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
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?
Quote from: floss on 05/26/2013 04:06 pmThe 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 because it IF 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 DesignEurope’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.