A low cost, all European, manned launcher.

[Alfastar]

I'd like to see a survey on this question put to German and other European tax payers outside of France:

Which would you prefer:

1.)Spending billions of their tax dollars developing a solid-fueled rocket that would help to support France's nuclear arsenal.

Or

2.)Spending billions on a liquid-fueled rocket that would give Europe an independent manned spaceflight capability.

Bob Clark

or 3.)Lets not developing a new solid-fueled rocket or a liquid-fueled rocket, but use the rockets we can use at this moment.

I don't really known you known about the economic situation here in Europa, but I don't think it would be economic & society wise to developing a new rocket. It would cost much, and it take years to developed the rocket. And would be it really needed to have a new rocket already? We got the Ariane 5 for the GEO (and the ATV), The Soyuz for MEO, and the Vega for the LEO sats missions. We got everything what we needed at this moment.

And a manned spacecraft is not a must-have, and would cost not just two euros for the development already for it. Lets then not even count the buildings, transportation, launchpad, launch cost, recovery costs, crew cost, tracking stations, the cost of the people around the project. And this are only a short list.

Lets think about it when the economy is better here, but not now.

 

[Mojave]

or 3.)Lets not developing a new solid-fueled rocket or a liquid-fueled rocket, but use the rockets we can use at this moment.

I don't really known you known about the economic situation here in Europa, but I don't think it would be economic & society wise to developing a new rocket. It would cost much, and it take years to developed the rocket. And would be it really needed to have a new rocket already? We got the Ariane 5 for the GEO (and the ATV), The Soyuz for MEO, and the Vega for the LEO sats missions. We got everything what we needed at this moment.

And a manned spacecraft is not a must-have, and would cost not just two euros for the development already for it. Lets then not even count the buildings, transportation, launchpad, launch cost, recovery costs, crew cost, tracking stations, the cost of the people around the project. And this are only a short list.

Lets think about it when the economy is better here, but not now.

It may not be a good time to start building a rocket. The economy is bad for everyone that's for sure. But we should have people designing rockets so we can equip new manned launches with newer technology.

The old launchers work and all, but we should trade them out with some newer spacecraft in the near future.

Progress cannot be made if we don't experiment.

 

[Urwumpe]

I disagree. These are the best times for big expensive R&D projects. Well, I am keynesian by heart, I am of course proposing anti-cyclic spending.

It is funny that we Germans do exactly that silently, while we expect all others in Europe to do harmful procyclic spending. Sometimes I really want to send my chancellor to the moon, solid fueled or liquid fueled.

We should now spend taxes for R&D and infrastructure (and not for example for rescuing the incomes of managers) and remember to save money again when times get better (But for that, we need a ECB, that is willed to compensate, when the politicians use the higher income to make more presents to their donors).

 

[RGClark]

or 3.)Lets not developing a new solid-fueled rocket or a liquid-fueled rocket, but use the rockets we can use at this moment.
I don't really known you known about the economic situation here in Europa, but I don't think it would be economic & society wise to developing a new rocket. It would cost much, and it take years to developed the rocket. And would be it really needed to have a new rocket already? We got the Ariane 5 for the GEO (and the ATV), The Soyuz for MEO, and the Vega for the LEO sats missions. We got everything what we needed at this moment.
And a manned spacecraft is not a must-have, and would cost not just two euros for the development already for it. Lets then not even count the buildings, transportation, launchpad, launch cost, recovery costs, crew cost, tracking stations, the cost of the people around the project. And this are only a short list.
Lets think about it when the economy is better here, but not now.

The decision to proceed with the Ariane 6 is already made. The only question now is will it be solid or liquid fueled. Germany prefers liquid fueled, while France and probably Italy prefer solid fueled of the strongest members of the EU.
The liquid-fueled one has the advantage that it can be used for manned missions. The cost estimate for the manned version has not been made because this was not included in the relative merits of the solid versus liquid versions.
The EU should make the cost estimates and then decide if those extra costs are warranted for creating a manned flight capability.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Germany prefers liquid fueled

Germany wants no Ariane 6 at all. That the Ariane 6 is now using the ECA-B upper stage and the Ariane 5 ME is funded is a compromise to make Germany support the Ariane 6 project at least a bit.

We only support the Vinci upper stage engine, which received a lot of German support in the past decade.

 

[RGClark]

Germany wants no Ariane 6 at all. That the Ariane 6 is now using the ECA-B upper stage and the Ariane 5 ME is funded is a compromise to make Germany support the Ariane 6 project at least a bit.
We only support the Vinci upper stage engine, which received a lot of German support in the past decade.

It is true some German members of the ESA do not want the Ariane 6, only the Ariane 5 ME upgrade.
However, this was written by a German member who wanted the Ariane 6 as liquid fueled:

Ariane 6: solid vs. liquid.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30749.0

Since it is now a done deal to do the Ariane 6, the question becomes the solid or the liquid version? For political reasons it will be difficult to reverse the decision to make the solid one.
That is why I'm arguing the EU should emulate the NASA success at producing launchers at reduced development costs by the cost-sharing of the commercial space approach, apart from the ESA.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

However, this was written by a German member who wanted the Ariane 6 as liquid fueled:

By a German member of an internet forum. Can't wait to see you quote me as official German ESA position. Most spaceflight engineers in Germany support the compromise - not just some.

 

[RGClark]

By a German member of an internet forum. Can't wait to see you quote me as official German ESA position. Most spaceflight engineers in Germany support the compromise - not just some.

From reading his posts on that forum and exchanged PM's I accept that he is a member of the ESA:

Re: Ariane 6: solid vs. liquid
« Reply #54 on: 01/13/2013 04:03 PM »
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30749.msg1000469#msg1000469

I'm not opposed to the compromise. I like having the Ariane 5 have greater payload capacity and I like having a medium class launcher in the Ariane 6.
You are correct that the German leadership in the ESA would have preferred no Ariane 6 and just the Ariane 5 ME. I don't know if that is the case for the rank and file engineers though. As an analogy, the NASA leadership want the asteroid return mission, but the rank and file engineers at NASA have no interest in it.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

All Germans are ESA members. :lol:

You should be aware that only 2000 people work directly for ESA and most of them are doing administration and facility management. The bulk of the scientific personal including astronauts comes from the national spaceflight agencies (DLR, CNES, etc) or are provided by involved universities, the bulk of the engineers from subcontractors.

http://www.esa.int/About_Us/Careers_at_ESA/Frequently_asked_questions

There are for example only 80 Young Graduate Trainees at ESA and a smaller number of doctorands.

ESA membership is for countries, not for individuals.

It is pretty different to NASA, which is a national spaceflight agency. ESA is more a money distribution mechanism with international coordination processes.

ESA does for example not develop satellites and rockets. They just provide the money for this and other infrastructure (for example conference rooms and test systems). The actual work is not done by ESA employees.

Correction: The European astronauts are full ESA employees since 2001. Before 2001, they had been national spaceflight agency employees.

 

[Notebook]

From #141 above.

Originally Posted by RGClark
I'd like to see a survey on this question put to German and other European tax payers outside of France:

Which would you prefer:

1.)Spending billions of their tax dollars developing a solid-fueled rocket that would help to support France's nuclear arsenal.

Or

2.)Spending billions on a liquid-fueled rocket that would give Europe an independent manned spaceflight capability.

Bob Clark

Have to say my money is on:

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

Well researched, has a history, competent engineers, ....British...oh dear.

N.

 

[RGClark]

Re: Ariane 6: solid vs. liquid
« Reply #54 on: 01/13/2013 04:03 PM »
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30749.msg1000469#msg1000469

The facts discussed there about the options for the Ariane 6 should be more generally known:

Re: Ariane 6: solid vs. liquid
« Reply #54 on: 01/13/2013 04:03 PM »
Wow, only a few days and more than 50 replies!
Obviously it was an urgent problem to be discussed.

I'd like to give some more results from the NELS study but I will not publish any concrete numbers as they are confidential. I hope you understand that I don't want to put my job in jeopardy...

In the study we investigated different launcher concepts, including concepts with LOX/kerosene, LOX / hydrogen and solid first stages, all combined with a cryogenic upper stage. We also investigated different versions of the PPH approach, including the CNES concepts.

The most interesting result is that all modular concepts, using a common core approach or strap-on-boosters, are not competitive to the “clean” inline designs.

The three most promising concepts KH (kerolox first stage with NK-33 engines), HH (cryogenic first stage with Vulcain 3) and PPH (solid first and second stage in-line) have practically the same recurrent cost. The small differences are well within the accuracy of our cost estimates.
Therefore, no economic justification for a solid Ariane-6 design can be derived from these results!

BTW, no concept is able to meet the 70M Euro benchmark for 6,5t to GTO.

Taking into account the loss of crucial technology, for me the clear winner is a HH concept using 3 Vulcain-3 engines in the first stage for the large payloads (up to 6,5 t) and two engines on the same first stage with a 35% propellant offload for the small payloads (up to 3,5 t).

The development cost for the HH concept are in the same range as for the solid concepts, but the development risk is much lower as the Vulcain engines are well understood and the V3 is directly derived from the V2. Also the main stage tank is nothing but a stretched version (with different wall thickness of course) of the existing EPC stage.

The development time is also shorter. A “Block 1” version of the HH concept, using Vulcain 2 engines with shortened nozzles instead of the Vulcain 3 and the Ariane 5ME upper stage could be launched already in 2018! It would have a GTO payload capacity of only 4,3 t but it can be used to qualify the first stage prior to the availability of the Vulcain 3.

In my eyes it is a shame that such a concept is not even given a fair chance to compete against the PPH in a phase A study.

Spacediver

Such a liquid fueled version of the Ariane 6 that could be used for manned flights could be ready by 2018.
ESA studies are different than NASA ones. At least the results of such studies for NASA would be released to the public so there could be public debate on the merits of the choices made when the taxpayers are being committed to billion dollar expenditures. But here they are not widely released. Consequently the European public is not aware they could have an independent manned spaceflight capability by 2018.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

:facepalm:

If you are a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

 

[RGClark]

From #141 above.

Have to say my money is on:

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

Well researched, has a history, competent engineers, ....British...oh dear.

N.

A very important reason why the Skylon is expected to cut the costs to space is that it is to be reusable in addition to getting oxygen from the air for a portion of the flight.
Still another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6 is that it can be adapted to be reusable. SpaceX is moving towards that with the Falcon 9. Those other space agencies with their liquid fueled rockets can also make the transition to reusability. Europe stuck with the solid-fueled Ariane 6 would once again be left behind.
The only advantage of the solid-fueled Ariane 6 is that it helps to subsidize the French nuclear arsenal. In effect the entire European continent would be spending billions of dollars to protect ... the French. Because these decisions on the choice of the Ariane 6 are made in the dark, the European public is not made aware of the true story.

BTW, do you know where the French nuclear weapons are pointed?

Bob Clark

 

[Loru]

Still another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6 is that it can be adapted to be reusable.

Just to point out: For 30 years USA used reusable SRBs in manned spaceflight.

 

[N_Molson]

The only advantage of the solid-fueled Ariane 6 is that it helps to subsidize the French nuclear arsenal. In effect the entire European continent would be spending billions of dollars to protect ... the French.

This begins to be a bit basement-esque for me, and it sounds like a pretty paranoïd reasoning.

 

[Ghostrider]

if there is really a market for manned spaceflight in Europe....

There is. We need a way to send Hollande into the Sun.

 

[MattBaker]

There is. We need a way to send Hollande into the Sun.

...which doesn't need a space capsule but only a block of aluminium and a strong rope.

 

[N_Molson]

... and such a nice spirit of European unity is precisely what prevents ESA from doing anything

 

[T.Neo]

Just to point out: For 30 years USA used reusable SRBs in manned spaceflight.

With very little, if any cost savings.

But that was also a specific motor with a specific method of production and reuse, the motors that would be used here are different. For instance, Ariane 5 boosters are already filled on-site, whereas the RSRM segments were filled in Utah and shipped all the way back to KSC by train.

In general a liquid-fuelled architecture lends itself better to reusability than a solid-fuel one does. Even if you do achieve cost reductions from parachuting the motors into the ocean, fishing them out, breaking them up, washing them down, re-packing the parachutes and re-filling the segments/re-applying insulation and re-stacking them, you aren't going to achieve (to use a Musk term) "rapid reusability" and a vague semblance of aircraft-like operations like you could theoretically with an all-liquid vehicle.

 

[Urwumpe]

With very little, if any cost savings.

Reusing the SRBs was much cheaper than reusing the SSMEs though. If I remember correctly, refurbishing a single SSME after flight was more expensive than both SRBs.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

... and such a nice spirit of European unity is precisely what prevents ESA from doing anything

I thought we agree on sending Hollande to the sun. :blink:

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

BTW, do you know where the French nuclear weapons are pointed?

Up.