ArianeGroup's vision for current and future Ariane 6 launcher evolutions 

Ariane is not ESA

No you can't just fill A6 with LCH4. Because of the mixture ratio that is not the same with LO2 (and the density) the tank would have to be completely redisgned to match the required volume. Which is too complicated to stay in the same launcher ''family''. (impact on booster attachment and so on) And for the first question, methan is not the same as hydrogen for the engine aswell. Again, it would need some work. (The two version are studied right now)

for incremental evolutions, and versatility

Long live Europe! It is a joint venture after all!

@@kakteenkanalname yes!! 😇 as an American Ariane sounds very French hence my initial reaction :)

that is quite tricky. The core stage separates from the upper stage at close to orbital speed - 25-28km/s. Any additional hardware in this launch stage would cost a lot of performance, and a lot of hardware would be needed to get the core stage back to the ground. For comparison, the first stage of the Falcon 9 separates just about 8-10 Km/s, which is more comparable to the side boosters of the Ariane 6.

pbs.twimg.com/media/Fc8bZ2iXoAAe165?format=jpg&name=large This is taken from the presentation of SUSIE. But this is gonna be VERY far in the future, not any time soon.

Do not think that would be useful.

Its' own propulsion system is the launch escape system.

it is since it contains the engine aswell crew dragon is ontop of the upperstage of falcon 9 while susie is the whole upperstage. so its kinda like a small starship

@@kenopoppinga4838 _"susie is the whole upperstage."_ No, it's not. It doesn't contain any propellant to go from MECO to orbit. It fully relies on the normal upper stage of Ariane6 for that. SUSIE only has an engine and propellant for the powered landing. And maybe launch abort. Or to put it the other way around: Without a real upper stage beneath it, SUSIE can't reach orbit.

No. Some prototypes are already almost ready to fly. It is incremental evolutions that can go faster than a new launcher like ariane6 (which took only 7 years out of covid time). It can be made quicker if market makes it viable (which is NOT the case yet) And the starship is very very far from being able to fly to high orbits. And very very far to prove its economical viability.

@@sebpatu starship is very very far to make to orbit? Heu… they are max a few months away from their first try to reach orbit. Even if Starship is use without reusing it, it cost per kg will be much cheaper than Ariane 6.

@@shuaige3360 only if you believe every foolish tweet of elon Musk. The Tesla bot should be anothet warning for that. But you will see....

@@sebpatu I see that Flacone 9 is being reuse again and again (some already reach 14 times).. and this since more than 10 years… and still no other company managed to reused one rocket. And now they are already developing Starship and close to the first trial of reaching orbit (already some static fire done)… so the time competition will catch up with falcon 9, space X will already have Starship. So… yes checking the past you can see that space X is good to change impossible into late. So yes, they are late vs Elon time, but they do what they say they will do.

@@sebpatu and Tesla bot is not that bad for only a few month development.. give them 5-10 years of development, and I they will do quite good.

although true rocket launch do not make any significant impact on the environment compared to other human activities. Solid propellant is also not so different from liquid or gas in this regard. Solid fuel brings some advantages like storage, lo pressures, no leaks ...

A simple capsule similar to Appollo on the basis of the transport module.

Whats wrong with the video?