The first flight of the new Ariane 6 heavy-lift launch vehicle is expected on July 9, four years later than the original schedule, finally putting an end to recurring development delays and industrial setbacks. Meanwhile, with no domestic launch vehicles available, Europe has had to rely on US rival SpaceX to launch its scientific and Galileo satellites. Toni Tolker-Nielsen, ESA Director of Space Transport, explains the challenges ESA faces in the early exploitation of Ariane 6 and the strategy put in place for the European space transport system planned until the 2030s.
Is the Ariane 6 ready for its maiden flight on July 9? In 1996, the first Ariane 5 exploded after 40 seconds. How do you reduce the risk of failure for Flight Model 1 or FM1?
Tolker-Nielsen: We have done everything that can be done on the ground to ensure this opening flight is a success. I’m pretty excited and 98% confident! Right now, things are looking good. The launch vehicle is fully qualified on the ground. We are quite confident about the July 9 launch as we work through minor issues on a daily basis. On this demonstration flight we have thousands of sensors on the rocket to measure performance and validate our models. We then need five months until the second flight to analyze all the flight data.
Will the next challenge be the industrial ramp-up to launch nine Ariane 6 rockets every year?
It is a big challenge as we have already signed thirty contracts, eighteen of which are for Amazon’s Kuiper constellation. It is quite unique to have such an order book for a new rocket. We are already working on a quick start-up after the inaugural flight. After the possible discrepancies have been resolved, the first commercial flight is scheduled for the end of the year. Then we will have six flights in 2025 and eight flights in 2026. In 2027 there will be ten flights because there are numerous loads waiting. Otherwise, we aim for a stable situation of nine flights per year in 2028 and 2029.
The challenge of ramping up is already taking place in Kourou and throughout the entire industrial chain in the 13 European countries building Ariane 6. Production of the first batch of 15 launch vehicles is in full swing. We are currently negotiating contracts for Ariane 6 flights 16 through 42. That is the challenging production plan that everyone is committed to.
With the current business plan of four institutional European launches plus five commercial launches, will Ariane 6 still need subsidies of 340 million euros ($365 million) per year until 2031?
The thirteen ESA states involved in Ariane 6 have already agreed to finance a first test flight and fourteen operational missions. Now we discuss operating revenues over three years with nine launches per year. We analyze the business plan for launch batch FM16 to 42, looking at all launch service contracts and costs. We need between 290 and 340 million euros per year. The final figure will be determined after checking industry and supplier costs and revenues from contracts signed by Arianespace. In any case, we do not need more than 340 million euros to realize the operating balance of the new launch vehicle.
Is it the price for European sovereignty to gain access to space?
Exactly, Ariane 6 is a sovereign launch vehicle for European access to space. Today we find ourselves in a delicate situation. That is why we found a good solution to secure the financing of this European space program at the European Ministerial Meeting in Seville last November. Twenty years ago, Ariane 5 was supported by the EGAS program (European Guaranteed Access to Space with $120 to $240 million support per year) to provide Europe with a robust launch service.
Is Ariane 6 still in line to achieve a 40% cost reduction compared to Ariane 5?
We are working to reach the 40% target set in 2014, and we will achieve it. Europe experienced high inflation in 2022 and 2023, but it is now slowing. We have asked commercial operator Arianespace, aerospace company ArianeGroup and suppliers for more cost savings. It is in full swing, but we also do not want the European industry to lose money.
Is it an illusion to believe that the Ariane 6 could still make some commercial profit like the previous Ariane 4 and 5?
The Ariane 4 was in service from 1988 to 2003 and was an incredibly profitable launch vehicle as it was the only one on the commercial market. The American Space Shuttle was not a commercial competitor. Even when Ariane 5 was able to launch two large satellites, some financial support was needed. Independent access to the space always represents an important cost item.
If Starship is successful, will it be a game changer with prices per kilo falling in orbit?
Honestly, I don’t think Starship will be a game changer or a real competitor. This enormous launch vehicle is designed to fly people to the moon and Mars. The Ariane 6 is perfect for this task if you need to launch a four or five tonne satellite. Starship won’t eradicate Ariane 6 at all. Far in the future, such as 2040, the situation will be different. We will likely have a space transportation logistics system with returning and reusable launch vehicles flying to a hub. In that hub there will be platforms, satellites and spacecraft going to other destinations, refueling and maintenance capabilities, production in orbit, etc. The spaceship will likely play a major role in transporting heavy cargo to this space logistics hub, like a container. ship reaching a terminal. Europe is already working on this vision with the development of space cargo, in-space refueling, space docking systems and traffic to the moon using Ariane 6.
Lately, Elon Musk has been saying that only reusable launch vehicles make sense. Does the ability to be reusable make sense in Europe, with only nine or ten launches per year for the Ariane 6?
It is precisely because of this argument that we made the choice not to be reusable with Ariane 6. Our launch needs are so low that it would not make economic sense. So at this point we don’t really need it. But if we launch regularly in the future, we will need reusability for economic reasons. The second reason for reusability of a European launch vehicle is sustainability. In ten to twenty years we should have a circular economy; we must be sustainable. And for that we are already developing Themis, a European demonstrator with a reusable main stage and other reusable technologies such as the Prometheus engine. But this decade we already have Maia, a privately developed launch vehicle, supported by France, which is small but reusable. Maia will use the Prometheus liquid propellant rocket engine and will be based on Themis reusable stage demonstrator technology.
How important are the mini and micro launch vehicles for Europe?
Compared to ten years ago, I am extremely surprised to see all these mini and micro launch vehicles taking off all over Europe. They were developed in Spain, France, Norway, Sweden and Great Britain. For the first time, new spaceports are being built in Europe. It’s unbelievable. We want to change the paradigm in the launcher sector in Europe by introducing competition, which is in full swing for many start-ups. The European Launcher Challenge, announced in Seville last year, will play an important role in shaping the future of Europe’s access to space by increasing the competitiveness of European launch services. The idea is to grow these privately developed launch vehicles into heavy launch vehicles. They all have the ambition to do that.
How can you combine competition between private launch vehicles in Europe with the “georeturn” policy, which has been ESA’s industrial policy for forty years?
For the micro launchers, it is not based on “georeturn”, we simply choose the best proposals, and we hope that the ESA Member State that accepts this offer will finance it. Note that in some cases these start-ups have a large geographical industrial spread beyond their national borders. For example, French privately developed microlauncher Maia chose 40% of its suppliers outside France. And these suppliers are often the same as Ariane 6 suppliers.
Can Ariane 6 maximize the performance of the future ESA lunar lander Argonaut to contribute to the Artemis programme?
We are already working on a more powerful version of Ariane 6, called Block Two. With more powerful boosters, better upper stage performance due to an increase in engine power up to 200 kN, the gain for LEO amounts to two tons. It will enable the deployment of the Kuiper constellation. We will not decide on Block Three, a more powerful version called a Black Higher Staircase, until the November 2025 European Ministerial Meeting. As an alternative to improve the performance of the Ariane 6, we are looking at in-space refueling and are working on an Argonaut concept with in-space refueling to improve its performance. So with two Ariane 6s we launch a full reservoir and an Argonaut with its payload and little fuel. Then we will dock at the tank to refuel. This scenario provides a major performance boost for getting cargo to the lunar surface. Argonaut is a European lunar lander that will provide Europe with autonomous access to the moon, allowing us to play an important role on the surface of our natural satellite. In the 2030s, the Argonaut, launched on Ariane 6, will deliver up to 2,100 kg of cargo to the lunar surface.
If ESA decides to conduct European human spaceflights, will Ariane 6 be up to the task?
Ariane 6 could be a human-rated launch vehicle with some modifications. But we can also invest in a safety system for the capsule, so that it is safe for the crew if the launch fails. We have a contract to find the best trade-off between these two options in the coming year. Any decision to subsequently pursue these options rests with ESA Member States and only in this case would ESA not favor any specific launch vehicle; it would ask the industry to come up with proposals.
Should ESA start thinking about a reusable Ariane 7 in the next ten years?
At least for the time being, I do not think that ESA plans to opt for its own developed launch vehicle. For Ariane 6, we own almost everything, such as the vehicle launch system, the production facilities, the launch vehicle definition, the launch pad, etc. In the future it will be completely different; the launch vehicle will be privately developed. We simply buy services, as the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program in the US NASA does both. We are not going to develop a European SLS.
For now, Ariane 6 is a modular launch vehicle. It is a perfect system because Ariane 62 (530 tons with two boosters) replaces the Russian Soyuz, and Ariane 64 (850 tons with four boosters) replaces Ariane 5. So it covers all our needs. Ariane 6 could be the European workhorse for the next 15 to 30 years.