Europe Retires Ariane 5 Before Ariane 6 Is Ready????
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июл 2023
- This week saw the final launch of Ariane 5, a launcher with over 100 successful launches since the 1990's, and while it's career has been notable, its retirement before Ariane 5 is ready means that Western Europe has lost almost all its launch capability. Vega-C is still grounded and the Soyuz is no longer available.
So what's Ariane 6 going to look like?
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley 
Наука
Ariane 5 was a major success. Between 2000 and 2012, she owned 60% of the commercial satellites market. She also greatly benefited from the us space shuttle being so expensive.
After 2012 and the beginning of SpaceX, the market share of Ariane 5 started to decrease. Ariane 5 was perfectly designed for the market of the 2000s. Ariane 6 was pefectly designed for market of the 2015s. Ariane 6 is almost 10 years to late.
But late is still better than ever, and Ariane 6 has a great many improvments over Ariane 5, such as 50% reduction in costs, a 100% increase in production capability, ability to launch satellites constellations etc ...
Ariane has decided, a bit late, to throw themselves in reusability. The reusable methalox prometheus engine is in development , as well as other engines. For now, they still lack some vision though.
Difficult to have vision when designed by committee... It was a good design as long as the competition was ULA...
No such thing as being too late if you have guaranteed government funding.
EU wanted to make ESA an EU agency. Hence it failed. It will never be competitive again, in terms of outcomes relative to money spent.
@@geraint8989 If it was a EU organization it would be easier to secure funding where member states can not suddenly pull out without warning. ESA fails because we got our national space agencies with ESA in parallel instead of only ESA. We both fund the national space programs at the same time as we fund ESA meaning money gets spread out too thin making expensive projects extremely inefficient. Though I think we europeans are too stupid to understand that poland as a example does not have the resources to have a individual space program. The logical solution is to combine our resources to really get the resources necessary to lead when it comes to space tech otherwise we will always be behind the other competitors.
@@zapfanzapfan Yeah but ... the competition WAS ULA and the shuttle. They designed for their competition. No shame in that, I don't judge them too harshly for not building something spectacular and new when they were already ahead of their competition in some ways.
I love Ariane 5 because it shows that you can really make a hydrolox rocket look good and you don't need to use janky-looking spray foam. Also it has the highest thrust to weight ratio of any large rocket, by quite a lot, so it just flies off the pad like no other. And Ariane 6 will carry on that family tradition, so I can't wait to see it fly too. Hopefully within a couple years they can do the first flight, but we'll see I guess.
Looks are most important, yes, even if it costs weight.
Unfortunately minus the good looking, It doesn't look bad, just a bit dong shaped.
think Vega-C has higher thrust to weight?
@@sudazima Vega-C is not a “large rocket”
First flight end of this year/beginning of next year IF ground testing this summer goes well
Sad to see Ariana 5 go, it was an expensive, but capable launch vehicle and I am sure the highlight of its career will always be the JWST, if nothing else that 1 launch made it worth it.
Juice is also a really good payload
@@theoschreiner2468 Yes, and our great grand children will be amazed when it finally gets to Jupiter.
@@hawkdsl lol it'll only take about 8 years. 😅
and then the mission will only last 3 years😐
@@hamzahkhan8952 like every spatial exploration mission
@@artemisfowl7307 lol true. except voyager, new horizon, and pioneer missions,
I saw this comment elsewhere and loved it: " Ariane went from non-competitive to non-competing"
Ariane was the most use
to be fair, i‘m pretty sure that ariane v was pretty competitive when it comes to launching satelites into geostationary orbit
Ariane 6, like SLS, exist for one simple reason, politics
@@sven1555n terms of numbers launched yes, in terms of cost not so much... Politics? Schedule? Capability? All of the above? Who knows.
@@sven1555 Pairs of satellites...
The Falcon 9 is truly impressive. The amount of times I've heard Scott say "x payload has moved from y launcher to Falcon 9" is getting tiresome. Truly the DC-3 of launchers.
?
There is just no alternative. Customers want a western launcher with reasonabke price and high reliablility. Russia and China are politically impossible. Vega and Ariane are currently not available. Delta and Atlas are almost retired and expensive. Vulcaan ist not ready yet. Japans H-3 is expensive and not yet reliable.
With all the credit we have to give SpaceX, there is just no competition and that is concerning because one company owns the access to space.
@@artemisfowl7307The DC-3 was the first commercial transport efficient enough to operate without government subsidies. Its creation was responsible for a significant increase in airline usage.
@@_TeXoN_ maybe everyone else should suck less
@caldodge which can't be said about SpaceX
Medium & heavy lift rockets available to Western customers: Falcon 9 and India's LVM3.
Unavailable: Ariane 6, Vulcan, Soyuz, H-III (Japan), Antares.
Essentially unavailable: Atlas V, all remaining flights are booked.
India's PSLV is also available for low-medium payloads. However, the ability of ISRO to increase their flight cadence is probably limited, while SpaceX's flight cadence is limited only by how fast they can produce an upper stage. Reusability of the 1st stage is such an advantage!
Amazing what can be achieved when govt is removed from the equation
@@dmurray2978??? Actually it is quite the contrary
Soyuz is available. The West just doesn't want to use it.
@@dmurray2978 Tell us, is government in the room with us right now?
@@rhamlet5290 in France the govt has a new law allowing the govt to access our phone mics and cameras so yes
As a European myself I'm pretty sad about the current state of the European space flight program. Ariane 5 has flown it's last flight and Ariane 6 will only be ready next year or so. Vega C has failed three times and is under investigation. At the moment Europe has lost access to space and is already being "guest" on Falcon 9 flights, as for example with the Euclid telescope.
But what I really don't understand is why ESA and Arianespace aren't developing a proper reusable rocket program. Themis will only try to copy a Falcon 9 with a first test after 2030, but then Starship is probably already operational for years and that is fully reusable.
It's also more than sad that Ariane 5 was never used for manned spaceflight and there are no plans for Europe's own manned spaceflight program. Even India will overtake Europe because they will soon launch people into space as the forth country after the USA, Russia and China.
Europe clearly has the capabilities for manned spaceflight and fully reusable rockets. Look at what the ATV was able to do by transporting cargo to the ISS. But somehow ESA and Arianespace don't have the willpower and just seem to ignore the current progress with Starship. What's wrong with ESA and Arianespace? 😥
You have just articulated the most salient and credible facts in all these comments. Thanks. As a Canadian, I bemoan ESA lack of leadership on a number of fronts. Perhaps an ESA / JAXA merge is in order.
Vega c has flown 2 times. It’s first flight was a succes, it’s second failed. So no it did not ‘fail’ 3 times.
@@tjmcguire9417While I don’t think a merger between ESA and JAXA would be possible politically I think more cooperative agreements between the two agencies would be a good idea. For example, back in the ‘80s while ESA was planning the Hermes spaceplane JAXA was planning the Hope spaceplane. I thought back then and still think they should have pooled their resources into a single program. On the plus side the BepiColumbo mission currently on its way to Mercury is a joint ESA/JAXA mission.
its flight, not it's flight
@@ladydustin7811 Yes you are right, there was a "C" too much in my original comment. Correct is that from eight flights in the Vega program (both Vega and Vega C) three failed.
They have got a few upgrades coming to the Ariane 6 over the years. Like a new carbon fiber second stage and reusable liquid propelled boosters.
You forgot to mention Vinci is an Expander Cycle engine so has higher specific impulse than the previous upper stage.
Though the Isp of the Vinci suddenly dropped from the astounding 465/467 sec stated some years ago to a more mundane 457 in the more recent publications. If confirmed, really a mediocre performance for an engine supposedly that advanced (also with a really good expansion ratio of 240).
@@andreabindolini7452 Vinci does have significantly more thrust than RL10 for example tho. NASA was even considering building the exploration upper stage of Artemis with 3 Vinci instead of 4 RL10, but that idea was quickly discarded for political reasons. While the efficiency is certainly nothing spectacular, my guess is the priority went into cost optimization after they noticied the lower Isp instead of "fixing" that.
@@spacegoldfish40 This is all true. On the other hand, the chinese YF-79 has similar ISP and even more thrust.
@@spacegoldfish40BE-3U could have been an viable alternative to the RL10 as well as it again produces a significant amount more thrust whilst being efficient.
One small correction: Ariane 5ME was not a backporting of ariane 6 systems. It was aupposed to be the last configuration of Ariane 5 with Vinci developed for it. But they eventually decided to go for a new launcher a couple of years in (A6).
Hey Scott! Just as a quick note. The Ariane 5&6 are built by ArianeGroup, while ArianeSpace (the launch provider for vega, ariane and sojuz) is a daughter company of ArianeGroup
that's only an organisational division. They're still the same company at the end of the day
@@thesteelrodent1796it's more complicated... before the creation of arianegroup, it was the CNES and Arianespace the main builders. Ariane 6 was started in a joint with Airbus and Safran, before becoming Arianegroup.
Scott should do a video untangling the ownership and financing structure of European air/space/defense-industry. It'll be a long complicated video...
@@zapfanzapfan it wasn't at first. It's really since the creation of Arianegroup 😬
(Ok, actually, it's been made simpler. Before that, CNES was doing the same as NASA did.)
@@zapfanzapfan Europe is the world champion in complicated organizational structures that somehow still work extremely well. I'm pretty sure that Belgium exists solely as an experiment into how complicated you can make something without it completely falling apart.
The Vinci engine has a really good specific impulse and more thrust than the current RL10.
The thing about the European space launcher industry is , there is not enough demand to make it worth while to reuse kit. Many of the companies cannot afford to produce only one or two engines per year for example. So either Europe has to be able to be able to build demand so it is worthwhile build and launch reusable vehicles, or each launcher has to cost 4 or 5 times what it does now.
Hopefully Europe can get through this and build more launchers.
most of ESA's work is done for non-member countries, and that included the US before SpaceX got up and running. There are still a lot of countries who will happily wait for a more expensive launch slot on an ESA rocket that has yet to fly, rather than ever give money to a rocket owned by a US company. Ariane 6 will undoubtedly get work to do, but whether it will pay for itself remains to be seen
Reusability is pointless if it all comes back to French Guyana or the Atlantic nearby, all hardware processing apart from solid propellant filling and vehicle assembly is done in europe. Makes more sense to keep the production lines running steadily...
Isar, PLD, Pangea, Orbex and RFA all plan some kind of reusability. They are small rockets, but lets wait and see
This is one part that many people miss - SpaceX has an easier time here than others because they have a huge backlog of already paid-for launches thanks to their Starlink. And while Starlink is heavily subsidized, they are the customer, so it gives them more flexibility in their launch schedule.
And after all, the question whether reusability makes any sense at all isn't so clear cut - SpaceX is an order of magnitude away from the launch price they were promising for the reused rockets, as well as from the reuse cadence they promised. It is unclear if reuse actually saves any money or time.
@@kain0mI think it's pretty clear how much time and money reuse saves. Like 4 or so years ago they reported refurbishing costs half as much as a new booster, presumably including sea operations cost average. As for time, refurbishment finishes at the cape within a week or two including the few days of intake from the barge. They don't have to ship a booster from California every 5 days or make a new production chain and factory in Florida. It probably costs much less than half now. A new booster takes much longer to fabricate, assemble, validate, plus making the engines, then full build validation. Instead they can allocate resources much better to the upper stage, where they still find ways to speed up and optimize production to speed up cadence today, as that is the bottleneck.
The biggest benefit of reuse is the speed and cadence of operation, they can launch at a cadence of seemingly less than a week at a time regularly. This cadence pays off their fixed costs like the pad and staff.
To be fair, the only reusable rocket on the market is the F9. Plenty of other rockets, current and soon to be available that still won't go that route.
The Electron is also a reusable rocket.
@@dl2839 they have yet to actually reuse one though. so far it's experimental in my opinion.
Only 40% (the first stage) of a F9 is reusable, on launches where it's viable to do the return burn. While that still makes it slightly cheaper to fly, it's still only a small portion of the full cost of the launch. With the Falcon Heavy operational there's been fewer F9 launches where they've had to ditch the first stage, but it really is only for the recurring ISS resupply missions where the reusable first stage makes a noticeable difference. For the occasional satellite launch, the cost is still so high that it's more a gimmick than a selling point. As long as they burn a ton of kerosene on every launch, they can't even claim it's environmentally friendly
@thesteelrodent1796 Actually, the Fairings are reused, too... And the Dragon capsule, but you already said as much. Also, a falcon 9 burns around 100 tons of kerosene, not one ton.
gee I wonder what Space-X be up to actually that could trump the Falcon-9 and has reusable booster that uses liquid methane and oxygen as fuel and might at a later stage use those same engines on their smaller launch vehicle, when the Falcon 9 still will be viable at that point, also like a dozen companies worldwide and state-owned actually trying to go fully reusable like Falcon 9, we will see
Scott fyi yesterday the ISRO chief gave a detailed interview on why chandrayaan 2 failed and what kind of process and technical changes have been made to ch 3. It is very detailed and explains why this time they have taken a failure prevention based approach rather than success oriented. Great watch. You should check it out
Ariane V was also precise as heck. Allowing a lot of customers to have longer missions because they needed less fuel to correct their orbits.
Its not about precision, it is about where is launched....close to the equator so less fuel needed to enter orbit.
@@AthosRac Precision also counts for a lot. The mission time of JWST for example was extended by around ten years because of how precise Ariane 5 was.
@AthosRac fair enough. But if you miss your orbit you have to spent precious delta v as well. So Guiana space port and precision is a perfect storm
once it grew up, yes. Some of the early launches were less successful and it had a rocky start before it became the most reliable space truck that it was
it had to be. it cant relight like the f9 option. no chance for fixes.
Scott, thank you so much for your videos. You are the best source of space/aeronautics/science information on the planet.
Respect, and Thank you for this Ariane video with all the cool ESA/Ariane footage. Although I disrespect chaka-chaka 'we are so great' a miss a little praise for our A5 and A6.Just for the heart-blood, you know. But, on the other hand l really like the coolness you comment the cool space stuff, with. My respect for knowing and mentioning the Liquid Fly Back Booster Study for A5 by DLR. Thats certainly add on knowledge for many space entuhsias that follow you.
@ 5:45: I love the whole: "but, of course, developing a new rocket means: developing a new launch-site"
Scott - great video!
As ever European cooperation is very bureaucratic in nature, when it gets something right it tends to *really* get it right, but often far too late and after too much squabbling. In my opinion though they *do* have the best naming conventions out of any space program, all the things they develop sound awesome
I started at Ariane Group almost a year ago... yeah there lots of pressure to get A6 flying.
What are internal thoughts of how to compete with SpaceX? A6 will not cut it either, so what's the point?
@@denysvlasenko1865 So A6 does not compete with Falcon 9, so they very different in the missions they fly. Futher, A6's order book is also full for like 3/4 years after the first one files so there wil be plenty of work. Infact the 'ramp up' in production is also a big challenge.
Yet there is a clear acceptance that SpaceX has changed the game, and that there is a problem in AG but also in the wider European space industry. Reuasability is obvioulsy the first key one. I think perhaps also the 'build once' approach, as in its right first time, takes too much time. However, I am not sure what the difference is in development costs are between build once vs. fail often in regard to building rockets (I am pretty certain SpaceX has a bigger budget than us).
I could go on, but I would say there is an acceptance of the problems I am not 100% convinced I am seeing solutions to the problems. Perhaps the focus is 'just get A6 up, we are so close now, just get it off the ground', and we can fix ourselves after.
All that said the people who work there are really talented and really know what they are doing. I work on the German side and people are friendly, easy to get along with and pretty welcoming. Also remember there are many other things going on in AG, so we are involved in ZeroE with Airbus etc, so I am pretty satisfied with my job presently.
Well... I guess we shall see.
Thanks, Scott! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Excellent overview. Only thing I was missing was a mention of the number and plans for the old version of the Vega rocket. There should be 2 or 3 still in stock, and AFAIK they have already rebooked the payload of the next planned Vega C to the original Vega; at least mitigating the whole problem a little bit.
They left so much usefulness on the table with the Ariane 5 by using an inadequate upper stage. And there were multiple upgrades planned that went nowhere. The Ariane 6 improves that, but at the same time doubles the number of solids aka explosive failure points. Sure, officials say the A6 cheaper, but I’ve completely lost trust in them and do jot believe them. If this were 2013 I‘d call the Ariane 6 a mild improvement, in 2023 this is just incredibly frustrating.
Seriously, explosive failure points? SRB's are some of the most reliable rocket motors out there.
That's good you are not a paying customer of them :)
Imagine a what if scenario where _Hermes_ wasn't cancelled. It looks like it could have been an easily scalable design to go along with the evoulution of a larger family of boosters. What a shame.
well, there is Dream Chaser. From nine years ago, but maybe interesting still : The new European allies of Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser have officially announced “cooperative understandings” that not only combine a transatlantic engineering boost for the baby orbiter, but may also result in Dream Chasers hitching rides atop of an Ariane rocket. More importantly, the announcement provided extra details on the vehicle’s future ambitions.
I would say, leave away useless things such as wings and finally realize a capsule that lands by paraglider.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 That was actually demonstrated with the NASA X-38 CRV (Crew Return Vehicle) testbed.
@@bat2293 I know, but sadly it was never implemented in a real spacecraft.
For some reason, this brings to mind the whole Skylon/Reaction Engines thing. Scott, would you consider doing a piece on that?
It's good to see that the U.S. isn't the only country that gets locked into a rockets design based on politics and bureaucracy.
While I get why it may be "good" it really is not good
Europe isn't a country, it's a conglomerate of various space agencies that all have their own agendas. So what you get is a launch system designed by a committee! It works but takes the committee to agree on every detail before it could be of any use!
@@mikehipperson there's always that one guy. I guess you're it. Nowhere did I say that Europe was a country. Arianespace is headquartered out of France. Which is.... a country. And yes, there are other partners involved. But it just so happens that they are from countries too.
@@RustyorBroken No, it's two guys... given the semantic implication which goes with "U.S. isn't the only country".
Back to the original point, the broader question to me is whether there have been any national space launcher programs for which the design wasn't a product of politics. Going back to the dawn of the space age, for example, the R-7/Soyuz configuration was to my mind heavily influenced by what it was like to be an engineer under Stalin (specifically, an engineer who didn't want to get shot). So an ICBM extrapolated from the A-4/V-2 in that case (all's well that ends well in that case -- the basic configuration is still flying more than sixty years later).
Articulate yourself. I appreciate your thought, but it is nonsense. Space and exploration programs in the US fight tooth and nail for funding. No one is locked into anything. This has gone on since before the Gemini program. Ranger. Why do you think North America is so far beyond you guys? It's called. COMPETITION. So. If you don't have facts... Don't speak. I am Canadian. I have followed this since I saw men land on the moon. LIVE.
The Payload capacity for the Ariane 64 at 3:46 should read GEO, not GTO. Whoever made the slides probably overlooked it, since all the other payload capacities for Ariane are usually provided for GTO.
I still can't get over the fact that instead of moving the rocket out of the assembly building, they move the building out of the rocket.
Great as usual!
It looked like that one of the protypes had landing legs as Spacex Falcon 9/Heavy rockets(9.08). no further plans on that or?
Merci Scott
Arainn space has a lot of catching up to do regarding reusable boosters.
No; EUROPE has a lot of catching up to do. And they’ve made a big mistake by letting their anti-reusability launch monopoly, Arianespace, be their main worker on reusability. They instead need to focus on developing NEW ENTRANTS who actually believe in the subject.
Let’s let Ariane 5 rest and wake up Ariane 6 for time in the spotlight
I make some composite parts for the Ariane 6, and I have been waiting and WAITING for the day I can see my parts go to space.
Scott I'm learning about calculating altitude based on pressure using the barometric formula. On earth, there are 8 layers that use different parameters (like temperature lapse rate) say different altitudes, which correspond to layers in the atmosphere. How did they account for this oh Mars?
I will never forget watching the former CEO of Arianespace Richard Bowles participating in a discussion panel and proclaiming that SpaceX's stated aim of reusable rockets and cheaper space launches was nothing more than them selling and pursuing a dream, implying that it was an unattainable goal. Bowles' remarks are a classic example the quote from Arthur C. Clark's Three Laws _"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."_ In this case, Mr Bowles has suffered a _"failure of the imagination"_
He was never CEO however.
And SpaceX still needs to show the cost....
@@AthosRac what do you mean? It it known, that they charge about 60 million for a launch with internal costs probably closer to 30 million (that one is a guess).
@@pascalwiery7129 Is that confirmed? If so, I would actually like to check out any materials that are available on that subject.
@@michaeldunne338 SpaceX charge about US$62 million for an F9 launch, and about US$90 million for FH, depending on how recoverable they make the launch. That is a confirmed, advertised price. The launch cost WILL be significantly lower... less than $40 million, otherwise whats the point? There would be no profit. Meanwhile the launch *cost* for Ariane 5 is US$177 million per launch. Apparently, Ariane 6 will be cheaper, but at the moment, it ain't launching anything.
Goodbye Ariane 5
Thank you, Scott, for your editorial comments. Great insight.
Could you cover the vega rocket a bit more?
I find the concept of it interesting
The fact that everyone at the live launch was watching through their phone screen is depressing.
Adeline was not validated by CNES because it turned out to be not economically vaible, because of candences, like any other reusability decisions in europe. until europe governments spend as much money as USA and china, 10x less today, Ariane wont have enough cadency of launches, and such the reusability is not economically viable as t is now. but they prepare to master the technics with Themis and calisto, to be ready if neeeded. For now only Maïa will try to make micro launcher reusable with small cadency.
It isn't about economic viability, it's about subsidized workers and suppliers. It's the same turd sandwich NASA feeds the US with things like SLS. There is no need for that rocket, but Congress needs to get elected so they throw wasted money at suppliers in their districts. Europe is playing the same game of grift and glory.
Hi Scott!
Fly safe!
Oh Scott there's a small typo in the description, the second time you say "Ariane" it should be "before Ariane 6 is ready" instead of "before Ariane 5 is ready"
Love the content!
Glad you caught that
Shutting down one program before its replacement is ready seems to be common in the space industry
Actually surprised that the Europeans have been left without a launcher.
Can't say if it is bad planning or sheer will - like when NASA retired the Shuttle without having an alternative launcher...
Human-rated vehicles are completely different, as was the cost. The PR image and budget was just out of control for NASA at the time.
Ariane is just an enigma for me, it’s really expensive with rather mundane performance stats for such a large vehicle.
It sounds like Falcon 9 is actually cheaper for the UK taxpayers, and even for ESA AFTER their government subsidies - I’m assuming that why they have already booked numerous launches with SpaceX.
Many over on the other side of the pond are probably left scratching their heads as to why they’re dumping so much money into a new rocket when there’s an existing independent company that can somehow STILL launch their payloads for cheaper. 🤷🏻♂️
Those are the same companies, so they had to switch at some point to start working on Ariane 6. Arianespace had stockpiled Ariane 5 rockets for years into the future, but didn't expect such massive delays from Ariane 6 production.
It's all about money and how much each of the ESA's members are willing to pony up. They certainly didn't plan on 6 not being ready by the time 5 was retired, but like the old saying goes, launching payloads to orbit is hard and sh!t happens 😉
also you can not call a company funded by US state and military money and dependent on NASA / DARPA contracts to be independent, especially not from a European standpoint, no matter the cost having a your own launch capabilities is very important for military reasons alone, you need to look at the launches and contracts themselves, its a difference when several European Universities decide to launch their cubesats with Space-X. Its entirely a different story when the French military wants to launch their observation satellites. Also I guess for many missions the launch vehicle cost are actually just a fraction of the cost.
@@kleinerprinz99 Perfect example being the JWST :
payload ~10B, Ariane 5 launch : ~100M
For these kind of missions only the reliability matters
Thanks.
Chuckles from the EU watching your channel! Well done.
Even if the Ariane 6 was ready it seems like a minimal improvement on the Ariane 5 in cost and performance. An expendable rocket arriving now when the reusable Falcon 9 is so dominant is going to leave the ESA with a launch capability disadvantage.
Though Ariane space can probably wave the nationalism flag and get contracts with government subsidies it's not so good for all the European taxpayers who are funding those subsidies.
Arianne? You can't even spell it.
A suggestion for our friends of ArianneSpace...make a deal with SpaceX to replace Sojuz with in Falcon9, who knows SpaceX might also be interested in the performance their launcher would have with an equatorial site!
That's a great idea...
Well, I guess this could be an option if production of the rockets would come to Europe.
With Ariane 6 a smaller version with 2 boosers is added, and Vega is upgraded. This closes the gap.
Arianespace having that equatorial launch site helps a lot, it lets them compete in the geostationary market despite a higher launch cost than F9.
I expect that will continue with Ariane 6.
In addition, there are no hurricanes so close to the Equator.
Never did like that Mainsail change to the Vulcain in KSP 1.9.
I have a Personal relationship with Ariane 5❤
I did back in school a big presentation after the first big explosion.
that Rocket started my interest in Rocket Science and Space and in the and liking and loving you and KSP. big ❤❤❤ for this rocket
It was a good design as long as the competition was ULA...
At the age of starship, everything else looks like a huge firecracker. but heck, that Ariane 5 is beautiful, i stood next to the mockup in Paris and it was just huge!
That Ariane 6 construction sequence is super cool to watch.
I remember seeing an interview years back of the chief of the Ariane space program when asked about reusability. And he laughed at the idea, saying something like: “what should we do with the workers then? Send them back home half the year?”. Not imagining more business. I thought oh well, thats it for Ariane in not too many years….🙁
that sounds so familiar to what Rogozin sad about 5-6 years ago, when he was head of Roscosmos - "reusable is more expensive, we don't need that, that is all scum". so sad ESA has it's own Rogozin :(
The real story of Ariane is that it is the successor of the Europa rocket but the British decided not to join the Ariane project unlike Europa which happened to use a British first stage.
I understand Ariane 5 had booster fuel similar to the space-shuttle - powdered aluminium. You mentioned Ariane 6 being similar to Vega, but I don't know what sort of fuel that uses. Is it the same, or...?
I still remember that Ariane 4 software being the cause of the first ariane 5 explosion
Wow, the JUICE mission had to waste an entire year in space because the Ariane upper stage didn't have re-light capability??? That's crazy.
Yep and it gets funnier: Because it's flight time to Jupiter is so much longer, it will actually arrive there a few months later than NASA's Europa clipper satellite, which is set to launch next year. Both of these satellites will basically do the same measurements at the same locations, so it's all kinda redundant and in my view, a waste of money
Every launcher has its problem
@@michahermann7869 Not quite, while both probes are studying the same moons, Europa Clipper is obviously focused on Europa, while JUICE's attention is split between Ganymede, Europa, and Callisto, before it eventually settles into orbit around Ganymede. We have a lot of missions around Mars tackling different things, because there's too many things to study to leave it to one probe and call it a day. The same is true here. That they're studying similar things will likely help scientists get better data overall, and fill in any blindspots the other probe might have.
@@michahermann7869 Not quite; JUICE will do some orbits around Jupiter whilst doing a little science on Europa, Callisto, and Ganymede before settling around Ganymede. Europa Clipper meanwhile will purely focus on Europa. In the long term, their scientific measurements & discoveries won't overlap.
@@michahermann7869 when it comes to the gas giants, don't think redundancy is a bad thing given the distances and environments (like powerful radiation belts).
They want to compete with Falcon 9 and Starship, but are stuck with an SLS mindset.
It's like not wanting to invest in cars because it'd put blacksmiths and farriers out of work
Perfectly said.
@@tjmcguire9417 really? are you really that dim???
They don’t. Their mission is to guarantee access to space to European countries at a competitive price.
How the heck did u get a crater on Mercury named after you? Manley crater, I couldn't believe it. They showed it in ESA's latest Bepi Colombo flyby pics.
Thanks for pointng out that reusability (or lack thereof) is a function of bureaucracy and crony business relationships, that never want the gravy train to end,. I'm glad SpaceX came in and upset the entire dispoability mindset almost overnight.
I really hope to see you Ariane 6 Launch this year it seems like it's been delayed so many years now
as far as i understand, Ariane 6 should be produced in the same facilities where Ariane 5 was produced. This is a part of the contract. And those facilities are now occupied for producing Ariane 6 parts.
@23RaySan I think it's gonna be a short lived rocket. But i've been watching the development for ten years. I just want to see it lunch.
The French are too busy cleaning up the fire/ mess made by the non french
Ariane 6 is commercially obsolete before its first flight. To Ariane 5's credit, its superlative launch trajectory injection accuracy was instrumental in Webb saving so much fuel that its service lifetime may be as much as double the plan.
The Ariane's main purpose is not commercial success. It's purpose is reliable and independent access to space. It's not cheap, but it is a valued strategic asset for Europe. Making a profit is purely optional.
@@debott4538 Not even about not making a profit. Europe has frittered away billions on the wrong thing - they should have invested as SpaceX did: re-usability. They'd still have all the benefits of the French Guyana spaceport and European autonomy in launch - and save taxpayer money.
But that's okay, we'll force everyone to USB-C. That'll show 'em!
The problem with the European space industry is that ESA is just a voluntary club of countries and not a lot of the people really know even which countries. Each ESA member pays into ESA as much money as they want. Each country wants to participate in some ESA programs and does not participate in others. The only way for ESA to compete with other space agencies and companies is to be integrated with the European Union, get stable financing and long-term plans, the implementation of which will not depend on the whim of ESA member countries.
In your video description, there is a typo. You wrote "before Ariane 5 is ready" (rather than Ariane 6).
Yeah, that's typical ESA... once something is in the pipeline, it's bogged down in red tape and "we've always done it this way!" rhetoric, making sure any actual innovation get smothered in the crib.
Well, I say ESA - but truthfully its usual subcontractors share a lot of the blame. When technically fulfilling the contract and selling contract "addendums" for maintenance is more important than actually making a good and competitive product, that's what you get.
Funny that SyrIV was mentioned here, too. If you look under the hood, you'll find it's not that different... Same old way of doing things, same companies - hell it might even be the same building...
It's almost as if socialist (meaning: government-run) space programs are inferior to capitalist ones.
Ariane 6 survives entirely on sunk cost fallacy.
Nice explanation! Fun to meet you IRL finally!
You gotta love Oldspace's parasite logic: Whatever you do, don't actually build what you're being hired to build, because once you've built it you're out of a job!
Forget Ariane 6, where's Scott Manley's Invitation to the Final Ariane 5 Launch?
I wonder how long it will take ESA to manage any reusability. Or is it just not desirable for their heavy lift missions? If they’re going to stick with expendable rockets then cheaper vehicles need to be in the pipeline with cheaper mass produced engines. Perhaps ESA needs to have a commercial launch programme like NASA does, but for European providers.
the boosters splash down with chutes afaik.
2028
The case against reusability is that the European launcher industry needs a certain number of vehicles built per year to remain viable. On average 4 A5s per year were launched. Assuming steps had been made to make A5 resuable, even once, then either the cost per launcher would have had to double or the various companies would have gone out of business.
A6 is supposed to be upgradable with new solid rocket boosters, new construction methods for the stages etc, with reusability of parts gradually introduced as time goes by and the European launcher industry adapts.
ArianeSpace has previously said either late generation A6 or its successor would function more like Falcon 9.
Scott is more often missing out bits like this as time goes by.
Ariane 6 successor(supposedly a partially reusable design) is scheduled to start operations in 2030.
@@ptonpcthis was widely panned when they said it last year if I recall correctly. There is no reason a competitive launch vehicle would only be able to launch European payloads… clearly there is enough globally demand.
"its retirement before Ariane 5 is ready" , that should be Ariane 6, but we get the message.
Interesting how so many rocket companies like ESA, ULA, and Gruman, all decided to stop production, for various reason, of their flight proven systems while they develop new systems. Taking 5 rocket systems out of the loop has had a profound effect.
This was not entirely voluntary on the part of ULA or Northrup/Grumman. ULA had to cease production of the Atlas 5 rocket because the US govt banned the use of Russian made rocket engines. Northrup/Grumman are having to do a comprehensive re-design of the Antares rocket because Ukraine was heavily involved in manufacturing the original version. And that supply chain has been (literally) shot to hell.
@@Roo76 yes, the Russians were such good friends. We should trust them to buy our rocket motors to launch our most sensitive national security payloads. You have to know who your enemies are. And rush it was never a friend. Yes, stations had softened after the Cold War under Yelchin, but putting your best eggs in a Russian basket was fool Hardy. and the White House and European governments were all on board with kissing Russian butts. Put us all in a bad position? but that only speaks to Atlas and Pegasus. Delta, Ariane had nothing to do with a bad Russian deal.
Will Ariane6 do a Korolev cross?
Anyone else get the feeling that the building was standing still and it was moving the planet underneath it?
To be fair, it wouldn't surprise me if the politicians calling the shots decided it should work that way and the engineers had to make it happen.
I think it is actually a sensible way to stack rockets. A building frame should be far easier to move safely away from the pad rather than move a huge stacked rocket, or even unstacked stages, away from the building and then place them on the pad. This is the way NASA should have been doing it from the start. It wouldn't of course doesn't suit Starship type reusable rockets where the launch pad and return pad are the same or are adjacent.
@@kenoliver8913 there's a pad?
flat earth confirmed
@@DrWhom yeah the ariane is assembled on top of the pad and then the whole building moves away.
Would like to see an F1 Scott Manley tech breakdown...
The rocket engine or the race car? 😂
@@EstorilEm The Adrian Newey rocket. Shame the rest of these humans will never know the intricacies of a formula 1 car aerodynamics
Really cool that Ariane is 5 years old now, congrats on the retirement
I love the Ariane space program. It launched JWST into space so perfectly. But I fear the lack of innovation and high costs are going to be a problem in the near future. It also doesn't help, when politics get involved. Hopefully Ariane 6 is going to be a success.
So, what you're saying is that both Europe and America have their legacy "political" rocket programs, SLS and Ariane 6?
This “legacy” SLS is currently the most powerful functional rocket plus human rated
@@olasek7972 That is true, and it doesn't seem to utterly destroy the launchpad when ignited. But seriously, SLS only exists because of friendly senators. It's way behind schedule, way over budget, was rather risky to launch when it finally did due to how long the SRBs had been stacked, and when is it ever going to fly again?
@@TheBullethead it is supposed to fly rarely, I am absolutely OK with it. 😀
I love how the rocket just sits there and only starts moving once the SRB’s light up. 😂😂
That's how it works with SRB's.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom Yeah, just look at Shuttle and SLS... the hydrolox engines really aren't contributing much to the initial lift...
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm merely stating it. I'm also aware that hydro-lox engines are used for their efficiency, not their power.
I always wished ESA had gone through with Hermes. it would have been an excellent human vehicle, and much needed in today's space environment.
Maybe by 2050 people will have realized that a rocket should contain a reactor and be covered with a red-white checker pattern.
I get this is a KSP joke, but the current head of the Esa astronaut office Thomas Reiter(flew on Mir and Iss) was very firm on his support for nuclear powered rocket engines.
Had the chance to meet him one year ago 😊
I think most people will realize that a lot sooner when considering sustainable transport between low earth orbit and cislunar orbits, but especially when seriously considering travel to Mars.
@@Valery0p5 that must have been great. I am very interested in nuclear propulsion ideas as well as any other ideas. Seems like solar sailing might be really useful for some missions.
Tintin rocket...
Moon-Rocket to Kourou, Moon-Rocket to Kourou...
This smells a lot like SLS: European Edition.
+500
A bit like, but lots of differencies
have your nose checked
So, was ESA's proposed space plane crewed, or crude?
both kekw
I kind of really like it when Scott is bitter towards a new space development and makes constant passive-aggressive jabs at the whole political design process. Quite a nice informative and amusing video on the situation
This is the CEO of Arieane. "Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a rocket which we can use ten times-we would build exactly one rocket per year," he said. "That makes no sense. I cannot tell my teams: 'Goodbye, see you next year!'" This is the mentality that moves you to zero launches per year.
This guy is full of shit and probably embezzling funds like everyone else in Europe. I know this type of PPP leeches. Best part is how there still needs to be people around refurbishing and making ready the launch device etc. And look at Falcon 9. How many flights they had and they needed several rockets as well coz you cannot immediately re-use the vehicle.
And now those same workers are sitting at home with nothing to build, reusable or otherwise. Great planning.
Wow. Incentives fail.
keep in mind that a large part of the ESA's existence is predicated on them nurturing and keeping the talent base to build ICBMs. So ESA has other objectives than just launching to space for cheap
Devils advocate here. Who exacty has launched rockets to orbit from Europe. Europe proper. Not French Kourou? As far as I am aware, the answer is zero.
Ariane 5 should've stayed in production, Scott, until the Ariane 6 had successfully launched three times.
Yep. Then they could have launched both until they ran out of the Ariane 5 boosters.
the beauty of european bureaucracy manifested as a launch vehicle
Ariane's plans for Susie looks rather cool too. Although... We have yet to se a ESA reusable vehicle make it into space.
I love non Musk fan boy videos from Manely. Thumbs up.
plss make a vdo on ISRO
chandrayan 3 mission
Was the Ariane 5 related at all (maybe philosophically) to the Space Shuttle?
Only in the sense of its political rationale and political entrenchment.
I mean, didn't we do the same thing when we retired Shuttle without its replacement ready? That turned out ok-ish
Ariane 6 is already a commercial success as the first years are fully booked, and with the millenium spatial biggest contract for Kuiper. t is even an issue because they must ramp up the candency quicker than planned
"Commercial success" is being a little generous. I checked the manifest, and the most ambitious year so far is only 9 launches (for reference, SpaceX did 61 launches in 2022) and only 3 of those commercial launches. Most of the launches are Galileo sats and EU science payloads. Am I missing something?
@@geraldmartsy2165 ariane 6 is planned and made to launch not more than 12 per year based on government contracts and the size of the heavy launchers market which is not as high as you can imagine, lower than 30 per year with several launchers available. They dont need to launch more. Trying to do more only for the public market is not economically interresting and is not the purpose of it.
Plus there is a ramp up phase to achive the 12 launches.
Their book is already full and they must accelerate the planned ramp up because of that.
If it was only for the kuiper contract it would be a huge commercial success already.
Plus the 9 you are refering to dont have the kuiper launches which are already signed. It is not always publicly available in details.
you just dont get it , do you? why have a launch vehicle that can compete with the Falcon 9 *rofl*
@@kleinerprinz99 You''re replying to me?
@@sebpatu ok buddy, sounds like a great rocket. congrats on your success.
Where have I seen this before 🤔😬
You'd think that would dereliction of duty, to let Europes only launch capability lapse like this. Before, we had the option of Soyuz and Ariane 5, now we are entirely dependent on the US for launches.
European governments don't actually care about Europeans...
Relax, NASA did the same thing. We survived. You will, too.
It's not as if SpaceX would refuse to launch any European payload.
Well, there's always ISRO! ;-)
SpaceX reusability is the most amazing thing in soace technology after the moon landing.