Does Britain or British firms have any stake in Arianespace?

[ringsider]

As far as I can see not?

[russianhalo117]

As far as I can see not?

Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE)(became Royal Aerospace Establishment (RAE) which became Defence Research Agency (DRA) which became Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which spun off two organizations, which are Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), and QinetiQ) lost its small stake in Arianespace's predecessor organization due to its products lack luster performance of its own Black Arrow SLV and its contribution to the Europa SLV's.
DSTL and QinetiQ in the UK supply products now to Airbus Safran Launchers which took over CNES stake in Arianespace, so the UK has an indirect stake in Arianespace via ASL.

[ringsider]

As far as I can see not?

Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE)(became Royal Aerospace Establishment (RAE) which became Defence Research Agency (DRA) which became Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which spun off two organizations, which are Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), and QinetiQ) lost its small stake in Arianespace's predecessor organization due to its products lack luster performance of its own Black Arrow SLV and its contribution to the Europa SLV's.
DSTL and QinetiQ in the UK supply products now to Airbus Safran Launchers which took over CNES stake in Arianespace, so the UK has an indirect stake in Arianespace via ASL.

Thanks.

So just a supplier relationship to ASL, no equity?

[russianhalo117]

As far as I can see not?

Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE)(became Royal Aerospace Establishment (RAE) which became Defence Research Agency (DRA) which became Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which spun off two organizations, which are Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), and QinetiQ) lost its small stake in Arianespace's predecessor organization due to its products lack luster performance of its own Black Arrow SLV and its contribution to the Europa SLV's.
DSTL and QinetiQ in the UK supply products now to Airbus Safran Launchers which took over CNES stake in Arianespace, so the UK has an indirect stake in Arianespace via ASL.

Thanks.

So just a supplier relationship to ASL, no equity?

.
AFAIK that is correct, although I haven't checked ESA's Arianespace equity break down from Member States.

[ringsider]

As far as I can see not?

Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE)(became Royal Aerospace Establishment (RAE) which became Defence Research Agency (DRA) which became Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which spun off two organizations, which are Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), and QinetiQ) lost its small stake in Arianespace's predecessor organization due to its products lack luster performance of its own Black Arrow SLV and its contribution to the Europa SLV's.
DSTL and QinetiQ in the UK supply products now to Airbus Safran Launchers which took over CNES stake in Arianespace, so the UK has an indirect stake in Arianespace via ASL.

Thanks.

So just a supplier relationship to ASL, no equity?

correct. although I havent checked ESA's equity break down from Member States via ESA's stake

I was just doing the numbers post-merger with ASL holding now 74% after they acquired the CNES stake and I realised the UK had nothing, which was a big surprise.

As I understand it ESA has no direct control but in practise has soft control as they "own" the launchers which Arianespace exploits, and therefore they can tell Arianespace to do whatever they want.

[Rik ISS-fan]

To me it is mot a big surprise there is no UK (company) ownership in Arianespace.
If I'm not mistaken there was hardly any involvement of the UK in the Ariane 4 and 5 programs. They also were not involved in the Vega development program. Arianespace is owned by the companies that develop and manufacter the launchers (components). Because the UK wasn't involved they didn't get shares.
If I'm mot mistaken the UK also has hardly an involvement in Ariane 6, and Vega C.
In my opinion the opposite situation (the UK having shares but not being involved) would be odd.

Possibly when new (smaller then Vega) launchers get their launch site at CSG. And a UK company being involved in that launcher. That UK company would get Arianespace shares. But this is pure speculation.   

[ringsider]

To me it is mot a big surprise there is no UK (company) ownership in Arianespace.
If I'm not mistaken there was hardly any involvement of the UK in the Ariane 4 and 5 programs. They also were not involved in the Vega development program. Arianespace is owned by the companies that develop and manufacter the launchers (components). Because the UK wasn't involved they didn't get shares.
If I'm mot mistaken the UK also has hardly an involvement in Ariane 6, and Vega C.
In my opinion the opposite situation (the UK having shares but not being involved) would be odd.

Possibly when new (smaller then Vega) launchers get their launch site at CSG. And a UK company being involved in that launcher. That UK company would get Arianespace shares. But this is pure speculation.

Do you think a small launcher needs to be part of Arianespace? I can see the logic, but perhaps it would be better to be outside that ecosystem, rather than part of it?

[Rik ISS-fan]

Is there a need for the Vega rocket? Yes, much more then was estimated when the development started.
With the transition from Vega to Vega-C the capability will increase from 1.4mT  to 2.1mT to 800km Polar.
The mass of most SSO/polar satellites is below 1mT. So I think a Smaller launcher is needed.

I think a first addition will be a smaller version of Vega C/E. That uses a Z40 with modified grain geometry as first stage (lets call it P40). Vega C is ERS(P142)-Z40-Z9A-AVUM+, Vega E is ERS-Z40-VUS. A smaller version would be P40-Z40-Z9A-AVUM+ or P40-Z40-VUS. My estimates are that this smaller Vega version would have a GLOW of <100mT and a payload of about 1mT to SSO. It could use the current D2.6m Vega fairing, and would launch from the Vega launch pad. (On another launch table)

The launch offering from Arianespace for satellites below 300kg is really insufficient. Most LEO/ SSO/ Polar launches don't utilize the full capability of the rockets (Vega or Soyuz). This has to change first.
Possibly with a dedicated two story high <500kg (No hypergolics) satellite preparation facility, they could prepare micro satellites and rideshare stacks. I've the impression the current satellite preparation facilities are already over utilized.

I expect the European micro and nano launch vehicles (<500kg) will first launch from mainland Europe launch sites. The problem these sites have is that they only can launch to SSO/Polar or against Earths rotation (being really inefficient). And communication with the launcher will most likely be hard because the lack of ground communication terminals in the launch direction.  So for other then SSO orbits they need to launch form beter situated launch sites, like CSG.
At CSG the sounding rocket facility and the former Diamant/Ariane1 launch site are hardly used. I expect the Diamant pad and a new lean launch site ~1km south west to the Diamand pad, could be ideal for micro launch vehicles. For payload integration they could use the micro satellite / rideshare facility.

I don't know precisely how the ownership relations of CSG are. There remains a ~90mln yearly ESA memberstate contribution to the exploitation of CSG. (Most likely for security and range safety. The US Air force pays this at most US launch sites). I think it would be very difficult to have a second launch operator at CSG. So indeed I expect that Arianespace will manage a micro launcher when it gets launched from CSG.
The high fixed cost at CSG are because of the relatively low annual launch rate. These cost drop with higher launch rate. Also right sized payload preparation facilities are important. I don't know if micro satellite operators have a distinct favor for dedicated micro launches above rideshare. Probably a launch at the required time for a affordable price is the most important. So possibly offering dedicated micro launch besides rideshare would be a nice service. (Launch soled for a fixed price, later it gets determined if it will be a rideshare or a dedicated micro launcher.)
In my opinion the main satellite client has the right to determine if rideshare is allowed on his launch. The main payload client should get a more affordable launch when he allows and accepts the risk of rideshare. I think a dedicated micro satellite / rideshare satellite preparation facility at CSG could prove beneficial for both micro launchers and rideshare launches. 

[ringsider]

Is there a need for the Vega rocket? Yes, much more then was estimated when the development started.
With the transition from Vega to Vega-C the capability will increase from 1.4mT  to 2.1mT to 800km Polar.
The mass of most SSO/polar satellites is below 1mT. So I think a Smaller launcher is needed.

I think a first addition will be a smaller version of Vega C/E. That uses a Z40 with modified grain geometry as first stage (lets call it P40). Vega C is ERS(P142)-Z40-Z9A-AVUM+, Vega E is ERS-Z40-VUS. A smaller version would be P40-Z40-Z9A-AVUM+ or P40-Z40-VUS. My estimates are that this smaller Vega version would have a GLOW of <100mT and a payload of about 1mT to SSO. It could use the current D2.6m Vega fairing, and would launch from the Vega launch pad. (On another launch table)

The launch offering from Arianespace for satellites below 300kg is really insufficient. Most LEO/ SSO/ Polar launches don't utilize the full capability of the rockets (Vega or Soyuz). This has to change first.
Possibly with a dedicated two story high <500kg (No hypergolics) satellite preparation facility, they could prepare micro satellites and rideshare stacks. I've the impression the current satellite preparation facilities are already over utilized.

I expect the European micro and nano launch vehicles (<500kg) will first launch from mainland Europe launch sites. The problem these sites have is that they only can launch to SSO/Polar or against Earths rotation (being really inefficient). And communication with the launcher will most likely be hard because the lack of ground communication terminals in the launch direction.  So for other then SSO orbits they need to launch form beter situated launch sites, like CSG.
At CSG the sounding rocket facility and the former Diamant/Ariane1 launch site are hardly used. I expect the Diamant pad and a new lean launch site ~1km south west to the Diamand pad, could be ideal for micro launch vehicles. For payload integration they could use the micro satellite / rideshare facility.

I don't know precisely how the ownership relations of CSG are. There remains a ~90mln yearly ESA memberstate contribution to the exploitation of CSG. (Most likely for security and range safety. The US Air force pays this at most US launch sites). I think it would be very difficult to have a second launch operator at CSG. So indeed I expect that Arianespace will manage a micro launcher when it gets launched from CSG.
The high fixed cost at CSG are because of the relatively low annual launch rate. These cost drop with higher launch rate. Also right sized payload preparation facilities are important. I don't know if micro satellite operators have a distinct favor for dedicated micro launches above rideshare. Probably a launch at the required time for a affordable price is the most important. So possibly offering dedicated micro launch besides rideshare would be a nice service. (Launch soled for a fixed price, later it gets determined if it will be a rideshare or a dedicated micro launcher.)
In my opinion the main satellite client has the right to determine if rideshare is allowed on his launch. The main payload client should get a more affordable launch when he allows and accepts the risk of rideshare. I think a dedicated micro satellite / rideshare satellite preparation facility at CSG could prove beneficial for both micro launchers and rideshare launches.

This was a super interesting post, thank you for your thoughts.

I saw some Twitter rumours of ASL considering a small launcher but nothing announced (as far as I am aware). I guess if that was true it would be a CSG launch but that makes the price point very expensive and probably not a positive business case in my opinion.