Author Topic: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here  (Read 934594 times)

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60

^

Evolvable probably but I don't think its modular.

Btw, thrust from the side boosters is transfered at the bottom, technical specifications clearly say so.

Offline spacediver

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 0
does this mean that a 2x and 5x P135 Ariane 6 is pretty much confirmed? And does this indicate that Ariane 6 is evolvable, like SLS (moving between configs, but only using one at any time) or modular, like the EELVs?

There is no such requirement in the current RFP documents.
A 5xP145 (No typo! ESA changed it to P145 recently...) would require a substantial re-design of the thrust structures.
Not to mention the acceleration loads.

Would be more or less a complete new launcher...

Spacediver

Online Kasponaut

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Denmark
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 83
What is the diameter of the lower boosters?
Is there any technical description of the Ariane 6 out yet? I guess not.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2014 12:29 pm by Kasponaut »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
^

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.

Online Kasponaut

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Denmark
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 83
^

Technical conditions have been posted here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1118288#msg1118288

Diameter is 3.5m, 135t propellant and 10t dry mass.


Great! Thanks :-)

Offline spacediver

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 0
^

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These numbers are outdated.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

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60

Quote from: spacediver
These numbers are outdated. They are from RFC (request for consultation).
Now we have the RFP (request for proposal) documents.
The new numbers:
Length 11,5m
Diameter 3,5m
Propellant mass 145t
Casing mass 8,7t incl. insulation

Spacediver

Ah, I remember, you're the liquid guy. Still convinced solids are the wrong choice and 70m per launch is unrealistic?

 :)
« Last Edit: 01/17/2014 06:49 pm by Oli »

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
^

Technical conditions have been posted here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1118288#msg1118288

Diameter is 3.5m, 135t propellant and 10t dry mass.


These numbers are outdated. They are from RFC (request for consultation).
Now we have the RFP (request for proposal) documents.
The new numbers:
Length 11,5m
Diameter 3,5m
Propellant mass 145t
Casing mass 8,7t incl. insulation

Spacediver

Very interesting... Does this large increase in propellant influence the performance and cost of Ariane 6 by much? Thanks for the info btw.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Kerosene systems are cheaper than the alternative, but they don't seem to want to look at that.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Quote from: Danderman
Kerosene systems are cheaper than the alternative, but they don't seem to want to look at that.

The second part is simply not true. Kerosene/Methane systems were certainly looked at.

Spacediver said LH2/Solid/Kerosene versions had almost the same recurrent costs.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Kerosene systems are cheaper than the alternative, but they don't seem to want to look at that.
They did look at kerosene and methane powered options. Methane proved more promising, kerosene never got as far in the trade studies, likely because both propellants required a start from scratch for Europe and methane performs better.

According to Spacediver, as well as some older ESA presentations, kerosene, methane, solid and H2 all had similar recurring cost. Europe has more experience with solids and H2, so those were the most promising options from the start.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Unless they actually looked at program lifetime costs for kerosene vs other fuels, they didn't really look at kerosene.

I am sure that using propellants they are familiar with is cheaper at the beginning, locking yourself into a more expensive system to save some upfront costs is not a wise decision.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Quote from: Danderman
Unless they actually looked at program lifetime costs for kerosene vs other fuels, they didn't really look at kerosene.

There are numerous documents proving otherwise.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Unless they actually looked at program lifetime costs for kerosene vs other fuels, they didn't really look at kerosene.

I am sure that using propellants they are familiar with is cheaper at the beginning, locking yourself into a more expensive system to save some upfront costs is not a wise decision.
They did. Little difference. Methane, kerosene, solid and LH2 all were similar in recurring cost. Solids and LH2 had lower dev costs and better timelines. With solids having synergies with Vega, the winner became clear.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
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.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Quote from: Danderman
This is one of the amazing statements I have seen in quite a while.

Why? There is nothing amazing about it. In fact its kind of obvious looking at all the different rocket configurations flying worldwide. There is no silver bullet.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
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.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Quote from: Danderman
Unless they actually looked at program lifetime costs for kerosene vs other fuels, they didn't really look at kerosene.

There are numerous documents proving otherwise.

You folks talking Human  potential or just cargo, just stepped in here, please forgive?

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Quote from: baldusi
Kerolox has been shown to be the cheapest alternative internationally.

Not least because of the supply of russian SC kerolox engines. I doubt those engines would be cheap to develop and produce in the west.

Quote from: Avron
You folks talking Human  potential or just cargo, just stepped in here, please forgive?

Cargo.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
What rockets are the cheapest to operate in the world?

Soyuz.

SpaceX.

What fuel do they use?

I rest my case.

Tags: vernovela 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1