significantly more advanced techniques, since Ariane 5 already uses FSW.
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.
^
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.
^
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...:-)
^
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.
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.
I've been playing catchup on the Ariane 6 plans. Apologies is this concept was already suggested, but out of curiosity: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.
- 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?
- 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).
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!
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.I've been playing catchup on the Ariane 6 plans. Apologies is this concept was already suggested, but out of curiosity: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.
- 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?
- 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]
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.
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.
It is not because of bad engineering in the details. It's the overall concept of the stage that has its flaws!
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.
Quote from: spacediverThe 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.
Well to be fair, a better one was/is not really needed.
Now that the design is final (see updates thread), discuss.
Better is always needed.
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.
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.
Yes. But a better upper stage for Ariane 5ME / 6 would require a near complete re-design. And that is expensive and time consuming.
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.
^
Who said it will be the same US, apart from Vinci?
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 :)
Now that the design is final (see updates thread), discuss.
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.
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'.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.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.
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.
^
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?
It's a bad day for Europe!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.
This bullsh.. thing is the beginning of the end of European access to space!
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'.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.
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!
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.
And you can trust spacejulien on his word. He is intimately involved in the development of A5ME / A6.
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....
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.
Quote from: woods170And 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
No it's not because it's much more expensive than Soyuz.
But, between A5ME and A6, I am more convinced of the A5ME concept, technically as well as economically.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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).Now that the design is final (see updates thread), discuss.It's a bad day for Europe!
Then again, you saw something in the stick ;)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).Now that the design is final (see updates thread), discuss.It's a bad day for Europe!
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 ;)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.
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.
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.
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
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? ???
How many solids can you cluster?
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.
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.
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...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.
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.
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...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.
So the problem must be vibrations, but I'm sure there are ways to dampen them for the capsule.
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.
ESA to my knowledge has never ever built a payload that required a full A5 launch.
Of course as Jim would say, "rockets are not legos" ;)
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.
^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.
531 ;)
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.
Don't forget Envisat, ~8 metric tons. But it's unlikely to happen again, even with Ariane 5.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.
^Didn't say it was.
Envisat was not in GEO, 800km.
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.
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.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
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.
Having said that, congratulations to the French and Safran Herakles for Ariane 6. Well lobbied.
"congratulations to the French and Safran Snecma, Air Liquide and co., well lobbied."
Not? Does that show your bias towards liquids?
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).
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.
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?
Why maintain Vulcain? Vega evolutions are looking at a LOX/methane upper stage so something based on LOX/methane could have more synergy.
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....
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.
Edit: Did you say P340? There is no way for such a booster to be monolithic, right?
Did you really do such an in depth economic analysis?
And did you consider synergies with Vega?
Vulcain 3 has a sea level thrust of 1066kn, to my knowledge.
Also, adding 20t boosters or similar with fixed nozzle would reduce number of engines to 2, hence increasing reliability, and again reduce tank size.
Edit: Did you say P340? There is no way for such a booster to be monolithic, right?
Quote from: mmeijeriWhy 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.
And did you consider synergies with Vega?
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.
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 wonder, are there any high-thrust (1000kn+) GG kerosene engines except the F-1?rd-117? just barely over 1000 kN
Quote from: cheesybagelRight. 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.
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).
Finally SpaceX is supposedly developing a LOX/Methane staged combustion engine named the Raptor.
Allegedly a LOX/LH2 staged combustion engine is not that hard to design and a LOX/Methane version is only slightly more difficult.
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.Turning that around: There is absolutely no cost argument for sticking with the highly complicated liquids.
There is absolutely no cost argument for sticking with the ugly solids!
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"!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?
It is not cheaper than liquid propulsion from the launcher systems point of view.
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.
If SpaceX can get rockets reusable and they can out competeESAArianespace, I'm pretty sure ...
^
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.
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
Then there's the issue of Europe being left without a HSF capable launcher and having to depend on the Russians and Americans.
Then there's the issue of Europe being left without a HSF capable launcher and having to depend on the Russians and Americans.
The move to 4 and 8K HDTV will require higher data rates and thus need a stronger signal.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Outdated? Relevance?Manufacturing technology, materials and parts obsolescence, pad ops optimized for different requirements, etc.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Outdated? Relevance?Manufacturing technology, materials and parts obsolescence, pad ops optimized for different requirements, etc.
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.
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.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?!?
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.
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.
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.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?!?
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.
QuoteOr 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.
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.
Quote from: NotarisHowever, 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
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.
Quote from: NotarisHowever, 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!
Full agreement to this last sentence of yours!Quote from: NotarisHowever, 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.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.
No capsule has had the requirements of Orion (500 days in deep space, plus a ridiculous amount of delta-v, for four crew).
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.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!QuoteThe 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).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.
Unfortunately, you stop short with the citation, the following sentence reads:
... and that is not necessarily current status of industrial estimations!
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.
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 from: woods170The 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.
You're talking about European industry and ESA rules and regulations here. Those combined will guarantee an over-budget situation.
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.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!QuoteThe 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.
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.
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?
Quote from: NotarisA 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..(?)
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.Quote from: woods170The same was the case with the switch from A4 to A5. There was an alternative: Ariane 4.No, Ariane 4 was not an alternative. It was becoming too small for sats and was inadequate for launching Hermes.
And A6 is a technological leap. Reason: fundamentally different propulsion.
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).
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.Quote from: woods170You'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?
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'.
..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.
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.
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.
...
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.
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 limiting factor for reusing the existing casting pits in Kourou is the maximum diameter and the maximum length.
Casting of P135 will be done in Kourou due to European safety regulations.
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.Kourou is in France (nitpicking I know).
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.
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.Quote from: woods170Hermes 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.
It looks to me that ESA needs both a heavy lift rocket and a light cheap light rocket that is preferably easily man rated.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.
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 ??
Infrastructure | Now | Future (Low rate) I | Future (High rate) II |
Manufacturing lines | 8.5 III | 3 | 3 |
Pads | 3 IV | 2 | 3 |
Integration Buildings | 4 | 0 | 0 |
Mobile Gantries | 1 | 2 | 3 |
GTO Launches max | 18 V | 12 VI | 12 |
GTO Launches > 3.2tonnes max | 12 | 12 | 12 |
GTO Launches > 4.5tonnes max | 6 VII | 12 | 12 |
Total Launches max | 22 VIII | 12 | 18 |
Foreign dependency | Yes | No | No |
Payload margin (LEO tonnes) | 0.5-25 | 0.5-12 | 0.5-12 |
It looks to me that ESA needs both a heavy lift rocket and a light cheap light rocket that is preferably easily man rated.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.
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 ??
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 FutureITwo pad compatible with both Ariane 6 and Vega.
Infrastructure Now Future (Low rate) I Future (High rate) II Manufacturing lines 8.5 III 3 3 Pads 3 IV 2 3 Integration Buildings 4 0 0 Mobile Gantries 1 2 3 GTO Launches max 18 V 12 VI 12 GTO Launches > 3.2tonnes max 12 12 12 GTO Launches > 4.5tonnes max 6 VII 12 12 Total Launches max 22 VIII 12 18 Foreign dependency Yes No No Payload margin (LEO tonnes) 0.5-25 0.5-12 0.5-12
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.
In this document there are lots of technical details:
http://emits.sso.esa.int/emits-doc/ESA_HQ/Technicalconditionsv10.pdf
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 ??
Thanks Oli, lots of interesting stuff in this one.
Ok, I've attached it. Its unclassified, so should not be a problem ;).
Mass (propellant mass, inert mass) : 135 000 kg / 6500 kgFrom the document. Did I miss something, or does that seem like a very high mass ratio?
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
It looks to me that ESA needs both a heavy lift rocket and a light cheap light rocket that is preferably easily man rated.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.
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 ??
It looks to me that ESA needs both a heavy lift rocket and a light cheap light rocket that is preferably easily man rated.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.
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 ??
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 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.
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.
Also, Ariane 6 also fits nicely in the 10 ton launch range for LEO flights.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?Quote from: M129KAlso, 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.
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 ?
Look up eads website "for Geo surveillance " the satellites resolution is limited by mirror diameter. They are going to need refueling.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.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.
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 .
Look up eads website "for Geo surveillance " the satellites resolution is limited by mirror diameter. They are going to need refueling.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.
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 .
Look up eads website "for Geo surveillance " the satellites resolution is limited by mirror diameter. They are going to need refueling.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.
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 .
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.Do the math and tell me what aperture do you need for a diffraction limited optic to have a 0.25m resolution.
Arianespace business is a lot bigger that just esa.
Floss, what exactly are you talking about here?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.
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 ;)
Look up eads website "for Geo surveillance " the satellites resolution is limited by mirror diameter. They are going to need refueling.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.
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 .
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.
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.
I put this in the discussion thread. Interview with ESA director Jean-Jacques Dordain.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?
"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 ;))
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.I put this in the discussion thread. Interview with ESA director Jean-Jacques Dordain.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?
"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 ;))
Are they planning to get rid of geo-return?
But, please remember that current solids get their casing from MT in Germany
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.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.
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 legal limit in Europe is somewhere below 20 t propellant loading, if I remember right.
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.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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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 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?
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?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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
^
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.
^
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
^
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
Kerosene systems are cheaper than the alternative, but they don't seem to want to look at that.
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.
Unless they actually looked at program lifetime costs for kerosene vs other fuels, they didn't really look at kerosene.
Unless they actually looked at program lifetime costs for kerosene vs other fuels, they didn't really look at kerosene.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.
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.
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.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.
Quote from: DandermanUnless 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.
Kerolox has been shown to be the cheapest alternative internationally.
You folks talking Human potential or just cargo, just stepped in here, please forgive?
What rockets are the cheapest to operate in the world?
Soyuz.
SpaceX.
What fuel do they use?
I rest my case.
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.
What rockets are the cheapest to operate in the world?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.
Soyuz.
SpaceX.
What fuel do they use?
I rest my case.
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.
For its payload class Zenit is pretty cheap, too.
...it would be beneficial for Ariane 6 to make use of ATK tech
What rockets are the cheapest to operate in the world?A very weak case.
Soyuz.
SpaceX.
What fuel do they use?
I rest my case.
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.And hydrogen is far, far cleaner than kerosene, hypergolic or solids, with far better performance.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
The Antares first stage couldn't reach the 6.5 ton goal.
I would imagine that the option of "license build the Antares first stage" did not exist in this study.
In this case, levying the requirement that "second stage must be powered by Vinci" is going to drive the design.
I would imagine that the option of "license build the Antares first stage" did not exist in this study.
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.
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"
"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."
Quote from: spacediverThese 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?
:)
Can the design still be changed? I thought it was pretty much set in stone.Quote from: spacediverThese 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
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.
Can the design still be changed? I thought it was pretty much set in stone.
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.Can the design still be changed? I thought it was pretty much set in stone.Quote from: spacediverThese 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
Also, why the increase in size? It seemed like Ariane 6 could easily reach the payload goals.
...France (solid all the way)...
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.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.Quote from: woods170...France (solid all the way)...
Maybe someone could explain to me why France should be biased towards solids.
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.
Over here the argument still seems to be to "protect" the (French) technology base for ICBMs.
Over here the argument still seems to be to "protect" the (French) technology base for ICBMs.
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.
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?
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 ;)
Over here the argument still seems to be to "protect" the (French) technology base for ICBMs.And that's mostly wrong, very little synergy ...
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.
Here is the weight system used in the article, PPH has a bigger lead in the exploitation cost than in the final result.
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.
True.Over here the argument still seems to be to "protect" the (French) technology base for ICBMs.And that's mostly wrong, very little synergy ...
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).
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?
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:
“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,’”
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?
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?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?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
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.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?
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
It is still doubtful whether the manufacturing of a segmented CFRP-casing in the size required for a P340 is feasible.
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.
I have a feeling he means unsegmented. Making such a booster segmented is easy, but making it monolithic to cut costs is not.Quote from: spacediverIt 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.
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.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.
A domestic (European) hydrocarbon engine could be game changing but not viable due to the "first flight in 2020" requirement.
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.
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.
Ariane 6 development is priced at 3-4 B€ by ESA, Skylon at 12B$(9B€) by REL.
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.I don't really understand what SLS has to do with this.
When the SLS starts launching things might change.
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.
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).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.
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.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.
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.
Putting a man back on the moon bij NASAGot your languages mixed up mate? ;)
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.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.Well, most of the payloads they need are commercial communications satellites...
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.
Here is where I get the issue. I don't see the commercial comm fleets as "national interest".
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.
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.
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?
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.Quote from: Woods170Putting a man back on the moon bij NASAGot your languages mixed up mate? ;)
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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
Ariane 5 is already developed and suppliers are selected and have bee supplying components for years.... and being supplied by the usual suspects along with the usual suspects for the stage structure, electronics etc. etc.
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....
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)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.
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.
Correct. Labor and materials are relatively cheap in Russia. Not so in the USA or any of ESA member states.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.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.
For many products when you include labor productivity...
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'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.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?
Correct. Labor and materials are relatively cheap in Russia. Not so in the USA or any of ESA member states.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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 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.
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.
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.
BTW, A6 escape should be on par with Proton-M, which is launching ExoMars and JUICY.
You can make your launcher flexible, cheap per kg or big. Pick two.
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.
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.
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.
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?QuoteDual 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).QuoteRegarding 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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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...)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.
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.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.
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: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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Same applies to A6.
Complain all you will, but those "accounting stunts" are not gonna make any difference.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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).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).
Think that is the whole problem with Ariane 6 nobody would care if Ariane 5 was not being cut.
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.
...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.
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: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.
Over time, the operational cost of a launcher will far exceed the amount of money spent on development. Development cost is sunk 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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Exactly what part of the phrase "A6 is a replacement for A5" did you not understand?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:QuoteThe 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 ::)
Hence the fact that Arianespace is always looking at maximizing payload-use of the available throw-mass.QuoteArianespace 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.
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.QuoteThe 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.
Head of DLR proposes a strange new Ariane 6 design, with cryo first and third stages, and a solid second stage.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.
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
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.Ariane 5 already has twelve participants. Ariane 6 will undoubtedly be similar.
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.
I think the wording in the story may have changed after I posted the link.Head of DLR proposes a strange new Ariane 6 design, with cryo first and third stages, and a solid second stage.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.
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
Head of DLR proposes a strange new Ariane 6 design, with cryo first and third stages, and a solid second stage.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.
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
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.
Euro version of the Atlas V.
I suspect that cryo means liquid hydrogen.
In the NELS study we found all the concepts using solid strap on boosters as very expensive compared to "clean designs"
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/
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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:
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.
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.You mean this one.
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.
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.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.You mean this one.
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.
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.
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.
French Space Minister Open to Ariane 6 Design ChangesIt 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.French Space Minister Open to Ariane 6 Design ChangesIt hurt my eyes to read the full thing. This has got to be the most political rocket ever designed.
French Space Minister Open to Ariane 6 Design Changes
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40626french-space-minister-open-to-ariane-6-design-changesQuoteFrench 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 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.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)QuoteFrench 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 yet nobody seems to question the cost advantages of solids.
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.And yet nobody seems to question the cost advantages of solids.
I do... ;D
"Cost advantage of solids"?
There is no such thing...
Spacediver
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 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.
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?
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.
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).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.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.
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.Quote from: baldusiI 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.
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.
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)
Oh! I'm all for single launch. I'm just criticizing the economic analysis done up to now.
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.
Look at starting nations and commercial start ups. Almost nobody tries solids.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
This is still a government dominated strategy that is basically a jobs program.
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.
A bunch of tweets from Peter B. de Selding @pbdes just now , presumaly later in SN article with the full context:Quote18 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 ?
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
Arianespace has a massive experience in integrating and launching commercial payloads.
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 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).
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
According to this the light version can do 4t to 7t. To me this hints at a variable number of solid boosters.
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.
- back from the future, Marty ! ;D
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1984/1984%20-%200608.html?search=Ariane%205P
What about the 5C, all-cryo ? It was perhaps the best of the lot but is growth potential to LEO was too small.
An all LH2 Ariane 6 with multiple Vulcains on the first stage, augmented with small strapons to obtain a heavy variant.Depends on four things:
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...
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.
- 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.The flexibility of Ariane 5 was dual payloads. Which seems to be continuing.
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.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...
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)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.
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...
And there was no kerolox experience, which, along with the Shuttle, would have been a better solution than the solids
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.
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.
That would still require a lot of development funding, but have no hope in hell of achieving the desired price point.
Safran and Airbus basically propose a "mini-A5":Emphasis mine.
- 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.
A6 PPH required development of new monolithic solids and so does this new A6 proposal because a monolithic P145 does not exist.
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.
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.
Thanks for pointing this out Spacejulien. I had not noticed this yet.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
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.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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
QuoteWhat 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.
It all comes down to the market predictions. These have indicated a splitting of the market into two discrete groups at ~4 and 7t.
QuoteWhat 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 .
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.
QuoteWhat 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.QuoteWhat 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.
By the way, what does spacediver think of this new design? :D
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.”
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.
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.
...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.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...
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?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.
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.
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.
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...
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)
I haven't even begun how the 8.5t is oversized for the market btw.
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.
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.
So we are talking a price for an Ariane 5 of about €147 million.
€85M is for a 30 launcher block buy to Arianespace.
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.
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€.
Only thing is, to me, they seem to refer to the block buys, which occur between Airbus and Arianespace.
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.
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
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.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.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.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.
Do you know if that ever happened ?
Apparently only once.From the live thread of that launch;
http://spaceflightnow.com/ariane/va201/110418update/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/04/live-ariane-eca-launch-yahsat-1a-and-intelsat-new-dawn/
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.
ESA will also consider longer-term projects reusable launchers
They always say that though, and then when it comes to crunch time it's too expensive/difficult.
Also translated from the same article:QuoteESA will also consider longer-term projects reusable launchers
Which is interesting to say the least.
Also translated from the same article:QuoteESA 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!
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?Also translated from the same article:QuoteESA 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?Also translated from the same article:QuoteESA 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).
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.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?Also translated from the same article:QuoteESA 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).
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.
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:Missed this article - thank you. Explains a lot.
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
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?
Well its definitely "fluffy enough".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.It would be an operational nightmare to coordinate weather and transport for successive launch campaigns.
Ascension island for GTO, Santa Maria for ISS and Saint Pierre and Miquelon for SSO.
Thanks for the wonderful document, I've been looking for info on this vehicle for ages.
In the document attached (in German).
The vehicle was supposed to launch on a passive sled, hence the low thrust to GLOW ratio.
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?
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.
In the document attached (in German).
The vehicle was supposed to launch on a passive sled, hence the low thrust to GLOW ratio.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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?
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 combustion chamber is made by Airbus in Ottobrunn.
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.
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.
How about the following modification?Would require significant pad changes that P120's don't.
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.
Ideally you would like to use the Ariane 5 pad with minimal modifications.
ESA also chose Ariane 6 as PPH. So?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)
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)
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.
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...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.
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.
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)
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.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.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.
What matters is what the industry subscribes to.Not quite.
The satellite operators seem to like this new proposal: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"
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
The satellite operators seem to like this new proposal: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"
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
To be successful in the long term, the new paradigm and resulting operating model should be agile, cost driven, customer centric.
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.
The letter is a must-read, it confirms sat operators envision reusability very seriously.Basically, the sat operators are telling ESA and Arianespace: Get your act together fast, and do it SpaceX style, or suffer the consequences.Quotethe 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.
Multiple operators do indeed make for better statistics. ;)The satellite operators seem to like this new proposal: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"
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
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.
The letter is a must-read, it confirms sat operators envision reusability very seriously.Basically, the sat operators are telling ESA and Arianespace: Get your act together fast, and do it SpaceX style, or suffer the consequences.Quotethe 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.
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...
If that is what you concluded from the contents of this letter than you did some very selective reading IMO.The letter is a must-read, it confirms sat operators envision reusability very seriously.Basically, the sat operators are telling ESA and Arianespace: Get your act together fast, and do it SpaceX style, or suffer the consequences.Quotethe 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.
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.The letter is a must-read, it confirms sat operators envision reusability very seriously.Basically, the sat operators are telling ESA and Arianespace: Get your act together fast, and do it SpaceX style, or suffer the consequences.Quotethe 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.
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.
ESA does not have the right technologies (restartable, high thrust liquid engines) to develop a reusable launcher before 2020 anyway.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.
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)
ESA does not have the right technologies (restartable, high thrust liquid engines) to develop a reusable launcher before 2020 anyway.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.
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 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.
For a reausable launcher to the ISS Woomera would be a better choice than Kourou .
Abort Runways for a start that is the beauty of the ISS you can reach it from most anywhere.
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.
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.
You still don't get it, do you?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).
@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.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?
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
You still don't get it, do you?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).
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.
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).
The sat operators seem to believe so and they should have some knowledge.
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...
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 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.
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.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.
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.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.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...
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.
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 a reausable launcher to the ISS Woomera would be a better choice than Kourou .
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.
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.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).
You entirely miss his point, which I've emphasized.You still don't get it, do you?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).
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.
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.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.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.
- Ed Kyle
New article on Ariane 6 in the French press:More details on cost:
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.
New article on Ariane 6 in the French press: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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.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.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).
*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.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.
So there is NO WAY OF REDUCING THE COST OF LAUNCH BY TECHNOLGY." [...]
[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.
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>
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.
Will today's ULA/Blue Origin announcement of a new launch vehicle have any impact on decisions regarding the Ariane 6 configuration?
[rant]
[/rant]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
There is no such legally binding commitment and there won't be.
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.
Great post, as usual.
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.)
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.
As a starting point, you could consider that the euro/dollar exchange rate already makes them 30% cheaper. ;-)
In-house KISS combined with no political porkI 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?
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?
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.”
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.
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.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.
Stopping subsidies is thus a non-credible threat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-credible_threat).
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.
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.
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.
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).
I seriously doubt that industry will accept binding commitments on either the development or the recurring costs at this stage.
Overall "in orbit delivered mass per year" is, what matters for cost decreaseI'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)
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.Replacement of Soyuz is just a convenient alibi.But that would be a consequence of this? That is, no more Soyuz from Guiana?
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.
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.
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
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.
Yes, very much so.
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.)
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.Thanks for the link Ed. Interesting bit about ESA might pull out of ISS around 2020...
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...Which is OT for this thread so don't go there please. Thank you.
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).
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
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.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.
- Ed Kyle
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.
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.
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.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.
- Ed Kyle
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.
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.
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.
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.
More complicated than that.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.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 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 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.
With a lower cost LV ULA will be able to compete for commercial satellite launches. Ariane may loss even more market share.
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.
The new pad will reportedly cost 700M€. That's around twice the development cost of F9 (including two tests flights)...
The new pad will reportedly cost 700M€. That's around twice the development cost of F9 (including two tests flights)...
"The pork needs to be spent more wisely than before".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.
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.
"The pork needs to be spent more wisely than before".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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
From the update thread: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.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).
From the update thread: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.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).
- Ed Kyle
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.From the update thread: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.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).
- 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.From the update thread: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.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).
- 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)
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.
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.
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.
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.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...
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.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
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.
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).
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).
[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).
[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[...]
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.
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/
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.
Methane combustion also produces soot, although less - I can't find how much less.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Radiative forcing caused by rocket engine emissions
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000160/full
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.
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.
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)
More complicated than that.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. :-\
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
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.
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
... 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.
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.
Interesting! What engine was that again?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?
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)
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.
Could we please go back to the topic now?
Discussions on the level of Oli's personal attacks are not really helpful!
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.
It seems they just want to kill arianespace....
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....
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.
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.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.
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?
A 800kn version of this engine x7-9 would give them great LV. The theoretical methane F9 had an impressive performance.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
They are considering a 125t engine.That would equate to about 275klb or half thrust of BE4.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
I was reading the latest on Ariane 6: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).
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?
I was reading the latest on Ariane 6: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).
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?
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)
NEW Ariane 6 images here:Jesus, that beast is huge!
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)
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)
NEW Ariane 6 images here:Jesus, that beast is huge!
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)
NEW Ariane 6 images here:Jesus, that beast is huge!
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)
Yes, w/o the common bulkhead in the main stage and the non-deployable nozzle in the upper stage it's getting very high...
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
Or it's just there to look nice on graphics when the design isn't fully finished.
The pictures of the Ariane 6 do make me wonder: Why only 4 attachment points for solid boosters?Possibly engineering cost considerations, due too:
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)?
Never mind 6 boosters 3 cores like Delta YAHOO.
How about no boosters. How much would that put into orbit and is there a market for that capacity?
I created a size comparison from the new images and the old Ariane 5 ME/Ariane 6 image:
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.
Never mind 6 boosters 3 cores like Delta YAHOO.
Would barely get off the ground, need something beefier than vulcain.
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.
The pictures of the Ariane 6 do make me wonder: Why only 4 attachment points for solid boosters?What would you want to launch with such a beast? Adding fixed cost for nothing doesn't make much sense
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)?
Europe had a plan for a rocket that could beat Elon. Now it doesn't.No it didn't. Europe had a plan to throw 4bn € out of the window and it still has.
- Ed Kyle
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.
So the decision is made now.Hell no, once they're done with it, it will be scrapped. No one (not even museums) care for structures.
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?Give or take two years. That's what it took last time.
Depends on when they recognize that it will never be able to meet these payload mass and cost targets.
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.NEW Ariane 6 images here:Jesus, that beast is huge!
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)
Yes, w/o the common bulkhead in the main stage and the non-deployable nozzle in the upper stage it's getting very high...
even more wasteful than the old A6 proposal which was already breaking records...
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.NEW Ariane 6 images here:Jesus, that beast is huge!
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)
Yes, w/o the common bulkhead in the main stage and the non-deployable nozzle in the upper stage it's getting very high...
NEW Ariane 6 images here:Jesus, that beast is huge!
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)
Europe had a plan for a rocket that could beat Elon. Now it doesn't.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.
- Ed Kyle
Europe had a plan for a rocket that could beat Elon. Now it doesn't.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.
- Ed Kyle
The costs are also the reason for a new Vulcain 2 for Ariane 6.
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.Debunking some of the cr*p here:
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...
That was not the point. The comsat operators balked at the vehicle being all-solid and it's inherent config-inflexibility.Europe had a plan for a rocket that could beat Elon. Now it doesn't.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.
- Ed Kyle
If an all-solid A6 were so much cheaper for launching commercial sats sat operators would have loved it. Apparently it wasn't.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
How about read the ESA letter to Germany further up the thread. There are other documents regarding this but I'm currently at work.
This means you could keep flying A5 for 20 years for the money sunk with this activity. 30 years if you allow for interest.
That was not the point. The comsat operators balked at the vehicle being all-solid and it's inherent config-inflexibility.
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.
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".
And do you seriously assume that A6 will fly for 30 years without any further investment?
...we all seem to agree that A6 will not be..(competitive)
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?
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.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.
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.
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.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".
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.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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
IMO the next few years Ariane will be reverted back to what it originally was: an institutional launcher for most part.
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.
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....
You have every right to criticize it. But do not expect it to ever change.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
That's an assumption. That's not safe either. ;)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?
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.
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.
Who says I want a reusable launcher? I've never said anything like that.
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.
You are entitled to your opinion. Does not mean that I agree with it.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.
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,...QuoteWho 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.
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...
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...
I originally did not favor the PPH, but this is not a commercial rocket, it is a European government rocket.
Money Skylon would need a far bigger market .
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.
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,
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
[...]
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?
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
Performance (tonnes) | Proton | Angara 5 Plesetsk | Angara 5 Vostochniy |
GTO (Briz-M) | 6.35 | 5.4 | 6.4 |
GTO (cryogenic) | N/A | 6.6 | 8.1 |
GSO (Briz-M) | 3.3 | 2.8 | 3.4 |
GSO (cryogenic) | N/A | 4.0 | 4.3 |
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.- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.
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 .
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.- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.
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 .
- 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.
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.- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.
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 .
- 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'm well aware of that. De-orbit by means of a small solid is neither.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.- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.
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 .
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!
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.- 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.
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.- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.
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 .
- 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 ?
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.- The whole point of Vinci is it's restart capacity. The solid won't be there after the trade studies are done.
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 .
- 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?
Ironically 5 TO 12 small satellites a year would be a massive jobs opportunity for any disadvantaged area.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
Perfectly understandable that France dropped this claim: it could not be upheld for multiple reasons:
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:
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.
- 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.
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.Perfectly understandable that France dropped this claim: it could not be upheld for multiple reasons:
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.
- 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.Perfectly understandable that France dropped this claim: it could not be upheld for multiple reasons:
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.
- 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.
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.
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.)
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):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)QuoteVENUS 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?
[...]Replacement of the Z9 stage and AVUM by a new, single, cryogenic upper stage (MYRA) is known as Vega E.[...]
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.[...]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?
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
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.QuoteThe 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).
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.
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)
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).
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
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824While 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.QuoteCNES'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?
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824Well 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.QuoteCNES'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?
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824QuoteCNES'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
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824QuoteCNES'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
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/590814952694349824QuoteCNES'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.
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.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.And special work on deep throttling.Interesting, do you have public documentation on that?
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.
Why would you want to land a fuel tank that you spent millions hauling into orbitFirst stage tanks aren't going anywhere near orbit unless you're going SSTO (or virtual single-stage plus boosters).
If you were to put 6 boosters on the Core, wouldn't you need an extra launchpad for that configuration?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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. :(
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.
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.
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 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 .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.The fact that you can reuse SRBs doesn't mean that it's economically feasible to reuse them.
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 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. :(
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.
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.
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 ?1400Kg was the figure I've seen.
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 (?)).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. :(
By comparison, wikipedia claims the Saturn V IU was just under 2 tons.
QuoteHowever 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 (?)).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. :(
By comparison, wikipedia claims the Saturn V IU was just under 2 tons.
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?
Not to mention the lower part of the first stage having to handle two-to-four fully loaded solids while horizontal.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
Interesting suggestions. Buy off on avoiding core new load paths, and reducing erector costs.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.
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.
Interesting suggestions. Buy off on avoiding core new load paths, and reducing erector costs.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.
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.
If going horizontal to get cost break, then need to find a way to roll out with solids attached.
Ariane 5 is assembled and moved vertically. The SRBs (or EAP, as Arianespace calls them) are moved to the integration building vertically as well.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.
The EAP main segments are filled at Kourou (the nose is filled in Italy). After filling, the segments are transported vertically:
Vega C is; P120, Z40, Z9, and an AVUM with more propellant.Is that AVUM with the current engine, or a european one?
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
The current one. The europeanised version will have to wait for Vega E
Somehow I get significantly more payload than 5t to GTO for the A62 version. Makes we wonder whether 5t is just a "marketing number"...The upper stage structure of A6 will have better dry mass fraction compared to A5 upper stage.
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 :)
Somehow I get significantly more payload than 5t to GTO for the A62 version. Makes we wonder whether 5t is just a "marketing number"...Just use ZOOM (http://trajectorysolution.com/ZOOM%20Program.html). It's everything you need.
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 :)
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.
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.
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. ::)
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 ?
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/
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.
Increased diameter and decreased length.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
Ahh... how far we've come.
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
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.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.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.
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.
Ahh... how far we've come.
That sure will look weird after the boosters have staged :P
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.
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?
5,40m (except for the LOX upper stage tank (at least for the time being)).
It is growing more and more similar to Ariane 5 with every revision.
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.
Ariane 6 looks more and more to be Ariane 5 ECB with higher performing (and possibly lower cost) monolithic solids.
- Ed Kyle
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/11/Artist_s_view_of_the_two_configurations_of_Ariane_6I 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.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/11/Exploded_artist_s_view_of_the_two_configurations_of_Ariane_6
Credits: ESA–David Ducros, 2015
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.
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.
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.
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?
...spacex need to stop blowing rockets up.
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.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.
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...
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...
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.
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.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 .
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
I don't think the letter explicitly or implicitly favoured either option...
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 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.
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.
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).
@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?
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 .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.
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 .
Woerner: no plans to human-rate Ariane 6. Rely on partners for human transport, including NASA.
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).
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.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)
Amazing.
[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.
[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.
...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 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.
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.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)Vulcain was never used as a second stage engine, so why make it reignitable.
I think reusability can work at high and very low launch rates.
For a rocket(stage) to be reusable it has to be re-ignitable
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 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.
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 already know how cheap launch can be with dumb boosters: not very. The only hope for greatly reducing launch costs is with reusable boosters.
I think reusability can work at high and very low launch rates.
I think reusability is a bit of a fad at the moment.
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.
Even SpaceShipTwo with its projected high launch rate is using expendable solids (to be precise: hybrids where the solid part is expendable).
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.
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' ;) ).
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 :)
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.
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.
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.Yeah, watching it I thought: "10 years ago I would have thought this is a good looking rocket." Now it's screaming "obsolete!".
Amazing.
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.Yeah, watching it I thought: "10 years ago I would have thought this is a good looking rocket." Now it's screaming "obsolete!".
Amazing.
First flight in 5 years.
It will feel "old" by then.
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.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.
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.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.
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..).
That's a fallacy. You don't know what would happen if the subsidy wasn't there. Arianespace would certainly act differently.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.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.
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..).
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.That's a fallacy. You don't know what would happen if the subsidy wasn't there. Arianespace would certainly act differently.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.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.
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..).
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.Vulcan-2+ was previously part of Vulcan-3 development before it became an intermediate upgrade (Vulcan-2.1).
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/)
Oh, sure, that's not what I meant.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.That's a fallacy. You don't know what would happen if the subsidy wasn't there. Arianespace would certainly act differently.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.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.
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..).
They are doing what makes sense for them with the subsidy in place, ceterus paribus with the subsidy going away doesn't apply.
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.Oh, sure, that's not what I meant.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.That's a fallacy. You don't know what would happen if the subsidy wasn't there. Arianespace would certainly act differently.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.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.
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..).
They are doing what makes sense for them with the subsidy in place, ceterus paribus with the subsidy going away doesn't apply.
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 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)
Launch pad.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.
http://lekotidien.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/20160203-cnes2016-8.jpg (http://lekotidien.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/20160203-cnes2016-8.jpg)
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.
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.
BBC article "Ariane 6 project 'in good shape'"
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35983735QuoteThe 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...
They're saying "we only have one engine, not nine, so we don't need reusability". Good luck with than one...
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: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.
Falcon Arian 62 Falcon Heavy Ariane 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.
Falcon | Arian 62 | Falcon Heavy | Ariane 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 |
Falcon Arian 62 Falcon Heavy Ariane 64 Ariane 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
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.
Falcon Arian 62 Falcon Heavy Ariane 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
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.
Falcon Arian 62 Falcon Heavy Ariane 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 .
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.
Falcon 9 Ariane 62 Falcon Heavy Ariane 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
Falcon | Ariane 62 | Falcon Heavy | Ariane 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 |
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.
Falcon 9 Ariane 62 Falcon Heavy Ariane 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
Falcon Ariane 62 Falcon Heavy Ariane 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.
Here I write some reasons I came up with: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.
- 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.
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-1Here I write some reasons I came up with: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.
- 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.
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.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-1Here I write some reasons I came up with: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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
French space minister calls for European rocket R&D effort, says SpaceX victory still TBD -
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.
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.
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2do 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 FM27-30its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2do 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.
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.Most likely 2021 (possibly the second A6 flight overall). I guess it would be Galileo FOC M10 carrying FM27-30its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2do 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.
(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.Most likely 2021 (possibly the second A6 flight overall). I guess it would be Galileo FOC M10 carrying FM27-30its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2do 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.
(considering a Ariane 5 FOC M9 flight in 2019-2020) All very speculative.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 .
I also can't find where Oli is referring to.
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.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.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.
If that was your point then I wholeheartedly agree.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.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.
???
That's what I said. The picture is wrong or at least misleading.
Is this Vince Test bench in France or in Germany?
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 ...
It remains far too fragmented among many sites all over Europe each of them which can't be closed for local political reasons.
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.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.
"All over Europe" looks different.
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.
a good few different currencies in that "small" areaOther 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.
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/)
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).
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
At first glance the drop of in payload from GTO 1500 m/s (11,000) to GEO (4,100 kg) seems harsh.A6 Upper Core Stage is the A5ME (ESC-B) upper stage albeit modified.
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?
Agreed, it's a strange to put money in Vinci and still use an upper stage with a terrible mass fraction.GEO stage disposal is to higher graveyard or directly to escape, which is not so much.
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.
At first glance the drop of in payload from GTO 1500 m/s (11,000) to GEO (4,100 kg) seems harsh.
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...
Some quick napkin-math: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.
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...
Some quick napkin-math: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.
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...
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.Some quick napkin-math: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.
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...
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.Some quick napkin-math: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.
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...
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.
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 .
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...
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.
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...
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.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".
Why bother bring that up? ConeXpress has been dead for a decade.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.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.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 .
Dead or just waiting for an investor my point was that triple launch is nowhere near as costly as some people think .
Why bother bring that up? ConeXpress has been dead for a decade.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 .
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?
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...
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.
DutchSpace @DutchSpace 14m14 minutes ago
Nice #Ariane6 models are slowly appearing... @Arianespace @ASLaunchers @AirbusSpace @AirbusDS_NL
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?
From here: https://www.ariane.group/en/commercial-launch-services/ariane-6/prometheus/QuoteIts 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
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.
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.
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 .
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.]
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."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.
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:QuoteEumetsat: 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/
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.
You are living in fantasy land.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.
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.
Does anyone know the geographic coordinates of the launch pad itself? ELA-4 looks to be west/northwest of ELA-3 somewhere.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.
- Ed Kyle
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.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.
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.”
Oops. Poll at #SpaceTechExpoEu asks if @ArianeGroup will meet its Ariane 6 cost/price goals. Looks like German audience needs persuading.
On the contrary. There have been no INTENTIONAL gradual phase-ins and phase-outs in the Ariane programme: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.
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.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.
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.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.
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).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 see you have sense of humor.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?
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)?
Elon Musk was the one that pressured them to abandon A5, saying that it had "no chance."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?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.
Well, of course it had a chance. It’s a question of cost, reliability is pretty good now for A5.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.
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.
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.
In case you had not noticed: the deal to launch the OneWeb on Soyuz is in fact an Arianespace deal: https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/01/oneweb-launch-deal-called-largest-commercial-rocket-buy-in-history/Ariane 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.
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.
What? You actually think that "pork barrel" is an all-USA invention?You seriously believe they will just get the next 5bn program in 2021?
CNES and DLR will never allow theEuropeanFrench/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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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/
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).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.
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.
What? You actually think that "pork barrel" is an all-USA invention?You seriously believe they will just get the next 5bn program in 2021?
CNES and DLR will never allow theEuropeanFrench/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.
The GEO market is not dissappearing but is changing. SES a planning to move to smaller (2000kg) and cheaper($50m) satelites.
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)
Well, let’s hope for the best. And that they won’t need yet another new pad for that evolution.What? You actually think that "pork barrel" is an all-USA invention?You seriously believe they will just get the next 5bn program in 2021?
CNES and DLR will never allow theEuropeanFrench/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.
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.
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?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).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.
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.The GEO market is not dissappearing but is changing. SES a planning to move to smaller (2000kg) and cheaper($50m) satelites.
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)
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.
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.
Vega is a PPPS so no Europe is not obliged to keep only a PHH configuration for its launchers.
Prometheus and Mira (both LOx-CH4) engines are also in development for the next generations after Ariane 6 and Vega-C.
That is the problem esa had for ages they need two launchers a manrated reuseable/cheap 10 ton Leo and a heavy for manned work exactly the same as NASA have always wanted .Floss can you show documents proving this statement.
At present ESA are getting real close which is a great thing .
Re use of a low cost core stage is not going to save a lot of money reusing the incredible high cost Vinci
... 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.
....
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.
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
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.The GEO market is not dissappearing but is changing. SES a planning to move to smaller (2000kg) and cheaper($50m) satelites.
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)
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.
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.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.The GEO market is not dissappearing but is changing. SES a planning to move to smaller (2000kg) and cheaper($50m) satelites.
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)
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.
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.
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.
STOP. Reusable liquid boosters can only happen past 2025 more likely 2030! That's the fact.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.
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...?
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.
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
Choice is either to up the game significantly or retreat from the battle to a "safe" position.
I believe criticism on current Ariane 6 plan, with context, is quite appropriate and necessary for this thread. My sole interest.
Constant repetitive criticism?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.
Reusable liquid boosters can only happen past 2025 more likely 2030! That's the fact.
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.)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)
...
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).
...
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;
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.
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.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.)
Ariane 6 adds the 62-model which is smaller and considerably cheaper than Ariane 5 but even that is still more expensive than Soyuz.
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.QuoteThis 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 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.
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.QuoteThis 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.
Indeed the investment in Ariane 6 will most likely never return by savings on launch services.'Most likely never' meaning 'Never'
These investments give Europe independent acces to spaceSo does staying with A-5.
...beter control over launch cost and schedule.Spending double the funds on development instead of launch is not 'better control'...
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.
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.
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.
Again read the Answers to Questions of Germany document.A lot of new space startups are started by people who have developed their skill set and contacts working on these projects.
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.
Lengthy interview by brest.malville.com with Stephane IsrealThanks 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.
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
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 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.
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).
Nothing goes above Lego!
twitter ArianeGroup (https://twitter.com/ArianeGroup/status/951842844519657472)
I had a very good laugh.
QuoteAriane 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 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 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).
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.
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.
There may not be a "duopoly" but Europe could very well find its self isolated and only launching its own, non-bid payloads.
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
Of course there is a duopoly in the launch market. Most of the launchers you mention are anecdotical.this is when you look to GTO.
The duopoly used to be Proton - Zenit (SeaLaunch) -Ariane and has been so for quite some tine. It is now Falcon 9 - Ariane.
Ariane 5 has been flying since 2002 and launched 96 times.Quote from: GreenShrikeAt 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:Regrettably Europe's best hope of developing such a system is sitting on an island hell bent on leaving the EU :(QuoteIndeed the investment in Ariane 6 will most likely never return by savings on launch services.'Most likely never' meaning 'Never'QuoteThese investments give Europe independent acces to spaceSo does staying with A-5.Quote from: AncientUSo does developing a world-competitive launcher, while continuing to launch the existing systems.
Since you've clearly given much thought to this question what launch architecture would you suggest they use?QuoteGovernments 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.Indeed. Once again a group is gearing up to fight the last war with the same sorts of weapons when the battlefield has changed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SLS - NASA (this has cost >50% of Ariane 6 total development cost, each year for the past 20 years !!!)
This is wrong.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.
It is not an excellent point, it’s a completely wrong point.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 a bit rich of American posters to complain about European protectionism when the US is currently the worst offender.
PS. I disagree with Toast.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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 space program with the highest flight rate (until recent loss of market share to the same 'subsidized' competitor) -- is this what you mean?
[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?'
14 years and counting, since it is a carry over from the Vision for Space Exploration of Bush II.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.
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.You need to understand the American definition of a "free" market.
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?
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.[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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)*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?
After reading here for a long time, i finally signed up...
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.
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 stagesExcept they haven't, have they?
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.
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.
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.
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.So that would be basically a GEO comm sat for about $90m if it's too big for an F9.
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?
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.And the IOC of New Glenn is what exactly?
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.
SX dropped the price for 1 customer on first reflight of a stage.
Otherwise their prices are what they've been for the expendable.
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.
Arianespace is well suited to the needs of EU institutions
Written by Stéphane Israël on 19 January 2018 in Thought Leader
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.
Isn't the onus on commercial side (AriansSpace/Airbus/whatever) to make A-6 profitable and get away from the A-5 ongoing subsidy?
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
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.
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.
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
basic principles are already well-proven by SpaceX and Blue
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 missionsThe 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.
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.
...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
May I return the question; "where are the payloads comming from?"
A reusable launcher requires a higher launch rate than a expendable one.
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?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.
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?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.
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.
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.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.
- Ed Kyle
May I return the question; "where are the payloads comming from?"
A reusable launcher requires a higher launch rate than a expendable one.
...
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. :DSo 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?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.
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)
...
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.
That is the problem. Distribution of contractors looks like SLS/Orion, another completely non-viable dead-end project.. Costs too much; achieves too little.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.
So, for a public works project, each serves its purpose.
WRT competition during 2020s -- which we are discussing -- both are non-starters.
That is the problem. Distribution of contractors looks like SLS/Orion, another completely non-viable dead-end project.. Costs too much; achieves too little.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.
So, for a public works project, each serves its purpose.
WRT competition during 2020s -- which we are discussing -- both are non-starters.
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...
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.
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/)
+1 for proper use of “further” instead of “farther”.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.
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.
At that time, I succeeded in placing environmental concerns and the possible development of reusability among the high-level requirements:I think the reusability and Fly-back are referring to Prometheus and Callisto.
- 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.
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:
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).
In my opinion Ariane 62; 64 and Vega-C are very good launcher designs using the available engines.
the technology for reusable (inexpensive/no refurbishment) engines and recovering boosters didn't exist before SpaceX started down this path
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
...
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.
...
Only time will tell who judged the potential or re-usability right, and if Ariane 6 was enough.
...
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?
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
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.
We will complete the Ariane 6 / Vega C family, ...http://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2018/02/15/europes-move-part-2/
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.
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.
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...
...
Crashing a bunch of them gets expensive.
...
I think the important part is "We will complete the Ariane 6 / Vega C family, fulfilling [...]".
...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ! #QuelleEstVotreEuropehttps://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/986321831044018180
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
Towards a Buy European Act😀 for Ariane 6 and Vega C ? @EmmanuelMacron @EU_Commission @esa @DLR_de @ASI_spazio @CNES @eumetsathttps://twitter.com/arianespaceceo/status/986433008839352320
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
QuoteWe 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
QuoteWe 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.
...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.
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.
The French President yesterday:
...QuoteWe 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
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.
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)
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).
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.
Lot of misinformtion on here. The quality of this forum is really going down the drain.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.
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)QuoteToday, 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.QuoteWith 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.
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?
In the USA, government launches are always carried out by US launch service providers, on (mostly) US built rockets.
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.
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.
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).
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.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.QuoteOn 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...).
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.QuoteOn 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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
First launch is supposed to be Galileo.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)?
Or rather 2 Galileo on an A62. Second launch might be the same, ESA signed for 2 A62 launching 4 Galileo satellites.
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
In short: Europe has to reinvent itself in space because "New Space" is confronting us with great competitive dynamics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
I guess you've never heard of the "Buy American" mantra that is now fully embedded in the US spaceflight industry.
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))QuoteThe 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.
JWST is an international project, and the launch is part of the European contribution, it was not bought by NASA.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.
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.
They do? Why on earth would they prefer flying Soyuz over an Ariane 6.2 that they have far more involvement in?
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.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.
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...
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.)
So is there a finally a report saying that the flight meet the destruct criteria?
Or is that still a common sense opinion?
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.
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
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.".
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
Press release:QuoteRocket 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So much for those who buried Ariane 6 as hopeless against SpaceX. So, why is Oneweb using it, then?
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.
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.
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.
woods170, always the sane voice, albeit often alone in the wilderness... :p
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.
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.
Because the SpaceX amazing people have been wrong before.
So much for those who buried Ariane 6 as hopeless against SpaceX. So, why is Oneweb using it, then?
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4SQdInZ-oYVery 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.QuoteIntroducing 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.
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.
If the premier flight of Ariane 6 for OneWeb is a bust, which payload would replace it?QuoteEurope'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
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-space-idUSKBN23Z0JC
European Commissioner Thierry Breton:QuoteSpaceX 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
No, he just made existing plans more concrete. Ariane 6 was always intended as a stopgap.
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.
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.
It took SpaceX 10 years to achieve reusability. It's unrealistic to expect ESA to take less time.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
When they decided to go with A6 in its current design, SpaceX weren't recovering booosters
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
Those criticizing Ariane 6 forget that it is half the cost of Ariane 5
...which means a lot of money saved...
Rather than having national agencies design the rocket and have the industry build it, industry designed...
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.
It's not really about actually making money.
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.
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
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Starting this as a place to post and discuss my thoughts about Super Heavy/Starship that almost always get locked out in other threads.
It was and is about providing independent access to space for EuropeNo, Europe already had that in Ariane 5. They just thought it was getting too expensive for the market.
???
From the Arianespace launch schedule:Quote2020
July 28 - Galaxy 30, MEV-2, BSAT-4b - Ariane 5 ECA (VA253) [№L5112] - Kourou ELA-3
very negative here ...
The possibility of launching private GEO communication satellites is not yet an independent access to orbit.
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.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.
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.
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).
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.
It was and is about providing independent access to space for EuropeNo, Europe already had that in Ariane 5. They just thought it was getting too expensive for the market.
???
From the Arianespace launch schedule:Quote2020
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.
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.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 $62 million, but many GTO launches have already been proven by Falcon 9 with the booster recovered, making it even cheaper.
This hubris comes from the fact that Ariane originally dominated the commercial launch market (up to 50%) due to not relying on reusability compared to the expensive Space Shuttle. The issue is that they assumed all RLVs will be like the Shuttle.They could end up being right. Super Heavy/Starship is essentially Shuttle-2.
Ed, you literally started a whole thread yourself on this subject:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51252.0
...
Could we please not infect this thread with the same thing?
Let's just say that you disagree with the vast majority of posters on this forum about this issue and not discuss it further, either in this thread or any other. It's been debated to death.
I see Ariane 64 at EU115M (~$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.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 $62 million, but many GTO launches have already been proven by Falcon 9 with the booster recovered, making it even cheaper.
- Ed Kyle
I see Ariane 64 at EU115M (~$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.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.
- 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.
Demand for Ariane 6 launches isn't sufficient for the launch rate capability.
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.
[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 ?
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.
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.
Please explain how this works. I can't comprehend how reduced launch cost can result in cheaper satellite build cost.
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?)
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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/
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).
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
QuoteAdvertised 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).
Well, my source of estimation actually comes from a citation in Wikipedia article of Ariana 5QuoteAdvertised 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
Today the Ariane 5 is sold for about 150 million euros, but it costs about 170 million euros per launch
user GWR64 claimed Eutelsat told him/her the lower position is 40% cheaper than the upper position before 2019
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.
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.
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.
Europe's New Space Rocket Is Incredibly Expensive (https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/11/10/europe-space-rocket-incredibly-expensive-airbus/)
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.Take away the factor of humans landing on the moon and so does much of the political interest and money in this area.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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. ...
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.
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.
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.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.
Cross-post; my bold:QuoteARIANE 6https://www.arianespace.com/vehicle/ariane-6/#in-depth
Access to space for all applications under the best conditions!QuoteAriane 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:QuoteAschbacher 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.QuoteSoyuz-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.
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.
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.
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.BERTA Demonstrator research, development and testing:
There seems to be a weird shortage of good high-performance vacuum-optimized hypergolic engines.
The first time I read about the BERTA engine was in the paper: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.
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?)
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.
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 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.
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.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...Doesn't this mean that the green propulsion is future work!?
Further activities will focus on the application of green, environmentally friendly propellants for a larger engine delivering 5 kN of thrust.
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.
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...Doesn't this mean that the green propulsion is future work!?
Further activities will focus on the application of green, environmentally friendly propellants for a larger engine delivering 5 kN of thrust.
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.
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.
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?
Hello,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.
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
Hello,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.
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
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/)
https://spacenews.com/launch-companies-optimistic-about-future-demand/Could the first Ariane 6 launch (also first Ariane 62 launch) be a commercial payload to GTO? (Instead of assumed destination LEO or SSO.)
[dated September 9]QuoteBetween 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.”
Hello,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.
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
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.
QuoteArianeGrouphttps://twitter.com/ArianeGroup/status/1478302944231665664
@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.Quote@AfifRocketMariohttps://twitter.com/AfifRocketMario/status/1478303744282357760
·
4. Jan.
When will those 2 arrive at the spaceport?QuotePaul Montagnehttps://twitter.com/AstroPolo_Space/status/1478442106523987973
@AstroPolo_Space
...
Mid-January. Beginning of combined tests (Launcher+Pad) in April
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.
<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.
the other possible launch provider
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)).Quotethe other possible launch provider
= SpaceX ?
Or is ILS also an "possible launch provider". What do the current rules and ITAR regulations say?
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.
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.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.
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?
<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.
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 ”.
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.
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....
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.
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).
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.
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."Hello,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.
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
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."Hello,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.
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
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/)
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 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/
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.
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.
...
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.
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.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."Hello,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.
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
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/)
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)
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.
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.
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.
<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.
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>
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.
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.
<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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Reply moved to a ULA thread. It is off-topic here. See: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
<snip>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.
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.
<snip>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.
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.
<snip>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.
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.
Cheaper to buy the odd F9 than setup for small run of Ariane 5s.
<snip>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.
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.
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.
The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.
Ariane 6 has already been contract to launch part of an LEO megaconstellation.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.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.
How much extra is ESA willing to pay for 100% independent access.
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 and Vega C were not designed by ESA, but by these companies.)
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.
(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.
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. ...
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.
Quelle surprise (not)
https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1582750512784769031Quote#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.
(Credit: @brickmack)
https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1582754153402892288Quote"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.
Quelle surprise (not)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?
[...]Quote#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.
(Credit: @brickmack)
Quelle surprise (not)
https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1582750512784769031Quote#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.
(Credit: @brickmack)
Quelle surprise (not)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?
[...]Quote#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.
(Credit: @brickmack)
Think the phone at Hawthorne is getting a lot of calls to secured future launch slots. ;)Quelle surprise (not)
https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1582750512784769031Quote#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 ... ? :-\ )
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.
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!
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
This places the Ariane 6 debut many months after the last Ariane 5 flight, and the interval might grow to an year or more.Yes, I think Europe lost acces to space because of the screw ups with Ariane 6 development.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is there anyone on here that is seriously expecting Ariane 6 to actually fly in any part of 2023, because I am sure not.
Think the phone at Hawthorne is getting a lot of calls to secured future launch slots. ;)Quelle surprise (not)
https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1582750512784769031Quote#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 ... ? :-\ )
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.
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?
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/)"guarantee of autonomous access to space for Europe"Quote from: politico.euThe 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.
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"
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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 . . .
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.
...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Didn’t the pandemic point out the vulnerability of supply chains before even these latest crises appeared.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
Don't rely on allies as they have their own agendas which may not be in your best interests.
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.
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.
There wasn't another option than Ariane 6, the current PPH design was (and is) the best option available.I'm sure it's just a typo, but the current design is "PHH", PPH was the rejected CNES-ESA favoured one.
>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.
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).Symphonie, 1974, an entire generation of european aerospace engineers, managers and decision makers swore to never depend on foreign launch capabilities because of it.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.
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).Symphonie, 1974, an entire generation of european aerospace engineers, managers and decision makers swore to never depend on foreign launch capabilities because of it.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.
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.
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.
...
Arianespace is hiring a new CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER.I was unaware Ariane 6 had been taken off of the commercial launch market.
https://newsroom.arianespace.com/steven-rutgers-is-appointed-the-chief-commercial-officer-at-arianespace/
There is nothing for sale. What should he sell?
Arianespace is hiring a new CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER.I was unaware Ariane 6 had been taken off of the commercial launch market.
https://newsroom.arianespace.com/steven-rutgers-is-appointed-the-chief-commercial-officer-at-arianespace/
There is nothing for sale. What should he sell?
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...
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)
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.
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.Arianespace is hiring a new CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER.I was unaware Ariane 6 had been taken off of the commercial launch market.
https://newsroom.arianespace.com/steven-rutgers-is-appointed-the-chief-commercial-officer-at-arianespace/
There is nothing for sale. What should he sell?
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.
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.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.
Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?Same reasons the USA need to?
Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?
Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?No, because the USA is a very unreliable partner!
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.
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."
What happen in BrusselsYour 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?
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.
What happen in BrusselsYour 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?
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.
You are discussing what you think they will do. I asked what Michel thinks they should do.What happen in BrusselsYour 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?
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.
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.
What happen in BrusselsYour 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?
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.
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.
Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?No, because the USA is a very unreliable partner!
This is the niche that BO intends to fill with New Glenn, right?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.
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.You need FAA approval.
...
Europe's choice of US launchers would only widen and their access to space if relying on US launchers would become even more reliable.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.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?
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.
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.
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,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.
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
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
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.
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.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.
Still not answered the question.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.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?
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.
You don't need the approval of US president to buy commercial launches from US companies.You need FAA approval.
...
Europe's choice of US launchers would only widen and their access to space if relying on US launchers would become even more reliable.
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?
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.
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.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?
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
Remember that even Ariane 5 is 'oversized' for GEO payloads, and double-stacks make up the vast majority of launches.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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?
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.
...
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.
...
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.
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.
Israël: hopefully have the first Ariane 6 launch by the end of the year, but some risk to that.
A column by Marco Fuchs: thoughts about time and spacesource: https://www.ohb.de/en/magazine/space-encounter-i-strongly-believe-in-rocket-factory-augsburg-withdrawal-is-out-of-the-question
"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.
...
...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.source: https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Corporate_news/Council_approves_senior_management_changes
...
Mr Toni Tolker-Nielsen is nominated as acting Director of Space Transportation as of 1 July 2023.
...
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.
Would not a wider single first stage be more efficient than the six engines 3 booster reusable final evolution of a Ariane 6 ?
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.
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?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.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.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.
When did they say the part about "18 for kuiper"? I didn't hear that at around the 1:02:00 mark
Wow. The Ariane 6 is proving to be a disaster for European space policy. Hard to say it is otherwise at this point.
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.
The big missed opportunity was not backing and investing in Reaction Engines Sabre engine technology and Skylon spaceplane.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.
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.
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.
The big missed opportunity was not backing and investing in Reaction Engines Sabre engine technology and Skylon spaceplane.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.
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.
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. .
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
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.
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.
Precisely proving the strawman nature of the OP’s argument.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..
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 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..
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.
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)
Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.QuoteFusée 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>
No way will it fly this year.Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.QuoteFusée 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.Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.QuoteFusée 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.Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.QuoteFusée 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.Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.QuoteFusée 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.
Explain why not!?
Precisely and there’s only a remote possibility that no issues come up.No way will it fly this year.Interview with Stéphane Israël on April 8, 2023 at Franceinfo.QuoteFusée 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
AfaikArianegroup should have 15 launchers build. So they should test hardware rich.
Arianegroup might beter use new build flight hardware instead of correcting test hardware.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
<snip>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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
This is the first indication I've seen of two versions of Prometheus: the slide has Prometheus H and M versions. Heavy and Medium?
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
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.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.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?
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.
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.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?
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.
p.187 of attached PDF summarises some of the early testing, wish I had reports of the actual test results.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.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?
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.
I wonder where the factory to build the new boosters for Ariane 6 should be established .You need to provide information behind this thread title given you created it. Link to article or webpage maybe.
Pity Ukraine is not available .
I wonder where the factory to build the new boosters for Ariane 6 should be established .You need to provide information behind this thread title given you created it. Link to article or webpage maybe.
Pity Ukraine is not available .
Thanks for links Catdlr but that is solid rocket boosters. Whats the story behind Kerolox boosters?.I wonder where the factory to build the new boosters for Ariane 6 should be established .You need to provide information behind this thread title given you created it. Link to article or webpage maybe.
Pity Ukraine is not available .
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. What's the story behind Kerolox boosters?.
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 .
TrevorMonty, I have no idea why someone would start a thread as an opinion without credibility.
So this is just an opinion thread and there is no actual information on any reusable Kerolox-booster project for Ariane-6?Yes.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thought it’s price was effectively subsidised and it was only when Space X turned up that even subsidies couldn’t help.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.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.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.
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
I thought it’s price was effectively subsidised and it was only when Space X turned up that even subsidies couldn’t help.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.
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.
*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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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
The Horizontal Assembly Line is nicknamed the HAL, in your opinion, what other science fiction character shares the same moniker?
#ArianeGroup #Ariane6
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.
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.
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.
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?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?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.
I think "everyone else" as a whole is fading away.
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.You appear to think that Starship and NG will not compete for the medium-lift business. Is this correct?
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.
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.You appear to think that Starship and NG will not compete for the medium-lift business. Is this correct?
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.
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 wonder why so much sudden interest in European rocketsThe 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.
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.
Currently in development we hava a future competitive reusable launcher, Themis and is derivatives
<snip>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
And it cost the USA taxpayer >$6×10^9.
In my opinion it's to early to draw a conclusion.
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.
.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.
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.
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?
QuoteThe 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.
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.
I wonder why so much sudden interest in European rocketsThe 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.
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.
As I see it: Europe can have limited non commercial access to space at a high cost with the launch hardware currently in development.
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.
I wonder why so much sudden interest in European rocketsThe 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.
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.
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.
...
"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.
...
https://twitter.com/aschbacherjosef/status/1704875460000129370QuoteAriane 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
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...
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.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.QuoteSpace: 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>
Note - Please add a link to the original newspaper article.
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.
QuoteSpace: 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.
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.
https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/ariane-6-vers-un-premier-vol-en-avril-mai-2024-977533.htmlThink 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.
-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)
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.
The rocket is bad, already technologically obsolete and economically uncompetitive.(...)
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.
<snip>What will the second Ariane 6 launch be? A62 or A64? Payload?
-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)
<snip>What will the second Ariane 6 launch be? A62 or A64? Payload?
-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)
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.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.
<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.
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>
-2 of the 18 kuiper launches seem to have been shifted to Ariane 62 (instead of the previous 16 A64+ plus 2 A64)
<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.
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>
Only a bit within the casting facility from the gaseous outflow when you pour the molten propellants into the casing during normal manufacturing.<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.
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>
The current casting facilities are actively contaminating the area in a substantial manner?
The 340mln annual subsidation is unacceptable in my opinion. If this is required , Arianegroup should be nationalized by Germany and France.
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.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/
I understand the sentiment, but the math in that article is not convincing.Please be more specific.
ULA Vulcan is closes competing LV in configuration and performance. How much has that cost to develop compared to A6?
...
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.
A leaky and embrittle floatation device. It is liquid Hydrogen after all. :PArriane-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>
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.
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.
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.
Quotehttps://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.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/QuoteOops—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.
https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1721428542905303444QuoteThe 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.
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.
https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1721428542905303444 (https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1721428542905303444)QuoteThe 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."
So, instead of one entity making all the decisions (there is something to be said for those kinds of "dictatorships")
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.
Replacing Soyuz should be a priority.This is somewhat off topic.
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?
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.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
[deleted]
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&D departments at ArianeGroup/Space?
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.
It's unfortunate that with such technological superiority you're not able to develop a superior launcher, or even a remotely competitive one. ::)
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.
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
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
<snip>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)?
"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?
<snip>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)?
"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?
<snip>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)?
"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?
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"
"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."
Inside Ariane 6 Launch PadHow high is this in fractional tour Eiffel?
"almost as tall as the Statue of Liberty" is obviously targeted for American viewers. (I know France constructed it)
<snip>
Inside Ariane 6 Launch PadHow high is this in fractional tour Eiffel?
"almost as tall as the Statue of Liberty" is obviously targeted for American viewers. (I know France constructed it)
<snip>
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?
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.
<snip>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)?
"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?
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?
...
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.”...
.@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.
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.Source: https://advanced-television.com/2023/12/01/esa-issues-warning-to-ariane-6-suppliers/
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.”
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
......Europe desperately needs to emulate COTS to jump start its nascent "New Space"/private companies and entrepreneurs into competition.
......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.
...
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.
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.
Unless the current leading launch provider falters badly. There will be no major commercial competitors for the foreseeable future, IMO.
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.
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?......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.......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?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.
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.
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.......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.......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.
€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!
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.......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.
€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.
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?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.
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.
€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.
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.
...
The businesscase for LEO comsat constellations has not been proven.
...
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....
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....
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.
...
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.
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).
. 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.
...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 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.
<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>
€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)
I was unable to find previous discussions on this topic, so apologies if this is misplaced.Think all the Ariane 6 upgrades mention above was discuss separately in many threads.
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>
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.
€40M to be Invested to Produce Greener Hydrogen for Ariane 6https://europeanspaceflight.com/e40m-to-be-invested-to-produce-greener-hydrogen-for-ariane-6/
By Andrew Parsonson -January 2, 2024
... via the solar-powered electrolysis of water ...