Ariane 6: ESA at a crossroads

40

When the European Space Agency (ESA) was founded in 1975, one of its first ob-jectives was to build a reliable European launcher. After the previous failure of the Europa rocket program under the Europe-an Launcher Development OrgEurope-anization (ELDO), the member states initiated the development of Ariane to ensure Euro-pean autonomy for accessing space. Work on the liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen-based launch vehicle started in the mid seventies.

Ariane 1 was designed primarily to put two telecommunications satellites at a time into orbit, thus reducing costs with respect to competing launch vehicles. As the size of the satellites grew, Ariane 1 be-gan to give way to the more powerful Ari-ane 2 and AriAri-ane 3 launchers, which were both evolutions of the former.

Ariane 4 was the most successful version of the Ariane 1-derived launcher family. Since its first flight on 15 June 1988 until the last, on 15 February 2003, it was suc-cessfully launched 113 times. The vehicle proved to be ideal for launching commu-nication and Earth observation satellites, as well as scientific probes. Because Ari-ane 4 could be equipped with both solid and liquid rocket boosters, it proved to be versatile—the rocket could place space-craft between 2000 kg and 4700 kg into Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO), nearly three times as much as its predecessor

Ariane 3.

During its operational life, Ariane 4 se-cured 50% of the global market for launching commercial payloads. Ariane 4 also reached the limits of the original design, still derived from Ariane 1. Having reached the boundaries of the Ariane 1 to Ariane 4 architecture, the development of Ariane 5 was started—an even heavier ve-hicle. The new needs proved to required an almost complete redesign with respect to the previous Ariane rockets.

EVOLVING MARKETS

Today, Ariane 5 is Europe’s workhorse launcher and its story is one of the big-gest successes in the history of Europe-an spaceflight. But few realize just how well the launch system is performing. In fact, Ariane 5 is now the most successful launch vehicle on the commercial market, holding a share of more than 50% this year, and almost dwarfing its competitors. With a success streak of 57 launches, and twelve launches that met their time win-dow perfectly, its reliability is nearly unri-valled. The only problem: it is expensive But change is on the horizon. Especially SpaceX of California is of major concern to the established launch businesses around the world. And the demands of the satel-lite industry are continuously evolving. To remain competitive, ESA and CNES (the French space agency) are now pushing for a successor: Ariane 6.

MAINTAINING LEADERSHIP

Europe’s future launcher is being de-signed to maintain leadership on the commercial market. The project is driven by the “triple seven” goals—seven years of development, seventy million Euros per launch, and seven tons to Geostation-ary Transfer Orbit (GTO) or 6.5 tons actu-ally, as in the most recent design. Ariane 6 would replace the heavier Ariane 5 rocket, lofting ten tons to GTO, and a concurrent operation of both systems is currently not on the table.

Are the triple seven goals the way to go, though? What will be the impact of reduc-ing the maximum payload mass of Eu-rope’s prime launcher that significantly? COMMERCIAL COMPETITION

Partially, the push for Ariane 6 derives from the Falcon launcher family provided by the new player SpaceX. This launch service provider currently offers cheaper access to orbit, but must still prove reli-able operation. In spite of that, SpaceX already secured an impressive number of bookings, with a current backlog of about five billion Dollars. Recently, the German military decided to have their next-gen-eration reconnaissance satellites flown to orbit by a Falcon 9.

Ariane 6 aims to react to the new market situation in three ways: cheaper prices to remain competitive, more flexibility, and indirect compatibility with other systems.

TEXT Ingo Gerth, MSc Student Aerospace Engineering

Focusing on market needs, or maintaining heavy-lift capabilities?

Column

DECEMBER 2013 Leonardo Times

41

The triple seven goals are to be fulfilled by one drastic change: Compared to Ariane 5, it will launch one large satellite at a time and eliminate the need for dual launches. The smaller payload accommodates this. Single launching is much called for, be-cause two customers will not depend on each other for a launch slot any more. It could also enable the compatibility of payloads between Falcon 9, Ariane 6, and potentially other vehicles—an essential risk-mitigation measure for clients. Ariane 6’s gamble: Fish in Falcon 9’s wa-ters, while keeping the customer base of Arianespace—who trust the proven reli-ability and timeliness.

LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY?

At what price does the “triple seven” come? Ariane is Europe’s sole heavy-lift launcher. It provides a sovereign access to space. Should the development of Ariane

6 thus focus on market needs as strongly as stipulated by these goals? Or should other government interests play a more significant role?

The sheer disregarding of governmental interests is potentially dangerous. With a much-reduced capacity, critical payloads cannot be launched with European ve-hicles any more. Recently, Alphabus was launched at 6.7 tons the heaviest GEO satellite ever—on an Ariane 5. This would have been impossible with Ariane 6 in its current configuration.

Many science and exploration missions would need to be launched by foreign partners, because they are too heavy. The James Webb Space Telescope, slated for launch in 2018 on an Ariane 5, is another example. And not to forget, any ESA in-volvement in human spaceflight would be massively hindered. Not only would

Europe lose the chance of a manned vehicle until a hypothetical Ariane 7 be-comes operational (in the late 2030s, or even later?) Europe would even lose the capability of launching large supporting spacecraft such as the ATV. Finally, having to launch heavy European missions with foreign rockets implies significant losses to the taxpayer: Hundred millions of Eu-ros would not be spent in the EC domes-tic market, but abroad. Can Ariane 6 then maintain its economically viable edge? THE ROAD AHEAD

In summary, neither the status quo, nor the plans for Ariane 6 are fully satisfac-tory. ESA is at crossroads: Should the agency strive for market competitiveness or retain a heavy lift vehicle? The future will tell, and compelling decisions are to be made!

ESA

Note by Ingo

Ingo enjoys discussing space top-ics. Together with a group of MSc students he thus founded Vis Viva, a forum for meeting other space enthusiasts regularly. If you enjoy discussing topics just like this, you are encouraged to get involved with

the society Vis Viva! You can reach him at ingo@gerth-ac.de, and Vis

Viva at info@visiva.nl.