A low cost, all European, manned launcher.

[Hlynkacg]

Actually if we need 4 - 5 astronauts per year in orbit then in 10 year span it's still less than developing manned working spacecraft and upgrade Ariane 5 to match man-rating standards, building said vehicles, creating infrastructure, building advanced training centers, developing procedures (cost! cost! cost!).

It should be noted that the Ariane 5 is, for all intents and purposes, safer than a space shuttle. All this about "Man Rating" is simply a hold-over from the days when we were still using missiles to launch humans and a 15% failure rate was deemed acceptable.

 

[Urwumpe]

It should be noted that the Ariane 5 is, for all intents and purposes, safer than a space shuttle. All this about "Man Rating" is simply a hold-over from the days when we were still using missiles to launch humans and a 15% failure rate was deemed acceptable.

Yes, but then, man-rating the Ariane 5 is still needed. It must not be additional safety (though you would need it: Humans are harder to insure than satellites), but alone building the infrastructure around the launch pad for manned launches will be expensive.

 

[Notebook]

Yes, UK should have progressed with Ariane -1 AKA:

Sorry about that, just a bit of nostalgia.

N/

 

[Hlynkacg]

Yes, but then, man-rating the Ariane 5 is still needed. It must not be additional safety (though you would need it: Humans are harder to insure than satellites), but alone building the infrastructure around the launch pad for manned launches will be expensive.

Why?

Beyond the obvious issue of building a capsule to put on top of the rocket and adding a crew elevator to the launch pad what really needs to change?

 

[Urwumpe]

Why?

Beyond the obvious issue of building a capsule to put on top of the rocket and adding a crew elevator to the launch pad what really needs to change?

well, for example: It is not just a crew elevator, but also the other way around is needed: Pad abort options. you need abort and recovery possibilities after lift off. You need also umbilical connections for the spacecraft on the launch complex. You need new telemetry and mission control resources. You need new training facilities.

Also, a lot of the procedures and habits have to change, and with them technology: Currently, you would rather let the rocket explode, than to risk a fire fighter. With manned launches, you would need to fight even the worst fires for buying time for the crew to get in safe distance.

Currently, ESA does a lot of the training elsewhere, the EAC is pretty much only for the Columbus module. This would also need to change a lot. Maybe survival training can still be done together with the Russians, but the rest would need to be moved to Europe.

 

[Hlynkacg]

I imagine that abort options and adding the required umbilical hookups would be more of a factor in capsule design/construction than the booster, and even then are more of a luxury than a necessity.

As for the rest, you're confusing the costs associated with using an Ariane 5 with the costs of having a manned space program.

 

[Urwumpe]

As for the rest, you're confusing the costs associated with using an Ariane 5 with the costs of having a manned space program.

No, you simply take things for granted that the early NASA spaceflight gave the USA.

An unmanned satellite needs no special umbilicals - regardless what you launch, all it wants is a radio window in the fairing. In the worst case, you have a technician removing a safety device some hours before launch.

For a manned launch, you can't be that simple. The spacecraft will be more complex, have more requirements on the infrastructure.

Even today, NASA is still just reusing a lot of stuff that was already build for Apollo. The costs for manned spaceflight in the USA will increase a lot, once this stuff is broken.

And BTW: Modifying the Ariane 5 for manned launches or a manned spacecraft: Both are costs needed for manned launches. Regardless how you turn things: Somebody has to pay it.

 

[Hlynkacg]

For a manned launch, you can't be that simple. The spacecraft will be more complex, have more requirements on the infrastructure.

To be frank, I disagree. I think that it can be that simple, or damn close to it, and that much of what we currently assume to be necessities are infact not.

And BTW: Modifying the Ariane 5 for manned launches or a manned spacecraft: Both are costs needed for manned launches. Regardless how you turn things: Somebody has to pay it.

What modifications are required?

As far as the booster is concerned payload is payload, manned or no.

 

[Urwumpe]

To be frank, I disagree. I think that it can be that simple, or damn close to it, and that much of what we currently assume to be necessities are infact not.

I disagree there. What we learned of simple manned spacecraft is, how dangerous they are. Even Soyuz is pretty complex from its start for a good reason, after Vostok and Voshkod had some close calls to handle and limitations that had been unacceptable for later missions.

Humans are payload. But special payload. A 250 million satellite can be insured and simply launched again by building a new one from the insurance. A human that did just cost you 50 million to train, can not be insured like that.

Unless you just want to place humans in GEO and let them die there, you have to create spacecraft that are more complex than unmanned satellites.

What modifications are required?

As far as the booster is concerned payload is payload, manned or no.

Remember what I said above: A manned launcher needs different options for handling contingency situations as a unmanned launcher. You can't just destroy the rocket and all will work out fine.

These kind of new situations are all modifications. Not always technical, but mostly. Every human procedure in spaceflight has a technology to assist it and affects technology that is driven by it.

Think about the simple problem of having to use batteries somewhere. You need to charge them. You could charge them before integration and simply connect them as late as possible. But you then still need to switch these batteries. You could use radio command. But this radio command system has to be activated somewhere and needs electricity to operate. You could use the astronauts - but how much work can you delegate to them?

 

[Hlynkacg]

This all comes down to the question of what price do you put on safety?

Sentimentality aside, an astronaut that cost you 50 million to train CAN be replaced at a rate of 50 million per, so long as there are volunteers to fly.

Think about the simple problem of having to use batteries somewhere. You need to charge them. You could charge them before integration and simply connect them as late as possible. But you then still need to switch these batteries. You could use radio command. But this radio command system has to be activated somewhere and needs electricity to operate. You could use the astronauts - but how much work can you delegate to them?

And this differs from an unmanned payload with similar requirements how?

 

[Evil_Onyx]

I have to agree with Urwumpe on alot of the points made.

Man rateing an existing rocket would be a massive and expensive undertaking even if little or no modifications are needed. Just thinking of all the mountains of manuals, forms, test data, reports and technical drawings that would need to be reviewed (let alone altered and re-reviewed) gives me a headache. And on top of that most of the components would need to be retested to and beyond destruction.

As for a manned space program in Europe, One of the main driving factors in having one is not present with ESA. National prestige. ESA is far more interested in getting the best results for the money available, than stroking the egos of nations (Space race anyone).

So why would ESA produce a manned launcher, when it can buy rides when needed and not need to pay for all the training facilities, personnel and dedicated equipment associated with manned launchers, when ESA can out source all that risk and expense to another party when they need a ride?

 

[RGClark]

We we could do it REALLY for 1/3rd of the price that the Russians take, we would be doing it. But reality is no Kerbal Space Program.

Call it one-half the price the Russians charge, in the $120 million range for a launch to LEO. This is what that European space Academy was estimating for a liquid fueled Ariane 6 launch. This would still vastly undercut the Russians.
As ESA itself admits a big component of the decision to go with the solid-fueled Ariane 6 is how much work it would return to the ESA member countries, and certainly not if it could be used for a manned launch system.
See here for the discussion of the economics of the liquid-fueled Ariane 6 according to that European space Academy:

Academy Urges Europe To Halt Work on ‘Wrong Choice’ Ariane 6 Design.
By Peter B. de Selding | May. 30, 2013
http://www.spacenews.com/article/la...n-‘wrong-choice’-ariane-6-design#.UbkMoMu9KSM


Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

I have to agree with Urwumpe on alot of the points made.
Man rateing an existing rocket would be a massive and expensive undertaking even if little or no modifications are needed. Just thinking of all the mountains of manuals, forms, test data, reports and technical drawings that would need to be reviewed (let alone altered and re-reviewed) gives me a headache. And on top of that most of the components would need to be retested to and beyond destruction.
As for a manned space program in Europe, One of the main driving factors in having one is not present with ESA. National prestige. ESA is far more interested in getting the best results for the money available, than stroking the egos of nations (Space race anyone).
So why would ESA produce a manned launcher, when it can buy rides when needed and not need to pay for all the training facilities, personnel and dedicated equipment associated with manned launchers, when ESA can out source all that risk and expense to another party when they need a ride?

So you would be happy with watching on the side lines with Russia, China, the U.S., India, Japan conducting their own manned spaceflight programs? And with every now and then the EU purchasing a ride on one of their spacecrafts, all the while knowing the EU had equal or greater resources to accomplish the same thing?
All these other space agencies would see the value of producing their own manned space program, but the EU, with greater resources, would be the only not to think it's worthwhile.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

...

If multiple countries/organizations (SpaxeX, Orbital, et al) have man-rated launchers, where is the value added in developing another man-rated launcher other than pride? You wound't exactly be flying "space-available", but you'd have multiple contractors available to choose from to get your astronauts to space (more launchers=more competition and everybody wants your money).

One could also ask of China and the U.S. what's the use of developing your own manned space flight program when Russia already has one? Just buy from them.

Bob Clark

 

[PhantomCruiser]

At that level it goes back to that whole pride thing I'd mentioned earlier in the post.

And at the moment we are buying from them (at least buying from the Russians). Here (hopefully) we will also be buying seats on a commercial U.S. contract. If the government really wanted access to space via a "United States" rocket, there's always the Delta IV heavy that's going to toss the Orion Test Article into orbit in a few years (maybe?) during EFT-1. Even then if the Delta IV were made to be man-rated it's still a contract, ULA provides the rocket, not NASA.

If ESA really wants access to space all on their own, then they can reallocate millions for the program at the risk of shutting down what they do (very well) right now.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

So you would be happy with watching on the side lines with Russia, China, the U.S., India, Japan conducting their own manned spaceflight programs? And with every now and then the EU purchasing a ride on one of their spacecrafts, all the while knowing the EU had equal or greater resources to accomplish the same thing?
All these other space agencies would see the value of producing their own manned space program, but the EU, with greater resources, would be the only not to think it's worthwhile.

Bob Clark

Who says ESA would be on the side lines, as a key customer who says they could affect not affect the choices of other programs. And if the market was sufficiently big, to justify ESA developing a manned space program I see no reason why it would not start one.

I think you don't understand the how ESA works. It is not a national agency such as NASA, UKSA, CSA, ISRO, JAXA or ROSCOSMOS, with relatively simple bureaucracy, ESA has to answer to more than one government, and as such has far more "red tape" to its organisation, and complex requirements to projects.

Also not all members of the European Union are contributors to ESA, and can be considered separate entity's.

Ask yourself, what is the value of a manned space program?

How much is such a program worth? and could the time, money and resources be better spent on other projects, considering all the red tape and different objectives in Europe.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Man rateing an existing rocket would be a massive and expensive undertaking even if little or no modifications are needed.

And my point is that it doesn't have to be. The costs you're referring too are hold-overs from an era when failure rates of 15% were normal.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

And my point is that it doesn't have to be. The costs you're referring too are hold-overs from an era when failure rates of 15% were normal.

Maybe so, but there are still valid reasons to those costs. Unless you want someone to strap an arm chair to an ICBM and call it Man rated..(i know its abit of an extreme example but you get the idea). The requirements for man rateing exist for a reason, and those same reasons that existed in the early days still exist today.

Also According to this the Falcon 9 has a predicted failure rate of 33%, and Ariane 5 of has a predicted failure rate of 5%.

 

[RGClark]

...
And BTW: Modifying the Ariane 5 for manned launches or a manned spacecraft: Both are costs needed for manned launches. Regardless how you turn things: Somebody has to pay it.

It is important to remember that it is not the Ariane 5. It is the Ariane 6, as the liquid-fueled version.
As Lockheed has shown with the Atlas V, once you have such a two-stage liquid-fueled rocket it is possible it can be man-rated at relatively low cost:

NASA and ULA confirm Atlas V baseline for human rated launches.
July 19, 2012 by Chris Bergin

The official effort to begin the process of certifying Atlas V for human missions began in 2010, when NASA awarded ULA $6.7 million to accompany its own $1.3 million investment to develop an Emergency Detection System (EDS) prototype test bed. The EDS will monitor critical launch vehicle and spacecraft systems and issue status, warning and abort commands to crew during their mission to LEO.
The EDS is the sole significant element necessary for flight safety, in order to meet the certification requirements for Atlas V’s human space flight capability, a certification ULA were always confident of acquiring.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/07/nasa-ula-confirm-atlas-v-baseline-human-rated-launches/

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Costs for a manned launch are not just launcher, but also the manned spacecraft and the mission operational costs as well.

Also, you are still talking about a not existing launcher - prices of existing launchers always differ to the predictions and estimates done before. The Ariane 1 for example was slightly more expensive, but the better than expected performance of the third stage compensated that, the Ariane 4 was initially exactly as planned and became cheaper later, the Ariane 5 more expensive than predicted, but will slowly drop in prices relative to inflation rates, since the R&D costs are nearly paid of.

And there will be no liquid fueled Ariane 6 anyway - the favored designs of 2013 are all solid propellant with ESC-B upper stage, since these could meet the 70 million Euro launch cost goal with 3-6 tons payload to GTO.

This only means about 10 tons payload to LEO. Enough for a cheap space station taxi, but:

The wrong launch vehicle, since solids will likely mean a very rough ride

The wrong spacecraft for its time - when the Ariane 6 will start flying in 2021 (soonest) there will likely already be multiple commercial manned spacecraft for this "low-performance" task.

What would make more sense is building a launcher with a suitable launch pad that could also launch manned spacecraft additionally to normal commercial payloads. But that would rather be a consideration for the Ariane 7.

 

[RGClark]

...
And there will be no liquid fueled Ariane 6 anyway - the favored designs of 2013 are all solid propellant with ESC-B upper stage, since these could meet the 70 million Euro launch cost goal with 3-6 tons payload to GTO.
This only means about 10 tons payload to LEO. Enough for a cheap space station taxi, but:
The wrong launch vehicle, since solids will likely mean a very rough ride
The wrong spacecraft for its time - when the Ariane 6 will start flying in 2021 (soonest) there will likely already be multiple commercial manned spacecraft for this "low-performance" task.
...

I agree with you it is not likely the ESA will finance a liquid-fueled Ariane 6. The geographic return policy ESA is forced to follow makes it impossible to adopt the most efficient, low cost launch vehicles. It is quite analogous to the situation with NASA of having to get approval from the different congressmen and senators wanting to get the most amount of jobs and investments in their individual states.
The only way it could happen is if the EU or the individual nations give approval for a commercial space approach to developing new vehicles. There is hope this could happen at least in France from this news report:

Espace : le projet Ariane 6 à nouveau sous tension.
Michel Cabirol | 05/06/2013, 07:28
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises...e-projet-ariane-6-a-nouveau-sous-tension.html

Here it is in Google translation:

Space: the Ariane 6 project on again.
Michel Cabirol | 05/06/2013, 7:28

According to our information, the minister in charge of space, Genevieve Fioraso and the Defence Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, will install 11 June a committee of government-industry cooperation, the Cospace. This committee will primarily aim to develop technological roadmaps for the space industry. An event that will allow the Minister to regain control of the Ariane 6 folder, which again meets strong opposition.
http://translate.google.com/transla...e-projet-ariane-6-a-nouveau-sous-tension.html

From the English translation it appears an industry-government partnership will be deciding French space policy. This might allow funding for a launch vehicle whose development follows a cost-sharing approach between industry and government.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes, that sounds like Europe. Not that the USA are different there. But especially in France, the standard political career involves being manager of a state-owned company.