Quote from: floss on 04/04/2013 10:23 pmTrue 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?
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.
Wait..... they are thinking of using the Soyuz pad for the Ariane 6!? (reasonable thought, but still weird)
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/23/2013 05:50 pmWait..... they are thinking of using the Soyuz pad for the Ariane 6!? (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?
Quote from: woods170 on 04/23/2013 06:04 pmQuote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/23/2013 05:50 pmWait..... they are thinking of using the Soyuz pad for the Ariane 6!? (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.)
Quote from: baldusi on 04/23/2013 09:05 pmMay 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.
Quote from: woods170 on 04/24/2013 06:46 amWhy 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.
Quote from: baldusi on 04/24/2013 03:25 pmQuote from: woods170 on 04/24/2013 06:46 amWhy 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.)
Quote from: woods170 on 04/25/2013 06:35 amQuote from: baldusi on 04/24/2013 03:25 pmQuote from: woods170 on 04/24/2013 06:46 amWhy 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?Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/23/2013 06:14 pmBut 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.)
Quote from: woods170 on 04/25/2013 06:35 amQuote from: baldusi on 04/24/2013 03:25 pmQuote from: woods170 on 04/24/2013 06:46 amWhy 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...
Quote from: Proponent on 04/03/2013 02:56 pmQuote from: woods170 on 04/02/2013 05:45 pmQuote from: Proponent on 04/02/2013 04:24 pmI 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.
Quote from: woods170 on 04/02/2013 05:45 pmQuote from: Proponent on 04/02/2013 04:24 pmI 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.
Quote from: Proponent on 04/02/2013 04:24 pmI 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.
Quote from: woods170 on 04/03/2013 03:41 pmQuote from: Proponent on 04/03/2013 02:56 pmQuote from: woods170 on 04/02/2013 05:45 pmQuote from: Proponent on 04/02/2013 04:24 pmI 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...;-)
Quote from: Lobo on 04/29/2013 10:11 pmIf 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...;-)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 )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.