Ariane 6 user's manual [pdf](ariane.group)
ariane.group
Ariane 6 user's manual [pdf]
https://www.ariane.group/app/uploads/sites/4/2024/10/Mua-6_Issue-2_Revision-0_March-2021.pdf
24 コメント
I think the Spacecraft Interfaces section (starting page 84) is the bit that might interest HN readers. It describes (to potential customers) the dimensions of the payload bay, electrical and comms interfaces available, conditions the payload must be able to tolerate (vibration, temperature etc).
I will definitely start to read this out loud to my 5 year old. He will love it. Thanks for sharing your finding.
Just FYI. Almost every launcher that offers commercial services has such a user manual. I was involved in preparing one such manual. A collection of these manuals can be quite entertaining for 5 year olds. You should be able to easily find them from the websites of the respective companies or agencies.
Thanks for the tip. I only knew about old manuals of the space shuttle.
NTRS is an amazing resource for that:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=shuttle&page=%7B%22from%22:0,...
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=shuttle&page=%7B%22from%22:0,...
Have an LLM rewrite it in Seussian verse.
Is there any sign of political pressure in Europe around its space programme? Or is it going to be stuck in Ariane space for another generation?
The issue is that Europe does not have the market for a reusable rocket and though there are a few initiatives for creating one, the current policy is for maintaining launch capability for only a few satellites yearly. If the EU decides to make One Web truly massive, things might change.
Its true that Europe doesn't have the market, but this also not the reason. The real reason is that when Ariane 6 started they were competing against 2014 Falcon 9. And they designed a rocket to potentially beat Falcon 9 in 2014 and also still do the job of Ariane 5. The design of Ariane 6 quite literally was to 'win commercial launches'.
Europe always knew they don't have enough launches, so they need to win other launches. Of course they have now adopted the solution of simply paying Amazon money so they launch on European rockets.
So not only is the rocket insanely expensive, they are so desperate to get launches they are paying the US to pull ahead even further in space, while Europe stays backwards while still spending lots of money.
This is literally a slow moving disaster of policy we have observed over the last 15 years (arguably longer).
Europe always knew they don't have enough launches, so they need to win other launches. Of course they have now adopted the solution of simply paying Amazon money so they launch on European rockets.
So not only is the rocket insanely expensive, they are so desperate to get launches they are paying the US to pull ahead even further in space, while Europe stays backwards while still spending lots of money.
This is literally a slow moving disaster of policy we have observed over the last 15 years (arguably longer).
> issue is that Europe does not have the market for a reusable rocket
SpaceX launched more European payloads in 2025 than European launch providers did.
> the current policy is for maintaining launch capability for only a few satellites yearly
The current policy is for throwing employment money at Arianespace. It's the situation America would have been if we were still stuck with ULA.
SpaceX launched more European payloads in 2025 than European launch providers did.
> the current policy is for maintaining launch capability for only a few satellites yearly
The current policy is for throwing employment money at Arianespace. It's the situation America would have been if we were still stuck with ULA.
Were those payloads enough to pay for a second SpaceX though? And could such a company compete on price with SpaceX if it is created?
TBH, Musk made his space market, but the only one capable of creating EuroSpace is Trump.
TBH, Musk made his space market, but the only one capable of creating EuroSpace is Trump.
> Were those payloads enough to pay for a second SpaceX though?
Today, probably not. When SpaceX announced "Falcon 5 and Falcon 9" as "the world’s first launch vehicles where all stages are designed for reuse" [1], the world was launching 55 payloads a year globally [2].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080815163222/http://www.spacex...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_in_spaceflight
Today, probably not. When SpaceX announced "Falcon 5 and Falcon 9" as "the world’s first launch vehicles where all stages are designed for reuse" [1], the world was launching 55 payloads a year globally [2].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080815163222/http://www.spacex...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_in_spaceflight
It's mainly about budget, the US and China spend more than Europe.
It looks like the next generation will be reusable though, there are a few programs to that effect, both from established players and "new space" startups.
It looks like the next generation will be reusable though, there are a few programs to that effect, both from established players and "new space" startups.
Sure nebulus 'next generation' is going to be reusable. But it cost at least 5 billion $ to build Ariane 5. And it took 10 years. And as of yet, we are nowhere remotly close to even get the political process started for a next geneation rocket.
There are some research project and research, but it's not close.
As for startups, none of them have even a working small vehicle. And small launch is a horrible buissness model that basically every company runs away from as fast away as they can burn investor money. Most go bust.
Euroean startups are 10 years late and fight in a very small markets with lots of competition.
There are some research project and research, but it's not close.
As for startups, none of them have even a working small vehicle. And small launch is a horrible buissness model that basically every company runs away from as fast away as they can burn investor money. Most go bust.
Euroean startups are 10 years late and fight in a very small markets with lots of competition.
Ariane 6 started operations less than a year ago, and already development is under way for the next generation. Funding is partly coming from the EU, so the political process has very much started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next
I'm not disputing the fact that the EU is behind the US and China, but again the EU budget is way below. Given the financial limitations ESA is actually quite capable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next
I'm not disputing the fact that the EU is behind the US and China, but again the EU budget is way below. Given the financial limitations ESA is actually quite capable.
Before Ariane 6 there were also many already existing programs that were independent. Ariane 6 still needed a very specific coming together politically and vote for development.
So yes, there is research going on, and certain program to develop components.
But that is a very long way away from an actual concrete proposal to develop a real new rocket.
The Vinci engine for example started in the 90s and only flew first time with Ariane 6. So you could have said in 2002 'Ariane 6' is in development.
The question is when do the politicians get together and actually decide, lets spend 4+ billion$ (minimum) on a new rocket. And that is years away at best. And from that point on you would expect it to take minim 6 years, more likely 10 years.
Anybody that expect anything Ariane 7 like before 2035 is hopelessly optimistic. Not unless there is a major political shift.
> Given the financial limitations ESA is actually quite capable.
No its not. Ariane 6 development has cost more then the development of Falcon 9 + Falcon Heavy. And that's if you do not count development of Vinci, if you do not count most development of the static boosters and so on.
You can say 'we are so poor' and then spend 5-6 billion $ on a rocket that is not competitive with Falcon 9 as it existed in 2015 and then spend another couple billion $ on giving subsidies to all the users of Ariane 6.
Funding isn't the problem, efficiency and good choices is.
So yes, there is research going on, and certain program to develop components.
But that is a very long way away from an actual concrete proposal to develop a real new rocket.
The Vinci engine for example started in the 90s and only flew first time with Ariane 6. So you could have said in 2002 'Ariane 6' is in development.
The question is when do the politicians get together and actually decide, lets spend 4+ billion$ (minimum) on a new rocket. And that is years away at best. And from that point on you would expect it to take minim 6 years, more likely 10 years.
Anybody that expect anything Ariane 7 like before 2035 is hopelessly optimistic. Not unless there is a major political shift.
> Given the financial limitations ESA is actually quite capable.
No its not. Ariane 6 development has cost more then the development of Falcon 9 + Falcon Heavy. And that's if you do not count development of Vinci, if you do not count most development of the static boosters and so on.
You can say 'we are so poor' and then spend 5-6 billion $ on a rocket that is not competitive with Falcon 9 as it existed in 2015 and then spend another couple billion $ on giving subsidies to all the users of Ariane 6.
Funding isn't the problem, efficiency and good choices is.
> looks like the next generation will be reusable
To the extent original Falcon 9 and earlier Chinese rockets were. It will be obsolete on release.
To the extent original Falcon 9 and earlier Chinese rockets were. It will be obsolete on release.
Yes there is political pressure, mostly to give more money to Ariane, with a tiny bit of money going to some other stuff.
But don't hold your breath for any other major rocket in the next 10 years.
But don't hold your breath for any other major rocket in the next 10 years.
Aren't everyone just waiting for WW3 to end now? Right now doesn't seem like the time to make politically significant changes.
It hasn't started, although we could be in the precursor stage.
Given the current instability, political changes should be a high priority.
Given the current instability, political changes should be a high priority.
> Aren't everyone just waiting for WW3 to end now?
No. Because it hasn't started.
> Right now doesn't seem like the time to make politically significant changes
If a world war had started, right now would be the only time. Historically speaking, the cultures that waited to enact change because of threat of conquest tended to get hit first, hardest and with the longest-lasting effects. (Granted, if someone's getting fucked in WWIII, it's going to be Europe and everything around China and Russia.)
No. Because it hasn't started.
> Right now doesn't seem like the time to make politically significant changes
If a world war had started, right now would be the only time. Historically speaking, the cultures that waited to enact change because of threat of conquest tended to get hit first, hardest and with the longest-lasting effects. (Granted, if someone's getting fucked in WWIII, it's going to be Europe and everything around China and Russia.)
About the cover picture: at that altitude, shouldn't the plume look completelu different? Com to think of it, shouldn't the first stage and srbs be long gone?
This is going to be in the Reading list before sleep for Sweet engineering dreams
Docs like this make playing space engineer so much more fun.