Ariane 6 Next Steps
Ariane 6, ESA
“In November 2012, European Ministers responsible for space, meeting in Naples, Italy, approved the start of preparatory activities for Europe’s next-generation Ariane 6 launch vehicle. The objective of Ariane 6 is to maintain guaranteed autonomous access to space for Europe, while minimising exploitation costs and suppressing any support to exploitation.”
Baseline configuration selected
The selected ‘Multi P linear’ concept is based on a lower ‘composite’ of four motors, each loaded with around 135 tonnes of solid propellant, providing also synergies with the Vega evolution perspectives. An “in-line” arrangement of three will serve as the first stage, while the fourth will be mounted above as the second stage.
The third stage will be an adapted version of the Ariane 5 ME upper stage, equipped with the Vinci engine and specific propellant tanks.
The 5.4 m-diameter payload fairing will be able to accommodate the same volume of satellites as Ariane 5.
… Ariane 6 will benefit from the advances by European industry in solid and cryogenic propulsion, structures, systems, avionics, ground segment and operations through the Ariane and Vega programmes.”
Marc’s note: I meant to post this a few days ago but with the budget news I held off. This rocket would still be on the drawing board if it weren’t for SpaceX and their efforts with the Falcon Heavy. While there’s no doubt that the heritage of the Ariane line will help development efforts, I have serious doubts that the Ariane 6 will be able to compete with the Falcon Heavy on price unless it’s subsidized. SpaceX has a list price (2012) of $83 million to GTO for up to 6.4 tonnes and $128M for greater than 6.4 tonnes while reports suggest Arianespace is targeting €70 million ($91m) for 6.5 tonnes
It is my strong opinion that the Ariane 6 is a mistake. The Ariane 5ME would have been a much better competitor to the Falcon heavy.
I had similar thoughts. I wonder how much of this is implementing updated components and technology, and how much is simply a move to retain aerospace jobs and companies in many countries on two continents.
It’s not just the Falcon Heavy. It’s also the Falcon 9. The Ariane 6 is a much better competitor to that.
But I think the liquid fueled version of the Ariane 6 would be the better choice. It has two key advantages over the solid: 1.) it could be used as a manned launcher, finally giving Europe its own manned spaceflight capability and 2.) it can be adapted to be reusable.
Bob Clark
The Falcon Heavy is more expensive than the “list price” Marc quotes. The contract for the Falcon-Heavy for STP-2 is about $170M.
$165 million for that satellite. And it depends on the mission and weight. The point was that SpaceX will be cheaper than the Ariane option.
Are there two versions of the Falcon-Heavy? one for GTO < 6.4 tonnes, and one for >6.4 tonnes? Why the price jump from $83M to $128M? Seems like Arianespace at $91M for 6.5 tonnes arguably is less expensive than Falcon. Are you assuming the $91M includes a subsidy?
SpaceX quotes Falcon Heavy prices breaking at 6.4 tonnes to GTO. See
http://www.spacex.com/falco…
I looked at the webpage with the 2 prices for a Falcon Heavy. But I dont understand why price depends on the size of the satellite if it’s the same rocket, especially such a significant difference in price? Are there two versions of F-Heavy? If so, what’s the difference? If not, why the huge step up in price? Can anyone explain? Also these are 2012 prices according to website? The current price would seem to be in the $165M range per Marc’s comment.
Both of these vehicles will definitely rise in cost however it’s unlikely that the SpaceX price will exceed ESA’s price for A6. Musk advised them to go direct to the A6 however the configuration of that vehicle has completely changed. Doubt he commend it in any way now. Solids to reduce cost? Yeah ok.
Yeah, it does feel like maybe the solids were a last-minute attempt to unpaint themselves out of a corner. It’s always a risk to quote actual prices for new models too early in the game, but most aerospace companies seem to keep doing it. Perhaps it’s their way of keeping potential buyers interested.
You are right SpaceX that quote actual prices for new models too early in the game is a very bad habit. They price will be a lot different to what they quote now.
Araiane is by fare better. “while reports suggest” is a pure speculation and markt as such.
Can anyone explain why the Falcon-Heavy has two prices, one for <6.4 tonnes ($83M), and a significantly higher price for >6.4 tonnes ($128M)? What’s up with that? Are they different rockets?
Is that the switch to Merlin 2 engines (9 Merlin 1 => 1 Merlin 2) causing that?
And what happens if there is a flight control issue (Proton?) and you can’t turn off the solids? Solids are great for the Fourth of July, Bastille Day, the Queens Jubilee or shooting down a plane or blowing up a tank. But IMHO are pretty stupid for rockets intended to orbit something of value, whether living or inanimate, at this point.
The inability to shut off solids seems to be a moot point for unmanned payloads. Any failure of an unmanned rocket means loss of payload anyway since unmanned launchers don’t have any type of LAS. Hopefully that will change in the future, but until then I think solids will continue to be a viable option for unmanned launchers.
I’ll buy that argument up to a certain size of SRB. There’s no question that the Delta II was the DC-3 of its time and was a marvelous LV to have. But the SRBs keep getting bigger on newer LVs and therefore more dangerous. I think we’re long past the size where we can consider their performance worth their potentional destrcution.
But the point of the matter is if they choose instead the liquid fueled Ariane 6, then they can get a manned launcher.
Bob Clark
The cost of $91M for a rocket with four segmented booster stages and a cryogenic upper stage seems unrealistic, not to mention a step backward in technology. OTOH ESA has no experience with large kerosene engines having opted to use Soyuz, and A6 should not be any more expensive than Ariane V.
Folks:
Are they completely ignoring that SpaceX is very serious about recovering their first stages, enough to build unnecessary for mission success recovery systems into the very design?
Do they not think that SpaceX is serious but that they’ll probably fail?
Any way you look at it, Ariane 6 isn’t going to have a costumer base to fly in 2020. Reusability will crush them in the market place. It certainly can’t be used as a crew launcher with solids underneath. Other more reliable, versatile and reusable launchers will drag payload standards away from Ariane’s limited size and weight manifest.
I don’t think Ariane 6 will see the light of combustion.
tinker
Reusability is a pipedream. It sounds great, but I don’t think it will work out so well in practice. Just my opinion.
AMG40:
You and ArianeSpace are betting against SpaceX 1st stage reusability? Consider yourself lucky, you aren’t going to be the one that looses billions of dollars in contracts if you’re both wrong.
Not only will it work, but once proved, SpaceX will be able to improve on their success. Here’s an example: SpaceX could use materials throughout the reusable Falcon stage that are lighter and much stonger… but far more expensive in materials and/or labor. Once the reusability system is proved out, these materials and techniques can be employed because the cost is amortized over the number of flights the stage can accomplish. You end up with something lighter and stronger. This actually improves the odds and increases payload capacity as well.
SpaceX will end up with a reusable 1st stage with an unmatched thrust to weight ratio.
tinker
A lot of “if” in that.
AMG40:
Elon Musk has a reputation of turning ‘ifs’ into reality. His only fault is that he’s a brain trust, there’s only one of him. That’s a slim thread to hang a future on, granted, but so be it! 🙂
tinker