Author Topic: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here.  (Read 560693 times)

Online Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • England
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 122
Not exactly Ariane 6, more like 7, but nowhere better to put it right now and not wanting to create a new thread right yet. There's a bit more info on Prometheus (100T Lox/Methane engine);

http://spacenews.com/frances-cnes-backs-space-station-hedges-bets-on-reusable-rockets/
Quote
Longer term, CNES has proposed to ESA a liquid oxygen/liquid methane engine called Prometheus, designed to cost one-tenth of the Ariane 5ís Vulcain main-stage engine.

ESA Launcher Director Gaele Winters said the agency will propose to its governments in December a development program based on Prometheus.

CNES officials have said they are working with the German and Italian space agencies to craft a four-year, 125-million-euro Prometheus development that would end with a small demonstrator, called Callisto, in 2020.


And a bit more about the parallel reusable first stage (in French);
http://www.voaafrique.com/a/lanceurs-la-france-appelle-l-europe-a-preparer-le-moteur-du-futur-/3357791.html
Quote
Simultaneously, France, Germany and Japan have started research on a reusable first stage prototype, named Callisto.

To be launched from French Guiana, this mini vehicle ten meters high, which will be equipped with a Japanese engine will go up to a hundred kilometers above sea level, before descending for landing. Its promoters are targetting a date of 2020 for a first test.

Callisto project at this stage cost a hundred million euros. It will also be presented at the Ministerial Conference in Lucerne.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2016 10:45 PM by Alpha_Centauri »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6177
  • Liked: 3968
  • Likes Given: 5459
Here is another Prometheus article... probably is or will soon be time to start a separate thread on reusable launch vehicle efforts by ESA.

Quote
French space minister calls for European rocket R&D effort, says SpaceX victory still TBD -

Quote
Mandon was referring to a reusable, liquid-oxygen, liquid-methane engine that France has been working on, called Promethee. France would like to Europeanize the effort, offering to subcontract major elements to Germany and other European partners in exchange for financial contributions.

Mandon’s calling the propulsion system both Promethee, French for Prometheus, and Prometheus presages a French effort this December to persuade European Space Agency governments to fund the new propulsion system.

http://spacenews.com/french-space-minister-calls-for-european-rocket-rd-effort-says-spacex-victory-still-tbd/
« Last Edit: 07/13/2016 08:04 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 841
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
This reusable launch vehicle is much beter comparable to Blue Origin's New Shepard then to a grasshopper from SpaceX. I read it would be 10m tall and 1m in diameter. If the complete length would be a cilinder, it would have a volume of 7,85m3. With a LOxLNG mass of 0,825mT/M3 the fuel weight will weight about 6.5mT.
With a system weight of 1mT the total weight will be 7,5mT. The 10mT trust IHI LE-8 LOxLNG engine would be a suitable launcher for this.
I don't think small European launch companies are happy about this (Black Aero 2 and Arion 1).
Might I suggest to move the discussion about the suborbital demo vehicle to the Micro launcher segment:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38446.0

To come back on the Ariane 6 subject, I've been trying to identify the payloads for the first couple of Ariane 6 launches. The maiden launch of Ariane 6 in 2020 would be a A64. I couldn't identify A64 payloads.
In 2021 two A64 and two A62 launches are planned. I think one of the A62 launches will be used for four Galileo satellites and the other for the EUMETSAT Polar System - Second Generation (EPS-SG) METOP-SG A1 (Sentinel 5) and a secondary (group) of payloads (4,2mT+ ~2,5mT).
Any other ideas on the first payloads for Ariane 6?

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 115
Dream Chaser .

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 841
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
Dream Chaser .
That would be nice but I would prefer Pride (a IXV derived European vehicle), both as ISS resupply vehicle (2020-2024) and as reusable free flying laboratory (like X-37). One launch annually would ad some much required launch volume. I don't think Dream Chaser nor Pride will launch on one of the early flights though.
The 2020 A64 launch and the first 2021 A62 launch are really risky, because they are maiden flights. The first ten launches of Ariane 6 will most likely also have higher insurance costs because the launcher still has to prove it's reliability. So I don't expect payloads that can tolarate a failure. This can be ordinary comsats, Galileo (reserve) satellites. Metop-A1 has no European alternative so it will have to ride on A62.
I also expect a MTG satellite (Sentinel4) will launch on a A64 flight in the 2020-2023 timeframe.
Feel free to speculate further.

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6993
  • SpaceShip Earth
  • Liked: 3258
  • Likes Given: 114
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1057
  • Likes Given: 573
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2
do you have an estimated year as to when this might occur?? I assume this flight(s) would either be Block-II expansion or replenishment flights.
or these flights??
NLT 2020 - Galileo-FOC FM23, Galileo-FOC FM24 - TBD - Kourou
NLT 2020 - Galileo-FOC FM25, Galileo-FOC FM26 - TBD - Kourou
NLT 2020 - Galileo-FOC FM27, Galileo-FOC FM28 - TBD - Kourou
NLT 2020 - Galileo-FOC FM29, Galileo-FOC FM30 - TBD - Kourou
« Last Edit: 07/29/2016 04:28 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 841
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2
do you have an estimated year as to when this might occur?? I assume this flight(s) would either be Block-II expansion or replenishment flights.
Most likely 2021 (possibly the second A6 flight overall). I guess it would be Galileo FOC M10 carrying FM27-30
(considering a Ariane 5 FOC M9 flight in 2019-2020) All very speculative. 

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1057
  • Likes Given: 573
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2
do you have an estimated year as to when this might occur?? I assume this flight(s) would either be Block-II expansion or replenishment flights.
Most likely 2021 (possibly the second A6 flight overall). I guess it would be Galileo FOC M10 carrying FM27-30
(considering a Ariane 5 FOC M9 flight in 2019-2020) All very speculative. 
We should find out more during the November ESA Ministerial Council meeting as there is to be a discussion and vote planned on whether to exercise the Galileo contract options for up to two additional Ariane 5ES-Galileo launchers to finish out Galileo First Generation Constellation (GFG) or place them on Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT or Ariane 6.2.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 115
Like the first flight of Ariane 5 and Vega I figure that some not too important science missions will be launched on the first Ariane 6.4  I wonder how much a new Telescope for visual light  and a laser range finder to measure the height of plants would fit.

There would probably be room for another satellite as well.


Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6993
  • SpaceShip Earth
  • Liked: 3258
  • Likes Given: 114
its very tbd but we (Galileo) could be first on Ariane 6.2
do you have an estimated year as to when this might occur?? I assume this flight(s) would either be Block-II expansion or replenishment flights.
Most likely 2021 (possibly the second A6 flight overall). I guess it would be Galileo FOC M10 carrying FM27-30
(considering a Ariane 5 FOC M9 flight in 2019-2020) All very speculative. 
We should find out more during the November ESA Ministerial Council meeting as there is to be a discussion and vote planned on whether to exercise the Galileo contract options for up to two additional Ariane 5ES-Galileo launchers to finish out Galileo First Generation Constellation (GFG) or place them on Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT or Ariane 6.2.

Before we get to a point about when/what to fly on A6.2 (which is VERY tbd) the above discussion first needs to be done, and afaik its not so much a council but an ESA-EC question (how fast do we deploy/risk mitigation for A5 failure etc.) in short lets see how VA233 goes ;-)
 


Offline cheesybagel

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
This LOX/Methane engine is too late. They should have never stopped development of the VOLGA engine of the French with Russia. They could have had the engine by now if they never stopped development.

If this engine ever comes to light SpaceX is probably going to be flying reusables by then.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 841
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
This LOX/Methane engine is too late. They should have never stopped development of the VOLGA engine of the French with Russia. They could have had the engine by now if they never stopped development.

If this engine ever comes to light SpaceX is probably going to be flying reusables by then.

Is Volga the 2600kN LOx-LNG engine that was under evaluation for the High Trust Engine program?
I agree it would have been nice and really wanted when a new first stage engine would be ready for implementation in Ariane 6. Unfortunately this is not the case, as result of several political and financial reasons.
HTE wasn't executed because the financial (bank & Euro) crisis. This resulted in budget trouble in all the ESA member states, so low funding for the space programs.

I think it's just the right time to develop a Promethee (~1000kN LOx-LNG; or higher thrust) first stage engine.
The shared development between IHI and Airbus of the ACE-42R Reusable 420kN LOx-LNG engine is nearing completion. IHI also developed the LE-8 100kN LOx-LNG engine, but in Europe this was the first full engine development of a Methane rocket engine. Promethee is a nice follow-on development after the ACE-42R engine.

Italy and Russia jointly developed the Myra 120kN LOx-LNG engine, I don't know the current status of this program, but engine tests have taken place in Russia. The current political situation after: the annexation of Crimea and the 'war' between Ukraine and Russia (MH17 shot out of the sky). Doesn't allow joint ESA Russia programs in my oppinion. I also expect the use of Dnepr/Baikal and Rockot for ESA (memberstate) launches won't continue for more then three years (terminated when Vega C goes into service). These launchers go out of service because Angara 1.2 and Soyuz 2-1v will take over their role.

I think in 2011 the ESA member states already realized they couldn't develop a new engine in-time for Falcon 9, Angara, Long March 5 or 7 to come into service. In 2014 Falcon 9 was in service and took most of it's market share from the (unreliable) Proton rocket. The ESA member-states realized A5-ME wouldn't be competitive, as would be the PPH A6. So they found a path in between A6 PHH.

It is a fact the commercial (GTO) launch market will become more competitive. The purpose of the A6 development program is that ESA (and it's member-states) will maintain independent access to space. Ariane 5 with its ~200mln launch cost, that needed ~200mln annually in launch site aid funding, at 6 launches annually, wouldn't maintain it's market share. Ariane 64 might maintain this market share of 6 launches annually, because of the lower launch cost and the more flexible system (re-ignitable upper-stage).

I've analyzed the ESA and member-state launch requirement for the 2020-2030 time frame. I found 47 main payloads, 22 can be launched by Vega (C) the other 26 need a A6 launch. From the 26 payloads for A6, 14 will have GEO as destination. They will launch on A64 with another payload.
So the 5 launches for A6 annually is unrealistic, but 5 for both A6 and Vega might be realistic.
(ISS resupply, in orbit test vehicles and SSO dedicated ride share launches could increase the launch rate)
If they chose to prefer A6 over Vega, the launch rate will be lower because A6 (7mT to SSO) has nearly 3x the Vega C (2,3mT to SSO) capability. Vega C will mostly do two payloads each launch, so A6 will have to be multi manifested launches (like Falcon 9 with Formosat5 and Sherpa).

       


Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 115
This LOX/Methane engine is too late. They should have never stopped development of the VOLGA engine of the French with Russia. They could have had the engine by now if they never stopped development.

If this engine ever comes to light SpaceX is probably going to be flying reusables by then.



Reuseability is entirely dependent on a massive increase in the mass going into orbit otherwise just a gimic .

Offline Hobbes-22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
  • Acme Engineering
    • Acme Engineering
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 84
Arianespace have published cross-section drawings as seen in the Update thread.

A few things I noticed:

- Vinci no longer has an extendable nozzle.
- There doesn't seem to be a VEB. Could the control system have been moved to the upper stage? There seems to be plenty of room for it between the tanks, but that's going to be a low-temperature space (sitting between the LOX and LH tanks)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9321
  • UK
  • Liked: 1652
  • Likes Given: 183
Would it possible to move JUICE from Ariane V to VI  or would that delay it too much and if they did would it speed up its journey to Jupiter in any way?
« Last Edit: 09/10/2016 11:18 AM by Star One »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 841
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
I wrongly posted this in the update topic:

Mattblak, Indeed they did not publish LEO figures jet. All figures that have been published are conservative estimates if I'm not mistaken. I think we'll have to wait a year or two before more precise figures will be published. There is a uncertainty about the performance of the P120C (P142 / ESR), the static fire test at the BEAP will eliminate this. Does someone know when this test is scheduled, the end of 2017?
They have to test the last version of the Vince upper stage engine to learn it's performance. And the mass of all components of the launcher will have to be known before exact figures can be published.

The >10,5mT to GTO for A64 and 5mT GTO / 7mT SSO are the rough estimates.
10,5mT is a dual launch with a 4mT and a 6mT satellite.
The SSO minimal requirement is 4,5mT for the EUMETSAT Polar System-Second Generation (EPS-SG) satellites.
For Gallileo A62 will need to be able to loft 3mT to MEO (56deg. 23 000km)

My impression is that A64 will outperform A5 ES in it's ISS performance (LEO 56deg. ~350km). I guess A64 will be capable to orbit between 20 to 25mT to the ISS. My guess for A62 is about 12mT, but know that I didn't calculate this, because I don't have empty stage mass specifications.

Please place update posts in the update threat and all other stuff here, thanks

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 841
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
I think there's a mistake in this picture. It looks like there's a tank underneath the intertank structure of the second stage.

I don't think It's a mistake. Those are helium and/or nitrogen pressure vessels. They are spherical carbonfiber epoxy tanks. most likely produced by MT-Aerospace in Germany. I found an image of a gas vessel for A5ME and this ESA article about smaller tanks for satellite applications.
I think Airbus Safran Launchers opted to place them around the Vince engine instead of inside the LOX/LH2 tanks or the space between the two tanks because of three reasons.
1) There is enough space for them around Vince, expecially since they droped the expendable nozzle.
2) Installation is much easier around the engine then in between of the tanks. And they could still switch to a Common bulkhead without having to reposition the pressurization tanks.
3) It's a common practice to alter the number of pressure vessels on a upper stage to get the required performance with the lightest stage mass. I think they do this already on ESC-A, ULA certainly does this on the centaur upper stage. When the gas vessels are in between of the bulkheads they have to decide the amount of vessels during stage production. It's very hard to reconfigure afterwards in the case the launch plan changes. With the vessels around the engine, removing or adding a vessel is not really complicated.

In the launch simulation video posted early 2016 these pressurization vessels were also visible around the Vince Engine.

With the core stage they will place them in the space between the oxidizer and fuel tanks. MT-Aerospace will build two different versions of the lower skirt and inter-tank structure. They have to swap these structures to change a stage from a A64 to a A62 or vice-versa. Besides the gas vessels don't fit around the Vulcain 2.1, and the delta V penalty is much lower for extra mass on a lower stage than on a upper stage.

I think this is one of the design choices that will make the Ariane 6 such a affordable and versatile launcher.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 0
I think the big advantage of Ariane 6 is Vinci. Finally a restartable upper stage. Took about forever and opens up a lot of options.

The rest seems a bit boring, basically a respin of the Ariane 5 to reduce cost. - Which is ok for me. Taking a proven system, redesign it for manufacturability and shaving of a significant part of the launch cost is a worthwhile endeavor.

Tags: