I've brought this up as example of what will happen if you "keep technology" without improving it. US is literally paying quite a price for that oversight, and Europe doesn't want to learn from other's mistakes by making their own. But honestly I don't think they've chosen solids because they didn't realize how stupid this decision is
Could this be a Falcon killer?
Quote from: spacediver on 01/02/2013 01:34 pmIn the aftermath of the conference voices of ESA officials could be heard that a decision towards an all solid Ariane 6 (except for the cryogenic upper stage) is already made. "Liberty" (of a sort) lives. - Ed Kyle
In the aftermath of the conference voices of ESA officials could be heard that a decision towards an all solid Ariane 6 (except for the cryogenic upper stage) is already made.
My hate for solids is due to the inability to do engine cut off.
My dislike stems more from the fact that solids are inefficient and enviro-unfriendly (strange to see the otherwise green-minded Europeans, especially the Germans, agreeing to this;
By the way when we talk about solids, maybe it would make sense to make them reusable. After all they're stable enough such that you only have to attach a parachute to it and let them drop in the ocean.
Quote from: spacediver on 01/02/2013 01:34 pmTo me the case is clear: A solid Ariane 6 is a dead end! The next European launcher should be an all cryogenic, two stage concept without strap-on-boosters.What do you think?SpacediverSpacediver, I'm from germany and you are absolutely right. I dont know what CNES is thinking, but this is the end of european space transportation.I am astonished that no public figure of the european spaceflight community has named this concept what it is - rubbish.This spacenews article makes it pretty clear that the solid concept has been selected:http://www.spacenews.com/article/cnes-sets-%E2%80%9Ctriple-seven%E2%80%9D-goal-for-ariane-6-rocketQuoteThe design of the rocket — two solid-fueled lower stages and a cryogenic upper stage, plus solid-fueled strap-on boosters — was frozen Nov. 21 during a meeting of ESA government ministers.ESA Launcher Director Antonio Fabrizi said this design, and no other, is what ministers approved.
To me the case is clear: A solid Ariane 6 is a dead end! The next European launcher should be an all cryogenic, two stage concept without strap-on-boosters.What do you think?Spacediver
The design of the rocket — two solid-fueled lower stages and a cryogenic upper stage, plus solid-fueled strap-on boosters — was frozen Nov. 21 during a meeting of ESA government ministers.ESA Launcher Director Antonio Fabrizi said this design, and no other, is what ministers approved.
Quote from: Rugoz on 01/04/2013 02:27 pmBy the way when we talk about solids, maybe it would make sense to make them reusable. After all they're stable enough such that you only have to attach a parachute to it and let them drop in the ocean.Always had the idea, that reusable solids are same expensive as new solids...
With this solid concept there is no chance at all4. The rocket has no growth potential
My dislike stems more from the fact that solids are inefficient and enviro-unfriendly.
Like the United States there has never been doubt inside the ESA political echelons about the use of solids, even on vehicles that were supposed to be flown manned. Ariane-5 was, after all, initially designed as the launch vehicle for the crewed Hermes space shuttle.
With the US space shuttle now gone the two biggest solid boosters on the planet fly on every Ariane-5 mission. From a political viewpoint it is clear as glass: the Ariane solids (never mind the difference between the ones used on Ariane-2, Ariane-4 or Ariane-5) have never given any trouble on any of the launches involved. The liquid technology however has given trouble, on a number of launches.From the viewpoint of a technically ill-informed politician it is clear: solid technology on European launchers is more reliable than liquid technology. And that "fact" was heavily pushed by CNES.
The ESA politicians also recognize the fact that the current Vulcain technology is a dead-end. You don't go anywhere if you don't develop a new, more powerfull, more reliable, more economic hydrolox engine. That costs big money. And don't forget the role of Vega. The Italians, along with the French have set the stage for very advanced solids technology thru the development of Vega. Developing the first two stages for Ariane-6 will be the next logical step coming forth from the Vega development program.
The proposed P7C design in really interesting. It seems to have come out of the woodwork in recent months. Two basic propulsion units combined in different ways to create a family of launchers that could be somewhat optimized to the payload. The solids would be cutting edge - better than any other solid produced anywhere on earth. The upper stage would be the world's most efficient upper stage, hands down. Could this be a Falcon killer? - Ed Kyle
Are you comparing few dozens of launches with 2000+ launches done by liquid rockets? Sorry, but you can't say solids are more reliable unless you've got comparable number of flights, now liquids win this race hands down.
As much as you'd like to think otherwise, solid is a dead-end technology. There is only so much one can do to improve it, and there are quite a number of issues which appears to be non-solvable - ISP of solids is rather low (so fuel fraction is bigger, and overall performance is worse for given liftoff mass), cross-feed and refueling are both impossible, reusability is also very questionable.Liquids, on the other hand, offer a lot of possibilities, and area of possible improvements is vast.
Ed, of course you are right. I should have said limited growth potential. If you look at Ariane 5 Europe managed to almost double the performance from the initial version (Ariane 5 G) 6->12 tonnes (ME). I don't think this is feasible with this concept. With a liquid concept you could develop a heavy variant (like Delta IV, Falcon).
