Author Topic: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal  (Read 31145 times)

Offline jsgirald

CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« on: 09/30/2016 12:26 PM »
I haven't seen any comments on this (blog post in Spanish):
Callisto y Prometheus: cuando Europa imita a SpaceX

Apparently CNES is financing a development program for a methalox engine (Prometheus) and a technology demonstrator (Callisto) which looks a lot like SpaceX's Grasshopper.
Prometheus would give about 100t equivalent thrust, Daniel Marín (the author of the blog) conjectures that Callisto might become a launcher halfway between a Vega and an Arianne 6.

Anyone could kindly point me to more info? Thanks!
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert".

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • Liked: 3325
  • Likes Given: 4707
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #1 on: 10/05/2016 08:09 PM »
There have been a number of articles on Prometheus/Callisto over in the Ariane 6 thread.  Here is a link to a series of them...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1558879#msg1558879

This thread discussed splintering a dedicated thread, but thought it too early. 
Maybe now is the time(and you just did it).
Thanks.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #2 on: 10/09/2016 04:04 PM »
The article from Naukas is a bit misleading. The only thing that relates the proposed Prometheus / Promethee and Callisto programs, is that both will use LOx and LNG/Liquid methane as propellants. Besides this Airbus D&S / ASL will very likely be involved in both programs. And both programs try to get funded during ESA's 2016 ministerial conference.

Prometheus/Promethee is a follow-on project on the ACE-42R rocket engine development project.
(Also known as Romeo engine) Airbus Defence and Space and Japanese IHI have jointly developed the gasgenerator and turbo machinery for a 350; 420 or 600kN rocket engine. I don't know if they have integrated everything and tested it together as planned. These engines would use liquid oxygen and liquid methane (or LNG I don't know precisely) as propellants.
If I'm not mistaken CNES and ASL now propose to develop a 1000kN LOx LNG/Liquid Methane engine. They plan to make extensive use of additive manufacturing to get the production cost as low as 1mln Euro per engine. I don't know if they plan for a Gas Generator or Staged Combustion (NOT full flown) cycle rocket engine. They require roughly 125mln euro funding for the engine development. I think France and Germany and possibly Italy will be main contributors if funded. Possibly IHI; JAXA, Japan are also involved.

Callisto is a small scale reusable sounding rocket test bed, that IHI and ASL jointly want to develop. The project is estimated to cost 100mln euro. I read from multiple sources that:
- Launch is planned from CSG (most likely the sounding rocket pad)
- The Callisto rocket will be 1 meter in diameter and ten meters long.
- They plan to use a Japanese engine from IHI, most likely the LE-8 (100kN LOx LNG) engine.
My back of the envelope calculations give a fuel mass of less then 6,5mT and GLOW below 7,5mT.

I agree with Naukas that both programs can lead to a reusable Prometheus powered launch system.
I think Prometheus is a good development program. I'm a lot more skeptical about the scientific/technological return of investment of the Callisto program.

Development of a new, large cryogenic liquid rocket engine has to be done by experts, aka ASL. An new engine developed for 125mln euro sounds good value for money to me.
The development of control algorithms for controlling a stage during decent and landing for 100mln sounds  expansive to me. Especially considering the budgets for other European rocket technology development projects. PLD space estimates it requires 30mln to develop their test site, engines, Arion 1 and Arion 2. The EU Horizon 2020 Altair and SMILE programs are both about 4mln. And I've seen an estimate of less then 50mln to develop a small satellite launcher (200kg). So 100mln for only a lander testbed sounds expansive considering that this could also be tested using the Arion 1 or a Nammo Northstar sounding rockets.

I'll wait untill more news comes out form official sources. I guess we'll hear something within a month.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2016 05:22 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Online gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 930
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #3 on: 10/14/2016 08:35 PM »
I browsed through the IAC papers and there are a lot of them from Cnes and Airbus about reusable rockets and LOX/methane engines. I'll try to put together a summary and post it here or on my blog.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2016 08:45 AM by gosnold »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #4 on: 10/14/2016 09:58 PM »
Now is time to start planning for RLV with engines being starting point. It is not just SpaceX ESA has to consider, Blue will have RLV in few years with India also working towards one.

Ariane 6 is still good replacement for Ariane 5 but now is time to work towards A6 replacement/upgrade. This could even be a progress upgrade of A6 eg flyback boosters replacing SRBs, flyback engine section.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #5 on: 10/15/2016 10:43 PM »
Thought shuttle proved that reuse was a non starter with chemical rockets simply because it costs so much to fix the rocket that a new one would be cheaper.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 979
  • Likes Given: 345
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #6 on: 10/16/2016 02:18 AM »
SN actually ran an article on this relatively recently

http://spacenews.com/french-space-minister-calls-for-european-rocket-rd-effort-says-spacex-victory-still-tbd/

And this too : http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3061/1
Quote
Q: Is CNES already looking ahead to Europe’s next space launch system?

Le Gall: We need to start work on that now. When Ariane 6 got the go-ahead at the ESA ministerial council meeting in Luxembourg in December 2014, we were able to get the program on the rails quickly because CNES had started the conceptual studies back in 2007–2008. That’s why we’re continuing to focus on the future with the new Prometheus methane-liquid oxygen engine and the Callisto technology demonstrator.
« Last Edit: 10/16/2016 02:22 AM by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • England
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #7 on: 12/02/2016 01:49 PM »
Mostly funded;

https://www.twitter.com/pbdes/status/804688669735063552
Quote
ESA launcher director Neuenschwander: We wanted EUR 100M for reusable LOX/methane engine, we got EUR 83. So program can start.#ESACM16

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #8 on: 12/03/2016 08:01 PM »
Any word on if the Callisto part of this recieved any funding?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 577
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #9 on: 12/04/2016 04:29 AM »
Quote
Joel Barre, deputy director of the French space agency, CNES, said after the ministerial conference that France is paying the vast majority of the Prometheus program so as not to lose development time.

[...] Barre said France is determined to test reusability technologies.

Reporting by Peter B. de Selding — December 2, 2016:
http://spacenews.com/europe-commits-to-the-space-station-and-exomars-as-part-of-11-billion-in-commitments-to-esa/
-- sdsds --

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #10 on: 12/04/2016 08:30 AM »
There are few possible ways they can do reusability with 1000kn methane engines.
1) A reuse able F9 class booster, which may have to be expendable for higher performance mission. They would also need a considerably larger US.
2) Use 2-3 engines booster with flyback engine pod plus 2-4 SRB. Keep US and SRBs from A6.
Then later on replace SRBs with 2 flyback boosters, maybe option of 2 additional SRBs for large payloads.
3) 1-3 engine booster with 2 attachable engine pods (2-3 engine). The engine pods would separate and flyback. Booster carries on its (substainer) engines which eventually separate and fly back. Still have option of 2 additional SRBs.
4) Only use 2 flyback pods with central fuel tank. ULA have picture of this, maybe Vulcan successor. Still have option of 2 extra SRBs.

For options 2-4 engine pods will be close to orbital speeds when they separate.


Offline Salo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2493
  • Odessa, Ukraine
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #11 on: 12/04/2016 06:13 PM »
http://web.archive.org/web/20160827123254/https://ariane.cnes.fr/fr/moteur-promethee-une-evolution-vers-des-systemes-de-lancements-europeens-tres-bas-cout
Google translate:
Quote
20 April 2016
PROMETHEE, an evolution towards European launch systems at very low cost
With the PROMETHEE engine, CNES and Airbus Safran Launchers are preparing European launch systems at very low cost.

Since its inception, the Ariane 5 launcher has been a remarkable success. To date, the European pitcher has completed a series of 71 successful consecutive launches.

As early as 2020, Ariane 6 will continue this success, especially in the face of the significant emergence of new players in the field of space transportation and at a cost twice as low as Ariane 5.

Indeed, fueled by new investors and the multiplication of innovative applications, the environment of the space sector is changing rapidly, whether from the satellites or the launch services offered by new players. All indications are that these new operators will continue their efforts to reduce the costs of access to space by 2025/2035.

For A competitive launcher beyond Ariane 6

In order for Europe to continue to have a competitive launcher beyond Ariane 6 in the long term, CNES, in partnership with Airbus Safran Launchers, is preparing to develop new engines to Production costs and increase the pace of launch. "We think we need to work on a new engine that could be reusable but, beyond that, we need a much cheaper engine than the ones we are currently using, which has to be reduced by a factor of Whether it is a reusable engine or not, "explained Jean-Marc Astorg, CNES launcher director in the February-March 2016 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology.

PROMETHEE (Precursor Reusable Oxygen METHane cost Effective Engine), 100 T LOX / Methane thrust gas generating cycle engine, will be an evolution towards very low cost European launch systems. The goal is to have a launcher that will cost twice as much as Ariane 6 with technologies of the 21st century. The first PROMETHEE engine bench tests are planned for 2018.

The studies currently under way, jointly carried out by ASL and the CNES launcher division, have made it possible to define technological solutions capable of meeting the very low cost objectives of this engine. In parallel, prototyping of some parts has already been launched.

Through PROMETHEE, the objective is also to reduce engine development times, notably by using the latest technologies in 3D printing.

The Promethee engine could lead to launchers ten times cheaper than at present. Credits: CNES

« Last Edit: 12/04/2016 06:14 PM by Salo »

Offline Salo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2493
  • Odessa, Ukraine
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #12 on: 12/04/2016 06:19 PM »
https://presse.cnes.fr/en/thierry-mandon-visits-cness-launch-vehicles-directorate-dla-presentation-ariane-6-and-vega-c

June 1, 2016
Thierry Mandon visits CNES’s Launch Vehicles Directorate (DLA) : presentation of Ariane 6 and Vega-C programmes and their future evolutions

Wednesday 1 June, Thierry Mandon, Secretary of State for Higher Education and Research, visited CNES’s Launch Vehicles Directorate (DLA) for a presentation of the Ariane 6 and Vega-C programmes and their future evolutions. The meeting was held in the presence of representatives from CNES, ESA, the German, Italian and Swiss space agencies, Airbus Safran Launchers (ASL) and Arianespace.

Thierry Mandon underlined the need in today’s fiercely competitive global market to bring Ariane 6 and Vega-C on stream at the earliest possible opportunity to secure Europe’s long-term independent access to space and its position as world number one in the commercial launch services market. He also stressed that efforts to cut the cost of getting to space must be pursued beyond Ariane 6 through a coherent strategy laying the groundwork for the future based on the premise that reusable launchers may one day replace today’s expendable vehicles.

At this meeting, Europe’s space launch team put forward its strategy for evolving Ariane 6 and Vega-C, underpinned by a new family of very-low-cost engines dubbed Prometheus. These new engines will make extensive use of additive manufacturing technologies and run on hydrocarbon and liquid oxygen. They will be designed from the outset for reuse but will also be able to equip expendable launchers. The goal is to ready a prototype of Prometheus for testing before the end of the decade.

After the meeting, Thierry Mandon commented: “Alongside development of Ariane 6 and Vega-C, Europe must begin laying the groundwork for the future with the new Prometheus family of engines in order to secure its long-term independent launch capability and its position as world leader in the commercial launch services market. Ariane 6 and Vega-C, which will be ready to fly by the end of this decade, are today drawing on the research heritage of the last 20 years and we must set in train now the decisions that will shape their future evolutions.”

New family of very-low-cost engines Prometheus presentation for Thierry Mandon (mid-photo), Secretary of State for Higher Education and Research at the CNES’s Launch Vehicles Directorate (DLA), in Paris. Credits: CNES/H. Piraud.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #13 on: 12/04/2016 06:45 PM »
http://web.archive.org/web/20160827123254/https://ariane.cnes.fr/fr/moteur-promethee-une-evolution-vers-des-systemes-de-lancements-europeens-tres-bas-cout
Google translate:
Quote
20 April 2016
PROMETHEE, an evolution towards European launch systems at very low cost
With the PROMETHEE engine, CNES and Airbus Safran Launchers are preparing European launch systems at very low cost.

Since its inception, the Ariane 5 launcher has been a remarkable success. To date, the European pitcher has completed a series of 71 successful consecutive launches.

As early as 2020, Ariane 6 will continue this success, especially in the face of the significant emergence of new players in the field of space transportation and at a cost twice as low as Ariane 5.

Indeed, fueled by new investors and the multiplication of innovative applications, the environment of the space sector is changing rapidly, whether from the satellites or the launch services offered by new players. All indications are that these new operators will continue their efforts to reduce the costs of access to space by 2025/2035.

For A competitive launcher beyond Ariane 6

In order for Europe to continue to have a competitive launcher beyond Ariane 6 in the long term, CNES, in partnership with Airbus Safran Launchers, is preparing to develop new engines to Production costs and increase the pace of launch. "We think we need to work on a new engine that could be reusable but, beyond that, we need a much cheaper engine than the ones we are currently using, which has to be reduced by a factor of Whether it is a reusable engine or not, "explained Jean-Marc Astorg, CNES launcher director in the February-March 2016 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology.

PROMETHEE (Precursor Reusable Oxygen METHane cost Effective Engine), 100 T LOX / Methane thrust gas generating cycle engine, will be an evolution towards very low cost European launch systems. The goal is to have a launcher that will cost twice as much as Ariane 6 with technologies of the 21st century. The first PROMETHEE engine bench tests are planned for 2018.

The studies currently under way, jointly carried out by ASL and the CNES launcher division, have made it possible to define technological solutions capable of meeting the very low cost objectives of this engine. In parallel, prototyping of some parts has already been launched.

Through PROMETHEE, the objective is also to reduce engine development times, notably by using the latest technologies in 3D printing.

The Promethee engine could lead to launchers ten times cheaper than at present. Credits: CNES


Its not an highly efficient Staged Combustion (FFSC/ORSC/FRSC) Methalox LRE so it will have a very tough fight on their hands with Raptor and BE-4 LRE families in the States.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2016 07:49 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • England
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #14 on: 12/05/2016 12:35 AM »
I'd ignore discussion of Prometheus' potential reusability, what they are really talking about is manufacturing an engine so cheap that reuse is not economical.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 10:57 AM by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #15 on: 12/05/2016 06:44 PM »
Its not an FFSC Methalox LRE so it will have a very tough fight on their hands with Raptor, and BE-4 LRE families in the States.

BE-4 is also not a full flow staged combustion engine, it is an Oxigen rich staged combustion engine. Both BE-4 and Raptor 1&3 MN are multi billion rocket engine development programs. That take at least five years of development time. I think CNES wants a cheap and fast rocket engine development after the disastrous Vince engine program. Promethee should cost less then one million where Vulcain2.1 costs roughty ten million.

I expect the following will happen. With the transition from Vega to Vega-C the 139mT launched with 1.4mT payload changes into a 200mT launcher with 2.2mT payload. Vega-C still will use (toxic) solids and (toxic) hypergolic liquids. The VUS (Myra or possibly HM7C) Vega-E 3th stage will eliminate the hypergolics and boosts Vega-E performance further. If I'm not mistaken this is a subject for the 2019 ministerial.
I've seen already two <500kg satellite launcher proposals that look like they will use a Romeo derived first stage engine. They first will launch expendable, but possibly later??

A 80mT GLOW single promethee first stage and the VUS (Myra) as second stage will form a nice expendable <1mT satellite launch vehicle. The most logical path to reusability in my oppinion would be to try to softly land this first stage in the ocean.
The promethee stage on top of an ESR (P142) with optionally a VUS will form a nice launcher with slightly more capability then Vega-E, I guess up to 4mT payload.

Experiments with highly reusable engines and stages will happen on (25-45) 35kN scale engines, as is already ongoing. If these smaller scale reusable stages have proven a path to an efficient business case with less then 20 annual launches. I expect a Ariane 7 program with reusable single, 5, 7 and 9 engine first stages and expendable VUS, Romeo and Promethee upper-stages. I expect Vince and even HM-7 will still be used for a long time. For really heavy >50mT payloads even Vulcan can remain in use. But I don't see a market for such an insanely large launch vehicle.

Don't forget the only flown reusable launch vehicle was the space shuttle. And was that such a succes? My oppinion is that a 10% failure rate as Falcon9, Proton and Zenith have shown are not acceptable. Even the 3% soyuz has shown is to high if you ask me. With the high launch cost of ULA launchers or Ariane 5 the launch cost is rarely more then half as expensive as the payload.
I think it is much more important to have a launcher available when needed, that is reliable. Launch cost is much less of a priority.
Also don't forget that these agencies have fresh memories of programs like Hermes,  Ariane 5 ME/Vince, Crew Reentry Vehicle, ATV/Orion service module, Expert, PAZ, QB-50, ACES (ISS atomic clock), EDR-2 (ESA magnatic furnice rack), etc.

And I forgot to name the financial situation in France, Italy, Spain, the UK, Irland, Portugal. Not that the situation in the USA is any better.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2017 05:21 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #16 on: 12/05/2016 07:47 PM »
Its not an FFSC Methalox LRE so it will have a very tough fight on their hands with Raptor, and BE-4 LRE families in the States.

BE-4 is also not a full flow staged combustion engine, it is an Oxigen rich staged combustion engine. Both BE-4 and Raptor 1&3 MN are multi billion rocket engine development programs. That take at least five years of development time. I think CNES wants a cheap and fast rocket engine development after the disastrous Vince engine program. Promethee should cost less then one million where Vulcain2.1 costs roughty ten million.

I expect the following will happen. With the transition from Vega to Vega-C the 139mT launchet with 1.4mT payload changes into a 200mT launcher with 2.3mT payload. Vega-C still will use (toxic) solids and (toxic) hypergolic liquids. The VUS (Myra or possibly HM7C) Vega 3th stage will eliminate the hypergolics and boosts Vega-E performance further. If I'm not mistaken this is a subject for the 2019 ministerial.
I've seen already two <500kg satellite launcher proposals that look like they will use a Romeo derived first stage engine. They first will launch expendable, but possibly later??

 A 80mT GLOW singele promethee first stage and the VUS as second stage will form a nice expendable <1mT satellite launch vehicle. The most logical path to reusability in my oppinion would be to try to softly land this first stage in the ocean.
The promethee stage on top of an ESR (P142) with optionally an VUS will form a nice launcher with slightly more capability then Vega-E, I guess up to 4mT payload.

Experiments with highly reusable engines and stages will happen on 35kN scale engines, as is already ongoing. If these smaller scale reusable stages have proven a path to an efficient business case with less then 20 annual launches. I expect a Ariane 7 program with reusable single, 5 and 7 engine first stages and expendable VUS, Romeo and Promethee upper-stages. I expect Vince and even HM-7 will still be used for a long time. For really heavy >50mT payloads even Vulcan can remain in use. But I don't see a market for such an insanely large launch vehicle.

Don't forget the only flown reusable launch vehicle was the space shuttle. And was that such a succes? My oppinion is that a 10% failure rate as Falcon9, Proton and Zenith have shown are not acceptable. Even the 3% soyuz has shown is to low if you ask me. With the high launch cost of ULA launchers or Ariane 5 the launch cost is rarely more then half as expensive as the payload.
I think it is much more important to have a launcher available when needed, that is reliable. Launch cost is much less of a priority.
Also don't forget that these agencies have fresh memories of programs like Hermes,  Ariane 5 ME/Vince, Crew Reentry Vehicle, ATV/Orion service module, Expert, PAZ, QB-50, ACES (ISS atomic clock), EDR-2 (ESA magnatic furnice rack), etc.

And I forgot to name the financial situation in France, Italy, Spain, the UK, Irland, Portugal. Not that the situation in the USA is any better.
yes I know I left a space but forgot to actually write it in.
Vega-E was advanced to the next step of development, but 2019 ministerial is for final development include possibly testing if development doesn't get drawn out further during each succeeding ministerial conference.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2016 07:53 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #17 on: 12/05/2016 08:18 PM »
AFAIK Prometheus is being engineered to lower cost, not to be the most bleeding edge methane engine on the market. And there is no clear precedent for better engine perfomance translating into being more cost effective. There's quite a few counter examples in fact.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #18 on: 02/07/2017 06:06 PM »
My first post on NSF, so Hello Everyone! *waves*   :)



OK, now to business:

L'usine nouvelle has an interesting report about CNES plans for the post-Ariane 6 time. Codewort "Ariane Next"

Vous avez aimé Ariane 6, vous allez adorer Ariane Next

It's all in french, so here is short a summary:

•   A launcher for "beyond 2030".
•   At the moment a team of 15 is working on the concept.
•   Further cost reduction by a factor of 2, compared to Ariane 6.
•   Tailored to both Commercial and State customers.
•   Development time reduced from 10 to 5 years.
•   Adaptable industrial base:
      o   Ability to increase production if demand requires it...
      o   But able to scale down and stay profitable if the commercial market shrinks.
•   The designated engine is Prométhéus
      o   10x cheaper to manufacture (compared to Vulcan 2)
      o   50% production time
      o   Extensive use of additive manfivuating aka 3D-printing
      o   Methane instead of LH2 propellant, easier to handle, yet similarities should speed up development.
      o   One possible scenario is to use Prométhéus for both 1st and 2nd stage.
•   Callisto will be the prototype for reusability
      o   Re-ignition at high altitude studied by Onera
•   Possibility of 2nd stage reuse is being considered.
•   Upper Stage could remain in orbit and conduct several GTO missions

For more in-depth Google Translate does a decent job.

Calapine
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 06:16 PM by calapine »

Offline Jester

  • NSF Night Flyer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6850
  • Some Space Agency
  • Liked: 2929
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #19 on: 02/08/2017 06:58 AM »
Hi miss S, welcome ;-)

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #20 on: 02/21/2017 12:03 PM »
Futura Sciences reports about possible ways forward for Ariane Next.

Two hypotheses are highlighted.

Scenario 1: The Ariane 6 family proofs adequate for the demand of ESA and sat operators for the next 20 - 30 years.

In this case only an evolution would be required. Under consideration: Ariane 6.6 (6 SRB, 13 tons to GTO) to meet increasing satellite masses combined with (or instead of): 1a) an replacement of Vulcain 2.1 with Prométhée, 2b) an upgraded version of th Vinci upper stage engine.

Scenario 2: The market for mega constellations takes off, a Soyuz-like launch cadence of 50 launches per year is required.

This isn't considered achievable with Ariane 6, the answer would be an all new launcher with that lists several of the buzzwords I already mentioned in my earlier post (launcher least partially re-usable, upper stage re-use (3 to 5 round trips) achieved with re-fuelling in orbit, high-cadence production that is flexible if the market contracts).

Full article: Ariane Next : à quoi ressemblera le successeur d’Ariane 6

To me this sounds like the typical European 'hedging of bets' and 'waiting to see what the other side does'.
« Last Edit: 02/21/2017 12:06 PM by calapine »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #21 on: 02/28/2017 04:10 PM »
I deem senario 1: Drop-in replacement of Promethee instead of Vulcan 2.1 very unlikely. A Ariane Next that uses a promethee engine would always be a completely new/different launcher.
LOx-LH has a density of 0.28-0.32 mT/M3 (kg/L); LOx-LNG (LCH4) is 0,82-0,83 mT/M3.  So the fuel mass in the Core stage would nearly triple. So one Prometheus would not suffice.
A Vulcain 2.2 or 2.3 (2.2 is already planned if I'm not mistaken) would be a much more logical drop in replacement. Vulcain 2.2 has 3D printed Turbopumps if I'm not mistaken.
A new injector design (additive manufactured) and ignition system would lower the cost of a Vulcain engine a lot. I think that's a beter alternative than Scenario 1.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #22 on: 02/28/2017 04:16 PM »
I deem senario 1: Drop-in replacement of Promethee instead of Vulcan 2.1 very unlikely. A Ariane Next that uses a promethee engine would always be a completely new/different launcher.
LOx-LH has a density of 0.28-0.32 mT/M3 (kg/L); LOx-LNG (LCH4) is 0,82-0,83 mT/M3.  So the fuel mass in the Core stage would nearly triple. So one Prometheus would not suffice.
A Vulcain 2.2 or 2.3 (2.2 is already planned if I'm not mistaken) would be a much more logical drop in replacement. Vulcain 2.2 has 3D printed Turbopumps if I'm not mistaken.
A new injector design (additive manufactured) and ignition system would lower the cost of a Vulcain engine a lot. I think that's a beter alternative than Scenario 1.
Vulcan 2.2 will be phased in first and Vulcan 2.3, which will be nearly completely 3D printed, will follow later both on Ariane-6 in the future.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #23 on: 02/28/2017 04:40 PM »
Interesting information, thanks.

Will there be any other changes with Vulcain 2.2 and 2.3 (eg, thrust upgrade) or are they solely aimed at lowering the production cost?

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #24 on: 02/28/2017 04:44 PM »
Interesting information, thanks.

Will there be any other changes with Vulcain 2.2 and 2.3 (eg, thrust upgrade) or are they solely aimed at lowering the production cost?
2.3 will see an uprate in thrust for testing and certification but is not currently planned to use the uprated thrust operationally on flights

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #25 on: 02/28/2017 05:24 PM »
Link to GKN video about new rocket engine production technology.
I didn't known Vulcain2.3 was actually really in development.
Can you share some sources?

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #26 on: 02/28/2017 05:44 PM »
Link to GKN video about new rocket engine production technology.
I didn't known Vulcain 2.3 was actually really in development.
Can you share some sources?
it is scheduled for development after Vulcan 2.2 wraps up

Offline mc87

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • LA, CA, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #27 on: 03/16/2017 12:10 AM »
Airbus Safran Launchers tweeted a short video of the Prometheus 3D printed injector (is that what it is?).

https://twitter.com/aslaunchers/status/842036194259136512

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 897
  • Likes Given: 1649
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #28 on: 03/16/2017 12:39 AM »
A six SRB Ariane 6 with upgraded Vulcain and Vinci engines could probably do manned Lunar missions with twinned launches! One for the Spacecraft and one for the Departure Stage. Roll on, the ESA 'Space Village'! :)
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #29 on: 03/16/2017 01:24 AM »
Airbus Safran Launchers tweeted a short video of the Prometheus 3D printed injector (is that what it is?).

https://twitter.com/aslaunchers/status/842036194259136512
looks more like the MCC and base of the nozzle.

Online DT1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
  • Lampoldshausen, Germany
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #30 on: 04/13/2017 03:56 PM »
From the 5th Industrial Days at DLR in Lampoldshausen:
http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-22066/#/gallery/26832

5th DLR Industrial Days at the Lampoldshausen site
The future of space transport: Will large satellite networks change our way into space?


Excerpt concerning Prometheus:

The road to Ariane 6 and beyond

Competitive and reliable, high-performance and flexible – these adjectives best describe the Ariane launcher family that will now be expanded accordingly with the addition of Ariane 6. Airbus Safran Launchers, prime industrial contractor for the Ariane 6 programme, has now reached the key milestones: firstly, technical maturity of the launcher system has been confirmed, and secondly, the European Space Agency (ESA) has now signed an addendum to the original Ariane 6 contract, releasing the necessary funds to complete development and industrialisation. The reduction in actual costs for launching without restricting the launcher's reliability is of particular significance in this respect. Moreover, performance and cost-efficiency of Ariane 5 will be further improved as a means of prevailing in an increasingly competitive market. Starting in 2023, Ariane 6 is scheduled to launch up to 12 times per year and replace the current Ariane 5 system.

The main actors within the European aerospace sector have their eyes firmly fixed on the commissioning of Ariane 6. Moreover, Europe is already actively preparing a future launcher system: the French space agency (CNES), Airbus Safran Launchers and DLR are collaborating within the Prometheus Project to develop a cost-efficient, high-thrust and reusable rocket engine powered by liquid oxygen (LOX) and methane. Numerous projects around the world have investigated the use of methane as a rocket fuel for decades. But so far the LOX/methane propulsion system has not been used in any real launcher. Since the 2016 ESA Council at Ministerial Level, the committee that oversees European space policies, however, the research and technology development of the Prometheus project have been included in the ESA Future Launchers Preparatory Programme (FLPP).

Research for the adoption of new technologies

A fuel combination comprising methane and liquid oxygen has an auspicious role to play in the development of new liquid rocket fuels for space. The potential options of methane extend from adding it to the current liquid fuel engines used in the Ariane launchers, to a complete replacement of liquid hydrogen. DLR engineers in the Prometheus project are now working on developing the LOX/methane technology as quickly as possible for use within the European space programme. The targets are clearly defined: Airbus Safran Launchers and the DLR Institute of Space Propulsion entered into an alliance in 2016 to drive rapid progress in LOX/methane technology. While the engineers at Airbus Safran Launchers designed and built a promising technology demonstrator, the DLR engineers adapted the P3 test rig to suit these entirely new conditions, especially with regards to the fuel supply. The project partners then conducted a 12-month test campaign that yielded important findings for the continued development of necessary, critical technologies such as the combustion chamber. "Our test campaign has paved the way for the development of innovative LOX/methane technology," explained Gerald Hagemann, Head of Liquid Propulsion Engineering at Airbus Safran Launchers. Upon completion of a test campaign with Vulcain 2.1 – the main stage engine of the Ariane 6 rocket – the aim is to run tests on a LOX/methane technology demonstrator with 100 tons of thrust under representative conditions on the P5 test rig at the DLR Test Centre for Rocket Propulsion Systems in Lampoldshausen. This LOX/methane engine has the potential to reduce the costs of the Vulcain main stage propulsion system, developed by Europe in the 1980s, by a factor of 10.

---------------------------
Ralf
*** AD ASTRA PER ASPERA ***

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3558
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2126
  • Likes Given: 2535
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #31 on: 04/15/2017 11:30 PM »
L'usine nouvelle has an interesting report about CNES plans for the post-Ariane 6 time. Codewort "Ariane Next"

Vous avez aimé Ariane 6, vous allez adorer Ariane Next

It's all in french, so here is short a summary:

•   A launcher for "beyond 2030".
•   At the moment a team of 15 is working on the concept.
•   Further cost reduction by a factor of 2, compared to Ariane 6.
•   Tailored to both Commercial and State customers.
•   Development time reduced from 10 to 5 years.
•   Adaptable industrial base:
      o   Ability to increase production if demand requires it...
      o   But able to scale down and stay profitable if the commercial market shrinks.
•   The designated engine is Prométhéus
      o   10x cheaper to manufacture (compared to Vulcan 2)
      o   50% production time
      o   Extensive use of additive manfivuating aka 3D-printing
      o   Methane instead of LH2 propellant, easier to handle, yet similarities should speed up development.
      o   One possible scenario is to use Prométhéus for both 1st and 2nd stage.
•   Callisto will be the prototype for reusability
      o   Re-ignition at high altitude studied by Onera
•   Possibility of 2nd stage reuse is being considered.
•   Upper Stage could remain in orbit and conduct several GTO missions

It's discouraging that for "beyond 2030" the plans are less ambitious than what SpaceX has right now and what Blue Origin is working on and targeting for more than a decade earlier than 2030.

And while only 15 people are working on this plan that doesn't even match SpaceX today, Europe is charging full speed ahead with A6, which is even more hopelessly behind.

Offline Salo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2493
  • Odessa, Ukraine
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #32 on: 06/22/2017 02:59 PM »
https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/877830981499052033
DutchSpace‏ @DutchSpace
3D image of #Prometheus a low cost liquid oxygen–methane engine being developed by @ArianeGroup @SAFRAN @AirbusSpace for future launchers

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • Liked: 3325
  • Likes Given: 4707
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #33 on: 06/22/2017 03:24 PM »
Cross posted:

Looks like the Europeans are getting more serious about reusable rocketry (and costs):

Quote
Europe Sets Sights on Cheap Rocket Engine by 2030s
Quote

PARIS (Reuters) - Europe aims to develop a low-cost, reusable rocket engine for use after 2030 under a deal between Airbus Safran Launchers and the European Space Agency (ESA).

They signed a development contract at the Paris Airshow on Thursday to develop a demonstrator engine, powered by liquid oxygen and methane.

Airbus Safran said it would use new manufacturing techniques, including the use of 3D printers, to keep the engine's cost down to around 1 million euros ($1.1 million).

"The commercial market - at least the European one - is asking for reliability, on-time delivery and cost, and we have to find the best way to answer these market expectations," its CEO, Alain Charmeau, told Reuters.

The firm, a joint venture between Airbus and Safran that will become ArianeGroup on July 1, currently powers the rockets it uses to launch satellites for commercial clients with Vulcain 2 engines costing around 10 million euros each.

But not all in on reusable rockets yet...

Quote

"We need, and will have Ariane 6 in 2020, but we also have to prepare for the future ...and that is why this (Prometheus) program is important," he said.

The jury was still out on the issue of reusability, however.

California-based Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) earlier this year achieved what it called "a huge revolution in spaceflight" by reusing part of one of its Falcon 9 rocket on a subsequent launch.

Charmeau said Prometheus would include work on reusability. "(But) the market is not asking for reusability... As long as we have a limited number of institutional launches it's difficult to bet on reusability."

https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2017-06-22/europe-sets-sights-on-cheap-rocket-engine-by-2030s
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #34 on: 06/22/2017 04:12 PM »
Without right engine, ArianeGroup can't even consider a RLV. This engine is step in right direction. In short term replace Vulcain with 1 or 2 of these engines. With switch to methane the same size stage could probably support 2 engines giving A6 a performance increase.
Maybe add flyback engine pod.

A smaller booster (no SRBs) using same flyback engine pod could replace Vega.

« Last Edit: 06/22/2017 04:27 PM by TrevorMonty »

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #35 on: 06/22/2017 04:33 PM »
Without right engine, ArianeGroup can't even consider a RLV. This engine is step in right direction. In short term replace Vulcain with 1 or 2 of these engines. With switch to methane the same size stage could probably support 2 engines giving A6 a performance increase.
Maybe add flyback engine pod.

A smaller booster (no SRBs) using same flyback engine pod could replace Vega.


The MT Aerospace proposal for Ariane 6 was an all liquid modular design, but was struck down because it endangered the solid propulsion industry.

Offline Kosmos2001

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • CAT
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 103
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #36 on: 06/22/2017 06:19 PM »
https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/877830981499052033
DutchSpace‏ @DutchSpace
3D image of #Prometheus a low cost liquid oxygen–methane engine being developed by @ArianeGroup @SAFRAN @AirbusSpace for future launchers

It looks like very Merlinish. It is interesting how close two rocket engines can look like when engineers target for the cost and not the highest performance.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #37 on: 06/22/2017 06:51 PM »
ONERA and CNES are currently studying 3 possible solutions for first stage return:

• Toss-back, á la #SpaceX
• Fly back, using 4 air-breathing jet engines, horizontal landing (similar to the old Liquid Fly Back Booster concept from the Germans)
• Glide back, again with horizontal landing

Source (french): http://www.futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/acces-espace-ariane-next-ressemblera-successeur-ariane-6-66350/

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5178
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 4183
  • Likes Given: 1222
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #38 on: 06/22/2017 08:45 PM »
Quote
ArianeGroup signs a first contract with ESA to develop the future Prometheus engine

• Airbus Safran Launchers, which will become ArianeGroup on July 1, 2017, today signed a first contract  at  the  Paris  Air  Show  with  the  European Space  Agency (ESA) to develop the Prometheus demonstrator
• Prometheus is a low - cost reusable engine demonstrator running on liquid oxygen (LOx) and methane
• Its applications are designed to equip European launchers as of 2030

https://www.ariane.group/en/news/arianegroup-signs-a-first-contract-with-esa-to-develop-the-future-prometheus-engine/

Full press release attached.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #39 on: 06/22/2017 09:23 PM »
I've written this here already at least 3x. The current situation for European launchers was created during the 2012 ministerial. CNES (France) wanted Ariane 6, DLR (Germany) wanted Ariane 5ME. They compromised and decided to start A5ME upper-stage development and further design studies for Ariane 6. But for most Ariane 6 configurations a new liquid first stage was required. This was a proposal for the Future Launcher Preparations Program FLPP3 called High Thrust Engine (HTE) demonstrator. Unfortunately the HTE program wasn't backed, and didn't proceed. Thus for the A6-studies they were stuck to current engine technology.
I think the current A6 is much closer to A5ME then to what CNES envisioned with Ariane6 in 2012.
Most likely most of the expenses of the Ariane 6 program go into new factories. The factories are able to be reconfigured for future Ariane Launchers. The other part of A6 is change of responsibility and implementation of the mature technologies that would also have been integrated into A5ME.

Back to Callisto. I expect it will use much smaller engines than Romeo or Prometheus.
Most likely in the 25-100kN range. The results of both the Callisto and Prometheus developments could lead to a reusable A7, which would be an up-scaled Callisto.
But I think A multi segment P280 or P420 (2 or 3 P140 segments) could also be a good alternative for a reusable multi engine first stage. In case reuse doesn't work. So P280 - Prometheus or P420 - Prometheus.
Another possibility is replacing the Ariane 6 core with a 3.4m diameter one prometheus engine core.
(This could be in line with what I wrote in the Vega Update topic #207)
 
But I think introducing more additive manufacturing in the Vulcan 2 and Vince production proces, will be the first further evaluation of Ariane 6. (Aka Vulcan 2.2 and 2.3)
I don't see any down side to the Prometheus engine development program. It will bring a lot of new launcher configurations.
Vega L could maintain the solid stage production capability. (Though Callisto could compete with it)

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #40 on: 06/22/2017 09:48 PM »
ONERA and CNES are currently studying 3 possible solutions for first stage return:

• Toss-back, á la #SpaceX
• Fly back, using 4 air-breathing jet engines, horizontal landing (similar to the old Liquid Fly Back Booster concept from the Germans)
• Glide back, again with horizontal landing

Source (french): http://www.futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/acces-espace-ariane-next-ressemblera-successeur-ariane-6-66350/

I guess Blue Origin will use Glide Back (or a mix of Toss-back & Glide Back) on New Glenn.
I read there was a presentation at IAE2016 about many different types of stage reuse, I think this is the first time something of that presentation came out in public.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #41 on: 06/23/2017 12:30 AM »
Article said they were going to build Grasshopper equivalent for testing, I assume VTVL. Developing VTVL technology gives them more options when deciding on a RLV configuration.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 979
  • Likes Given: 345
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #42 on: 06/24/2017 07:42 PM »
Prometheus/Promethee is a follow-on project on the ACE-42R rocket engine development project.

One thing i learned about it : laser ignition.

EDIT: also this:
Quote
Airbus Defence and Space Defense initiated LOX/Methane studies for rocket engines of a 350 kN, 420 kN and 600 kN thrust class named ACE-35R, ACE-42R and ACE-60R, respec- tively, followed by sub-scale and equipment tests. It is stated that the engine demonstrator ACE-35R could be ready for test in 2018 Ref.

« Last Edit: 06/24/2017 07:44 PM by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Calhoun, LA
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #43 on: 07/08/2017 09:18 PM »
Here is a new news article with some new info that was released last Thursday.

http://host.madison.com/business/investment/markets-and-stocks/airbus-promises-to-build-a-reusable-rocket---/article_77612082-e152-597d-9cef-8417bfaa4674.html

I think this is the right place for this...but if not...please move.


Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #44 on: 07/11/2017 05:58 PM »
A further (small) preview of Prometheus from EUCASS 2017.

Source is http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/

As for the abbreviations:

ALM = Additive Layer Manufacturing
HMS = Health Monitoring System (?)
« Last Edit: 07/11/2017 06:08 PM by calapine »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #45 on: 07/11/2017 07:45 PM »
They are developing right engine to design a RLV.  A larger 2000-3000kn engine would be better ie BE4, Raptor.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #46 on: 07/11/2017 08:32 PM »
They are developing right engine to design a RLV.  A larger 2000-3000kn engine would be better ie BE4, Raptor.
One that is not as gas generator or expander cycle would be much better for an RLV in terms of thrust and ISP.

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2675
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2667
  • Likes Given: 2101
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #47 on: 07/11/2017 08:37 PM »
They are developing right engine to design a RLV.  A larger 2000-3000kn engine would be better ie BE4, Raptor.
One that is not as gas generator or expander cycle would be much better for an RLV in terms of thrust and ISP.
Yes.

However, suggest they are not trying to "win" the reusable "race", but only to "place".

Please note the absence of solids. Moving well away from the prior interest in "PPH". Which is why the bigger engine.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #48 on: 07/11/2017 08:44 PM »
They are developing right engine to design a RLV.  A larger 2000-3000kn engine would be better ie BE4, Raptor.
One that is not as gas generator or expander cycle would be much better for an RLV in terms of thrust and ISP.
Yes.

However, suggest they are not trying to "win" the reusable "race", but only to "place".

Please note the absence of solids. Moving well away from the prior interest in "PPH". Which is why the bigger engine.
Their was a staged combustion demonstrator programme that was proposed by industries of several ESA member states, however ESA turned down the proposal saying ESA would not fund it.

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • England
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #49 on: 07/12/2017 09:10 AM »
They are developing right engine to design a RLV.  A larger 2000-3000kn engine would be better ie BE4, Raptor.
One that is not as gas generator or expander cycle would be much better for an RLV in terms of thrust and ISP.
Yes.

However, suggest they are not trying to "win" the reusable "race", but only to "place".

Please note the absence of solids. Moving well away from the prior interest in "PPH". Which is why the bigger engine.
Their was a staged combustion demonstrator programme that was proposed by industries of several ESA member states, however ESA turned down the proposal saying ESA would not fund it.

The issue is cost, Staged Combustion is not cheap. The Prometheus is heavily rationalised for cost saving, if they are seriously targeting 1m euros then that would be one tenth the cost of BE-4 for example. That gives you a huge amount of flexibility in stage design.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2017 09:18 AM by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #50 on: 07/12/2017 10:41 AM »
With RLV engines reliability and low operating costs are main target with performance being secondary.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #51 on: 07/12/2017 07:09 PM »
Momentum of the project is a big concern and rightly so.
There was one talking point that has been repeated each time the question came up during the publicly streamed round table discussions at the Paris Air Show. That the development of a reusable vehicle is a concern, that there is funding and progress according to plan and so on and so forth BUT that a much more aggressive pace would be welcome.
I think it's hard for ESA directors to say more in a public setting, again and again.

Are there any public target dates for the new engine?

Online gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 930
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #52 on: 07/12/2017 10:12 PM »
Momentum of the project is a big concern and rightly so.
There was one talking point that has been repeated each time the question came up during the publicly streamed round table discussions at the Paris Air Show. That the development of a reusable vehicle is a concern, that there is funding and progress according to plan and so on and so forth BUT that a much more aggressive pace would be welcome.
I think it's hard for ESA directors to say more in a public setting, again and again.

Are there any public target dates for the new engine?

Increasing funding to Ariane Next is admitting that Ariane 6 is a dead-end. You can understand why ESA does not call for that.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #53 on: 07/12/2017 11:37 PM »
Momentum of the project is a big concern and rightly so.
There was one talking point that has been repeated each time the question came up during the publicly streamed round table discussions at the Paris Air Show. That the development of a reusable vehicle is a concern, that there is funding and progress according to plan and so on and so forth BUT that a much more aggressive pace would be welcome.
I think it's hard for ESA directors to say more in a public setting, again and again.

Are there any public target dates for the new engine?

Increasing funding to Ariane Next is admitting that Ariane 6 is a dead-end. You can understand why ESA does not call for that.
(http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/New_Technologies/FLPP_preparing_for_Europe_s_next-generation_launcher)
Airane Next (A7) is developed under the guise of the Future Launchers Preparatory Programme

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #54 on: 07/13/2017 12:42 AM »
Of course they can't say that. I actually don't think that A6 is that bad. Cutting cost in ~half goes a long way and finally getting ECB is way overdue. ...If it wasn't for the price tag...

More ontopic I wonder if we'll see an early A6 evolution with Prometheus replacing Vulcain rather sooner than later. Throwing away 1M€ or two is cheaper than 10M€.
That lego rocket idea needs much more performance data though.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #55 on: 07/13/2017 12:43 AM »
Momentum of the project is a big concern and rightly so.
There was one talking point that has been repeated each time the question came up during the publicly streamed round table discussions at the Paris Air Show. That the development of a reusable vehicle is a concern, that there is funding and progress according to plan and so on and so forth BUT that a much more aggressive pace would be welcome.
I think it's hard for ESA directors to say more in a public setting, again and again.

Are there any public target dates for the new engine?

Increasing funding to Ariane Next is admitting that Ariane 6 is a dead-end. You can understand why ESA does not call for that.
(http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/New_Technologies/FLPP_preparing_for_Europe_s_next-generation_launcher)
Airane Next (A7) is developed under the guise of the Future Launchers Preparatory Programme
My take of website is ESA is do what they do best study ideas. While commercial section just gets on and builds HW. I'd say there are few more studies required before something is built.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #56 on: 07/13/2017 08:47 PM »
Prometheus will introduce C into the option equation besides H and P (Myra also does this).
The first laucher that will use C is Vega-E (PPC), the second one is Vega-L (PC)[or PPS].
As I've written before, the next launcher I expect is another PC, and a Vega replacement (PPC or CC). This CC could be part of the Ariane Next family. By combining Prometheus and Callisto, a first stage reusable CC or CH Ariane Next could be developed. (Aka F9 copycat)
I think Prometheus and Callisto are demonstrator programs, like Airbus Vahana; the X3 helicopter, enz. Instead of maturing technologies using TRL, they switched to demonstrator programs to speed up the R&D & Introduction proces.
It's a total switch in technology, lots of these technologies can also be implemented into the Vinci, Vulcan and Myra engine production. So I expect the cost of Vulcan and Vinci can also go down a lot in the future.

For the Expendable / Reusable discussion lets write down the Jan Werner analoge:
'For bottles you have lots of different options. Glas / PET; Expendable / Reusable. All combinations are used, so there isn't a clear best solution.'
Within the 10-20 annual launches range, PHH expendable is for now the best solution in Europe. I think C will be introduced and expendable will remain. Launch frequently is to low for volume production and reusable.

If I'm not mistaken, the SC engine development (HTE) was droped because of lack of funding. Don't forget, the budget for prometheus development was estimated at €100mln, and it isn't completely funded. A FFSC Methalox engine could be a next demonstrator, switching back to dual shaft. (BE-4 = single shaft; Raptor = dual shaft).
Reusable, C (LOx-HyroCarbon) and 1000kN is a good match, aka multi engine architecture.  (F9)
2400 or 3000kN multi engine is total overkill. So single engine architectuur,  but that doesn't work well with reusable.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2017 08:08 AM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #57 on: 09/10/2017 08:35 PM »
I hope that Vega grows to replace Ariane 6.2

  Ariane 7 expands to  5   Prometheus engine first stage 5 Vulcain second stage 1 Vulcain third stage

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7674
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3530
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #58 on: 09/11/2017 11:01 AM »
I hope that Vega grows to replace Ariane 6.2

Ariane 7 expands to  5   Prometheus engine first stage 5 Vulcain second stage 1 Vulcain third stage
Your post comes dangerously close to trolling.

Vega-to-Ariane 6.2 would have to be one hell of a growth-path. Vega would have to grow about 450% in payload capacity. Never gonna happen. The current evolution of Vega into Vega-C is barely a 55% increase in payload capacity.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? An all-solid Ariane 6 was initially proposed AND rejected, for all the right reasons. A "next-vehicle" evolution of the Ariane family is never again going to be based on an all-solid design.

Also, ESA will never need the monstrosity you propose to be Ariane 7. And you over-looked the minor detail that Vulcain is still very much incapable of air-start and thus incapable of upper stage(s) duty.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2017 11:13 AM by woods170 »

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #59 on: 09/11/2017 02:46 PM »
I can ser Vega-E replacing Ariane 6.2 if not on paper at least defacto in practice. Vega-E payload capabilities should be "good enough" for a majority of institutional missions.

Floss' idea for Ariane 7 is special indeed though and wouldn't even get of the ground: As currently proposed Prometheus is a 100 ton-force engine. Less than Vulcain 2.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2017 04:44 PM by calapine »

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #60 on: 09/11/2017 03:02 PM »
True but with over 20 years Vega has plenty of time to grow and an all solid launcher has advantages over liquid ones and small upgrades can be funded a lot easier than whole launch vehicles .

Without a massive new launcher program Prometheus will remain a paper engine just like the High Thrust Programme good for a few phds and nothing else.

Sorry but 6 to 8 billion for new satellite launcher with an untrusted engine with no clear job will not be funded by any government .

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #61 on: 09/11/2017 04:42 PM »
Vega with Ariane 62 performance isn't Vega but Ariane 6 PPH.

We have been there, that path has been soundly rejected for a whole host of reasons.

I suggest we keep this thread at least somewhat grounded in reality.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2017 04:43 PM by calapine »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #62 on: 09/12/2017 10:28 AM »
First Vega and Ariane 62 are slightly off topic.
I can't see a Vega variant replacing Ariane 62 on al cases.
The recent EUMETSAT METOP-SG satellites, that have a mass of roughly 4mT and are to be placed in a ~ 800km SSO orbit, can not be launched by a Vega derivative.
The PP(P)C variant (Vega Heavy) or a PC with a two segment P280 + Prometheus upper-stage could orbit these satellites, but I would call those Vega Heavy instead of Vega rockets.
I expect that ArianeGroup is goeing to favour A62 above Vega-C/E, because the Ariane 6 family requires at least 10 launches annually to close the business case.
Introducing Methane at CSG would require new LNG facilities in France Guiana. Although they currently use Methanol for LH2 production.

Back on topic.
I hope Callisto will utilize multiple 10-100kN engines. Avio's Myra and Masten's Broadsword are ~100kN engines. I've seen documents describing launchers that utilize: 35kN, 45kN and 85kN engines. (& 500 | 665)
There's a project for a 1.5kN and 10kN engine. And another project could develop a 35kN LOx LNG engine.
The Romeo engine (joint development from Airbus D&S and IHI) is a 420kN engine. It could be scaled into a 350kN and 600kN engine. I think Prometheus is a upscaled derivative from Romeo.
An Reusable Ariane Next 7-12×Prometheus + Prometheus could replace Ariane62. To replace A64 a heavy variant is required, for example two reusable cores side mounted to a expendable 1x Prometheus core.
A (PC) P280 + Prometheus or (PPC) 2/3×P120C+P120C+Prometheus would be expendable replacements of A62.
I think the technologies developed for prometheus, could also be applied on a new version of Vulcain engine. This could result in a cheaper Ariane 6 family.

But this is a discussion that comes on the table after 2020.
When Vega-C and Ariane 6 are launching and the Callisto and Prometheus projects have been completed or ended. Other (EU) projects are also finnished.
Edit: may I suggest to continue the discussion about Vega vs Ariane 62 in the Ariane 6 or Vega discussion topic, if you feel the need.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2017 10:51 AM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 979
  • Likes Given: 345
This doesn't belong in this thread, but i'm not sure it's worthy of its own

http://elib.dlr.de/114430/1/Paper_IAC2017_D.2.4.3ENTRAIN.pdf

Evaluation of Future Ariane Reusable VTOL Booster stages
Quote
Abstract
Reusability is anticipated to strongly impact the launch service market if sufficient reliability and low refurbishment costs can be achieved. DLR is performing an extensive study on return methods for a reusable booster stage for a future launch vehicle. The present study focuses on the vertical take-off and vertical landing (VTOL) method. First, a restitution of a flight of Falcon 9 is presented in order to assess the accuracy of the tools used. Then, the preliminary designs of different variants of a future Ariane launch vehicle with a reusable VTOL booster stage are described. The proposed launch vehicle is capable of launching a seven ton satellite into a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) from the European spaceport in Kourou. Different stagings and propellants (LOx/LH2, LOx/LCH4, LOx/LC3H8, subcooled LOx/LCH4) are considered, evaluated and compared.[/b]

Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline SmallKing

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
  • Zhejiang, China, the Earth
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 207
This doesn't belong in this thread, but i'm not sure it's worthy of its own

http://elib.dlr.de/114430/1/Paper_IAC2017_D.2.4.3ENTRAIN.pdf

Evaluation of Future Ariane Reusable VTOL Booster stages

Section 2.2 mentioned that they estimated F9s performance is reduced by 30%-35% with DRL, and 60%-65% with RTLS. Amazing
« Last Edit: 10/03/2017 05:10 AM by SmallKing »
Some are bound for happiness, some are bound to glory, some are bound to live with less, who can tell your story?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7674
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3530
  • Likes Given: 1050
This doesn't belong in this thread, but i'm not sure it's worthy of its own

http://elib.dlr.de/114430/1/Paper_IAC2017_D.2.4.3ENTRAIN.pdf

Evaluation of Future Ariane Reusable VTOL Booster stages

Section 2.2 mentioned that they estimated F9s performance is reduced by 30%-35% with DRL, and 60%-65% with RTLS. Amazing
"Amazing" as in "amazingly incorrect".
But since this is not a SpaceX thread I suggest we do not discuss F9 performance losses any further. Let's stick to the subject, which is Ariane 6.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #66 on: 10/04/2017 08:40 AM »
I haven't read the whole paper yet, but the statement "Once again the relevance of a launcher with a gross lift-off mass of about 3800 tons is very questionable." jumped out at me.

The major consequence of a reusable booster is that lift-off mass is almost irrelevant, cost is booster manufacturing/flights + fuel + opps, for a reasonable number of reflights booster manufacturing costs (which depend heavily on lift-off mass) are amortised to a low level.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Home
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #67 on: 10/04/2017 10:22 AM »
I haven't read the whole paper yet, but the statement "Once again the relevance of a launcher with a gross lift-off mass of about 3800 tons is very questionable." jumped out at me.

The major consequence of a reusable booster is that lift-off mass is almost irrelevant, cost is booster manufacturing/flights + fuel + opps, for a reasonable number of reflights booster manufacturing costs (which depend heavily on lift-off mass) are amortised to a low level.

The full quote is as follows:

Quote
The preliminary sizing of a LOx/LCH4 version with a first stage performing a RTLS has been performed for the upper stage ∆V of 7.6 km/s. Due to the lower specific impulse compared to the LOx/LH2 propellant combination the first stage propellant loading has to reach 3020 tons of which about 500 tons are needed for the RTLS. The upper stage propellant loading has been estimated to be 450 tons, or larger than the first stage of Falcon 9. Once again the relevance of a launcher with a gross lift-off mass of about 3800 tons is very questionable.

Not only is the launcher huge (comparable to Saturn V) but the paper assumes expendable second stages. If the expendable part is larger than the Ariane or Falcon 9 core then there is no point. The BFR is larger at 4400 tons GLOM but claims full reusability.

But this is for RTLS with a 7 ton payload, something the current Falcon 9 only does in expendable mode. They get better results further along in the paper with Down-Range Landing designs (likely another barge):

Quote
The LOx/LH2 launcher with an upper stage ΔV of 7.0 km/s is lighter than a Falcon 9 and delivers 2 tons more payload to GTO (7500 kg vs 5500 kg) in DRL mode.

This is very interesting. The expendable portion is still large at ~88 tons, this would be half the size of the Ariane 5 core and one of the largest upper stages in history. But the Falcon 9's upper stage is also extremely large.

But why didn't they investigate mixed launchers with a methane lower stage and hydrogen upper stage?
« Last Edit: 10/04/2017 10:37 AM by DreamyPickle »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3176
  • Liked: 1506
  • Likes Given: 1021
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #68 on: 10/04/2017 01:37 PM »
Quote
The LOx/LH2 launcher with an upper stage ΔV of 7.0 km/s is lighter than a Falcon 9 and delivers 2 tons more payload to GTO (7500 kg vs 5500 kg) in DRL mode.

This is very interesting. The expendable portion is still large at ~88 tons, this would be half the size of the Ariane 5 core and one of the largest upper stages in history. But the Falcon 9's upper stage is also extremely large.

But why didn't they investigate mixed launchers with a methane lower stage and hydrogen upper stage?

One of the study assumptions was the use of the same engine in upper and lower stages as a cost optimization.

LCH4 is a poor propellant choice for RTLS unless you subcool, use high pressure SC engines, and have absurd dry mass fractions. However, this model shows it to be a good chose for downrange landing even with boiling prop and very conservative mass ratios, and confirms Blue's choices for New Glenn.

A 885 tonne vehicle that can launch 7500 kg to GTO with a downrange landing would be a good competitor to F9/FH, New Glenn, and Vulcan w/ SMART.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #69 on: 10/04/2017 03:31 PM »
Prometheus is the development of a 1000kN (not known if this is sea-level of vacuum) GasGenerator cycle rocket engine. This will most likely use a fuel rich burning gas generator. And it will use a single shaft turbopump geometry. (LOx - Methane GG and Single shaft TP are new for Europe If I'm not mistaken.)
I wonder; could ESA/Arianegroup later develop this gas generator into a fuel rich and oxygen rich preburner. Could they then develop a 1500-2400kN FFSC rocket engine using the heritage from the Prometheus project?
(Though this would most likely copy the steps of a US company)

Then they possibly could develop two different sizes of VTOL launchers with the same configuration. (and a third and forth using Myra and Romeo  ;))
In Europe most likely the amount of launches is to low to close this case with continuous production. Only the upper-stages can be build with serial production. For first stage they should chose a batch production of reusable stages. When the reusable stages get at end of service life, or to many stages have been lost, a new batch has to be ordered.
If I'm not mistaken, this is part of the Arion 1 and Arion 2 launchers business case from PLD space.
I prefer landing on DP3 ships instead of on a DP2 barge, although the ships are more expansive than barges.
Also a downrange landing zone might be an option from CSG.
Let's end this very speculative post.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2017 03:43 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #70 on: 10/08/2017 09:36 AM »
Video from CNES with footage of Prometheus and Calisto from 0;48.


0;48-0;55 & 2;04 - 2;14 Prometheus
1;02 & 1;52-2;01 Calisto
0;55-0;58 Adeline
2;14-2;21 Ariane Next

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #71 on: 10/23/2017 09:35 PM »
https://www.eucass.eu/doi/EUCASS2017-680.pdf

^ Here's a description of the architecture and objectives for Callisto demonstrator.

tldr;

- 1m diameter, 13m height
- 40kN class LOX/LH2 engine
- 40% throttle ratio
- Designed for at least 5 flights, to learn how to minimize refurbishment and reflight times.
- Deployable fins unfolded before re-entry, used for stability and guidance.
- Landing 800m from launch site on concrete pad baseline but barge landing off korou is being studied as a backup.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7674
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3530
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #72 on: 10/24/2017 06:01 AM »
Looking familiar...?

Quote from: CNES Launcher Directorate
Vehicle Layout:
<snip>
The reference vehicle has a diameter of around 1m, with a total height around 13m. It is equipped with two main external features compared to a classical operational launcher:

- Deployable fins, which are folded during ascent and are unfolded during the ballistic phase before reentry :
they enable to stabilize and control the vehicle during its atmospheric entry

- Four landing legs, which are also folded during ascent and deployed very shortly before landing. A
preliminary design has been done with the objective of ensuring both sufficient engine clearance with
respect to ground and stability at touchdown.

Basically, the Prometheus/Callisto vehicle combines SpaceX-type landing legs with Blue Origin-type fins (vanes).
« Last Edit: 10/24/2017 06:04 AM by woods170 »

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #73 on: 10/24/2017 08:13 AM »
Is that some sort of air entrainment shroud at the bottom?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7674
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3530
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #74 on: 10/24/2017 12:39 PM »
Is that some sort of air entrainment shroud at the bottom?
Yes. But still notional at this stage of design.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #75 on: 10/25/2017 12:55 AM »
This 40kN LOx LH2 engine is most likely a fight weight version of a Vince subscale engine.  The HM4 engine has been used to develope LOx LH2 rocket engine technologies. I think it will use a sparkplug igniter, like Vince.
Edit: or it is a new engine developed by DLR TEKAN 2010

It looks like Tranquility Aerospace Devon One.
No one noticed the CSG image with ELA4 ilustrated on it.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 03:31 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7674
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3530
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #76 on: 10/25/2017 06:42 AM »
No one noticed the CSG image with ELA4 ilustrated on it.
Incorrect. I did notice the image and figured that Ed Kyle will be interested (given that he recently posted a question about the exact whereabouts of ELA-4).
« Last Edit: 10/25/2017 06:42 AM by woods170 »

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Home
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #77 on: 10/25/2017 01:45 PM »
I found a paper on Prometheus that was not yet posted.

The obvious application would be for an Ariane 7 with 7 engines, a configuration similar to Falcon 9 or New Glenn.

I am very confused by comments suggesting it could replace the Vulcain 2 on Ariane 6. First of all a change in fuel usually means it's a new rocket or even a new rocket family. But it doesn't look like a good fit. Ariane 5 and 6 both have a hydrolox core that is lifted by large solid boosters, burns high in the atmosphere and stages relatively late. Replacing the core with a low-isp methane stage optimized for sea level use would result in much worse performance, right? This idea seems like rocket lego gone mad.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 263
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #78 on: 10/26/2017 07:33 PM »
The preliminary Prometheus is very much like a Methalox Merlin 1-D. 100 bar would probably put isp in the 295-305 range

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 263
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #79 on: 10/26/2017 07:37 PM »
I found a paper on Prometheus that was not yet posted.

The obvious application would be for an Ariane 7 with 7 engines, a configuration similar to Falcon 9 or New Glenn.


a 7 Prometheus-engined Ariane 7 would be a 575 tonnes vehicle... Falcon 9 sized.

Would be a much more competitive launcher than the Ariane 6, which is a dead-end IMHO.

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2675
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2667
  • Likes Given: 2101
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #80 on: 10/26/2017 08:07 PM »
Agree that things will likely shift.

Please note that Anext might also mean A6 / A7 / A8 / A9 ... might be possibilities.

Don't underestimate how this very capable group might bring in this program in various ways.

They are taking things very seriously. Instead of the "ostrich position".

Keep in mind they don't have to compete at the same scale of rivals, just close the gap enough to not be at a significant disadvantage.

Europe needs to think of Europe's needs, in the context of what the global launch provider market will become.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #81 on: 10/27/2017 02:38 PM »
Did we have this study yet?

Evaluation of Future Ariane Reusable VTOL Booster stages

Some outtakes:
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 02:38 PM by calapine »

Online acsawdey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 351
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #82 on: 10/27/2017 05:13 PM »
Did we have this study yet?

Evaluation of Future Ariane Reusable VTOL Booster stages

This is rather interesting. And, I have to wonder ... did they scrape the telemetry from the SpaceX webcast themselves, or just swipe some xls files from here on NSF? Looks like a study pointing towards building a methalox falcon knockoff.

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2675
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2667
  • Likes Given: 2101
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #83 on: 10/27/2017 11:37 PM »
Favorite line:
Quote from:
“Main goal is to compare costs but is tricky due to lack of knowledge of the operational costs”
Understated.

They don't think they can do return to launch site, but can handle down range landing. Like BO.

Which suggests that they don't believe in "gas n go" turnaround. Lower cadence than rival.

The heating issues suggest they've studied those landed boosters carefully.

All of this makes sense. The goal for them is to close the gap by enough of a demonstrator that handles a recoverable booster, where the down range recovery of a full scale booster with its lower cadence and higher number of high quality reuse allows enough advantage.

Two ways of factoring this in to Ariane.

Simplest would be to replace the solids (ESR P120's) with a barge landed methalox boosters (2-4), possibly also on Vega. You'd recover and reprocess. Disadvantage would be in the continued cost of the LLPM. But you'd have the most compact, cost effective program that could allow Ariane 6 to proceed with a phase over to partial reuse with little interruption in plan. And if the demonstrator was scaled to an appropriate size ... one could combine demonstrator program to a follow-on flight demonstration, easing into use.

Most economic for the long run would be to replace the launcher architecture to take most advantage of a single recoverable booster of the scale to loft ULPM and payload. But that would not be compatible with existing facilities/operations. (However it would have the unique advantage of possibly handling RTLS, gas-n-go, and competing with BFR's CONOPs, should those like DLR suddenly get the inspiration to find it "economic"  ;) )
None of this would be Ariane 6 as described.


« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 11:41 PM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #84 on: 10/28/2017 12:20 PM »
The x5 picture with SRB replacement by 2 flyback engines pods is probably lowest risk. This has advantage of one expendable fuel tank in centre stage along with x1 sustainer engine. The pair of engines pods flyback using Adeline concept. No need for downrange recovery, reuse is simple bolt them on new LV, can use existing US.

Payload penalty is lower than booster recovery.
ULA also have picture of similar concept except they don't have sustainer engine just big disposable tank, with 2 flyback engine pods.

For moderate flight rates this maybe better system.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7674
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3530
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #85 on: 10/28/2017 03:58 PM »
Favorite line:
Quote from:
“Main goal is to compare costs but is tricky due to lack of knowledge of the operational costs”
Understated.

They don't think they can do return to launch site, but can handle down range landing. Like BO.

Which suggests that they don't believe in "gas n go" turnaround. Lower cadence than rival.

The heating issues suggest they've studied those landed boosters carefully.

I don't think so. SpaceX has not given them access to the landed boosters. At best they could have studied the images of landed boosters. And those are "clouded" at best due to all the soot on the stages.
Other than that they studied the telemetry from the SpaceX webcasts (which is extremely limited in nature and subject to "filtering"):

Quote from: DLR
Therefore,  different mission trajectories were calculated with the DLR in-house tool toscaand were compared to telemetry data provided by the SpaceX launch webcasts.


All of this makes sense. The goal for them is to close the gap by enough of a demonstrator that handles a recoverable booster, where the down range recovery of a full scale booster with its lower cadence and higher number of high quality reuse allows enough advantage.

Two ways of factoring this in to Ariane.

Simplest would be to replace the solids (ESR P120's) with a barge landed methalox boosters (2-4), possibly also on Vega. You'd recover and reprocess. Disadvantage would be in the continued cost of the LLPM. But you'd have the most compact, cost effective program that could allow Ariane 6 to proceed with a phase over to partial reuse with little interruption in plan. And if the demonstrator was scaled to an appropriate size ... one could combine demonstrator program to a follow-on flight demonstration, easing into use.

Most economic for the long run would be to replace the launcher architecture to take most advantage of a single recoverable booster of the scale to loft ULPM and payload. But that would not be compatible with existing facilities/operations. (However it would have the unique advantage of possibly handling RTLS, gas-n-go, and competing with BFR's CONOPs, should those like DLR suddenly get the inspiration to find it "economic"  ;) )
None of this would be Ariane 6 as described.

Naturally. But this is not for Ariane 6. It is for AriaNEXT. If there ever will be such beyond Ariane 6...
« Last Edit: 10/28/2017 04:06 PM by woods170 »

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2675
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2667
  • Likes Given: 2101
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #86 on: 10/28/2017 11:33 PM »
Favorite line:
Quote from:
“Main goal is to compare costs but is tricky due to lack of knowledge of the operational costs”
Understated.

They don't think they can do return to launch site, but can handle down range landing. Like BO.

Which suggests that they don't believe in "gas n go" turnaround. Lower cadence than rival.

The heating issues suggest they've studied those landed boosters carefully.

I don't think so. SpaceX has not given them access to the landed boosters. At best they could have studied the images of landed boosters. And those are "clouded" at best due to all the soot on the stages.
This is all I meant. Not that there was another "channel" than, say, all observed by this site.

Quote
Other than that they studied the telemetry from the SpaceX webcasts (which is extremely limited in nature and subject to "filtering"):

Quote from: DLR
Therefore,  different mission trajectories were calculated with the DLR in-house tool toscaand were compared to telemetry data provided by the SpaceX launch webcasts.
News to me but not surprising. Just due diligence of their profession.

Quote
All of this makes sense. The goal for them is to close the gap by enough of a demonstrator that handles a recoverable booster, where the down range recovery of a full scale booster with its lower cadence and higher number of high quality reuse allows enough advantage.

Two ways of factoring this in to Ariane.

Simplest would be to replace the solids (ESR P120's) with a barge landed methalox boosters (2-4), possibly also on Vega. You'd recover and reprocess. Disadvantage would be in the continued cost of the LLPM. But you'd have the most compact, cost effective program that could allow Ariane 6 to proceed with a phase over to partial reuse with little interruption in plan. And if the demonstrator was scaled to an appropriate size ... one could combine demonstrator program to a follow-on flight demonstration, easing into use.

Most economic for the long run would be to replace the launcher architecture to take most advantage of a single recoverable booster of the scale to loft ULPM and payload. But that would not be compatible with existing facilities/operations. (However it would have the unique advantage of possibly handling RTLS, gas-n-go, and competing with BFR's CONOPs, should those like DLR suddenly get the inspiration to find it "economic"  ;) )
None of this would be Ariane 6 as described.

Naturally. But this is not for Ariane 6. It is for AriaNEXT. If there ever will be such beyond Ariane 6...
Beg to differ. Matter of perspective on global events (and seemingly unrelated idiocies).

Economics are a powerful motivator. One may want N vehicles to accommodate the sequencing from "current" to "next".

What I've noticed before is the interesting ways that being painted into an economic corner, people rationalize an escape. Please note that Ariane 6 was to be a "PPH", not a Ariane 5 redux that it is becoming.

Smart people always surprise you. Sometimes even surprise themselves.

(Translation: they'll need more than will be allowed, they'll be a crisis, they'll get half a loaf, they'll adapt to get more to do "good enough", and the situation will ultimately close. My hunch if you will.)
« Last Edit: 10/29/2017 02:13 AM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
  • USA
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #87 on: 10/29/2017 03:26 AM »
The x5 picture with SRB replacement by 2 flyback engines pods is probably lowest risk. This has advantage of one expendable fuel tank in centre stage along with x1 sustainer engine. The pair of engines pods flyback using Adeline concept. No need for downrange recovery, reuse is simple bolt them on new LV, can use existing US.

Payload penalty is lower than booster recovery.
ULA also have picture of similar concept except they don't have sustainer engine just big disposable tank, with 2 flyback engine pods.

For moderate flight rates this maybe better system.

I still don't understand the logic of having two pods in both proposals. Why not just one bigger in-line pod? The dual-pod configuration results in a lot of duplicated hardware (equals extra mass, extra manufacturing and maintenance cost), greater aerodynamic drag, more complicated structures and plumbing on the expendable tank (extra mass, cost, and failure risk), more complicated restacking operations, more complicated separation dynamics, and twice the risk of a recovery failure. Are there any advantages to it at all?

The one advantage I could see is if some mission profiles (namely low-mass but high-energy missions) didn't require the full thrust of two pods and could operate with only 1 (as was the case in some sidemount Shuttle derived concepts), halving the propulsion cost for such missions, but neither of these concepts seem to include that, and I'm not sure such radically asymmetrical thrust is feasible at liftoff without large boosters like the Shuttle had

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #88 on: 10/29/2017 08:20 AM »
I'd say there is higher probability of successful recovery of 2x pods than complete booster in first mission. The pod once detached is just another drone, which has to do a low speed reentry.


Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #89 on: 10/29/2017 04:54 PM »
First I was very presently surprised by the 40kN LOx LH2 engine that will be used on Callisto, I hadn't read about it before and Callisto's budget doesn't allow the development of a new engine. So somehow they (ESA Safran or Airbus) had it hidden from public. This 40kN engine could also be used on Vega(-E).
The second surprise was the added image, stolen from the document, with the layout of CSG.

For the launcher designs in the Prometheus study:
In my opinion;
1) The micro-launcher (1x prometheus) is the design that is the most likely to be developed. (supplements the Vega; Vega-L and Vega-E) (I also think there could be a Vega-F...)
2) A6 evolution is most likely applying the production processes for the injector head and turbines/turbo-pumps to reduce the cost of the Vulcan 2.x engine (could be 2.3 or 2.4)
3) The Reusability Demo and Ariane Next are a combined two stap program towards a Reusable replacement of Ariane 6. But because the launch rate will be below 12 they can't close the businesscase. 
Possibly the micro-launcher first stage could be used on Ariane 6 instead of ESR's(P120c).

Hopefully both programs proceed successfully, that will open a lot more launcher design options that are now to risky.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7674
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3530
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #90 on: 10/29/2017 05:04 PM »
Naturally. But this is not for Ariane 6. It is for AriaNEXT. If there ever will be such beyond Ariane 6...
Beg to differ. Matter of perspective on global events (and seemingly unrelated idiocies).

Economics are a powerful motivator. One may want N vehicles to accommodate the sequencing from "current" to "next".

What I've noticed before is the interesting ways that being painted into an economic corner, people rationalize an escape. Please note that Ariane 6 was to be a "PPH", not a Ariane 5 redux that it is becoming.

Smart people always surprise you. Sometimes even surprise themselves.

(Translation: they'll need more than will be allowed, they'll be a crisis, they'll get half a loaf, they'll adapt to get more to do "good enough", and the situation will ultimately close. My hunch if you will.)
Changing your  launch vehicle configuration from PPH to PHH is easily done when the PPH config hasn't even passed PDR yet.
That's what happened on Ariane 6.
However, the current PHH configuration of Ariane 6 is now well over a year beyond PDR and CDR is looming around the corner. Metal is being bent on the core stage. SRB's are being cast. Vulcain 2.1 has been constructed and the launchpad and HIF are being constructed as we speak. All for the PHH configuration.
This thing is not gonna change course anymore, not even with the recent noise coming from the Prometheus/Callisto teams.

IMO Ariane 6 will have a short life once the absolute necessity of having a reusable booster stage sinks in hard. That, however, is still some time away. Once it does sink in however the Ariane 6 basic design will serve, IMO, as the starting point for an AriaNEXT. The result, with reusability capabilities will not be an Ariane 6 re-hash but basically an almost all-new rocket: Ariane 7.

The only re-use capabilities we will ever see on Ariane 6, IMO, concern re-usable fairings.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2017 07:51 PM by woods170 »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2137
  • Liked: 385
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #91 on: 10/29/2017 05:10 PM »
Did we have this study yet?

Rather curious that they optimize for GTO while the most likely market for a reusable launcher will be LEO.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #92 on: 10/29/2017 06:06 PM »
Did we have this study yet?

Rather curious that they optimize for GTO while the most likely market for a reusable launcher will be LEO.

The DLR study looks for an Ariane 5 / 6 replacement and here the market is most clearly GTO.

Most LEO customers are probably better served with Vega C / E.

Offline tobi453

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #93 on: 10/29/2017 06:18 PM »
IMO Ariane 6 will have a short life once the absolute necessity of having a reusable booster stage sinks in hard. That, however, is still some time away. Once it does sink in however the Ariane 6 basic design will serve, IMO, as the starting point for an AriaNEXT. The result, with reusability capabilities will not be an Ariane 6 re-hash but basically an almost all-new rocket: Ariane 7.

The only re-use capabilities we will ever see on Ariane 6, IMO, concern re-usable fairings.

Reusability is killing all the jobs in the solid rocket motor industry. This is not going to happen anytime soon. We are going to fly expendable rockets for a long time. Europe made a huge strategic mistake introducing solid rocket boosters with Ariane 3.

What can Italy contribute to a reusable rocket? Almost nothing.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #94 on: 10/29/2017 06:30 PM »
Reusability is killing all the jobs in the solid rocket motor industry. This is not going to happen anytime soon. We are going to fly expendable rockets for a long time. Europe made a huge strategic mistake introducing solid rocket boosters with Ariane 3.

What can Italy contribute to a reusable rocket? Almost nothing.


There are far bigger interests at stake here than a few SRB's per year. Ariane 6 uses SRB's because a Vulcain-based launcher needs them. Once there is a strong drive for a reusable launcher the SRB-lobby wont be able to block it.

Offline Mike Jones

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
  • Latvia
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #95 on: 10/29/2017 07:38 PM »
Some people don’t realize how strong is the Italian influence in the European launcher sector in particular within ESA, despite being only the 3rd contributor after France and Germany.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #96 on: 10/29/2017 08:23 PM »
Some people don’t realize how strong is the Italian influence in the European launcher sector in particular within ESA, despite being only the 3rd contributor after France and Germany.

"Some people" = me? ;D

But seriously, I reject that as too pessimistic. If there is enough pressure from the outside than suddenly "there is a solution". That's the typically European way of doing things. It's the same with the European Union: Without a crisis no meaningful change happens.

Offline tobi453

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #97 on: 10/29/2017 10:18 PM »
Some people don’t realize how strong is the Italian influence in the European launcher sector in particular within ESA, despite being only the 3rd contributor after France and Germany.

"Some people" = me? ;D

But seriously, I reject that as too pessimistic. If there is enough pressure from the outside than suddenly "there is a solution". That's the typically European way of doing things. It's the same with the European Union: Without a crisis no meaningful change happens.

I lost my optimistic view after the ESA ministerial council 2012. Also there is going to be an additional solid rocket motor production plant in Augsburg, Germany. The solid lobby is stronger than ever.

European Union is different from ESA.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2017 10:21 PM by tobi453 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7674
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3530
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #98 on: 10/30/2017 07:02 AM »
« Last Edit: 10/30/2017 09:07 AM by woods170 »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #99 on: 10/30/2017 08:22 AM »
Please don't do the Ariane 6 discussion here. It's totally off topic and unrelated.
This topic is about two European demonstrators Prometheus a 1000kN GG LOxLCH4 engine; and Callisto a VTVL first stage demonstrator. Both projects run from about 2016-2020.
The technologies developed and proven with these demonstrators can only be applied to operational launchers after the projects are finished. This is past 2020!
Please continue the Ariane 6/ Ariane Next discussion in the Ariane 6 discussion topic.   

The DLR paper is on topic, as are equivalent CNES papers. CNES and DLR are continuously doing these kinds of studies. Hardly ever one comes further that this preliminary study. Those studies do provide insight in launcher designs that could be developed. I think DLR chose the 7mT (+0.5) to GTO -1500m/s because it's the most demanding orbit. The conclusion of the study is that the TSTO VTVL design is not good for a launcher with such a high requirement.
The paper rose a question into my mind. This paper compare three propellant types; LOx-LH2; LOx-LCH4; LOx-LC3H8 (propane). Could ESA/CNES/Arianegroup also use the Prometheus (or subscale) engine to test LOx-Propane propellant combination. Possibly this a beter option then methane because propane has a higher density, although it has a bit lower ISP.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2017 08:38 AM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #100 on: 11/12/2017 12:30 PM »
Did someone already post the link to the ArianeGroup Prometheus page?
Romeo run at <50bar chamber pressure. Prometheus will run at 100bar. Could this increase in pressure coincide with the thrust increase? Or does a larger combustion chamber have to be developed?

 ??? could this be developed into the engine for Callisto?
« Last Edit: 11/12/2017 02:00 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5178
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 4183
  • Likes Given: 1222
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #101 on: 12/14/2017 01:26 PM »
Quote
ESA, ArianeGroup sign prototype contract for Prometheus low-cost (OK, reusable too) rocket engine
by Peter B. de Selding   Dec 14, 2017

PARIS — The European Space Agency on Dec. 14 contracted with ArianeGroup to design, build and tests two prototypes of the reusable, LOX-methane Prometheus rocket engine, with test-bed firings to occur from 2020

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/esa-arianegroup-sign-prototype-contract-prometheus-low-cost-ok-reusable-rocket-engine/

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #102 on: 12/14/2017 09:39 PM »
Quote
14 December 2017
An ultra-low cost reusable rocket engine, Prometheus, using liquid oxygen–methane propellants, is set to power Europe’s future launchers.

Today, ESA and ArianeGroup signed a contract to develop a full-scale demonstrator to be ground tested in November 2020.

Prometheus demonstrates the systematic application of an extreme design-to-cost approach, new propellant and innovative manufacturing technologies.

It lowers costs to a tenth of those for Ariane 5’s Vulcain 2 engine.
 
Additive layer-by-layer manufacturing of engine parts enables faster production, with fewer parts.

Key characteristics of Prometheus include a computer system enabling realtime adjustment and immediate diagnosis for potential reusability.

Methane propellant is widely available and brings high efficiency, standardisation and operational simplicity, making it a perfect candidate for a reusable booster engine demonstration.

By 2020, technical knowledge of liquid oxygen–methane propulsion gained through the Prometheus project will allow fast and informed decisions to be made on useful applications.

Prometheus provides a nominal 1 MN of variable thrust, is suitable for first- and second-stage applications, and is reignitable. It will propel a range of next-generation launchers, including future evolutions of Ariane 6.
 
The Prometheus contract, worth €75 million, was signed by ESA Director of Space Transportation, Daniel Neuenschwander, and Alain Charmeau, CEO at ArianeGroup, at ESA headquarters in Paris in the presence of ESA Director General Jan Wörner.

The project is part of ESA’s Future Launchers Preparatory Programme.

“Prometheus will power Europe's future launchers, forging a path of continuous improvement in competitiveness,” commented Mr Neuenschwander.

“This contract paves the way for the future of Europe’s space transportation, and the development of European propulsion technology of tomorrow,” added Mr Charmeau.

The project benefits from significant synergies with other launcher demonstration projects within ESA, national agencies and industry.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Prometheus_to_power_future_launchers

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #103 on: 12/15/2017 08:52 AM »
https://www.ariane.group/en/news/arianegroup-signs-contract-with-esa-for-future-prometheus-engine/
Two test engines will be developed for 75mln.
I expect that three test stands will be used (P8 GG; PF52 GG+TP and P5 full engine) [possibly also P6].

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • Liked: 3325
  • Likes Given: 4707
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #104 on: 12/26/2017 12:14 AM »
A 1MN engine is a bit larger (20% or so) than Merlin1D for a bargin price.  Should make a nice 7-9 engine methlox reusable booster and single engine upper stage.   If this progresses, don't think Ariane 6 will be around long.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #105 on: 12/26/2017 02:10 AM »
https://www.eucass.eu/doi/EUCASS2017-537.pdf

From the above document, it appears Prometheus is Europe's answer to the Merlin engine. It uses the same gas generator cycle for lower development costs, belongs to a similar thrust class as Merlin 1D. Significant parts of it will be 3D printed and it's intended to be used as a single engine or in clusters depending on launch vehicle. The biggest differences are the use of a more efficient, reuse friendly fuel Methane and the larger throttle range of Prometheus (30 -110%).

Totally pie in the sky speculating here, but Europe could end up creating a launch vehicle similar to Falcon 9 but even better optimized for reuse. Think of a VTVL booster the width of Ariane 6, lifted by a cluster of 7-9 Prometheus engines and a similar upperstage using a single vaccum optimized version Or for higher performance missions, a derivative of the Hydrolox Vinci-Upper Stage on Ariane 6. The position of Korou should be a relative advantage for a reusable booster on GTO missions and landing stages on an ocean platform should be possible for the most challenging trajectories.

As things stand, it's hard to see a dramatic change from the incumbent program happening soon without external events pressuring European politicians to back expediting Ariane Next. A shock event like Ariane Group suddenly losing a lot of the launch business abruptly might lend some urgency to Callisto/Prometheus.

 
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline hektor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #106 on: 12/26/2017 08:32 AM »
The implied devastating message seems to be : the SpaceX approach was the right one, despite every statement by European big wigs since 2002.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2017 08:33 AM by hektor »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7674
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3530
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #107 on: 12/26/2017 12:40 PM »
The implied devastating message seems to be : the SpaceX approach was the right one, despite every statement by European big wigs since 2002.
Nothing devastating about that implied message. The big wigs have been wrong numerous times, not just on this one.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8600
  • UK
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #108 on: 12/26/2017 04:36 PM »
The implied devastating message seems to be : the SpaceX approach was the right one, despite every statement by European big wigs since 2002.
Nothing devastating about that implied message. The big wigs have been wrong numerous times, not just on this one.

Especially when you have multiple interested parties each trying to protect their own interests sometimes at the cost of the overall aim.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3176
  • Liked: 1506
  • Likes Given: 1021
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #109 on: 12/26/2017 05:40 PM »
A couple observations on the paper:

1) The authors do a lot of comparing of the masses of the launch vehicles, and little of the costs. I know that costs are a lot harder to pin down, but they are WAY more important here.

2) The LH2 vehicles assume use of internal insulation with an aluminum liner, which as noted is very low TRL.

3) The vehicles are modeled with Al 2219 alloy, not AL-Li alloy which is state-of-art. They also model aluminum isogrid interstages, whereas carbon fiber over Al honeycomb is SOA. The stage mass fractions are not quite as good as F9.

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
  • USA
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #110 on: 12/26/2017 08:28 PM »
3) The vehicles are modeled with Al 2219 alloy, not AL-Li alloy which is state-of-art. They also model aluminum isogrid interstages, whereas carbon fiber over Al honeycomb is SOA. The stage mass fractions are not quite as good as F9.

Better a conservative estimate than an overly optimistic one, as long as the assumptions aren't comically biased to weight against a proposal. Arianespace already has experience with Al 2219, but not with Al-Li alloys AFAIK. And further trades may support that even if they already had the experience. NASA reverted to Al 2219 for the SLS core stage, despite it being heavier and them already having experience with Al-2195 on SLWT, because its so much cheaper to work with and the different structural requirements (longer structure with more thrust going through it, and an in-line design) favored it as well. And the long-term survival of composite structures for these sorts of applications (suborbital reentry with little to no shielding, and direct impact of engine exhaust after separation) is still kinda iffy (continued use of F9 will help validate this). More detailed studies and eventually actual vehicle development can trade all that stuff, the fact that it seems viable even in a conservative study is more compelling

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #111 on: 12/29/2017 03:24 PM »
A technical question related to the Prometheus engine:
What happens with the chamber pressure of a rocket engine when the propallent  mass-flow is doubled?
I know Ft=m.*ISP*g0. (Thrust = propellant mass flow * ISP * gravitational asseleation.) (ISP in s not m/s, USA equation.)
So to double thrust, the mass flow has to be doubled. ISP increase (slightly) with higher pressure. But does the chamber pressure double when mass flow is doubled in the same combustion chamber (engine bell)?

It's reported that Prometheus will be a LOxLNG GG engine with  1000kN vacuum thrust. I guess ISP will be about 340s (3335m/s), this equates  to a propallent mass flow of ~300kg/s.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 263
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #112 on: 12/29/2017 04:20 PM »
A technical question related to the Prometheus engine:
What happens with the chamber pressure of a rocket engine when the propallent  mass-flow is doubled?
I know Ft=m.*ISP*g0. (Thrust = propellant mass flow * ISP * gravitational asseleation.) (ISP in s not m/s, USA equation.)
So to double thrust, the mass flow has to be doubled. ISP increase (slightly) with higher pressure. But does the chamber pressure double when mass flow is doubled in the same combustion chamber (engine bell)?

It's reported that Prometheus will be a LOxLNG GG engine with  1000kN vacuum thrust. I guess ISP will be about 340s (3335m/s), this equates  to a propallent mass flow of ~300kg/s.

Prometheus is roughly the same size and pressure as Merlin 1DFT, and probably has a similar expansion ratio. This should give it a 8-10 sec ISP advantage over similar Merlin models, since that is the advantage Methalox has over kerolox when all other things are equal. So probably 301(sl) to 320(v) seconds for the SL version.Vac version is really going to be dependent upon the expansion ratio, and they could always use Vinci for a US.

A 7-9 Prometheus-engined rocket makes so much sense I can believe that they're bothering with the Ariane 6...

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #113 on: 12/29/2017 05:14 PM »
A multi engine RLV based on Prometheus wouldn't fly to late 2020s, they need a cheaper and more flexible replacement to A5 now, the Ariane 6 gives them that. Whether they replace A6 with clean sheet RLV or morph A6 into partially RLV time will tell. Either way there is lot of development work needed on Prometheus before a LV can be designed around it.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • Liked: 3325
  • Likes Given: 4707
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #114 on: 12/30/2017 01:42 PM »
https://www.eucass.eu/doi/EUCASS2017-537.pdf

From the above document, it appears Prometheus is Europe's answer to the Merlin engine. It uses the same gas generator cycle for lower development costs, belongs to a similar thrust class as Merlin 1D. Significant parts of it will be 3D printed and it's intended to be used as a single engine or in clusters depending on launch vehicle. The biggest differences are the use of a more efficient, reuse friendly fuel Methane and the larger throttle range of Prometheus (30 -110%).

Totally pie in the sky speculating here, but Europe could end up creating a launch vehicle similar to Falcon 9 but even better optimized for reuse. Think of a VTVL booster the width of Ariane 6, lifted by a cluster of 7-9 Prometheus engines and a similar upperstage using a single vaccum optimized version Or for higher performance missions, a derivative of the Hydrolox Vinci-Upper Stage on Ariane 6. The position of Korou should be a relative advantage for a reusable booster on GTO missions and landing stages on an ocean platform should be possible for the most challenging trajectories.

As things stand, it's hard to see a dramatic change from the incumbent program happening soon without external events pressuring European politicians to back expediting Ariane Next. A shock event like Ariane Group suddenly losing a lot of the launch business abruptly might lend some urgency to Callisto/Prometheus.

Sounds like a huge leap in the right direction.  Go for it!!!!!
The more competition, the merrier.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5178
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 4183
  • Likes Given: 1222
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #115 on: 01/08/2018 12:25 PM »
New article on Callisto:

Quote
France, Germany studying reusability with a subscale flyback booster
by Caleb Henry — January 8, 2018

http://spacenews.com/france-germany-studying-reusability-with-a-subscale-flyback-booster/

Some interesting quotes from Marc Astorg, head of CNES’s Launch Vehicles Directorate, and Hansjörg Dittus, executive board member for space research and technology at DLR. Eg re whether they're copying SpaceX (in part responding but not copyuing) and too many years behind (claim advantages to going after SpaceX).

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8600
  • UK
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #116 on: 01/08/2018 04:35 PM »
New article on Callisto:

Quote
France, Germany studying reusability with a subscale flyback booster
by Caleb Henry — January 8, 2018

http://spacenews.com/france-germany-studying-reusability-with-a-subscale-flyback-booster/

Some interesting quotes from Marc Astorg, head of CNES’s Launch Vehicles Directorate, and Hansjörg Dittus, executive board member for space research and technology at DLR. Eg re whether they're copying SpaceX (in part responding but not copyuing) and too many years behind (claim advantages to going after SpaceX).

I don’t know if it shows a level of naivety or realism when they talk about being sceptical if reusability is the best path to take.

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #117 on: 01/08/2018 05:01 PM »
To me it's clearly them (or we, as europeans) being in denial. It has always been clear that 'reusability is the right path': tossing 100M$ of hard to manufacture, aerospace grade hardware with each flight is undeniably worse than reusing it. It has always been foolish to deny that IMO.

The rational doubt was in the feasibility of reusing rockets cheaply and reliably. However stop trying after the shuttle, and taking its failure as a definitive answer was an irrational answer to a rational doubt, even if somewhat understandable when factoring in institutional inertia and widespread resignation.

What's really foolish is EU aerospace still trying to hide behind that doubt when SpaceX is successfully demonstrating cheap reuse, and betting they will fail is no longer the safe bet.

You need to try really hard to convince yourself that tossing 100M$ in the ocean every time vs catching them and efficiently reusing them is the right way to go.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 05:04 PM by AbuSimbel »
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #118 on: 01/08/2018 05:31 PM »
Here few clips from article. LV is in 250-500kg range based on graph, given dimensions below about Electron physical. Don't known what engine but 40-100klbs thrust will be needed.

I think they are going about RLV the right way. Its lot cheaper and quicker to build their knowledge with small LV than larger, the reality is they will crash some during recovery. The other big plus is this LV will address a critical market that their current range of LVs don't.



Development of a liquid-hydrogen tank would likely be developed in cooperation between the two countries, Astorg said, with industry supplying the engine — which has not been decided — and the liquid-oxygen tank, he said. Callisto’s current configuration calls for a hydrogen engine, Dittus said.

Astorg said Callisto will need to launch with a different engine because it will be too small for Prometheus, and also because Prometheus will not be ready to fly on Callisto in 2020.

The first vision of Callisto is projected at 13.5 meters high and one meter in diameter, Astorg said. As the project matures, larger versions would fly that could then potentially use Prometheus, he said.


Online gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 930
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #119 on: 01/08/2018 06:55 PM »
Callisto is not a launcher, it is only a first stage. It's a useful demonstrator when you cannot use your production rocket to experiment with boost-back.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5178
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 4183
  • Likes Given: 1222
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #120 on: 01/09/2018 07:04 PM »
Quote
Interesting #Prometheus / #Callisto Ariane Next video via @CNES and blackbear studio @DLR_en

https://twitter.com/dutchspace/status/950798523355815936

Video attached.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6534
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 909
  • Likes Given: 5795
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #121 on: 01/10/2018 05:50 PM »
Quote
Interesting #Prometheus / #Callisto Ariane Next video via @CNES and blackbear studio @DLR_en

https://twitter.com/dutchspace/status/950798523355815936

Video attached.
Watched it.

Not worth the download. Nothing new added.  :(

TBH I'm underwhelmed by Prometheus.  It looks like an engine that could have been built any time within the last 30-40 years.

It's a GG cycle Methalox engine with a shared turbine drive. Quite a  lot of it will be 3d printed. It's got quite a good throttling range compared to other engines produced in Europe (Europe, not parts of the FSU).

But.

No variable Isp to maximize payload to orbit (which is what this is all about).
No gas chamber tapoff to eliminate a GG yet still have "full flow"
No cutting edge chamber pressure or nozzle design to increase Isp.

And what are these features that will promote easy and fast reuse? So far it looks the ECU is going to do most of the work. Will they still use ball and roller bearings for it?

As others have noted CALLISTO is not a micro launcher. It's a test vehicle. The correct analogy would be to Grasshopper.

I'll note that with SX booster recovery (and reuse) as a fact all other recovery and reuse strategies hare much riskier, simply because none of them have ever been actually tried, let alone succeeded.

This clean sheet approach also means there is no opportunity to do any early testing on Ariane5, and probably none on A6, although it may not be too late to design in the hooks for recovery testing (like space and connections for an OBC and it's power, given 1st stages typically lose 1Kg of payload for 13Kg of 1st stage mass, meaning you could put the hooks in place without loosing any major final payload).
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C Apply

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • England
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #122 on: 01/10/2018 06:07 PM »
It's designed to be ridiculously cheap, not state of the art.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • Liked: 3325
  • Likes Given: 4707
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #123 on: 01/10/2018 06:23 PM »
...

TBH I'm underwhelmed by Prometheus.  It looks like an engine that could have been built any time within the last 30-40 years.

It's a GG cycle Methalox engine with a shared turbine drive. Quite a  lot of it will be 3d printed. It's got quite a good throttling range compared to other engines produced in Europe (Europe, not parts of the FSU).

...

Sounds perfect for a low cost reusable engine along the lines of Merlin (but no coke build-up).  Additive manufacturing was not available for the last 30-40 years -- and this is a huge contributor to cost efficiency and thrust-to-weight.  Rocket engine technology-wise, yes, it could have been made 40 years ago... but wasn't, and neither was Merlin. 

If you're still judging engines on 'performance' alone -- see Merlin.
« Last Edit: 01/10/2018 06:25 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6534
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 909
  • Likes Given: 5795
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #124 on: 01/11/2018 09:16 AM »
Sounds perfect for a low cost reusable engine along the lines of Merlin (but no coke build-up).
The simple answer to avoiding coke build up (and not having to re-size your turbo pump if you have to change fuels) is to use LOX cooling, demonstrated by NASA  around 1991 in a 40 k lb pressure fed test engine they use. Rotary Rocket also did work in this area and found no showstoppers. IOW 3 decades ago.
Quote from: AncientU

 Additive manufacturing was not available for the last 30-40 years -- and this is a huge contributor to cost efficiency and thrust-to-weight.
It's probably been available only for the last 20 years.

Before that you'd be looking at phote-etching/diffusion bonding, vacuum melting/casting with lost wax/foam and ceramic bag dross filtering if necessary, or electroforming or EDM/ECM as "rapid prototyping" approaches.

Quote from: AncientU

  Rocket engine technology-wise, yes, it could have been made 40 years ago... but wasn't, and neither was Merlin. 
True.
Quote from: AncientU
If you're still judging engines on 'performance' alone -- see Merlin.
I'd have ignored RP1 and selected the best available hydrocarbon that was not LH2. IIRC they are all pretty similar except for Propyne (Old name Methyl Acetylene) , which has a strained bond that gives it several seconds better Isp. AFAIk on this scale all reasonable propellants (IE not NTO and Hydrazines) have cost levels "in the noise"  and handling restrictions no worse than LOX, which is the obvious "performance" oxidizer in any case (CTF fails for the same reason as NTO and the Hydrazines).
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C Apply

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #125 on: 01/25/2018 07:24 PM »
Some interesting Callisto news. Article French, my summary below:
Callisto, un démonstrateur de lanceur réutilisable à l'horizon 2020


Assemly in Japan(sic!) and features a Japanese LH2/LOX engine.

Height: 13m
Diameter: 1,1m
Take-off weight: 3,6 tons

Germany: Landing gear, control surfaces,
France: LH2 tank
Japan: Engine, LOX tank

Flights to 35km altitude with Mach 6, flight profile similar to a launcher first stage.


And now we know there will be a second demonstrator: Themis

Planned for 2025
Mass and size 10x of Callisto.
Propulsion will be 1 to 3 Prometheus engines.
Will either result in an evolved Ariane 6 or ArianeNext.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2018 07:29 PM by calapine »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • Liked: 3325
  • Likes Given: 4707
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #126 on: 01/25/2018 07:50 PM »
Are they making several Callisto vehicles?

Why the delay to 2025 for Themis... seems like it could follow Callisto into testing within 1-2 years?
(This sounds like a very interesting demo!!!  Should get on with it.)
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #127 on: 01/25/2018 08:02 PM »
Are they making several Callisto vehicles?

Why the delay to 2025 for Themis... seems like it could follow Callisto into testing within 1-2 years?
(This sounds like a very interesting demo!!!  Should get on with it.)

My guess is that the 2025 date is a placeholder and contingent on the development speed of Prometheus. Without that engine no Themis.

Offline Ictogan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Germany
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #128 on: 01/25/2018 08:03 PM »
And now we know there will be a second demonstrator: Themis

Planned for 2025
Mass and size 10x of Callisto.
That's... not really ambitious at all. 7 years from now they want to have a demonstrator that is still only ~1/8th of the mass of an Ariane 5 core. I guess we won't see a reusable launch vehicle from europe before the 2030s  :(.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • Liked: 3325
  • Likes Given: 4707
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #129 on: 01/26/2018 12:51 PM »
Are they making several Callisto vehicles?

Why the delay to 2025 for Themis... seems like it could follow Callisto into testing within 1-2 years?
(This sounds like a very interesting demo!!!  Should get on with it.)

My guess is that the 2025 date is a placeholder and contingent on the development speed of Prometheus. Without that engine no Themis.

Prometheus is supposed to be fired in 2020*.  Doesn't take 5 years to go from full engine firing to flight ready, especially for a simple engine for a demo rocket.  Cannot do everything in series... trust that the engine will be built and will perform approximately as designed.  Build the demo booster in parallel.  Optimize on the production scale booster.

* Shouldn't take until 2020 to field this engine, either.
« Last Edit: 01/26/2018 12:53 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags: