Author Topic: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal  (Read 22615 times)

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 111
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: 159
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 81
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: 745
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 60
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: 975
  • 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: 383
  • Zhejiang, China, the Earth
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 189
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?

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7352
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3079
  • Likes Given: 905
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: 1684
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 455
  • Likes Given: 53
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: 148
  • Home
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 15
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: 2766
  • Liked: 1277
  • Likes Given: 804
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: 745
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 60
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: 745
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 60
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: 482
  • Liked: 183
  • Likes Given: 90
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

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7352
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3079
  • Likes Given: 905
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: 483
  • Liked: 53
  • 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?

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7352
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3079
  • Likes Given: 905
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: 745
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 60
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 »

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7352
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3079
  • Likes Given: 905
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: 148
  • Home
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 15
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: 363
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 58
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: 363
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 58
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.

Tags: