Ariane 5 Prototypes evolution 1977 to 1985

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
7,298
Reaction score
6,975
already in 1977 were studies for Ariane with Lox/Lh2 upperstage
those became 1977 to 1982 the Ariane 5R study
aka in Forums "the Ariane 5 Common core booster" design
Note code: P=solid fuel, L=Liquid fuel, H=Lox/LH2 fuel. Number=fuelmass in tons

1977 "Systéme Ariane Véhilcule Habitable" study
use of Ariane 3 "L180" (40 tons more fuel as Ariane 3) with 4 booster P9.5
second sage with cryogenic propellants and engine of 60 ton trust

1978 version
GEO launch 4,5 tons ?
first stage L210 with 4 booster P9.5
second stage H45 with HM-60 engine
third stage H10 with HM-7 engine

this second stage H45 has larger diameter 5,26 meter.
this "hammerhead" configuration was change later to diameter of 4,20 meter
i don't know why, but maybe it because aerodynamic problems

1979 version
Ariane 5
310 tons launch mass
Trust: first stage 265 Tons+4 solid booster, second stage 60-80 tons, third stage 6 tons
payload 5500 kg in GTO, first planed launch for year 1990
Ariane 5H
310 tons launch mass
Trust first stage 265 Tons+4 solid booster, second stage 60-80 tons, third stage Hermes

Around 1980
new Version AR4 has now 4 Liquid Booster
the first stage become L220 with 4 booster L19 (like Ariane 44L)
Second stage H45 or H55 with HM-60 engine
Third stage H10 with HM-7 engine


1982 the Ariane 5 change do Hermes weight problem
the last version 5R had a 5 Viking engine first stage under L220
for more trust, is likely that center engine is shot off during flight
or as last alternative
only 4 Viking engine with 4 PAL AND 4 PAP booster on L220 !

Launch Weight 505 tons
GEO launch
L220 with 4x L34 Booster
second stage H60 with HM-60
Third stage H9R (R stands for engine restart)

for Low orbit
Third stage MOTCA Module de Transfert et de control d' attitude) with 300 kg fuel
ironycal MOTCA survived and Transform into EPS stage of Ariane 5!


but Ariane 5R had problems
Pogo oscillation because of fifth viking engine
also the length of 70 meter brings instability flight
and death end for incrasement in more Payload


airane-5vrs5-png.71237


Source

German Spaceflight book by Harry O. Ruppe
Die Grenzenlose Dimension Raumfahrt Band 1
Page 636-642

CNES Report - Future of Launcher in Europe
Conference in Paris January 19-21, 1982
 

Attachments

  • hrms84b.gif
    hrms84b.gif
    12.8 KB · Views: 47
Last edited:
Michel,

I second Martinbayer. Very well done.

I really enjoy your drawings showing both outside and cutaway views.

The Hermes/Ariane 5 would make a beautiful model.

Thank you for posting your work.

Steve Austin
Texas, USA
 
...Damn nice brief overview, but I do have *one* question about something that may have gotten lost in translation:

and death end for incrasement in more Payload

...What exactly did you mean by this?
 
OM said:
...Damn nice brief overview, but I do have *one* question about something that may have gotten lost in translation:

and death end for incrasement in more Payload

...What exactly did you mean by this?

that Ariane 5R was on his maximum payload and was unable to launch more
the today Ariane 5 design can be change for more payload
 
next part

parallel to Ariane 5R study, were the Ariane 5prime study
also know as Concept etage 1/2 a unusual concept

1978
Booster 2XP150 reusable Booster each 3000 kN trust
core Stage H60 from Ariane 5R concept 4.2 meter ø
but modified for 90 t Lox and only 7 t LH2 !
as engine HM60 with 750 kN trust
a External Tank H11 - 4,2 meter ø and 15 meter long with 11 tons LH2

the flightplan with Hermes as payload
Launch with Booster and HM-60 Igniting
125 sec Booster are drop and land with parachute in atlantic
350 sec H11 tank is drop
520 sec H60 is drop Hermes enters Orbit
see attache Picture


1979 Ariane 5 P change
for Launch 15 tons in LEO
Booster 2XP150
core Stage H82 with HM-60 engine
H38 Largable (Jettisonable) with 36 tons Lox/Lh2

for launch of 4,5 tons in GTO
Booster 2XP75 !!
core Stage H82 with HM-60 engine
second stage H10 with HM7 inside aerodynamic hull
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane5/1979%20concept%2002.jpg

1982 Ariane 5P chance a last time

Booster 2xP170
Core stage H120 with 1xHM-60
second stage H10 with 1xHM-7
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane5/1982%20concept%2005.jpg
sound familiar ? its Ariane 5 we know today !

Ariane 5C - cryogénique (cryogenic)
stage all Loy/Lh2 and launch mass of 270 tons
First stage H160 with 4xHM-60
second stage H60 with 1xHM-60
third stage H10 with 1xHM-7


between July 1982 to October 1984 the Ariane 5R Ariane 5C and Ariane 5P were study by ESA
Ariane 5R had technical problems, high toxic fuel costs and reach maximum payload capacity.
Ariane 5C consider the second stage HM-60 Igniting as problem
Ariane 5P had the advance of Booster and HM-60 Igniting on ground
also is this concept cheaper thanks to reusable solid booster and design can be change for more payload

so Ariane 5P wins

Source
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane5/developpement_1979_92.htm

CNES Report - Future of Launcher in Europe
Conference in Paris January 19-21, 1982

next part: the Ariane 5 Concepts except from competition
 

Attachments

  • Ariane-5prime.png
    Ariane-5prime.png
    34.1 KB · Views: 348
  • A-5prime-flight.png
    A-5prime-flight.png
    24.3 KB · Views: 349
its chrismass time ;D

first of rejects prototype of Ariane 5
Note code: P=solid fuel, L=Liquid fuel, H=Lox/LH2 fuel. Number=fuelmass in tons


CONCEPT CLUSTER CRYOTECHNIQUE

a cluster of 4xH48 stage with 4x HM60 and 4 Solid booster
the tanks are fueled from 45, 46, 48 tons also range the booster from P15 to P22
so launch mass goes from 330, 384, 427 tons
second stage is a H60 with HM60 engine

interesting is that the first stage cluster land with parachute in Atlantic
for reused

sadly the Source don't give name or Compay how design this
its mentions in report of CNES office at Ever
Evolution of the Ariane 5 concepts by J. Bouchet

Source:
CNES Report - Future of Launcher in Europe
Conference in Paris January 19-21, 1982
 

Attachments

  • A5CCC3.png
    A5CCC3.png
    166.8 KB · Views: 290
  • A5CCC1.png
    A5CCC1.png
    32.5 KB · Views: 299
  • A5CCC2.png
    A5CCC2.png
    46.7 KB · Views: 294
Re: Ariane Reusable AR-X

while Frenchs work on CONCEPT CLUSTER CRYOTECHNIQUE
is in Germany MBB Offenbrunn very busy a group under W.Kleinau

they proposed Ariane Reusable AR-X
based on H45 Tanks and HM60 Engine but inside a Aerodynamic hull with Heatshield
AR X-1 Demonstrator
Stage one
4xH45 and 9xHM60 (8 for Launch, 1 for Landing)
Stage two (inside the payload shroud)
1xH45 with 1xHM60

the finale AR
has a Second stage build from 2XH45 Tanks piece and 5xHM60 engine
(4 for launch, 1 for landing) inside Aerodynamic hull with Heatshield

the Frist stage lands 1500 km away in Atlantic, while second stage made several orbit
and land near Space Port in in Atlantic.

Source:
A Semi-Reusable Launch Vehicle Concept as a Reference System
by W.Kleinau, MBB Space Division at Ottobrunn
around 1979-1980

CNES Report - Future of Launcher in Europe
Conference in Paris January 19-21, 1982
 

Attachments

  • A5AR-X2.png
    A5AR-X2.png
    68.5 KB · Views: 178
  • A5AR-x1.png
    A5AR-x1.png
    111.8 KB · Views: 207
  • A5AR-X1_2.png
    A5AR-X1_2.png
    90.2 KB · Views: 185
Here's some more information: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%204019.html

Martin
 
Thanks for Info's martinbayer

CNES and the parallel Aerospatiale study comes next.

that is Ironic story,
because CNES gave Aerospatiale the order for Study to have a alternative.

they check so 12 different version
index.php

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4557.0.html
in end Aerospatiale came with almost the same proposal ;D
 
CNES and Aerospatiale study Reusable Ariane 5-6

original its a 1980-1982 study for future launch system
but in most literature is labels as Ariane 5 and 6 study
and there only Unclear information on this

CNES made a Study Reusable rocket with launch mass around 400 tons.
first stage with delta wings with 8 engine with NTO/UDMH
second stage 1 engine with Lox/Lh2
unusual in the design was postion of second stage and Payload
inside a Bombbay in first stage !

CNES gave Aerospatiale the order for Study to have a alternative.
they check so 12 different version

in the end they had same Bombbay concept
only it use Lox/Kerosene in first stage and jetengine for return to launch site

Later CNES change its concept and put the second stage on top first.

after Ariane 5 became a conventional rocket
those studies became in 1990s Ariane 6 studies

CNES Report - Future of Launcher in Europe
Conference in Paris January 19-21, 1982
 

Attachments

  • ariane5-Aerospacial.png
    ariane5-Aerospacial.png
    37.5 KB · Views: 170
  • ariane5-Cnes.png
    ariane5-Cnes.png
    63.6 KB · Views: 171
Matej said:
Great work Michel!

thx Matej

I'm not finish yet
there is the evolution of Ariane 5P from 1984 unitil first launch Ariane 5
like who HM60 became Vulcan Engine
 
Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%201712.html
 

Attachments

  • Ariane 5.JPG
    Ariane 5.JPG
    41.3 KB · Views: 197
nice find Hesham !

this show that SRB on 1985 Ariane 5 had four segment
later change to three segment EAP (Ètage aux Acceration á Poudre)
the Nosecone was change for better aerodynamic and transfer stress
on Main structure of central stage Lox tank
 
Per lack of a dedicated Ariane 1 > 4 thread ;)

I've just discovered that Fokker proposed ESA to parachute Ariane 1 first stage into the sea for possible reuse of some components.
This went as far as a test on the last Ariane 1, the Giotto launch of July 1985. Result: failure, the parachutes did not opened and the stage smashed into the ocean.
(hell, now that was quite a launch - last Ariane 1, first planetary probe, and recovery atempt. Wow.)
They also mention possible reuse of Ariane 4 PAL - the Viking pods on the sides that doubled the thrust. That's more realistic (they were lighter).
Source: Flight Global archive
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1982/1982%20-%201032.html
 
Whoo, what nice find, Archibald !


the Ariane 1 recovery was study in deep, but during the first fights. they discover that first stage tumble uncontrollable downwards.
Because the heavy engine pod on now light tankvolume.


one idea was to separate the engine pod from tank pyrotechnical and land the pod with parachute.


According the Fight global, the test this parachute had to be on third operational flight of Ariane 1
That must be L7 Intelsat V-F7 on october 19, 1983
but there no info about a parachute test, i think the test was cancelled after discovery of tumble problem.


On Booster recovery was also study in deep, but in end they came to conclusion: it cheaper to build the booster on mass, instead of recover & refurnish them.
 
Thanks Archie for solving a question that I've had for a long time. I remember seeing some magazine articles about the recovery proposal, then nothing and no indication why recovery wasn't being done.
 
Archibald said:
I wish a ESA NTRS existed !!! ::)


You word in Gods ear !
but sadly the data is spread all over Europe
I wonder what ESA has on his server and Archive, i think there stuff more at CNES
 
From L + K 19/1979
 

Attachments

  • ScanImage26.jpg
    ScanImage26.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 158
  • ScanImage27.jpg
    ScanImage27.jpg
    801.5 KB · Views: 143
  • ScanImage28.jpg
    ScanImage28.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 144
Ariane 5 was rather unflexible with the huge solids - hence Ariane 4 hanging on, then Soyuz in Kourou, then Vega...

I was wondering if the Ariane 5 "core" (EPC + upper stage: HM-7 or Aestus) could be flown without the big solids.

At first glance, NO: EPC is 189 mt and upper stages and payload and fairing push the entire thing to 210 mt.
Vulcain-1 was 114 mt thrust
Vulcain-2 is 135 mt thrust

BUT Ariane 4 had PAP small solids: 2*75 mt thrust, total 150 mt thrust. Added to the Vulcain: it works ! More than 250 mt thrust.
 
Last edited:
Ariane51985.png
Thanks Andrew Parsonson for finding this NASA paper.
Ariane 5P, 5C, 5M (aka Cluster Cryogenique from above, although curiously with common H50 cores, rather than different cores as in the earlier post of this thread). And Atlas-Like, 1.5-STO Ariane 5S!

This paper says that Full-cryogenic A5 wouldn't cost more than A5P to develop... Goes against some of what I've read before.Either way I doubt an Ariane 5 without solid propulsion could have been politically acceptable.

Sadly i cannot find anything for the given references.
 
Last edited:
Great! I knew 5P (= Ariane 5 as flown) , 5C (the 100% hydrolox shown here) and 5R (the son of 44L, not shown here) but the others, I didn't knew (5M and 5S).
These tradeoffs between solid fuel, 1*HM-60 or a "plenty of HM-60s" were rather similar to the Ariane 6 debate of 2013-2015 that unfortunately resulted in the present quagmire.

Unfortunately LH2 sucks for stage 0 and stage 1, not enough thrust, high isp not needed.

What I really wonder is whether at some point they considered the 5P cryogenic core (presently EPC) not with the big solids but with Ariane 2 - 3 - 4 PAPs: that is, GEM-60 or Castors rather than Titan big solids, UA-120-5.

Very much an Ariane 5 EPC with Ariane 3 - 40P - 42P - 44P small solids.
 
What I really wonder is whether at some point they considered the 5P cryogenic core (presently EPC) not with the big solids but with Ariane 2 - 3 - 4 PAPs: that is, GEM-60 or Castors rather than Titan big solids, UA-120-5.

Very much an Ariane 5 EPC with Ariane 3 - 40P - 42P - 44P small solids.
I think the French desired to have larger skills synergy on SRBs with their SLBM, so they didn't really want to reuse PAP (which, beside being built mostly in italy, used American-licenced fuel rather than A5's French one, even if the composition weren't that different), so reusing PAP was probably not desirable.
Then if you HAVE to develop new solids, then the choice of larger ones, I think, can be explained by, among other things
-Single segment small solids may make distribution of work between France/Italy more complicated, with neither having enough work to maintain their industrial base.
-Developping new small solids inherently adds R&D cost that may not be worth it if they only add a bit more performances, and there may be incentive to scale them up to make the dev cost worth it.
-Small solids probably can't carry the whole launcher like the EAP do, and the attachment at the top of the EPC would not be possible, not only could this make development costlier, it may also be harder to scale the Solids up with a bottom attachment, and that would be a problem since one of the reason why A5P was chosen was the possibility for scaling up to keep up with Hermes and comsat mass growth.

At least that's the reasons I can think of for why i've never seen an Ariane 5 proposal with Hydrogen core and small solids.

Unfortunately LH2 sucks for stage 0 and stage 1, not enough thrust, high isp not needed.
It does, developping Vulcain and basing 40 years of european launchers on it was probably not the right choice in hindsight.
But was there another choice? Staged combustion hydrogen engines would have been even more expensive, SRBs would have been a technological dead end, there was no Semi-cryogenic experience in western europe (beside Rolls Royce). As for Viking's hypergolic, this would quickly have become unnaceptable (fun fact, Ariane 4 UDMH production in SNPE Toulouse was definitely stopped in 2001 after the explosion of the nearby AZF factory in Toulouse, the last dozen Ariane 4 launches used only UDMH stocks that had already been shipped to Kourou before mid 2001)
 
Last edited:
(fun fact, Ariane 4 UDMH production in SNPE Toulouse was definitely stopped in 2001 after the explosion of the neighbouring AZF factory in Toulouse, the last dozen Ariane 4 launches used only UDMH stocks that had already been shipped to Kourou before mid 2001)
Never realized that before. Makes AZF more and more looking like a french PEPCON, except much more murderous.

My elder sister was in Toulouse as a science student that day. She managed to phone my mom just before the telephone networks collapsed.
And this was 10 days after 9-11 - when I was visiting my elder sister that day - in Toulouse ! I actually visited La Cité de l'Espace on 9-11, and bought an Airfix LM 1/72. Talk about a day to celebrate America biggest triumph - the darkest day ! The irony has baffled me ever since. That weird feeling "they" are after you ROTFL.

About LH2: finally came to understand why it sucks at booster stage. And why tripropellant is such a good idea. Long story short: takes 75% of the propellant supply to hit 25% of orbital velocity. According to this, hydrogen isp is not necessary. Kerosene big thrust is more useful. This reverse of course afterwards and there, hydrogen rules.
 
(fun fact, Ariane 4 UDMH production in SNPE Toulouse was definitely stopped in 2001 after the explosion of the neighbouring AZF factory in Toulouse, the last dozen Ariane 4 launches used only UDMH stocks that had already been shipped to Kourou before mid 2001)
Never realized that before. Makes AZF more and more looking like a french PEPCON, except much more murderous.

My elder sister was in Toulouse as a science student that day. She managed to phone my mom just before the telephone networks collapsed.
And this was 10 days after 9-11 - when I was visiting my elder sister that day - in Toulouse ! I actually visited La Cité de l'Espace on 9-11, and bought an Airfix LM 1/72. Talk about a day to celebrate America biggest triumph - the darkest day ! The irony has baffled me ever since. That weird feeling "they" are after you ROTFL.

About LH2: finally came to understand why it sucks at booster stage. And why tripropellant is such a good idea. Long story short: takes 75% of the propellant supply to hit 25% of orbital velocity. According to this, hydrogen isp is not necessary. Kerosene big thrust is more useful. This reverse of course afterwards and there, hydrogen rules.
I wasn’t there but it happened, but I remember that when I was in Toulouse in the 2000s, AZF explosion was really the "where were you when it happened" event, and yeah just after 9/11, a lot of people thought it was a terrorist attack.

On paper tripropellant with variable mixture look really good, especially when you go beyond Hydrokerolox into Hydromethalox/Hydropropalox/HydroSyntinLox. But of course nobody has actually flown any, and it’s easy to imagine the additional complexities outweighting the advantages.

And then there’s the simple fact that a marginal ssto makes a great TSTO’s stage, so why bother with this when you can have your rocket boosted by a simple, sturdy recoverable Hydrocarbon-fueled S1 while the upper stage only uses Hydrogen? If you really need the additional thrust at the start of the upper stage’s burn, you can always have a Thrust Augmented Nozzle
—-

Anyway I guess that the main advantage for Ariane 5S is to avoid any staging and mid flight engine ignition (the later A5P also provides) to increase safety on Hermes, But this very inefficient design would be terrible for GTO launches, even with a ESC on top
 
Last edited:
1687726801077.png
from https://www.futura-sciences.com/sci...ine-lanceurs-europeens-72935/#une-conclusion-
1687726815818.png
(Ariane 4 First Stage with a new propulsion bay with 5 Viking 5 engines
-Available side booster configuration:
-New electrical subsystem, multiplex bus
-increased reliability (crewed spaceflight)
4 hinged on vikings servos)
The article briefly mentions the Reusable Ariane 5 Prime studies and barge recovery studies of post #6; it does mention the existence of an "Ariane 6 study" around 1982
 
Ariane 5R, for "Reference". I use to consider that one as an Ariane 44L where the second stage Viking was lowered into the first stage; so nine Vikings: five on the stage, four in side pods.
Then, since second stage had no engine anymore, they put a Vulcain (and LH2) in its place.
Typical Ariane 1 to 4 incremental development to save development costs. They hoped to carry on with Ariane 5, introducing that new engine called HM-60 : later Vulcain.
But LH2 decided otherwise.
Unfortunately, LH2 being such a PITA to store in tanks, the end result was a bloated monster: a stage 2 fatter than stage 1, and a very tall rocket 70 m rather than Ariane 4 58 m and the stubbier Ariane 5. And so they went for different designs, 5C (100% Vulcain & LH2 long before Delta IV) and the familiar Ariane 5R: one Vulcain, two large SRBs.

Another way of seeing Ariane 5R is to think of it as a return of Europa IIIB a decade later, as the ultimate development of L-IIIS, that is Ariane 1 to 4.
Europa IIIB and Ariane 5R both had a LH2 second stage: the engine being HM20 versus HM60... which are loosely related, too.
 
it does mention the existence of an "Ariane 6 study" around 1982
Hermes = mini Shuttle orbiter (early sketches looked like mini clones, it's very striking)
Vulcain = expendable SSME
SRMs = SRBs, retrieved at sea.

Amazing how by 1979-84 ESA was influenced by the Space Shuttle.
 
t
Ariane 5R, for "Reference". I use to consider that one as an Ariane 44L where the second stage Viking was lowered into the first stage; so nine Vikings: five on the stage, four in side pods.
Then, since second stage had no engine anymore, they put a Vulcain (and LH2) in its place.
Typical Ariane 1 to 4 incremental development to save development costs. They hoped to carry on with Ariane 5, introducing that new engine called HM-60 : later Vulcain.
But LH2 decided otherwise.
Unfortunately, LH2 being such a PITA to store in tanks, the end result was a bloated monster: a stage 2 fatter than stage 1, and a very tall rocket 70 m rather than Ariane 4 58 m and the stubbier Ariane 5. And so they went for different designs, 5C (100% Vulcain & LH2 long before Delta IV) and the familiar Ariane 5R: one Vulcain, two large SRBs.

Another way of seeing Ariane 5R is to think of it as a return of Europa IIIB a decade later, as the ultimate development of L-IIIS, that is Ariane 1 to 4.
Europa IIIB and Ariane 5R both had a LH2 second stage: the engine being HM20 versus HM60... which are loosely related, too.
Maybe if Ariane 4 had had 5 viking on the S1 as was considered, Ariane 5R would have survived for longer.. It probably would still be dropped because of Hermes. And Ariane 4 would probably have been even more delayed...
"Frederic d'Allest asked me to conceive an Ariane 4 that could launch 3,300 kg to GTO. A year later, the performance requirement had risen to 4,300 kg! With each of his trips to the USA, his requirements became higher and higher...; All the Ariane 4 configurations had to change, the first stage was almost changed from 4 to 5 vikings. After a heated argument with Yves Sillard, we brought the necessary modifications, before telling ESA. Without that configuration change, we would have had severe vibration problems, and Ariane 4 wouldn't have reached 4,800 kg of payload today. We also needed a lot of luck.."
Roger Vignelles in "De la Fusée Veronique au lanceur Ariane"

it does mention the existence of an "Ariane 6 study" around 1982
Hermes = mini Shuttle orbiter (early sketches looked like mini clones, it's very striking)
Vulcain = expendable SSME
SRMs = SRBs, retrieved at sea.

Amazing how by 1979-84 ESA was influenced by the Space Shuttle.
As were the Soviets, and the chinese, and the japanese.
But was it really that different as all the modern Falcon 9 and Starship influenced projects in America, Europe, China? I don't think it was.
 
Ariane 5R had issue

It was Ariane 4 push to extrem and to it maximum limits.
There were no reserve for more payload.

Next to that were issue of Pogo oscillation, do length of rocket and up to 9 viking engine
( Five in Core and Four liquid booster (and PULS four solids booster in one study))

This and increase of Hermes shuttle mass let abandon of Ariane 5R in favour Ariane 5P who offer increase of Payload.
 
Farewell Ariane 5, you were very good rocket with 117 launches
F0ThaTwXoAAE4Cr
Even without jumping to admittedly stretch goal fully RLVs, Europe/ESA could have done a *whole* lot better than a truly wretched Ariane 5 design clone 2.0 based on Italian *definitely* non mafia related input of twice the number of solid boosters. The only "improvement" I see is that A6 will now proudly sport 4 instead of just 2 measly wretched SRBs as on A5. But, to quote my current boss once more, I'm not bitter... I'm just happy that as a German expat/guest worker in Southern California I'm not paying any taxes for supporting this kind of truly sickening crap at all...
 
Last edited:
I used to be livid at ATK behaviour in the Constellation days. Then I took an arrow in the knee: I discovered that Europe has its own ATK, half italy, half France (or so it seems).

Solid fuel, how we hate you...
 
"Frederic d'Allest asked me to conceive an Ariane 4 that could launch 3,300 kg to GTO. A year later, the performance requirement had risen to 4,300 kg! With each of his trips to the USA, his requirements became higher and higher...; All the Ariane 4 configurations had to change, the first stage was almost changed from 4 to 5 vikings. After a heated argument with Yves Sillard, we brought the necessary modifications, before telling ESA. Without that configuration change, we would have had severe vibration problems, and Ariane 4 wouldn't have reached 4,800 kg of payload today. We also needed a lot of luck.."
Roger Vignelles in "De la Fusée Veronique au lanceur Ariane"
Some additional information about early Ariane 4 concepts, not exactly about early Ariane 5 but they do share similar features.

A lot is already on capcomespace, but some isn't, and that site often doesn't quote sources and makes copying mistakes...

From "Ariane 4 Liquid Booster and First stage propulsion system", A. Souchier, J. Pasquier, 1983

First ARIANE 4 version was presented by CNES mid 1979 : main modifications compared to ARIANE 3 were the first stage tanks lengthening , increasing the propellant mass from 145 to 180 or 200 metric tons and the use of 4 (instead of 2 ) solid propellant boosters dclivering a 686 kN thrust each during 28 seconds. Thus the payload reached 2900kg in geostationary transfert orbit which was inside the program objectives at that time.

A second ARIANE 4 version was studied mid 1980 when it appeared ihat the maximum wanted payload mass should be around 4000 kg. On this second version the first stage tanks were lengthened to 220 metric tons Of propellant, the boosters mass increased from 7.3 to 8.5 metric tons and a fifth Viking li-quid engine was added in the centerline of the propulsion bay . First studies started at that time at SEP to define the propulsion bay arrangement and the water tank locatjon for the ARIANE 1 type water tank was too small to feed a fifth engine. Studies started too on a composite material Viking exhaust nozzle to bear the higher thermal loads foreseen

In 1981 it appeared that the maximum payload should be above 4000 kg and a third Ariane 4 version was designed : the fifth Viking engine was suppressed and 4 liquid propellant boosters each with a Viking engine werc proposed for the, mightiest version. Use of solid boosters remained possible
Thus 6 different versions could be offered to customers A44L, A44LP, A42L, A44P, A42P, A40
Different sets of fairings allow 6 different configurations for the upper part Of the launcher ( 3 for single launches and 3 for double launches). Propellant mass for the solid boosters is 9.5 metric tons and for the liquid boosters 36 metric tons [vs 39 final] The solid boosters are jettisoned after 25 s of flight and the liquid boosters after 134 s . The liquid boosters are retrievable by parachutes In low earth orbit the payload is limited to 7 metric tons by structural constraints.
Ariane 1 water tanks may have been too small, but not the Ariane 4 common bulkhead water tanks...
1689175118316.png
"ARIANE 4 second version - propulsion bay with 5 Viking engines and 4 solid boosters rear view

1689175155111.png
Ariane 4 second version propulsionbay with 5 Viking engines and four solid boosters - side view

From PROPULSION SYSTEMS FOR ARIANE 1 TO ARIANE.4 A CONTINUOUS EVOLUTION by A. Souchier*, 1999
*Director of Ariane 4 Propulsion systems, SEP R&D general director.

In spring 1979, before le Bourget Air Show, CNES reveals the characteristics of the future Ariane 4 launcher. These studies have started in 1976 and the first flight of Ariane 1 is planed 10 months later. At that time, Ariane 4 is only an enlarged version of Ariane 3. The objective is to launch 2900 kg in geostationnary transfer orbit. Compared to Ariane 3 the main differences are the lengthening of the first stage to carry 180 to 200 tons of propellants instead of 145, the use of 4 solid boosters instead of two and an increase in diameter for the fairing from 3,2 to 3,8 m. The last modification is motivated by the next to come operational use of the american space shuttle which offers a cargo bay 4,57 m in diameter which will lead to larger satellites.


In summer 1980 the dual launch objective is one heavy 2 350 kg satellite and a Delta class 1150 kg satellite which brings the total payload to 3 900 kg taking into account the SYLDA structure. The core stage is lengthenedagain to carry 220 tons of .propellants, the solid boosters propellant mass is increasedfrom 7,3 to 8,5 tons and a fifth Viking engine is to be added in the middle of the central core propulsion bay.

End of spring 1981 the payload objective is now more than 4 tons. The solid boosters are enlarged to 12,6 tons of propellant. In that configuration, the launcher reaches4080 kg in transfer orbit. Unfortunately this configuration seemsyet too short ; a 4 200 kg payload would better fit the market


A new configuration is worked out-~:Ariane 4 will use liquid boosters powered by Viking engines. The combination of different types of boosters liquid or solid would allow various versions with a great adaptability to the payloads to be launched.
The mightest version designated Ariane 44L has four liquid boosters. In payload decreasing order come after the A44L the Ariane 44LP with two liquids and two solids, the Ariane 42L with two liquids, the Ariane 44P with four solids, the Ariane 42P with 2 solids and the Ariane 40 withno boosters at all. These names are still in use today.

The Ariane 44L can send 4 190 kg in geostatiorinary orbit and the Ariane 40 2120 kg. On this new configuration the central -core has been downsized to 190 tons of propellant and the Iiquid boosters carry 42,5 tons. The solid boosters are identical to the Ariane 3 boosters. As the liquid boosters are stopped 9s before the central core, it has been decided to avoid a jettisoning system and keep them till the first to second stage separation

The new project is presented by CNES to the European SpaceAgency in October 1981 and is formally decided -. in January 1982.

In June 1982, the last modifications are decided : the central core reaches 220 tons, the liquid boosters are reduced to 36 tons (before growing back to 39 tons), the solid boosters loading is set at 9,5 tons. With now a large difference in burning time between the liquid boosters and the central core, the project goes back to more classical solutions : the boosters are jettisoned after shut off.
1689179918383.png
1689179964176.png
"ARIANE 4 IN 1981: THE BOOSTERS ARE NOT JETTISONED AT SHUT OFF"
Reminiscent of the GSLV MK-I/II's not jettisonned Vikas boosters

From: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VIKING ‘ENGINE, A.Souchier, C. Rothmund

As early as in spring 1979, the CNES disclosed its plans for a successor to ARIANE 3 : ARIANE 4. its payload capability in GTO was to be of 2900 kg. This was to be accomplished with a lenghtened first stage containing up to 200 tons of propellants and the use of four solid boosters.

One year later, the performance had been increased to 3900 kg. The first stage was again lengthened (220 tons of propellants) and had a fifth VIKING engine. The SEP teams then performed design studies on the arrangement of the first stage propulsion bay with five engines. This new arrangement required also the, use of’ composite nozzles on ail engines, due to the increased thermal environment.

In spring 1981, the performance goal was increased in order ‘to cope with the increase in satellite weights. The first stage had only four engines and contained 190 tons of propellants. For the first time, liquid-propellant boosters were fitted to the first stage. As they were cut-off 9 seconds before the core stage engines, these boosters were not jettisonable. Finally in June 1982, the definitive configuration of ARIANE ‘4 was frozen. The first stage had four engines and contained 220 tons of propellants. It could be fitted with up to four jettisonable liquid- propellant boosters, designated PAL (Propulseur d’Appoint Liquides)..
So
1976: First Ariane 4 studies (interesting, always heard A5 studies came before, as in the CNES interview above)
Spring 1979: L180 or L200 4-Vikings + 4 PAP 7.3t ; 3,300 kg payload (2,900 dual launch)
Summer 1980: L220 5-Vikings + 4 PAP 8.5t; 3,900 kg payload
By Spring 1981; L220 5-Vikings + 4 PAP 12.6t; 4,080kg payload (capcomespace claims as much as L240, but I couldn't find a source for that, may just be a mistake)
Later in Spring 1981; L190 4-Vikings + 4 PAL 42.5 (not-jettisonned) or 4 PAP 7.3t ; 4,190kg payload
June 1982: L220 4 Vikings + 4 PAL 36 (jettisoned & recoverable) or 4 PAP 9.5t
Some time in 1983: L220 4 Vikings + 4 PAL 39 (Jettisoned & unrecoverable) or 4 PAP 9.5t

Looking at this thread I do wonder how much the Ariane 1-4 architecture could have been pushed, more than 8 viking engines seemed tricky, and upscaling the engines seemed difficult, vibrations, cooling (it wasn't regeneratively cooled) seemed a consistent problem. Despite over 50 years of experience and improvements, the indians haven't significantly uprated the thrust of their vikas, despite incentive to do so (cf, their difficulty in making large SRBs in the 90s, and getting hydrocarbon engines ever since), SEP did have some 110 tons thrust vikings plans in the early 70s, but in light of this, one can wonder how realistic it was.
Early Ariane 5 tried to solve this with a larger hydrogen second stage, but as shown above this brought more problems than it was worth, ISRO use SRBs around their vikas, or vikas around their SRBs... The chinese with their relatively similar CZ-3 rockets do manage to do a bit better, largely thanks to slightly more efficient engines, and MUCH better mass ratio (seriously, their hypergolic stages are lighter than the russian's, or european's...). I do remember reading (in P. Coué Shenzhou's book) about some 80's "CZ-34L" project, a supposed CZ-3 derived rocket that could lift 20 tons to orbit, for the earliest iteration of China's space station, and their early spaceplanes project, but I never could find informations about it.
 
Last edited:
PAL 42.5 that 1/4 of L190
In other words four PAL 42.5 would Double the launch mass of L190.
But with more problems as benefits
Adaptation of L190 to take load of PAL 42.5 during launch
Next to that issue of Pogo oscillation on PAL 42.5 do it length of it tank
That could affect the L190 operation

PAL 39 was more easier to handle
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom