Adeline concept for Ariane 6

[Scotius]

So, in a nutshell: CNES underestimated SpaceX abilities and thought their reusability plan laughable. Now they are feeling the pressure, flail wildly to keep as much of their share of the market as they can - and finally, FINALLY are making tentative plans to develop reuseable rocket. Too little too late - if you ask me. Ariane 5 is awesome, but it will not carry European spaceflight industry as far as her builders had planned. Not with new rules of the game. Shame on you CNES. Shame on you.

[Wjolcz]

Oh wow how much has changed since the last comments in June 2015.

[MajorTomtom]

Yeah it's true, however they really could have seen it coming in my opinion. I agree that Ariane 6 will not be a huge commercial success, but it will survive because it has to, in order to allow Europe an independent access to space. I think that some companies will even agree to pay more than for a F9 just to keep a healthy competition on the market.

[Nibb31]

23 hours ago, Scotius said:

So, in a nutshell: CNES underestimated SpaceX abilities and thought their reusability plan laughable. Now they are feeling the pressure, flail wildly to keep as much of their share of the market as they can - and finally, FINALLY are making tentative plans to develop reuseable rocket. Too little too late - if you ask me. Ariane 5 is awesome, but it will not carry European spaceflight industry as far as her builders had planned. Not with new rules of the game. Shame on you CNES. Shame on you.

I think you're confusing CNES, Arianespace, Arianegroup, Airbus Launchers, and ESA. Also Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.

Adeline was a wacky proposal that was rejected. You see this all the time in the industry.

Ariane 5 is scheduled to be retired in a couple of years. Arianespace's strategy was to counter SpaceX with Ariane 6, which is basically a "low-cost Ariane 5":

• Replacement for both Ariane 5 and Soyuz
• Synergy with Vega (same boosters)
• Better flexibility
• Half the cost

The Ariane 6 project was started when SpaceX hadn't even landed a booster. At the time, it mades sense to be cautious about SpaceX. Today, SpaceX still hasn't proven that reusability will be profitable in the long run and that the market will support high launch rates.

So Ariane 6 today is probably going to be an interim launcher, to keep Arianespace relevant while they develop the next generation launcher, which is likely to be based on a combination of the Ariane 6 infrastructure, the Prometheus engine, and the Callisto reusable launcher project.

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Nibb31

[KSK]

On 5/30/2018 at 1:32 PM, Scotius said:

So, in a nutshell: CNES underestimated SpaceX abilities and thought their reusability plan laughable. Now they are feeling the pressure, flail wildly to keep as much of their share of the market as they can - and finally, FINALLY are making tentative plans to develop reuseable rocket. Too little too late - if you ask me. Ariane 5 is awesome, but it will not carry European spaceflight industry as far as her builders had planned. Not with new rules of the game. Shame on you CNES. Shame on you.

Hindsight is 20:20 as the saying goes. It's easy to make that analysis now, now that SpaceX have demonstrated consistent double launches with the same booster and have finally shown that they can drive the kind of launch cadences they've been aspiring to. But even back at the end of 2016, it was far from clear that they could do either. Even now, reusability isn't fully proven, although I'd say that it's been substantially de-risked. Let's wait till this time next year and see how Block 5 pans out before being too quick to cast shame on Arianespace, shall we?

Personally, I'm optimistic about Block 5 and SpaceX's plans in general but I can still see where there is reasonable scope for doubt. However, I'd say that the equation has flipped from 'can we afford to bet on reusability working and changing our strategy accordingly?' to 'can we afford not to bet on reusability working and changing our strategy accordingly?'

Since I'm in a cliche kind of mood, anyone can make mistakes - it's how you recover from them that's important. Let's see what Arianespace do next.

Edited May 31, 2018 by KSK

[magnemoe]

41 minutes ago, KSK said:

Hindsight is 20:20 as the saying goes. It's easy to make that analysis now, now that SpaceX have demonstrated consistent double launches with the same booster and have finally shown that they can drive the kind of launch cadences they've been aspiring to. But even back at the end of 2016, it was far from clear that they could do either. Even now, reusability isn't fully proven, although I'd say that it's been substantially de-risked. Let's wait till this time next year and see how Block 5 pans out before being too quick to cast shame on Arianespace, shall we?

Personally, I'm optimistic about Block 5 and SpaceX's plans in general but I can still see where there is reasonable scope for doubt. However, I'd say that the equation has flipped from 'can we afford to bet on reusability working and changing our strategy accordingly?' to 'can we afford not to bet on reusability working and changing our strategy accordingly?'

Since I'm in a cliche kind of mood, anyone can make mistakes - it's how you recover from them that's important. Let's see what Arianespace do next.

Part of the problem is that 2.5 stages rockets with SRB and an small upper stage is probably the most efficient rockets based on payload capacity, cost and debility. 
Found this best in KSP however in KSP is mostly 1.5 stages because of the slow orbital speed. 
However they are hard to reuse, yes you could go liquid boosters and reuse but you will still lose the larger core and only recover the small boosters. 

So you are probably better off building an larger two stage rocket with first stage reuse. I would also add second stage reuse as an option for smaller payloads. 
This would be an totaly new design, you would probably have to even replace the engines and making it expensive. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by magnemoe

[wumpus]

On 5/30/2018 at 8:32 AM, Scotius said:

So, in a nutshell: CNES underestimated SpaceX abilities and thought their reusability plan laughable. Now they are feeling the pressure, flail wildly to keep as much of their share of the market as they can - and finally, FINALLY are making tentative plans to develop reuseable rocket. Too little too late - if you ask me. Ariane 5 is awesome, but it will not carry European spaceflight industry as far as her builders had planned. Not with new rules of the game. Shame on you CNES. Shame on you.

Wasn't one of the goals of Arane 1 to be reusable?  I thought they were pitching it to compete with the Shuttle (and lack all that extra mass to orbit).  I'd assume they dropped the idea when it was obviously too hard (I can't seen Spacex pulling hoverslams off with 80s tech) and the Shuttle's refurbishment was too expensive anyway.  My googling can't confirm this.

[Tullius]

24 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Wasn't one of the goals of Arane 1 to be reusable?  I thought they were pitching it to compete with the Shuttle (and lack all that extra mass to orbit).  I'd assume they dropped the idea when it was obviously too hard (I can't seen Spacex pulling hoverslams off with 80s tech) and the Shuttle's refurbishment was too expensive anyway.  My googling can't confirm this.

On wikipedia, one paragraph is dedicated to Ariane vs Space Shuttle:

Quote

Prior to Ariane's first launch, there was some scepticism, much coming from American and British figures, that the endeavour was an expensive indulgence that could be unnecessary, and rendered uncompetitive, by the upcoming Space Shuttle, a partially reusable launch system that was then under development by NASA.[9] By 1977, there had only been three initial customers lined up for Ariane; however, in December 1977, communications satellite operator Intelsat was persuaded to placed an order for two Intelsat IVs to be launched using Ariane. This was considered a major coup for the programme as Intelsat was viewed as heavily committed to using the rival Space Shuttle launcher for a large number of its satellites at that point.[10] One week later, ESA announced its commitment to a production run of 10 Ariane 1 launchers.[11]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_1

Designing Ariane 1 to be reusable would have also been a pretty pointless endeavour, as it only ever flew 11 times (including 2 failures).

[Scotius]

Ariane 5 was meant to be the launcher stage for European shuttle "Hermes". Too bad it never materialised

[Wjolcz]

Here's a pic of Callisto from that article on the previous page:

The bottom part looks kind of odd. I'm guessing it's a single engine in some sort of heat shield.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Wjolcz

[Nibb31]

Callisto ("Cooperative Action Leading to Launcher Innovation in Stage Toss-back Operations" I love those silly acronyms !) is a subscale technology demonstrator that is planned for a first flight in 2020. It's basically a smaller Grasshopper.

I'm not sure what engine it uses, but it isn't Prometheus (which is LOX+CH4) because it won't be ready. I think Callisto uses a japanese hydrolox engine supplied by JAXA.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Nibb31

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

I'm not sure what engine it uses, but it isn't Prometheus (which is LOX+CH4) because it won't be ready. I think Callisto uses a japanese hydrolox engine supplied by JAXA.

JAXA has/will have/is working on that kind of engine?

Edited May 31, 2018 by Wjolcz

[Nibb31]

7 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

JAXA has/will have/is working on that kind of engine?

My understanding is that the engine already exists in their parts bin.

[StarStreak2109]

I read an interesting article about ESA's strategy concerning the Ariane 6 specifically and how to secure a European access to space, while competing with the likes of SpaceX. It also highlights the the frictions cause by the distribution of individual parts production to a host of different manufacturers throughout the EU.

https://www.spektrum.de/news/rakete-auf-abwegen/1567586

It's in German, but Google does a good job of translation these days...

 

[Cassel]

Another copy of Falcon 9 concept?

[tater]

On 5/31/2018 at 6:08 AM, Nibb31 said:

Today, SpaceX still hasn't proven that reusability will be profitable in the long run and that the market will support high launch rates.

That they are continuing reuse efforts, and indeed expanding them is all the proof I think we need (or will ever get) that they think it's profitable. It's not like they plan on publishing their exact cost structure. That BO is doing the same math is also telling, Bezos is not an idiot with money.

The market is another issue, and we know from SpaceX that their cadence will actually drop next year for lack of customers. The new, mass constellations will presumably increase cadence after that, with 2 such systems with thousands of satellites (one being their own).

 

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

Another copy of Falcon 9 concept?

When steam engine comes, comes the time of steam engine.

Can't find the exact quote so my crappy paraphrased version will have to do.

[StarStreak2109]

4 hours ago, Cassel said:

Another copy of Falcon 9 concept?

Looks like similar technology. I guess by the time it actually flies it will probably be obsolete. In fact we are talking about a subscale demonstrator that is to fly in 2.5 years...

I start to believe that launch services should really be provided by private companies and space agencies should concentrate on payloads and missions...

[Wjolcz]

4 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

I start to believe that launch services should really be provided by private companies and space agencies should concentrate on payloads and missions...

I have a similar opinion. Also new technology (still waiting for aerospikes to be a regular thing).

Edited June 1, 2018 by Wjolcz

[Cassel]

1 hour ago, StarStreak2109 said:

Looks like similar technology. I guess by the time it actually flies it will probably be obsolete. In fact we are talking about a subscale demonstrator that is to fly in 2.5 years...

I start to believe that launch services should really be provided by private companies and space agencies should concentrate on payloads and missions...

In my opinion, it will be standardized to the same extent as seagoing ships or railway wagons where different producers make vehicles able to do same job in compatible ways.

[StarStreak2109]

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

In my opinion, it will be standardized to the same extent as seagoing ships or railway wagons where different producers make vehicles able to do same job in compatible ways.

IMHO, there is one subtle difference. Container vessels or railway vehicles are mass produced, well, with vessels, it is more the principle rather than the individual vehicle. Rockets on the other hand are still rather unique and proprietary pieces of equipment, so even if Castillo looks an awful like a Falcon I with legs, ESA have a long way to go.

And then there's still the matter of procurement...

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

When steam engine comes, comes the time of steam engine.

Can't find the exact quote so my crappy paraphrased version will have to do.

It was in one of the discworld novels with the criminal guy who turned a lot of things around. 
Might well be way older up to the start of the industrial revolution. 

[wumpus]

5 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

It was in one of the discworld novels with the criminal guy who turned a lot of things around. 
Might well be way older up to the start of the industrial revolution. 

It's way older than that.  Unfortunately google finds a bunch of definition of "steam engine time" (when somebody, fairly quickly, will develop a steam engine), and an interview with William Gibson on said subject.  Unfortunately, Gibson has written a book (The Difference Engine) that manages to get basic math wrong in a way even Micheal Crichton avoids.

basic steam engine chronology:
One Captain Savery invents both the steam engine and vaporware by describing his "wonderous" miner's friend.  In practice, you would have to build it to the absolute highest precision possible at the time to pump any water before it blew up.
 

 

- difference engines suddenly fail if someone attempts to execute a universal compressor.  Math doesn't need angels rushing around to protect it, like angles rushing around to slay the good survivors and slay the weak to prevent evolution from happening.  Math just is, and it would be like having spacecraft eaten by the Kraken to avoid exceeding C (instead of simply increasing their momentum more by mass than velocity).

Of course, both "Going Postal" and "Making Money" by Terry Pratchet are highly recommended.

[Nibb31]

19 hours ago, Cassel said:

Another copy of Falcon 9 concept?

How many ways are there to propulsively land a booster ?

18 hours ago, tater said:

That they are continuing reuse efforts, and indeed expanding them is all the proof I think we need (or will ever get) that they think it's profitable. It's not like they plan on publishing their exact cost structure. That BO is doing the same math is also telling, Bezos is not an idiot with money.

The market is another issue, and we know from SpaceX that their cadence will actually drop next year for lack of customers. The new, mass constellations will presumably increase cadence after that, with 2 such systems with thousands of satellites (one being their own).

 

What make sense for one company doesn't always make sense for another.

Airbus, ESA,  and ULA aren't exactly idiots either and they have done the math on their side. At the moment Ariane 6 was proposed, their analysis was that the market would not be enough to support reusability the extra cost of reusability. This made sense at the time, because Ariane 5/6 with its SRB-based architecture would require a completely different architecture and design, including new engines, to be made reusable. With the current demand for launches, and the existing industrial infrastructure, the return on investment is not obvious.

Glass cups are cheaper in the long run, but there is still a market for disposable paper cups.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Nibb31

[Nibb31]

15 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

I start to believe that launch services should really be provided by private companies and space agencies should concentrate on payloads and missions...

You don't see Boeing or Airbus operating airlines.

And actually, ArianeGroup (ex-Airbus Safran Launchers) and Arianespace are both private companies (like SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed, and ULA)