Arianespace launch thread

[Kermann Nolandung]

Anyway, only two Ariane 5 remain. She is no more built.

ESA took a gamble that Ariane 6 will take over on time et decided to stop Ariane 5 production.

In case of delay, Arianespace would have partially relied on Soyuz launched at Kourou and Vega but we know story and no proven rocket is available today.

[Scotius]

ESA can always book a ride on Falcon 9

Maybe it will be an impulse to speed-up the development of native reusable rocket? Yeah, dream on...

[Chemp]

5 hours ago, Scotius said:

ESA can always book a ride on Falcon 9

There's no other option at the moment.

Euclid for example will be launched in July on a Falcon 9.

[tater]

Soon we can watch their awful coverage! Because everyone wants to see a bunch of people talking instead of seeing a ROCKET. I mean, no one tuning into a launch webcast wants to see some ugly rocket. That would be crazy.

 

[tater]

 

[Kerbalsaurus]

2 hours ago, tater said:

 

It's pretty hard to predict good weather for a launch window, especially in French Guiana. It's on the equator, and the atmosphere is very unstable this time of year. I'm sad that it was cancelled, but the weather there looks good tomorrow.

[tater]

12 minutes ago, Kerbalsaurus said:

It's pretty hard to predict good weather for a launch window, especially in French Guiana. It's on the equator, and the atmosphere is very unstable this time of year. I'm sad that it was cancelled, but the weather there looks good tomorrow.

Yep.

The plus of French Guiana is equatorial launch, the minus is equatorial weather, lol.

[tater]

 

 

 

[Minmus Taster]

23 minutes ago, tater said:

 

 

 

Dammit, forgot that was today! Godspeed JUICE! 

[tater]

Just now, Minmus Taster said:

Dammit, forgot that was today! Godspeed JUICE! 

I was asleep, first thing I checked over coffee, though.

[Kerballlistic07]

I checked as soon as I woke up, 30-ish minutes before. I forgot until around 3 minutes after launch, and was pleased to see it lifted off successfully! Godspeed JUICE on its 8 year journey to Jupiter, and beyond!

[insert_name]

looks like they had a special guest at the launch

https://imgur.com/hRh76aw

https://futurism.com/the-byte/strange-creature-juice

[tater]

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/05/ariane-6-update/

Not flying til early 2024 (supposed to be 2020, right? Just in time to not meaningfully compete with F9, and for maybe Vulcan and NG to also be flying?

It has a similar capability to F9, costs more, and F9 prices will likely drop assuming BO actually tries to compete (should they ever actually fly).

For people who think the current launch market is a thing that matters, prices will only fall going forward. Any new design since SpaceX  started putting downward pressure on launch costs should have aimed for a substantially lower cost (or a much higher capability) than F9, not a similar, or ever greater cost (wiki says Ariane 6 will cost €75M/€115 depending on which variant flies—both are overpriced.

That's not even considering Starship as being a thing to be concerned about.

Edited May 15, 2023 by tater

[Exoscientist]

 

20 hours ago, tater said:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/05/ariane-6-update/

Not flying til early 2024 (supposed to be 2020, right? Just in time to not meaningfully compete with F9, and for maybe Vulcan and NG to also be flying?

It has a similar capability to F9, costs more, and F9 prices will likely drop assuming BO actually tries to compete (should they ever actually fly).

For people who think the current launch market is a thing that matters, prices will only fall going forward. Any new design since SpaceX  started putting downward pressure on launch costs should have aimed for a substantially lower cost (or a much higher capability) than F9, not a similar, or ever greater cost (wiki says Ariane 6 will cost €75M/€115 depending on which variant flies—both are overpriced.

That's not even considering Starship as being a thing to be concerned about.

 Thanks for that article. Ariane 6 not launching till 2024 puts it even further behind in trying to compete with the F9. Quite important also is to note this Ariane 6 will not be reusable. In fact another article said ESA will not field a reusable vehicle until the 2030’s. We’ve already seen ULA  driven to the brink of bankruptcy by betting against reusability.  There is little doubt the same will happen to ArianeSpace if they wait a decade to field a reusable vehicle.

 Astonishingly, the littlest babe could solve the problem of Europe having a reusable vehicle to compete with the F9 and at the same time provide Europe with a manned flight capable rocket. All that would be required is to ask the impertinent question, “How much would it cost to add a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?”

 

For then ArianeSpace forced to answer honestly would have to admit it could be done for only $200 million. Indeed this was found to be the case by JAXA when adding a second hydrolox engine to the H-II launcher for 27 billion yen, approx. $200 million. (See highlighted sentence below.) But then that’s the entire answer to the problem of both reusability and manned capable space vehicles!

  
 First of all if you want low cost reusability then you have to ditch the solids. The Space Shuttle program showed solids do not save on reuse. Quite important also is the fact an additional Vulcain costs less than the two solid rocket booster on either Ariane 5 or Ariane 6.  

 To give an indication of how bad is the cost issue against the solids in comparison to just using an additional Vulcain, note the €75M cost of the two SRB version of the Ariane 6 compared to the €115 of the four SRB version. Then as a first order estimate, we can take the cost of the two SRB’s as €40M. But the cost of a single Vulcan is only €10 million! Then, again as a first order estimate, we can take the cost of a two Vulcain Ariane 6 with no SRB’s as only €45 million.

 Now note your two Vulcain Ariane 5 or 6 can be reusable a la the F9 by powered landing and also be manned flight capable in no longer having the safety issue of solids.

  Bob Clark

Edited May 16, 2023 by Exoscientist

[tater]

Pretty sure the Vulcain engine can't restart. Given the way they do things, if they started working on it tomorrow—meaning people get assigned to write a white paper to be submitted... in a year or two?—they'd not have it this decade. They are not agile.

Their business model is that nationalistic launches for the EU will be forced to use their overpriced vehicle. Pretty sure that's it.

 

[Kermann Nolandung]

Ariane cannot compete with SpaceX, they do not operate in the same markets. The launches subject to competition represent only a fraction of the total.

SpaceX benefits from the U.S. market for institutional launches and launches of its own constellation. This situation cannot be compared to European institutional launches (which are not required to be launched by a European rocket).

The economic equation of a reusable rocket puts Ariane at a disadvantage compared to SpaceX.

The question that arises is how to build a rocket that minimizes the cost of sovereign access to space. The commercial price is only defined to diluate that cost on commercial launches.

[Exoscientist]

5 hours ago, Kermann Nolandung said:

Ariane cannot compete with SpaceX, they do not operate in the same markets. The launches subject to competition represent only a fraction of the total.

…

 

 Actually, they can. All it would take is someone, anyone in the European space community with the audacity to ask that one impertinent question, “How much would it cost to add a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?”

 Once that question is asked, and answered, it becomes obvious how to proceed to match SpaceX in low cost, reusability, and manned launchers.

  Bob Clark

Edited May 17, 2023 by Exoscientist

[Kartoffelkuchen]

3 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

 

 Actually, they can. All it would take is someone, anyone in the European space community with the audacity to ask that one impertinent question, “How much would it cost to add a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?”

 Once that question is asked, and answered, it becomes obvious how to proceed to match SpaceX in low cost, reusability, and manned launchers.

  Bob Clark

Could you please elaborate on your mystical answer?

In how far would adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane V or 6 be of any help in making it a more competitive launch vehicle, because I don't get what you are trying to imply.

[tater]

On 5/17/2023 at 8:55 AM, Kartoffelkuchen said:

Could you please elaborate on your mystical answer?

In how far would adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane V or 6 be of any help in making it a more competitive launch vehicle, because I don't get what you are trying to imply.

It doesn't work if the goal is eliminating the SRBs. Or landing.

Vulcain thrust is ~300k lbsf, each solid is ~1M lbsf So the total thrust on the pad is 2.3 to 4.3M lbsf. (vehicle mass is 1.1-1.9M lbs). I'm using pound here cause the TWR is easier to eyeball this way. They'd need way more than 2 Vulcains to have a single stick launch vehicle. Dry mass of stage 1  is ~15t, so even a single engine would be able to land it, so the added engine(s) are not for reuse, but 2 Vulcains is ~600k lbs thrust, not nearly enough to get it off the pad. The core stage in fact has about the same mass as each SRB—but less than 1/3 the thrust. You could make an Ariane 6 Heavy, eliminating the SRBs, but each core would need 3 Vulcains.

Then of course they'd need to be able to restart, plus they'd have to work out landing. Also that replaces the lower mass version, but not the 4 SRB version.

Converting a sustainer architecture to reuse is not a thing.

EDIT: my math above is wrong since minus the 2 side boosters (or 4), the pad weight is 1/3 the quoted weight. So it can work, see below.

Edited May 18, 2023 by tater

[Kermann Nolandung]

17 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

 

 Actually, they can. All it would take is someone, anyone in the European space community with the audacity to ask that one impertinent question, “How much would it cost to add a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?”

 Once that question is asked, and answered, it becomes obvious how to proceed to match SpaceX in low cost, reusability, and manned launchers.

  Bob Clark

I always heard that hydrolox engines introduce much complexity hardly compensated by the fuel efficiency. 
And to get a reusable stage, I guess the engine has to be able to modulate its thruttle.

On the Falcon rockets, the design was simplfied to get only 2 stages and a single engine type, that leads some ways to optimize the production.

Actually the current Ariane 6 is not the most cost effective configuration that was studied. It is was a compromise between the different countries.
Full solid fuel boosters on its lower stages appeared to be cheaper,
Ariane 6 life will be quite short, currently there is a developpement for a MethaLOx variable thrust engine (Prometheus) that is reusable, with a goal to be one-tenth the cost of the Vulcain.

[Exoscientist]

16 hours ago, Kartoffelkuchen said:

Could you please elaborate on your mystical answer?

In how far would adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane V or 6 be of any help in making it a more competitive launch vehicle, because I don't get what you are trying to imply.

 Knowledgeable ESA observers have been aware for awhile now that the ESA policies for distributing funds and costs to the differing member states do not result in the most cost effective vehicles. It’s a policy called geographical-return that requires member states costs to be apportioned by some set proportion of the billion dollar development costs. So if some member states have been contributing some large proportion of the costs through solid side boosters, that cost continues to be part of the development for new rockets or upgrades.

 The governments of the member states regard this as a good thing because it helps to keep active, and paid, the space industries and space industry employees in their countries. But another key reason why some member states like the funds for the ESA to go to develop solid rocket side boosters is because those funds help also to develop solid rockets for their defense programs.  So rather than those countries having to pay the entire cost of the solid rocket missiles in their defense programs on their own, some portion of that is actually paid for by the ESA in developing solid rocket side boosters for space launchers.

 You can see why there is a great incentive for those member states, which have great influence on the direction and funding choices for the ESA, to continue to want to use solid rocket side boosters in all launchers produced by the ESA.

 But the stunning fact is how much more expensive the solids are for the Ariane’s than just adding another Vulcain engine! As I mentioned above, the €75M cost of the two SRB version of the Ariane 6 compared to the €115M of the four SRB version, suggests, as a first order estimate, that we can take the cost of two SRB’s as €40M. But the cost of a single Vulcan is only €10 million! So the two SRB’s on the Ariane 6 base version costs 4 times more than an additional Vulcain! So, again as a first order estimate, we can take the cost of a two Vulcain Ariane 6 with no SRB’s as only €45 million, ~$50 million. This compares quite favorably to current $67 million cost of the Falcon 9.

  The reason why this isn’t done can not be attributed to some supposed multi-billion development cost to add an additional Vulcain to the Ariane core. Actually, it’s the current plan for the Ariane 6 with the newly developed solids, new upper stage, and new Vinci engine whose development cost is in the $10 billion range. It’s really quite stunning to realize the same could have been accomplished at only a ~$200 development cost simply by adding another Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core and using the same original cryogenic upper stage. Nearly a factor of 100 times cheaper!

 But nobody knows this because nobody asks that one simple question, “How much would it cost to add a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?”

 Now, once you have the all-liquid Ariane 6 that costs even cheaper than the Falcon 9, you can also keep up with SpaceX in reducing price by reusability by also reusing the core stage via powered landing a la the F9 booster. Again, the solids in the current Ariane 6 version would not save on reusing them as the Space Shuttle program abundantly showed. So that huge €40 million cost just for the SRB’s on the Ariane 6(more than the cost of the entire rest of the rocket!) out of the total  €75 million would be fixed no matter how many times you wanted to reuse the core.

 For the manned capable launcher, just use the all-liquid Ariane 6 since you no longer have the safety issues of using SRB’s on manned launchers.

 For the capabilities of the all-liquid Ariane 6, see here:

Multi-Vulcain Ariane 6.

https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2018/02/multi-vulcain-ariane-6.html

   Bob Clark

Edited May 18, 2023 by Exoscientist

[tater]

5 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

But the stunning fact is how much more expensive the solids are for the Ariane’s than just adding another Vulcain engine! As I mentioned above, the €75M cost of the two SRB version of the Ariane 6 compared to the €115M of the four SRB version, suggests, as a first order estimate, that we can take the cost of two SRB’s as €40M. But the cost of a single Vulcan is only €10 million! So the two SRB’s on the Ariane 6 base version costs 4 times more than an additional Vulcain! So, again as a first order estimate, we can take the cost of a two Vulcain Ariane 6 with no SRB’s as only €45 million, ~$50 million. This compares quite favorably to current $67 million cost of the Falcon 9.

Except the math doesn't close. It then has ~620k lbs of thrust, and the vehicle weighs 2-4X as much. It doesn't get off the pad. You'd need 7-9 Vulcains. $700M to $900M worth of engines.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by tater

[tater]

Prometheus is a 980kN thrust (~220k lbs thrust) methalox engine. Notice they have multiple liquid side boosters (with legs). Course we'll all be dead of old age before they actually build any of it.

[Exoscientist]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Except the math doesn't close. It then has ~620k lbs of thrust, and the vehicle weighs 2-4X as much. It doesn't get off the pad. You'd need 7-9 Vulcains. $700M to $900M worth of engines.

 

 
 Thanks for that. The key question is how quickly that reusable system can be fielded. ArianeSpace has said already a reusable system won’t be fielded until the 2030’s.  ULA was driven to the brink of bankruptcy by denying the importance or reusability, as did ArianeSpace also.  It becomes extremely dubious that ArianeSpace can survive another decade by offering the non-reusable Ariane 6 at 2 to 3 times higher price than the reusable Falcon 9. 
 

 By the way, in discussing above why the ESA member states producing the solid side boosters want to keep using solids in all ESA launchers I neglected to mention the most important reason: as I showed above the SRB’s make up the largest cost of the Ariane 6, more than the cost of the entire rest of the rocket. But that means by geo-return the companies in those countries making the SRB’s receive the greatest revenues and profit from the launches. The countries where these companies are located like this of course since it supports the space industries in those countries. But note it means the largest share of taxes also on those revenues and profits goes to those countries.

 About the lift off thrust issue, remember the greatest mass is coming from the solids. So the lift off thrust needed is much less when no solids are used. Now note the ISP of hydrolox is much higher than the solids, resulting in equal or higher payload to orbit.

 Bob Clark

  

 

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Exoscientist

[tater]

11 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 Thanks for that. The key question is how quickly that reusable system can be fielded. ArianeSpace has said already a reusable system won’t be fielded until the 2030’s.  ULA was driven to the brink of bankruptcy by denying the importance or reusability, as did ArianeSpace also.  It becomes extremely dubious that ArianeSpace can survive another decade by offering the non-reusable Ariane 6 at 2 to 3 times higher price than the reusable Falcon 9.

I think they don't have any reason to care. They are not in fact competing with SpaceX. They will continue to function as the government entity they effectively are. Their mission is more likely to funnel EU cash into EU contractors. They will continue to get national payload contracts from member states regardless of cost.

 

11 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 By the way, in discussing above why the ESA member states producing the solid side boosters want to keep using solids in all ESA launchers I neglected to mention the most important reason: as I showed above the SRB’s make up the largest cost of the Ariane 6, more than the cost of the entire rest of the rocket. But that means by geo-return the companies in those countries making the SRB’s receive the greatest revenues and profit from the launches. The countries where these companies are located like this of course since it supports the space industries in those companies. But note it means the largest share of taxes also on those revenues and profits.

Yeah, it's basically pork,

 

11 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 About the lift off thrust issue, remember the greatest mass is coming from the solids. So the lift off thrust needed is much less when no solids are used. Now note the the ISP of hydrolox is much higher than the the solids, resulting in equal or higher payload to orbit.

Good point. Each SRB is about the same mass as the core vehicle. So minus 2 SRBs, the vehicle pad weight means a single pole Ariane 6 with 2 Vulcains looks like the TWR with a 10t payload (2 SRB version) of ~1.3. (not counting fairing mass, so slightly lower).

The 4 SRB version with 20t cargo is a 1.28 TWR with just 2 Vulcains (and no SRBs). Much higher with 3 engines (they'd want to throttle down in that case).

Not sure how that optimizes for actual payload.