News WSJ: Europe Ends Independent Pursuit of Manned Space Travel

[RGClark]

*Warning, rant ahead*
I think the attitude is pretty stupid since we are just about 3 billion Euro away from a proper manned capsule. That is a lot less than what we spend on the ISS.
The lack of commitment also has to be blamed on the Europeans there, especially the French and Germans - my current government is just a club of liars, that promised to go to the moon without making it an ESA project during the election period, and finally settled on going to dinner.
...

Such a manned European launcher is probably doable for a few hundred million dollars. Recall here I discussed replacing the Vulcain engine on the Ariane 5 core with a SSME to create a SSTO:

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=243924&postcount=34

Surprisingly I found this could also work by using the Vulcains. You would need 3 of them though and the payload would not be as good because of the lower Isp but it would still be good enough to carry a SpaceX Dragon capsule. I'll show this in following post. This would be more palatable to the Europeans since it's using a European stage and engines. The capsule of course also doesn't have to be the Dragon. That was just given to illustrate the size of a capsule. The capsule used could also be of European design.
Also recall this post that argued a twice scaled up Dream Chaser could be SSTO:

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=286608&postcount=126

However, it is notable the European Hermes spaceplane was about the size of such a scaled up Dream Chaser. Then the Hermes if constructed now of composites and with the entire internal volume aft of the cockpit filled with propellant, i.e., no payload bay, could also be SSTO.
Interestingly it's possible this could be built perhaps for a few hundred million dollars. This is a key fact because the reason why the Hermes was cancelled was because of the billion dollar estimated cost to build it.
The reason I say it might be constructed at this lower cost is that its dimensions are about that of the X-33. But Lockheed estimated an X-33 could be built for $360 million, though in 1998 dollars:

Adventure star.
Flight International, November 1998
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1998/1998 - 3141.html

The cost of composites has decreased since then, and it would be using cheaper kerosene engines instead of hydrogen so this would compensate the increased costs due to inflation.


Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

You can't just slap an SSME on an Ariane 5 core for a few hundred million dollars. There are all sorts of aspects that have to be worked out first. For example, what of the launch infrastructure?

And how do you procure a US engine? What about trade restrictions and suchlike?

And how would you procure a Dragon capsule? Or create your own capsule?

Why not just use a conventional Ariane 5 then, considering that it already exists, is more capable, and faces far, far fewer problems?

You do realise that you can't just cram propellant into every available little bit of volume within a spacecraft, right? A propellant tank is a dedicated structure and needs to do several dedicated things.

If Europe was to pursue manned spaceflight capability, the best option would be by far to reuse ATV hardware. It is such a pity that they don't seem to care anymore, and I really wonder why... it must be because manned spaceflight is a gigantic waste of money for very little to no return. :dry:

 

[N_Molson]

I dunno what to add... Maybe we should try to convince people around us that spaceflight is just cool, interesting, and a good thing for mankind (no ideology there, that's crucial), some kind of active militantism. Print attractive tracts, put them in public places (where it is allowed)...

Well, maybe I'll give it a try. In Toulouse, home of the CNES and of most of the french space & aeronautics hi-tech industry, that could have a limited but real impact. :hmm: But an attractive blog would be needed, with links to the essentials like Orbiter, Spaceflight Now, the Space agencies etc... In fact, funding associations of space enthusiaths would be ideal, but that requires some leadership and managing skills.

 

[T.Neo]

Cool, Interesting, and a 'Good Thing' (in an unlivable hyperdesert). For billions of Euros!

There isn't really any way to justify manned spaceflight other than "I like it", which is pretty... selfish. It might work if enough people could be convinced to adopt the philosophy of "I like it" though...

People can claim all they want that the space industry is an 'invaluable R&D asset', but for every Dollar or Euro or Rouble spent on some interesting new idea that is applicable both in spaceflight and the real world, many more are spent on stuff like hardware and paperwork, that is very useful in the spaceflight arena (and very exciting for us), but not very helpful for most people.

 

[N_Molson]

It might work if enough people could be convinced to adopt the philosophy of "I like it" though...

Well, that's my idea. Most of people won't be interested (at first) by the scientific/technical aspects of spaceflight that are, of course, the point of it. I was more thinking to something that would be like "hey, spaceflight could be something interesting, let's have a look at it".

Maybe better than doing nothing. I'll try something.

 

[Keatah]

Shifting priorities...yeah... now doing nothing at all is prime priority. Looking good at fairs with multimedia presentations and cheap spacecraft mock-ups, instead of building stuff that really flies.

I really hate it.

I suppose I could start up my own Powerpoint Space Agency. These come and go on a daily basis. And whatever happened to that "Flower on the Moon" project? Dumb!

 

[SiberianTiger]

If we had to build 50 Ariane5/ATV-CTV per year, that would create a lot of well-paid hi-tech jobs all across Europe ; factories would have to be built, which means work for construction societies, transporters, metallurgy, chemicals etc etc... A virtuous circle, that would boost the economy. :yes:

That's a pretty dream...

With the present day's environmental preservation regulations, you'd need to outsource the actual production elsewhere, anyway.

 

[RGClark]

You can't just slap an SSME on an Ariane 5 core for a few hundred million dollars. There are all sorts of aspects that have to be worked out first. For example, what of the launch infrastructure?
And how do you procure a US engine? What about trade restrictions and suchlike?
And how would you procure a Dragon capsule? Or create your own capsule?
Why not just use a conventional Ariane 5 then, considering that it already exists, is more capable, and faces far, far fewer problems?
You do realise that you can't just cram propellant into every available little bit of volume within a spacecraft, right? A propellant tank is a dedicated structure and needs to do several dedicated things.
If Europe was to pursue manned spaceflight capability, the best option would be by far to reuse ATV hardware. It is such a pity that they don't seem to care anymore, and I really wonder why... it must be because manned spaceflight is a gigantic waste of money for very little to no return. :dry:

Actually, the few hundred million dollar cost I was referring to was for the Hermes derived SSTO.
For the Ariane 5 core based SSTO, here at least I was arguing for it using the Vulcain, which it already uses. You would though have to add two additional Vulcains to loft it without the solid side boosters.
I am in favor of using a European capsule. I don't think the ATV could be used though because it is too heavy at 20,000 kg. The Dragon was mentioned to illustrate only the size of a capsule able to hold 7 passengers/crew. The Dragon's design was not especially innovative. The ESA could easily produce a capsule of similar mass and crew capacity. The most innovative thing about the Dragon is its use of the PICA-X heat shield, which was already invented and used by NASA.
The technical ramifications I'll discuss further in the An SSTO as "God and Robert Heinlein intended" thread.



Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

You do realise that you can't just cram propellant into every available little bit of volume within a spacecraft, right? A propellant tank is a dedicated structure and needs to do several dedicated things.

I am tired of repeating myself. Where on Earth do you get your cost estimates? Do you actually consider how much it'd cost to reinvigorate the Hermes program, let alone turn it into FrankenLauncher?

I don't think the ATV could be used though because it is too heavy at 20,000 kg.

The difference is: Ariane 5 can already launch the ATV.

Also it would only be part of the ATV that is reused- the service module part of it, for example.

The Dragon's design was not especially innovative.

Dragon was not wacky and out-there. None of the SpaceX stuff is out-there at all, really. But it does have some interesting facets, and I think placing all of the manuvering ability within the capsule rather than in a seperate service module is pretty interesting.

The ESA could easily produce a capsule of similar mass and crew capacity.

ESA is not SpaceX. For them to develop a similar spacecraft, would likely be different.

But maybe they would be a bit better off than the Americans, with their capsule that costs ten times as much as Dragon...

That said, $3 billion to create a manned conversion of the ATV is quite a bit of money. To develop a Dragon-type vehicle could be similar.

I suppose I could start up my own Powerpoint Space Agency. These come and go on a daily basis. And whatever happened to that "Flower on the Moon" project? Dumb!

Yeah... stupid.

Also Project M/Project Morpheus. Inane PR stunt...

It's almost like... I dunno, "admitting defeat". We can't even send humans back to the Moon, so we sent some stupid robot instead!

 

[Urwumpe]

You can't just slap an SSME on an Ariane 5 core for a few hundred million dollars. There are all sorts of aspects that have to be worked out first. For example, what of the launch infrastructure?

And how do you procure a US engine? What about trade restrictions and suchlike?

Especially, we already have the Vulcain II engine, which is a bit less in performance than the SSME, but way cheaper.

If Europe was to pursue manned spaceflight capability, the best option would be by far to reuse ATV hardware. It is such a pity that they don't seem to care anymore, and I really wonder why... it must be because manned spaceflight is a gigantic waste of money for very little to no return. :dry:

Exactly. It makes no sense, except if you include the current revival of nationalism, that you notice in such things as populist governments blaming foreigners for their internal problems and national gains being more important than European ones.

It is stupid. Very stupid.

Just like it is stupid to call manned spaceflight a waste of money. Astronauts are the best you can put into space, but also simply the most expensive solution. But a unmanned robot that could do everything that a human astronaut can do, would be far more expensive.

 

[T.Neo]

Just like it is stupid to call manned spaceflight a waste of money. Astronauts are the best you can put into space, but also simply the most expensive solution.

Depends on who you ask. To space enthusiasts, finding a new kind rock in the Aitken basin or finding an interesting chemical on Mars is important, but there are hundreds of millions of people who simply couldn't care. It doesn't affect their lives at all.

But manned spaceflight does cost a lot more money in total- taxpayer money. At least it is supposedly more inspiring, which can only be a good thing in the eyes of the public.

But a unmanned robot that could do everything that a human astronaut can do, would be far more expensive.

I would say it would be currently impossible... maybe not one day, but certainly impossible now.

 

[RGClark]

I am tired of repeating myself. Where on Earth do you get your cost estimates? Do you actually consider how much it'd cost to reinvigorate the Hermes program, let alone turn it into FrankenLauncher?

It's in that link I provided on the X-33/VentureStar for the cost to build an X-33. This is an interesting article by the way on the planned development of the VentureStar.
This argument of mine for the cost of a Hermes derived SSTO is a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic"]heuristic[/ame] one. It's based on the Hermes being of comparable size to the X-33 and their both, as I'm envisioning it, being all composite, vertical take-off, winged landing vehicles.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Depends on who you ask. To space enthusiasts, finding a new kind rock in the Aitken basin or finding an interesting chemical on Mars is important, but there are hundreds of millions of people who simply couldn't care. It doesn't affect their lives at all.

If you would do politics only for those who don't care anyway, you won't get anything done. Why should you, they won't care.

But as small hint: While the poorest population in my country would have barely enough money for buying healthy food and good beverages, they surprisingly always have enough money to buy a PlayStation III for their children or can afford Jennifer Lopez CDs...and seem to care for this. Despite it being really a big waste of money.

Except the PlayStation III which has the small brother of the coolest missile guidance system capable CPU ever on it.

So, please: Stop this lazy argumentation. Many people maybe now don't care if life existed on Mars. But when the evidence is found, they will spend trillions of dollar for books, newspapers and DVDs about the event. They are short sighted and who can blame them for that. But that is why managers have to exist that look further ahead.

Or to quote Henry Ford: If you only do, what you already can do, you will always stay, what you already are.

Maybe you like this kind of future. But I would prefer flying cars, housekeeping robots and 5D-TV.

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

This argument of mine for the cost of a Hermes derived SSTO is a heuristic one. It's based on the Hermes being of comparable size to the X-33 and their both, as I'm envisioning it, being all composite, vertical take-off, winged landing vehicles.

Now remember that the Hermes was already a TSTO...

 

[Ghostrider]

I have a proposal: screen out the people who do not care about a science field they do not understand, fail to be informed about, or appreciate, and deny them permanently the use of any technology even remotely connected to that field. We'll see if it "impacts their lives" or not.

 

[Urwumpe]

I have a proposal: screen out the people who do not care about a science field they do not understand, fail to be informed about, or appreciate, and deny them permanently the use of any technology even remotely connected to that field. We'll see if it "impacts their lives" or not.

That is cruel. if one would say "I don't care about quantum physics", would you then remove all semiconductors from their inventory?

 

[T.Neo]

If you would do politics only for those who don't care anyway, you won't get anything done. Why should you, they won't care.

But as small hint: While the poorest population in my country would have barely enough money for buying healthy food and good beverages, they surprisingly always have enough money to buy a PlayStation III for their children or can afford Jennifer Lopez CDs...and seem to care for this. Despite it being really a big waste of money.

Except the PlayStation III which has the small brother of the coolest missile guidance system capable CPU ever on it.

So, please: Stop this lazy argumentation. Many people maybe now don't care if life existed on Mars. But when the evidence is found, they will spend trillions of dollar for books, newspapers and DVDs about the event. They are short sighted and who can blame them for that. But that is why managers have to exist that look further ahead.

Or to quote Henry Ford: If you only do, what you already can do, you will always stay, what you already are.

Maybe you like this kind of future. But I would prefer flying cars, housekeeping robots and 5D-TV.

I'm tired of the whole space enthusiast paradigm of "I'm interested in it, thus it is universally useful".

Manned spaceflight doesn't make the Earth go round, unless you try to tweak reality to make it so. It makes nice news, yes... but soon people become bored with it and take it for granted.

And yes, while it may come with a whole range of useful spin-offs, it is a pretty inefficient R&D machine, spending a lot of money on things that have no intrinsic use to most people- the development of a rocket engine may see several advancements that 'spin off' into other fields, but the millions spent on building the engines that get bolted onto launch vehicles go towards those engines, not towards developing new technology.

Of course you can also say "manned spaceflight is necessary to catalyse this need for R&D", but this also just sounds like "I want my rockets". There is a lot of R&D that goes on in this world without manned spaceflight programs. And since manned spaceflight programs have the goal of manned spaceflight, rather than R&D of useful concepts, means that they're obviously going to be inefficient at that R&D in some way.

It could also be that manned spaceflight programs in the world have fell upon apathy or a mentality of "let's do the same thing again". That's more of a reasoning for manned spaceflight than against it.

"Manned spaceflight will become magically useful in the future" is a dead argument, since we're in the "future" and the usefulness suggested by so many in times past has not occured. The advantages, where they have come, have been far less directly linked. And the most directly linked advantage is not immediately visible ('satellite' is more a term to describe a fancy dish mounted on your house that gives you TV) and neither built nor serviced by humans in space.

Manned spaceflight is a good thing, and there are lots of ways to justify it... but you can't justify everything to everyone, and you certainly can't justify it by "it is magically good for you", nor can you automatically dismiss it as nonsense a la Proxmire.

I have a proposal: screen out the people who do not care about a science field they do not understand, fail to be informed about, or appreciate, and deny them permanently the use of any technology even remotely connected to that field. We'll see if it "impacts their lives" or not.

If a manned mission to Mars finds an interesting new species of rock, and I say it is a waste of money, would I then not be able to pick up a rock in my own garden? :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm tired of the whole space enthusiast paradigm of "I'm interested in it, thus it is universally useful".

I would really help you dig a hole for your depressed self, but then, I fear, you have not been interested in metallurgy and tool making and might not want a shovel.

If nobody would have been interested in risking breaking his bones, we would not have had aircraft. And the most precious substance in our world, oil, was just a toxic liquid that comes from underground and makes land unsuitable for farming.

 

[T.Neo]

Yes... and after decades of spaceflight, we've learnt that it's difficult, dangerous, expensive, and leads only to places that are more hostile than pretty much anywhere on the surface of the Earth.

Must we believe Heinlein's words from before the space age even began, or our own depressing history?

 

[Ghostrider]

That is cruel. if one would say "I don't care about quantum physics", would you then remove all semiconductors from their inventory?

Of course. Just as anyone who says "I don't care about biology" gets himself instantly devitalized down to the cellular level.

 

[Urwumpe]

Must we believe Heinlein's words from before the space age even began, or our own depressing history?

An optimist is not more often wrong than a pessimist, but he lives happier.

Also, I can't really imagine getting out of the bed at all, believing that all is futile and nothing will change - especially when remembering how much my life changed by being at the frontier of technology for 30 years.

Maybe you like thinking that all is the same... but I know that today is not like yesterday was and I can really believe with certainty that tomorrow won't be like today. Isn't that great? :thumbup: