Author Topic: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets  (Read 27148 times)

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #40 on: 06/05/2018 09:58 pm »
If they want to RTLS with the booster after GTO missions it's either that or a much larger vehicle to make up for the efficiency difference. And full reuse will be very difficult with a medium lift vehicle and GG engines. Since Ariane isn't doing super-heavy lift as far as I can tell, they are going to be years behind the competition if they don't start on staged combustion.

 ???

Reusability, full or partial, is perfectly doable with GG. Since when have SpaceX fans become ISP fetishists?

As for "behind the competition". Lot's of people here obviously don't get the nature of the Ariane program. It has never been about technological leadership. It's irrelevant if they fall behind as long as the government is willing to fund the next iteration.

As a taxpayer I don't have a problem with that. I don't want a government-funded state-of-the-art engine program, because it would be bloody expensive. If the commercial market becomes big enough, ArianeGroup can play leader on their own. Otherwise they have to live with being followers.

Being a follower can be a fine strategy.  But you have to actually follow.  If Europe want to follow, then need to be working on staged combustion now.

Otherwise, they're failing to follow, they're being left behind.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #41 on: 06/05/2018 11:02 pm »
Again, failing to appreciate the disruption that is happening, even as it is happening.  Thinking there will somehow magically be a market for the far more expensive solution.


You forget: SpaceX is disrupting the launch market because they are launching unicorns into space. Arianespace is just launching ponies. Silly Arianespace.

don't take it too bad, I'm not in denial nor an Arianespace amazing people, just a little annoyed and irritated by the overal tone "SpaceX is turning led into gold" you know what I mean.

I'm sure 20 years ago people at Kodak were annoyed and irritated by the tone of people talking about these new digital cameras and how digital cameras were turning lead into gold.

Being annoyed doesn't mean a major technology change isn't real.

Offline groundbound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #42 on: 06/06/2018 06:36 am »

I'm sure 20 years ago people at Kodak were annoyed and irritated by the tone of people talking about these new digital cameras and how digital cameras were turning lead into gold.

Being annoyed doesn't mean a major technology change isn't real.

 ;D

I actually worked for another company on a joint venture with Kodak about 25 years ago so had a pretty good view into Kodak's mindset at the time.

They were fully aware of what was happening, and thought they were doing everything possible to prevent it. But they were a little like an army that has been brutally flanked in battle by the enemy: not able to focus and concentrate to reverse the tide of battle.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #43 on: 06/06/2018 09:25 am »
If they want to RTLS with the booster after GTO missions it's either that or a much larger vehicle to make up for the efficiency difference. And full reuse will be very difficult with a medium lift vehicle and GG engines. Since Ariane isn't doing super-heavy lift as far as I can tell, they are going to be years behind the competition if they don't start on staged combustion.

 ???

Reusability, full or partial, is perfectly doable with GG. Since when have SpaceX fans become ISP fetishists?

As for "behind the competition". Lot's of people here obviously don't get the nature of the Ariane program. It has never been about technological leadership. It's irrelevant if they fall behind as long as the government is willing to fund the next iteration.

As a taxpayer I don't have a problem with that. I don't want a government-funded state-of-the-art engine program, because it would be bloody expensive. If the commercial market becomes big enough, ArianeGroup can play leader on their own. Otherwise they have to live with being followers.

Being a follower can be a fine strategy.  But you have to actually follow.  If Europe want to follow, then need to be working on staged combustion now.

Otherwise, they're failing to follow, they're being left behind.

BE-4 is a low performance SC engine with a chamber pressure of 13.4MPa (for comparison Vulcain 2.1 has a chamber pressure of 12.1MPa). Is Blue Origin falling behind as well? By your definition SpaceX was falling behind when it went for a kerolox GG, given high performance engines like RD-180 and RS-25 were already in use for decades.

Besides, work on SC has already been done in Europe a decade ago. If SpaceX didn't appear Ariane 6 might very well have had a SC engine, at least that was the favored technical configuration back then. Then cost-consciousness set in.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2018 09:27 am by Oli »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #44 on: 06/06/2018 01:09 pm »
If they want to RTLS with the booster after GTO missions it's either that or a much larger vehicle to make up for the efficiency difference. And full reuse will be very difficult with a medium lift vehicle and GG engines. Since Ariane isn't doing super-heavy lift as far as I can tell, they are going to be years behind the competition if they don't start on staged combustion.

 ???

Reusability, full or partial, is perfectly doable with GG. Since when have SpaceX fans become ISP fetishists?

As for "behind the competition". Lot's of people here obviously don't get the nature of the Ariane program. It has never been about technological leadership. It's irrelevant if they fall behind as long as the government is willing to fund the next iteration.

As a taxpayer I don't have a problem with that. I don't want a government-funded state-of-the-art engine program, because it would be bloody expensive. If the commercial market becomes big enough, ArianeGroup can play leader on their own. Otherwise they have to live with being followers.

Being a follower can be a fine strategy.  But you have to actually follow.  If Europe want to follow, then need to be working on staged combustion now.

Otherwise, they're failing to follow, they're being left behind.

BE-4 is a low performance SC engine with a chamber pressure of 13.4MPa (for comparison Vulcain 2.1 has a chamber pressure of 12.1MPa). Is Blue Origin falling behind as well? By your definition SpaceX was falling behind when it went for a kerolox GG, given high performance engines like RD-180 and RS-25 were already in use for decades.

Besides, work on SC has already been done in Europe a decade ago. If SpaceX didn't appear Ariane 6 might very well have had a SC engine, at least that was the favored technical configuration back then. Then cost-consciousness set in.

Merlin was innovative in ways beside cycle and pressure: its cost, thrust/weight ratio, reusability, and deep throttling were all state of the art. Prometheus is an attempt to copy that state-of-art, but it is also a sign of missing another coming disruption.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #45 on: 06/06/2018 02:34 pm »
I'm sure 20 years ago people at Kodak were annoyed and irritated by the tone of people talking about these new digital cameras and how digital cameras were turning lead into gold.

from wiki,

Steven Sasson, an engineer at Eastman Kodak, invented and built the first self-contained electronic camera that used a charge-coupled device image sensor in 1975.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #46 on: 06/06/2018 04:59 pm »
If they want to RTLS with the booster after GTO missions it's either that or a much larger vehicle to make up for the efficiency difference. And full reuse will be very difficult with a medium lift vehicle and GG engines. Since Ariane isn't doing super-heavy lift as far as I can tell, they are going to be years behind the competition if they don't start on staged combustion.

 ???

Reusability, full or partial, is perfectly doable with GG. Since when have SpaceX fans become ISP fetishists?

As for "behind the competition". Lot's of people here obviously don't get the nature of the Ariane program. It has never been about technological leadership. It's irrelevant if they fall behind as long as the government is willing to fund the next iteration.

As a taxpayer I don't have a problem with that. I don't want a government-funded state-of-the-art engine program, because it would be bloody expensive. If the commercial market becomes big enough, ArianeGroup can play leader on their own. Otherwise they have to live with being followers.

Being a follower can be a fine strategy.  But you have to actually follow.  If Europe want to follow, then need to be working on staged combustion now.

Otherwise, they're failing to follow, they're being left behind.

BE-4 is a low performance SC engine with a chamber pressure of 13.4MPa (for comparison Vulcain 2.1 has a chamber pressure of 12.1MPa). Is Blue Origin falling behind as well? By your definition SpaceX was falling behind when it went for a kerolox GG, given high performance engines like RD-180 and RS-25 were already in use for decades.

Besides, work on SC has already been done in Europe a decade ago. If SpaceX didn't appear Ariane 6 might very well have had a SC engine, at least that was the favored technical configuration back then. Then cost-consciousness set in.

Merlin was innovative in ways beside cycle and pressure: its cost, thrust/weight ratio, reusability, and deep throttling were all state of the art. Prometheus is an attempt to copy that state-of-art, but it is also a sign of missing another coming disruption.

How about the relationship between Merlin and FASTRAC ?
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #47 on: 06/06/2018 05:01 pm »
I'm sure 20 years ago people at Kodak were annoyed and irritated by the tone of people talking about these new digital cameras and how digital cameras were turning lead into gold.

from wiki,

Steven Sasson, an engineer at Eastman Kodak, invented and built the first self-contained electronic camera that used a charge-coupled device image sensor in 1975.

With a little help from the NRO and their KH-11 ?
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #48 on: 06/06/2018 05:36 pm »
Merlin was innovative in ways beside cycle and pressure: its cost, thrust/weight ratio, reusability, and deep throttling were all state of the art. Prometheus is an attempt to copy that state-of-art, but it is also a sign of missing another coming disruption.

How about the relationship between Merlin and FASTRAC ?

Do you think FASTRAC shared any of those attributes? (cost, thrust/weight ratio, reusability, and deep throttling) It was a starting point for a design nothing more.

If you know more, please educate us.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2018 05:37 pm by Lars-J »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #49 on: 06/06/2018 06:49 pm »
Quick search that took me around one minute brought this.  ::)

https://books.google.fr/books?id=6g5MDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&dq=%22merlin%22%22fastr
ac%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC2IrC2L_bAhUGxKYKHZqxCvcQ
6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=%22merlin%22%22fastrac%22&f=false


Christian Lardier ain't a nobody. He is certainly no wikipedia.

What I exactly meant: SpaceX used Fastrac (and Bantam) technologies for Merlin. Even if there is no DIRECT legacy between the two, it certainly helped...

By the way, FASTRAC was for X-34 (AFAIK) which is not that dissimilar to a Falcon 9 in its goals - a reusable first stage, low cost. How about that.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2018 01:56 pm by Chris Bergin »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #50 on: 06/06/2018 08:57 pm »

What I exactly meant: SpaceX used Fastrac (and Bantam) technologies for Merlin. Even if there is no DIRECT legacy between the two, it certainly helped...

By the way, FASTRAC was for X-34 (AFAIK) which is not that dissimilar to a Falcon 9 in its goals - a reusable first stage, low cost. How about that.

FASTRAC had an ablative chamber and nozzle, so while it was cheap I don't think it would have been very practical to reuse. It also didn't feature restart, deep throttle, or high TWR. So it wasn't anywhere near state of the art besides on cost.

None of which is particularly relevant to Prometheus. Prometheus, if it works as intended, will be a good engine. But it will be outdated in an era where engines have to be BOTH high performance and low cost. That's what we're looking at in 15 years.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #51 on: 06/06/2018 09:36 pm »
FASTRAC had an ablative chamber and nozzle, so while it was cheap I don't think it would have been very practical to reuse. It also didn't feature restart, deep throttle, or high TWR. So it wasn't anywhere near state of the art besides on cost.
Ahh. So that's why Merlin 1a was ablative.  I guess that's where the Barber Nicholl radial inflow turbo pump come from?
Quote from: envy887
None of which is particularly relevant to Prometheus. Prometheus, if it works as intended, will be a good engine. But it will be outdated in an era where engines have to be BOTH high performance and low cost. That's what we're looking at in 15 years.
Or by then there may be something better available to Europe.

There's something about the French approach to rocket development that makes NASA's ASAP seem like Adrenalin addicted risk junkies by comparison.  :(
« Last Edit: 06/06/2018 10:16 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #52 on: 06/06/2018 11:08 pm »
It's not so much about what is best, but rather what you can get.
With the presentation the situation in Europe is much better than most here thought a few months ago.
I don't like the recovery concept too much. Why expend the low and slow boosters while recovering the higher and faster central core?
I'd flip the concept. Recover boosters, convert the central stage back to a A5/A6 like sustainer stage, and expend it. The horror!

The boosters are small and plentiful enough. If you loose one on landing? No big deal.
More importantly Prometheus reuse is limiting. Say 4 boosters, 3 engines each, 4 flights total (1 as landing engine). That means you can dispose of 4 engines each flight. Should be enough for a sustainer stage. Staging really high again means that you can keep the existing hydrogen upper stage and don't need to invent a new one. The additional ISP there should really help.

How politically tenable is a design that doesn't use solids?  Italy and Germany just swapped some production stuff so that all the solids work for Ariane are being done in Italy now.  If they went to a design that didn't use solids, would Italy try to block it?  Could they?

As an idea to get around this issue and playing off your concern above about disposing of a costly center stage, how about large, reusable liquid engine boosters that are recovered and an expendable, air-lit solid center core?  It gives up some on performance, but always recovers the high value LRE boosters and only tosses the relatively cheap solid case. 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #53 on: 06/07/2018 05:19 am »
Merlin was innovative in ways beside cycle and pressure: its cost, thrust/weight ratio, reusability, and deep throttling were all state of the art. Prometheus is an attempt to copy that state-of-art, but it is also a sign of missing another coming disruption.

How about the relationship between Merlin and FASTRAC ?

Do you think FASTRAC shared any of those attributes? (cost, thrust/weight ratio, reusability, and deep throttling) It was a starting point for a design nothing more.

If you know more, please educate us.

A lot of the basic principals of Fastrac such as use of a pintle injector ended up in Merlin 1A and the same subcontractor  Barber-Nichols, Inc built the turbo pump.
Though the TR-107 and TR-106 which were throttleable had influence as well as since they were earlier designs Tom Mueller worked on.


« Last Edit: 06/07/2018 05:21 am by Patchouli »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #54 on: 06/07/2018 05:31 am »
Gimme a break. Please somebody translate what "GG" and "SC" mean. It would help. A Lot.
GG is Gas Generator (Merlin, Vulcain, Vulcain2), SC is Staged Combustion (SSME, Raptor)

Were you not aware of this?

If this forum members starts inventing accronyms, adding to NASA already infinite list, then we are all doomed. Thanks to Envy887, by the way.

Quote
Ahh. So that's why Merlin 1a was ablative.  I guess that's where the Barber Nicholl radial inflow turbo pump come from?

Spot on. There at least, is a well-known connection between FASTRAC and Merlin:  Barber Nicholl  was involved in both engines.

Quote
It also didn't feature restart, deep throttle, or high TWR.
Kudos to SpaceX, they indeed developed and introduced all these nice features, over many years and iterations. Which doesn't change the fact that they started from FASTRAC technology as it stood in the early 2000s.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2018 05:38 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #55 on: 06/07/2018 06:09 am »
How politically tenable is a design that doesn't use solids?  Italy and Germany just swapped some production stuff so that all the solids work for Ariane are being done in Italy now.  If they went to a design that didn't use solids, would Italy try to block it?  Could they?

As an idea to get around this issue and playing off your concern above about disposing of a costly center stage, how about large, reusable liquid engine boosters that are recovered and an expendable, air-lit solid center core?  It gives up some on performance, but always recovers the high value LRE boosters and only tosses the relatively cheap solid case.
The solids are used by Vega and the French SLBM programme. So the French will probably complain, and since CNES (which is French) is normally the development lead for Ariane their concepts will normally have "Use a big solid" as part of their brief.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #56 on: 06/07/2018 05:19 pm »
How politically tenable is a design that doesn't use solids?  Italy and Germany just swapped some production stuff so that all the solids work for Ariane are being done in Italy now.  If they went to a design that didn't use solids, would Italy try to block it?  Could they?

As an idea to get around this issue and playing off your concern above about disposing of a costly center stage, how about large, reusable liquid engine boosters that are recovered and an expendable, air-lit solid center core?  It gives up some on performance, but always recovers the high value LRE boosters and only tosses the relatively cheap solid case.
The solids are used by Vega and the French SLBM programme. So the French will probably complain, and since CNES (which is French) is normally the development lead for Ariane their concepts will normally have "Use a big solid" as part of their brief.  :(
not so sure about that. SLBM are considered a strategic asset hence the industrial base is similar. With or without Ariane, it will live as long as France have a nuclear arsenal.
Just look at the Saint Nazaire shipyards: Italy wanted them but the French government stepped it and blocked the sale, because building huge ships = strategic capability.

I agree with the second point - Ariane SRBs surely have an industrial lobby - mostly civilian, french and italian and mostly disconnected from SLMBs - quite similar to Utah / ATK in Congress.

Just thinking about it, near Bordeaux is Saint Médard en Jalles and there is a pretty big solid propellant factory there. They actually fire spent M4 / 45 / M51 missiles just to destroy them. And they manufacture Ariane 5 SRBs there.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2018 05:40 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #57 on: 06/07/2018 08:26 pm »
Developing a staged combustion engine right now does not help. It takes way too long.
Get Prometheus done, make it reliable(!) and then take the next step.
Right now Europe has no restartable first stage engine and without one reuse tends to be rather hard.
Right after that it needs the same in very reliable. Clusters of a lot of engines work better if most of them work most of the time.

Existing staged combustion research seems to be for hydrolox. (most recently SpaceLiner) Not the most hyped propellant these days.

The reality is -and the Director basically said it in the interview this thread is about- that Europe needs an F9/FHish rocket program. And that seems to be happening. Even using a different propellant to file the serial numbers off.  8)


How politically tenable is a design that doesn't use solids?  Italy and Germany just swapped some production stuff so that all the solids work for Ariane are being done in Italy now.  If they went to a design that didn't use solids, would Italy try to block it?  Could they?

With Ariane 6 / Vega C the solids industry should be in Italy and France.
Italy does Z40 and smaller, AFAIK ships them complete. Italy winds the bodies of the bigger ones.
Kourou does loading of P120C and final assembly. The P120 nozzle should be from France (ArianeGroup, Le Haillan) the P80 nozzle probably too (Snecma Propulsion Solide?). I did not look at the smaller ones. No idea where the nozzle actuators come from or who does the avionics.

At the end of the day the situation is similar to the US, solids are a political decision.
Using them on launch vehicles to prop up French SLBM technology (the only SLBM remaining post Brexit) is a valid choice, but then make that choice. The EU is not too shy to call for military spending. A recurring theme, say this March is money to increase the weight limit of streets, bridges and railways to transport tanks and other military gear faster when the Russians are coming...


As an idea to get around this issue and playing off your concern above about disposing of a costly center stage, how about large, reusable liquid engine boosters that are recovered and an expendable, air-lit solid center core?  It gives up some on performance, but always recovers the high value LRE boosters and only tosses the relatively cheap solid case.

The Silverbird calculator says ~7% more GTO performance for Ariane 5 with an air lit core.
Ariane 5 has shut down twice because of the Vulcain self test. Up to 4 satellites not turned into confetti. (AFAIK the errors were not necessarily fatal, so who knows what would have happened.)
I doubt that Ariane wants to get rid of that feature any time soon, esp with clustered engines.

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #58 on: 06/07/2018 08:54 pm »
Solids are not a purely political choice. Solids are there for cost control. Not every course of action except immediate bankruptcy and giving the factory to SpaceX is a political descision.

Trying to figure out reuse on three common cores first would result in a much more expensive blooper reel then a single stick. Unless they change fuel types a single stick would not have much payload. So unless they can convince the government to finance launches twice as expensive to pay for that three core blooper reel solids save money.

Offline SgtPoivre

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Paris - France
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CNES' director of launchers talks reusables rockets
« Reply #59 on: 06/07/2018 09:10 pm »
How politically tenable is a design that doesn't use solids?  Italy and Germany just swapped some production stuff so that all the solids work for Ariane are being done in Italy now.  If they went to a design that didn't use solids, would Italy try to block it?  Could they?

As an idea to get around this issue and playing off your concern above about disposing of a costly center stage, how about large, reusable liquid engine boosters that are recovered and an expendable, air-lit solid center core?  It gives up some on performance, but always recovers the high value LRE boosters and only tosses the relatively cheap solid case.
The solids are used by Vega and the French SLBM programme. So the French will probably complain, and since CNES (which is French) is normally the development lead for Ariane their concepts will normally have "Use a big solid" as part of their brief.  :(
not so sure about that. SLBM are considered a strategic asset hence the industrial base is similar. With or without Ariane, it will live as long as France have a nuclear arsenal.
Just look at the Saint Nazaire shipyards: Italy wanted them but the French government stepped it and blocked the sale, because building huge ships = strategic capability.

I agree with the second point - Ariane SRBs surely have an industrial lobby - mostly civilian, french and italian and mostly disconnected from SLMBs - quite similar to Utah / ATK in Congress.

Just thinking about it, near Bordeaux is Saint Médard en Jalles and there is a pretty big solid propellant factory there. They actually fire spent M4 / 45 / M51 missiles just to destroy them. And they manufacture Ariane 5 SRBs there.
Regarding A5 boosters, only the nozzles are built near Bordeaux, France. The remaining parts are built mainly in Germany (casings), Italy (top segment) and Kourou (casting of the two main segments and final assembly).
« Last Edit: 06/07/2018 09:10 pm by SgtPoivre »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0