Ariane 6: solid vs. liquid

[Patchouli]

Would it even be possible to manrate the all solid Ariane 6?

Or 'comsat-rate' for that matter? All solids is going to be a rough ride.

You can beef up a comsat to handle a rough ride and so long as it doesn't break on the way up no one is going to complain.

[R7]

You can beef up a comsat ... no one is going to complain.

Except comsat manufacturers and their customers for the price-hike.

[edkyle99]

You can beef up a comsat ... no one is going to complain.

Except comsat manufacturers and their customers for the price-hike.

Solid motors do not guarantee that payloads will suffer high vibration loads.  Methods are available to attenuate vibrations before they reach the payload.

Consider that Ariane 5 and Vega produce similar vibration loads on payloads, according to their user's guides.  Both produce 1g or less sine-equivalent vibration at the payload, though at different frequencies.  Vega produces slightly higher static g-forces.  Ariane 5 produces slightly higher acoustic loads.

 - Ed Kyle

[strangequark]

I've wondered about such assertions, in the U.S. too when it comes to ATK and Aerojet.  How does pouring solid motors in Kourou (or SLS SRBs in Promontory) really help French (or U.S.) defense needs?  Military missiles usually use a different, more potent blend of propellant, for example.  Large numbers of military missile motors are needed for the arsenal, while only a relative handful of Ariane 6 or SLS motors would be poured.  No military missiles use any of the space launch tooling.  And so on.

 - Ed Kyle

You may have a point, if you're talking about missiles in current production. However, when was the last time the US actually built an ICBM? Using solids in spaceflight maintains an industrial base when actually building missiles is frowned upon.There is certainly a level of understanding in government that using solids elsewhere helps.  Who knows the level of pressure exerted by DOD, Congress, etc due to that understanding? That's for conspiracy theorists to work out. As for the commonality, first off, the details can vary while still maintaining critical skills. Secondly, there's still tons of commonality. Every single launch vehicle used by Orbital, for instance, has copious amounts of ICBM heritage.

Current French SLBMs have a direct lineage to the Ariane 5 solids, incidentally.

[woods170]

I've wondered about such assertions, in the U.S. too when it comes to ATK and Aerojet.  How does pouring solid motors in Kourou (or SLS SRBs in Promontory) really help French (or U.S.) defense needs?  Military missiles usually use a different, more potent blend of propellant, for example.  Large numbers of military missile motors are needed for the arsenal, while only a relative handful of Ariane 6 or SLS motors would be poured.  No military missiles use any of the space launch tooling.  And so on.

 - Ed Kyle

You may have a point, if you're talking about missiles in current production. However, when was the last time the US actually built an ICBM? Using solids in spaceflight maintains an industrial base when actually building missiles is frowned upon.There is certainly a level of understanding in government that using solids elsewhere helps.  Who knows the level of pressure exerted by DOD, Congress, etc due to that understanding? That's for conspiracy theorists to work out. As for the commonality, first off, the details can vary while still maintaining critical skills. Secondly, there's still tons of commonality. Every single launch vehicle used by Orbital, for instance, has copious amounts of ICBM heritage.

Current French SLBMs have a direct lineage to the Ariane 5 solids, incidentally.

Or so it is claimed on the Internet. I have yet to see hard evidence for that.
However, the Ariane 5 EAP's are constructed by members of the Europropulsion consortium, under auspices of EADS Astrium. And guess who is responsible for production of the M51 SLBM...EADS Astrium. So, I would not be surprised that there would be direct lineage between EAP and M-51, but I've yet to see hard evidence for that.

[mmeijeri]

So, I would not be surprised that there would be direct lineage between EAP and M-51, but I've yet to see hard evidence for that.

Wikipedia says that, and I believe I've seen other sources say this too.

[mmeijeri]

Using solids in spaceflight maintains an industrial base when actually building missiles is frowned upon.

Unsegmented solids are still used on EELVs and in air-to-air missiles, cruise missiles etc. Wouldn't that be enough to keep the industrial base alive?

[Stephan]

Current French SLBMs have a direct lineage to the Ariane 5 solids, incidentally.

And Ariane 5 (and 4) solids have lineage to previous French SLBM ...

[Oli]

New pic.

[Lars_J]

Yikes. Not elegant. Has there ever been a LV of this size with two parallel first stages?

If they still insist on using solids, I'm still shocked that they don't go for the Atlas V approach, with a varying amount of smaller solid boosters surrounding a slimmer cryogenic core derived from Ariane 5. But I guess *someone* at ESA really likes those large solids.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

New pic.

Hmmm...... why go for an even number of first stage solids and take the pain of designing the 1/2 stage separation plane instead of odd numbers (1,3,5 solids etc.)? 

[woods170]

New pic.

Source? Because we've had two replies already discussing the thing we see, but we have yet to determine the source of this picture.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

New pic.

Source? Because we've had two replies already discussing the thing we see, but we have yet to determine the source of this picture.

Turns out it's from CNES...... http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-fr/10692-gp-l-europe-s-elance-vers-ariane-6.php

[woods170]

And an artistic view of this vehicle launching... Take a look at this CNES newspage from november 2012.

Edit:
English version of the link provided by Galactic Penguin above...

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Do we know about what kind of performance are we talking about if we varies to number of P135 solid motors used on the first stage from 1 to 5?

[gosnold]

At least 6.5t GTO with 3 1st stage solids, 3.5t with 2. (Source: audio clip at the bottom of the page http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-fr/10692-gp-l-europe-s-elance-vers-ariane-6.php)

[R7]

But I guess *someone* at ESA really likes those large solids.

French navy likes it too, they'll get three tests (minimum) per launch 

[baldusi]

Yikes. Not elegant. Has there ever been a LV of this size with two parallel first stages?

If they still insist on using solids, I'm still shocked that they don't go for the Atlas V approach, with a varying amount of smaller solid boosters surrounding a slimmer cryogenic core derived from Ariane 5. But I guess *someone* at ESA really likes those large solids.

To do the Atlas V approach they would also need to develop an RD-180 and CBC equivalent. The way they propose it, ugly as it might look, means just developing one P135. Much cheaper proposition. I always thought it was going to be at least a P150, thou. I guess that's how they propose to grow the family if they need more performance. As I understanding it, current technology allows for P180 without pushing it too much.
So:
3 x P135+1 x P135+US is 6.5mt to GTO
2 x P135+1 x P135+US is 3.5mt to GTO
1 x P135+US is how much to SSO?

[edkyle99]

Notional views.  The phrase "possible configurations" is applied to the images.  The three solid first stage has been shown in a more practical side-by-side arrangement in other drawings.

There is, as I understand it, still another possible range of PPH designs that would use two serial solid stages of different sizes, with smaller strap-on solids added to tailor the vehicle to its missions.  This design would be more capable than the P135 based design shown here.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

But I guess *someone* at ESA really likes those large solids.

French navy likes it too, they'll get three tests (minimum) per launch 

No they won't.  French SLBM's are smaller than P135, smaller diameter and they weigh, all three stages total, nearly 1/3rd as much as a single P135 motor.  I suspect that the propellant formulations would be different, they're obviously not using the same tooling, etc.

 - Ed Kyle