Ariane 6 design

[tomf]

BBC article

ESA announcement

It looks like they are going for a liquid stage, on top of a SRB, on top of 3 SRBs. Jeb would be proud.

[Nibb31]

Wow, so it'll be nearly all SRBs... I hope they don't have the same issues NASA had with Ares I.

At least it should be cheap.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

That's got to be the largest pure SRB 1st stage since Titan IV retired.

[Nibb31]

1st and 2nd stage actually. I don't think there is any precedent.

[nyrath]

Peter de Selding said:

Fast-shrinking Ariane 6: Once 8,000kg to GTO, then 7,000, newly decided design tops out at 6,500 kg to keep EUR 70M per-launch cost target.

Rodolphe D'Inca explained it this way:

They had to design the launcher with three constraints: low price by mission, low development cost and equal share among all important european companies.

The result is a downsized rocket using existing technologies. I bet that the boosters are coming from Vega or from ballistic missiles (probably the second case given their length and diameter). No more Vulcain engine (which is a pity because it is a nice piece of engineering) and a Vinci due to the lobbying from Safran.

I am not sure that the development will be easy: taking existing components and putting them together in a configuration they are not made for is utterly complicated. But we will see.

[Nuke]

it actually makes sense. there is very little need for throttle control on the first couple of stages. thats the get me out of the gravity well part of the rocket. i doubt something like this would be man rated, because abort is probibly going to be "hit the self destruct button".

[jwenting]

so another purely political program designed to provide continued work for the design departments in France and Germany mostly, with some work being dished out to Spain, Italy, and the UK (primarily), and a rocket for which there is effectively no use (the payload is just not large enough for much of anything useful).

[Kryten]

Yup, not large enough for anything useful. Certainly not big enough for the average-sized GSO comsats which make up the vast majority of missions that actually get launched.

[Fractal_UK]

so another purely political program designed to provide continued work for the design departments in France and Germany mostly, with some work being dished out to Spain, Italy, and the UK (primarily), and a rocket for which there is effectively no use (the payload is just not large enough for much of anything useful).

Actually, the whole point of this project is that it will be both useful and cost effective. The Ariane 5 might have roughly double the payload but in almost all cases it is actually carrying two payloads, meaning that one customer is having to wait until a second suitable payload is found, precisely because there usually isn't the need to launch Ariane 5's full capacity for a single payload.

Ariane 5 has done 69 launches and 12 were carrying a single payload, the rest were two payload launches. Replicating 83% of Ariane 5's capability at almost half the cost is not something I would describe as having "no use."

Large, high payload missions might be the ones that capture the public's imagination but the cheap, regular, low payload missions will be the ones that fill the purse and allow the high cost missions to be performed.

[Justy]

You know, I'm fully aware it's not a primary design goal, but one of the things I liked about the ESA's rockets was that they looked nice. The Ariane 1 to 4 series had character, like a potluck dinner, slapped together from whatever stuff each attendee brought, which is I guess what they really were. And Ariane 5 was like a Shuttle ET+SRB stack that had been breathed on, just for a brief few minutes, by a European automotive design house, or maybe one of those mangas aiming for realism but knowing it needs to be art as well (Makoto Yukimura's "PlanetES"). Ariane 5 launches are pretty. If you put this Ariane 6 next to Long March 3C and H-IIA, you'd have to think for a moment to tell them apart. Again, I know, that's no reason not to build the rocket, and more affordable and reliable launchers on this planet is a good thing, but still, if Arianespace finds there aren't enough 11 ton payloads to keep Ariane 5 flying while Ariane 6 handles the medium loads, I will be sad.

Am I reading too much into things if I point out that Arianespace, still sweeping up confetti from celebrating the ability to offer ~6 ton Soyuz rockets, is planning a ~6 ton Ariane?

[Nibb31]

so another purely political program designed to provide continued work for the design departments in France and Germany mostly, with some work being dished out to Spain, Italy, and the UK (primarily), and a rocket for which there is effectively no use (the payload is just not large enough for much of anything useful).

That definition fits just about every single rocket on the market. Replace France and Germany with Texas and Florida, and you have a neat description of the SLS program.

Except for the "no use" part. It caters to the commercial launch market much better than its predecessor. Ariane V, which was originally designed to launch the Hermes shuttle, is over-engineered for what today's market actually needs.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Nibb31

[Alfastar]

I don't serious see a point why we must switch over to the Ariane-6. We got the Ariane-5 for GEO missions and the ATV launches, the R-7 Soyuz 2.1 rocket for the more around missions (MEO/LEO) and the Vega for the LEO missions.

See you any point now still to have a forth rocket who don't can fill a hole.

[marach]

The odd part is I was experimenting with this style in KSP last night (damn near identical even) doesn't work so well in KSP due to the lack of SRB gimbal...

[Baenki]

The odd part is I was experimenting with this style in KSP last night (damn near identical even) doesn't work so well in KSP due to the lack of SRB gimbal...

I actually made one too. Mine works pretty well i think.

[Justy]

I don't serious see a point why we must switch over to the Ariane-6. We got the Ariane-5 for GEO missions and the ATV launches, the R-7 Soyuz 2.1 rocket for the more around missions (MEO/LEO) and the Vega for the LEO missions.

See you any point now still to have a forth rocket who don't can fill a hole.

If I understand it right, most of Ariane 5's GEO payloads are around half its capacity. So if you, the customer, want to fly your 5-ton satellite to GEO -- and none of Arianespace's customers want to fly anything much bigger than that in the near future -- you have to wait until somebody else wants to fly another 5-ton payload into a similar orbit, at which time you each chip in 110 million euros to share the 220 million euro rocket. The ATV is just about the only thing that ever used Ariane 5's full capability; the biggest single commercial payload it ever flew was still around 6 tons.

Ariane 6 will let you fly your 5-ton payload whenever the heck you want, alone, for just 70 million euros. More flexible at a lower price is a hole that can ALWAYS be filled.

So it does fill a niche for ESA.

Launcher | GTO(t) | LEO(t) | Cost (million euros)
Ariane 5 | 12     | 20.5   | 220
Ariane 6 |  6.5   | 11?    |  70
Soyuz-2  |  3.2   |  7     |  40-ish?
Vega     |  1?    |  2     |  32

(Ariane 5 lifts 58% of its LEO payload to GTO; Soyuz-2 lifts 45%. I split the difference at 50% and used that when guessing Vega's GTO and Ariane 6's LEO payloads.)

I had earlier commented I thought it was odd Ariane 6 seemed to be a competitor for Arianespace's Soyuz launches, but I was mistaken, I was comparing Soyuz' lift to LEO with Ariane 6's lift to GTO.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Justy

[Nibb31]

The drawback is that Ariane 6 closes the door to manned flight and ATV derivatives. It's unfortunate that ESA is not interested in acquiring domestic manned flight capability, but that ship sailed years ago. On the other hand, Ariane 5 can remain in limited production if any large institutional payloads do emerge, because many of its components are shared with A6 and because A6 is getting new launch facilities, the A5 facilities can be preserved.

The great thing about the Ariane 6 design, is that all 4 SRBs are identical. If 1 A6 flight replaces 2 A5 flights, that means that they will be producing over 40 P135 boosters every year, plus the P80 boosters for Vega and any additional A5 EAP boosters (and the M51 ICBMs). All these solid boosters share a common diameter (except the M51), common propellant, and probably many other parts. In the real world, mass production brings down cost much more that reusability does, so this will be a very competitive GSO launcher.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Nibb31

[jwenting]

I don't serious see a point why we must switch over to the Ariane-6. We got the Ariane-5 for GEO missions and the ATV launches, the R-7 Soyuz 2.1 rocket for the more around missions (MEO/LEO) and the Vega for the LEO missions.

See you any point now still to have a forth rocket who don't can fill a hole.

well, ArianeSpace won't like potential customers going to US or Soviet competitors for their launch services

Of course there's Ariane IV, a proven, reliable, launcher. And no waste of billions of Euros of taxpayer money to develop, which of course means no billions of Euros of subsidies to EADS and its spinoffs to develop it, which is the real reason to develop Ariane VI.

That definition fits just about every single rocket on the market. Replace France and Germany with Texas and Florida, and you have a neat description of the SLS program.

Every government run program, yes. But ArianeSpace is officially a private enterprise, they just get near 100% of their funding from EU subsidies.

[Nibb31]

well, ArianeSpace won't like potential customers going to US or Soviet competitors for their launch services

Of course there's Ariane IV, a proven, reliable, launcher.

Ariane 4 was retired 10 years ago. Not sure what you're trying to say here.

The point of Ariane 6 is to reduce launch costs by making a simpler rocket. Mass produced solids are cheaper than liquid engines.

And no waste of billions of Euros of taxpayer money to develop, which of course means no billions of Euros of subsidies to EADS and its spinoffs to develop it, which is the real reason to develop Ariane VI.

As a European, I don't think that money is wasted. If that's the cost of maintaining an aerospace industry, developing technology that trickles down into all the economy, then so be it. There's nothing wrong with subsidizing. The money creates jobs for people who pay taxes and buy stuff, which keeps the economy running.

And it definitely beats the *hundreds* of billions of US taxpayer money that subisidizes Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK Thiokol and others through military contracts.

Every government run program, yes. But ArianeSpace is officially a private enterprise, they just get near 100% of their funding from EU subsidies.

So is ULA, a joint-venture of Boeing and LM, which are both largely subsidized by US government contracts. EELV development was funded by the USAF and now are the basis of ULA's commercial offering. Falcon is largely subsidized by NASA and will also allow SpaceX to offer commercial launches.

Arianespace is legally a private company, but its major shareholders are government institutions, or corporations that are also controlled by government institutions.

Government funding is pretty much the only way to develop space hardware, because there simply isn't a commercial market large enough. If you want your country to keep a technologically sector that is not self-sustaining, it makes sense to subsidize research and development.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Nibb31

[tek_604]

As a European, I don't think that money is wasted. If that's the cost of maintaining an aerospace industry, developing technology that trickles down into all the economy, then so be it. There's nothing wrong with subsidizing. The money creates jobs for people who pay taxes and buy stuff, which keeps the economy running.

I'm also a European, and while I agree with you in principle, sometimes it is money wasted. The problem is, that these monolithic multi-nation projects often cost way more than they should do. This is what happens when the state has a 100% controlling interest.

I also detest the way in which European projects (and I'm looking at you ESA) hire staff. Why? Because they have a quota system based on your nationality. Which is bloody ridiculous, considering we're trying to be one nation... I know of one example, where my boss tried to apply to ESA, but they couldn't hire him (despite his meeting the requirements easily), because he is Spanish, and they have enough Spanish working for them. So, he recently took German nationality...

Arianespace is legally a private company, but its major shareholders are government institutions, or corporations that are also controlled by government institutions.

This should be illegal under European law, and I have no idea why its allowed. Its one thing for governments to have controlling interests (even if its 100%), but its totally another to legally claim to be a private company. It should either be a multi-government entity, or a private company. Not "both".

Government funding is pretty much the only way to develop space hardware, because there simply isn't a commercial market large enough. If you want your country to keep a technologically sector that is not self-sustaining, it makes sense to subsidize research and development.

Tell that to SpaceX.

[Kryten]

Tell that to SpaceX.

Is that supposed to be a joke? They'd still be flying Falcon 1s if NASA hadn't handed them enormous amounts of money in both COTS and CRS, and would probably be flat broke by now. There's a reason they cancelled it; even with their planned enhancements the market at that size is minimal.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Kryten

[tek_604]

Is that supposed to be a joke? They'd still be flying Falcon 1s if NASA hadn't handed them enormous amounts of money in both COTS and CRS, and would probably be flat broke by now. There's a reason they cancelled it; even with their planned enhancements the market at that size is minimal.

Elon Musk might well have funded it, up to as far as he (and I'm assuming partners) can/could. He did afterall, get the company started from nowhere. Sure, they might still be flying Falcon 1s, but...

My point is, the company didn't start by relying on government handouts, it started as a genuine private business. If it had failed, fine, but to claim you need 100% government funding for this type of thing is no longer true.

I should also point out that the British governments approach, while I do not agree 100% (I would prefer it if they would spend more on R&D), is right to try to encourage the private sector.

(btw, thanks for being so nice in your opening statement. Much appreciated in a discussion)

[Canopus]

Will the Ariane 5 still be launched for heavier payloads?

[Nibb31]

I'm also a European, and while I agree with you in principle, sometimes it is money wasted. The problem is, that these monolithic multi-nation projects often cost way more than they should do. This is what happens when the state has a 100% controlling interest.

There is waste in the single-nation projects and in the private sector too. Trust me, I've seen a lot of waste in large private corporations...

I also detest the way in which European projects (and I'm looking at you ESA) hire staff. Why? Because they have a quota system based on your nationality. Which is bloody ridiculous, considering we're trying to be one nation... I know of one example, where my boss tried to apply to ESA, but they couldn't hire him (despite his meeting the requirements easily), because he is Spanish, and they have enough Spanish working for them. So, he recently took German nationality...

I certainly agree with you here... There should be no discrimination as long as you are from a UE member state.

This should be illegal under European law, and I have no idea why its allowed. Its one thing for governments to have controlling interests (even if its 100%), but its totally another to legally claim to be a private company. It should either be a multi-government entity, or a private company. Not "both".

Other than for the sake of capitalistic dogma, I don't see why not. Whether shareholders are corporations, banks, private individuals, or state institutions, it doesn't make much difference. For governments, it's a political lever as well as an investment. Sectors such as this could not exist without government funding, so if the alternative is to have no space industry in Europe at all, then I'd rather have pragmatism than dogma !

Tell that to SpaceX.

SpaceX has been massively subsidized by NASA, and it uses the technology developed with those subsidies to offer commercial launches. SpaceX is no different from the others, it only exists thanks to US taxpayers.

[Nibb31]

Elon Musk might well have funded it, up to as far as he (and I'm assuming partners) can/could. He did afterall, get the company started from nowhere. Sure, they might still be flying Falcon 1s, but...

My point is, the company didn't start by relying on government handouts, it started as a genuine private business. If it had failed, fine, but to claim you need 100% government funding for this type of thing is no longer true.

Musk jumpstarted SpaceX with his own personal money, in the hope that he could get the COTS contract. He could never have funded Falcon 9 on his own, and without Falcon 9, the company would not be viable. The market for small LEO payloads is simply not large enough for the Falcon 1 to have been sustainable.

I should also point out that the British governments approach, while I do not agree 100% (I would prefer it if they would spend more on R&D), is right to try to encourage the private sector.

I'm not really sure what you think the British government is actively encouraging. Space as a solely commercial activity is simply not viable. They should be actively funding ESA instead of paying lip service to 4 blokes in a shed, hoping that they miraculously invent a viable commercial SSTO.

[DerekL1963]

Elon Musk might well have funded it, up to as far as he (and I'm assuming partners) can/could. He did afterall, get the company started from nowhere. Sure, they might still be flying Falcon 1s, but...

In some fantasy world, yeah. (In fantasy worlds people and governments are always willing to spend endless sums of money for the amusement of space fans.) Seriously, how do intelligent people say stuff like that with a straight face?

My point is, the company didn't start by relying on government handouts, it started as a genuine private business. If it had failed, fine, but to claim you need 100% government funding for this type of thing is no longer true.

True, but deliberately missing the point - private money still hasn't fielded a commercially useful and viable orbital vehicle.