Author Topic: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here  (Read 768161 times)

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6714
  • California
  • Liked: 8140
  • Likes Given: 5184
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.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 127
We would have had the second skylab module launched an probably esa and Russian modules basically iss in the 80s

Offline GalacticIntruder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Pet Peeve:I hate the word Downcomer. Ban it.
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 69
Please God I really hope the French rocket engineers do not get to copy space x it has been fifty years years of stagnant Nasa development to get far less than if they kept with the Saturn 5 .
? ? ? That makes no sense.

Humor and sarcasm do not work well on the internet.

Every rocket company must do what SpaceX does but not copy SpaceX. No one else is allowed to have methane SC engines on Stainless Steel fully reusable rockets. No one else is allowed mega-constellations or go to Mars either. I don't make the rules of the Internet.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2021 05:16 pm by GalacticIntruder »
"And now the Sun will fade, All we are is all we made." Breaking Benjamin

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 127
I tried to say the budget will be tied up for 10 years building it and no payload will be financed while it is in development.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 939
  • Home
  • Liked: 903
  • Likes Given: 203
Do we have more information about this BERTA engine? Stuff like exact propellants, engine cycle, isp and so on. All I could find is that they 3d-printed a prototype.

There seems to be a weird shortage of good high-performance vacuum-optimized hypergolic engines.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8066
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 749
Do we have more information about this BERTA engine? Stuff like exact propellants, engine cycle, isp and so on. All I could find is that they 3d-printed a prototype.

There seems to be a weird shortage of good high-performance vacuum-optimized hypergolic engines.
BERTA Demonstrator research, development and testing:
https://industryeurope.com/esa-tests-3d-printed-storable-propellant-rocket-engine/

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/3D-printed_storable-propellant_rocket_engine_design_tested
« Last Edit: 07/13/2021 09:50 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8066
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 749
The first time I read about the BERTA engine was in the paper:
IAC-11-D2.3.4 : VENUS - Conceptual Design for VEga New Upper Stage.
VENUS was a DLR SART/Astrium (now Arianegroup) study for improvements for Vega.
In this paper Berta is a 2-8kN MMH/NTO engine, mixture ratio 2.0-2.1, operating at 8-15 bar, weighing 15-67kg.

This is a decade ago, so I don't know what has changed since.
I think ESA FLPP; Storable Propulsion Technology Demonstrator is another name for the Berta engine.

I hope ASTRIS will NOT be using: Hydrazine, MMH, UDMH or NTO.
I think by 2024 less harmful propellent using engines could/should be available.
ESA FLPP funded the development of such a engine for <0.4mln last year, and there is footage the engine works.
And I think there are more experienced companies that have this technology available as well.

There is another critic I've got. I think there should be two versions. The one proposed, and a smaller two tank in line one. This could be used for Oneweb/constellation launches (propulsion module inside the satellite dispenser structure) or it could be used as basis for a ISS cargo resupply vehicle (a ATV2).
I expect ASTRIS funding mostly comes from Germany. Thus experienced German companies/players got the work. This is still structured in the classic ESA optional program fashion.
I think an open competition (EU funding)1 would have lower costs and would have better results.
1: ESA(Germany) BOOST! or better the EU EIC Horizon Price: Low-Cost Space Launch
But better something than nothing, right!? Progress goes slow.

Possibly ASTRIS could be used to launch 4x Gallileo (Gen.1) Batch 3 satellites on a single Ariane 62. (didn't I post that a couple years back?)
In the 2019 links in my previous post they completed demonstration of green bipropellant mode on the updated demonstrator engine. Outside of the VENUS proposal the BERTA engine was also supposed to debut with the Ariane 5 family replacing the A5ES(A)'s Aestus engine version with BERTA on the proposed A5ES(B) cersion. This plan was dropped in favour of the now cancelled A5ME version which is in the process of being replaced by the successor A62 and A64 base versions.

Offline Hobbes-22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
  • Acme Engineering
    • Acme Engineering
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 405
There is another critic I've got. I think there should be two versions. The one proposed, and a smaller two tank in line one.

I don't know if they want to go that far, but they want to offer the stage in different configurations:

Quote
The modular architecture of Astris makes it versatile, giving potential for even more capabilities. Structures will include a flight proven family of propellant tanks. This approach makes it possible to develop mission specific kits that offer a tailored solution to each customer.

I interpret that as being able to vary the number of propellant tanks.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Liked: 1201
  • Likes Given: 2359
Considering the disaster that was the previous ASTRIS - Europa deeply flawed third stage - the Germans could really have picked another name...

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
  • Liked: 235
  • Likes Given: 2027
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?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8066
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 749
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.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2021 05:30 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8066
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 749
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:
Quote
...
Further activities will focus on the application of green, environmentally friendly propellants for a larger engine delivering 5 kN of thrust.
Doesn't this mean that the green propulsion is future work!?
But Arianegroup writes that the BERTA engine has 4 to 5 kN of thrust, thus that's in line with the engine that still had to be developed and tested in 2019.
__________________________________________________

I don't understand what Astris brings. With Vinci and the APU, the upper stage is restartable anyway, so it should be able to do direct to GEO and multi-plane deployments anyway. Or is the low dry mass of Astris offsetting the lower Isp?
I think there are three advantaged with adding ASTRIS on top of ULPM.
- Lower G-loads for the last propulsion step.
- Indeed that the lower dry mass offsets the lower ISP. I think more accurately stated; the staging (adding a stage) adds dV capability. For payloads to GEO, Ariane 6 UPLM delivers the payload to GTO, ASTRIS does the latest propulsion step; delivering to GEO and inserting into graveyard orbit. I think the difference is more than 2mT of payload mass.
- Instead of ULPM ending up into GEO or a above GEO graveyard orbit, it can be deorbited. Only ASTRIS ends up into the graveyard orbit. That's a lot smaller junk stage into the graveyard orbit.

I expect that an A62 with ASTRIS could launch 4x~740kg Gallileo satellites to one of the three MEO 23.2km orbits. Where A62 alone could only launch two satellites. I think with the Gen.2 satellites A62 could only launch one, while A64 or A62+ASTRIS could launch two. The Galileo system minimal constellation consists of 24 satellites with 12year design life. So ASTRIS could half the amount of required launches.
__________________________________________________

I wonder how the size of ASTRIS compares to AVUM+?
And I'm annoyed by the low amount of details provided about ASTRIS.
- Why create the unclarity about the propellant's
- Why no details on fuel mass, system mass and dV capability.
And I disagree with ASTRIS being part of Ariane 6, it's a independent system. Like Fregat for Soyuz and Briz for Angara A5; Proton or Rockot. The Ariane 6 launch control hardware is inside ULPM, ASRTIS will be deployed as payload and will have it's own set of attitude control hardware. That's why I think any company could develop this kick-stage.
AFAIU: The final nozzle design and to flight scale is what remains work wise. Subscale testing and MCC/power pack was previously tested. Finalising and scaling is the main work remaining.

Offline Hobbes-22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
  • Acme Engineering
    • Acme Engineering
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 405
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:
Quote
...
Further activities will focus on the application of green, environmentally friendly propellants for a larger engine delivering 5 kN of thrust.
Doesn't this mean that the green propulsion is future work!?
But Arianegroup writes that the BERTA engine has 4 to 5 kN of thrust, thus that's in line with the engine that still had to be developed and tested in 2019.


The IAC article is from 2011. It describes BERTA as an 8 kN engine with MMH/N2O4 propellant, intended for VENUS (third stage for an upgraded Vega).

In 2019 they tested a BERTA core with 2.45 kN thrust. I assume that's subscale (because that thrust is lower than the 5 kN goal), but it could be to do with the propellant as well. Or maybe they didn't run the test at full throttle.
This article claims they ran it on cryogenic propellants:

Quote
BERTA is designed for operations with storable fuels. This means that the fuels can be stored at room temperature. Engines of this type are very reliable and can be ignited several times. They are therefore suitable for longer missions. This means that this engine can be used not only for near-earth missions on small to medium-sized missiles but also for missions beyond the Earth’s orbit. However, common storable fuels are highly toxic. Cryogenic fuels are therefore used for the test runs on the test bench in Lampoldshausen.

you're right, the 2019 ESA article indicates the green propellant is part of 'future activities'.

Using BERTA to replace Aestus is new to me as well, and I'd like to know more.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2021 10:23 am by Hobbes-22 »

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • England
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 157
I don't understand what Astris brings. With Vinci and the APU, the upper stage is restartable anyway, so it should be able to do direct to GEO and multi-plane deployments anyway. Or is the low dry mass of Astris offsetting the lower Isp?

Astris is a kick stage, so it's largely taking over the job of precise orbit insertion which has typically been done by the satellites themselves. This removes that job from satellites allowing smaller/less expensive platforms, increasing the potential market. Smaller all-electric propulsion satellites are becoming increasingly common. Without the kick stage an all-electric satellite in GTO would take months to reach money-making GEO. If you can offer a standardised orbit insertion kit you can greatly increase the satellites fuel reserves/lifetime and it gets the service up to GEO fast. These things are very attractive to smaller operators.

You mention Vinci can go to GEO. Yes, but the direct to GEO payload mass of 64 is 5000 Kg, so generally speaking that means you can only put up one large telecoms sat on a single ~€115m launch. Although some customers may take it, that's a significant premium for getting your service up immediately/+ added lifetime. It would be far more financially viable to send a primary satellite(s) to GTO as normal and then send a secondary satellite(s) with simple electric-only propulsion direct to GEO with Astris.  That way you can offer a direct to GEO service cost-effectively to the customers that most want it.

The restartable Vinci enables access to all orbit types, but that doesn't mean it alone is efficient at getting multiple payloads to radically different orbits.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2021 11:03 am by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8351
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2530
  • Likes Given: 8044
Look at the rocket equation: a third stage gives a lot more delta-v to high energy orbits. It will greatly expand the A62 envelop, and enable a lot more for A64.
The only real question is: at what price? May be they have run the numbers and have Galileo Gen2 act as main tenant and thus get enough economies of scale to be competitive on other fronts. Or the manufacturer might have excellent German lobbyist.

Offline GWR64

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1435
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1207
  • Likes Given: 778
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 274
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901
According to Karl-Heinz Servos (Chief Operating Officer Arianegroup Germany) by the midst of July they had encountered about 2 months of delays, with - at that time - the 1st (out of 3) hot fires planned for the end of August/early September. Haven't seen any more recent updates.

Die erste heiße Zündung soll Ende August oder Anfang September stattfinden – etwa zwei Monate später als geplant. Das liegt einerseits an den Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Arbeitsabläufe und Lieferketten, andererseits an "kleineren Rückschlägen beim ersten Testmodell", so Servos.
https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/
« Last Edit: 10/08/2021 05:22 pm by hoku »

Offline GWR64

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1435
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1207
  • Likes Given: 778
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901
According to Karl-Heinz Servos (Chief Operating Officer Arianegroup Germany) by the midst of July they had encountered about 2 months of delays, with - at that time - the 1st (out of 3) hot fires planned for the end of August/early September. Haven't seen any more recent updates.

Die erste heiße Zündung soll Ende August oder Anfang September stattfinden – etwa zwei Monate später als geplant. Das liegt einerseits an den Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Arbeitsabläufe und Lieferketten, andererseits an "kleineren Rückschlägen beim ersten Testmodell", so Servos.
https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/

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.

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 4963
  • Likes Given: 44861
Cross-post; my bold:
https://spacenews.com/launch-companies-optimistic-about-future-demand/
[dated September 9]
Quote
Between GEO satellites and demand from constellations and other customers, he said he was optimistic about the prospects of the Ariane 6, scheduled to make its [Ariane 62?] first launch in the second quarter of 2022. The business plan for the rocket was based on 11 launches a year. “With the perspective we have now for demand, it’s not a dream to consider that we can make it and maybe go beyond.”
Could the first Ariane 6 launch (also first Ariane 62 launch) be a commercial payload to GTO?  (Instead of assumed destination LEO or SSO.)

There's first flight risk, but perhaps if Arianespace offered a substantial discount it would provide sufficient enticement?
« Last Edit: 10/14/2021 03:01 am by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.)
My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!"

Offline GWR64

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1435
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1207
  • Likes Given: 778
Hello,
Are there any updates to the Ariane 6 upper stage 'hot-firing model' in Lampoldshausen?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2191901#msg2191901
According to Karl-Heinz Servos (Chief Operating Officer Arianegroup Germany) by the midst of July they had encountered about 2 months of delays, with - at that time - the 1st (out of 3) hot fires planned for the end of August/early September. Haven't seen any more recent updates.

Die erste heiße Zündung soll Ende August oder Anfang September stattfinden – etwa zwei Monate später als geplant. Das liegt einerseits an den Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Arbeitsabläufe und Lieferketten, andererseits an "kleineren Rückschlägen beim ersten Testmodell", so Servos.
https://www.flugrevue.de/raumfahrt/neue-europaeische-traegerrakete-wie-steht-es-um-die-ariane-6/

Yes, nothing to be found. A hot firing test would have been reported.
That means it probably hasn't happened until now.
The plan was Q2/2021.


But now there is an update.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2300749#msg2300749

"soon" she says in the video. The hot firing tests have not yet started.

For comparison, the Ariane 6 roadmap from October 29, 2020. The launch base stayed on schedule.
But the Ariane 6 (test) models are almost half a year behind the milestones, until now.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg2148335#msg2148335
« Last Edit: 10/16/2021 08:33 am by GWR64 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1