NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

International Space Flight (ESA, Russia, China and others) => ESA Launchers - Ariane, Soyuz at CSG, Vega => Topic started by: jsgirald on 09/30/2016 12:26 pm

Title: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: jsgirald 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  (http://danielmarin.naukas.com/2016/09/30/callisto-y-prometheus-cuando-europa-imita-a-spacex/#more-57493)

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!
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: AncientU 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: gosnold 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: floss 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: savuporo 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Alpha_Centauri 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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Darkseraph on 12/03/2016 08:01 pm
Any word on if the Callisto part of this recieved any funding?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: sdsds 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/
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty 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.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo 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

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Alpha_Centauri 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Darkseraph 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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 (http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/vous-avez-aime-ariane-6-vous-allez-adorer-ariane-next.N498069)

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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Jester on 02/08/2017 06:58 am
Hi miss S, welcome ;-)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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  (http://www.futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/acces-espace-ariane-next-ressemblera-successeur-ariane-6-66350/#xtor=RSS-8)

To me this sounds like the typical European 'hedging of bets' and 'waiting to see what the other side does'.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/28/2017 05:24 pm
Link to GKN video about new rocket engine production technology. (http://www.gkngroup.com/additive-manufacturing/news-and-media/Pages/gkn-launches-new-additive-manufacturing-video.aspx)
I didn't known Vulcain2.3 was actually really in development.
Can you share some sources?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/28/2017 05:44 pm
Link to GKN video about new rocket engine production technology. (http://www.gkngroup.com/additive-manufacturing/news-and-media/Pages/gkn-launches-new-additive-manufacturing-video.aspx)
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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: mc87 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 (https://twitter.com/aslaunchers/status/842036194259136512)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: MATTBLAK 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'! :)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 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 (https://twitter.com/aslaunchers/status/842036194259136512)
looks more like the MCC and base of the nozzle.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: DT1 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.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ChrisWilson68 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 (http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/vous-avez-aime-ariane-6-vous-allez-adorer-ariane-next.N498069)

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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo 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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: AncientU 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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty 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.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Kosmos2001 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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/
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist 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/ (https://www.ariane.group/en/news/arianegroup-signs-a-first-contract-with-esa-to-develop-the-future-prometheus-engine/)

Full press release attached.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1071.200) 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)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: savuporo 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.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ulm_atms 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.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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 (?)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Alpha_Centauri 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/12/2017 10:41 am
With RLV engines reliability and low operating costs are main target with performance being secondary.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Chasm 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?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: gosnold 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Chasm 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: floss 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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: floss 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 .
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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.
Title: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here.
Post by: savuporo on 10/03/2017 04:42 am
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]

Title: Re: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here.
Post by: SmallKing on 10/03/2017 05:08 am
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
Title: Re: Re: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here.
Post by: woods170 on 10/03/2017 06:02 am
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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: MikeAtkinson 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: DreamyPickle 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?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/08/2017 09:36 am
Video from CNES with footage of Prometheus and Calisto from 0;48.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMrN6Iufsk

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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Darkseraph 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 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).
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Asteroza on 10/24/2017 08:13 am
Is that some sort of air entrainment shroud at the bottom?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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 (http://www.dlr.de/rd/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2279/3410_read-5109/)

It looks like Tranquility Aerospace Devon One.
No one noticed the CSG image with ELA4 ilustrated on it.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 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 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1725509#msg1725509)).
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: DreamyPickle on 10/25/2017 01:45 pm
I found a paper on Prometheus (https://www.eucass.eu/doi/EUCASS2017-537.pdf) 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF 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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 10/26/2017 07:37 pm
I found a paper on Prometheus (https://www.eucass.eu/doi/EUCASS2017-537.pdf) 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine on 10/27/2017 02:38 pm
Did we have this study yet?

Evaluation of Future Ariane Reusable VTOL Booster stages (http://elib.dlr.de/114430/)

Some outtakes:
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: acsawdey on 10/27/2017 05:13 pm
Did we have this study yet?

Evaluation of Future Ariane Reusable VTOL Booster stages (http://elib.dlr.de/114430/)

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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 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.


Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 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...
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 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.)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: brickmack 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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty 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.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Oli 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: tobi453 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mike Jones 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: tobi453 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 on 10/30/2017 07:02 am
Moved the continued A6 discussion to: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.msg1743552#msg1743552
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.1480).   

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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/12/2017 12:30 pm
Did someone already post the link to the ArianeGroup Prometheus (https://www.ariane.group/en/commercial-launch-services/ariane-6/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 (https://cnes.fr/en/boreas-undergoing-new-tests-germany) be developed into the engine for Callisto?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist 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/ (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/esa-arianegroup-sign-prototype-contract-prometheus-low-cost-ok-reusable-rocket-engine/)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/15/2017 08:52 am
https://www.ariane.group/en/news/arianegroup-signs-contract-with-esa-for-future-prometheus-engine/ (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].
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: AncientU 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Darkseraph 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.

 
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: hektor 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Star One 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: brickmack 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
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF 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...
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: AncientU 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist 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/ (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).
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Star One 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/ (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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: AbuSimbel 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty 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.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: gosnold 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 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 are 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).
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/10/2018 06:07 pm
It's designed to be ridiculously cheap, not state of the art.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: AncientU 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 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).
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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 (https://www.futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/acces-espace-callisto-demonstrateur-lanceur-reutilisable-horizon-2020-69898/#xtor=RSS-8)


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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: AncientU 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.)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: calapine 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Ictogan 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  :(.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: AncientU 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.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 on 03/12/2018 01:10 pm
Artist impressions of (variants of) Callisto and Prometheus can be found here:

http://cnes.photonpro.net/cnes/category/996
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Jester on 04/03/2018 07:42 pm
https://spacegate.cnes.fr/fr/quezako-ces-ailerons-reviendront-sur-terre (https://spacegate.cnes.fr/fr/quezako-ces-ailerons-reviendront-sur-terre)

demonstrator only
height: 15 meters
first test flight planned for end of 2020
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/04/2018 04:00 am
https://spacegate.cnes.fr/fr/quezako-ces-ailerons-reviendront-sur-terre (https://spacegate.cnes.fr/fr/quezako-ces-ailerons-reviendront-sur-terre)

demonstrator only
height: 15 meters
first test flight planned for end of 2020
It will be equipped with a reusable cryogenic engine running on hydrogen and oxygen and four deployable fins at the top.

This test vehicle (eg Grasshopper), to learn about vertical landing, plus issues with reuseability. I think engine choice is more what they have available to them in near term, not necessary what their operational RLV will use.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 on 04/04/2018 07:27 am
https://spacegate.cnes.fr/fr/quezako-ces-ailerons-reviendront-sur-terre (https://spacegate.cnes.fr/fr/quezako-ces-ailerons-reviendront-sur-terre)

demonstrator only
height: 15 meters
first test flight planned for end of 2020

Barely different from what was proposed 5 months ago:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41330.msg1741246#msg1741246
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Asteroza on 04/05/2018 05:22 am
Some interesting Callisto news. Article French, my summary below:
Callisto, un démonstrateur de lanceur réutilisable à l'horizon 2020 (https://www.futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/acces-espace-callisto-demonstrateur-lanceur-reutilisable-horizon-2020-69898/#xtor=RSS-8)


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.

I wonder if this is related to RVT follow-on work and the hydrolox engine Dr. Ishitani was working on...
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/12/2018 08:25 am
Not sure if this is already known, but at the CNES presentation today at the South Australian Space Forum they showed a drawing of the base of a launch vehicle with seven (six outer, one inner) gas generator engines with the turbine exhausts all in the same direction. I asked a question about what was being shown. The presenter said this is a configuration they are studying using the Prometheus engine. No legs were shown. The engines were mounted in a hexagonal structure.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 04/12/2018 07:20 pm
Is that not the so-called “Ariane Next” concept, the one in the video at the top of this page?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 on 04/13/2018 06:36 am
Is that not the so-called “Ariane Next” concept, the one in the video at the top of this page?

Yes, it is. It is one of several concepts being studied.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/13/2018 07:07 am
Is that not the so-called “Ariane Next” concept, the one in the video at the top of this page?

Yes, that is what I saw, but the picture was more refined. If I remember right, it did not have the thick walls as shown in the Twitter video. Cropped and enhanced image from the Twitter video below.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Jester on 04/13/2018 10:32 am
Better pics
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/26/2018 06:37 pm
Not behind paywall but free registration required to view:

Quote
Europe, Japan Plan 2021 Reusable Launcher Demo
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
Thierry Dubois
Oct 25, 2018

LYON, France—French space agency CNES has released details on the reusable launcher demonstrator it plans to test from 2021 in Kourou, French Guiana, with its German (DLR) and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) counterparts.

http://www.aviationweek.com/space/europe-japan-plan-2021-reusable-launcher-demo
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/05/2019 09:40 am
Quote
Prometheus: Demonstrator of Future Engine passed its Definition Review
Paris, 4 February 2019 

* ArianeGroup has just finalized the Definition Review of the, of the Prometheus engine demonstrator, on 1 February 2019 with the support of European Space Agency, CNES and DLR
* It demonstrates the pertinence of the design and the technological choices made and confirms the program’s ambitious cost objectives
* Prometheus is a European demonstrator for a very low cost and potentially reusable engine
* The bench tests of the first two examples of the engine are scheduled for as early as 2020

[...]

https://www.ariane.group/en/news/prometheus-demonstrator-of-future-engine-passed-its-definition-review/

Full press release attached.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/16/2019 08:08 am
https://twitter.com/arianegroup/status/1096458141699661824

Quote
Prometheus is a precursor of the future engines intended for use by Europe’s launchers by 2030! 👇🏻
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo on 03/04/2019 03:11 am
https://elib.dlr.de/120200/1/SP2018_478_PA.pdf
Quote
3.1.2 LOX-LCH4 engines

Several initiatives are currently working on engines with the propellant combination LOX-Methane. Although proposed several times in the past, this “softly cryogenic” blend has never yet been realized in an operational launcher stage.
The main combustion chamber MRs of this combination have been selected close to their optimum Isp, however, slightly shifted towards increased MR to reach increased bulk density. This approach is different to the LOX-LH2 engines and results in slight differences in MCC-MR and significant differences in the engine MR. The method is used in a similar way also for the other hydrocarbons and is justified by their increased propellant density but considerably lower mass specific impulse compared to LOX-LH2.
The gas generator operates methane-rich and its hot gas powers the single shaft turbine. Major characteristics are derived of the PROMETHEUS-Demonstrator [7] but the baseline assumptions remain similar to all other engines of the system study. Obtained data (Table 2) are not far off the expected PROMETHEUS-engine.
The staged combustion type is based on a fuel rich preburner design with a single-shaft turbopump. It’s worth noting that both simulation tools lrp and RPA converged only for relatively high preburner pressures resulting in lower T/W than other engines. A direct comparison with another engine is not possible because the staged combustion methane engines under development in the US, Raptor and BE-4, intend to operate in FFSC and in LOX-rich-mode and at significantly different chamber pressures [6]. The LOX-Methane engines deliver the highest performance of all hydrocarbon types, yet roughly 80 s to 90 s below the LOX-LH2 engines.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo on 03/04/2019 03:58 am
Earlier on this article authors was more optimistical:
https://elib.dlr.de/114430/1/Paper_IAC2017_D.2.4.3ENTRAIN.pdf
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/04/2019 03:49 pm
Something odd is going on in these studies. They are designing vehicles larger than New Glenn, doing the same downrange landing, but getting less than half the expected payload (even compared to the 2-stage methalox NG). And they are nearly 3 times the GLOM of F9 with only 30% more payload.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/04/2019 06:04 pm
Something odd is going on in these studies. They are designing vehicles larger than New Glenn, doing the same downrange landing, but getting less than half the expected payload (even compared to the 2-stage methalox NG). And they are nearly 3 times the GLOM of F9 with only 30% more payload.

Look at the "key performance data" posted above by Salo... They are only modelling a sea level ISP of 289 for their methane engines(!) worse than the current kerolox Merlin... and a mixture ratio of 2.5 and TWR under 100. Of course that rocket is going to suck!!  :o

A Methane Merlin should be easily able to get an ISP of 300 sl, of course, methane doesn't really begin to shine until you use staged combustion and densified propellants.

I have modeled various architectures for first stage recovery, and my experience has been that once average ISP drops below ~300 (sl&v) stage recovery enters a pretty steep region of diminishing returns.

This study is looking more and more like it was goalseeked; where data is fit to an outcome they already pre-determined.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/04/2019 06:23 pm
@Envy887

Here is why their proposal performs so bad. I swapped out Starship's superheavy with a Prometheus-powered lower stage with the same performance requirements.

Basically, it's what would be required to push 1,354 tonnes to a delta V of 3,457m/s(without losses), then it needs to perform a dV of ~3,348m/s to itself to land.

Using non-desified propellants and a mixture ratio of 2.5:1 vs ~3.7:1 reduces fuel density from ~0.9 to 0.777.

Lower TWR of engines plus lower density fuel likely reduces unfuelled mass from ~4.5% on starship to >6% for Prometheus stage.

In short, first stage mass increases by a whooping 104%!

First stage fuel volume increases by a whopping 131%!
 
Empty mass of first stage is almost tripled!

With these stats an expendable Prometheus stage is probably worse than a reusable Raptor stage!
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/04/2019 06:32 pm
Something odd is going on in these studies. They are designing vehicles larger than New Glenn, doing the same downrange landing, but getting less than half the expected payload (even compared to the 2-stage methalox NG). And they are nearly 3 times the GLOM of F9 with only 30% more payload.

Look at the "key performance data" posted above by Salo... They are only modelling a sea level ISP of 289 for their methane engines(!) worse than the current kerolox Merlin... and a mixture ratio of 2.5 and TWR under 100. Of course that rocket is going to suck!!  :o

A Methane Merlin should be easily able to get an ISP of 300 sl, of course, methane doesn't really begin to shine until you use staged combustion and densified propellants.

I have modeled various architectures for first stage recovery, and my experience has been that once average ISP drops below ~300 (sl&v) stage recovery enters a pretty steep region of diminishing returns.

This study is looking more and more like it was goalseeked; where data is fit to an outcome they already pre-determined.

The mass fractions are about 30% worse than Falcon. This is about right without densified propellant, but I don't know why they wouldn't baseline densified propellants. They aren't going to get very far without pushing some limits.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/04/2019 06:34 pm
Done the math... with those stats, an expendable Prometheus stage is worse than a reusable Raptor stage!

Threw in a BE-4 powered stage for comparison. Raptor is again a large improvement here too.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/04/2019 06:38 pm
Something odd is going on in these studies. They are designing vehicles larger than New Glenn, doing the same downrange landing, but getting less than half the expected payload (even compared to the 2-stage methalox NG). And they are nearly 3 times the GLOM of F9 with only 30% more payload.

Look at the "key performance data" posted above by Salo... They are only modelling a sea level ISP of 289 for their methane engines(!) worse than the current kerolox Merlin... and a mixture ratio of 2.5 and TWR under 100. Of course that rocket is going to suck!!  :o

A Methane Merlin should be easily able to get an ISP of 300 sl, of course, methane doesn't really begin to shine until you use staged combustion and densified propellants.

I have modeled various architectures for first stage recovery, and my experience has been that once average ISP drops below ~300 (sl&v) stage recovery enters a pretty steep region of diminishing returns.

This study is looking more and more like it was goalseeked; where data is fit to an outcome they already pre-determined.

The mass fractions are about 30% worse than Falcon. This is about right without densified propellant, but I don't know why they wouldn't baseline densified propellants. They aren't going to get very far without pushing some limits.

Poor mass fractions and poor ISP = crap system for reusability.

Ariane, unfortunately, is just looking for the easy way out.

The more you do the math, the more you realize Raptor's combination of densified propellant, good ISP, and good TWR all come together to make a system that make reusability much easier.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Oli on 03/04/2019 07:39 pm
Look at the "key performance data" posted above by Salo... They are only modelling a sea level ISP of 289 for their methane engines(!) worse than the current kerolox Merlin... and a mixture ratio of 2.5 and TWR under 100. Of course that rocket is going to suck!!  :o

Merlin 1D has a sea level ISP of more than 289s?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/04/2019 08:06 pm
Look at the "key performance data" posted above by Salo... They are only modelling a sea level ISP of 289 for their methane engines(!) worse than the current kerolox Merlin... and a mixture ratio of 2.5 and TWR under 100. Of course that rocket is going to suck!!  :o

Merlin 1D has a sea level ISP of more than 289s?

I guess it's just equal (for some reason memory thought Merlin 1D was 292...)

SL ISP of 289 plus fuel density of 0.77 is pretty objectively terrible for a first stage engine though. They are going to have a hard time with reuse with those numbers.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Oli on 03/04/2019 08:18 pm
Look at the "key performance data" posted above by Salo... They are only modelling a sea level ISP of 289 for their methane engines(!) worse than the current kerolox Merlin... and a mixture ratio of 2.5 and TWR under 100. Of course that rocket is going to suck!!  :o

Merlin 1D has a sea level ISP of more than 289s?

I guess it's just equal (for some reason memory thought Merlin 1D was 292...)

SL ISP of 289 plus fuel density of 0.77 is pretty objectively terrible for a first stage engine though. They are going to have a hard time with reuse with those numbers.

Here

https://spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html

it says 283s/312s, so 289s/320s for a methalox GG engine isn't terrible, given that Merlin is a highly optimized engine that went through several iterations.

IMO the study if flawed because it doesn't allow for a LH2 second or third stage for high energy missions. LEO would be the primary market for such a launcher.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/04/2019 08:24 pm
Look at the "key performance data" posted above by Salo... They are only modelling a sea level ISP of 289 for their methane engines(!) worse than the current kerolox Merlin... and a mixture ratio of 2.5 and TWR under 100. Of course that rocket is going to suck!!  :o

Merlin 1D has a sea level ISP of more than 289s?

I guess it's just equal (for some reason memory thought Merlin 1D was 292...)

SL ISP of 289 plus fuel density of 0.77 is pretty objectively terrible for a first stage engine though. They are going to have a hard time with reuse with those numbers.

Here

https://spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html

it says 283s/312s, so 289s/320s for a methalox GG engine isn't terrible, given that Merlin is a highly optimized engine that went through several iterations.

IMO the study if flawed because it doesn't allow for a LH2 second or third stage for high energy missions. LEO would be the primary market for such a launcher.

That's for 1D, 1D Full Thrust opened the throat a little to increase thrust. That lowered the ER, which slightly increased SL ISP while slightly decreasing vac ISP. Chamber pressure also increased slightly.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

1D FT is 289/312. Average ISP for both didn't really change much though.

Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Oli on 03/04/2019 08:38 pm
That's for 1D, 1D Full Thrust opened the throat a little to increase thrust. That lowered the ER, which slightly increased SL ISP while slightly decreasing vac ISP. Chamber pressure also increased slightly.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

1D FT is 289/312. Average ISP for both didn't really change much though.

Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.

Interesting, thanks. In that case ~303s/334s would make more sense, especially since they assume a chamber pressure of 12MPa, which is more than Merlin. Weird.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/04/2019 08:41 pm
Something odd is going on in these studies. They are designing vehicles larger than New Glenn, doing the same downrange landing, but getting less than half the expected payload (even compared to the 2-stage methalox NG). And they are nearly 3 times the GLOM of F9 with only 30% more payload.

Where did you get 3 times the GLOM of F9? Anyways, New Glenn has a gigantic expendable upper stage. And the diameter and length are smaller than New Glenn (5.5-5.2 m diameter, similar length).

edit: It appears that you were looking at the model based on structural indices that over-estimates 2nd stage mass(and therefore 1st stage mass).

edit 2: And propane?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/04/2019 08:43 pm
That's for 1D, 1D Full Thrust opened the throat a little to increase thrust. That lowered the ER, which slightly increased SL ISP while slightly decreasing vac ISP. Chamber pressure also increased slightly.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

1D FT is 289/312. Average ISP for both didn't really change much though.

Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.

Interesting, thanks. In that case ~303s/334s would make more sense, especially since they assume a chamber pressure of 12MPa, which is more than Merlin. Weird.

A GG methalox engine that gets 289/320 is probably around 70 MPa bar in chamber pressure.

EDIT: fixed unit mistake
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/05/2019 12:15 pm
Something odd is going on in these studies. They are designing vehicles larger than New Glenn, doing the same downrange landing, but getting less than half the expected payload (even compared to the 2-stage methalox NG). And they are nearly 3 times the GLOM of F9 with only 30% more payload.

Where did you get 3 times the GLOM of F9? Anyways, New Glenn has a gigantic expendable upper stage. And the diameter and length are smaller than New Glenn (5.5-5.2 m diameter, similar length).

edit: It appears that you were looking at the model based on structural indices that over-estimates 2nd stage mass(and therefore 1st stage mass).

edit 2: And propane?

Figure 7 of the study posted below. F9 has a GLOM of about 550 t. The methalox and propalox vehicles have a GLOM of ~1400-1750 t.

Even New Glenn is going to be in the 1400 t range for GLOM, since it will only have ~1700 t of thrust at liftoff. It does have the advantage of staged combustion, but it is using a first-iteration engine from a private company that never developed a staged combustion engine before. Surely ESA and DLR with all of Europe's resources could develop something similar.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/05/2019 12:23 pm
That's for 1D, 1D Full Thrust opened the throat a little to increase thrust. That lowered the ER, which slightly increased SL ISP while slightly decreasing vac ISP. Chamber pressure also increased slightly.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

1D FT is 289/312. Average ISP for both didn't really change much though.

Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.

Interesting, thanks. In that case ~303s/334s would make more sense, especially since they assume a chamber pressure of 12MPa, which is more than Merlin. Weird.

A GG methalox engine that gets 289/320 is probably around 70 MPa in chamber pressure.

You mean 70 bar, or 7 MPa? That is what I get in RPA lite for a 70 bar methalox engine at 3.25 O/F, assuming 0.966 engine efficiency and 3% mass flow through the GG.

Using the same assumptions with 12 MPa,  I get 301 SL / 332 vacuum.

To get 320 seconds in vacuum requires using 6.7% of the mass flow in the GG, which seems really high.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/05/2019 12:42 pm
Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.

Precisely. Boiling methane is a much worse than subcooled kerosene in terms of density and thrust. A vehicle with a worse fuel and worse engines and much worse mass fractions simply isn't going to be able to beat F9 on payload by 40% without being gigantic.

The authors of this study seem tot think that they can take none of the risks that SpaceX took and still get a similar vehicle, which is just absurd.

They are also ignoring the dial-a-landing feature of Falcon: RTLS for small payloads, land downrange on large payloads, and expend the booster for very large payloads. Very large payloads are rare and you can charge a premium to launch them.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/05/2019 02:18 pm
That's for 1D, 1D Full Thrust opened the throat a little to increase thrust. That lowered the ER, which slightly increased SL ISP while slightly decreasing vac ISP. Chamber pressure also increased slightly.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

1D FT is 289/312. Average ISP for both didn't really change much though.

Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.

Interesting, thanks. In that case ~303s/334s would make more sense, especially since they assume a chamber pressure of 12MPa, which is more than Merlin. Weird.

A GG methalox engine that gets 289/320 is probably around 70 MPa in chamber pressure.

You mean 70 bar, or 7 MPa? That is what I get in RPA lite for a 70 bar methalox engine at 3.25 O/F, assuming 0.966 engine efficiency and 3% mass flow through the GG.

Using the same assumptions with 12 MPa,  I get 301 SL / 332 vacuum.

To get 320 seconds in vacuum requires using 6.7% of the mass flow in the GG, which seems really high.

Yeah, meant bar not mpa  :P

Study also seems to use MR of 2.5:1
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/05/2019 02:50 pm
Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.

Precisely. Boiling methane is a much worse than subcooled kerosene in terms of density and thrust. A vehicle with a worse fuel and worse engines and much worse mass fractions simply isn't going to be able to beat F9 on payload by 40% without being gigantic.

The authors of this study seem tot think that they can take none of the risks that SpaceX took and still get a similar vehicle, which is just absurd.

They are also ignoring the dial-a-landing feature of Falcon: RTLS for small payloads, land downrange on large payloads, and expend the booster for very large payloads. Very large payloads are rare and you can charge a premium to launch them.

Here is a comparison I made in the Raptor thread.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47506.40 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47506.40)

Prometheus with those stats is actually pretty awful as a reusable platform. It's much worse than Merlin, and the stage would actually have a physical volume almost as large as a theoretical SSME powered stage.

Look at how steep the improvement is though from Prometheus (GG, avg ISP of 304) to BE-4 (ORSC, avg ISP of 325) to Raptor (FFSC, avg ISP of 344, densified propellants).

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/05/2019 02:53 pm
Something odd is going on in these studies. They are designing vehicles larger than New Glenn, doing the same downrange landing, but getting less than half the expected payload (even compared to the 2-stage methalox NG). And they are nearly 3 times the GLOM of F9 with only 30% more payload.

Where did you get 3 times the GLOM of F9? Anyways, New Glenn has a gigantic expendable upper stage. And the diameter and length are smaller than New Glenn (5.5-5.2 m diameter, similar length).

edit: It appears that you were looking at the model based on structural indices that over-estimates 2nd stage mass(and therefore 1st stage mass).

edit 2: And propane?

Figure 7 of the study posted below. F9 has a GLOM of about 550 t. The methalox and propalox vehicles have a GLOM of ~1400-1750 t.

Even New Glenn is going to be in the 1400 t range for GLOM, since it will only have ~1700 t of thrust at liftoff. It does have the advantage of staged combustion, but it is using a first-iteration engine from a private company that never developed a staged combustion engine before. Surely ESA and DLR with all of Europe's resources could develop something similar.

I wouldn't get too worked up about specific graphs that were generated when ruling out configurations and when using pessimistic assumptions. The results section gives what they distilled down to...

Quote
2 Results The results of the analysis of the LOx/LH2 and the LOx/LCH4 launcher with more detailed mass model are presented in Table 5. Both launchers show a great decrease in GLOM of about 45% compared to the results of the first iteration modelled with pre-assumed structural index. This decrease can mainly be explained by the overestimation of the second stage dry mass by using the structural index method. The problem with the extrapolation method of the structural index is the fact that the second stages are relatively large and in a tankage domain corresponding to existing first stages. However, the structural indices of first stages tend to be higher than the respective indices of upper stages as they have to carry an upper stage on top and withstand higher bending loads. This leads to an overestimation of the second stage dry mass which in the further course leads to a higher first stage mass and thus a heavier launcher.

The LOx/LH2 launcher is about half the mass of the LOx/LCH4 launcher. This relation could also be observed in the first iteration, which is an indication that the relative results of the first iteration are up to a certain extent still valid even if the pre-assumed structural index were too pessimistic. The LOx/LH2 launcher has a GLOM that is less than that of the Falcon 9 (550 tons), while delivering about two tons additional payload into GTO (7500 kg vs 5500 kg of Falcon 9). However, due to the fact that hydrogen has a much lower density than RP-1 the LOx/LH2 launcher is larger, see Fig. 12. The LOx/LH2 launcher and Falcon 9 both have 9 engines. 

The LOx/LCH4 launcher has a mass at lift-off of 884 tons and has 11 engines. Due to the difficult accommodation of the engines, the diameter of the launcher had to be set to 5.5 m, the minimum possible to fit all 11 engines within the rear skirt. Furthermore, the second stage engine barely fits in the interstage, so in future studies the interstage length should be increased. Due to the higher density of methane, the C648C142 launcher is almost of the same volume as the LOx/LH2 launcher. The payload capability is about 7500 kg which is less than the announced 13 tons to GTO of the LOx/LCH4 launcher “New Glenn” that is currently under development at Blue Origin [22]. However, the New Glenn is about 76% bigger (regarding total volume) than the VTOL methane launcher, presented here.
 

Anyways, ~3x Falcon 9 mass with a bit more payload to GTO (8 t vs 5.5 t or a 45% increase) is exactly what Falcon Heavy is. So having a configuration of many configurations listed here with similar specs isn't really that suprising.

Anyways, it isn't entirely illegitimate to build a big VTOL first stage and the smallest expendable upper stage that you can get away with. Presumeably, the bigger the lower stage is, the smaller you can make the upper stage. Eventually for upper stage size X varying and a fixed large lower stage, you will match payloads of various significantly smaller launchers.  We haven't really seen that approach so far with Falcon and New Glenn (their upper stages are quite large), but it is an approach that has some merit and hasn't been tested in the market. Could that lead to high GLOMS and low payload numbers? Yes, you can see that with Falcon Heavy. The Reusable portion sizes and masses went up by a lot while the payload didn't go up proportionally.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/05/2019 03:13 pm

Anyways, ~3x Falcon 9 mass with a bit more payload to GTO (8 t vs 5.5 t or a 45% increase) is exactly what Falcon Heavy is. So having a configuration of many configurations listed here with similar specs isn't really that suprising.

The major difference is that this is an after-the-fact addition to an existing reusable architecture. Now they can increase payload by over 45% without expending a first stage/core, and the payload for when a core is expended has massively increased.


Quote
Anyways, it isn't entirely illegitimate to build a big VTOL first stage and the smallest expendable upper stage that you can get away with. Presumeably, the bigger the lower stage is, the smaller you can make the upper stage. We haven't really seen that approach so far with Falcon and New Glenn (their upper stages are quite large), but it is an approach that has some merit and hasn't been tested in the market.

If you want to transfer more of the impulse to the lower stage, simple GG engines with poor mass fractions and TWRs aren't going to cut it. Look at the comparison chart I made above... If your mass fraction is poor, you need more of your fuel to land. If your ISP is poor, you need more fuel to land. If your rocket has a middling TWR you need more fuel to land. If you need more fuel to land, you need a much larger stage overall to get the required dV. This huge negative feedback loop is why Raptor as a system works so well, and all of these Arianespace proposals work so poorly.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/05/2019 04:29 pm

If you want to transfer more of the impulse to the lower stage, simple GG engines with poor mass fractions and TWRs aren't going to cut it. Look at the comparison chart I made above... If your mass fraction is poor, you need more of your fuel to land. If your ISP is poor, you need more fuel to land. If your rocket has a middling TWR you need more fuel to land. If you need more fuel to land, you need a much larger stage overall to get the required dV. This huge negative feedback loop is why Raptor as a system works so well, and all of these Arianespace proposals work so poorly.

You seem to be under the impression this study is assuming 289/320 s ISP for the methalox GG engine.


That's for 1D, 1D Full Thrust opened the throat a little to increase thrust. That lowered the ER, which slightly increased SL ISP while slightly decreasing vac ISP. Chamber pressure also increased slightly.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

1D FT is 289/312. Average ISP for both didn't really change much though.

Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.

Interesting, thanks. In that case ~303s/334s would make more sense, especially since they assume a chamber pressure of 12MPa, which is more than Merlin. Weird.

A GG methalox engine that gets 289/320 is probably around 70 MPa bar in chamber pressure.

EDIT: fixed unit mistake

Reading table 3 that was posted by Salo and matches the source PDF lists sea level ISP of 302.5 and vacuum ISP of sea level engines as 334.1 under the LCH4 GG column. This is in comparison to Raptor at 330 s/356 s. DLR is probably more pessimistic than Musk. DLR is capping chamber pressure at 160 bar to lightly stress the engine while Musk is trying to maximize it.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/05/2019 04:39 pm
Something odd is going on in these studies. They are designing vehicles larger than New Glenn, doing the same downrange landing, but getting less than half the expected payload (even compared to the 2-stage methalox NG). And they are nearly 3 times the GLOM of F9 with only 30% more payload.

Where did you get 3 times the GLOM of F9? Anyways, New Glenn has a gigantic expendable upper stage. And the diameter and length are smaller than New Glenn (5.5-5.2 m diameter, similar length).

edit: It appears that you were looking at the model based on structural indices that over-estimates 2nd stage mass(and therefore 1st stage mass).

edit 2: And propane?

Figure 7 of the study posted below. F9 has a GLOM of about 550 t. The methalox and propalox vehicles have a GLOM of ~1400-1750 t.

Even New Glenn is going to be in the 1400 t range for GLOM, since it will only have ~1700 t of thrust at liftoff. It does have the advantage of staged combustion, but it is using a first-iteration engine from a private company that never developed a staged combustion engine before. Surely ESA and DLR with all of Europe's resources could develop something similar.

I wouldn't get too worked up about specific graphs that were generated when ruling out configurations and when using pessimistic assumptions. The results section gives what they distilled down to...

Quote
2 Results The results of the analysis of the LOx/LH2 and the LOx/LCH4 launcher with more detailed mass model are presented in Table 5. Both launchers show a great decrease in GLOM of about 45% compared to the results of the first iteration modelled with pre-assumed structural index. This decrease can mainly be explained by the overestimation of the second stage dry mass by using the structural index method. The problem with the extrapolation method of the structural index is the fact that the second stages are relatively large and in a tankage domain corresponding to existing first stages. However, the structural indices of first stages tend to be higher than the respective indices of upper stages as they have to carry an upper stage on top and withstand higher bending loads. This leads to an overestimation of the second stage dry mass which in the further course leads to a higher first stage mass and thus a heavier launcher.

The LOx/LH2 launcher is about half the mass of the LOx/LCH4 launcher. This relation could also be observed in the first iteration, which is an indication that the relative results of the first iteration are up to a certain extent still valid even if the pre-assumed structural index were too pessimistic. The LOx/LH2 launcher has a GLOM that is less than that of the Falcon 9 (550 tons), while delivering about two tons additional payload into GTO (7500 kg vs 5500 kg of Falcon 9). However, due to the fact that hydrogen has a much lower density than RP-1 the LOx/LH2 launcher is larger, see Fig. 12. The LOx/LH2 launcher and Falcon 9 both have 9 engines. 

The LOx/LCH4 launcher has a mass at lift-off of 884 tons and has 11 engines. Due to the difficult accommodation of the engines, the diameter of the launcher had to be set to 5.5 m, the minimum possible to fit all 11 engines within the rear skirt. Furthermore, the second stage engine barely fits in the interstage, so in future studies the interstage length should be increased. Due to the higher density of methane, the C648C142 launcher is almost of the same volume as the LOx/LH2 launcher. The payload capability is about 7500 kg which is less than the announced 13 tons to GTO of the LOx/LCH4 launcher “New Glenn” that is currently under development at Blue Origin [22]. However, the New Glenn is about 76% bigger (regarding total volume) than the VTOL methane launcher, presented here.
 

Anyways, ~3x Falcon 9 mass with a bit more payload to GTO (8 t vs 5.5 t or a 45% increase) is exactly what Falcon Heavy is. So having a configuration of many configurations listed here with similar specs isn't really that suprising.

Anyways, it isn't entirely illegitimate to build a big VTOL first stage and the smallest expendable upper stage that you can get away with. Presumeably, the bigger the lower stage is, the smaller you can make the upper stage. Eventually for upper stage size X varying and a fixed large lower stage, you will match payloads of various significantly smaller launchers.  We haven't really seen that approach so far with Falcon and New Glenn (their upper stages are quite large), but it is an approach that has some merit and hasn't been tested in the market. Could that lead to high GLOMS and low payload numbers? Yes, you can see that with Falcon Heavy. The Reusable portion sizes and masses went up by a lot while the payload didn't go up proportionally.

FH does 10,000 kg to GTO with all ASDS, per Hans at IAC 2018:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46493.msg1862987#msg1862987

So 2.6x the liftoff mass (because the upper stage is the same) gets 1.8x the payload. Of course, it does have the advantage of an additional half-stage.

These models have more GLOM than FH but only 70% of its payload. Their upper stages do seem to be overly heavy, which is definitely part of the problem. FH does have more booster engines, which helps because it reduces the relative dry mass of the upper stage. These proposed vehicles are using a gigantic upper stage engine.

I think a better approach to estimating upper stage dry mass would be to assume a structural fraction, then add in propulsion mass. Especially since they don't seem to have a good model for large upper stage mass fractions.

Also, they can't fit a 180:1 nozzle in the interstage? Why not? Are they limited to 5.5 meter core diameter for some reason? Coaxing all the ISP you can get out of the upper stage is critically important to a 2-stage hydrocarbon to GTO architecture.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo on 03/05/2019 04:39 pm
That's for 1D, 1D Full Thrust opened the throat a little to increase thrust. That lowered the ER, which slightly increased SL ISP while slightly decreasing vac ISP. Chamber pressure also increased slightly.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

1D FT is 289/312. Average ISP for both didn't really change much though.

Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.

Interesting, thanks. In that case ~303s/334s would make more sense, especially since they assume a chamber pressure of 12MPa, which is more than Merlin. Weird.

A GG methalox engine that gets 289/320 is probably around 70 MPa in chamber pressure.

You mean 70 bar, or 7 MPa? That is what I get in RPA lite for a 70 bar methalox engine at 3.25 O/F, assuming 0.966 engine efficiency and 3% mass flow through the GG.

Using the same assumptions with 12 MPa,  I get 301 SL / 332 vacuum.

To get 320 seconds in vacuum requires using 6.7% of the mass flow in the GG, which seems really high.

Yeah, meant bar not mpa  :P

Study also seems to use MR of 2.5:1
https://www.eucass.eu/doi/EUCASS2017-537.pdf
Quote
The engine delivers 100tons of thrust. A single shaft turbo-pump is used to feed the combustion chamber, cooled via a methane regenerative circuit. Four main valves feed the chamber and the gas generator. Three of them are fully regulated valves and allow a throttling level from 30% up to 110%.
The nominal combustion chamber pressure is set to 100 bar, on the basis of engine mass correlation, engine feedback and performance target. The combustion chamber mixture ratio is set to 3.5 which is near the optimum for the combustion chamber, as it is illustrated in Figure 5.
The ejection pressure was selected to 400 mbar. This value was chosen because the Prometheus engine is a 1st stage engine and needs a good sea level thrust.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/05/2019 04:43 pm
Study also seems to use MR of 2.5:1

2.5:1 is the O/F ratio of the GG only. Overall O/F is 3.25:1 in that paper. As Salo noted, Prometheus seems to be targeting 3.5:1, which is probably closer to optimal for impulse.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo on 03/05/2019 04:48 pm
Nominal chamber pressure 100 bar. Maximal chamber pressure 110 bar.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Oggust on 03/05/2019 05:01 pm
The Wikipedia page for Prometheus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(rocket_engine) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(rocket_engine))
...says it will have an Isp of 360s...

(I added the "citation needed" for that last weekend.)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/05/2019 05:22 pm
That's for 1D, 1D Full Thrust opened the throat a little to increase thrust. That lowered the ER, which slightly increased SL ISP while slightly decreasing vac ISP. Chamber pressure also increased slightly.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

1D FT is 289/312. Average ISP for both didn't really change much though.

Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.

Interesting, thanks. In that case ~303s/334s would make more sense, especially since they assume a chamber pressure of 12MPa, which is more than Merlin. Weird.

A GG methalox engine that gets 289/320 is probably around 70 MPa in chamber pressure.

You mean 70 bar, or 7 MPa? That is what I get in RPA lite for a 70 bar methalox engine at 3.25 O/F, assuming 0.966 engine efficiency and 3% mass flow through the GG.

Using the same assumptions with 12 MPa,  I get 301 SL / 332 vacuum.

To get 320 seconds in vacuum requires using 6.7% of the mass flow in the GG, which seems really high.

Yeah, meant bar not mpa  :P

Study also seems to use MR of 2.5:1
https://www.eucass.eu/doi/EUCASS2017-537.pdf
Quote
The engine delivers 100tons of thrust. A single shaft turbo-pump is used to feed the combustion chamber, cooled via a methane regenerative circuit. Four main valves feed the chamber and the gas generator. Three of them are fully regulated valves and allow a throttling level from 30% up to 110%.
The nominal combustion chamber pressure is set to 100 bar, on the basis of engine mass correlation, engine feedback and performance target. The combustion chamber mixture ratio is set to 3.5 which is near the optimum for the combustion chamber, as it is illustrated in Figure 5.
The ejection pressure was selected to 400 mbar. This value was chosen because the Prometheus engine is a 1st stage engine and needs a good sea level thrust.

Thanks for correction.

Updated table with corrected numbers, Merlin 1DFT stage still beats it:
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo on 03/05/2019 07:19 pm
The Wikipedia page for Prometheus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(rocket_engine) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(rocket_engine))
...says it will have an Isp of 360s...

(I added the "citation needed" for that last weekend.)
For second stage with expansion ratio 120-180 may be.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo on 03/05/2019 07:46 pm
Topology Optimization of Turbine Manifold in the Rocket Engine Demonstrator Prometheus:
https://ltu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1228857/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo on 03/05/2019 08:34 pm
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/44345/summary/
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/44345/abstract-pdf/IAC-18,C4,1,2,x44345.brief.pdf?2018-07-04.11:29:37
Quote
Paper ID: 44345
oral

69th International Astronautical Congress 2018
IAF SPACE PROPULSION SYMPOSIUM (C4)
Propulsion System (1) (1)

Author: Ms. Pamela SIMONTACCHI
ArianeGroup SAS, France, [email protected]
Mr. Roland Blasi
ArianeGroup, Germany, [email protected]

PROMETHEUS: PRECURSOR OF NEW LOW-COST ROCKET ENGINE FAMILY

Abstract
Prometheus is the Precursor of a new liquid rocket Engine family designed for low-cost, flexibility and reusability.
This Project, undertaken through cooperation between CNES and Ariane Group, entered in the ESA Future Launcher Preparatory Programme after the ESA Ministerial Conference in December 2016, with Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland joining France in the support of this Programme. The aim of Prometheus project is to design, produce, and test an advanced low-cost 100-tons class LOX/LCH4 reusable Engine. This Engine, designed for 1M recurrent cost, targets also flexibility in operation through variable thrust, multiple ignitions, compatibility to main and upper stage operation, and minimized ground operations before and after flight. To reach those ambitious objectives, an extreme design-to-cost approach is mandatory, as well as innovative technologies and advanced industrial capabilities; among the major levers, there are the extensive recourse to Additive Manufacturing for the production of engine components, the introduction of a full electric command system and the on-board Rocket Engine Computer (REEC) for Engine management and monitoring.
In addition, Prometheus programme promotes the application of Agile and Frugal methodologies to get maximum profit in product innovation and value creation in operation.
This paper presents the global status of Prometheus development and gives a specific insight regarding additive manufacturing production of low-cost components.
Prometheus is part of the effort to prepare long terms Ariane6 evolution, called Ariane6Next.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 03/06/2019 06:23 pm
The Wikipedia page for Prometheus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(rocket_engine) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(rocket_engine))
...says it will have an Isp of 360s...

(I added the "citation needed" for that last weekend.)

I have no idea where 360 has come from but this document refers to the Prometheus Isp as ~350;

https://academieairespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Conf_rence-palais-de-la-d_couverte-31-mai-2018.pdf

Note however the Isp it gives for Merlin is vacuum, so 350 is probably the vacuum Isp of Prometheus.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/06/2019 09:28 pm
That's for 1D, 1D Full Thrust opened the throat a little to increase thrust. That lowered the ER, which slightly increased SL ISP while slightly decreasing vac ISP. Chamber pressure also increased slightly.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

1D FT is 289/312. Average ISP for both didn't really change much though.

Methalox just doesn't work well without staged combustion and densification.

Interesting, thanks. In that case ~303s/334s would make more sense, especially since they assume a chamber pressure of 12MPa, which is more than Merlin. Weird.

A GG methalox engine that gets 289/320 is probably around 70 MPa in chamber pressure.

You mean 70 bar, or 7 MPa? That is what I get in RPA lite for a 70 bar methalox engine at 3.25 O/F, assuming 0.966 engine efficiency and 3% mass flow through the GG.

Using the same assumptions with 12 MPa,  I get 301 SL / 332 vacuum.

To get 320 seconds in vacuum requires using 6.7% of the mass flow in the GG, which seems really high.

Yeah, meant bar not mpa  :P

Study also seems to use MR of 2.5:1
https://www.eucass.eu/doi/EUCASS2017-537.pdf
Quote
The engine delivers 100tons of thrust. A single shaft turbo-pump is used to feed the combustion chamber, cooled via a methane regenerative circuit. Four main valves feed the chamber and the gas generator. Three of them are fully regulated valves and allow a throttling level from 30% up to 110%.
The nominal combustion chamber pressure is set to 100 bar, on the basis of engine mass correlation, engine feedback and performance target. The combustion chamber mixture ratio is set to 3.5 which is near the optimum for the combustion chamber, as it is illustrated in Figure 5.
The ejection pressure was selected to 400 mbar. This value was chosen because the Prometheus engine is a 1st stage engine and needs a good sea level thrust.

Thanks for correction.

Updated table with corrected numbers, Merlin 1DFT stage still beats it:

I did a full model calculating the GLOM of a 2-stage to GTO LV based on average and vac ISP, mass fractions, payload, booster entry velocity, and EDL delta-v. Iterating over upper stage delta-v as these authors did, and plugging in Falcon 9 numbers, it looks like a good model... getting GLOM and booster mass values consistent with what we know about F9.

But when I plug in the payload, ISP and structural fractions from this paper, I get much, much smaller GLOM and dry mass values, in the 800 tonne and 45 tonne range.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ZachF on 03/06/2019 10:56 pm

I did a full model calculating the GLOM of a 2-stage to GTO LV based on average and vac ISP, mass fractions, payload, booster entry velocity, and EDL delta-v. Iterating over upper stage delta-v as these authors did, and plugging in Falcon 9 numbers, it looks like a good model... getting GLOM and booster mass values consistent with what we know about F9.

But when I plug in the payload, ISP and structural fractions from this paper, I get much, much smaller GLOM and dry mass values, in the 800 tonne and 45 tonne range.

The numbers made more sense when I thought the Prometheus was an 289/320 ISP engine...

With my admittedly simplistic first stage model the 304/332 ISP version shouldn't be that much worse than the Falcon 9/M1DFT first stage.

I kinda think they've purposely sandbagged it... For various reasons they wanted a result showing reusability to be harder than it actually is.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/06/2019 11:36 pm
I kinda think they've purposely sandbagged it...

Purposely or not, it's definitely sandbagged. I'm just trying to figure out where.

One thing I noticed was that they run the booster up to higher altitudes and velocities than F9. I think that combined with low upper stage delta-v is leading to them using far more fuel for reentry compared to F9, which exponentially increases the size of the vehicle.

I've worked around this in my model by setting an entry velocity of 2300 m/s, which is what a hot F9 enters at, then adding a "boostback" burn (which is really just extra fuel for deceleration prior to entry, not a boostback). I'm optimizing for minimum boostback fuel (i.e. staging velocity=entry velocity), and it's coming out a higher upper stage delta-v of around 7400 to 7500 m/s, similar to what F9 does. This is also near the optimum for booster dry mass.

The 7000 and 6600 m/s delta v upper stages yield much higher booster staging velocities, requiring it to carry more fuel for braking. For upper stage delta-v less than 6400 m/s, there is actually no solution with the given methalox ISP and stage mass fractions, and for 6500-6600 m/s the vehicles are enormous - hundreds of tonnes larger than the optimal stack with a 7500 m/s upper stage.

I'm going to look into running sensitivity analyses of both S2 ISP and S2 mass fraction with this model. I think the high upper stage mass fractions and decision to use a 120:1 nozzle are also unnecessarily increasing the size of the proposed vehicles.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Oli on 03/07/2019 08:09 am
But when I plug in the payload, ISP and structural fractions from this paper, I get much, much smaller GLOM and dry mass values, in the 800 tonne and 45 tonne range.

If you're referring to Figure 2, those are the results of the 2017 paper with overestimated second stage dry mass. As they admit themselves in that paper and therefore also present results with a more detailed mass model (though only for the 7km/s version, not for 7.6km/s. For the 7km/s version the reduction in 2nd stage GLOW is substantial, from ~270t to 157t). It's a mystery to me why they point to those faulty results (according to them) to exclude 7.6km/s in the 2018 paper.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/07/2019 01:39 pm
But when I plug in the payload, ISP and structural fractions from this paper, I get much, much smaller GLOM and dry mass values, in the 800 tonne and 45 tonne range.

If you're referring to Figure 2, those are the results of the 2017 paper with overestimated second stage dry mass. As they admit themselves in that paper and therefore also present results with a more detailed mass model (though only for the 7km/s version, not for 7.6km/s. For the 7km/s version the reduction in 2nd stage GLOW is substantial, from ~270t to 157t). It's a mystery to me why they point to those faulty results (according to them) to exclude 7.6km/s in the 2018 paper.

Good point. I pulled the later mass fractions in Figure 8, and now my model matches almost exactly with the study, getting GLOM of ~1700 t for the vehicle with 6600 m/s upper stage delta-v. However, even with the same mass fractions my booster dry mass is larger than they show in Figure 10, and the 7,000 m/s upper stage vehicle doesn't quite fit... my 6800 m/s upper stage vehicle has the same GLOM as their 7000 m/s.

However, in both cases, my model clearly shows that they are underestimating the optimal upper stage DV. I'm getting GLOM optima at 7400 and 7600 m/s upper stage delta-v, depending whether I use the mass fractions from their 6600 or 7000 vehicle. As you noted, the decision to remove the 7600 m/s upper stage before going through phase 2 basically rendered this study an exercise in futility.

I ran a sensitivity analysis to upper stage mass fraction by upper stage delta-v, and it again shows that the lowest GLOM is produced by a 7500 m/s upper stage for the mass fraction ranges of 6% to 9%, which range includes the mass fraction of the LCH4/LOX upper stages they are considering. If they can beat 6%, then an 8,000 m/s upper stage is actually better. 6600 m/s is only better for hideous mass fractions of greater than 11.5%, and make for truly gigantic vehicles with GLOMs over 4000 t.

I did update my model to calculate entry burn and landing burn fuel separately, and attached it here if anyone wants to try other values.

Edit: I also ran a sensitivity to upper stage ISP, and it's not as bad as I thought. For the same booster specs and holding mass fractions constant, ISP docent really change the way GLOM optimizes in upper stage delta-v. 7500 m/s is still around the optimum upper stage delta-v, unless you can get really good vac ISP of around 367 sec, where you want to bump the upper stage delta-v even higher to ~8000 m/s. RPA lite indicates that Prometheus should get ~358 sec at 120:1 and ~362 sec at 180:1, so the longer, heavier nozzle extension probably isn't worthwhile if it affects the upper stage mass fraction even slightly. Upper stage wet mass and mass fraction are both more important.

I also plugged in LH2 upper stage mass fractions of around 0.1, and it's obvious why people like LH2 upper stages. GLOM drops significantly. Upper stage delta-v still optimizes for around 7500 m/s for a typical LH2 vac ISP, though.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo on 03/08/2019 07:29 am
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/44345/summary/
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/44345/abstract-pdf/IAC-18,C4,1,2,x44345.brief.pdf?2018-07-04.11:29:37
Quote
Paper ID: 44345
oral

69th International Astronautical Congress 2018
IAF SPACE PROPULSION SYMPOSIUM (C4)
Propulsion System (1) (1)

Author: Ms. Pamela SIMONTACCHI
ArianeGroup SAS, France, [email protected]
Mr. Roland Blasi
ArianeGroup, Germany, [email protected]

PROMETHEUS: PRECURSOR OF NEW LOW-COST ROCKET ENGINE FAMILY
All papers presented at the IAF’s International Astronautical Congresses are available to buy for non-IAF members for only €7 each.
http://www.iafastro.org/publications/iac-papers/
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: gosnold on 03/09/2019 11:14 am
All papers presented at the IAF’s International Astronautical Congresses are available to buy for non-IAF members for only €7 each.
http://www.iafastro.org/publications/iac-papers/

The IAF secretariat takes forever to answer though.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: envy887 on 03/09/2019 03:40 pm
For the 7km/s version the reduction in 2nd stage GLOW is substantial, from ~270t to 157t). It's a mystery to me why they point to those faulty results (according to them) to exclude 7.6km/s in the 2018 paper.

After some more modeling, I've changed my mind about that. Excluding the 7.6 km/s version does not substantially change results of the metric that is actually important: not LV GLOM, but cost per launch. I added a cost metric based on a $/kg of dry mass cost of expended upper stage hardware, plus a straight depreciation of the booster over a fixed number launches. I didn't include fuel cost, refurbishment cost, or fairing cost; those will incrementally change the cost, but shouldn't affect the optima much.

Because a larger GLOM results in a smaller expended upper stage, the optimal cost is a somewhat larger vehicle with a upper stage delta-v of 7100 or 7200 m/s. Interestingly, engine performance doesn't substantially shift this curve horizontally, while booster reusability and booster dry mass fraction both optimize towards a lower upper stage delta-v.

Based on this analysis, a single Prometheus (100 tonne SL thrust should yield 118 t vac thrust) upper stage and a booster with 12 or 13 engines would be cost optimal with the ISP values in this study (320 S1 vac, 348 S2 vac). Using the ISP values from the previous study (334 S1 vac, 369 S2 vac) reduces the GLOM to ~660 t and only need 9 engines on the booster, even with a slight increase in upper stage dry mass.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo on 11/25/2019 06:37 pm
https://spacenews.com/esa-to-seek-funding-for-more-prometheus-reusable-engines-at-ministerial/
Quote
ESA to seek funding for more Prometheus reusable engines at ministerial
by Caleb Henry — October 21, 2019

WASHINGTON — The European Space Agency will ask its 22 member states next month to fund an additional two to eight Prometheus reusable engines so that the agency can further the engine’s development.
ESA, with prime contractor ArianeGroup, has two Prometheus engines being built today, leveraging funds granted at its 2016 ministerial, plus earlier work supported by the French Space Agency CNES.
Jérôme Breteau, ESA’s head of future space transportation, said Oct. 21 at the 70th International Astronautical Congress here that those two engines are on track for test firings in late 2020 at the German Space Agency DLR’s Lampoldshausen facility. ESA will continue engine tests into 2021, but what follows “is the subject of our proposal to the Space19+ ministerial,” he said.
ESA’s tri-annual ministerial conferences are where the agency and its members allocate funds for future space programs. ESA is seeking 12.5 billion euros ($13.9 billion) at its next ministerial, dubbed Space19+, Nov. 27 -28 in Seville, Spain.
Breteau said ESA needs to know the outcome of the ministerial before it can lay out the next steps for Prometheus. The agency has “very ambitious” plans for the liquid-oxygen and methane engine, he said.
ESA’s goal with Prometheus is to manufacture the engine for 1 million euros ($1.1 million) each — a tenth the price of the Vulcain engine used on the first stage of Europe’s Ariane 5 rocket. Prometheus is also designed to be reusable.
Breteau said Lampoldshausen’s hydrogen engine test bench, used for Ariane 6’s Vulcain 2.1 engine, will need upgrades to support the methane needed for Prometheus.
Breteau said Prometheus is so far in line with its cost target and its performance target of 1,000 kilonewtons in thrust. He said it is difficult to have a set mass target for Prometheus because that requires knowing what vehicle the engine will support.
Work on Prometheus has been done with the expectation that it would be used on a launch vehicle in the 2030s, but ArianeGroup has mused using it on the Ariane 6 rocket, which debuts in 2020.
Breteau wouldn’t go so far as to name a launcher that might use Prometheus.
“System engineering on the target launcher configuration is ongoing,” he said. ESA has what Breteau described as “more than a notional idea” of how to cluster Prometheus engines together on a launcher, a detail he said gives an “idea of the maturity of the system activities.”
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Salo on 11/25/2019 06:38 pm
https://spacenews.com/five-upgrades-arianegroup-wants-europe-to-consider-for-ariane-6/
Quote
2. Prometheus engine spinoffs

The first Prometheus reusable engine is on track for completion by the end of 2020, with ground testing to follow. ArianeGroup is preparing the engine for use in the 2030s, but Bonguet said the company can start applying Prometheus technology to Ariane 6’s expendable Vulcain 2.1 first-stage engines and Vinci second-stage engines. Prometheus, in addition to being reusable, leverages extensive 3D printing with the goal of costing 1 million euros to manufacture (a tenth the cost of Ariane 5’s Vulcain engine). Bonguet said spinoff technologies like electrical valves and 3D-printed parts from Prometheus could reduce the cost of Ariane 6’s expendable engines.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Jakdowski on 11/30/2019 09:25 pm
CNES Callisto Animation by Blackbear Studios, These are the guys who make all the Animations for ArianeGroup, we've seen parts of this animation before in the ArianeWorks Announcement, here is the full animation they made for CNES
https://vimeo.com/347481435
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/01/2019 05:05 am
They could do multi engine replacement for Ariane 6. For light -medium payloads use single stick as RLV. For heavy payloads or BLEO missions add the SRBs and make it expendable.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Lar on 12/01/2019 02:12 pm
CNES Callisto Animation by Blackbear Studios, These are the guys who make all the Animations for ArianeGroup, we've seen parts of this animation before in the ArianeWorks Announcement, here is the full animation they made for CNES
https://vimeo.com/347481435
Nice vid. Missing the SpaceX swoosh on the landing pad, but glad to see at least someone over in ArianeGroup realises that maybe, just maybe, first stage reuse is a good idea if what you care about is cost.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Star One on 12/01/2019 07:04 pm
I presume this will eventually lead into Ariane 7.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Lar on 12/02/2019 01:23 pm
I presume this will eventually lead into Ariane 7.
One can hope. SHOULD be 6 but that's a lost argument at this point.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Wargrim on 12/02/2019 01:36 pm
Correct me if i am wrong, but my impression is that ArianeSpace has not put any of its own money into any of those reusability studies / prototyping / demonstrator programs, only acted as a contractor under public money funding.

If this trend continues, and i do not see why it would not, they will not move a finger unless ESA orders a reuseable Ariane architecture and pays for it. And in the latest ESA minister conference, there was no indication whatsoever for an accelerated push for a reuseable laucher architecture.

At least we may see something get done with Space Rider.
Title: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Star One on 12/02/2019 02:02 pm
I presume this will eventually lead into Ariane 7.
One can hope. SHOULD be 6 but that's a lost argument at this point.

I can’t help feeling that 6 will have a shorter life than 5 as it feels to me like a launcher designed behind the curve of progress.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Jakdowski on 12/02/2019 03:06 pm
Correct me if i am wrong, but my impression is that ArianeSpace has not put any of its own money into any of those reusability studies / prototyping / demonstrator programs, only acted as a contractor under public money funding.

If this trend continues, and i do not see why it would not, they will not move a finger unless ESA orders a reuseable Ariane architecture and pays for it. And in the latest ESA minister conference, there was no indication whatsoever for an accelerated push for a reuseable laucher architecture.

At least we may see something get done with Space Rider.

My bet is that they will create the proposed ArianeNext a new Medium class reusable Launch Vehicle for LEO, with 7 Prometheus Engines, It probably won't be called an Ariane, Most likely they will name it something else maybe Europa 2 Or Something as Ariane 6 will get ICARUS and remain in service longer than necessary so they can develop a larger  heavy Launcher system (New Glenn Size)



Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/02/2019 04:01 pm
Correct me if i am wrong, but my impression is that ArianeSpace has not put any of its own money into any of those reusability studies / prototyping / demonstrator programs, only acted as a contractor under public money funding.

If this trend continues, and i do not see why it would not, they will not move a finger unless ESA orders a reuseable Ariane architecture and pays for it. And in the latest ESA minister conference, there was no indication whatsoever for an accelerated push for a reuseable laucher architecture.

At least we may see something get done with Space Rider.

My bet is that they will create the proposed ArianeNext a new Medium class reusable Launch Vehicle for LEO, with 7 Prometheus Engines, It probably won't be called an Ariane, Most likely they will name it something else maybe Europa 2 Or Something as Ariane 6 will get ICARUS and remain in service longer than necessary so they can develop a larger  heavy Launcher system (New Glenn Size)




This is first not a thread for ArianeNEXT (Ariane 7 and so on). Second the name will not change as long as CNES and Ariane Group are in charge as it is their name, launcher and company even though they have ESA member states support.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Star One on 12/03/2019 11:39 am
Correct me if i am wrong, but my impression is that ArianeSpace has not put any of its own money into any of those reusability studies / prototyping / demonstrator programs, only acted as a contractor under public money funding.

If this trend continues, and i do not see why it would not, they will not move a finger unless ESA orders a reuseable Ariane architecture and pays for it. And in the latest ESA minister conference, there was no indication whatsoever for an accelerated push for a reuseable laucher architecture.

At least we may see something get done with Space Rider.

My bet is that they will create the proposed ArianeNext a new Medium class reusable Launch Vehicle for LEO, with 7 Prometheus Engines, It probably won't be called an Ariane, Most likely they will name it something else maybe Europa 2 Or Something as Ariane 6 will get ICARUS and remain in service longer than necessary so they can develop a larger  heavy Launcher system (New Glenn Size)




This is first not a thread for ArianeNEXT (Ariane 7 and so on). Second the name will not change as long as CNES and Ariane Group are in charge as it is their name, launcher and company even though they have ESA member states support.

If you feel such discussion is not appropriate for this thread you are liberty to create a suitable thread.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Jakdowski on 01/02/2020 08:47 pm
Looks like the Diamant Site is already getting ready
BTW Follow DutchSpace on Twitter, he has great archive and access for all the old Ariane Launchers and inside info if anyone interested

https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/1212760539660730368
https://twitter.com/thivallee/status/1212762719717330944
https://twitter.com/JmAstorg/status/1206593681937055744?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/02/2020 09:29 pm
Ensemble de Lancement Diamant (ELD) to be redesignated Ensemble de Lancement Callisto (ELC) at a later date.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/02/2020 09:47 pm
Sorry but the name of the refurbished Diamond launch site is TBD.
I hope and think Callisto is the first user. I hope the second user will be RETALT (Could have >3 different names)
(https://www.retalt.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/RETALT1_HighRes-e1560435386792.png)
Possibly they might need to create a 1MN thrust level capable sound suppression flame duct.
I'm actually hoping CNES/ESA can build two of those flame ducts roughly at the Diamond launch site.
The second one could be used by another small launcher.

Possibly this might clear up why I'm against Themis, the three engine design is way to big. And having to wait for certification of Prometheus is afaik a problem. If reuse doesn't work, a single Prometheus could be used on the first stage of this micro launcher from the rebuild Diamond launch site.

The more logical site for Callisto would have been the sounding rocket site. [google maps (https://www.google.com/maps/@5.22,-52.735,8896m/data=!3m1!1e3)] That's also still available for future use. But it's close to the city of Kourou, thus higher risk when it's used. 
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mammutti on 06/04/2020 10:41 am
Quote from: ESA
ESA moves ahead on low-cost reusable rocket engine

ESA’s Prometheus is the precursor of ultra-low-cost rocket propulsion that is flexible enough to fit a fleet of new launch vehicles for any mission and will be potentially reusable.

At the Space19+ Council meeting in Seville, Spain last November, ESA received full funding to bring the current Prometheus engine design to a technical maturity suitable for industry. Developed by ArianeGroup, Prometheus is now seen as key in the effort to prepare competitive future European access to space.

By applying a design-to-cost approach to manufacturing Prometheus, ESA aims to lower the cost of production by a factor of ten of the current main stage Ariane 5 Vulcain 2 engine.

Features such as variable thrust, multiple ignitions, suitability for main and upper stage application, and minimised ground operations before and after flight also make Prometheus a highly flexible engine.

This Prometheus precursor runs on liquid oxygen–methane which brings high efficiency, allows standardisation and operational simplicity. Methane propellant is also widely available and easy to handle.

In the short term it is likely that operational engines will benefit from the application of Prometheus technologies.

Upcoming tests overseen by ArianeGroup at the DLR German Aerospace Center’s Lampoldshausen testing facility in Germany will validate the hardware components for the first Prometheus engine test model (M1).

In preparation, the P5 test bench will gain a 250 cubic metre capacity propellant tank for methane. This will allow engineers to efficiently switch test configurations between Prometheus and Ariane 6’s Vulcain 2.1 main stage engine, also in development.

Main subsystems are being manufactured. The first elements built last year benefited from new methods such as additive layer manufacturing (ALM) which speeds up production, achieves fewer parts and greatly reduces costs.

ALM builds a structure layer by layer, which is much quicker and easier than the traditional process of cutting away bulk material. Complex, optimised parts, impossible to manufacture via classical methods, can be created using less material and energy, and in far fewer manufacturing steps.

Components manufactured and now ready to test include the turbo pump’s turbine, pump inlet and gas generator valves. March will see the delivery of the chamber valves and on-board rocket engine computer for engine management and monitoring – the part that makes this a ‘smart’ engine and potentially reusable.

The first combustion chamber model is expected at the end of June while the combustion chamber for M1 will be delivered in December 2020.

Engineers will assemble the M1 full-scale demonstrator at the end of this year for testing on the ground in 2021.

Further Prometheus engines will be built for testing into the future.

Also within ESA’s Future Launchers Preparatory Programme, Arianeworks is currently preparing an in-flight reusable vehicle demonstration called Themis, which will incorporate the Prometheus precursor engine.

Prometheus represents a breakthrough in terms of cost and manufacturing and its robust design is the baseline for future evolutions of Ariane to 2030.

http://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/ESA_moves_ahead_on_low-cost_reusable_rocket_engine
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/05/2020 04:36 pm
twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1268900315128094728

Quote
ESA interest in Methalox and Reusability:

"ESA’s Future Launchers Preparatory Programme, Arianeworks is preparing an in-flight reusable demonstrater called Themis... will incorporate the Prometheus precursor engine.

Prometheus is the baseline for future evolutions of Ariane 6."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1268941050912968704

Quote
Methalox is the right propellant. Should be staged combustion & highly reusable.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Asteroza on 06/08/2020 11:06 pm
Wait a sec, weren't they waiting on JAXA work package data for Themis/Callisto? Are they just pushing ahead with the engine development regardless then?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: gosnold on 06/12/2020 06:22 pm
Wait a sec, weren't they waiting on JAXA work package data for Themis/Callisto? Are they just pushing ahead with the engine development regardless then?
For Callisto yes, the engine is Japanese. AFAIK Prometheus is fully european, and that is what Themis will use.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/12/2020 09:12 pm
What do we know about the engine for Callisto? Just that it's hydrolox, reusable, and made for propulsive landing?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/06/2020 11:05 am
twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1268900315128094728

Quote
ESA interest in Methalox and Reusability:

"ESA’s Future Launchers Preparatory Programme, Arianeworks is preparing an in-flight reusable demonstrater called Themis... will incorporate the Prometheus precursor engine.

Prometheus is the baseline for future evolutions of Ariane 6."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1268941050912968704

Quote
Methalox is the right propellant. Should be staged combustion & highly reusable.

I think the best reply to this is Blue Origins motto; Gradantim Ferociter. (Step by step, ferociously.)

DLR and CNES are working on the test facility upgrades for Prometheus. It will take at least another year.
But possibly the CNES Perseus ARES rocket launch from CSG was in preparation for Calisto.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Jakdowski on 07/29/2020 01:13 pm
PDF: Model-based Robust Transient
Control of Reusable
Liquid-Propellant Rocket
Engines
https://www.theses.fr/2020UPASS017.pdf
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Halken on 08/07/2020 07:31 am
First post here.  :)

I was wondering why it seems as the prometheus engine is not a closed cycle engine. As I understand it, the reason for making the raptor engine closed cycle, that you avoid problems with the seals in the turbine when reusing the engine. So by making it a open cycle with shared shaft, they are inviting a host of problems when they have to reuse it. Have they optimized it more to get under 1m€ over the reuse design criteria?
To me this is kind of strange, as I would have specified designing an engine with the lowest running costs, including refurbishment instead of the up-front cost.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 08/07/2020 08:57 am
First post here.  :)

I was wondering why it seems as the prometheus engine is not a closed cycle engine. As I understand it, the reason for making the raptor engine closed cycle, that you avoid problems with the seals in the turbine when reusing the engine. So by making it a open cycle with shared shaft, they are inviting a host of problems when they have to reuse it. Have they optimized it more to get under 1m€ over the reuse design criteria?
To me this is kind of strange, as I would have specified designing an engine with the lowest running costs, including refurbishment instead of the up-front cost.

That only makes sense if you are reusing a lot of times. If you can make engines so cheap that you can afford to replace them after a couple of reuses, then there's no need for added complexity.

Europe's main experience on 1st stage engines is with the open cycle Vulcain. Europe hasn't developed a staged combustion engine, let alone a methalox one.

The mission brief for Prometheus is a very cheap and versatile engine that can be developed relatively quickly. For Europe it makes sense move incrementally, based on their industrial experience.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Halken on 08/07/2020 09:44 am
I agree with the staged approach. Can the engine be developed at a later stage to have staged combustion? Is staged combustion a necessity for keeping refurbishment costs low? 
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/07/2020 06:33 pm
First post here.  :)

I was wondering why it seems as the prometheus engine is not a closed cycle engine. As I understand it, the reason for making the raptor engine closed cycle, that you avoid problems with the seals in the turbine when reusing the engine.
Welcome to the site.

Raptor is a particular variant of the stage combustion cycle. Running both turbo pumps from either ox rich or fuel rich pre burners still leaves a very tricky sealing issue for the one where oxidizer and fuel are on opposite sides of the bearing.

Quote from: Halken
So by making it a open cycle with shared shaft, they are inviting a host of problems when they have to reuse it.
GG cycle is mostly what Europe knows. Also the chamber pressure is about 1/2 that of an SC engine.  The obvious tactic is to put the fuel pump closest to the GG and the LOX pump after it. This should minimize the risk of a leak from either pump hitting something before it's contents evaporate.
Quote from: Halken
Have they optimized it more to get under 1m€ over the reuse design criteria?
To me this is kind of strange, as I would have specified designing an engine with the lowest running costs, including refurbishment instead of the up-front cost.
It's a fair point.

Interestingly the CNES Reaction Engines collaboration looked at a simple, single use variant for their TSTO concept.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/08/2020 06:56 am
Europe hasn't developed a staged combustion engine, let alone a methalox one.
Incorrect. MBB and DLR worked on SC thrust chambers in the 200bar range in the 1960's.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/08/2020 07:09 am
I agree with the staged approach. Can the engine be developed at a later stage to have staged combustion?
No. Look at the structure of the SSME and compare it to that of any GG engine like Vulcaine, F1, J2 etc.
Quote from: Halken
Is staged combustion a necessity for keeping refurbishment costs low?
Since no one outside of SX has any experience refurbishing rocket stages no one really knows.

It's said GG cycles deposit a lot of soot inside the GG chamber what is difficult to clean out and high thrust chamber temperatures polymerize the fuel in the coolant channels, which degrades heat reduction and encourages tube overheating leading to burn through.

But these are design choices. They are not laws of physics.  :(

Don't want GG coking? Don't use a long chain hydrocarbon fuel IE RP1 to begin with.
Don't want a sticky layer in your thrust chamber cooling channels? Use the oxidizer (which is what is done by all engines that use oxidizers that are not LO2 and was tested by NASA up to 40 000lb in the early 90's).

A full flow SC engine is more tolerant of seal failure between the pump drive turbines and the pump impellers.

A lot of this stuff could be found on the site if the search function was working properly.  :(
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 08/08/2020 07:40 am
Europe hasn't developed a staged combustion engine, let alone a methalox one.
Incorrect. MBB and DLR worked on SC thrust chambers in the 200bar range in the 1960's.

So they haven't actually developed a complete staged combustion engine that can actually be used on a launcher.

Yes, they have done some work on staged combustion. There were test firings a few years ago as part of an FLPP research programme.

The point is thats not enough experience to make a production staged combustion methalox from scratch without risks of long delay or poor performance.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Halken on 08/08/2020 10:41 am
It will be interesting to see. I don't think there is much debate about methane and LOx being the propellant and oxidizer of choice going forward, if we want to reuse.
If I understand it correctly, then seals in the turbine pumps are less of a problem in a full flow engine, because leakage primarily means that the efficiency of the turbine goes down.

I can see that the raptor, which is 2 mN instead of 1,2 has a target price of 2m$, so slightly more expensive pr N, but it also have a target of 50 flights. BOs BE4 is slightly worse at 2,4mN and 8m$ and 25 flights. The real question is if prometheus can keep up with the raptor cost wise over 50 flights, if the raptor also is slightly more efficient. The raptor does seem to be the engine to beat, and I worry that while prometheus is good, it might not be good enough. Too little too late,  if you want to stay in the game. We europeans can move when we want to, but some things take time, and while we're developing these things, the competitions are also moving, and they appear to move faster than us. we don't need to beat them at this game or lead the pack, but if we want to stay relevant in the launch services, we need to 1) catch up and 2) keep up. ULA, SX and BO has changed the game, and one can only hope that the powers that be at Arianespace recognize it for what it is, and is accelerating R&D accordingly. Development and competitions will happens much faster than it has in the past. To catch up and keep up, or not to, is a strategic decision that Arianegroup has to make. As competition grows more fierce, all decisions has to be made on a strict commercial basis.

One thing I wonder about, is that both SW and BO has chosen around 2 mN, while the prometheus is 1,2 mN?

EDIT: I have just read this, and it seems as some gets it. Are there any other interesting reads out there about this?
https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director-of-launchers-talks-reusable-rockets/
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/09/2020 03:54 pm
ULA, SX and BO has changed the game, and one can only hope that the powers that be at Arianespace recognize it for what it is,
Firstly that's mostly SX. BO look like they may "change the game"
As for ULA Vulcan is basically yet another TSTO ELV  :(
Quote from: Halken
and is accelerating R&D accordingly. Development and competitions will happens much faster than it has in the past. To catch up and keep up, or not to, is a strategic decision that Arianegroup has to make. As competition grows more fierce, all decisions has to be made on a strict commercial basis.
Aranespace is no more a commercial company than ULA. Unfortunately it innovates when it's told to innovate.  :(

The actual process is
ESA decides it needs a new LV
CNES designs it. Usually of what was in vogue in the US in the previous 1 or 2 decades. Hermes modeled DynaSoar, Ariane 5 modeled Shuttle, Ariane 6 will model Atlas V.  :(
The design gets handed to industry to build
Arianespace markets it.

As it stands this process results in incremental refinement, not step changes in performance.

We'll see if the next cycle produces anything better.

BTW it would help if you broke up your prose a bit. Walls of text are tough to read.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: libra on 08/09/2020 04:27 pm
Oh great, ye old Diamant launch complex ! Last launch from there was in September 1975. More or less the exact day my parents got married.  8)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: edzieba on 08/12/2020 11:43 am
While FFSC may be the 'best' for a highly re-usable engine, maybe best is the enemy of good enough here: if Ariane Group can get Prometheus into a good-enough and cheap-enough workable state for use in launcher, that beats a theoretically better FFSC engine that may take an extra decade to make its way to production-ready status (and assumes funding for such a high-risk long-term R&D endeavour is forthcoming).
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/13/2020 12:34 pm
Halken welkom on NSF. Sorry I had a laugh because you wrote mN (10^-3) instead of MN (10^6).
(I don't have problems with how you wrote your post.)
I think there is at least an order of magnitude (10x) difference in development budget for Prometheus compared to Raptor or BE-4. Thus Prometheus is far less efficient and advanced.
I think Prometheus and Raptor have roughly the same Nozzle/combustion-chamber size. Prometheus is 1,2MN at ~15MPa, while Raptor is 2MN at 30MPa chamber pressure. If a follow on engine design with the Prometheus nozzle and staged combustion this would also be ~2MN.
I view Prometheus as comparable with a LOxLNG merlin engine, it's for low reuse. (I view a testbed engine as reusable as well, thus Europe has experience with reusable engines.)

Prometheus development is pushed by industry. I think it builds on the work industry did on the Romeo engine.
European govenmnents remember how Arianespace got it's dominant market share. The reusable space shuttle would launch much more affordable than expandable launchers. Thus the US phased out Atlas, Delta and Titan. The Space shuttle reuse didn't work out as planned, and Europe with it's Ariane IV got a dominant launch market share that it still has.
Sorry, but I'm not at all convinced a reusable launcher is the path to go for Europe. Without a much higher (>4x) launch rate the businesscase doesn't work. Let's explain (again).

For a single company with minimal production ascets and centralized production reuse works at low rate. Politically work share is divided in Europe. Italy builds the solids (P120C), France the core (LLPM) and engines, and Germany the upper stage (ULPM). A reusable Ariane Next would diminish the Italian and France work share. At the planned Ariane 6 rate of 11/12 launches annually, and 4x reuse; Germany is happely manufacturing 11/12x ULPM. France only builds 3x LLPM with 21x Prometheus engines and 11/12 upper stage engines. Italy is left supplying parts for the engines and it's Vega work. Both France and Italy won't be happy.
And now I only dealt with the main launcher components. Many smaller member-states will also lose a lot of work = jobs.

I'm in favor of the Prometheus R&D project. But I doubt it will be implemented.
I think the ETID would be a beter engine design base to develop a staged combustion and/or reusable stage.  But that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/14/2020 05:34 am
Arianespace dominated because they were competing against a government bureaucracy (NASA) and traditional US military industrial complex (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) companies. Making that same bet against a visionary led company whose sole purpose is to lower the cost of space flight (SpaceX) is and is going to be highly unlikely to win.

Besides, the future is not companies being both the launch vehicle and launch service provider, but separate companies, one providing reusable launch vehicles and the other launching satellites on those reusable vehicles. This way, a launch vehicle manufacturer has lots of business since they can sell their vehicles to launch service providers all over the world.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 08/14/2020 06:48 am
What's the benefit of splitting those functions? Arianespace sells its launch services all over the world right now.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/14/2020 07:10 am

Besides, the future is not companies being both the launch vehicle and launch service provider, but separate companies, one providing reusable launch vehicles and the other launching satellites on those reusable vehicles. This way, a launch vehicle manufacturer has lots of business since they can sell their vehicles to launch service providers all over the world.
You mean the way every other transportation system on the planet does it?

I'd agree but I'm doubtful of anything that looks anything like an ICBM operating like that.  :(
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/15/2020 09:36 pm
Arianespace is the only company currently only providing launch service. Since 2016 the launchers are designed and produced by ELV/Avio for Vega and Arianegroup for Ariane 5 and 6.
I disagree with the notice that supplying launchers to multiple launch service providers will work. Everyone is assuming launch demand will grow a lot. But that might happen, it just as well can not happen. If the launch demand doesn't grow, the demand is spit over more launch service providers. The launcher manufacture still has to build the same amount of launchers.
This won't work for all parties concerned. The size of the pie has to grow a lot.
The main difference of opinion is that I doubt launch demand will increase very much while most assume launch demand will increase a lot. I doubt LEO comsats are viable, HAPS are a beter alternative in my opinion.
This is why I think a reusable small satellite launcher is a beter option to develop a reusable first stage (smaller Themis). This is where RFA, PLD space, ISAR aerospace and others are working towards. Preferably there is some commonality between Vega-E/Myra engine and the smaller reusable launcher.
Sorry, but I fear a load of money is going to be wasted on to many different launchers. European demand hardly justifies one <200kg launcher and a >500kg launcher, besides Vega and Ariane 6. Especially when the later are providing rideshare launch services. Ariane 6 might get into the odd situation of launch demand being lower than supply. That will be a new situation for Arianespace. This is because Ariane 6 can launch a double the rate of Ariane 5. A reusable Ariane Next won't work unless launch demand quadruples (4x) to >20/y.
That's how I (realistically and pessimistically) view the situation.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/18/2020 07:40 am
I disagree with the notice that supplying launchers to multiple launch service providers will work. Everyone is assuming launch demand will grow a lot.
Actually most are not.

They are assuming BAU and the mfg is the operator. YATSTO.

Treating launch like every other transportation system on the planet requires a fully reusable LV with a high life time that can be operated like a transport system. A heavy truck, a ferry, an airliner, a cargo plane.

Who buys it decides when they launch and if they will launch. They may want to offer Launch as a Service but then again they may just want that capability as an organizational asset. Launching when and at what time they choose, not at the pleasure of their LV mfg (which is essentially how all launch is conducted now).

It's time for ESA, their government members, and Arianespace to consider their relationship with each other.
IOW Full employment in the European aerospace industry is not their direct problem. Lowering cost of access to space (and hence making taxpayers money go further, as well as stimulating multiple new possible applications) is.

IMHO the commercial case for a properly designed even partially reusable launch vehicle has already  been proved.  If the numbers coming from Musk and SX are half way accurate reuse adds 10s of $m of profit to their bottom line for each launch, as anyone with a spreadsheet can work out for themselves.

If Rocket Lab also demonstrate recovery and reuse that pattern will be replicated at 1/100 the size as well.

A new fully ELV makes no sense unless you have other motives for its development, such as solids development for an ICBM programme.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: edzieba on 08/18/2020 12:27 pm
A lot of transportation is moving in the other direction: rather than buying your car/train/plane, you lease it along with a service contract. You still get to use it how you want when you want, but without all the hassle of having a standing army of support personnel and infrastructure to maintain yourself regardless of use rate. This is even being applied to individual components, e.g. aircraft engines: rather than buying a single turbine engine and maintaining it yourself, you buy an 'engine capacity' and pay for it while you are using it, and the engine manufacturer deals with monitoring it, maintaining it, and getting you a replacement if needed https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rolls-royce-jet-propulsion-as-a-service-kristofer-hunt (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rolls-royce-jet-propulsion-as-a-service-kristofer-hunt).
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Halken on 08/18/2020 05:17 pm
I know that the existing model has served EU well. But that was also when othe competitors was other primarily state entities.
I am convinced that BO, SX, RL are changing the paradigm, as they are private enterprises that are making money from launching stuff into space. For the EU effort (not gonna spell out the different actors her), the commercial launches are a way to make the EU launch service cheaper to maintain. The capability being of strategic importance to have in Europe. EU has been quite successful in providing these launches at competitive prices and have a dominant marked share. While NASA don't much care for that and did not work hard to increase innovation, reduce cost and gain market share, its entirely different for those who have replaced it in the LS market. Companies are innovating much much faster in a bid to increase market share. This is also what we have seen. Its not only their present position, but just as much their rate of development.

I'm not convinced that the EU effort is organized in such a way that it can compete with the new comers. While it gets R&D funded at some rate, it too slow and cumbersome, and too many national interests can prevent that the most competitive solutions are chosen. If reusing rockets are not an options due to jobs, and this prevents the cost reduction, then they may find their market share of the commercial market diminishing, and then in the end there is only the lunches for governments in EU to pay for it, and the the price also goes up as the launches goes down together with the jobs associated with building the rockets.

I do believe that we in EU has to have the capability to launch stuff into space and we need a European champion in this market like Airbus is in the market for planes. But to get there, we need to make a integrated European company that does that - that develop and manufacture LVs and provide the LS, and that can make decisions on a commercial basis, innovate freely. Merge the necessary functions into Arianespace and have it compete with SX, BO, RL etc on a more commercial basis as a integrated launch provider, while freeing it from requirements to use special solid boosters. The EU governments can still provide funds, but the governance has to change and the framework. Only then can we continue to have a European champion in the LS market, and ensure we maintain this strategic ability, in a way that can compete in the new market paradigm created by SX et al.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/18/2020 10:46 pm
May I give the moderators a suggestion.
This topic is morphing more into 'how ESA/Europe gets toward reusable rocket technology'. I think also including the 'Themis' topic in here might prevent duplication of a discussion. If this is done, possibly also include 'RETALT'.

Prometheus is a new engine development. Callisto and Themis are reusable first stage demonstrators, RETALT is AFAIK mainly software development. So actually it's odd Prometheus and Callisto are in the same topic. (just my opinion) AFAIK in R&D project execution, there is alignment between Prometheus and Themis.

Many things happening in Europe aren't posted here, because of the negative attitude of many NSF members.
Another reason for not posting here is protecting technologies (developments) and competitive advantage.
I think ESA/European launch industry is developing reusable launch tech as fast as they can, with the conditions they have to work with. If the launch demand really picks up, a reusable stage is developed. Currently the demand doesn't justify the development. 
Prometheus will provide cheaper engine technology. That can also be implemented back in Ariane 6 (Vulcain 2) improvements.

Sorry I refuse to discuss Arianespace launch offering here, because:
1) I think it's off topic.
2) It's duplication of the Ariane 6 discussion topic.
3) The discussion will be predictable, with the outcome that I don't enjoy NSF.
Please keep this topic positive and about launcher R&D work done in Europe/ESA.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/18/2020 11:16 pm
Please keep this topic positive and about launcher R&D work done in Europe/ESA.

We would be doing an enormous disservice to Europe to limit the viewpoints expressed to those that agree with everything currently being done.  You never get innovation if you never hear anything negative about the status quo.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/19/2020 06:13 am
A lot of transportation is moving in the other direction: rather than buying your car/train/plane, you lease it along with a service contract.
What you're missing is at that point those vehicles cease to be assets and become costs to support.

As an asset you can  a) Go to a lender with a business case based on your modelling of the market and seek to raise funding to buy them or b)If you have other businesses that generate revenue raise funding to buy it based on them meeting your payments regardless of how many launches the vehicle makes. c) If organizational needs change you can sell it and recover a portion of your costs.

None of which works if it's just leased. That's just the BAU model of ELV operations with all they issues it inherits about control and independence. Those issues are very important in this market in a way that simply does not exist in other transportation systems.

Pooled servicing facilities (or servicing offered by the mfg as a separate company, not connected with actual launches) is separate model.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/19/2020 06:28 am
I know that the existing model has served EU well. But that was also when othe competitors was other primarily state entities.
True.
Quote from: Halken
I'm not convinced that the EU effort is organized in such a way that it can compete with the new comers. While it gets R&D funded at some rate, it too slow and cumbersome, and too many national interests can prevent that the most competitive solutions are chosen.
True.
Quote from: Halken
If reusing rockets are not an options due to jobs, and this prevents the cost reduction, then they may find their market share of the commercial market diminishing, and then in the end there is only the lunches for governments in EU to pay for it, and the the price also goes up as the launches goes down together with the jobs associated with building the rockets.
Correct and completely predictable. Arianspace becomes ULA, with a slightly lower, or higher, success rate but no one can afford to use them.  :(
Quote from: Halken
I do believe that we in EU has to have the capability to launch stuff into space and we need a European champion in this market like Airbus is in the market for planes.
Airbus doe not operate airlines. Siemens does not run rail services. Renault does not operate a trucking line.

Do you see a pattern here?
Quote from: Halken
But to get there, we need to make a integrated European company that does that - that develop and manufacture LVs and provide the LS,
And so the market remains the fragmented, impossible to get economies scale, thing it is already.

Quote from: Halken
and that can make decisions on a commercial basis, innovate freely. Merge the necessary functions into Arianespace and have it compete with SX, BO, RL etc on a more commercial basis as a integrated launch provider, while freeing it from requirements to use special solid boosters. The EU governments can still provide funds, but the governance has to change and the framework. Only then can we continue to have a European champion in the LS market, and ensure we maintain this strategic ability, in a way that can compete in the new market paradigm created by SX et al.
Or shift from being an implementor of designs that are basically handed to it and become a true developer of a design that can be sold to multiple operators (or even individual nations if they feel the need for truly independent access). when they want, to what orbit they want.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/19/2020 07:36 am
So roughly speaking...

Calisto and Prometheus are parallel development projects for RTLS landing tech and reusable Vulcaine II size main engine. But Calisto is way too small to carry a full size Prometheus.

Themis is more akin to a prototype Ariane Next stage which can carry the full size Prometheus engine.

Do I have the picture about right?

Such a pity there does not seem any mechanism for Arianespace to take requests for flight requests after stage use to gain additional information.  :( Obviously that would also require software change processes and telementry flow to continue after separation, and I'm not sure that even happens.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Halken on 08/19/2020 08:58 am

Quote from: Halken
I do believe that we in EU has to have the capability to launch stuff into space and we need a European champion in this market like Airbus is in the market for planes.
Airbus doe not operate airlines. Siemens does not run rail services. Renault does not operate a trucking line.

Launching stuff into orbit is a one stop shop and hence different. I can see no commercial justification for have companies that construct and build rockets and other companies that launch them. You would want to capture as much of the value generated by your product as possible. Space X is not selling rockets for others to launch. They selling "launching stuff into orbit". Not rockets and not launching others rockets into space.

Quote
Or shift from being an implementor of designs that are basically handed to it and become a true developer of a design that can be sold to multiple operators (or even individual nations if they feel the need for truly independent access). when they want, to what orbit they want.

They correctly have to become the true developer of LVs and LS and make a product road map that is commercially feasible.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/19/2020 02:00 pm
So roughly speaking...

Calisto and Prometheus are parallel development projects for RTLS landing tech and reusable Vulcaine II size main engine. But Calisto is way too small to carry a full size Prometheus.

Themis is more akin to a prototype Ariane Next stage which can carry the full size Prometheus engine.

Do I have the picture about right? ...
Precisely how I view it as well. (Vulcain 2 being >100mT thrust />1000kN

I share the opinion that Europe is technically behind in launcher tech development. I think this can't be corrected because of the much lower funding levels available. Besides the environmental regulations are much stricter in Europe than in the US, this prohibits fast technology development. I think only a startup will be agile enough to approach development speeds in the US. But SpaceX working conditions wouldn't be allowed in Europe. That's just how it is.

Only the US has one reusable launcher and another is developed. At the same time there are three expendable launchers being developed. Japan, China and Russia also work on new expendable launchers. So ELV remains the status quo.
AFAIK, TRL level of reusability technologie has to increase before implementation gets to acceptable risks. This is what is happening (Callisto, Prometheus, ...) at the same time as development of Ariane 6. The urgency of improving the flexibility of European launchers, to guarantee  independent acces to space, was to high to wait longer. I think most investments done for Ariane 6 can be reused if a reusable launcher is developed.

But Ariane 6 and European launcher offering can better be discussed in the Ariane 6 discussion topic. This prevents duplication of the discussion. I would like this topic to be about the technologies being developed in Europe.

Sidenote; I'm actually hoping ArianeGroup will do Pro/Met/H(LOx) Experimental Universal Systems (engine), as Prometheus.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/19/2020 02:03 pm
Launching stuff into orbit is a one stop shop and hence different. 

And as long as they look like an ICBM it never change.

But there are other options, some of them are European.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/19/2020 02:05 pm
Only the US has one reusable launcher and another is developed. At the same time there are three expendable launchers being developed.

Aren't three reusable launchers being developed in the US?  Starship, New Glenn, Electron.  Or are you making a distinction with regard to New Glenn and Electron?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Halken on 08/19/2020 07:37 pm
Elon writes on twitter:
Payload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1295734479814684672

Even the raptor engine is developed to be easier than the merlin to be cleaned.

I think A6 will have a short life, unless it can be merged into something, where reusability can start to be tested.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/20/2020 07:42 am
Precisely how I view it as well. (Vulcain 2 being >100mT thrust />1000kN
Thanks for the confirmation. Which leaves the question of what they are using for an engine for Calisto if it's LH2/LO2.
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan
Besides the environmental regulations are much stricter in Europe than in the US, this prohibits fast technology development. I think only a startup will be agile enough to approach development speeds in the US. But SpaceX working conditions wouldn't be allowed in Europe. That's just how it is.
Sorry but this is just nonsense.   :( The French Diamant launchers used UDMN/NTO for the booster and the solids for the US. Those are very nasty materials to have around. No one in their right mind would chose that combination for a commercial launcher today.

And citing the EU Working Hours Directive as a reason why European companies can't compete with SX? Are you kidding me?

Quote from: Rik ISS-fan
Only the US has one reusable launcher and another is developed. At the same time there are three expendable launchers being developed. Japan, China and Russia also work on new expendable launchers. So ELV remains the status quo.
Perhaps because they are the Nth generation of their respective designs and ELV designers are historically terrified of change.  :(
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan
AFAIK, TRL level of reusability technologie has to increase before implementation gets to acceptable risks. This is what is happening (Callisto, Prometheus, ...) at the same time as development of Ariane 6. The urgency of improving the flexibility of European launchers, to guarantee  independent acces to space, was to high to wait longer. I think most investments done for Ariane 6 can be reused if a reusable launcher is developed.
Only if you insist on doing everything as a one-of-a-kind cannot-possibly-fail test. That mindset fosters endless CFD and FEA runs and still can result in failures anyway. Over a long enough baseline failure is inevitable.  It's how you handle it that determines ultimate winners from losers.
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan
But Ariane 6 and European launcher offering can better be discussed in the Ariane 6 discussion topic. This prevents duplication of the discussion. I would like this topic to be about the technologies being developed in Europe.
Agreed. But Europe is not like the US.
Arianespace is the European launcher provider. It should be cooperating with the people tasked with designing the next generation (which they are going to operate and build) of Ariane's.  SX saved a huge amount of time and money by running flight experiments on boosters after they had separated and before hopper was built.

Without that data Calisto will start a long way behind.  Themis has an even stronger case for having Ariancespace in co-operating with the design team up to conducting flight experiments, even possible hardware mods.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/20/2020 09:29 am
Callisto is propelled by a 40kN LOx/LH2 engine provided by JAXA (Japan). Callisto is a shared project from CNES. DLR and JAXA. It's like the SpaceX Grasshopper/ F9R Dev1 or BO Goddard / New Shepard. It's a VTVL reusable demonstrator that should be able to reach 30-40km and than return to the ground.

Prometheus is the new 1000-1200kN LOxLNG GG engine development lead by Arianegroup.
Themis is a proposal from ArianeWorks (ArianeGroup) for a follow on reentry demonstrator that uses Prometheus engines. (All this info is discussed earlier in this topic).

Possibly it's interesting to look back at how SpaceX developed their reusable F9 first stage. Where the Grasshopper and/or F9R Dev1 at the same time as the first stage post launch mission tests. Or were they performed earlier or later?

I think reentry tests using Ariane 5 won't work. Possibly some tests can be done, but they can't test boost phases. Vuclain2 isn't restartable, because it uses pyrotechnic igniters.
I'm refusing to discuss European launcher strategy here. Let's use the Ariane6 discussion topic for that, or make a new topic. And I've warned, I'll not share new updates for a month. :-X
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/20/2020 01:40 pm
Callisto is propelled by a 40kN LOx/LH2 engine provided by JAXA (Japan). Callisto is a shared project from CNES. DLR and JAXA. It's like the SpaceX Grasshopper/ F9R Dev1 or BO Goddard / New Shepard. It's a VTVL reusable demonstrator that should be able to reach 30-40km and than return to the ground.
I wondered what the engine was.

Quote from: Rik ISS-fan
Possibly it's interesting to look back at how SpaceX developed their reusable F9 first stage. Where the Grasshopper and/or F9R Dev1 at the same time as the first stage post launch mission tests. Or were they performed earlier or later?
AFAIK SX were performing tests after every booster separation.  They guided F9 upgrades then eventually the grasshopper drove further upgrades.

Quote from: Rik ISS-fan
I think reentry tests using Ariane 5 won't work. Possibly some tests can be done, but they can't test boost phases. Vuclain2 isn't restartable, because it uses pyrotechnic igniters.
so does Merlin. It's not the choice, it's how it's implemented that matters.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: edzieba on 08/20/2020 06:15 pm
AFAIK SX were performing tests after every booster separation.  They guided F9 upgrades then eventually the grasshopper drove further upgrades.
I was curious, so I made a little chart.

Ignoring the parachute attempts there were:
- 7 grasshopper flights up to a 100m hop-and-divert.
- First F9 v1.1 retropropulsion and ocean landing attempt (impacted at speed). CASSIOPE, NASA collaborated to observe supersonic retroproplusion for this flight
- A final Grasshopper flight and the first F9R flight
- First ocean landing test with legs, no grid fins
- Two F9R flights, first grid-fin flight test
- Ocean landing test with legs, no grid fins
- Successful F9R test, then F9R loss
- Failed ocean landing
- Failed droneship landing, first F9 with gridfins
- Successful ocean landing
- Failed droneship landing
- Successful LZ-1 landing.

Note: no F9 v1.0 flights attempted propulsive recovery. Grasshopper program completed and replaced by F9R before first successful ocean soft landing. Legs and grid-find tested on F9R prior to fitting to F9. Two years between last F9R flight and first successful landing.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/21/2020 06:12 am
AFAIK SX were performing tests after every booster separation.  They guided F9 upgrades then eventually the grasshopper drove further upgrades.
I was curious, so I made a little chart.
Most instructive.

What's not known was how much data SX were taking on every launch.

In the context of this thread that would be Arianespace providing the Calisto designers with that data in order to better scope the design.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Halken on 08/21/2020 09:45 pm
Regarding prometheus, they may be missing out on some reuse-ability, but maybe that has already been covered? As far I understand the full flow staged combustion has esp two advantages, one is seals in the pumps are less of a concern, so easier turn around there for the engine. There was also an efficiency increase, but I can find the number I saw yesterday on a discussion on twitter, but I believe it was something like 2x%. Does that seem right?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Jakdowski on 08/21/2020 10:05 pm
https://callisto.cnes.fr/fr/lanceurs-callisto-sur-la-piste-de-diamant

The Former Diamant Launch Complex
(https://callisto.cnes.fr/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/drupal/202007/image/is_lanceurs_callisto_diamant.jpg?itok=IzFjcrGk)

Callisto and Themis launch site that will pretty much demolish all of the Old Diamant structure, One of the Early Themis test flights though will take place in Sweden

(In this image the site is reversed the launch site will be where the Assembly tower is in image 1
(https://callisto.cnes.fr/sites/default/files/drupal/202007/image/is_lanceurs_callisto_site3d.jpg)

Image from a sentinel satellite shows the work done, this is an old image though if someone get a new one for me i have no idea how to use Sentinel Hub (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeF4cNaXYAATQrM?format=png&name=medium)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Halken on 08/30/2020 04:17 pm
I have made a new tread to discuss the EU space strategy in general.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51835.msg2126091#msg2126091
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Closer to Space on 01/12/2021 02:14 pm
The French President has just announced an investment of 15 million euros in the Prometheus program to accelerate the project by one year.

https://twitter.com/Elysee/status/1348976537262043137
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: jpo234 on 01/12/2021 06:06 pm
The French President has just announced an investment of 15 million euros in the Prometheus program to accelerate the project by one year.

https://twitter.com/Elysee/status/1348976537262043137
https://twitter.com/JmAstorg/status/1348998066351857671
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/13/2021 08:36 am
If my interpretation is correct the 15mln is for the following:
At the Vernon engine test (/product qualification) site, ArianeGroup is going to test a LOxLH2 version of components of Prometheus in 2021.

I wonder how similar this is to the Vulcan 2.2 or 2.3 rocket engines proposed in the past?
The LOxCH4 version will most likely still be tested at the Lampoldshausen test site.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Borgias on 01/13/2021 09:53 am
If my interpretation is correct the 15mln is for the following:
At the Vernon engine test (/product qualification) site, ArianeGroup is going to test a LOxLH2 version of Prometheus in 2021.

I wonder how similar this is to the Vulcan 2.2 or 2.3 rocket engines proposed in the past?
The LOxCH4 version will most likely still be tested at the Lampoldshausen test site.

Hi,

No, there is 15mln for accelerating Prometheus development and 15mln for transferring hydrogen technology expertise. He doesn’t specify to who. He doesn’t talk of LOxLH2 version of Prometheus.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/13/2021 03:33 pm
Here is a machine translated and captioned video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKAKdZxVJuw
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: gosnold on 01/13/2021 08:18 pm
15 Million € is really cheap to bring Europe's only chance to compete with Starship forward by one year. It's a shame it was not already funded, but hopefully it will also accelerate the Themis timetable. With the way things are going, Themis might fly almost at the same time as Ariane 6.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/16/2021 10:30 pm
Arianegroup article: ARIANEGROUP AND CNES SIGN AGREEMENT ON PROMETHEUS TESTING (https://www.ariane.group/en/news/arianegroup-and-cnes-sign-agreement-on-prometheus-testing/)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/18/2021 05:20 am
New ESA contracts to advance Prometheus and Phoebus projects
17-05-2021 11:00 AM CEST

ESA is forging ahead with advanced developments in two flagship space transportation demonstration projects, Prometheus and Phoebus. This will benefit Europe’s new Ariane 6 launcher in the near-term, and prepare for a new generation of European launch vehicles in the next decade.

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/New_ESA_contracts_to_advance_Prometheus_and_Phoebus_projects
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Fabien on 08/01/2021 08:39 am
The first testing site for Prometheus Engine, at Vernom, FR, is getting ready for the 10 to 15 first firings of the engine prototype, in december 2021.


https://spacegate.cnes.fr/fr/quezako-prometheus-allumez-le-feu (https://spacegate.cnes.fr/fr/quezako-prometheus-allumez-le-feu)
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: DT1 on 09/05/2021 03:59 pm
DLR Lam­pold­shausen pre­pares P5 test stand for the tech­nolo­gies of the fu­ture

https://www.dlr.de/content/en/articles/news/2021/03/20210831_flexible-test-infrastructure-for-space-propulsion-systems.html

The German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt; DLR) is preparing a central component of its extensive test infrastructure for the future by expanding the European Space Agency (ESA) P5 large-scale test stand at the DLR site in Lampoldshausen. This means that the next generation of space propulsion systems can also be tested under flexible and reliable conditions.

The 65-metre-high building of ESA's P5 test stand towers over the DLR site. Inside, it has housed unique high-tech equipment since it was commissioned in 1990. It has long since earned international recognition and it played a central role in the development of the Vulcain engines for the European launch vehicles Ariane 5 and 6. Recently, DLR engineers used it to qualify Ariane 6's advanced Vulcain 2.1 main stage engine for flight.

Ready for new propellant combinations – including methane

A DLR team is now preparing ESA’s P5 test stand for its new task. The installation of a methane tank was an important milestone during the extensive construction work. The tank is 20 metres high, has a diameter of 4.6 metres and holds approximately 208 cubic metres of liquid methane. From 2022 onwards, a completely new generation of propulsion systems, developed and manufactured by ArianeGroup, will be tested on the P5 stand – starting with the Prometheus engine. This will be a fundamental component of a future European launcher. The propellants used are liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid methane (LCH4). The combination of several Prometheus engines in the first stage will deliver sufficient thrust to allow the previously used solid-fuel boosters to be dispensed with.

Focusing on the future – flexible and efficient testing, including the new generations of propulsion systems

After upgrading and enhancement, ESA's P5 large-scale test stand will be one of the most modern and flexible test facilities of its kind. "The installation of the methane tank is an important step in this process. I am excited to see this strategically important European test infrastructure complete and ready for testing as soon as possible," said Stefan Schlechtriem, Director of the DLR Institute of Space Propulsion. The upgraded and enhanced test stand will make it possible to test several propellant combinations and switch between them quickly. Tests will be able to be carried out with the traditional combination of liquid oxygen and hydrogen as well as with the combination of liquid oxygen and methane. "This will allow us to expand our testing capabilities and maintain flexible use of the test stands," explained Schlechtriem. In this way, DLR is supporting the rapid and smooth transition to propellants for the next generation of launchers.

Space propulsion of tomorrow – more variety, new fuels and technologies

Every launch vehicle requires powerful and reliable engines. For a future European launch vehicle, this will be the Prometheus engine. It is intended to be reusable and its production costs should drop significantly in the long term. To achieve this, the development teams are relying on innovative approaches, which include 3D printing processes, digital engine control with artificial intelligence and the aforementioned new propellant combination. Investment in the development of the Prometheus engine will ensure safe and cost-effective European access to space in the future, especially after Ariane 6 reaches the end of its operational lifetime.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: libra on 09/05/2021 05:01 pm
Pretty interesting to think they will reuse that old Diamant complex abandonned since, what, September 1975 ? a bit sad the old place had to be razed to the ground, but c'est la vie
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: libra on 09/07/2021 10:28 am
Capcomespace is a very good website with plenty of CNES / ESA history details not found elsewhere.

Including Diamant launch complex fate between 1976 and 2016... when it found a new use.

http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/espace_francais/diamant_CSG.htm

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capcomespace.net%2Fdossiers%2Fespace_europeen%2Fespace_francais%2Fdiamant_CSG.htm
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/27/2022 04:19 pm
Pretty interesting to think they will reuse that old Diamant complex abandonned since, what, September 1975 ? a bit sad the old place had to be razed to the ground, but c'est la vie.
If I'm not mistaken, was the diamond mobile launch tower no longer structurally safe. So it had to be demolished.
AFAIK they did they only demolish the launch stool, the mobile launch tower and the mobile airlock. All other buildings have been left in place and will be repurposed.

CNES was earlier this year actively seeking other potential small/micro launcher users for the diamond and possibly adjacent new launch facilities. parabolicarc.com (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2022/02/07/cnes-mobilizes-for-micro-and-mini-launchers/)
I hope they will conclude that additional facilities require a flame-duct, not just a flat pad. We shall see.
First user of the facilities this year is Callisto, or have serious setbacks occurred on the development of Callisto?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/08/2022 12:38 am
Found this presentation and video of CALLISTO. First launch now planned for 2024.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAJ6cwDEme8
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Hauerg on 10/22/2022 07:00 am
Found this presentation and video of CALLISTO. First launch now planned for 2024.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAJ6cwDEme8
So first flight at a time when SpaceX will have done >200 operational landings.
respect.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 on 10/22/2022 08:52 am
Found this presentation and video of CALLISTO. First launch now planned for 2024.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAJ6cwDEme8
So first flight at a time when SpaceX will have done >200 operational landings.
respect.

Yeah, that's what you get when you don't take your competition serious for like a full decade or so. Now, ESA and CNES are lagging behind big time. This Callisto thing is equivalent to the trial landings that SpaceX performed in the 2014 - 2016 time frame.
And I hope ESA and CNES are smart enough to build several Callisto vehicles, because odds are they will lose a few during the initial attempts.

Still: better extremely late than never.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/22/2022 08:13 pm
So also Callisto is over two years late.
What has caused this delay?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/22/2022 09:15 pm
So also Callisto is over two years late.
What has caused this delay?
Rocket time and covid.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/23/2022 07:17 am
Found this presentation and video of CALLISTO. First launch now planned for 2024.

Thanks for both the video and the PDF. Someone's been getting some serious Blender action judging by that vid. :)

Also read this pdf from 2018. Not sure if it's already been posted before. So they are looking to do throttle down to 40% in LO2/LH2 propellants, which by European standards is quite bold.

But it is difficult to escape the feeling that this is Grasshopper, 8 years later.  :(

I do wish the French Europeans would consider the idea that an architecture whose key requirement is "Can operate on Mars" might not be the best approach if you only want to operate on (and from) Earth.  :(

IOW Stop pursuing somone else's vision of the future and pursue their own. What does Europe need in terms of mass and  orbits and delta V? Then figure out what's the cheapest option with the lowest recurring costs are. Musk knows what the sunk cost fallacy means. It's time Europe started to recognise that if you do what you always did you get what you always got.  :(
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/23/2022 09:19 am
How I reed the presentation, flights of Callisto will not start before 2025.
The rocket engine for Callisto is supplied by JAXA. Callisto is a joint project between CNES (France), DLR (Germany) and JAXA (Japan).
I think Europe isn't even at the point of setting requirements for a system. The technology just isn't developed.
And with projects going as slowly as Callisto, it takes decades before the technology is ready.

I think Europe needs to develop propulsive landing for:
1) Stage recovery options
2) Lunar lander (robotic)
3) Martian lander. (robotic)
Isn't thrust regulation with a simple pressure feed engine much easier than with a pumpfeed engine!?

I agree with the statement:
It's time Europe started to recognize that if you do what you always did you get what you always got.  :(
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 10/23/2022 11:03 am
But it is difficult to escape the feeling that this is Grasshopper, 8 years later.  :(

I do wish the French Europeans would consider the idea that an architecture whose key requirement is "Can operate on Mars" might not be the best approach if you only want to operate on (and from) Earth.  :(

IOW Stop pursuing somone else's vision of the future and pursue their own. What does Europe need in terms of mass and  orbits and delta V? Then figure out what's the cheapest option with the lowest recurring costs are. Musk knows what the sunk cost fallacy means. It's time Europe started to recognise that if you do what you always did you get what you always got.  :(

Europe has a long history of investigating reusable launchers. As far back as the 1960s, European industry was doing trade studies on aerospaceplanes and reusable rocket stages. These always stranded on the enormous development cost of an aerospaceplane.
At several points in its history, Arianespace looked into making parts of the Ariane rockets reusable, looking for the 'cheapest option with the lowest recurring costs'. Each time, it turned out not to be cheaper to reuse the first stage, with the launch frequency they had at the time. Specifically: most of the cost in building these stages is having a factory that can build them, with trained personnel. Having that factory crank out one or 12 rockets per year didn't make much of a difference.


I don't see how investigating propulsive landing leads to an architecture that's optimized for Mars. Elon showed that propulsive landing is a suitable strategy on Earth. Going to methane was also a decision that makes sense on Earth because the cleaner-burning fuel makes it easier to reuse the engines.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: libra on 10/23/2022 11:14 am
Some of these studies.

"Aerospace transporter" studies - 1960's, with the still existing "Eurospace" consortia to manage them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurospace

VERA (1966-1971) Hermes (1977 - 1992) ERNO Bumerang (1972).

"Recoverable Ariane 1 stage" - with parachutes and an ocean splashdown. Tested on the very last Ariane 1 that launched Giotto to comet Halley in July 1985 - did not worked too well.

Ariane 5 flyback core - 1982-85 studies before Ariane 5P design was frozen.

Ariane 5 SRB recovery - tested in October 1997, flight 502. Not very successfull, not renewed.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Asteroza on 10/23/2022 10:53 pm
How I reed the presentation, flights of Callisto will not start before 2025.
The rocket engine for Callisto is supplied by JAXA. Callisto is a joint project between CNES (France), DLR (Germany) and JAXA (Japan).
I think Europe isn't even at the point of setting requirements for a system. The technology just isn't developed.
And with projects going as slowly as Callisto, it takes decades before the technology is ready.

I think Europe needs to develop propulsive landing for:
1) Stage recovery options
2) Lunar lander (robotic)
3) Martian lander. (robotic)
Isn't thrust regulation with a simple pressure feed engine much easier than with a pumpfeed engine!?

I agree with the statement:
It's time Europe started to recognize that if you do what you always did you get what you always got.  :(

Callisto is somewhat dependent on JAXA RVT work completion (allegedly), and that's been going at a snails pace due to COVID. If anything, it's up to ESA to light a fire under JAXA.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: edzieba on 10/24/2022 04:30 pm
IOW Stop pursuing somone else's vision of the future and pursue their own. What does Europe need in terms of mass and  orbits and delta V? Then figure out what's the cheapest option with the lowest recurring costs are. Musk knows what the sunk cost fallacy means. It's time Europe started to recognise that if you do what you always did you get what you always got.  :(
Well, if you look purely at what Europe actually needs in terms of number of payloads, payload masses, and target orbits, and develop a launch system optimised for that... you get Ariane 6.
The chief problem is the low flight rate: If you are only launching a few times a year, but re-using your vehicles, then you may only be building a vehicle once every few years. So either you pay a bunch of people to sit around not making rockets for years at a time (and have a bunch of production hardware sitting idle), pay even more for them to build rockets you don't need just to keep them from getting out of practice (in the hope the launch market expands to meet supply, which has mostly failed to happen*), fire everyone and hope you are able to re-hire them all in a few years time when you really need another vehicle built.

* Outside of internally generated launch demand, that is. Which is one reason why the European SBSP proposal offers an avenue to re-usable launch, as does a European megaconstellation. Both offer a demand of flight rate sufficient to tip the balance in favour of reusable vehicles.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mamut on 10/30/2022 10:58 pm
I went throuh the pdf. They say first Callisto launch not before 2024 2025. What's the point of having Callisto in the first lace, if we have Themis already, which does same thing. And Themis also is at simillar stage of development.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/31/2022 01:24 am
I went throuh the pdf. They say first Callisto launch not before 2024 2025. What's the point of having Callisto in the first lace, if we have Themis already, which does same thing. And Themis also is at simillar stage of development.
Scrapping the Callisto program means that you have to cut the workforce in certain regions. The way the game is play, institutional inertia is hard to stop or change.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Space Lizard 2 on 10/31/2022 10:17 am
If anything, it's up to ESA to light a fire under JAXA.
Callisto is not an ESA project.

It was first a Cnes thing to develop know-how on reusability and be in a better position to negociate contributions within ESA's FLPP.

Jaxa was brought in because they had an engine.

DLR later plugged in because they did not want the French to be ahead on reusability within FLPP.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/31/2022 09:00 pm
With the slow phase Arianegroup is working at, might launch by 2030. The Prometheus engine afaik has not been tested jet. They require several thousand seconds of engines tests before prometheus is certified to be used on Themis.
After engine certification Themis develoment takes several years. That's why Themis is a waist of taxpayer money.
In my opinion even callisto is to large and complex to test stage recovery methodes.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/04/2022 05:38 am
Well, if you look purely at what Europe actually needs in terms of number of payloads, payload masses, and target orbits, and develop a launch system optimised for that... you get Ariane 6.
The chief problem is the low flight rate: If you are only launching a few times a year, but re-using your vehicles, then you may only be building a vehicle once every few years. So either you pay a bunch of people to sit around not making rockets for years at a time (and have a bunch of production hardware sitting idle), pay even more for them to build rockets you don't need just to keep them from getting out of practice (in the hope the launch market expands to meet supply, which has mostly failed to happen*), fire everyone and hope you are able to re-hire them all in a few years time when you really need another vehicle built.

* Outside of internally generated launch demand, that is. Which is one reason why the European SBSP proposal offers an avenue to re-usable launch, as does a European megaconstellation. Both offer a demand of flight rate sufficient to tip the balance in favour of reusable vehicles.
That's certainly what the French head of Ariane Group thinks.

Except that' seems like you are both thinking that they would magically transition to full reusability and only need to produce a new one to replace launch failures.

But F9 is a semi reusable system. It's S2 is always thrown away and will always need a team to mfg one for every launch, and S1 and S2 have common propellants.

Those French fears only happen if you insist on strapons, S1 and S2 having different propellants.

Commit to a CH4 in both, or LH2 in both and you can maintain supply chain continuity indefinity.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/18/2022 03:14 pm
https://twitter.com/esa_sts/status/1593626819562987523

Quote
First ignition for @ESA’s low-cost, reusable rocket engine #Prometheus esa.int/Enabling_Suppo…

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/First_ignition_for_ESA_s_low-cost_reusable_rocket_engine

Quote
First ignition for ESA’s low-cost, reusable rocket engine

18/11/2022
ESA / Enabling & Support / Space Transportation

With first ignition, ESA’s reusable, next-generation Prometheus rocket engine development project has taken a step toward hot fire testing. Ongoing work at prime contractor ArianeGroup’s facilities in Vernon, France is being carried out using the Themis reusable stage demonstrator as a test bed.

The 100-ton thrust class Prometheus features extensive use of new materials and manufacturing techniques designed to reduce its cost to just a tenth of Ariane 5’s Vulcain 2, an upgraded version of which – Vulcain 2.1 – powers the core stage of Ariane 6.

Prometheus is an all-new design featuring variable thrust, multiple ignition capability and intelligent onboard control systems. Additive layer manufacturing – so-called 3D printing – features extensively, reducing the number of parts, speeding up production and reducing waste. This highly versatile engine will be suitable for use on core, booster and upper stages of Europe’s future launch vehicles.

For this test campaign, which began with an initial thrust chamber ignition as a prelude to longer-duration trials, Prometheus is burning liquid oxygen-methane fuel. Liquid methane fuel is clean burning and simplifies handling, to help enable reusability and reduce the cost of ground operations before and after flight. A version using liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen is also being developed.

ESA Head of Future Space Transportation Rüdeger Albat said: “Prometheus is one of the most exciting new technology development projects in Europe today. We are showing the way to a low-cost future for space operations based on 100% European technology.”

The successful ignition of Prometheus is a first in Europe for this class of engine. A further Prometheus test campaign will be conducted in the coming months at the engine development facility of Germany’s DLR aerospace agency in Lampoldshausen.

Prometheus testing precedes a campaign planned for Themis, in which the engine-stage combination will attempt a series of “hop-tests”, lifting a few meters above the ground to check flight and landing capability.

Together, Prometheus and Themis are envisioned to be common technological building blocks for a future family of European launchers. A sooner application could be seen in Ariane 6 upgrades.

Photo caption:

Quote
Prometheus ignition on the test bed at Vernon, France
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mamut on 12/17/2022 05:53 pm
They're alive!!! This one is from July 2022: Wind Tunnel Experiments of the CALLISTO. Pretty interesting stuff.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/18/2022 04:13 pm
While new 100t engine is great achievement for ESA there are multiple USA startups building similar class engines with private money. RL Archimedes, Relativity Space Aeon R, Firefly Miranda, Usra Arroway.

Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 on 12/18/2022 09:16 pm
While new 100t engine is great achievement for ESA there are multiple USA startups building similar class engines with private money. RL Archimedes, Relativity Space Aeon R, Firefly Miranda, Usra Arroway.


And your point is...?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Tomness on 12/19/2022 12:05 am
While new 100t engine is great achievement for ESA there are multiple USA startups building similar class engines with private money. RL Archimedes, Relativity Space Aeon R, Firefly Miranda, Usra Arroway.


And your point is...?

woods170 is right,  no EU redundancy what they are finding out with a Ukrainian Engine for Vega-C?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/19/2022 12:14 am


While new 100t engine is great achievement for ESA there are multiple USA startups building similar class engines with private money. RL Archimedes, Relativity Space Aeon R, Firefly Miranda, Usra Arroway.


And your point is...?

ESA is moving to slow. Some of USA engines should fly in 2024-2025 in ELVs and RLVs.
Prometheus is only going to fly in Grasshopper equivelant for next few years. Not destined for  LV until around 2030.
This is with Prometheus having 1-2 year lead on these other engines.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: woods170 on 12/19/2022 09:51 am
While new 100t engine is great achievement for ESA there are multiple USA startups building similar class engines with private money. RL Archimedes, Relativity Space Aeon R, Firefly Miranda, Usra Arroway.


And your point is...?

ESA is moving to slow. Some of USA engines should fly in 2024-2025 in ELVs and RLVs.
Prometheus is only going to fly in Grasshopper equivelant for next few years. Not destined for  LV until around 2030.
This is with Prometheus having 1-2 year lead on these other engines.

Emphasis mine.

"ESA moving to slow" would only be a problem if ESA was in the business of competing with commercial launch providers. Which ESA isn't doing. Arianespace exists for that purpose, and Arianespace is not some sub-division of ESA. It is an independent commercial entity, whereas ESA is a intergovernmental agency.
 
What a lot of people here keep overlooking is that Ariane (and by extension Vega) exist primarily to guarantee independent access to space for Europe (primarily ESA, but also of importance to the EU). Being able to compete in the commercial LSP market is only a secondary objective.

ESA now finally climbing on the bandwagon of developing engines for reuseable launchers, has nothing to do with wanting to compete with SpaceX et al., but has everything to do with independently gaining cutting-edge knowledge and independently developing cutting-edge technology. As evidenced by this statement in the ESA press release:

Quote from: ESA
ESA Head of Future Space Transportation Rüdeger Albat said: “Prometheus is one of the most exciting new technology development projects in Europe today. We are showing the way to a low-cost future for space operations based on 100% European technology.”

And maybe, just maybe, someday that new technology might be handed over to Arianespace to start making money with it. But that remains to be seen.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Harry Cover on 01/11/2023 12:15 pm
While new 100t engine is great achievement for ESA there are multiple USA startups building similar class engines with private money. RL Archimedes, Relativity Space Aeon R, Firefly Miranda, Usra Arroway.


And your point is...?

ESA is moving to slow. Some of USA engines should fly in 2024-2025 in ELVs and RLVs.
Prometheus is only going to fly in Grasshopper equivelant for next few years. Not destined for  LV until around 2030.
This is with Prometheus having 1-2 year lead on these other engines.

Emphasis mine.

"ESA moving to slow" would only be a problem if ESA was in the business of competing with commercial launch providers. Which ESA isn't doing. Arianespace exists for that purpose, and Arianespace is not some sub-division of ESA. It is an independent commercial entity, whereas ESA is a intergovernmental agency.
 
What a lot of people here keep overlooking is that Ariane (and by extension Vega) exist primarily to guarantee independent access to space for Europe (primarily ESA, but also of importance to the EU). Being able to compete in the commercial LSP market is only a secondary objective.

ESA now finally climbing on the bandwagon of developing engines for reuseable launchers, has nothing to do with wanting to compete with SpaceX et al., but has everything to do with independently gaining cutting-edge knowledge and independently developing cutting-edge technology. As evidenced by this statement in the ESA press release:

Quote from: ESA
ESA Head of Future Space Transportation Rüdeger Albat said: “Prometheus is one of the most exciting new technology development projects in Europe today. We are showing the way to a low-cost future for space operations based on 100% European technology.”

And maybe, just maybe, someday that new technology might be handed over to Arianespace to start making money with it. But that remains to be seen.

Most intelligent post I've ever red on this forum for a long time - related to Ariane 6 and Europe RLV effort. You nailed it.

- ESA ain't Arianespace.

- Europe independant access to space = a 50 years old effort born out of Symphonie trauma. Nota bene: it existed from July 1973 ministerial council onwards; while Arianespace wasn't born until 1979.

- Arianespace making money launching satellites = a bonus on top of the above.

BUT
- Europe independant access to space
and
- Arianespace making money launching satellites
Are not absolutely linked.

Bottom line: one can exists without the other.

Of course they help each others, make no mistake.
BUT
They are kind of separate entities, each one with a separate life. A bit like a man and a women living together and having kids without being married nor having any official relationship status. They are just together because they happy together, and that's enough for them.

Even more importantly:

 Europe independant access to space is defined as a strategic capability for Europe. As such, it will be funded through PUBLIC money from member states whatever happens. And guess where does that PUBLIC funding comes ? From ESA and from CNES, which are classic space agencies. Think NASA running on public money.

Now,

 Arianespace making money launching satellites is all too welcomed and much appreciated since 1979 and since 1988 - when it buried the Shuttle and other US launchers... until SpaceX avenged them, TBH.  ;D

However and much like Boeing with all its present miseries (although not as many serious blunders) Arianespace won't disapear or go bankrupt anytime soon.

Still, TBH - with SpaceX sweeping the market, their heydays of the 1990's and 2000's are gone - let's face it.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TheKutKu on 01/11/2023 01:52 pm


Still, TBH - with SpaceX sweeping the market, their heydays of the 1990's and 2000's are gone - let's face it.

Or is it? Few would have bet in the late 90s/early 2000s, after a couple of A5 failure and A4 on its way out that Arianespace would ever gain its overwhelming market share it enjoyed around 1990 back, especially with the competition from Russian launchers and EELV around the corner promising cost reductions. Yet a bit over a decade later Arianespace was back to having 50%+ market share.

It's going to be a very tough environment, but nobody should write off competitive, european commercial launch capabilities. Who knows what the market will look like by 2040?
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Harry Cover on 01/11/2023 02:30 pm
Allows me to express my satisfaction at hearing such a positive opinion right here, in this thread and on this very forum - by quoting Better call Saul twice

"I'm very pleased to here that !" (Gustavo Fring)

"Be still my heart !" (Mike Ehrmantraut)

Nice to have, for once, people not burying Arianespace 30 ft deep...

Just sayin'.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mahurora on 06/07/2023 05:12 pm
So according to a JAXA doccument from 2021 the CALLISTO is pegged to a preceeding Japanese demonstrator vehicle called RV-X. More about it on this thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44654.20) on Japanese Launchers section.

The problem is that RV-X was meant to be launched at March of 2022 by September of 2021. Around the same time CALLISTO was set for first flight by 2024. Now RV-X is further delayed and is still to fly. More than 80% of Callisto development cost are funded by JAXA so there's no choice for CNES and DLR unless they call it quits I guess. When RV-X was in trouble it mentions that the CALLISTO team was supposed to help so no wonder CALLISTO is delayed. I'd say that the 2025 first flight date given in the document posted in last page is not a garauntee either and will depend on further RV-X developments.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mahurora on 06/07/2023 06:19 pm
Found newer updates on "Europe in Space (https://europeanspaceflight.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about)" Substack from 23rd of January, earlier this year.

Quote
[...]This made it possible to carry out the preliminary definition review of the products and subsystems in 2022[...]

The development tests for the majority of the components and sub-systems should be completed soon. For example, environmental and acoustics tests of the equipment vehicle bay will be conducted this summer, which will make it possible to hold critical definition reviews. This will pave the way for the critical launch system definition review in the second half of 2023. In 2024, a series of flight-worthiness reviews will follow. [...]

The ground support systems should be gradually implemented at the launch site from the middle of 2023, for a technical qualification scheduled for 2024. Everything will therefore be in place to receive the elements of the vehicle before the end of 2024 at the Guiana Space Center. [...]

So compared to the schedules from September 2021, current scheudules seems to be around a year late. Also, now RV-X and CALLISTO seems to be running concurrently instead of RV-X preceeding CALLISTO, just like how CALLISTO was supposed to preceed THEMIS before but is now a concurrent program.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Asteroza on 06/08/2023 03:49 am
RV-X, CALLISTO, and THEMIS all being parallel rather than series programs sounds like a recipe for trouble...
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/08/2023 05:22 am
RV-X, CALLISTO, and THEMIS all being parallel rather than series programs sounds like a recipe for trouble...

If done in series, it would take three times as long!
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mahurora on 06/08/2023 02:08 pm
RV-X, CALLISTO, and THEMIS all being parallel rather than series programs sounds like a recipe for trouble...
The main emphasis of these programs, apart from the development of TVTL technology, are a bit different from one another so I'd say there's a merrit. Also each of the programs seems to have been altered slightly to suit the (now) concurrent nature of these program management.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mamut on 06/08/2023 02:12 pm
Having in mind that Maia space wwork on reusabillity, and they actually aim to launch commercial reusable rockets more or less in the same time when we expect Callisto to fly, and given the fact, that we also have others small reusable rockets being worked on in Europe, like reusable Vega, and Themis, seems to me, that Callisto doeasn't make any sense whatsoever any more.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TheKutKu on 06/08/2023 02:36 pm
Having in mind that Maia space wwork on reusabillity, and they actually aim to launch commercial reusable rockets more or less in the same time when we expect Callisto to fly, and given the fact, that we also have others small reusable rockets being worked on in Europe, like reusable Vega, and Themis, seems to me, that Callisto doeasn't make any sense whatsoever any more.
Callisto is much more internationalised than Themis and so cannot be easily cancelled.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TheKutKu on 06/10/2023 05:43 pm
From CNES mag June 2023

Quote
For Prometheus, the next step is a demonstration test campaign with a focus on industrialization, scheduled for late 2023 on the German space agency DLR's P5 test bed in Lampoldshausen. The two systems [Prometheus and Themis] will then continue their joint trajectory in Kiruna, with hop tests - small vertical flights at low altitude by the T1H vehicle - scheduled for 2024.

Sounds like Geographic return struck again, test campaigns are moving from Vernon to Lampoldhausen


CNESmag also mentions  that CNES and Arianegroup-Vernon are studying 200t thrust engines, with one version "Currently in development" being "evolved from Prometheus"

More thrust increases from this series of engines, went from 35 tons to 100 to 120 and now 200 tons! Let’s hope a flight-ready design gets frozen.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/23/2023 12:55 pm
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1672212924763451393

Quote
Arianespace announced the first hot-fire test campaign of the reusable Prometheus engine (a new-generation, reusable, high-thrust (100 ton) engine) on the Themis launcher core stage demonstrator.

The test took place at ArianeGroup’s Vernon (France) site, with a complete stage running on liquid oxygen and liquid bio-methane.

“This successfully concluded test campaign marks a first concrete step for development of reusable launchers built in Europe. The complete test of the Prometheus engine, carried out directly on the reusable Themis stage demonstrator, has been particularly eagerly anticipated as it opens up highly promising avenues for the future family of European launchers" - Martin Sion, CEO of ArianeGroup.

ArianeGroup noted it will soon be setting up a Prometheus Users Club, along the lines of the Ariane 6 Users Club. This step marks the beginning of marketing Prometheus to all interested European parties.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/23/2023 12:58 pm
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Full_ignition_for_ESA_s_reusable_rocket_engine

Quote
Full ignition for ESA’s reusable rocket engine

23/06/2023

ESA / Enabling & Support / Space Transportation
Work to develop a reusable engine for European rockets is progressing, with full ignition of an early prototype of Prometheus. These images were taken on 22 June 2023 at ArianeGroup’s test facility in Vernon, France during a 12-second burn.

According to ArianeGroup, which is developing Prometheus under contact to ESA, testing will continue at the end of 2023 at the German aerospace agency DLR’s test site in Lampoldshausen, Germany.

The 100-tonne thrust class Prometheus features extensive use of new materials and manufacturing techniques designed to reduce its cost to just a tenth of Ariane 5’s Vulcain 2, an upgraded version of which – Vulcain 2.1 – powers the core stage of Ariane 6.

Prometheus burns liquid oxygen-liquid methane fuel. Methane is clean burning and simplifies handling, to help enable reusability and reduce the cost of ground operations before and after flight. A version using liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen is also being developed.

Prometheus features variable thrust and multiple ignition capability. Additive layer manufacturing – so-called 3D printing – features extensively, reducing the number of parts, speeding up production and reducing waste.

For the Vernon and Lampoldshausen tests, Prometheus is mounted in a prototype of a reusable rocket stage, called Themis, which is being developed in parallel with the engine. Later, this engine-stage combination will attempt a series of “hop-tests”, lifting a few meters above the ground to check flight and landing capability.

Together, Prometheus and Themis are envisioned to be common technological building blocks for a future family of European launchers.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/23/2023 11:19 pm
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1672368773129461766

Quote
Europe completes the first successful 12 second hot-fire test of its reusable Prometheus engine integrated with the Themis first-stage demonstrator at the ArianeGroup site in Vernon, France.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/06/themis-prometheus-hot-fire-test/ - by Bella Richards (@bellaa_richards)

The two components are part of a broader European launch program, called Ariane Next, which is focused on developing a fleet of reusable rockets that will enter into service in the 2030s.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mamut on 10/26/2023 12:31 pm
https://press.ariane.group/reutilisation-en-europe-prometheus-et-themis-franchissent-de-nouvelles-etapes-10733/?lang=eng
Quote
Reuse in Europe: Prometheus and Themis reach new milestones
26/10/2023

The Prometheus® and Themis demonstrator programs have made significant progress during the summer at ArianeGroup’s Vernon site.
Following the first ignition campaign of the Prometheus® engine on the Themis reusable stage demonstrator in June 2023, testing has continued regularly. The latest test, on October 20, ignited and ran the Prometheus® engine for 30 seconds.
These tests of a complete stage running on liquid oxygen and liquid bio-methane are essential in order to develop the technological building blocks needed for Europe’s future reusable space launchers.
At the same time, the roadmap for the Themis demonstrator is being followed in order to prepare for the flight tests. The Themis tanks are currently undergoing a series of tests to validate the flight subassemblies. The landing legs also underwent their first deployment tests. Finally, the major component parts of the vehicle have been received.

The Prometheus® and Themis demonstrators are European Space Agency (ESA) programs for the development of reuse technologies in Europe, for which ArianeGroup is lead contractor.

The Prometheus® and Themis demonstrator programs made significant progress over the course of the summer. The firing test campaign for the Prometheus® engine on the Themis reusable stage demonstrator notably continued on a regular basis on ArianeGroup’s Vernon (France) site.

On June 22, ArianeGroup completed the first ignition campaign of Prometheus® on Themis, carried out with the support of the “France Relance”(1) recovery fund. During the last test in that campaign, the engine ran for a period of 12 seconds.

A second test carried out on September 23 completes the initial phase of the contract with the European Space Agency (ESA).

Then, a further firing test was conducted on October 20 with ignition and operation of the Prometheus® engine for 30 seconds followed by a re-ignition.

The aim now is to test operation of the engine throughout its thrust envelope during the coming months. The engine’s ability to vary its thrust is essential for the Themis stage to be able to return to Earth.

In parallel, the Themis reusable stage demonstrator roadmap is continuing. The ArianeGroup teams are now entering the first flight preparation phase. The next steps will validate the Prometheus® engine for the Themis flight envelope, prior to the flight tests in Kiruna, Sweden.

With regard to the Themis stage itself, significant progress was made in a number of key areas over the course of the summer.

The major parts of the vehicle have arrived at Vernon, notably the Multi-Engine Bay (MEB), a structure built by SABCA (Belgium) that will accommodate the three Prometheus® engines, and the Flight Control Bay (FCB) built by APCO Technologies (Switzerland), which will mainly accommodate the avionic equipment.

The Themis landing legs have also undergone their first deployment tests. These legs, built by Almatech (Switzerland), are scaled to support the stage’s return to Earth.

The Themis tanks are currently undergoing a series of tests in Vernon, in order to validate the flight subassemblies. The structure comprising the two tanks with a common base is a major component of the vehicle. This campaign comprises several filling tests with liquid oxygen (-183°C) and liquid methane (-160°C). The success of these tests is a crucial step in validating the utilization and behavior of the tanks prior to the flight tests.

All of these tests carried out in Vernon are covered by the development contracts for the Prometheus® and Themis demonstrators awarded to ArianeGroup by ESA. Once the various test campaigns have been successfully completed, the Themis stage will be integrated at ArianeGroup’s Les Mureaux site near Paris and readied for the flight tests.

The demonstrator will then be sent to Sweden for hop tests to be conducted at the Esrange Space Center in Kiruna, as part of the European Union’s SALTO (Horizon Europe) project.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/26/2023 01:35 pm
Couple of photos to go with the press release
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/26/2023 04:07 pm
https://youtu.be/oe_CPIWhiWA
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mamut on 10/29/2023 02:13 pm
https://youtu.be/oe_CPIWhiWA

Interesting, I have never seen this leg folded before. Wondering why the top part of the leg takes that much space when folded. Shouldn't it be thinner? That's gonna be the hell of a drag. Maybe it's just for hops, not for suborbital. Or maybe it's gonna be partially hiden inside rocket case? The F9 legs seem completely flat in comparisson.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/06/2023 04:37 pm
https://twitter.com/esa_transport/status/1732437431528407211

Quote
Themis will use the restartable Prometheus rocket engine, that runs on liquid oxygen and liquid methane. 🔥

https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2023/11/Prometheus_prototype_engine_test

Quote
Prometheus prototype engine test

01/12/2023

Scenes from a 30-second burn with re-ignition of an early prototype of the Prometheus engine at ArianeGroup’s test facility in Vernon, France, on 20 October 2023.

The 100-tonne thrust class Prometheus burns liquid oxygen-liquid methane fuel. Methane is clean burning and simplifies handling, to help enable reusability and reduce the cost of ground operations before and after flight.

The engine is mounted in an early prototype of a reusable rocket stage, called Themis, which is being developed in parallel with the engine under contract from ESA. While engine testing continues, work is also underway to prepare a more advanced Themis prototype for a series of “hop-tests” in Kiruna, Sweden. The objective will be to lift off and rise to as high as 100 m, to check flight and landing capability.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/06/2023 04:39 pm
Quote
Earlier this year we tested the #Themis landing legs built by Almatech in Swizterland 🇨🇭.

Like Swiss clockwork, they deployed perfectly relying only on gravity to fall into position.

https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2023/12/Themis_landing_legs_deployment_test

Quote
Themis landing legs deployment test

05/12/2023

Landing leg deployment test for Themis at Vernon, France in 2023.

Themis is ESA’s rocket prototype – a flagship European demonstrator for low-cost rocket recovery and reuse technologies. Themis will be powered by the reusable, methane-fuelled engine Prometheus, named after the Greek mythological figure who stole fire from the gods and brought it to humans. Themis was the mother of Prometheus.

Developed with ArianeGroup as prime contractor and building on decades of European research and experience in rocketry and space operations, Themis is designed to launch, land vertically and live on for another mission. 

The landing legs are developed, manufactured, and tested by Almatech from Switzerland. The landing legs use gravity to deploy and are made of composite materials. Themis will have a full set of four landing legs on its flight tests from Kiruna spaceport in Sweden.

Themis will demonstrate and prove Europe’s ability to take off and vertically land a rocket, and will also be the flying test bed for other technologies such as new avionics or engine activation and controls developed across ESA programmes.

Themis is part of ESA’s Future Launchers Preparatory Programme, developing new launch systems to meet Europe’s institutional and commercial needs and putting Europe at the forefront of developments in space. It oversees launch system studies and research activities while challenging industry to create new, reliable technologies at lower cost, working towards a more reusable and sustainable use of space.

https://twitter.com/esa_transport/status/1732437435500412973

Quote
Two #Themis models are being worked on at @ArianeGroup's site in Vernon, France 🇫🇷: Themis 1 Ground (T1G left) and the first flight model, Themis 1 Hop (T1H right).

Hop tests with T1H are planned next year from @SSCspace's Esrange launch site in Sweden 🇸🇪.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mamut on 01/08/2024 12:27 pm
Not sure if this one matches here, however The Exploration Company works on reusable Raptor like engine that might be used in future European reusable launchers.

https://europeanspaceflight.com/the-exploration-company-begin-cnes-backed-rocket-engine-development/

Quote
The Exploration Company has begun work on a reusable methane-powered staged combustion rocket engine that will be capable of producing approximately 200 tonnes of thrust. The endeavour is being co-financed by the French space agency CNES.

Founded in 2021, The Exploration Company has been developing a modular, reusable spacecraft called Nyx. The company is expected to propose a variant of this vehicle as part of the European Space Agency’s LEO Cargo Return Service initiative. With the announcement that the company will be developing a methane-powered high-thrust engine, it appears to be broadening its product offering.

The Exploration Company does, however, already have experience with the development of methane-powered reusable rocket engines. The company is currently developing an engine that will be used to power Nyx Moon, a variant of its reusable spacecraft that will be capable of delivering cargo and, eventually, maybe even crew to lunar orbit and the surface of the Moon. In November, the company completed the second test campaign of the engine’s thrust chamber. Over a series of eight tests, the engine was fired for a total of 560 seconds. The testing was performed at DLR’s test facility in Lampoldshausen.

According to L’Usine nouvelle reporting, the company is currently putting together a small team of propulsion systems experts to begin work on the engine, which it’s calling Typhoon. Teams involved in the project will be based in Bordeaux, Munich, and a soon-to-be-opened Turin office. In other words, France, Germany, and Italy, which are the three countries that have traditionally made the largest investments in European Space Agency launch vehicle programmes. This certainly appears to be the company setting itself up to be the beneficiary of ESA funding following the 2025 ministerial council meeting, utilizing the agency’s often criticized geo-return policy to its advantage.

In addition to its own capacity, The Exploration Company plans to call on industrial partners in the coming months to join the initiative. According to reporting, the undisclosed amount received from CNES will be utilized entirely for the project’s operations in France. Work to be done in Italy and Germany will be financed from The Exploration Company’s own coffers.

The company currently expects its Typhoon engine to be operational by 2030. With a similar performance to the SpaceX Raptor that will power the US-based company’s Starship vehicle, Tyhoon has the potential to offer Europe a new class of launch vehicles. However, it could also be used to power a partially reusable Ariane 64 equivalent heavy launcher. An engine enabling this kind of flexibility is not an idea that only CNES and The Exploration Company have broached recently.

In early December, ESA published a call for proposals for the development of a very high-thrust rocket engine that could be utilized aboard future heavy-lift launch vehicles. The project aims to develop an engine capable of generating at least 250 tonnes of thrust.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mamut on 02/14/2024 11:23 am
This document is from July 2023. It says about Callisto being in development. No timeline specified of course, but at least it shows that project is not dead.
https://elib.dlr.de/197206/1/AECC23_CALLISTO_AERO_klevanski_et_al_v9.pdf
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: TheKutKu on 02/14/2024 10:10 pm
This document is from July 2023. It says about Callisto being in development. No timeline specified of course, but at least it shows that project is not dead.
https://elib.dlr.de/197206/1/AECC23_CALLISTO_AERO_klevanski_et_al_v9.pdf

https://lachroniquespatiale.com/2024/01/10/callisto-en-vol-des-la-fin-2025/

First flight is scheduled for late 2025.

It is still being worked on, as of early december 2023 and according to Arnaud BIARD, operations architect on the CNES side the integration was planned for late 2024.
Title: Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
Post by: Mamut on 02/15/2024 01:10 pm
Translated article:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aiahmaipelc9cuqxyrbmm/Callisto-in-flight-at-the-end-of-2025-The-Space-Chronicle.pdf?rlkey=8c29db854fivqqt01x6rwl605&e=2&dl=0

Quote
Callisto in flight by the end of 2025
Developed in partnership by CNES and the German DLR and Japanese JAXA agencies, the
reusable demonstrator prototype is expected to make its first take-off by the end of next year.
Formalised as early as June 2016, the CNES Callisto programme has been rather discreet in recent
years. The delay in the programme is due in particular to the two years of COVID’s pandemic, which
put the world to a standstill as early as 2020 and to the DLR’s budget difficulties. Intended for the
smooth return to the ground, the vehicle with a height of thirteen meters, has crossed ...
A new definition review in 2023, the last was in 2019. Divided into three, the programme foresees
that Japan will provide the power plant but also everything to do with oxygen tanks and refuelling
lines. In particular, the German partner must design the hydrogen tank or the design of the landing
feet and ailerons intended to control the roll of the rocket. “For our part, we are doing all the onboard
intelligence, that is to say the flight programme, the guidance and piloting algorithms and we are
going to ensure all the backup,” says Carine Leveau, Director of Space Transport at CNES during the
callisto take-off site will be the old launch pad dedicated to the old Diamond launcher of the Guiana
Space Centre (CSG). In operation between 10 March 1970 and 27 September 1979, it is currently in
the final rehabilitation phase to accommodate mini-launchers by next year. The first three will be
Isar Aerospace, RFA One and Spanish LDP. The challenge for Callisto will be to come back to the
exact starting point. As soon as it becomes operational, the demonstrator will have to make several flights to pass a
return manoeuvre very similar to that performed by Falcon 9. Thus, at least five rounds of tests
comprising two take-offs at each shot are projected for the time being. “We’re going to start modestly
with chip jumps,” Carine Leveau adds. The last flight, on the other hand, will be much more
energetic, since it is planned to peak at an altitude between 30 and 40 km. Once at this height, the
prototype will make a turn-over loop before returning to its starting point. The data to be collected
with Callisto should, in the first place, benefit from the Themis programme of ArianeGroup. “If we
hadn’t done Callisto, we wouldn’t have been able to do Themis so quickly,” the official said. In terms of
ladders, the CNES demonstrator reaches 13 m and its propulsion is provided by a single cryogenic
engine using Lox hydrogen. Themis, on the other hand, is more than double (30 m) and will be
propelled by three Prometheus engines operating with a methane and liquid oxygen mixture. In
addition to mastering reuse technology, one of the other goals of the Callisto programme is to
forge a first experiment on the refurbishment of the launch vehicle and to optimise costs. “One of
the objectives of Callisto is to understand all the rehabilitation operations and their cost because it is a
fundamental element in optimizing re-use ...”. Callisto must therefore provide the first elements to be
confirmed with the flights to be carried out on Themis. “This will allow us to have a consolidated
equation of what we hope to be able to do in the context of a future reusable European launch vehicle.”
Second, the data collection that will be undertaken with Callisto is also expected to benefit from the
programme of the small reusable launcher Maia, currently in development at Maispace, the
Vernon-based subsidiary of ArianeGroup. The calendars of the two programmes coincide since
Maia must be ready to take off as early as 2026.