Talk:Ariane 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass to… wtf.[edit]

I corrected the mass to GEO for Ariane 64 according to the referenced source. But it seems that even Arianespace seems not to be sure about that: 62: 5t-GTO/5.5t-SSO 64:11t-GTO 62: 6.5t-LEO/7t-GTO/5.5SSO 64: 14t-LEO/11t-GTO 62: 7t-SSO/4.5t-GTO 64: 20t-LEO/12t-GTO

Anybody any Ideas which are the right numbers? I think at least the last are wrong. They assume that the satellite itself does a part of the work. --Fabiwanne (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They aren't all describing the same thing, different reference orbits (e.g. it lists a dual payload 35,786km GTO Ariane 64 as 11t and a dual 23,200 km GTO as 12.1t) and differing configurations (payload dispenser 150kg option or satellite manufacturer could provide their own, multiple payload adapter ranging from 0kg for single payload through 45-100kg for multiple, payload fairing itself comes in two flavours a 14m and 20m tall version). Theres also differing use of 'upto' and 'over' when describing capacity. WatcherZero (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reason for development?[edit]

The article states that the Ariane 6 "is being developed ... to be the newest member in the Ariane launch vehicle family", but surely there is a more logical reason than developing it just because it will be new. Is it replacing the Ariane 5? If so, why does the Ariane 5 need replacing? Perhaps somebody with access to better sources than I have could expand on this... Davidelit (Talk) 08:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its being developed as a next generation rocket to achieve launch price savings, initially the plan was to go straight to it rather than the delayed Ariane 5 ME however they have decided to develop the ME as well and delay the 6 development to make the most from the 5 platform. It wouldnt replace the 5 overnight, there would be some overlap as there was with the 4 and 5 in service at the same time. Two main differences is the 6 wont have the lift potential of the 5 (unless more stages are developed later) but will have a cheaper per kg launch price, and the 6 using solid fuel wont be man rated like the 5 was and wouldnt have the potential for lifting manned/robotic craft. WatcherZero (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note to close the loop, 1 1/2 years on. While the 5ME was planned for much of 2014, I think they've now scrapped the 5ME completely and are going straightaway to the 6 due to competitive pressures in the launch market. N2e (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia so am hesitant about adding anything directly to the Ariane 6 text. But the sentence re motivation could be clarified and expanded as follows: The stated motivation for Ariane 6 is "to provide guaranteed access to space for Europe at a competitive price". It is intended that "launch service costs will Be halved". Both quotes are from (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating as of mid 2014[edit]

Article in general requires a lot of work. We even don't have anything mentioned about Ariane 6 PPH and till now article didn't even mention anything about choice still not being done and two alternative variants emerging. It all looked like pictured variant would be the final one to go - when in fact: it's the discarded one, as CNES opted for PPH. French article is relatively good, but in general: We should make it clear that there was an original proposal, invitation to the consultations and ESA studies resulting in few final propositions - between them the design with 3 clustered solid rockets in first stage (pictured) and the winning one: linear (we'd probably have to take an image from ESA for that), then Airbus-Safran emerged with their counter-proposal, and now everything is still in a phase of negotiations. This way we should be able to develop this article further on after September meeting of the ministers and finally: December decision. SkywalkerPL (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what is the description of the Ariane6 rocket that is now actually "under development"?[edit]

The article says that there was a new rocket proposal in Sep 2014, and that some government ministers actually met in Dec 2014 and selected something. Ostensibly, that something is now under development.

Do we have sources for what that something is? It's name? The key specifications? Etc. N2e (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this article is currently a mess and needs a major edit/rewrite. The A6 that will actually get built is described at A(Ch) 00:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced and implausible information[edit]

"Unlike previous Ariane rockets which are assembled and fueled vertically before being transported to the Launchpad, the Ariane 6 main stages will be assembled and fueled horizontally at the new integration hall in Les Mureaux and then transported French Guiana, where it will be erected and integrated with boosters and payload." Ariane 6#Further developments

This is highly implausible, as the fueled rocket (as it is described in the article) would be a logistics nightmare. Cryogenic fuels will evaporate quickly unless kept extremely cold, and a fueled rocket stage is not only really, really heavy, but also a fire/explosion hazard. Was transporting the loaded stages across the atlantic planned for the canceled solid fueled main stage? Someone who is less likely to be accused of vandalism should remove this, or clarify by adding a reliable source. (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] There you go. Solid fuel boosters attached, payload integrated, upper stage fueled, then transported vertically to launch pad where cryogenic fuel is added to the main stage tank. And heres video of it being moved vertically with boosters, payload and fuel to launch pad.

175 tonnes of cryogenic fuel in first stage, 540 tonnes of solid fuel in the boosters and 10-14 tonnes of cryogenic fuel in the upper stage. WatcherZero (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your sources are for the Ariane 5 not the Ariane 6. I agree with the above editor that transporting a cryogenic fueled rocket across the ocean as the statement implies is utterly ridiculous. I would suggest just removing the "and fueled horizontally" part of the statement --2001:569:7913:CB00:581E:EDAF:CE7D:C5C0 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahh I see what your getting at now, in April SkywalkerPL added the 'in Les Mureaux and then transported French Guiana..' bit to the middle of the existing sentence. They presumably were referring to the factory in France where they are built and not the integration facility in Kourou where they will be fueled.

WatcherZero (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done I fixed the egregious mistake about fueling and added some details on the production process (twice the capacity, half the cost). — JFG talk 04:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project timetable - eg new launchpad[edit]

What can we say about the new launchpad (eg. how it differs from the one(s) for Ariane 5) ? When is construction planned to start & complete ? Are there any other construction/test activities with scheduled dates that we can mention ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a subject for ELA-4 (currently a redirect, though should be expanded to a seperate article) SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add : Stages Isp and burn times[edit]

For each stage could we add the Isp and burn times eg to the infobox on RHS. - Rod57 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References 1 -5[edit]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the first reference number in the text seems to be #6 in the third paragraph. Did numbers 1-5 get deleted during a revision? CSK45Kays (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are in the Infobox on the right. WatcherZero (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks. Hadn't looked there.CSK45Kays (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Development timeline slips of Ariane 6: compared[edit]

Someone has put together a lovely and informative chart comparing the development time and slips in planned launch dates for a number of recent new launch vehicles. Very relevant comparative info, in my view. Shows Ariane 6 in context: from talk and ministerial meetings to delays, which are still occurring today. And since a government is paying the bill, it is likely that the European space industrial complex companies are still getting paid. launch vehicle announce/planned_launch/first_launch chart by Ken Kirtland

Perhaps Kirtland might be interested in releasing that chart under CC license, or someone might make up a new one (as long as it has good sources). — N2e (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]