EU companies combine forces to compete with SpaceX - Polidicks

[quote]Airbus Group (stock exchange symbol: AIR) and Safran (stock exchange symbol: SAF) are further strengthening their relationship to propose a new family of competitive, versatile and efficient space launchers, to serve both commercial and institutional needs. In this context, both companies have agreed to create a 50-50 Joint Venture, with a key role for each shareholder in their legacy activities especially in France and Germany, combining expertise in the launcher systems from Airbus Group as well as propulsion systems from Safran. The initiative capitalizes on the preparatory activities undertaken during the last two years under the leadership of the European Space Agency (ESA) and the French Space Agency CNES, in line with the guidelines set by the ESA ministerial conference in November 2012. The current industrial initiative proposes: -to further develop and accelerate entry-into-service of the Ariane 5 ME launcher as a logical evolution of Ariane 5, including an improved upper stage based on the Vinci engine -to further develop the Ariane 6 launcher in a jointly agreed configuration, able to fulfill a range of missions as expressed by ESA, the National Space Agencies, Arianespace and satellite operators. Both Airbus Group and Safran have been close and complementary partners in the launcher business, with an unmatched row of successful Ariane launches for more than 10 years. With this new partnership, for which a memorandum of understanding was signed, both companies strive to capitalise on the successful track record of Arianespace and the Ariane family by further increasing efficiency and competitiveness.[/quote] [URL="http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/16/airbus-safran-combine-forces-ariane-launcher-programs/"]Source[/URL] [IMG]http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Ariane_6_artist.jpg[/IMG] Concept art of Ariane 6

Ariane 6? This is probably just renovated german tech from the 1940's.

A new space race, anyone?

[QUOTE=zin908;45168047]Ariane 6? This is probably just renovated german tech from the 1940's.[/QUOTE] Well, the name would fit

Whoo, bring on corporate space race!

Good luck.

[QUOTE=zin908;45168047]Ariane 6? This is probably just renovated german tech from the 1940's.[/QUOTE] If it works, it works.

Ariane 5 isn't a bad rocket, it's just not as ruthlessly low-cost as Falcon 9. LH2 just isn't a practical fuel, especially in the first stage. Ariane 6 seems more like an overgrown missile design than a launch system (it reminds me of the Minuteman). It's two stages of solid rockets, then a final liquid stage for circularization. It might be cheap if they can get the launch volume, but it won't scale up (it's already a weaker launcher than Ariane 5).

Fuck yeah, let's go to space.

They should make Ariane reusable.

[QUOTE=zin908;45168047]Ariane 6? This is probably just renovated german tech from the 1940's.[/QUOTE] Isn't pretty much everything we use renovated war technology? Guns are, computers are.

Now I know where I should apply with my finished degree. To Infinity! And Beyond!

time for Europe to colonize the stars like it did the world

[QUOTE=Antlerp;45168952]time for Europe to colonize the stars like it did the world[/QUOTE]We're not going to get far into that goal with a ~6 tonne to Geostationary orbit capability per rocket :v:

[QUOTE=OvB;45168769]They should make Ariane reusable.[/QUOTE] Easier said than done - the Falcon 9 was designed from day one with the goal of becoming reusable, and it still needed major changes to have a fully reusable first stage, which still isn't proven, yet. Ariane 5 has solid boosters that usually aren't even recovered (the recovery package is optional, and is mainly used for post-flight analysis, never for reuse). The use of boosters also implies that the first stage reaches a much higher velocity than on the Falcon 9 (I can't be assed to do the math myself), which makes recovery much more difficult.

recoverable LH2 rockets are not going to be practical to begin with, Falcon uses RP-1 which sorts out a ton of problems associated with LH2 and LOX, RP-1 is just more dense than LH2 so you don't need as big a tank which is great if you're trying to land an already large rocket. LH2 and LOX is fine and all for large rockets bound for deep space but its really not all that good compaired to RP-1 for first stages, look at the delta heavy, its got 3 massive tanks on it and its really a heavy lifter but those tanks mostly are dedicated to storing the hydrogen which is just not that dense [editline]20th June 2014[/editline] also i don't know how they can make that thing cheaper than space-x since it suffers from the same problems all government contracts do, every bit and piece of that comes from a different company, which involves tons more overhead cost associated with sub contractors, auditing, bidding, certifying parts, integrating systems. space-x is the first company to completely build rockets in house, and the cost difference shows [editline]20th June 2014[/editline] also did i mention that space-x insanely overbuilt the falcon from the beginning, thats why its able to launch 6 satelites (hopefully tommorow) for a company wanting to launch a network of 17 satelites they only need to buy 3 launch vehicles instead of maybe 6 or 8 compeditors, thats hundreds of millions in savings

Gotta love Capitalism.