ESA plans 2 versions of Ariane 6, first launch around 2020.

[Sky_walker]

ESA, CNES, DLR and industry representatives had a meeting yesterday setting up plans for Ariane 6.

Till now 2 propositions where on a table:

ESA-CNES Ariane 6 PPH - first stage with 3 solid rocket motors, second stage with a single solid rocket, and 3rd liquid stage with Vinci engine - offering 6.5 tonnes to GTO.

Airbus and Safran proposed 2 concurrent launch vehicles. More powerful Ariane 6.1 with 2 SRBs, Vulcain 2 main stage and Vinci upper stage lifting 8.5 tonnes to GTO, and less powerful but cheaper Ariane 6.2 identical to 6.1 with exception of the upper stage powered by Aestus hypergolic engine.

New proposition that emerged after the latest meetings includes two launch vehicles:

One with 4 SRBs capable of lifting up to 11 tonnes to GTO (Ariane 5 ECA can lift 10.5 t to GTO) with single and dual-launch capability.

Second one will be a lighter version with two engines (two SRBs? Sorry, I don't speak French) dedicated for single launches of large satellites and government contracts. Sadly I couldn't find any more info on the differences between each version.

Cost of the large variant is estimated to be ~85 million Euro, only 60% of Ariane 5 ECA, while lighter version would cost ~65 million.

Final decision of the configuration and allocation of the founds wil be done on a ministerial-level meeting in December. First launch is expected no later than the end of 2020.

http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0203783235566-espace-la-convergence-se-dessine-autour-dariane-6-1043847.php

http://www.wradio.com.co/noticias/economia/arianespace-apuesta-por-ariane6-en-2020-antes-que-por-ariane5-modernizado/20140917/nota/2419621.aspx

Edited September 18, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Streetwind]

Made a thread about this yesterday: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94057-Ariane-5-likely-to-be-phased-out-by-the-end-of-the-decade

As far as I gathered from Google Translate, the differences between the two proposed launchers is literally the number of strap-on solid motors. It's a common core (allegedly liquid) with a variable SRB number. Similar to the Atlas V in part, though the Ariane SRBs will be much bigger and responsible for more of the thrust and dV. Much like the Ariane 5 is already doing, with the Vulcain II main engine only slightly more powerful as a single Merlin 1D by comparison, and almost all the liftoff power coming from solid motors.

[Sky_walker]

Made a thread about this yesterday: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94057-Ariane-5-likely-to-be-phased-out-by-the-end-of-the-decade

You made a topic about Ariane 5 being phased out, I made a topic about Ariane 6 coming in

Also: no paywalls and some numbers along with comparisons in.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Idobox]

Ok, I am French, but the article comes from a business article, and thus has little technical detail. Most of the article is about whether we'll go the way France wants and start working straight ahead on Ariane 6, or do what the Germans want and first develop Ariane 5 ME.

About the design of Ariane6, it looks like Germany won, and Ariane 6 will look a lot like Ariane 5, with two options with 4 and 2 propulsors, I assumed they mean SRBs.

So it looks like we'll get a central core, with liquid propulsion and an upgrade of the vulcain engine, and the SRBs derived from Vega (single grain, composite shell, bigger and lighter than the EAP used on Ariane 5).

This is typical of European politics: Germany represents 25% of the budget, so we need to find them something to do, but what they do is build parts of the vulcain engine, so they don't want rockets mostly powered by SRB. Whether one solution is better or cheaper than the other has little to do in this discussion. Once again, France and Italy will bite the bullet and let Germany give them orders. As a result, I expect they'll also decide to finish Ariane 5 ME (although, this one makes more sense, we have already invested time and money in it, it would be a waste to stop now).

[Sky_walker]

As far as I gathered from Google Translate, the differences between the two proposed launchers is literally the number of strap-on solid motors. It's a common core (allegedly liquid) with a variable SRB number. Similar to the Atlas V in part, though the Ariane SRBs will be much bigger and responsible for more of the thrust and dV. Much like the Ariane 5 is already doing, with the Vulcain II main engine only slightly more powerful as a single Merlin 1D by comparison, and almost all the liftoff power coming from solid motors.

It's not just Atlas - it's a fairly common configuration used all around the world.

And besides - it was expected that a rocket with liquid core would be accepted for Ariane 6. Too large portion of the European industry is based on liquid engines to ignore it for a whole generation of rockets. There's already Vega based solely on SRBs so Ariane 6 PPH would make sense only if Ariane 5 ME would be implemented - but because it's more expensive setup - cheaper Liquid+SRBs rocket makes sense.

Having whole industry running SRBs isn't going to happen also for the reasons of economy - it'd mean that the upper stage of Ariane 6 would be horribly expensive due to low volumes of industrial output. It's also not future-proof. With core based around liquid engines you have much easier path towards future upgrades including reusability.

This is typical of European politics:

It's both economy and politics.

Looking just at the 2020 Ariane 6 PPH would be cheaper, but looking beyond that - it allows Europe to have a healthy industry both: in liquid engines and solid rocket engines what in a long terms means cheaper development, cheaper upgrades, larger production volumes, and keeping the heavy launch vehicle in Europe - what wouldn't be possible with CNES proposition.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Idobox]

http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2014/09/05/01008-20140905ARTFIG00351-ariane-6-la-version-de-la-derniere-chance.php

A better article on the subject.

[Streetwind]

Finish the 5 ME? I doubt it. ESA doesn't have anywhere near the kind of budget to support developing multiple redundant platforms. That money can be better spent on making the new platform available earlier, and (in contrast to the US) actually develop some payloads for it.

[Sky_walker]

http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2014/09/05/01008-20140905ARTFIG00351-ariane-6-la-version-de-la-derniere-chance.php

A better article on the subject.

It's wrong on a few accounts. Most importantly - the light variant won't be 6.2 as it's going to use Vinci instead of Aestus (look up first post in a topic).

And secondly - Germans took part in this meeting and they were one of the driving motors for departure from Ariane 6 PPH. Unlike article suggest - Germans do want Ariane 6, they don't want Ariane 6 based on solid rockets (aka. PPH variant). They want to support Ariane 5 ME because of what it offers - both in terms of lifting capacity and benefits to the industry - not because "it's Ariane 5" or "politics" as article seems to imply.

Finish the 5 ME? I doubt it. ESA doesn't have anywhere near the kind of budget to support developing multiple redundant platforms. That money can be better spent on making the new platform available earlier, and (in contrast to the US) actually develop some payloads for it.

Ariane 5 ME had one advantage - it could be made available within years, quicker than Ariane 6 would, and fulfil the gap that Ariane 6 PPH would have created - heavy launch vehicle.

But with PPH discarded - there would be no need for ME.

[Streetwind]

Ah, so the all-solid concept was the point that was being argued over? Good to know.

[Sky_walker]

Ah, so the all-solid concept was the point that was being argued over? Good to know.

Technically it's not all-solid as a small upper stage would still be propelled by LOX / LH2. But yea, you got it.

That's why the new design might appeal to everyone - Heavy variant it retains 4 SRBs just like PPH had, while at the same time having a liquid core, heavy lift capacity and being significantly cheaper than Ariane 5 with an option to "downgrade" it into cheaper medium variant (possibly also opening the gates for future reusability which DLR wanted, though that's more likely to be implemented in Ariane 7 than as an upgrade for 6).

Edited September 18, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Idobox]

It's wrong on a few accounts. Most importantly - the light variant won't be 6.2 as it's going to use Vinci instead of Aestus (look up first post in a topic).

And secondly - Germans took part in this meeting and they were one of the driving motors for departure from Ariane 6 PPH. Unlike article suggest - Germans do want Ariane 6, they don't want Ariane 6 based on solid rockets (aka. PPH variant). They want to support Ariane 5 ME because of what it offers - both in terms of lifting capacity and benefits to the industry - not because "it's Ariane 5" or "politics" as article seems to imply.

Ariane 5 ME had one advantage - it could be made available within years, quicker than Ariane 6 would, and fulfil the gap that Ariane 6 PPH would have created - heavy launch vehicle.

But with PPH discarded - there would be no need for ME.

It's not very clear, because the article talks mostly about business, and not technology, but the 6.1/6.2 version was the initial counter proposal by Airbus/Safran. The article talks about the accepted version, which is neither the CNES nor the Airbus version, although it is much closer to the airbus version.

The original airbus version had two SRBs, a central core with vulcain 2, and a last stage with either a Vinci or Aestus. What is described here is ventral core with vulcain 2, always a Vinci, and either 2 or 4 SRBs for light/heavy.

Nobody says ESA would develop both 5ME and 6 and the same time. The question is, should they finish 5ME before starting 6 (what Germany wants), or should they cancel 5ME to get 6 in 2020 (what France wants)?

[Streetwind]

The question is, should they finish 5ME before starting 6 (what Germany wants), or should they cancel 5ME to get 6 in 2020 (what France wants)?

The rumor is that Germany stopped wanting the 5 ME and agreed to support the 6 in its latest variant. That's why there's news being posted at all

But I agree, details are really hazy right now. Would be great to have official clarification, but that might take another couple months.

[Sky_walker]

It's not very clear, because the article talks mostly about business, and not technology, but the 6.1/6.2 version was the initial counter proposal by Airbus/Safran. The article talks about the accepted version, which is neither the CNES nor the Airbus version, although it is much closer to the airbus version.

True. I was just pointing out the image where they labelled lighter version as 6.2 - which it isn't.

Nobody says ESA would develop both 5ME and 6 and the same time.

Original plan, in before Safran proposal, was precisely that: to develop Ariane 6 PPH and 5 ME at the same time. 5 ME would be completed first, of course, but to meet the deadline of 2020 Ariane 6 would have to be developed alongside 5 ME.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Idobox]

True. I was just pointing out the image where they labelled lighter version as 6.2 - which it isn't.

in the le Figaro article, they are labelled as 6-2 and 6-4.

I just reread both articles to be sure (didn't read the Spanish one), and the legend of the illustration in les Echos says the heavy version could have 4 or 5 SRBs. It looks like Ariane 6 might follow principles similar to the initial Angara proposal.

Original plan, in before Safran proposal, was precisely that: to develop Ariane 6 PPH and 5 ME at the same time. 5 ME would be completed first, of course, but to meet the deadline of 2020 Ariane 6 would have to be developed alongside 5 ME.

I didn't know that. It might have actually been possible, since the PPH was supposedly cheaper, and used only one liquid fuel engine taken from the 5ME. They could have have worked on the SRB and Vinci engine in parallel, since the teams and facilities would be largely independent, and would start working on 6 proper only once 5ME was ready.

Having whole industry running SRBs isn't going to happen also for the reasons of economy - it'd mean that the upper stage of Ariane 6 would be horribly expensive due to low volumes of industrial output. It's also not future-proof. With core based around liquid engines you have much easier path towards future upgrades including reusability.

would it really? I'm honestly curious.

Also CNES wouldn't have given up liquid fuel engines, as they are working on RP6/LOx engines by themselves. So instead of producing 10 big and 10 small engines a year, plus some experimental ones, they would have built 10 small engines a year plus the experimental ones. Do you really get meaningful scale economies with that kind of numbers?

[Sky_walker]

in the le Figaro article, they are labelled as 6-2 and 6-4.

I just reread both articles to be sure (didn't read the Spanish one), and the legend of the illustration in les Echos says the heavy version could have 4 or 5 SRBs. It looks like Ariane 6 might follow principles similar to the initial Angara proposal.

Hm... yes, you are right. I stand corrected.

would it really? I'm honestly curious.

Also CNES wouldn't have given up liquid fuel engines, as they are working on RP6/LOx engines by themselves. So instead of producing 10 big and 10 small engines a year, plus some experimental ones, they would have built 10 small engines a year plus the experimental ones. Do you really get meaningful scale economies with that kind of numbers?

CNAS and ASI are those pushing for PPH variant. Solid Rocket Boosters for Ariane 5 are largely manufactured in France and French are behind latest POD-X tests to improve European SRB technology. As for the new liquid engine - it's nothing related to Ariane 6, and experimental engines got little to deal with industry itself as they're made on individual orders. It's quite opposite to the contracts for the engines of operational launch vehicles, they are not signed on yearly basis but rather multi-year timeframe, so yes - it does make a difference, especially if you're trying to push budget as far they do with Ariane 6. At some point there were plans to upgrade Vulcain to the new manufacturing standards what could allow them to share at least part of the infrastructure and personnel with Vinci manufacturing further decreasing costs. Though "horribly expensive" was certainly an overstatement on my side.

One interesting thing though is that they want to achieve 65 million euro for the light version which is rather low if you consider that a price for Ariane 6.2 as estimated by Airbus/Safran was around 69 million euro and newly proposed rocket is going to use more expensive upper stage. But then again - both companies where on this meeting and they did agree to these prices, so I guess... less profits for them Though in general I'm rather worried Ariane 6 will be crippled by costs underestimation - cutting roughly 60% off Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 heavy variant looks really great, but the big question remains: if they can actually deliver.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Streetwind]

It'll be like every project ever: it'll go over budget and cost more than planned in the end. But honestly, if they can get Ariane 5's lifting performance and reliability for any two-digit sum, that'll already be a great improvement. And the smaller variant will be a little bit below that.

[H2O.]

I don't think the estimations are too optimistics. I remember an article about Ariane 6'SRBs, and they would be similar to those used on the French nuclear missile M51 (which explain why France is pushing a SRB solution).

(BTW, for those who read a bit of french but are not familiar with astronautic terminology : solid rocket booster : "propulseur d'appoint à poudre")

Edited September 19, 2014 by H2O.

[sgt_flyer]

Well, the planned SRB booster would be an evolution of the one used for the first stage of the VEGA launcher, the P80. (Which is a single element SRB)

Manufacturers of this current SRB are Avio, an Italian company(the stage's designers) and Snecma (a subsidiary of Safran - french company)

So i guess, those two companies would be the ones which would also build those new SRB's