ESA Ariane 6

In my best understanding, A6 is essentially just a badly facelifted/botched A5 with the fat Italian twin solid rocket booster Mafia corporate interest split into half, i.e. more smaller lipsticks on a pig. That's European pseudo innovation, folks - thanks for watching! I honestly believe Europe should form a serious separate RLV organization outside ESA where any pernicious applicants even trying to push solid or toxic liquid propellants would be automatically disqualified, but that's probably just me...
 
Last edited:
Ariane 6 is scheduled to launch on 9 July 2024, with a launch window from 15:00-19:00 local time at Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana (19:00–23:00 BST, 9 July 20:00–10 July 00:00 CEST).
Click to expand...

Live WebTV: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/ESA_Web_TV

That would be +1 hour from ET, so Launch window in the US would be from 2 to 6pm ET on the 9th of July.

www.esa.int

Ariane 6 launch: how to watch and what to look out for

www.esa.int

PS. it´s funny how the popular view summarized by @martinbayer words above has gained traction today. When I wrote similar analysis only days after Ariane 6 was presented, I was the target of so much insults, unjustified hatred comments and Admins (might have been from the Keypub website) censoring that it´s hard to believe and painful to think from how far we came. Had people had better judgment, at least the people in charge, so much money and momentum for Space could have been saved. And industry money doesn´t follow the conservation law: once divested in party drinks, expensive cars, mortgage and failed prenup... It´s lost forever.

Alas, crossing fingers and touching wood for the 6.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Alas, crossing fingers and touching wood for the 6.
Click to expand...
Don't encourage bad behavior, please, failure where failure is due... The sooner ESA moves onto a true RLV (i.e. Musk style, IDK at this point), the better... Bottom line: LOSE. THE. SOLIDS!
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Don't encourage bad behavior, please, failure where failure is due... The sooner ESA moves onto a true RLV (i.e. Musk style, IDK at this point), the better... Bottom line: LOSE. THE. SOLIDS!
Click to expand...
A launch failure next week would only result in emergency return-to-flight funding (the current A6 program does not have contingency for a failed first launch), which would seriously negatively affect next year's ministerial funding on space transportation, which is supposed to fund the ESA small launcher competition and Cargo return program.
Also negative impact on psychological/morale/confidence in the european launcher industry-at-large wouldn't make it worth it in any way.

There still needs a few years of maturation of european small launcher companies before they can be trusted with the funding for Medium/heavy launcher that can replace Ariane 6, because none of them have ever launched an orbital rocket (Orbex and RFA are probably the closest), none of them have ever built a large rocket engine, and some of them have serious internal organisation problems (At least PLD Space and RFA from everything I've heard over the years), in the meantime, Space transportation funding will still go to Ariane 6.
FighterJock said:
Ariane Next looks interesting Michel Van, is there any information about it at this stage or is it too early?
Click to expand...
Ariane NEXT was a mainly CNES (launcher directorate) concept for the application of the Prometheus engine and the Methalox sector that was decided in ~2016. It is outdated by now, CNES came to the conclusion around 2019 that an intermediary vehicle was needed, and Arianegroup has since managed to impose the smaller Themis/Maia medium launcher architecture (which doesn't threaten Ariane 6, and directly competes with newcomers).

CNES's launcher directorate (or what remains of it) currently seems to be more focused on larger (200-250 tf) engines through the ESA High Thrust Engine program and collaboration with Arianegroup (p10) and The Exploration Company.

This is the kind of general launcher architecture they were thinking of as of 2023:

1720182777286.png
 
Last edited:
These designs certainly look impressive TheKutKu, I do wonder though if any of these designs will ever see the light of day or be discarded as being far too complex.
 
Their broadcast is kinda dead. They show cheering employees but mute them? Thought something was wrong with the sound until someone said something at 5:05.
 
GSEV_uRa0AAozx_


GSEWc2Fa8AArIoT


GSEVLFvawAAzkRY
 
The second stage just circulate its orbit of 580 km
and start deploy the cube sats
after that it will made another orbit, then deorbit burn, drop two reentry capsule on way down
 
the second stage has issue, the vinci engine third ignition was to short
Ground crew look into problem why the engine malfunction and if possible to do fourth ignition for planned deorbit

This failure on Vinci engine can be serious problem for Ariane 6, mean only launch to GTO, but not into GEO with second stage
 
Last edited:
Michel Van said:
the second stage has issue, the vinci engine third ignition was to short
Ground crew look into problem why the engine malfunction and if possible to do fourth ignition for planned deorbit

This failure on Vinci engine can be serious problem for Ariane 6, mean only launch to GTO, but not into GEO with second stage
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure the current 2 burns would have been enough for GEO insertion no?

Anyway, APU was the riskiest technology and faced the most troublesome development, it's not that surprising it doesn't work properly. Hopefully the investigation and correction will be swift and effective.

Succesful orbital launch! Deorbit and "suborbital launch"... not so much.

The next launch is to SSO, the full restart capability may not be needed.
 
2nd stage has been passivated, there won't be any deorbit attempt, the two reentry capsules/suborbital payloads will not be released, one could call that a partial failure if they were pedantic.

Stephane Israel, Arianespace's CEO, says that the APU failure will not delay the next launch, which is planned for december. Next launch won't need Vinci restart so it may indeed be true.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that the first launch was a qualified success with a successful burn and separation of the SRBs, a successful first-stage burn followed by a successful second-stage separation and initial burn into orbit. I assume by the second-stage being passivated that means its' propellant tanks have been fully blown down to vent the remaining propellant.
 
TheKutKu said:
2nd stage has been passivated, there won't be any deorbit attempt, the two reentry capsules/suborbital payloads will not be released, one could call that a partial failure if they were pedantic.

Stephane Israel, Arianespace's CEO, says that the APU failure will not delay the next launch, which is planned for december. Next launch won't need Vinci restart so it may indeed be true.
Click to expand...
I believe they said on the webcast that the APU driven restart isn’t needed until they start launching constellations.

On the pretty authoritative https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/ariane-6.htm there are at least 4 launches listed for 2025 that are GTO comsat launches which would corroborate the above, and give them until flight 7 to get it working.
 
archipeppe said:
Here it is my contribution...
Click to expand...
Wonderful work!


bobthemonkey said:
I believe they said on the webcast that the APU driven restart isn’t needed until they start launching constellations.

On the pretty authoritative https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/ariane-6.htm there are at least 4 launches listed for 2025 that are GTO comsat launches which would corroborate the above, and give them until flight 7 to get it working.
Click to expand...

3rd launch should send Galileo, which does require one restart (which they have demonstrated). But yes, the full 3 restarts capability that is yet to be demonstrated is dedicated to constellation launches (with the Astris kick stage as complement)
 
As a passport carrying European, I am somewhat mildly elated at the successful maiden A6 launch, but I am also deeply dismayed at the expendable corner painting/gaslighting going on here. Reusability *is* the future, while solid boosters most certainly aint, and at the snail pace that the ESA/Arianespace bureaucracies are moving, any viable European Musk competitor will most probably well be past my retirement age...
 
Archibald said:
At least this time they didn't penny-pinched a second-hand guidance system from the previous rocket.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a second-hand guidance-system that crashed the first Ariane 5 launch it was due to Arianespace engineers wilfully over reusing Ariane 4 guidance and control software, they failed to take into account the massive performance increase of the Ariane 5 over the Ariane 4.
 
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.
 
Flyaway said:
Stretching it for them to call this success
Click to expand...

That's why I said it was a qualified success.

Flyaway said:
plus the stuff still attached to it in a 580KM to re-enter in an uncontrolled way at some unspecified later date.
Click to expand...

The items of most concern are the two RV payloads as they are designed to survive reentry.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom