As a German and by extension European citizen as well as an aerospace engineer it truly saddens me to see ESA firmly stuck in the 20th century.

Totally agree with you martinbayer, I wanted the Ariane 6 to be something special. Hopefully the next Ariane will be a better designed rocket.
I think that any true innovation will have to come from way outside the ESA/EU bureaucracies. Now if we could somehow goad Red Bull into throwing their hat into the orbital transportation ring...
 
Ariane 6 central core for combined tests has now been assembled
Kourou, June 27, 2022

ArianeGroup teams have completed assembly of Ariane 6’s central core in the all-new Ariane 6
Launcher Assembly Building at Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana.
The Ariane 6 core and upper stages were mechanically and electrically integrated to form the Ariane
6 central core, which is now ready to be transferred to the Ariane 6 Mobile Gantry and lifted into a
vertical position. This step thus paves the way for connecting Ariane 6 with its launch pad, to be
carried out under the responsibility of the European Space Agency (ESA) and executed by an
integrated ESA-ArianeGroup-CNES team.

 
I just baffles (and amazes) me to no end that Jeff Bezos, of all people, somewhat rescued ULA and Ariane 6 with his Kuiper project. I wonder if he did that to piss Musk - by using the non-reusable launchers in bulk for a Starlink-like project. Also his New Glenn is still nowhere to be seen.

"Hey look Elon, I will get my own Starlink in orbit. With the expendable launchers you loathes so much. Who needs Falcon 9, really ?"

Fact is that 83 launchers each with a payload of 20 tons to orbit can launch 1660 tons to orbit. Then if one Kuiper bird weights 500 kg, that's 3320 satellites: close from the number picked by Bezos. If the birds only weight 200 kg, then that 8300 satellites. I've just checked a Starlink's weight, that's 260 kg, and that would be 6384 of them.

Who said old expendables are buried ?

But don't tell that to the SpaceX fanboys: they would blow a gasket.
 
Last edited:
Also his New Glenn is still nowhere to be seen.

Too true Archibald, I have not heard anything or seen anything news wise about New Glenn recently, is the project still active?
It’s still active just that Blue don’t release much info about it all that often.

Surprised about that Flyaway, I wonder why they don't release more news like what SpaceX and Arianespace do with the Falcon and Ariane rockets.
 
Also his New Glenn is still nowhere to be seen.

Too true Archibald, I have not heard anything or seen anything news wise about New Glenn recently, is the project still active?
It’s still active just that Blue don’t release much info about it all that often.

Surprised about that Flyaway, I wonder why they don't release more news like what SpaceX and Arianespace do with the Falcon and Ariane rockets.
It appears to be just their way of doing business.
 
Also his New Glenn is still nowhere to be seen.

Too true Archibald, I have not heard anything or seen anything news wise about New Glenn recently, is the project still active?
It’s still active just that Blue don’t release much info about it all that often.

Surprised about that Flyaway, I wonder why they don't release more news like what SpaceX and Arianespace do with the Falcon and Ariane rockets.
It appears to be just their way of doing business.

Well they should change their business methods or there won't be any customers coming to be launched by New Glenn rockets, if the potential customers don't see any progress on the rockets.
 
These will be flying on an Ariane 64 in 2023.


I hope the first launch for the Ariane 64 goes smoothly, as someone who can remember what happened to the first launch of the Ariane 5 rocket when it first launched back in the 1990's.
 
ugly truth

Ariane 6 need 72 launches to recover R&D cost of 5 billion euro
currently it got only 42 launches contracts (18 from Kuiper system because they not want launch with SpaceX)

The french minister Bruno Le Maire confess in CNBC interview
That was a FATAL decision 10 years ago to keep Ariane 6 expendable and therefore keep industry running
And SpaceX now dominate the Market with cheaper reusable Falcon 9
For every expendable Ariane 5 launch, SpaceX launch TEN Falcon 9, who land on drone ship...
Ariane 62 is 90 million euros and Ariane 64 its 115 million euros.
to compare Falcon 9 is at 48 million euros launch cost!

so Bruno Le Maire "put one's foot down" at Arianespace
and order them start R&D and Launch of reusable European rocket in 2026 !
only open question: does this mean MAIA or Ariane 7 ?

Source in german Language
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1esRUz8o-o
 
Ariane 6 is larger than Ariane 5? I saw one chart where it looked that way...I thought it was smaller.
 
It's the same diameter, and slightly taller, as they built a core stage with similar performance but simpler construction: instead of having the LH and LO tanks share a bulkhead, they're now separate, which requires more space between them. This applies to the second stage as well.
 
It's the same diameter, and slightly taller, as they built a core stage with similar performance but simpler construction: instead of having the LH and LO tanks share a bulkhead, they're now separate, which requires more space between them. This applies to the second stage as well.
A common bulkhead is quite difficult and expensive to build, special if you use Liquid Oxygen and liquid Hydrogen.
Like isolation because temperature difference of oxygen at -190°C vs Hydrogen −252.87 °C
you have to prevent that Oxygen freeze out on bulkhead at −218.79 °C and ice block feed line to rocket engine !
similar issue is with Kerosine and Oxygen,

Build separate bulkhead solve this problem and is cheaper, disadvantage the rocket get longer
 
....................
......................
Build separate bulkhead solve this problem and is cheaper, disadvantage the rocket get longer
And the rocket gets heavier, so I doubt that it is cheaper.

Already in the sixties the Atlas Centaur, Saturn I / IB and Saturn V used common bulkheads between all the LOX and LH2 tanks to save weight.
But surely they did not know what they were doing, although they managed to land people on the moon several times but that must have been pure luck, right?

Now the really clever people at Arianespace figured it out: get rid of the common bulkhead, make the rocket heavier and save cost.

That's the difference between the sixties and present time: in the sixties seriously clever engineers and scientists made designs based on their insight and a slide rule. Nowadays poorly educated people stare at computer screens, have no idea what they are doing, and come up with rockets like the Ariane 6 and SLS.
 
Don't forget that the paradigm in material weight has drastically changed with CFRP or even high strength steel.
As a system, it might be more interesting to swap a complex and heavier dual bulkhead with some extra lengths. Think that passive isolation can generally be heavy, even with foamed material and active's one will require some extra piping, pumps, valves etc...

Fact is that we don't know. It's too dependent on many different parameters to argue for sure if there is any benefits.
But that's true that Ariane 6 is more an RoI centric design. In fact, it should be clarified with a proper designation: Ariane $...
 
Last edited:
....................
......................
Build separate bulkhead solve this problem and is cheaper, disadvantage the rocket get longer
And the rocket gets heavier, so I doubt that it is cheaper.

Already in the sixties the Atlas Centaur, Saturn I / IB and Saturn V used common bulkheads between all the LOX and LH2 tanks to save weight.
But surely they did not know what they were doing, although they managed to land people on the moon several times but that must have been pure luck, right?

Now the really clever people at Arianespace figured it out: get rid of the common bulkhead, make the rocket heavier and save cost.

That's the difference between the sixties and present time: in the sixties seriously clever engineers and scientists made designs based on their insight and a slide rule. Nowadays poorly educated people stare at computer screens, have no idea what they are doing, and come up with rockets like the Ariane 6 and SLS.

The difference is in complexity of construction. Adding another barrel section to the fuselage is a lot simpler than manufacturing a common bulkhead. The cost of a rocket is not in the materials (a few tons of high-grade aluminium) or in the fuel ($300k for a fully loaded Falcon 9). It's in the factory operations to turn the raw materials into a rocket, and the associated man-hours.

A lot of early rocket designs optimized performance (defined as payload fraction, i.e. weight to orbit divided by takeoff weight).
It turns out, that tends to make the rocket complicated (i.e. expensive) to build, while saving a few tons of cheap fuel.

The current trend is to optimize for low cost of manufacturing, and accept the fact that the payload fraction will be lower. The bottom line is in favor of this type of rocket. The Falcon 9 is one example, Ariane 6 is another: by making Ariane 6 larger than Ariane 5, they were able to halve the production cost.
 
....................
......................
Build separate bulkhead solve this problem and is cheaper, disadvantage the rocket get longer
And the rocket gets heavier, so I doubt that it is cheaper.

.......................................

............................................ by making Ariane 6 larger than Ariane 5, they were able to halve the production cost.
Half the production cost of Ariane 5 by simply replacing the common bulkhead by two separate bulkheads and making the rocket longer?
 
Half the production cost by redesigning every aspect of Ariane 5 to optimize for cost. This also includes the workflow for a launch: by moving to horizontal integration, they can use an integration building that's cheaper to build and run (no aircon in a tower 70 meters high).
 
Half the production cost by redesigning every aspect of Ariane 5 to optimize for cost. This also includes the workflow for a launch: by moving to horizontal integration, they can use an integration building that's cheaper to build and run (no aircon in a tower 70 meters high).
Exactly.

I can't imagine that changing the bulkhead and making the rocket a few meters longer saves any cost or weight.
It looks more like avoiding a risk that only existed in the minds of the rather conservative designers, and a decision which they probably regret now although they would never admit that.

According to attached ULA datasheet the new Vulcan rocket will have a common bulkhead between the LOX and LH2 tanks in the second stage with the same 5.4 m diameter as Ariane 6.
 

Attachments

  • vulcan-centaur-cutaway-poster.png
    vulcan-centaur-cutaway-poster.png
    296.6 KB · Views: 26
The small size liquid boosters tickle the engineer in me: new configuration, new pressure ratio, new tanks, new piping... Why?
It doubles the pain for a maginal fraction of their offer.
 
The small size liquid boosters tickle the engineer in me: new configuration, new pressure ratio, new tanks, new piping... Why?
Seems they want reusable launchers for small satellite, medium and heavy satellite.
Here make sense to build diameter tanks in size for needed Prometheus engines.
 
View: https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1578011712573276169


ESA announces progress in Ariane 6 rocket development, following a series of upper stage and Vinci engine tests:


DLR press release:


Ariane Group press release:

 
Last edited:
View: https://twitter.com/ariane6/status/1582011539871379458


#Ariane6 now fully-stacked on its launchpad in French Guiana; that’s a test model with payload mock-up, to validate the complete rocket-pad-gantry system: esa.int/Enabling_Suppo… photo: @esa + @PedoussautManu
Ariane 6 stands tall on its launch pad
17/10/2022
ESA / Enabling & Support / Space Transportation / Ariane

The Ariane 6 launch pad at Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana now hosts for the first time a fully assembled example of ESA’s new heavy-lift rocket, following the addition of an upper composite to the core stage and four boosters already in place. The upper composite – consisting of two half-fairings and a payload mock-up with the structural adapter needed to join it to the core stage – made the 10 km trip from the encapsulation building to launch pad on 12 October.

Assembly, transfer and installation of an upper composite validates the Ariane 6 assembly process. Now, over the next several weeks, teams from ESA, ArianeGroup and French space agency CNES will make the mechanical, electrical and fluid connections which join this test model of the Ariane 64 configuration to the launch pad.

With Ariane 6 fully integrated with the pad, so-called combined tests will validate the rocket, launch pad and shared electrical, fluid and mechanical systems as a complete system. The combined tests include tank filling and drainage operations which guarantee smooth-running of a launch sequence. Flight and control bench software will also be tested.

Then, the launch pad will serve as a test bed for static hot-fire tests of the Vulcain 2.1 core stage engine, including aborted firings and long firings with disconnection. Vulcain 2.1 is derived from Ariane 5’s Vulcain 2.

Separately, static hot-fire tests of the Ariane 6 upper stage and its all-new Vinci engine began in October on a purpose-built test bed at Germany’s DLR centre for engine and stage testing at Lampoldshausen.

The reignitable Vinci engine allows Ariane 6 to deliver multiple payloads to different orbits on a single launch. After payload separation a final engine burn deorbits the upper stage so that it does not become a debris threat in space.  

ESA Director of Space Transportation Daniel Neuenschwander underscores the importance of Ariane 6 as a successor to Ariane 5, which for more than a quarter century has provided Europe with reliable access to space: “Innovation is the key to maintaining Europe’s capacity to reach space with a fully independent launch system that is competitive and versatile.”

“With Ariane 6 we have Europe’s best engineers developing new technologies and manufacturing methods to build on the success of one of the world’s most reliable launch systems.”

On Wednesday 19 October 2022, a media briefing will be held in Paris at 1700 to detail Ariane 6 progress. Media can attend in person or by Webex; for details and registration here. The briefing will be broadcast to all interested viewers on ESA Web TV. Taking part will be ESA and its Ariane 6 partners: prime contractor ArianeGroup, launch operator Arianespace and French space agency CNES, which operates Europe’s Spaceport and is delivering Ariane 6 ground infrastructure.

Ariane 6 is a modular launch vehicle using either two or four P120C strap-on boosters, depending on mission requirements. The P120C engine does double duty, also serving as the first stage of ESA’s new Vega-C rocket. 

Ariane 6 is project-managed and funded by ESA, which also acts as launch system architect. ArianeGroup is design authority and industrial prime contractor for the launcher system and CNES is prime contractor for the Ariane 6 launch base at Europe’s Spaceport. Arianespace is the launch service provider of Ariane 6.

 
Surprising exactly nobody the first launch of Ariane 6 has fallen back to NET last quarter of 2023.

View: https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1582750512784769031


#Ariane6 first flight now expected no earlier than "last quarter 2023" according to ESA, ArianeGroup in update to media just now.

(Credit: @brickmack)
View: https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1582754153402892288


"Ariane 6 Block II" is the name Arianespace is giving to the upgraded Ariane 6 rocket they're envisioning for the later half of the decade.

20% increase in performance to LEO with new upper stage and solid rocket motors.
View: https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1582755039810318336


Aschbacher notes the Q4 2023 launch target depends on hitting three milestones by Q1:

1 - Completion of upper stage hot fire test
2 - Start of combined tests in French Guiana
3 - Start of launch system qualification review
 
LOL

Ariane boss insists Europe’s new rocket can compete with Musk’s SpaceX

The new Ariane 6 rocket system will be competitive with Elon Musk’s SpaceX despite it lagging behind on reusable technology, said André-Hubert Roussel, CEO of Ariane Group, which runs the aerospace project.

The long-delayed Ariane 6 system should finally launch in the fourth quarter of 2023, and Roussel said that while it won't include such cost-slashing technology as SpaceX it could eventually be possible to carry out a launch every two weeks, though only up to 12 in a full calendar year.

“Ariane 6 is the guarantee of autonomous access to space for Europe,” Roussel told POLITICO, while confirming tentative plans to carry out a maiden launch of the next-generation rocket by the close of next year, though the first full-scale commercial launch will only happen in 2024.
 
LOL

Ariane boss insists Europe’s new rocket can compete with Musk’s SpaceX

The new Ariane 6 rocket system will be competitive with Elon Musk’s SpaceX despite it lagging behind on reusable technology, said André-Hubert Roussel, CEO of Ariane Group, which runs the aerospace project.

The long-delayed Ariane 6 system should finally launch in the fourth quarter of 2023, and Roussel said that while it won't include such cost-slashing technology as SpaceX it could eventually be possible to carry out a launch every two weeks, though only up to 12 in a full calendar year.

“Ariane 6 is the guarantee of autonomous access to space for Europe,” Roussel told POLITICO, while confirming tentative plans to carry out a maiden launch of the next-generation rocket by the close of next year, though the first full-scale commercial launch will only happen in 2024.
I. Doubt. It.
 
Other than guaranteeing Europe’s continued independent access to space, and at least aiming to reduce launch costs, I don’t think there is much else you can say in favour of Ariane 6 at this stage.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom