Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here

[woods170]

Much of the future launches for Vulcan Centaur was from the premature USAF "Block Buy" that allocated 60% of upcoming launches to ULA. Don't think ULA could win that high a percentage of future launches if they were bid for competitively.

NSSL Phase 2 was bid competitively. ULA won the majority of that bid. 'Block buy' has been dead for years.

There is not much of a competitive process if only the two incumbent providers stood any realistic chance of winning. NSSL phase 2 never was about competition. It was just about which of the two current contractors would get the most launches. And, as expected by many, the majority went to ULA.

But I agree with you that "Block Buy" went out the window the minute SpaceX was allowed to enter the NSSL arena as the second provider. The monopoly improved only ever so slightly to a duopoly.

[RedLineTrain]

Bezos' objections are legitimate. You don't launch on the vehicle of your direct competitor unless you absolutely have no other choice. See OneWeb. They did not choose SpaceX, until Russia decided to throw a tantrum and blocked access to Soyuz. And OneWeb is only launching the absolute minimum number of sats on Falcon 9. They also contracted with India's GLSV Mk.3. Their next generation satellites are contracted to launch not on SpaceX rockets, but on Relativity's Terran R.

So, there is precedent for Kuiper choosing ULA, Blue Origin and Arianespace and not choosing SpaceX. You simply don't spend money on the service of a competitor, if (part of) that money will be used to compete with your own service. In case of Amazon's Kuiper it was easy: money spent by Amazon on ULA, Blue and Arianespace does not go into a competing mega constellation. However, money spent by Amazon on launching on F9 is partially funneled (the profit part that is) by SpaceX into developing Starlink, which is a direct competitor to Kuiper.

There is lots of precedent for Kuiper choosing ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.  It's almost always an error to overspend and delay launch because it hurts you more than it hurts your competitor.

[DanClemmensen]

Much of the future launches for Vulcan Centaur was from the premature USAF "Block Buy" that allocated 60% of upcoming launches to ULA. Don't think ULA could win that high a percentage of future launches if they were bid for competitively.

NSSL Phase 2 was bid competitively. ULA won the majority of that bid. 'Block buy' has been dead for years.

Reply moved to a ULA thread. It is off-topic here. See:
     https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48584.0

[edzieba]

Point-of-order with Oneweb: the "anyone but SpaceX" Soyuz buy-in was made when Wyler was still CEO, and he had a beef with SpaceX over Starlink. When Wyler was forced out in the 2020 bankruptcy, that policy vanished but because the money for the Soyuz launches had already been spent there was no reason to try and back out and re-bid (adding extra costs for the bid process, and for a new payload adapter for whatever the new vehicle was, on top of any cancellation fees). When Soyuz launches became untenable, the new owners announced the launch agreement with SpaceX before starting to bid out to other providers.

[DanClemmensen]

Point-of-order with Oneweb: the "anyone but SpaceX" Soyuz buy-in was made when Wyler was still CEO, and he had a beef with SpaceX over Starlink. When Wyler was forced out in the 2020 bankruptcy, that policy vanished but because the money for the Soyuz launches had already been spent there was no reason to try and back out and re-bid (adding extra costs for the bid process, and for a new payload adapter for whatever the new vehicle was, on top of any cancellation fees). When Soyuz launches became untenable, the new owners announced the launch agreement with SpaceX before starting to bid out to other providers.

Off-topic. I will reply in a OneWeb thread.
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37814.0

[John Santos]

What do all these posts about One Web and SpaceX and Souyz and GSLV and NSSL have to do with Ariane 6?  Nothing!

[edzieba]

What do all these posts about One Web and SpaceX and Souyz and GSLV and NSSL have to do with Ariane 6?

Demonstrating that the crime of "not being SpaceX" is not sufficient for a launch vehicle to not be viable, even on the commercial market. Including Ariane 6.

[friendly3]

What do all these posts about One Web and SpaceX and Souyz and GSLV and NSSL have to do with Ariane 6?

Demonstrating that the crime of "not being SpaceX" is not sufficient for a launch vehicle to not be viable, even on the commercial market. Including Ariane 6.

It only shows how far you have to go in order to make that "demonstration".

[baldusi]

Moved this discussion from the SUSIE thread:

I don't want to sound like a broken record but A6 is actually a wonderful achievement in comparison to the four solids monster that CNES was pushing. I think they actually saved the program with that.

I don't think it matters. The CNES design and the current design are already obsolete.

Current A6 design is barely competitive in a segment that's not very well aligned with demand, but can do albeit at a high cost while they actually do what needs to be done. The CNES (PPC was it called?) was an atrocious design that would have meant A7 would have to be a new start cost ESA a lot more.

Emphasis mine.
I disagree with that statement. Like Ariane 6, the Vulcan vehicle is not reusable, not even partially. For Vulcan that status might change to partially reusable (SMART) in the later years of this decade. But right now both Vulcan and Ariane 6 are old-style, fully expendable launch vehicles.

But despite both vehicles being fully expendable, both are quite competitive. Before the Kuiper launch contracts were awarded earlier in 2022, Vulcan already had a backlog of 35 launches, primarily for US government launches, mixed with a good number of commercial launches.
Ariane 6 already had a backlog of 25 launches, primarily for ESA government launches, but also mixed with a good number of commercial launches.

And then came the Kuiper constellation. Which added 38 more launches to the Vulcan manifest and 18 more launches to the Ariane 6 manifest. ULA now has a backlog of 73 launches for Vulcan, before even its first launch. Ariane 6 now has a backlog of 43 launches, before even its first launch. Those numbers don't match with the phrase "barely competitive".

What people continue to overlook is that SpaceX is not eating everyone's lunch. Both government entities and commercial entities want redundancy in launch providers. Which is why not all launches are awarded to SpaceX (who already beats most other launch providers hands down on price). Even after Starship becomes operational, this situation will continue to exist.

Both ULA and Arianespace know this. And they also know that the most serious threat to the status quo is another (partially) reusable F9 class vehicle coming online, provided by a non-SpaceX provider.

Let's go directly here because my statement was made in the context of SUSIE, in other words, looking into the next 10 years. I know A6 will have a full manifest at first. The ESA one is its reason d'etre, so that was expected and I disregarded as I was meaning the commercial market. Regarding the Kuiper order, I'm pretty sure it's an artifact of the 2020/2021 events. I still think it is a bit too big, GEO sats are getting leaner and are being seriously attacked by the LEO constellations. Even in its 62 form, it's too big and expensive for 90% of EO that are actually the bread and butter of ESA.
I think that we will know how competitive it is when the next fleet replenishment happens in a few years, and the market supply has enough capacity that the operators won't be asking bids "to whomever might have some launches available".

Let's recap something: Ariane 5 was sized and designed the way it was because of Hermés. And they were really lucky that GEO birds grew in size and popularity right at the same time Boeing, LM, MHI and Khrunichev (both Proton and Angara) and Yuzhnoye failed to get their rockets cheap and/or reliable enough to compete.
Ariane 6 was a cheap, industry-driven Ariane 5. Same requirements, same environment. I don't really think that Europe has any strategic need for 11.5 tonnes to GTO if not for "let's keep it as similar as Ariane 5 as possible". I'm pretty sure that something on the 62 performance but cheaper would have been a much better specification to both Europe and the GTO market.
And regarding pricing, I don't see how adding two SRB increases the 64 cost by 40M. I mean, I don't think the quoted prices of 75M and 115M are actually related to cost and I suspect that 64 launches were supposed to subsidize 62. I know, that each SRB on an Atlas V usually cost about 10M.
To summarize, I think a 5 tonnes to GTO/8tonne SSO LV at 55M/60M would have been perfect for ESA's need and the current market. Yes, predicting 202x market in 2015 would have been really difficult. But I still think A6 is too big and expensive now that GTO birds are way smaller and Europe needs to cover the EO market.

[woods170]

To summarize, I think a 5 tonnes to GTO/8tonne SSO LV at 55M/60M would have been perfect for ESA's need and the current market. Yes, predicting 202x market in 2015 would have been really difficult. But I still think A6 is too big and expensive now that GTO birds are way smaller and Europe needs to cover the EO market.

GTO birds are only smaller to the point that a 20-metric-ton-to-LEO launcher can launch two of them in a single launch. As recently demonstrated by both F9 AND Atlas V.

Launching two GTO sats in a single launch is exactly what the 20-metric-ton-to-LEO Ariane 5 has been doing for the vast majority of its career. It is therefore not surprising that Ariane 6 was given similar performance requirements: it can (like F9 just recently also did) lift two 4.5 metric ton GTO sats in a single launch in its 6.4 configuration. Or lift a single 4.5 metric ton GTO sat in its 6.2 configuration. Eight-metric-ton-to-GTO class is therefore exactly the wrong size. It is overkill for the new generation 4.5 metric ton GTO sats and lacks the "Oomph" to lift two of those sats.

Also: by far not all GTO sats are getting smaller: just look at the upcoming launch of Eutelsat 10B (6.2 metric tons), or Viasat 3 (6.4 metric tons), or Intelsat 40e (6.3 metric tons), or Echostar-24 (9.2 (!) metric tons), or Satria 1 (6.1 metric tons)
Like Ariane 5 has been doing for over a decade the Ariane 6.4 can launch most of those heavier GTO sats, combined with a lighter 4.5 metric ton class GTO sat.

Combining two of such GTO sats on a single launch is what Arianespace excels at.

[baldusi]

To summarize, I think a 5 tonnes to GTO/8tonne SSO LV at 55M/60M would have been perfect for ESA's need and the current market. Yes, predicting 202x market in 2015 would have been really difficult. But I still think A6 is too big and expensive now that GTO birds are way smaller and Europe needs to cover the EO market.

GTO birds are only smaller to the point that a 20-metric-ton-to-LEO launcher can launch two of them in a single launch. As recently demonstrated by both F9 AND Atlas V.

Launching two GTO sats in a single launch is exactly what the 20-metric-ton-to-LEO Ariane 5 has been doing for the vast majority of its career. It is therefore not surprising that Ariane 6 was given similar performance requirements: it can (like F9 just recently also did) lift two 4.5 metric ton GTO sats in a single launch in its 6.4 configuration. Or lift a single 4.5 metric ton GTO sat in its 6.2 configuration. Eight-metric-ton-to-GTO class is therefore exactly the wrong size. It is overkill for the new generation 4.5 metric ton GTO sats and lacks the "Oomph" to lift two of those sats.

Also: by far not all GTO sats are getting smaller: just look at the upcoming launch of Eutelsat 10B (6.2 metric tons), or Viasat 3 (6.4 metric tons), or Intelsat 40e (6.3 metric tons), or Echostar-24 (9.2 (!) metric tons), or Satria 1 (6.1 metric tons)
Like Ariane 5 has been doing for over a decade the Ariane 6.4 can launch most of those heavier GTO sats, combined with a lighter 4.5 metric ton class GTO sat.

Combining two of such GTO sats on a single launch is what Arianespace excels at.

You misread my post: 5 to GTO, 8 to SSO. I could see a point for 5.5 or even 6 for GTO, but today with SEP 5 should be enough. Yes Ariane 6 can compete in the big GTO bird market thanks to dual launch. Which was an artifact of Ariane 5 being designed for Hermés. But it has limited numbers.
Yet, ESA launches a lot of SSO and generally speaking the military ones fit (or could be made to fit) into a 5 tonne margin trading some circularization time.
I'm talking here about Ariane 6 as an ESA self-reliance launcher. As smaller launcher that's cheap enough to take most SSO launches without problem, would have been a much better fit for ESA.

[woods170]

To summarize, I think a 5 tonnes to GTO/8tonne SSO LV at 55M/60M would have been perfect for ESA's need and the current market. Yes, predicting 202x market in 2015 would have been really difficult. But I still think A6 is too big and expensive now that GTO birds are way smaller and Europe needs to cover the EO market.

GTO birds are only smaller to the point that a 20-metric-ton-to-LEO launcher can launch two of them in a single launch. As recently demonstrated by both F9 AND Atlas V.

Launching two GTO sats in a single launch is exactly what the 20-metric-ton-to-LEO Ariane 5 has been doing for the vast majority of its career. It is therefore not surprising that Ariane 6 was given similar performance requirements: it can (like F9 just recently also did) lift two 4.5 metric ton GTO sats in a single launch in its 6.4 configuration. Or lift a single 4.5 metric ton GTO sat in its 6.2 configuration. Eight-metric-ton-to-GTO class is therefore exactly the wrong size. It is overkill for the new generation 4.5 metric ton GTO sats and lacks the "Oomph" to lift two of those sats.

Also: by far not all GTO sats are getting smaller: just look at the upcoming launch of Eutelsat 10B (6.2 metric tons), or Viasat 3 (6.4 metric tons), or Intelsat 40e (6.3 metric tons), or Echostar-24 (9.2 (!) metric tons), or Satria 1 (6.1 metric tons)
Like Ariane 5 has been doing for over a decade the Ariane 6.4 can launch most of those heavier GTO sats, combined with a lighter 4.5 metric ton class GTO sat.

Combining two of such GTO sats on a single launch is what Arianespace excels at.

You misread my post: 5 to GTO, 8 to SSO. I could see a point for 5.5 or even 6 for GTO, but today with SEP 5 should be enough. Yes Ariane 6 can compete in the big GTO bird market thanks to dual launch. Which was an artifact of Ariane 5 being designed for Hermés. But it has limited numbers.

"Limited" to the point that dual-payload launches constituted the bulk of all Ariane 5 launches. So, not actually all that limited.

Yet, ESA launches a lot of SSO and generally speaking the military ones fit (or could be made to fit) into a 5 tonne margin trading some circularization time.

Most military payloads launched by Arianespace are military comsats, often derived from commercial comsat platforms, generally having similar mass figures as the commercial comsats. Which makes them just as suited for dual launch on A6.4 as their commercial cousins. Or single launch on A6.2. in case of the lighter ones.

I'm talking here about Ariane 6 as an ESA self-reliance launcher. As smaller launcher that's cheap enough to take most SSO launches without problem, would have been a much better fit for ESA.

Ariane is there to provide independent access to space for Europe. BUT, from the very first iteration of Ariane (thus: since the end of the 1970s) this requirement has been married to the requirement of having to be commercially viable. As such Ariane is there to provide ESA with an independent means to access space, but at the same time commercial launches must be its bread and butter. And THAT is why Ariane is primarily optimized for commercial business. The fact that it may be overkill for ESA SSO launches is much less important.
And this has been the case throughout the history of Ariane, from Ariane 1 to Ariane 5. And the same rule was once again enforced for Ariane 6. "Better fit for ESA" is not the prime driver behind the performance requirements of Ariane 6. "Best fit for commercial business" very much IS the prime driver behind the A6 performance requirements.

[Rik ISS-fan]

The path towards Ariane 6 was fixed in concreet after the 2011 ESA ministerial. ESA memberstates didn't fund a new first stage engine development (SCORE-D). Thus only solids, Vulcan and Vince were available for the successor of Ariane 5 ECA. Ariane 5 ES was used for the LEO and MEO launches, Ariane 5 ECA is used for GTO and escape launches. ESA tried to develop Ariane 5 ECB/ A5 ME, simple swap of upper stage from ESC-A with HM-7B engine to ESC-B with Vince engine. It turned out the Ariane 5 core had to be reinforced. And Ariane 5 ME would have had similar performance as Ariane 64. To much for many missions.

@Baldusi, please also look at the masses for SSO/ earth observation and Gallileo (Gen2) MEO satellites.
Most of the SSO payloads can be launched by Vega-C. By developing P120C+/P160 and M10/VUS for Vega E, SSO payloads over 3mT can be launched. Only MetOP-SG satellites are to heavy. So Ariane 62 will launch multiple SSO payloads.
I think the Astris kick-stage is vital for Ariane 6 succes. It makes Ariane 6 much more versitile and capable.
Most likely Ariane 64 with Astris will be able to lift a ~6mT to GTO -1500m/s and a 4mT satellite directly to GEO.
Ariane 62 with Icarus, and 2x P160 can most likely lift 6mT to GTO -1500m/s.
For service launch cost, I think Ariane 6 starts at >100mln. Because of the dual launch capability, Ariane 6 is launch price competitive with reusable launchers. 
AFAIK reusable launchers are required and require huge LEO/SSO constellations. I'm not sure of the business case for the LEO comsat constellations. There aren't concrete plans for European LEO comsat constellations. And the technology for reusable launchers still has to be developed in Europe. So reuse was not a option for Ariane 6/ Ariane 5ME. And still shouldn't be considered for Ariane 6, because of the launch demand uncertainty.

The US governments demands US launchers (ULA or SpaceX for institutional satellites. This demand isn't the case in Europe. Each European mission shops for the most appropriate launch option. But on the other hand it has been proven that, partners can't be relied upon for acces to space. ESA/Europe needs independant acces to space. Because a next USA president can go woke and prohibit a USA launch of a European satellite with superior technology than the USA has.
I think with the current plan for Ariane 6 with all the new factories. By funding engine developments now and small scale (suborbital) demonstrators. (not large ones like Themis) A first stage reusable launcher could be developed for less then 2.10^9 with maiden launch around 2030, if Europe has the launch demand for it.
By wanting to have the capability earlier, cost will spiral upwards. Large demonstrators (Themis) will also cause costs to spiral upwards. The launch startups and academia/ student teams are better equipped to develop stage reuse technologies than the European launch industry giants. In that aspect Arianegroup is rightfully complaining they lose funding to startups.
 

[Rik ISS-fan]

AFAIK both European institutional launch demand and commercial launch demand were considered when capability requirements were selected for Ariane 6 (and Vega C). Europe also wants the capability to launch heavy payloads, so Ariane is the heavy launcher and Vega C the smaller.

What I really don't get is the fact that European launch industry has allowed a nearly two year production stop, because of Ariane 6 development delays. Also causing European institutions to have to launch on non-european launchers. They planned for a transition period of several years from Arian 5 to Ariane 6. The delays in Ariane 6 development completely removed the transition period. And even cause a period of not having launch capability.
Why hasn't another small batch of Ariane 5 ECA been produced, so Europe has launch capability and a transition period between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Why hasn't another small batch of Ariane 5 ECA been produced, so Europe has launch capability and a transition period between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.

My guess is that production lines for the various components of Ariane 5 ECA has transition to Ariane 6. Any more Ariane 5 ECA will require setting up new production lines in addition to the Ariane 6 production lines. Which is to say ESA was too optimistic with Ariane 6 development schedule.

[TrevorMonty]

<snip>
Why hasn't another small batch of Ariane 5 ECA been produced, so Europe has launch capability and a transition period between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.

My guess is that production lines for the various components of Ariane 5 ECA has transition to Ariane 6. Any more Ariane 5 ECA will require setting up new production lines in addition to the Ariane 6 production lines. Which is to say ESA was too optimistic with Ariane 6 development schedule.

Cheaper to buy the odd F9 than setup for small run of Ariane 5s.

[Timber Micka]

<snip>
Why hasn't another small batch of Ariane 5 ECA been produced, so Europe has launch capability and a transition period between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.

My guess is that production lines for the various components of Ariane 5 ECA has transition to Ariane 6. Any more Ariane 5 ECA will require setting up new production lines in addition to the Ariane 6 production lines. Which is to say ESA was too optimistic with Ariane 6 development schedule.

Cheaper to buy the odd F9 than setup for small run of Ariane 5s.

The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.Being cheap or commercially competitive is a secondary goal. That's why buying rides on SpaceX's rockets is a decision of last resort. Many Americans fail to understand this.

[TrevorMonty]

&lt;snip&gt;
Why hasn't another small batch of Ariane 5 ECA been produced, so Europe has launch capability and a transition period between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.

My guess is that production lines for the various components of Ariane 5 ECA has transition to Ariane 6. Any more Ariane 5 ECA will require setting up new production lines in addition to the Ariane 6 production lines. Which is to say ESA was too optimistic with Ariane 6 development schedule.

Cheaper to buy the odd F9 than setup for small run of Ariane 5s.

The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.Being cheap or commercially competitive is a secondary goal. That's why buying rides on SpaceX's rockets is a decision of last resort. Many Americans fail to understand this.

How much extra is ESA willing to pay for 100%  independent access.

[RedLineTrain]

The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.

For some meanings of "independent access to space."  And why should it be confined to ESA?  Shouldn't it also be to guarantee European industry has independent access to space?

When Ariane 6 finally comes on line, it should be judged on whether or not it can orbit a LEO megaconstellation of the size of Starlink's Gen2.

[edzieba]

The whole point of the Ariane program is to guarantee ESA independent access to space.

For some meanings of "independent access to space."  And why should it be confined to ESA?  Shouldn't it also be to guarantee European industry has independent access to space?

When Ariane 6 finally comes on line, it should be judged on whether or not it can orbit a LEO megaconstellation of the size of Starlink's Gen2.

Ariane 6 has already been contract to launch part of an LEO megaconstellation.