Ariane 5 likely to be phased out by the end of the decade

[Streetwind]

This is something that kind of fell by the wayside in the recent CCtCap hubbub. I've seen only very little news coverage of it, except this article in French: http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/une-ariane-6-des-2019-et-pas-d-ariane-5me.N284638 (Google Translate will work well enough)

Basically, it seems like France, Germany and the space industry have finally ceased bickering over the future of the European launcher program. A recent third revision of the Ariane 6 proposal appears to have won over its previous critics, and though it has yet to be made official (likely in December this year), signs point to the cancellation of the Ariane 5 ME program in favor of the new launcher. The goal would be to have it flight ready by 2019.

The Ariane 6 will have to live up to a big legacy, as the current generation 5 ECA is considered one of the most reliable launch platforms ever created, with 61 consecutive mission successes out of 62 launch attempts (and counting). Unfortunately it turns out to be too expensive to compete with the recent wave of newspace startups, particularly SpaceX. Because of this, the Ariane 6 program will attempt to deliver a modular launcher that can be better sized for individual mission requirements and costs significantly less per kg to orbit.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Streetwind

[sojourner]

Huh, 2019, same year as the ULA/Blue Origin announcement regarding a new rocket. Interesting.

[Streetwind]

Fairly sure that's unrelated. Arianespace develops engines inhouse, and only the center core of the Ariane 6 will be liquid fueled. It'll be quite similar to an Atlas V, with varying configurations of outer solid boosters.

[Idobox]

It's not so much the new launchers that spur the need for an Ariane 6, but the increasing mass of telecom satellites.

To be cost competitive, Ariane 5 needs to send two GEO satellites per launch, but telecom satellites are getting heavier and heavier, and it's getting harder and harder to fit two of them. The successive versions of Ariane 5 have gotten bigger and bigger for that exact reason, but there is a limit on how much you improve it.

Ariane 6 is a smaller launcher, but it will be able to send a single satellite for significantly cheaper than a half empty Ariane 5. It might be even cheaper than half a Ariane 5.

The main concept is to get rid of LH2/LOx propulsion for the early stages, and to build up on Vega experience to make gigantic single grain SRB with composite casing. They're going to use the same block as side booster, first stage main engine and second stage main engine, making the thing very cost effective despite a pretty lame ISP and quite innovative and unproven technology.

Recently, Airbus and Safran made a counter proposition, with a liquid fueled central core, but since the companies haven't exactly shined recently on the rocket market, many people prefer the original CNES design.

[Idobox]

The main concept is to get rid of LH2/LOx propulsion for the early stages, and to build up on Vega experience to make gigantic single grain SRB with composite casing. They're going to use the same block as side booster, first stage main engine and second stage main engine

Small correction. They want to use 4 identical SRB: 3 for the first stage, one for the second stage, and LH2/LOx for the 3rd stage.

There wouldn't be a core with side boosters, but 3 SRB in a triangle shape. But the idea of using the same block 4 times is still here, and reminds Otrag a little bit.

Another precision:

Germany doesn't like the SRB solution because they're not involved in SRB fabrication, and that's why Airbus proposed a second version, much more similar to Ariane 5.

[Streetwind]

According to that french article, the v3 proposal for the Ariane 6 features a liquid core with surrounding solid boosters. The all-solid core was dropped.

We probably won't hear much more in the way of details until it's made official.

[Idobox]

Most of the article is behind a paywall.

Last I heard, there was quite a fight between the two proposals, but Germany is an important partner. I know I'm not supposed to talk politics, but let's just say Germany is pretty much taking all the decisions alone in Europe recently.

[Streetwind]

No paywall for me here o_O;

Try it through Google Translate, often paywalls are conditional based on where you get linked from. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usinenouvelle.com%2Farticle%2Fune-ariane-6-des-2019-et-pas-d-ariane-5me.N284638&edit-text=&act=url

The squabble over the European launcher program involved mostly France and Germany because one of them (France) initiated the whole discussion and one of them (Germany) immediately disagreed. Also, each of those countries by itself contributes as much to ESA's budget as the entire rest of the member states combined (minus the other heavyweight and the ESP). Therefore, ESA pretty much requires these two to agree on something before anything can be done. What exactly they were squabbling over, I am not privy to, but Germany originally didn't want any form of Ariane 6. They wanted to continue upgrading Ariane 5 instead. However it seems like the most recent proposal caused Germany to relent on their position.

As for the politics opinion: yes, you know you're not supposed to talk that kind of stuff here. So don't

Edited September 18, 2014 by Streetwind

[Streetwind]

Update: Looks like the French press had the right idea.

At today's Ministerial Council Press Conference, the official suit-wearers confirmed the French-German agreement on dropping the Ariane 5 Midlife Evolution project and instead focusing on the Ariane 6 revision 3 development. Hydrolox center stage, either two or four radial solid boosters, hydrolox second stage, and the same twin-satellite payload bus that worked so well on the Ariane 5. Also, it's huge.

Pictures,

Pictures,

Pictures!

[sgt_flyer]

Seems the current proposed version would use a 4.6m EPC (5.46m for ariane V)

Which should still be using a vulcain 2 engine (or a revision of this engine for the new rocket)

The planned vinci engine for the second stage would be using a fixed nozzle (they don't want an extensible nozzle anymore to save on building costs) - the length of the nozzle + the fact that it will be a LH2-lox upper stage will make a really tall upper stage.

For the SRB's, it seems they will try to use the same SRBs as the one used for Vega's first stage. (Or at least, an evolution of it both rockets would use)

The actual SRB on Vega, the P80, is a single segment SRB, which is derived from Ariane V multisegment SRBs.

The ariane 64 version would have a 11t payload to GTO, and the 62 6.5t.

So a quite conservative evolution in the end - to try to reuse as much of the reliable existing systems as they can and sharing components across various rockets to limit devellopment and production costs.

Let's see how it will end up

[Frozen_Heart]

I really don't understand how they can hope to compete with SpaceX. Especially if they get reusability.

[sgt_flyer]

Well, lets see how much spaceX 'reusability' lowers launch costs - because that'll only lower the price of the rocket itself - on the other end, as hardware costs go down, they'll increase ground crew costs by a substantial margin too. (That, plus the need of a fast turnaround to keep the usefulness of reusability)

Besides, only the partially reusable falcon 9 heavy would be able to compete with Ariane 6 payload capability. and it will be a truly complex piece of hardware - and the non reusable falcon 9 heavy has not even flown once yet.

(The non reusable falcon 9 1.1 has a payload of 5 tons to GTO - while ariane 5 had problems with that, as they had orders for putting 6 tons satellites to GTO (so they had to find 'lighter' satellites also going to GTO to pair them with the heavier satellites) - so Falcon 9 1.1 already can't compete on this market)

Sometimes, you can't split up the payload into several lighter ones so launch costs per kg is only a part of the equation

Edited December 2, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[Pipcard]

The

seems to be like a European H-IIA: two liquid hydrogen/oxygen stages with two or four unsegmented solid rocket boosters.

[sgt_flyer]

Yes, it looks quite the same, but ariane 6 will be bigger

(The proposed arianne 6 with two boosters would have more payload to GTO than H-IIa with 4 boosters)

At least, on the video link you gave, the upper stage will be restartable (which is a huuuge plus over current ariane V non restartable upper stage)

[Streetwind]

It also bears keeping in mind that even if they don't compete with SpaceX, it's still a superior rocket to the Ariane 5. You basically get a heavy configuration that exactly mirrors the capabilities of the Ariane 5, while costing a third less per launch. And on top of that you get a medium configuration that can fly missions Ariane 5 was completely oversized for, which costs even less. The upper stage gets a new state-of-the-art expander cycle engine that'll squeeze out some more dV, too.

Also, remember that Ariane is to ESA what SLS is to NASA. It's the institutional launcher that exists not only to launch, but also to keep the space industry of the member states chugging along and employing people. That's a large part of the reason precisely why Ariane 5 is so expensive - and why it took France and Germany such a long time to get their act together and find an agreement (they have the largest space industry workforces employed, and neither wanted to be cut back). It's just that in contrast to NASA, they actually let the rocket scientists design the launcher, and not the politicians Which is why Ariane 6 is actually looking quite reasonable. It specifically addresses the two large shortcomings of the 5 series (price and payload inflexibility), isn't trapped into using existing parts at all costs (possibly only the Vulcain-II will be reused, if it doesn't get upgraded as well), shares development with another project (the Vega series, from which the SRBs will be derived) and will actually have suitable payloads readily lined up when it hits the market.

It's a reasonable proposal that's been in the cooker for considerably longer than SpaceX has been putting pressure on Arianespace. It's perhaps that pressure that finally drove the squabbling country duo to come to an agreement, but ultimately Ariane 6 is not a specific "anti-SpaceX" design. It's a rocket that makes an amazing amount of sense with SpaceX not in the picture. Of course, that's not how it turned out, and how it will be come 2019 remains to be seen... but regardless of how it ends, there is no question that it's a big step forward for Europe. If they can maintain the 5 series' great reliability with the cheaper hardware, it's hard to imagine it not carving out a niche for itself.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Streetwind

[LordFerret]

I really don't understand how they can hope to compete with SpaceX. Especially if they get reusability.

I seem to recall just recently that SpaceX had a major setback, as did a recent Ariane launch from Wallops... boom... so much for modified engines. Elon Musk had stated that Ariane 5 wouldn't be able to compete, but I do wonder (even if he attains re-usability) where he'll stand with Ariane 6.

[Kryten]

Ariane is a european rocket launched solely from Kourou in french guiana, the explosion in Wallops was of an american Antares rocket.

[Pipcard]

Yes, it looks quite the same, but ariane 6 will be bigger

(The proposed arianne 6 with two boosters would have more payload to GTO than H-IIa with 4 boosters)

At least, on the video link you gave, the upper stage will be restartable (which is a huuuge plus over current ariane V non restartable upper stage)

There's also more payload to GTO because of the launch site being closer to the equator.

By the way, why do people think reusability is the main factor in an economical launch system? There's also other important factors such as flight rate and maintenance costs.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Pipcard

[Frozen_Heart]

It's a rocket that makes an amazing amount of sense with SpaceX not in the picture

but I do wonder (even if he attains re-usability) where he'll stand with Ariane 6.

Ariane 6 seems like it would do well if the Falcon 9/Heavy were not intended to be reusable. Its looking like a reasonably decent rocket. However I really hope they have a backup plan for if those rockets do start being reused and the price drops.

I seem to recall just recently that SpaceX had a major setback

What happened?

[Streetwind]

They lost a test vehicle back in summer due to a situation that can't happen in a regular falcon 9. So yeah, it wasn't a major setback, and it wasn't recent either

[sgt_flyer]

Regarding the kind of components Ariane 6 will use - the SRBs will be based onto a similar technology than the vega rocket first stage - which uses a carbon fiber composite casing instead of Ariane 5's Steel casing SRBs. (Though, those will be single segment (the single segment p80 has 2103 kN of thrust for 109s of burn time 7.3 tons of dry mass , vs 2 and a (short) half segment EAPs 7080kN for 140s of burn time, 33 tons of dry mass)

So, what do you think about these composite casings for SRBs ? (Which kinda makes sense, especially as the current EAPs are recovered but not reused)

Besides, i think ATK will look with interest at how it devellops, given it's dark knight SRBs for SLS will also use composite casings.

[ndiver]

Regarding the kind of components Ariane 6 will use - the SRBs will be based onto a similar technology than the vega rocket first stage - which uses a carbon fiber composite casing instead of Ariane 5's Steel casing SRBs. (Though, those will be single segment (the single segment p80 has 2103 kN of thrust for 109s of burn time 7.3 tons of dry mass , vs 2 and a (short) half segment EAPs 7080kN for 140s of burn time, 33 tons of dry mass)

So, what do you think about these composite casings for SRBs ? (Which kinda makes sense, especially as the current EAPs are recovered but not reused)

Besides, i think ATK will look with interest at how it devellops, given it's dark knight SRBs for SLS will also use composite casings.

The SRB are just the P120, the planned evolution for Vega. It's financially interesting as this SRB will be developed and built for both projects.

This Ariane 6 is technically so close from Ariane 5 that some people call it Ariane 5.5

[Streetwind]

This Ariane 6 is technically so close from Ariane 5 that some people call it Ariane 5.5

That's kind of funny, because the body is new, the tanks are new, the solid boosters are new, the whole upper stage is new and built around a new engine, and the fairing is different The only things that are basically the same as before are the dual payload bus, and potentially the Vulcain-II main stage engine (I haven't heard any specifics on that yet).

I think the people who call it "Ariane 5.5" are merely disappointed that it's a fairly conservative design - no crazy antics like SpaceX is pulling, and little difference in maximum payload capacity compared to Ariane 5. And/or maybe they preferred the Ariane 5 Midlife Evolution concept and are miffed that it got dropped in favor of this.

[ndiver]

That's kind of funny, because the body is new, the tanks are new, the solid boosters are new, the whole upper stage is new and built around a new engine, and the fairing is different The only things that are basically the same as before are the dual payload bus, and potentially the Vulcain-II main stage engine (I haven't heard any specifics on that yet).

I think the people who call it "Ariane 5.5" are merely disappointed that it's a fairly conservative design - no crazy antics like SpaceX is pulling, and little difference in maximum payload capacity compared to Ariane 5. And/or maybe they preferred the Ariane 5 Midlife Evolution concept and are miffed that it got dropped in favor of this.

First stage coming from Vega, second stage coming from Ariane 5, third stage coming from Ariane 5 (see this page in French published yesterday: http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-fr/11283-ariane-6.php ). It's an extremely conservative design, but it's possibly the best way to reduce the costs, and it uses the technology that was planned from the Ariane 5 Evolution (that is scrapped, or called Ariane 6 ).

I personally extremely happy that the EU finally stated the future of Ariane

[Camacha]

Too bad, I am going to miss that big pill with stubby arms. The Ariane 4 was a bit of a childhood hero, so the 5 took some getting used to, but I like a distinct rocket.