Liekelihood of Adeline being Integrated into Ariane 6.

[fredinno]

[B]Is it likely Ariane 6 with Adeline will fly soon after the host rocket is debuted?[/B] It's something (though still not confirmed to be on Ariane in the future) that Airbus (the largest commercial stockholder of ArianeSpace, and soon will also be the largest stockholder) has been pursuing for a while, spending about $16 million on it. Its development has been pushed back in order to concentrate on Ariane 6.

Adeline is basically a tiny, propeller-powered plane that detaches from the 1st stage booster, and flies itself back to a runway on a launch site- recovering not only the 1st stage engine (like Vulcan) but also the entire engine bay, and the rocket's avionics.

Though it apparently reduces payload capacity by 10% (which is fine, since Ariane 6 is pretty big, and can carry all future GEO/GSO satellites in the near term future, its primary destination) it recovers 80% of the 1st stage cost (or at least it's supposed to- though looking at the cost for the Atlas V first stage [[url]http://i.stack.imgur.com/aY2w2.jpg][/url] , I'm going to take this with a grain of salt:wink:.)

[Nibb31]

I doubt it. I think the Adeline announcement (along with ULA's recoverable engine pod) a while back was more a publicity stunt than a funded development program. $16 million is peanuts these days. It's pretty much the cost of a paper study with a CGI video.

If SpaceX manages to land a stage, if they manage to refly one, and if they manage to save money doing it, then maybe we will see these ideas getting funded. Until then, I suspect that ULA and Airbus are waiting to see if someone can make it profitable or not. I suspect they are dubious.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

I doubt it. I think the Adeline announcement (along with ULA's recoverable engine pod) a while back was more a publicity stunt than a funded development program. $16 million is peanuts these days. It's pretty much the cost of a paper study with a CGI video.

If SpaceX manages to land a stage, if they manage to refly one, if they manage to save money doing it, and if the market suddenly appears to support it, then maybe we will see these ideas getting funded. Until then, I suspect that ULA and Airbus are waiting for more market data until they seriously consider reusability. I suspect they are dubious.

[fredinno]

[quote name='Nibb31']I doubt it. I think the Adeline announcement (along with ULA's recoverable engine pod) a while back was more a publicity stunt than a funded development program. $16 million is peanuts these days. It's pretty much the cost of a paper study with a CGI video.

If SpaceX manages to land a stage, if they manage to refly one, and if they manage to save money doing it, then maybe we will see these ideas getting funded. Until then, I suspect that ULA and Airbus are waiting to see if someone can make it profitable or not. I suspect they are dubious.

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

I doubt it. I think the Adeline announcement (along with ULA's recoverable engine pod) a while back was more a publicity stunt than a funded development program. $16 million is peanuts these days. It's pretty much the cost of a paper study with a CGI video.

If SpaceX manages to land a stage, if they manage to refly one, if they manage to save money doing it, and if the market suddenly appears to support it, then maybe we will see these ideas getting funded. Until then, I suspect that ULA and Airbus are waiting for more market data until they seriously consider reusability. I suspect they are dubious.[/QUOTE]
They have test models for Adeline too. Also engines reuse economics was proven with the Shuttle SSME-Vulcain is different, but it could actually be easier to reuse, due to being less advanced, complex, and being only one engine instead of 3 for the Shuttle.

[Nibb31]

[quote name='fredinno']They have test models for Adeline too. Also engines reuse economics was proven with the Shuttle SSME-Vulcain is different, but it could actually be easier to reuse, due to being less advanced, complex, and being only one engine instead of 3 for the Shuttle.[/QUOTE]

It's less complex because it's designed to be disposable.

The economics of rocket engines are like paper cups. Reusability only make sense if you reach a specific usage rate. Below that, it makes sense to make them disposable.

[fredinno]

[quote name='Nibb31']It's less complex because it's designed to be disposable.

The economics of rocket engines are like paper cups. Reusability only make sense if you reach a specific usage rate. Below that, it makes sense to make them disposable.[/QUOTE]

Ariane 5 has so far had quite a commercial market share. There's probably the launches needed to suppoert it, if they can keep a hold onto the market.

[Nibb31]

The current launch market is far from big enough to support reusability. SpaceX is betting on a huge boom in market size that will make it worthwhile. The traditional players are planning primarily for a strategy where the market that stays near the current levels, but funding alternative research studies "just in case".