Ariane 5 Launch Price Revisited

We recently discussed the launch price/cost of an Ariane 5 here.
The recent Arianespace press release provides some clues
about the subject.

"http://www.arianespace.com/site/news/releases/presrel06_01_04.html"

According to the release, Arianespace earned EU1.05 billion ($1.27
billion)
in 2005 while performing five Ariane 5 launches - an average of $254
million
per launch. Arianespace subsidiary Starsem earned EU100 million
($120.95 million) for three Soyuz launches, an average of $40.32
million
per launch.

- Ed Kyle

Ariane 5 Launch Price Revisited
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...169cf9618fcb5f

2005 while performing five Ariane 5 launches -
an average of $254 million per launch.
Seems sufficiently dirt cheap, especially for the nearly 10t capability
of delivering such substantial payloads into GSO.

I have a serious 10% question:
What's the translunar compact-launch (aka 1000 kg payload via
Ariane-.5) going to cost us?

I have another serious 1% question:
What's the translunar Micro-launch (aka 100 kg payload via Ariane-.05)
going to cost us?

Although I do have a couple of rather substantial items on my to-do
list, such as the VL2-TRACE and of the considerable LSE-CM/ISS
deployments to consider, that which might take all of what the most
ambitious Ariane5 can accommodate. However, since scientific satellites
as lunar orbiting missions or even as lunar/planetary probes can become
those of 10 kg or less, where's the great volume of future needs for
the full blown Ariane 5?

It seems 100 launches of the Ariane-.05 at $5 million or less per pop
becomes a little better bean-counting worthy than having accomplished
one spendy Ariane-5 launch.

Should I be asking if China can accommodate such a micro-launch for
perhaps less than $1 million?
-
Brad Guth

Originally Posted by Ed Kyle

We recently discussed the launch price/cost of an Ariane 5 here.
The recent Arianespace press release provides some clues
about the subject.

"http://www.arianespace.com/site/news/releases/presrel06_01_04.html"

According to the release, Arianespace earned EU1.05 billion ($1.27
billion)
in 2005 while performing five Ariane 5 launches - an average of $254
million
per launch. Arianespace subsidiary Starsem earned EU100 million
($120.95 million) for three Soyuz launches, an average of $40.32
million
per launch.

- Ed Kyle

We discussed the production cost which is not the launch cost which is not what the customer pay which is not the production cost for the batch of the NEXT 30 ariane5. The first one of these "30" will liftoff february 2006. Next year it will be interesting to compare with this "$254" milion.
Rémy

Ed Kyle wrote:
We recently discussed the launch price/cost of an Ariane 5 here.
The recent Arianespace press release provides some clues
about the subject.

"http://www.arianespace.com/site/news/releases/presrel06_01_04.html"

According to the release, Arianespace earned EU1.05 billion ($1.27
billion)
in 2005 while performing five Ariane 5 launches - an average of $254
million
per launch. Arianespace subsidiary Starsem earned EU100 million
($120.95 million) for three Soyuz launches, an average of $40.32
million
per launch.


But you are mixing together Ariane 5G and Ariane 5ECA - which are
different and one would expect a Ariane 5ECA launch to be more
expensive. Also, the URL you pointed out says "Arianespace's sales
showed strong growth in 2005, to 1.05 billion euros" which is different
(potentially quite a bit different in fact) to Arianespace recieving
1.05 billion euros for launches. Also - the new launch prices would
supposedly be available for future launch contracts, not existing ones
signed years ago, no? Hence there would be a difference between what
one would pay when signing a lunch contract now vs. 3 years ago. The
Ariane supply scheme is also changing with EADS now delivering fully
built launchers instead of just stages which Arianespace integrated.

- Ed Kyle

Brad Guth wrote:
Ariane 5 Launch Price Revisited
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...169cf9618fcb5f

2005 while performing five Ariane 5 launches -
an average of $254 million per launch.
Seems sufficiently dirt cheap, especially for the nearly 10t capability
of delivering such substantial payloads into GSO.

I have a serious 10% question:
What's the translunar compact-launch (aka 1000 kg payload via
Ariane-.5) going to cost us?


There is no really simple answer. How fast do you want it to reach
Moon? The answer will diverge significantly depending on if you
want/need to get there fast or can handle geting there slow SMART-1
style.

I have another serious 1% question:
What's the translunar Micro-launch (aka 100 kg payload via Ariane-.05)
going to cost us?

1/2 of SMART-1 provided you don't want the 100kg to be a human in a
rocket chair.

Brad Guth

There is no really simple answer. How fast do you want it to reach
Moon? The answer will diverge significantly depending on if you
want/need to get there fast or can handle geting there slow SMART-1
style.

Sander Vesik,
Then don't bother giving me a simple answer. Give me lots of 'what-if'
complex answers.

How about for starters anything but like SMART-1, as that's totally
pathetic.

Instead, lets go there in nearly the exact same time as NASA/Apollo,
except with perhaps merely getting 10 each of the 10 kg microsatellites
deployed into close lunar orbits (say starting those little suckers off
at 25 km off the deck).

That cost of "1/2 of SMART-1 provided you don't want the 100kg to be a
human in a rocket chair" seems rather spendy. Does it really take all
that much of a modern day rocket investment for merely accomplishing
100 kg worth of payload?

Is the modern day liftoff rocket/payload ratio still that bad off?

If so, what's 1/2 of SMART-1 worth these days?
-
Brad Guth

This is still a work in progress that's partially a result of others
(mostly naysayers) not sharing. Thus I'm locating somewhat interesting
numbers that at least others and I can use for future arguments. I've
noticed that another one of my previous contributions has been blocked
and/or banished by those MI6/NSA~CIA (aka MIB) Usenet goons, thus I'll
try to reconstruct it and try once again at getting it to stick.

Ariane 5 / Flight 162
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...on_up_131.html
"Combined weight of the complete triple payload "stack" -- including
the dispensers and adapter hardware -- was approximately 6,160 kg."

"During the multi-step mission sequence, the 2,750-kg. INSAT 3E was
released approximately 29 minutes into the flight after riding in the
upper payload slot atop the Ariane 5's SYLDA 5 dispenser system."

"The SYLDA 5 structure was separated three minutes later, exposing
e-BIRD for its deployment at 34 minutes into the flight. e-BIRD, which
had a liftoff mass of 1,525 kg."

Their final launch task of deploying SMART-1 came 8 minutes later, 42
minutes after liftoff: SMART-1 was by far the smallest of the
Flight-162 payloads, weighing in at 370 kg was released as for
eventually (about as slow as you'd dare go) heading itself towards
orbiting the moon.

"Flight 162 is the first time Ariane 5 has launched three satellites"
Total of these three individual satellites represented a combined
payload mass of 4645 kg.

The total launch vehicle mass at liftoff was about 743~746 metric
tonnes, and of that only 8% of the total payload(s) that amounted to
4645 kg was attributed to SMART-1 at merely 370 kg (seems hardly worth
mentioning). Actually, it's more like 6% of their grand payload plus
dispenser total. Seems only fair that perhaps at most SMART-1 should
have to pay for 8% of the ride.

Even though numbers are seemingly all over the place, whereas I'd have
to say that's about as complex and otherwise as efficient as multi-task
deployments get. Though seemingly offering a good enough deployment
ratio, as having suggested something that's overall better off than
745:4.645 = 160:1. However, a dedicated all-in-one GSO deployment of
82:1 is considerably better off, as well as for whatever a dedicated
Ariane-5 should manage on behalf of a dedicated translunar deployment
should very well become twenty fold greater than SMART-1, making their
existing translunar deployment capability of 7.2t into a ratio that's
closer to the 110:1 mark as being rather oddly rocket-science
deficient, at nearly twice as bad off as the reported performance of
what the Saturn-5 with it's antiquated LOX/RP-1 first stage having
supposedly accomplished such an extensively better than SRB performance
as of today (is that impressive, or what?).

With the new and improved inert/dry mass of the Ariane-5 as becoming
touted for getting 12t into GSO with an 800t gross liftoff is 66.7:1,
whereas if the translunar demand is half again demanding as per GSO, as
such making their lastest improved capability 100:1

By way of the old Saturn-5 example, it's certainly suggesting a
somewhat pathetic ratio as for the Ariane-5 class of their translunar
deployment phase as having accommodated the SMART-1 portion, that was
pretty much entirely on it's own ION micro-thruster after Ariane-5
dropped off the first two primary items along the way. Unfortunately, I
believe SMART-1 was actually another wag-the-dog sort of pro-NASA/ESA
infomercial, representing yet another limited cost impact mission that
has taken (as in wasted) the most time while having diverted the public
media, plus otherwise having accomplished little if any improvement in
lunar-science (partly because of SMART-1 having been way too damn far
away from the moon).

Here's some of the interesting old numbers that do and don't add up.
Saturn-5 total Mass: 3,054,750 kg
A-17 Launch mass ? : 2,923,387 kg
The Apollo-17 Spacecraft total (meaning all inclusive) mass of 52,740
kg was either suggesting a ratio as poor as 58:1 or of it's rather
unusually impressive 55.4:1, whereas Apollo-15 having accomplished 65:1
is still impressive by modern standards if using Saturn-V w/seacraft
tally of 3,054,750 kg as their total liftoff mass; therefore you get to
pick and chose whatever suits your argument.

It's only because these NASA/Apollo numbers simply are not adding up,
I'm having to suggest that our Apollo spacecraft inert/dry mass wasn't
nearly as bad off, and that they essentially utilized this insider (aka
need-to-know) advantage of instead hauling extra fuel and having
utilized such extra capacity on behalf of their spacecraft being the
forth stage that was essential in order to have achieved the fully
robotic portions of orbiting our moon and having recovered the film
from somewhere within the relative safety of the LL-1/ME-L1 zone that
remains as so gosh darn unusually taboo/nondisclosure these days.
-
Brad Guth

Pathetic? It is one of the coolest science experiments sent to Moon
ever, never mind that it also beats anything previous on $/kg figures
by a LONG stretch. What is the particular reason that you need to have
the 1000kg arrive on Moon fast ? If there isn't one, you can get it
there in probably 1600kg total, including the payload. And that
includes conventional engine & fuel for it for a soft touchdown.
I totally agree that the $/kg is impressive, even though you can't seem
to share in what portion of the launch mission cost was specifically
SMART-1 related.

I never specified that getting 100 kg there fast was all that
imperative, just that if Saturn-V managed the sort of horrific tonnage
that they supposedly did in such short order, then what's the big deal
for utilizing the Ariane-5 formula of rocket-science that should be a
bit slower but otherwise nearly twice as good per kg?

Your velocity related response of "If there isn't one, you can get it
there in probably 1600kg total, including the payload" seems a wee bit
impressive, at 16:1 isn't likely unless you have the expertise to back
that up. I'm especially impressed if "that includes conventional engine
& fuel for it for a soft touchdown" is true. I actually hope your 16:1
is correct, as that's going to make the task extremely dirt cheap,
especially if only as semi-soft (controlled impact) landing is all
that's required.

The problem is that you are limited by the mass of the solar panels,
the ion engine and misc, fixed weight things - 100kg payload to moon is
not really all that sensible compared to 200-300 kg.
What 100 kg (I was thinking 10 kg each)? What stinking solar panels?
What stinking ion thruster?

Obviously you're having difficulty thinking small, as in
microsatellites of 10 kg each, whereas each might include a micro-SRB
for getting such satellites diverted into their individually different
orbits (not much sense having all ten of these suckers covering the
same ground). Good grief folks, these are disposable satellites that
are intended for perhaps all of 60 days worth.

As usual, I was way outside of my box by thinking of utilizing the
H2O2/aluminum battery, or the good old lithium battery along with
perhaps at most a m2 worth of PV cells. After all, circuitry within
each of the 10 kg microsatellites that's only intended for their
individually accomplishing 1000 orbits of starting in at 25 km that'll
obviously quickly decay down to the deck before their obvious impact
(semi-soft crash landings), whereas such can't hardly amount to much of
any energy demand per orbit. A thousand such orbits is worth obtaining
at least 100,000 extremely closeup images each, plus numerous tens of
thousands of other essential science readings, along with the somewhat
iffy prospects of a few such semi-hard landings surviving their lunar
dust tarmac environment as for subsequently contributing even more
interesting hard-science (certainly a whole lot more info than we
currently have to work with).

I'm thinking that such microsatellites could be easily and proficiently
mass produced by the likes of SONY, or perhaps SAMSUNG or even CASIO if
not via something better from Russia or even China at not all that much
expense.

Besides the nifty rocket-science part that you seem qualified upon,
would you(aka Sander Vesik) like to help specify their innards and even
their external shell?

Since we'll have to deal with a touch of a sodium rich atmosphere, plus
a few other heavier elements to work with (especially as per dropping
below 25 km), thus at something near 1/6th G making each 10 kg worth
1.667 kg, along with a bit of aerodynamics should become sufficiently
viable at 2.4 km/s.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
Your velocity related response of "If there isn't one, you can get it
there in probably 1600kg total, including the payload" seems a wee bit
impressive, at 16:1 isn't likely unless you have the expertise to back
that up. I'm especially impressed if "that includes conventional engine
& fuel for it for a soft touchdown" is true. I actually hope your 16:1
is correct, as that's going to make the task extremely dirt cheap,
especially if only as semi-soft (controlled impact) landing is all
that's required.


Back what up? SMART-1 was 370 kg out of which less than 100 kg was
dedicated to propulsion. That is a much better ration than 16:1. Also,
the 1600kg was for delivering 1000kg from GSO to moon surface, not
100kg - but taking a long time. Note that both of these numbers are for
what is essentially payload delivered to GSO from the point of view of
Ariane and do not contain any accounting for how much mass Ariane 5
needs to get it there. I don't really see the point - the per-kilogram
effort would be the same if it was a chemical engine using lunar supply
barge.

Brad Guth

Sander Vesik,
Thanks for this highly educational feedback.
Back what up? SMART-1 was 370 kg out of which less than 100 kg was
dedicated to propulsion. That is a much better ration than 16:1. Also,
the 1600kg was for delivering 1000kg from GSO to moon surface, not
100kg - but taking a long time. Note that both of these numbers are for
what is essentially payload delivered to GSO from the point of view of
Ariane and do not contain any accounting for how much mass Ariane 5
needs to get it there. I don't really see the point - the per-kilogram
effort would be the same if it was a chemical engine using lunar supply
barge.

Obviously you're into playing mindset/syntax word games. Whereas I'm
talking about the real thing of getting whatever away from the surface
of mother Earth into orbiting our moon, and you're into playing around
with GSO to lunar orbit. I suppose that indirectly I can actually
appreciate that form of fuzzy logic, especially since we know of what
the current capability of a 790t liftoff accomplishing 9.6+t into GSO
is a done deal.

Just for my being sure; Are you saying that from GSO it'll only take
600 extra kg worth of rocket in order get the 1000 kg package into
lunar orbit? or are you saying it'll take an extra 1600 kg for making
that happen?

I'll very much agree that a 1.6:1 ratio from GSO to lunar orbit would
certainly represent a good if not a terrific ratio, even if it's slower
than molasses. Since I'm in no hurry, I suppose there's no valid point
in going there any faster (although the gravitational benefits of
taking advantage of alignment with LL-1 shouldn't be excluded, and
obviously you can't accomplish that if going too damn slow). Of course,
a 1000 kg motherload of 10 kg microsatellites is affording a rather
nifty population of 100 of them little suckers.
-
Brad Guth