ESA Ariane 6

[TheKutKu]

Not the first time Arianespace/ESA calls a dubious demonstration launch a success, 2nd ariane 5/ 502 famously undershot the GTO orbit (with dummy satellites, although with some real experiments on them) by 10,000 km, but was considered as a success for qualification purposes anyway. Arianespace and CNES and ESA didn't acknowledge it as a a failure, CNES called it "a success despite a few anomalies", and it was widely reported as such (I remember seeing some Aviation Week issue calling it a success)

The investigation, and return to flight program after the "failure" were relatively cheap (a couple dozen millions €, vs a few hundred millions for 501, and over half a billion for 517), and since the next launch (ARD) wasn't a commercial one they probably shrugged it

At the end of the day it's a qualification launch and not a commercial/operational launch, so the criteria for success can be different, objectively it was a succesful launch of all the orbital payloads, which was probably enough to start the operational life of the launcher.

 

[NMaude]

Does the second-stage still have attitude-control?

 

[Archibald]

Ariane 5 first six years were pretty miserable... only from 2004 did it matured for good. Failures in 96 97 July 2001 and 12/2002. The latter a major setback, first ESC-A gone wrong. Rosetta had to find itself a new comet.

 

[Hobbes]

Does the second-stage still have attitude-control?

There are reports it has been passivated, i.e. all propellants have been vented. It won't have attitude control after that.

 

[TheKutKu]

Another great picture from the French Air Force

 

[NMaude]

There are reports it has been passivated, i.e. all propellants have been vented. It won't have attitude control after that.

The reason why I was asking is if it still had positive attitude-control then then the second-stage could've been oriented engine first so that the propellants could then be vented through the rocket-motor dropping its' apogee a bit to reduce orbit lifetime.

 

[Forest Green]

Ariane 6 launch returns in-house space access to Europe’s armed forces

The new rocket has an order book for 30 launches, according to Caroline Arnoux, head of the Ariane 6 program at Arianespace.

www.defensenews.com

 

[WatcherZero]

Stretching it for them to call this success when they’ve left a 2 tonne upper stage plus the stuff still attached to it in a 580KM to re-enter in an uncontrolled way at some unspecified later date.

As opposed to Chinese launchers which have no controlled reentry capability at all? They made a choice to omit disposal entirely due to the hit on payload capacity a controlled re-entry entails.

 

[Byeman]

The reason why I was asking is if it still had positive attitude-control then then the second-stage could've been oriented engine first so that the propellants could then be vented through the rocket-motor dropping its' apogee a bit to reduce orbit lifetime.

Tank venting is not always done through the engines.

 

[NMaude]

I'm aware that some venting is done non-propulsively, what I was referring to is if the second-stage still had positive attitude-control then it could've been reoriented engine first. So that if the remaining LOX and LH2 were vented through the engine it would produce some retrograde thrust to lower the orbit thereby reducing the lifetime of the orbit.

 

[Byeman]

I'm aware that some venting is done non-propulsively, what I was referring to is if the second-stage still had positive attitude-control then it could've been reoriented engine first. So that if the remaining LOX and LH2 were vented through the engine it would produce some retrograde thrust to lower the orbit thereby reducing the lifetime of the orbit.

Not done, meaning can't be done. Some vehicles are not set up to vent through the engines.
Plus, launch vehicles are autonomous and can't be commanded. Standard process is to try a second time to ignite the engines, failing that the stage is passivated. If the stage could vent through the engines, it would not be done in a contingency since the impulse would be unknown and risk putting the stage in a worse state.

 

[Flyaway]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811376976919232828

View: https://twitter.com/esa/status/1811376976919232828

Europe’s new #Ariane6 rocket powered into space on 9 July 2024 from its launch pad in French Guiana. Check out our launch highlights video!
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2024/07/Ariane_6_first_flight_highlights

I so wish that Ariane 6 could share information about the deorbit burn

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811378512642670833

View: https://twitter.com/esa/status/1811378512642670833

More info will follow as soon as the teams have collected and analysed their data.

 

[NMaude]

Scott Manley has just put out a video about the first Ariane 6 flight:

Arianespace had expected Ariane 6 to begin flying in 2020, allowing a few years for launches to transition to the new rocket. Not only was this late for all sorts of project management reasons, but Europe lost access to the Soyuz launcher and had problems with Vega-C.So even though the second stage had some problems Europe is no doubt happy to have made this launch happen.

 

[zjz]

First Ariane 6 Mission Partially Succeeds | Aviation Week Network

The first Ariane 6 medium- to heavy-lift launcher placed payloads into orbit in its debut flight July 9.

aviationweek.com

 

[NMaude]

It would appear that customers scheduled to launch satellites on the Ariane 6 are switching to the Falcon 9, from the Space Bucket:

Only days ago the Ariane 6 rocket lifted off for the first time ever. With this vehicle now ready, Europe again has access to its own heavy-lift launch vehicle. However, in one very recent instance, a company set to launch its payload on the Ariane 6’s 3rd flight, made the decision to instead launch with SpaceX and the Falcon 9.

While this is just a single example, a few officials at various European agencies have expressed their disappointment and confusion with the decision. Here I will go more in-depth into the change in launch providers, the competition between the two, the future flight manifest, and more.

For more space-related content check out - https://thespacebucket.com/https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...w&q=https://thespacebucket.com/&v=3jGxlPebUxk

Credit:
SpaceX - https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceX
ESA - https://www.youtube.com/@UCIBaDdAbGlF...

Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:31 - Losing Customers
4:44 - Ariane 6's Future

 

[Michel Van]

seems Europa has Rocket, but not european customers for it
(video removed do dubble posting)

 

[FighterJock]

That is sad for Europa Michel Van, pity it is not the Ariane 6 but that arrived too late.

 

[NMaude]

seems Europa has Rocket, but not europan customers for it

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jGxlPebUxk

I posted that video in the post immediately before this one.

 

[Michel Van]

I posted that video in the post immediately before this one.

uppsie... how i manage that again ?

 

[martinbayer]

seems Europa has Rocket, but not european customers for it
(video removed do dubble posting)

All hat and no cattle, a.k.a. all booster, no payload, according to wiktionary, see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/all_hat_and_no_cattle

 

[Michel Van]

Echt Jetzt ?

The European Space Agency has awarded Arianespace a contract
to explore potential options for enabling crewed missions to be launched aboard the Ariane 6 rocket.

to launch what ?
The ESA Minister council always refuse budget for ESA manned spacecraft since 1992.

Source

ESA Explores Crewed Mission Capabilities for Ariane 6 Rocket

ESA has awarded Arianespace a contract to assess the Ariane 6 launch system's suitability for crew transportation.

europeanspaceflight.com

 

[TheKutKu]

Ariane 6’s backlog - 29 launches - is fine, truly, but it’s also not sustainable, the 18 launches Kuiper contract is almost certainly going to be a one off since by the time it’s honoured, Blue Origin will have its quasi-super heavy New Glenn launch regularly, and Arianespace has been regularly losing GTO/GSO contracts (Its historical mainstay) which have been replaced with institutional contract.



At least the Kuiper launches convinced ESA to fund the Upgraded Block 2 version, whose capabilities will probably be useful for ESA’s lunar and interplanetary missions.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Echt Jetzt ?

to launch what ?
The ESA Minister council always refuse budget for ESA manned spacecraft since 1992.

Source

ESA Explores Crewed Mission Capabilities for Ariane 6 Rocket

ESA has awarded Arianespace a contract to assess the Ariane 6 launch system's suitability for crew transportation.

europeanspaceflight.com

I suppose that they show a generic-looking shroud over a capsule to avoid prejudging any outcome.

SUSIE has been illustrated atop an Ariane 64 and a hypothetical reusable follow-on.

This is the most recent news I've seen. Does anyone know any more?

ArianeGroup begins testing prototype of multirole Susie upper stage

ArianeGroup begins testing prototype of multirole Susie upper stage ArianeGroup has begun testing what it considers to be a versatile answer to numerous challenges facing European spaceflight.

spacenews.com

 

[NMaude]

The ESA has just released this assembly montage video of the first Ariane 6:

The first half of 2024 saw hundreds of people across Europe building, cajoling, shipping, lowering, integrating, securing and protecting the precious pieces and parts that came together to create Ariane 6 – Europe’s new heavy-lift rocket.

Huge engines, boosters and outer shells met tiny screws, electrical boards and masses of supercooled fuel. All this came together at Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana, for the spectacular first launch of Ariane 6 on 9 July 2024, restoring Europe’s access to space.

Get a glimpse at the teamwork, skill and care that went into this moment over many months, in this montage of Ariane 6 images, videos and timelapse photography spanning 30 January to 9 July 2024.

 

[Flyaway]

Post launch update including as regards the APU issues.

Ariane 6: post-launch update

www.esa.int

 

[TomcatViP]

Direct link to the video embedded in post above (one of them):

https://dlmultimedia.esa.int/download/public/videos/2024/07/012/2407_012_AR_EN.mp4

I am really surprised by the apparent low tensile strength of the nose cone fairing during separation.

 

[NMaude]

I am really surprised by the apparent low tensile strength of the nose cone fairing during separation.

The same thing happened with Arine 5 payload-fairings after separation, I doubt it's a design flaw though.

 

[TomcatViP]

But doesn´t this thing wobble widely during flight creating additional drag and trim losses?

 

[Arjen]

I would think attaching the fairing to the launcher gets rid of most of that wobble. If not all.

 

[NMaude]

But doesn´t this thing wobble widely during flight creating additional drag and trim losses?

Before the fairing is jettisoned the two halves are joined together in a single integrated unit mounted on top of the second-stage so they are structurally rigid.

 

[Byeman]

It is called "breathing". Take most cylindrical tanks, remove one end and cut in half lengthwise and they will be just as "floppy". Strength is in the full cylinder.

Same fairing as Atlas V and Vulcan.

 

[TomcatViP]

Sorry but I am pretty sure one of my last tank with a 3 inches thick outer skin won´t breath much. But feel free to giggle the plasma torch around.

Honestly when you have essentially a solid boosted rocket in the high Q domain, what are the real advantages of not adding CFRP ribs there? Not much. Ok, let´s say 1 inch at max longer boosters but with a nose cone that can support higher pitch departure without having to boom.

I would understand if Ariane 6 was essentially liquid propelled in the dense atmo (more tankage, more piping, sturdier pumps etc...) but here ???

Look like something that will narrow the launch domain.

 

[Arjen]

tank with a 3 inches thick outer skin

You will not find such a tank on a launcher.

 

[Archibald]

Except perhaps on Bob Truax Sea Dragon

 

[Byeman]

Sorry but I am pretty sure one of my last tank with a 3 inches thick outer skin won´t breath much. But feel free to giggle the plasma torch around.

Yes it would if it had the same relative dimensions. It would flex the same way.

But I was referring to something like a 1000 gallon propane tank.

 

[Byeman]

Honestly when you have essentially a solid boosted rocket in the high Q domain, what are the real advantages of not adding CFRP ribs there? Not much. Ok, let´s say 1 inch at max longer boosters but with a nose cone that can support higher pitch departure without having to boom.

I would understand if Ariane 6 was essentially liquid propelled in the dense atmo (more tankage, more piping, sturdier pumps etc...) but here ???

Look like something that will narrow the launch domain.

The solids as thrust assist don't make much of a difference on Q because it still is a liquid core and the engine can throttle and the grain can be shaped too.
But as a complete ogive, the fairing can take the Q and not being a limiting factor on launch availability. It is usually bending loads on the core.

 

[TomcatViP]

5 ribs per halve would only have added less than 20kg of mass in total (CFRP)... in the 21st century, for an Ariane 6 type of rocket, is that really relevant? I am pretty sure that dealing with the wobbling impact on the core took away way more payload capacity.

 

[Byeman]

5 ribs per halve would only have added less than 20kg of mass in total (CFRP)... in the 21st century, for an Ariane 6 type of rocket, is that really relevant? I am pretty sure that dealing with the wobbling impact on the core took away way more payload capacity.

That would be wrong. There is no problem here to fix with ribs, There is no lost of payload in "dealing" with wobbling.
a. The ribs would encroach into payload volume.
b. The wobbling only exists during separation because the separation charge that splits the fairing also provides the impulse to push it away from the vehicle. As the charge pushes the fairing away, it also causes it to "flatten" a bit.
c. All fairing flex during jettison.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYtDZ5Btp-A

Watch at 1:40

 

[TomcatViP]

a. there is already some padding. Ribs are not 40cm tall
you can see below that Alas has some

b. You don´t read. If it wobble at separation, it does probably so during flight, affecting aerodynamics and impacting the vehicle in structure and trim. Hence a direct impact on the overall efficiency.

c. Progress is improvement. Here a rigid fairing that won´t flex as much during separation is a step forward toward reusability. Hence efficiency. Not all fairing flex to that extend.

View: https://youtu.be/H1HDZNuuOTA

 

[WatcherZero]

They dont really wobble during flight, its like standing on a drinks can. Cut that drinks can in half and it is flimsy.