European future space transport systems

Oh how lucky I was that I lost my AIAA paper about reusable Ariane 5 flyback booster. ;D

During the search for its number I found dozens of megabytes of much interesting information. First two pictures shows original reusable boosters, proposed during Ariane 5 development.

Last one with big canards is the project that I was looking for. A lot of information can be found in this PDF:

http://www.la.dlr.de/ra/sart/publications/pdf/IAF03-V4-02.pdf

A lot of pictures are here:

http://www.dlr.de/sart/projects/lfbb/lfbb-gal.php.en

New innovative approach for the return of reusable space transpotration vehicles for SART - the winged stages are to be caught in the air and towed back to their launch site without any necessity of an own propulsion system.

http://www.dlr.de/sart/projects/in-air-cap/inaircap.php.en

DLR DSL TSTO STS. I think that everything is clear DSL is Sänger II like reusable two stage to orbit vehicle with expendable second stage.

http://www.dlr.de/sart/projects/dsl/dsl.php.en

http://www.kp.dlr.de/DSL/

Heavy Ariane 5 proposals:

1,2 Ariane 5 Heavy: Mars Society Deutschland
3 Ariane 5 SuperHeavy with reusable flyback boosters cluster: ESA
4 ASL Ariane Super Lourd: CNES

Early proposals of the flyback boosters.

My communication wires are hot, so the new information for Secretprojects and the new update for Hitechweb is on the run

There was (is?) a good periodical from ESA, called "ESA Journal", if I recall correctly. Lots of papers on projects, including launcher studies. Anyone got any of these?

Starviking

I found tons of journals such as "Ecological Society of America" "European Sociological Association" "Entomological Society of America" "Ergonomics Society of South Africa"

Okay, here is additional stuff:

1 Concept studies of european reusable spaceplanes. LART and ISTRES are somewhat unknown to me.
2 Concepts studied during FESTIP program.
3,4 Ariane X preliminary design.

Matej said:

Heavy Ariane 5 proposals:

1,2 Ariane 5 Heavy: Mars Society Deutschland
3 Ariane 5 SuperHeavy with reusable flyback boosters cluster: ESA
4 ASL Ariane Super Lourd: CNES

Click to expand...

Is the Ariane 5 Heavy: Mars Society Deutschland the same thing as Ariane M? My understand is that Ariane M is able to lift 110-120 tonnes to Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

Ariane variants

(Flug Revue 9/1993)

The right one is a "Super Ariane" for Moon missions

on picture from left to right

-behind a standart A5
-before that a Advance Ariane with 2x Vulcain-1 engine
that evolved into Ariane 5 ECA with one Vulcain-2 engine
-Vega proposal based on one EAP (Solid booster) of Ariane 5
-a Lunar Ariane 5

EADS Astrium study for 50 t payload Ariane-5 6xEAP, upperstage with 2 Vinci engine
http://spaceflight.esa.int/strategy/pages/PDF/home/events/integrated_architecture_review/8_July/06.%20Moon-scenario-1.pdf


CNES Launcher Directorate: Ariane 2010 and Alternatives
http://home.btconnect.com/lister/ST/ST2303.pdf

see attach picture from left to right

Ariane with smaller EAP for singel payload.
the Half Ariane-5 Solid concept
the 4 last one are EAL or Liquid booster concept
study by EADS and CNES
consider LOX/Methane or LOX/Hypercarbons with new heavy trust engine

in Space forums i read discussions about replace the EAP P241 by Vega first stage P80
liftoff trust is the same but, weight goes down from 273 tons EAP to 97 for P80 !
look like left concept on picture

will be a Ariane 6 ?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/14/329641/has-the-countdown-to-ariane-6-begun.html
plan:
replace
the expensive Vulcain Engine by a "Heavy Trust Engine"
the EPA solid booster by smaller, cheaper like P80 from VEGA (2 to 6 units)
the Rocket only launch one Satellite a time ! (payload GTO to 8000 kg)
that look more like a Delta 4

Ariane 5 will be launch at least to the year 2020
for ATV mission to ISS and launch of several Galileo GPS Sat's
makes 25 years of service like Ariane 4
Source for Picture: CNES

There is very very little info on what's really going on! The press is mum, the industry is mum, the governments... nobody says a word. Then just suddenly something is announced. It's crazy how it is with ESA and the European press. I get there are some co-operation programs between the French and Russian on engines but very little info has been released through the years. Maybe they have actually not done almost anything?

I'd appreciate it greatly if someone pulled back the veils of secrecy and apathy a little!

A step in the right direction? Or evolutionary dead-end?

www.esa.int/esapub/br/br138/br138.pdf

http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet97/dujarric.pdf

Possible Future European Launchers
– A Process of Convergence*

http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin123/bul123a_ackermann.pdf

Moonbat

Artist's impression of possible Next Generation Launcher (Ariane 6?) configurations.

Source:
http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t7665p300-futur-lanceur-europeen-ariane-6
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ngl/pageflip.html
http://orbiter.dansteph.com/forum/read.php?f=6&i=8554&t=8554

here original page
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ngl/pageflip.html


interesting is that ESA look also in a solid version of Ariane 6

Thank you for those. There's an article about the options in the current issue of Aviation Week. Also in the ESA Bulletin.

Michel Van said:

here original page
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ngl/pageflip.html


interesting is that ESA look also in a solid version of Ariane 6

Click to expand...

Isn't the solid rocket only some Vega sized thingy? The liquid stage looks very small, so no GTO missions?

ESA's goal is a rocket that's smaller than Ariane 5:

Target performance equivalent to 3 t in GTO, with modularity allowing an increase up to 8 t with the addition of strap-on solid-propellant boosters clustered around the central core;

Click to expand...

My primary complaint about the published plans for the ESA
next generation launcher and/or Ariane 6 was that the liquid fueled
version was to use a single new expensive staged-combustion engine at
about twice the thrust of the Vulcain.
I was therefore pleased to see that there is now being considered a
version that will use two engines on the core:

CNES, ASI Favor Solid-Rocket Design For Ariane 6.
By Amy Svitak.
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology.
October 15, 2012.
Amy Svitak Naples, Italy, and Paris.

Bonnal says CNES is preparing wind-tunnel tests to adjust the margin
policy, and pressure oscillation has been assessed for different
flight phases.
Similar to the P1B, the all-liquid H2C would use up to six strap-on
boosters to carry as much as 8,400 kg to GTO. Twin main engines,
capable of 150 tons of vacuum thrust derived from the Ariane 5's
Snecma-built Vulcain 2, would comprise the H165 first stage, which
would be topped by a 31-ton cryogenic upper stage, he says.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_15_2012_p26-505016.xml&p=3

Click to expand...

However, it seems to be the nature of governmental space agencies to
always want to go grandiose, like NASA. But instead of incurring the cost
of increasing the thrust of the Vulcain 2, why not use the same ones,
use a smaller upper stage (31 tons really??) and go with the smaller
Ariane 5 "G" version of the core stage?
As I discussed before, judging by the Japanese example with
the H-II rocket of adding on a second cryogenic engine, this
modification of the Ariane 5 core to use two Vulcains probably can be
done in the $200 million range. Then there really is no need to
continue talking about billion dollar development programs for the
Ariane 6.
Indeed with the recent ESA decision to engage in the development of
the Ariane 5 ME, this modification to the Ariane 5 core to use two
Vulcains is so comparitively low cost it could be done at the same
time as the Ariane 5 ME development. That is, you could have both
the Ariane 5 ME and the Ariane 6 in the same time frame.
Another point, again as I discussed before, the most
important result of following this approach is that it would result in
a manned capable launcher in a short time frame. Even if you are
skeptical of the SSTO version, just using the prior, small, ca. 10mT
gross mass upper stages, of the earlier Ariane versions,
you could have your manned launcher without the solid
side boosters. This key advantage I still haven't seen discussed but
obviously it would a great benefit in producing support among the
European public and the politicians who hold the ESA purse strings.


Bob Clark

Note: the attached image did not appear in the AV Week article, at least it
doesn't in the current version online. I found it after a web search. It does
show two engines on the liquid fueled version of the Ariane 6 core.

That Av Week article says the ESA is favoring the solid rocket first-stage, solution to the Ariane 6. This article in Spaceflightnow makes clear that is largely a political decision, not because of its capabilities:

European ministers decide to stick with Ariane 5, for now.
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: November 21, 2012

An initial design assessment by CNES - the French space agency - this year concluded the Ariane 6 rocket should consist of a solid-fueled first stage motor and a cryogenic liquid-fueled upper stage based around the next-generation Ariane 5's Vinci engine.
The concept would build upon both the Ariane 5 and lightweight Vega satellite launcher, which debuted in February and is powered by solid rocket motors. Such a design would ensure high industrial involvement from France, Germany and Italy, the three largest contributors to Europe's rocket programs. "At the moment, we see synergies between both Ariane 5 and Ariane 6, as well as Vega and Ariane 6," said Enrico Saggese, president of the Italian Space Agency, in an interview Wednesday.
Return-on-investment in the form of industrial contracts and jobs is one of the most important factors guiding decisions on European space programs.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1211/21ariane/#.ULe6wRgreWs

Click to expand...

The most important advantage of the all-liquid solution is that it could serve as a manned flight capable launcher without the solid side boosters. Entering in some numbers in Schilling's Launch Performance Calculator, I get in the range of 6,000 kg to LEO using the numbers given in the Av Week article for the all-liquid solution as a SSTO, and in the range of 10,000 kg to LEO using two stages.


Bob Clark

RGClark said:

...
Another point, again as I discussed before, the most
important result of following this approach is that it would result in
a manned capable launcher in a short time frame. Even if you are
skeptical of the SSTO version, just using the prior, small, ca. 10mT
gross mass upper stages, of the earlier Ariane versions,
you could have your manned launcher without the solid
side boosters. This key advantage I still haven't seen discussed but
obviously it would a great benefit in producing support among the
European public and the politicians who hold the ESA purse strings.


Bob Clark

Note: the attached image did not appear in the AV Week article, at least it
doesn't in the current version online. I found it after a web search. It does
show two engines on the liquid fueled version of the Ariane 6 core.

Click to expand...

The ESA needs to release to the European public the LEO payload capability of the twin-Vulcain solution for the Ariane 6. The image above gives only it's payload to GTO , not to LEO, in the configuration without solid rocket boosters. The configuration without the solids is the appropriate one since there still is a distrust in the industry for manned flights using solids since they can not be shut down. Note it would also be less costly to man-rate without the solid rocket boosters.

Looking at some other launchers however, we may be able to estimate the payload to LEO. You see for the Ariane 5, Atlas V, and Delta IV, the payload to LEO is about twice that to GTO, more or less:

Ariane 5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5

Atlas V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_5

Delta IV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV

Twice the 2,200 kg payload to GTO for the liquid-fueled sans solids version of the Ariane 6 would be 4,400 kg. Then we may estimate the payload to LEO to be in the 4,000 kg to 5,000 kg range. Note this would be well sufficient to launch a small size capsule, about half-size to the SpaceX Dragon. The Dragon is at a dry mass of about 4,000 kg, so half size is about 2,000 kg, but we also want to reserve mass for the launch escape system (LAS). A 4,000 kg to 5,000 kg payload capability should be sufficient even including a LAS.

In regards to cost, note the Dragon cost $300 million in development as *privately developed*. As privately developed, this half-size capsule should be even less, perhaps even half that to $150 million.

There is also the question of man-rating this liquid-fuel Ariane 6 launcher. We might make a comparison to the man-rating of the Atlas V, which only cost a few million dollars:

NASA and ULA agree SAA to complete the human rating of Atlas V.
July 18, 2011 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/07/nasa-ula-saa-complete-human-rating-atlas-v/


Bob Clark

Just saw this:

CNES Design Team Sets ‘Triple-seven’ Goal for Ariane 6.
By Peter B. de Selding | Jan. 2, 2013
http://www.spacenews.com/article/cnes-design-team-sets-%E2%80%98triple-seven%E2%80%99-goal-for-ariane-6

You'll need to do free registration for temporary access to read the article.

From the article:

...after months of hard selling that saw them pitted against much of France’s industry, CNES officials last year convinced Fioraso that Ariane 6 — less expensive and less powerful than Ariane 5, and carrying just one satellite at a time to orbit — is the way of the future.
The design of the rocket — two solid-fueled lower stages and a cryogenic upper stage, plus solid-fueled strap-on boosters — was frozen Nov. 21 during a meeting of ESA government ministers.ESA Launcher Director Antonio Fabrizi said this design, and no other, is what ministers approved.

Click to expand...

and:

Ariane 6 has been conceived from the start as a “next-generation” rocket that in many ways looks like a throwback — more of a less-expensive Lockheed Martin Atlas 5, or a Proton launched from the equator. Ariane 5 can do more things for more customers.
But if it meets its design goal, Ariane 6 will reach a financial equilibrium that has eluded Ariane 5. CNES officials say economic criteria account for 43 percent of the design decisions made for the rocket, with technical criteria accounting for just 30 percent.
The remaining 27 percent of the design choices are being made on the basis of Europe’s existing industrial capacity.
French industry is responsible for around 50 percent of the construction of Ariane 5. Eymard said the agency assumes France will carry about the same load for Ariane 6.
Beyond the French contribution, all bets are off. CNES has penciled in Germany at 25 percent, and Italy at 10-15 percent. The Italian share should be relatively easy to secure because Italy already is heavily involved in production, with Snecma of France, of the solid-fueled strap-on boosters used on the Ariane 5 rocket. Italy is also the lead investor in the new Vega small-satellite launcher, which made its inaugural flight in early 2012.
Because of the all-but-guaranteed work share of Italian industry in the Ariane 6 solid-fueled stages, the Italian government is not likely to resist taking its 10-15 percent stake despite its public-debt crisis.
Ensuring German industry sufficient work will not be as straightforward, European government and industry officials said.

Click to expand...

This article shows the difficulty the ESA will have in developing innovative launch solutions. The biggest factor in deciding which launcher to develop is how much work it can provide to the ESA, member countries. This supersedes even lowered costs.

The ESA could develop a low cost launcher that would be comparable in cost to the SpaceX Falcon 9, AND moreover would give Europe an independent manned launch capability simply by adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core. Ironically though, this option is not chosen because it would be TOO low cost: it would be simple, quick - and not provide enough work to the ESA member countries.

The only way Europe is going to get low cost space access it now appears is if it is privately developed. As proven by SpaceX this can cut 90% (!) off the development costs. And in fact it should be even easier and cheaper than the SpaceX case since the components already exist in the Ariane 5 core, built in France, and Vulcain II engines, built in Germany. Even the capsule for the manned launchers is largely already designed in the Orbital Sciences, Cygnus capsule, which is actually built in Italy. You would just need to supply life support to the capsule already designed to be pressurized.

The only thing needed are entrepreneurs in Europe like Elon Musk in the U.S. with the insight to carry it out.

Bob Clark

this is the end , my friends

of Europe manned spacecraft program,
3 hours ago ESA gave a order to Astrium for R&D on Ariane 6 and Ariane 5 ME
the 5 ME will be last version of Ariane 5 while the Ariane 6 gonna be complete new design

Ariane 6 will feature 2 solid rocket stage and third Lh2/Lox upper stage.
it use first stage as booster for greater payload,
feature technogly of VEGA rocket and Ariane 5ME hardware.
the launch cost for one satellite would be 70 million euro, against 200 million of Ariane 5

according Arianespace-Chef Le Gall,
Ariane 6 has to be build so fast as possible and be ready 2017/2018
also it has to replace the Soyuz on Kourou space port !

Source: German newsmagazine Stern
http://www.stern.de/wissen/technik/neue-ariane-6-europas-billige-superrakete-1963368.html


with introduction of Solid rocket for Ariane 6. will terminate all attempts for ESA manned rocket Launcher...

RGClark said:

Just saw this:

CNES Design Team Sets ‘Triple-seven’ Goal for Ariane 6.
By Peter B. de Selding | Jan. 2, 2013
http://www.spacenews.com/article/cnes-design-team-sets-%E2%80%98triple-seven%E2%80%99-goal-for-ariane-6
(You'll need to do free registration for temporary access to read the article.)

This article shows the difficulty the ESA will have in developing innovative launch solutions. The biggest factor in deciding which launcher to develop is how much work it can provide to the ESA, member countries. This supersedes even lowered costs.

The ESA could develop a low cost launcher that would be comparable in cost to the SpaceX Falcon 9, AND moreover would give Europe an independent manned launch capability simply by adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core. Ironically though, this option is not chosen because it would be TOO low cost: it would be simple, quick - and not provide enough work to the ESA member countries.

The only way Europe is going to get low cost space access it now appears is if it is privately developed. As proven by SpaceX this can cut 90% (!) off the development costs. And in fact it should be even easier and cheaper than the SpaceX case since the components already exist in the Ariane 5 core, built in France, and Vulcain II engines, built in Germany. Even the capsule for the manned launchers is largely already designed in the Orbital Sciences, Cygnus capsule, which is actually built in Italy. You would just need to supply life support to the capsule already designed to be pressurized.

The only thing needed are entrepreneurs in Europe like Elon Musk in the U.S. with the insight to carry it out.

Bob Clark

Click to expand...

Europe Urged To Halt Work on ‘Dead End' Ariane 6 Design.
By Peter B. de Selding | May. 30, 2013

The academy is urging the agencies to stop work on the Ariane 6 they approved in November with a view to beginning full development in 2014. The academy-favored rocket would use liquid propulsion instead of solid, and would face four more years of preparatory work before moving to full development in 2018.
In the meantime, the academy says, Europe should focus on an upgraded heavy-lift Ariane 5 that would fly for a decade before both it and the Europeanized version of Russia’s medium-lift Soyuz rocket are replaced by the all-liquid Ariane 6 in 2027. This rocket, called Ariane 5 ME, has been in design for several years. Continued work on it was approved, alongside Ariane 6, at the November meeting of European Space Agency (ESA) governments.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35546europe-urged-to-halt-work-on-%E2%80%98dead-end-ariane-6-design

Click to expand...

Another key advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6 is that it could be used for a manned launch vehicle.
Note that Russia is raising their prices to $73 million per seat or $220 million for three. This is greater than the launch cost of the full 20 metric ton class Ariane 5. The smaller Ariane 6 would certainly be cheaper than that. By producing this liquid fueled Ariane 6, Europe could get their own manned space flights and more cheaply than by paying the Russians.
Such a launcher could be done more quickly and cheaply by using a commercial space approach. The Falcon 9 and the Antares only took 4 years and a few hundred million in development cost that had to be paid by NASA.
I also estimate the cost per launch of a single stage version could be done for half the $127 million cost given that report for their version of the Ariane 6:

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 3: towards European human spaceflight.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-lasting-importance-of-spacex.html

Bob Clark

I don't get this talk of using Cygnus as a "manned capsule". IIRC Cygnus isn't even recoverable... it burns up after departing ISS, just like a Progress freighter.

While the jabs at the "much more expensive" Dragon in the article fail to point out the REASON that Dragon is "much more expensive"-- it's a RECOVERABLE capsule. Aiming for "reusable". And a manned variant of a recoverable capsule is a MUCH easier thing to accomplish than a manned version of an expendable cargo can that burns up after being jettisoned from the space station after each mission.

Re-engineering Cygnus to be both recoverable and manned would make it a MUCH more expensive vehicle than it presently is... probably on par with Dragon cost-wise.

So much for the "free lunch"... LOL

Later! OL JR

luke strawwalker said:

I don't get this talk of using Cygnus as a "manned capsule". IIRC Cygnus isn't even recoverable... it burns up after departing ISS, just like a Progress freighter.

While the jabs at the "much more expensive" Dragon in the article fail to point out the REASON that Dragon is "much more expensive"-- it's a RECOVERABLE capsule. Aiming for "reusable". And a manned variant of a recoverable capsule is a MUCH easier thing to accomplish than a manned version of an expendable cargo can that burns up after being jettisoned from the space station after each mission.

Re-engineering Cygnus to be both recoverable and manned would make it a MUCH more expensive vehicle than it presently is... probably on par with Dragon cost-wise.

So much for the "free lunch"... LOL

Later! OL JR

Click to expand...

Not that I'm a big enforcer of the staying on topic thing, but that really has nothing to do with this thread. RGClark likes to post things wherever he wants, even if it has nothing to do with the subject, but there's no reason to encourage him.

As for your points, yeah, true. But Orbital's response to Dragon is that there is far less demand for recovering cargo than there is for taking cargo up, so why build a more expensive vehicle if you're not really going to need it most of the time?

But that really belongs in a different thread than this one, which is about EUROPEAN FUTURE SPACE TRANSPORT SYSTEMS.

luke strawwalker said:

I don't get this talk of using Cygnus as a "manned capsule". IIRC Cygnus isn't even recoverable... it burns up after departing ISS, just like a Progress freighter.

While the jabs at the "much more expensive" Dragon in the article fail to point out the REASON that Dragon is "much more expensive"-- it's a RECOVERABLE capsule. Aiming for "reusable". And a manned variant of a recoverable capsule is a MUCH easier thing to accomplish than a manned version of an expendable cargo can that burns up after being jettisoned from the space station after each mission.
Re-engineering Cygnus to be both recoverable and manned would make it a MUCH more expensive vehicle than it presently is... probably on par with Dragon cost-wise.
So much for the "free lunch"... LOL
Later! OL JR

Click to expand...

Not free, but cheaper. The larger size of the Dragon effects the larger development cost. There is also higher development cost attached to adding life support and heat shield as well as the Draco thrusters.
Cygnus can be reusable by adding a heat shield. This is being considered for the Cygnus using a new inflatable heat shield:


http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2013/02/antares-rocket-nears-hot-fire-test-at.html

Adding these components to the Cygnus will increase the development cost but if following the commercial space approach it will still be cheaper than the Dragon.

Bob Clark

(Edited by adding image.)

blackstar said:

Not that I'm a big enforcer of the staying on topic thing, but that really has nothing to do with this thread. RGClark likes to post things wherever he wants, even if it has nothing to do with the subject, but there's no reason to encourage him.
As for your points, yeah, true. But Orbital's response to Dragon is that there is far less demand for recovering cargo than there is for taking cargo up, so why build a more expensive vehicle if you're not really going to need it most of the time?
But that really belongs in a different thread than this one, which is about EUROPEAN FUTURE SPACE TRANSPORT SYSTEMS.

Click to expand...

Here's an argument for its relevance to future European transports. The Ariane 6 is supposed to be half to one-third as expensive as the Ariane 5. The Ariane 5 is already being used to deliver cargo to the ISS but using the very expensive to develop and produce ATV. In fact ESA doesn't want to produce any more ATV's after this last one.
But if you have this less expensive launcher in the Ariane 6 then you have a much less expensive route to sending cargo to the ISS. But then you need a pressurized capsule to transport it. Why spend the expense of developing a new small pressurized capsule when you already have one in the European developed Cygnus? (By the way this raises an interesting economic question I'll raise at the bottom.)
SpaceX is charging NASA $133 million to transport about 6,000 kg to the ISS. Note this is well above the launch cost of the Falcon 9 alone. The large extra cost is due to the use of the expensive Dragon capsule. The Ariane 6 would have comparable payload capacity as the Falcon 9 but using a 2,000 kg lighter capsule. Then it could be at or above the cargo capability of the Falcon 9 to the ISS. And from the estimated launch cost of the Ariane 6 and the low cost of the Cygnus compared to the Dragon their price could be at or below that of the Falcon 9/Dragon. How's that for wanting to be competitive with SpaceX?

Now, that European space academy wants ESA to make a liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6 instead of the planned solid-fueled one. Imagine you have that and it is being used to send cargo via the Cygnus capsule to the ISS. It's not much of leap at all that if you add life support and a heat shield to the Cygnus then you would have a European vehicle capable of sending astronauts to the ISS as well. And you could do it at a price to undercut the Russians.
I want to argue again here for the commercial space approach for accomplishing this. The 2027 time frame for such a liquid fueled Ariane 6 is following the usual glacial pace of government financed space programs. By following the commercial space approach both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences were able to develop their launchers in 4 years. Commercial space is both cheaper and faster than government space.

About that economic question I mentioned above, Orbital Sciences paid for the development of the Cygnus to the Italian Space Agency(ISA). But certainly the ISA would not want to turn over the full rights to the Cygnus to a foreign company. It's quite likely ISA retains ownership of the Cygnus. This becomes interesting in regards to the price they would charge for the Cygnus compared to the price Orbital Sciences would charge.
Because Orbital paid for the development of the Cygnus they would want to recoup that cost in the price they charge. But the ISA does not have to recover that cost. This means they could charge much less. But then why would anyone pay for the higher cost from Orbital when they could get it cheaper from the ISA?
A puzzling question. It may be Orbital retains the rights to sell the Cygnus to NASA or even for all American launches.


Bob Clark

RGClark said:

...
The ESA could develop a low cost launcher that would be comparable in cost to the SpaceX Falcon 9, AND moreover would give Europe an independent manned launch capability simply by adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core. Ironically though, this option is not chosen because it would be TOO low cost: it would be simple, quick - and not provide enough work to the ESA member countries.
...

Bob Clark

Click to expand...

The facts discussed here on NasaSpaceFlight.com about the options for the Ariane 6 should be more generally known:

====================================================
Re: Ariane 6: solid vs. liquid
« Reply #54 on: 01/13/2013 04:03 PM »

Wow, only a few days and more than 50 replies!
Obviously it was an urgent problem to be discussed.

I'd like to give some more results from the NELS study but I will not publish any concrete numbers as they are confidential. I hope you understand that I don't want to put my job in jeopardy...

In the study we investigated different launcher concepts, including concepts with LOX/kerosene, LOX / hydrogen and solid first stages, all combined with a cryogenic upper stage. We also investigated different versions of the PPH approach, including the CNES concepts.

The most interesting result is that all modular concepts, using a common core approach or strap-on-boosters, are not competitive to the “clean” inline designs.

The three most promising concepts KH (kerolox first stage with NK-33 engines), HH (cryogenic first stage with Vulcain 3) and PPH (solid first and second stage in-line) have practically the same recurrent cost. The small differences are well within the accuracy of our cost estimates.
Therefore, no economic justification for a solid Ariane-6 design can be derived from these results!

BTW, no concept is able to meet the 70M Euro benchmark for 6,5t to GTO.

Taking into account the loss of crucial technology, for me the clear winner is a HH concept using 3 Vulcain-3 engines in the first stage for the large payloads (up to 6,5 t) and two engines on the same first stage with a 35% propellant offload for the small payloads (up to 3,5 t).

The development cost for the HH concept are in the same range as for the solid concepts, but the development risk is much lower as the Vulcain engines are well understood and the V3 is directly derived from the V2. Also the main stage tank is nothing but a stretched version (with different wall thickness of course) of the existing EPC stage.

The development time is also shorter. A “Block 1” version of the HH concept, using Vulcain 2 engines with shortened nozzles instead of the Vulcain 3 and the Ariane 5ME upper stage could be launched already in 2018! It would have a GTO payload capacity of only 4,3 t but it can be used to qualify the first stage prior to the availability of the Vulcain 3.

In my eyes it is a shame that such a concept is not even given a fair chance to compete against the PPH in a phase A study.

Spacediver
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30749.msg1000469#msg1000469
=============================================

Such a liquid fueled version of the Ariane 6 that could be used for manned flights could be ready by 2018.
ESA studies are different than NASA ones. At least the results of such studies for NASA would be released to the public so there could be public debate on the merits of the choices made when the taxpayers are being committed to billion dollar expenditures. But here they are not widely released. Consequently the European public is not aware they could have an independent manned spaceflight capability by 2018.


Bob Clark

ESA Chooses Solid-Fueled Cluster Design for Ariane 6.
By Amy Svitak ****@aviationweek.com
Source: AWIN First
July 9, 2013

The European Space Agency (ESA) has settled on the basic design of the Ariane 6, the next-generation launch vehicle that will succeed Europe’s heavy-lift Ariane 5.
Known as the “Multi P Linear” concept, the launch vehicle will comprise four solid-fueled boosters that make up the rocket’s first and second stages, topped by a cryogenic third stage based on the Vinci engine, which is being developed by the Snecma motors division of France’s Safran as part of a midlife upgrade to the current Ariane 5, known as Ariane 5ME.
http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_09_2013_p0-595179.xml

Click to expand...

Yet, another disadvantage of this solid fueled version is that it can not be upgraded to be reusable as a liquid fueled version can. SpaceX is moving towards reusable rockets to drastically cut the cost for space access. All the other space agencies in the world with their liquid fueled rockets can also upgrade them to be reusable.
With this solid fueled design Europe will once again be left behind.


Bob Clark

i just wonder

Will they sometimes install a parachute package in Ariane 6 solid stage, to make quality checks on them, like on Ariane 5 booster ?

Head of German space agency also doubtful of the solid fuel version of the Ariane 6:

DLR’s Woerner Remains Unconvinced Just-unveiled Ariane 6 Design Is Right Way To Go.
By Peter B. de Selding | Jul. 12, 2013

Any hope that Europe one day would be launching its own astronauts would evaporate with Ariane 6, Woerner said.

Click to expand...

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/36225dlr%E2%80%99s-woerner-remains-unconvinced-just-unveiled-ariane-6-design-is-right

Bob Clark

ESA posted its REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION FOR KEY LAUNCHER ELEMENT(S) OF THE ARIANE 6 LAUNCH VEHICLE

It includes a pretty interesting ATTACHMENT II : Technical Conditions.
http://emits.sso.esa.int/emits-doc/ESA_HQ/Technicalconditionsv10.pdf

It describes the launcher Key elements.

RGClark said:

ESA Chooses Solid-Fueled Cluster Design for Ariane 6.
By Amy Svitak ****@aviationweek.com
Source: AWIN First
July 9, 2013

The European Space Agency (ESA) has settled on the basic design of the Ariane 6, the next-generation launch vehicle that will succeed Europe’s heavy-lift Ariane 5.
Known as the “Multi P Linear” concept, the launch vehicle will comprise four solid-fueled boosters that make up the rocket’s first and second stages, topped by a cryogenic third stage based on the Vinci engine, which is being developed by the Snecma motors division of France’s Safran as part of a midlife upgrade to the current Ariane 5, known as Ariane 5ME.
http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_09_2013_p0-595179.xml

Click to expand...

Yet, another disadvantage of this solid fueled version is that it can not be upgraded to be reusable as a liquid fueled version can. SpaceX is moving towards reusable rockets to drastically cut the cost for space access. All the other space agencies in the world with their liquid fueled rockets can also upgrade them to be reusable.
With this solid fueled design Europe will once again be left behind.

Click to expand...

Though in the first test flight of the new version of the Falcon 9, the F9 v1.1, they did not stably "land" the first stage, SpaceX is optimistic they can solve the problem to get a reusable first stage:

SpaceX Hit Huge Reusable Rocket Milestone with Falcon 9 Test Flight (Video).
By Mike Wall, Senior Writer | October 17, 2013 02:01pm ET
http://www.space.com/23230-spacex-falcon9-reusable-rocket-milestone.html

If SpaceX is right about this, then the solid-fueled Ariane 6 will become obsolete before it is even fielded. The ESA doesn't realize it but they are betting on SpaceX being wrong, because if SpaceX is right the ESA's billion-dollar development on the Ariane 6 becomes worthless. They would have to start all over again from scratch to build the liquid fueled version that can be reusable like the Falcon 9.
With multi-billion dollar projects at stake, I don't think it's a good bet on their part. Better would be to hedge their bets. As I discussed before it's been proven by the Japanese that addition of a second cryogenic engine to a stage can be accomplished for just a few hundred million dollars. Then the ESA could do a test development on a small scale of adding on a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core, while doing their development of the solid-fueled Ariane 6.


Bob Clark

cosmiste said:

It describes the launcher Key elements.

Click to expand...

..."Gas Tank". Regular, Premium or Unleaded? ;D

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/France_raises_heat_on_decision_for_next_Ariane_rocket_999.html

France raises heat on decision for next Ariane rocket
by Staff Writers
Paris (AFP) Sept 18, 2014



France's space agency on Thursday unveiled a revised proposal for an Ariane rocket ahead of a tough decision on launchers by the European Space Agency (ESA).

Ministers must decide whether they can afford to fund the development of two projects for Europe's next rocket.

These are an Ariane 6, promoted by France, that would be operational from the next decade and an intermediate launcher, the Ariane 5 ME, backed by Germany.

At a press conference in Paris, France's National Centre for Space Study (CNES) said the overhauled plans for the Ariane 6 resulted in a "simple design with great payload capacity," able to take between five and 10 tonnes into orbit.

It could be ready for launch in 2020, said CNES boss Jean-Yve Le Gall, a date that is a year or two earlier than was expected in July 2013.

"We are looking at a two-booster version, with costs of around 65 million euros [$83.85 million] per launch, and a four-booster version, at around 85 million euros per launch," said Le Gall.

"The per-kilo cost will be around 10,000 euros, roughly half that of Ariane 5 today," he said, referring to ESA's current workhorse.

CNES' previous design for the Ariane 6 had promised a 30-percent gain on Ariane 5 per-kilo launch costs.

"The industrial and institutional organisation of the project will be simplified, with the goal being to save costs," Le Gall pledged.

He admitted there would have to be "compromises" in Luxembourg, adding that around eight billion euros will be earmarked for launchers for the next decade.

"We tend to want everything, but the means to do so aren't always there," he said.

The presentation came a day after a preparatory meeting at ESA where the revised plans were approved by other figures in the space industry, including the head of launch operator Arianespace, Stephane Israel.

The December 2 meeting in Luxembourg will determine the outcome of a difficult political compromise in 2013 between ESA's major partners as nimble US firms such as SpaceX eye the market for satellite launches.

The German-backed Ariane 5 ME, standing for Midlife Evolution, would be a tweaked version of the Ariane 5.

It would in theory be ready by 2017 and yield operational costs over the existing ECA and ES models, which are highly reliable but need hefty subsidies.

In February, France's national auditor disclosed that French policymakers favoured dropping the ME to keep down development costs and prevent a feared delay to the Ariane 6.

Click to expand...

Ministers to chart Ariane rocket's future (BBC News)

The Ariane 6-4 in this press article looks much different from that mentioned above. Thanks for the link Grey Havoc.