Author Topic: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here.  (Read 590425 times)

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 120
Every company goes through this in the private sector only difference is that retirements happen in bunches not a steady rate.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2018 06:57 pm by floss »

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1447
  • Likes Given: 492
Moved to discussion thread.

Europe’s Ariane 6 Rocket Is Doomed Even Before First Flight, Auditor Finds

So, is the article saying that Ariane 6 will be cancelled before its maiden voyage, or will they fly a certain number of them before calling it quits?

I know the title gives away the answer, but I would like to make sure that what the article said is actually true.

The article is a writeup on the report linked here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1908674#msg1908674

I think it accurately reflects the content of the report. There is nothing about cancelling Ariane 6.
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 120
Funny sounds like the Shuttle arguments and Venture star again the market size cannot support 14 to 20 billion launchers without a large government investment either in R+D or opening new markets .

Basically  how many Ariane 5 can you launch for 14 billion as opposed your first reusable Shuttle .

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5600
  • Liked: 3411
  • Likes Given: 1660
So if LEO constellations are the big market in the next decade or two (not a sure thing but what if) - How suitable and competitive is Ariane 6 for LEO work?

If they meet their goal of 90 million euros per launch for A64, which is 102 million dollars, they should do just fine. Wikipedia lists 14,900 kg to SSO, which would be about 100 147 kg One Web satellites fairing space permitting (and not counting the payload carrier). On the other hand, SpaceX lists $62 million for a first stage recoverable Falcon 9 launch with a LEO capacity of ~16,000 kg. SSO would be well south of that. Assuming it is something like 10,000 kg, you are looking at two thirds of the capacity in terms of mass for approximately two thirds of the cost. The fairing size ratio also comes out similarly. See attachment.

OneWeb is going to a polar orbit, not SSO. F9 FT can do 11585 kg to 550 km polar orbit per NASA LSP. That does not include Block 5 upgrades, and it does include LSP margins, so it is rather conservative.

Also, that $102M price is dependent on selling enough A62 to institutional customers, and it was released at a time when the Euro was slightly stronger against the dollar. If they don't get those institutional launches, they will need either subsidy, or will have to charge nearly double SpaceX's price for 30% more fairing volume and perhaps 20% more mass to orbit.

At this point, SpaceX's $50M per launch with reuse is probably a lot more solid than Ariane's 90M euro for an A64 (that is, SpaceX has actually sold launches for that price while Ariane has not).

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 145
The timeline for launcher production in the Ariane-6 User's Manual begins at -24 month.
Means this, the first Galileo launch on Ariane 6 is already delayed to 2021?  :o

Has it ever been expected for 2020? The original Ariane 6 launch schedule is:

- FM1 on July 16, 2020
- FM2 in January 2021 <= first Galileo launch
- FM3 in April 2021
- FM4 (Ariane 64) in July 2021

https://academieairespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Ariane-6-lecture.pdf
page 24

Recently the wording for FM1 has changed to "second half of 2020". This may propagate to FM2 (Galileo) => NET Q1 2021.

AFAIK the planning is stil in place. The maiden launch (FM1) and the preceding demonstration modules have been ordered. The FM1 - FM4 launches are planned to take place between 2020 and early 2022. These launched are ordered I don't know if the launchers have been ordered. The initial plan was to order the FM2-FM15 as one batch.
I expect several orders at the end of 2019 for launch from 2021. Indeed the two years in advance.
May I view this an storm brewing in a glas of water!? If the orders won't come before the end of this year, than I would be alarmed. Please people calm down.
 ??? US media outlet spreading concerning news about European Ariane 6. Are they trying to manipulate the market? ...   :-X
Agreed the news from France is far from helpful but I fear they underestimate the effect their doubts about have on the demand. They are undermining the credibility of Ariane 6 and thus the European launcher market. The complete opposite I expect CNES and France are trying to achieve.

« Last Edit: 03/24/2019 04:45 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline ZachS09

Why has Arianespace or any international launch providers outside the U.S. been so affected by SpaceX, that they decided to make reusable launchers?
« Last Edit: 03/26/2019 01:53 pm by ZachS09 »
This is Recovery; the center core has landed. All landing operators, proceed to Procedure 11.000 on ECRY and ECF9 Net.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 0
Space launch is politics and the providers are dependent on political support.

Elon is very good at mobilizing the masses for his ideas. *
In turn the masses put pressure on the politicians who really dislike the need to explain wtf they are doing.

There is also the chance that rocket reuse actually works (technological and financially) and even where adoption is slow nobody want's to miss out too badly on such a shift of technology.


*: Which inevitably leads to the usual problem with all things Elon. Too much talking, not enough delivering. There is always a new thing to talk about when the previous thing does not arrive on time. When the thing finally does a arrive the goal posts are already three towns over, making the achievement seem less grand...

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9052
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6500
  • Likes Given: 2217
So much for those who buried Ariane 6 as hopeless against SpaceX. So, why is Oneweb using it, then?


Because the SpaceX fanbois have been wrong before.

There is a substantial number of clients out there that care just as much about spreading risk as they care about value-for-money.
That's why OneWeb is spreading its launches over multiple providers. That's why DoD wants multiple NSSL providers. That's why NASA uses multiple launch service providers. It is why companies like SES, Intelsat, Eutelsat, etc. use multiple providers.

How Iridium NEXT did things is NOT the norm in the launch services market.

Despite Ariane 6 being more expensive than Falcon 9 there will absolutely be business for Ariane 6. As will there be business for Atlas V and Vulcan and New Glenn and Omega.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 145
Why has Arianespace or any international launch providers outside the U.S. been so affected by SpaceX, that they decided to make reusable launchers?
This is an odd question. Arianespace is NOT developing a reusable launcher. So the answer is SpaceX didn't have that effect. All developments concerning reusability are just TRL improvement projects. It's O.T. for Ariane 6.
« Last Edit: 03/26/2019 06:22 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline ZachS09

I didn't mean for it to be a non-question.

I just saw that those providers are developing technology that seems to be copying off of SpaceX's hardware.
This is Recovery; the center core has landed. All landing operators, proceed to Procedure 11.000 on ECRY and ECF9 Net.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 145
Or did SpaceX develop something that has been in low TRL level studies from European organisations since the 199x. ... The concept that is being developed further with the FALCon project has been around for 20years.
But this is O.T. for the expendable Ariane 6, the production cost optimized launcher.

Offline GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 559

So much for those who buried Ariane 6 as hopeless against SpaceX. So, why is Oneweb using it, then ?

Although, this is an 'unusual' contract. First, its using a qualification launch - so I assume its getting a discount compared to what the normal price would be. Second, the other referred to launches, are options, for 2023. Which seems very much like a wait and see approach.

Historically, first launches have a success rate of about 50/50, so I'd certainly guess there's a discount for Ariane 6's test flight. As such, OneWeb may just end up with their cheapest per-satellite launch ever, or they may end up with a lot of shiny hardware scattered on the ocean's floor.

As always, ya pays your money and ya takes your chances...

That said, Ariane 6 was designed to compete with F9's pricing -- twice the capacity at twice the price, so the per-sat pricing is about a wash with SpaceX's current pricing. If SpaceX doesn't drop the price of F9 in the face of actual price competition, then Ariane 6 has a good chance at winning the commercial contracts its business case depends on. Of course, whether SpaceX can drop F9's pricing depends on the efficacy of their reusability efforts (on which opinions differ), and SpaceX's desire to maximize profits.

I do think SpaceX has little reason to change pricing right now, especially when Falcon 9 has now recorded Atlas V-like numbers of launches, and by the time Ariane 6 flies, it will likely have Ariane 5-like numbers. At that time, in stark contrast to when they were starting out, SpaceX will possess the veteran workhorse launcher and the "proven reliability" shoe will be on the other foot, while every other prospective commercial launch provider except ISRO and China* will be working to post launch numbers for their new vehicles requiring more than a hand or two to count.

*Assuming Proton actually does get retired and replaced.

Yes, Ariane 6 will win commercial business -- I don't think anyone would realistically bother arguing otherwise. But can they actually manage to sustain the multiple commercial flights per year they want? Each launch will have to be a heavily laden LEO constellation launch -- not what Ariane 6 is optimized for, at slightly more LEO capability than F9-ASDS for twice the price -- or a dual-sat GTO mission which will require not one but *two* contract wins to pull off, against not one or two also-rans (Proton and Zenit), but rather a globally revitalized field of a half-dozen vehicles?

I think they're insisting too forcefully for locked-in institutional orders for them to be confident of commercial success, but time, as always, will tell.
TriOptimum Corporation            Science
                                      Military /_\ Consumer

Offline GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 559
Despite Ariane 6 being more expensive than Falcon 9 there will absolutely be business for Ariane 6. As will there be business for Atlas V and Vulcan and New Glenn and Omega.

...and JAXA/Mitsubishi's H3, and ISRO's soon-to-be upgraded (yet again) GSLV, and either or both the old and new series of Long Marches, whatever China is flying then. Maybe even something Russian, too.

It will be an actual global marketplace, with lots of vendors to choose from for those "clients out there that care just as much about spreading risk as they care about value-for-money." It will be interesting to see where Ariane 6's value proposition falls within a field of a half-dozen valid choices among which to spread the risk.

Of course, that assumes in the future it's still going to be a thing. Iridium, for example, didn't bother during their recent upgrade, and has Telesat announced launching on anything other than New Glenn? Risk may look rather different when a lost flight doesn't mean lost years of service ordering and launching another sat, but merely keeping your small sat factory open another month or three to run another flight's worth of sats off the assembly line. No panic needed -- just shrug and keep launching.

Price was the incentive that sold early F9 flights. What other incentive do prospective clients have to fly on early Ariane 6 flights that don't exist on New Glenn or H3 or Vulcan or GSLV MkIII when, per-sat, their pricing -- and records -- will all be in the same ballpark?

After all, discounts may sell early missions, but such tactics cannot long sustain a launch business.
TriOptimum Corporation            Science
                                      Military /_\ Consumer

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9052
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6500
  • Likes Given: 2217
woods170, always the sane voice, albeit often alone in the wilderness... :p

Used to that. Being "alone in the wilderness" has been the core of one of my dayjobs for 20 years. Courtesy of having to deal with pigheaded software developers (of the "I am God"-variety) almost every day of the week.

But I digress.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9052
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6500
  • Likes Given: 2217
Why has Arianespace or any international launch providers outside the U.S. been so affected by SpaceX, that they decided to make reusable launchers?
This is an odd question. Arianespace is NOT developing a reusable launcher. So the answer is SpaceX didn't have that effect. All developments concerning reusability are just TRL improvement projects. It's O.T. for Ariane 6.

Emphasis mine.

You are correct. Arianespace is not developing a reusable launcher.

In fact, Arianespace is not developing ANY launcher.

You see, development of Ariane 6 is done by ArianeGroup, of which Arianespace is just a subsidiary.

Online Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 1103
woods170, always the sane voice, albeit often alone in the wilderness... :p

Used to that. Being "alone in the wilderness" has been the core of one of my dayjobs for 20 years. Courtesy of having to deal with pigheaded software developers (of the "I am God"-variety) almost every day of the week.

But I digress.

ROTFLMAO
...you have been found guilty by the elders of the forum of a (imaginary) vendetta against Saint Elon - BLAAASPHEMER !

Tags: