CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal

[TrevorMonty]

So also Callisto is over two years late.
What has caused this delay?

Rocket time and covid.

[john smith 19]

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. 

[Rik ISS-fan]

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. 

[Hobbes-22]

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.

[libra]

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.

[Asteroza]

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.

[edzieba]

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.

[Mamut]

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.

[Zed_Noir]

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.

[Space Lizard 2]

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.

[Rik ISS-fan]

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.

[john smith 19]

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.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/esa_sts/status/1593626819562987523

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

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:

Prometheus ignition on the test bed at Vernon, France

[Mamut]

They're alive!!! This one is from July 2022: Wind Tunnel Experiments of the CALLISTO. Pretty interesting stuff.

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[woods170]

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...?

[Tomness]

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?

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[woods170]

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:

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.

[Harry Cover]

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:

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. 

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.