Josef Aschbacher, ESA's new director general recently presented that by 2035, "ESA has created a completely new, more competitive, and reusable launcher system". In the near term, "future technology maturation, such as reusability, new engines.." ESA aims to have a new reusable launcher in service in 2030."Reusability and very low cost liquid propulsion are the central themes [...]" states a document authored by France's general secretariat [..] This launcher should have two reusable stages [...]. "Reusability is relevent, even for a low cadence [...]"
From the 3 May AV week article. Bold is mine.QuoteJosef Aschbacher, ESA's new director general recently presented that by 2035, "ESA has created a completely new, more competitive, and reusable launcher system". In the near term, "future technology maturation, such as reusability, new engines.." ESA aims to have a new reusable launcher in service in 2030."Reusability and very low cost liquid propulsion are the central themes [...]" states a document authored by France's general secretariat [..] This launcher should have two reusable stages [...]. "Reusability is relevent, even for a low cadence [...]"So reusability mentioned six times in two paragraphs, including four quotes. Seems like they got the message.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 05/17/2021 01:27 pmFrom the 3 May AV week article. Bold is mine.QuoteJosef Aschbacher, ESA's new director general recently presented that by 2035, "ESA has created a completely new, more competitive, and reusable launcher system". In the near term, "future technology maturation, such as reusability, new engines.." ESA aims to have a new reusable launcher in service in 2030."Reusability and very low cost liquid propulsion are the central themes [...]" states a document authored by France's general secretariat [..] This launcher should have two reusable stages [...]. "Reusability is relevent, even for a low cadence [...]"So reusability mentioned six times in two paragraphs, including four quotes. Seems like they got the message.Yeah.... only eight years late...
Quote from: LouScheffer on 05/17/2021 01:27 pmSo reusability mentioned six times in two paragraphs, including four quotes. Seems like they got the message.Yeah.... only eight years late...
So reusability mentioned six times in two paragraphs, including four quotes. Seems like they got the message.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 05/17/2021 01:27 pmFrom the 3 May AV week article. Bold is mine.QuoteJosef Aschbacher, ESA's new director general recently presented that by 2035, "ESA has created a completely new, more competitive, and reusable launcher system". In the near term, "future technology maturation, such as reusability, new engines.." ESA aims to have a new reusable launcher in service in 2030."Reusability and very low cost liquid propulsion are the central themes [...]" states a document authored by France's general secretariat [..] This launcher should have two reusable stages [...]. "Reusability is relevent, even for a low cadence [...]"So reusability mentioned six times in two paragraphs, including four quotes. Seems like they got the message.Oh man, by *2030*! Just *tearing* along then. Oh dear...
They've looked into this before:https://sites.google.com/site/exosnews/home/rockets/adelinehttps://futurism.com/the-byte/europe-reusable-rocket-design-spacex
Quote from: jbenton on 05/20/2021 02:05 amThey've looked into this before:https://sites.google.com/site/exosnews/home/rockets/adelinehttps://futurism.com/the-byte/europe-reusable-rocket-design-spacexNo, they've looked into this way before.Ariane-X, reusable VTVL rocket proposed in 1981, planned introduction in 1995.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/17/2021 01:30 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 05/17/2021 01:27 pmSo reusability mentioned six times in two paragraphs, including four quotes. Seems like they got the message.Yeah.... only eight years late...What do you want, a country in an alternate timeline that does it ten years earlier than SpaceX?
Quote from: Pipcard on 05/19/2021 10:20 pmQuote from: woods170 on 05/17/2021 01:30 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 05/17/2021 01:27 pmSo reusability mentioned six times in two paragraphs, including four quotes. Seems like they got the message.Yeah.... only eight years late...What do you want, a country in an alternate timeline that does it ten years earlier than SpaceX?No, what I want is an ESA and a CNES and an Arianspace that know how to read the writing on the wall. Because they failed to do so in 2014. They had the perfect opportunity to become close followers of SpaceX and thus remain competitive within the global LSP market.But ESA, CNES and Arianespace failed to read the writing on the wall. And now Europe is stuck with a 'new' launcher which is obsolete by the time it starts flying, having wasted 5 billion Euros and 8 years. Current ESA and CNES efforts for reusability developement are severely being hampered by the money pit that is Ariane 6. Had those Euros been spent on a (partially) reusable launcher eight years ago, than Ariane 6 would be a close follower of Falcon 9, instead of a launcher with no chance of competing.
They didn't have engines then to do RLV. A6 was best ELV they could do with what they had
[...] and most importantly cheaper and more versatile than A5.
What is the point of competing for Europe ?The priority for Europe should be to make sure they can timely launch their own payloads at a reasonable cost without having to beg for a launch from a foreign partner.
A few reasons.1. Historically they’ve been competitive enough to make money. Ariane 5 managed to be a world leader in some areas of sat launch for quite a while. This one can obviously be forgone as a nice to have rather than must have.
Quote from: hektor on 05/20/2021 10:55 amWhat is the point of competing for Europe ?The priority for Europe should be to make sure they can timely launch their own payloads at a reasonable cost without having to beg for a launch from a foreign partner.Because RLVs are going to change the definition of what it really means to have "independent access".Does the EU, with ~17% of the world economy, really have "independent access" if it has a 1% share of global launch capability? This is not hyperbole either, Europe will be a rounding error in the global launch market if it doesn't get off it's bum and soon.A single Starship launch equals or exceeds the entire European annual launch capability. One launch.
Quote from: Pipcard on 05/20/2021 03:04 pmQuote from: Redclaws on 05/20/2021 02:07 pmQuote from: hektor on 05/20/2021 10:55 amWhat is the point of competing for Europe ?The priority for Europe should be to make sure they can timely launch their own payloads at a reasonable cost without having to beg for a launch from a foreign partner.A few reasons.1. Historically they’ve been competitive enough to make money. Ariane 5 managed to be a world leader in some areas of sat launch for quite a while. This one can obviously be forgone as a nice to have rather than must have.This may be referred to as the "innovator's dilemma." If you are too successful with what you have been doing so far, you might become complacent when a new disruptive technology is introduced. (Will that apply to SpaceX, too?) Ariane 4 and 5 were the best/most-successful commercial satellite launchers for about 2 decades.Why not compete again?
Quote from: Redclaws on 05/20/2021 02:07 pmQuote from: hektor on 05/20/2021 10:55 amWhat is the point of competing for Europe ?The priority for Europe should be to make sure they can timely launch their own payloads at a reasonable cost without having to beg for a launch from a foreign partner.A few reasons.1. Historically they’ve been competitive enough to make money. Ariane 5 managed to be a world leader in some areas of sat launch for quite a while. This one can obviously be forgone as a nice to have rather than must have.This may be referred to as the "innovator's dilemma." If you are too successful with what you have been doing so far, you might become complacent when a new disruptive technology is introduced. (Will that apply to SpaceX, too?)
Quote from: hektor on 05/20/2021 10:55 amWhat is the point of competing for Europe ?The priority for Europe should be to make sure they can timely launch their own payloads at a reasonable cost without having to beg for a launch from a foreign partner.A few reasons.1. Historically they’ve been competitive enough to make money. Ariane 5 managed to be a world leader in some areas of sat launch for quite a while. This one can obviously be forgone as a nice to have rather than must have.
Speaking of videos, it looks like the infamous 2013 CASBAA launch panel video where the Arianespace rep ridicules SpaceX's efforts at reusability is no longer on YouTube.Sad that that piece of history is lost.Edit: Oops. It was saved somehow, even though AVIA's account doesn't seem to list it anymore....
But for the longest time, people in most space industries in the US, Europe, or other countries thought "developing and operating a reusable launch vehicle, especially a fully-reusable super heavy launch vehicle, would cost too much and there is not enough demand for the flight rate to make it worthwhile. So it is best to stick with expendable medium lift launchers."
Much as I always liked STS, wasn't America's attempt to rely on it exclusively the whole reason Arianespace became so competitive in the first place? Of course what SpaceX was trying to do with Falcon 9 was inherently cheaper and simpler than STS, but that was still most people's idea of reusable rocket at the time....In context, then, the 2013 remarks don't seem that ridiculous. Short sided and maybe arrogant, perhaps, but still reasonable.
Much as I always liked STS, wasn't America's attempt to rely on it exclusively the whole reason Arianespace became so competitive in the first place?
Yes, that is one of the prime drivers behind the succesful rise of Ariane and Arianespace. And although the USA reversed course after Challenger, it was already too late. Europe was flying a fairly affordable and reliable family of launchers by then.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/21/2021 02:25 pmYes, that is one of the prime drivers behind the succesful rise of Ariane and Arianespace. And although the USA reversed course after Challenger, it was already too late. Europe was flying a fairly affordable and reliable family of launchers by then.And in the 1990s, attempts in the US to make something cheaper than the Shuttle tended to be bleeding-edge hydrolox SSTOs with very low payload margins. DC-X predated Grasshopper and F9R by two decades but it was meant to be a prototype for an SSTO, and got cancelled in favor of another SSTO which was a wedge-shaped lifting body that also got cancelled.
Quote from: jbenton on 05/20/2021 10:01 pmMuch as I always liked STS, wasn't America's attempt to rely on it exclusively the whole reason Arianespace became so competitive in the first place? Yes, that is one of the prime drivers behind the succesful rise of Ariane and Arianespace. And although the USA reversed course after Challenger, it was already too late. Europe was flying a fairly affordable and reliable family of launchers by then.By the time Boeing and LockMart got their EELVs ready to compete, they had become so expensive that they stood no chance against Ariane. Arianespace subsequently enjoyed almost 3 decades of massive market domination.Delta IV and Atlas V are still horrendously expensive. But the thing is that another US company managed to produce a working reuseable launcher, thus lowering the cost of a launch to such a low level that even Ariane stood no chance. Full role reversal... Market dominiation is now firmly back in US hands. And yes, ESA and Arianespace should have sleepless nights over that. Because it makes Ariane 6 unaffordable in both the short and long term. The rocket will never attract as much commercial business as Ariane 5 and Ariane 4 did. Meaning that a disproportionally large part of the cost comes down on the shoulders of ESA and CNES. And the whole point of Ariane 6 was to finally get rid of the need for subsidies for European launchers.But the flawed development decision from 2014 (go for conventional expendable instead of development of reuse) has had the opposite effect, courtesy of the rise of Falcon 9: Ariane 6 will need much more subsidies than were ever given to Ariane 5.Short version:ESA and CNES shot themselves in the foot with their shortsightedness and lack of imagination.
Quote from: Pipcard on 05/20/2021 09:21 pmBut for the longest time, people in most space industries in the US, Europe, or other countries thought "developing and operating a reusable launch vehicle, especially a fully-reusable super heavy launch vehicle, would cost too much and there is not enough demand for the flight rate to make it worthwhile. So it is best to stick with expendable medium lift launchers."SpaceX creates its own demand. How many launches would SpaceX do at this point without Starlink?
It's important to realize that starlink without reusable F9 (and soon reusable starship) wouldn't close it's business case. And vice versa, starship wouldn't have a business case without starlink.
Quote from: freddo411 on 05/21/2021 03:45 pmIt's important to realize that starlink without reusable F9 (and soon reusable starship) wouldn't close it's business case. And vice versa, starship wouldn't have a business case without starlink.While I agree with your overall sentiment (megaconstellations and reusability are meant for each other), what you state here is probably not true. As one example, I believe that Kuiper is a reasonable business for Amazon to be in.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/21/2021 02:25 pmQuote from: jbenton on 05/20/2021 10:01 pmMuch as I always liked STS, wasn't America's attempt to rely on it exclusively the whole reason Arianespace became so competitive in the first place? Yes, that is one of the prime drivers behind the succesful rise of Ariane and Arianespace. And although the USA reversed course after Challenger, it was already too late. Europe was flying a fairly affordable and reliable family of launchers by then.By the time Boeing and LockMart got their EELVs ready to compete, they had become so expensive that they stood no chance against Ariane. Arianespace subsequently enjoyed almost 3 decades of massive market domination.Delta IV and Atlas V are still horrendously expensive. But the thing is that another US company managed to produce a working reuseable launcher, thus lowering the cost of a launch to such a low level that even Ariane stood no chance. Full role reversal... Market dominiation is now firmly back in US hands. And yes, ESA and Arianespace should have sleepless nights over that. Because it makes Ariane 6 unaffordable in both the short and long term. The rocket will never attract as much commercial business as Ariane 5 and Ariane 4 did. Meaning that a disproportionally large part of the cost comes down on the shoulders of ESA and CNES. And the whole point of Ariane 6 was to finally get rid of the need for subsidies for European launchers.But the flawed development decision from 2014 (go for conventional expendable instead of development of reuse) has had the opposite effect, courtesy of the rise of Falcon 9: Ariane 6 will need much more subsidies than were ever given to Ariane 5.Short version:ESA and CNES shot themselves in the foot with their shortsightedness and lack of imagination.Indeed.I want to express that Europe's collapse in the market share of global launch isn't some far-off hypothetical based on Starship appearing... It's happening right now.Attached below is the table I put in the SpaceX manifest thread comparing the delta-v adjusted tonnage to orbit of various providers. DV-adjusted payload takes the rocket equation and the ISP of hypergolic orbit raising rockets, and the DV difference in delivered orbit vs LEO to adjust it to a LEO-equivalent standard.Taking these numbers, Europe's share of global adjusted tonnage to orbit is this:2014: 22.4%2015: 20.5% 2016: 21.9%2017: 19.3%2018: 16.7% 2019: 14.1%2020: 8.0%It looks like Ariane will launch about 3 times each in 2021 and 2022 (Vega is too small to even really make a dent either way). This means that Europe's market share for launch this year will have fallen to ~6%.Next year, if Starship launches only a few times, this number will drop to 3-4%.... A few years from now it is not hyperbole for Europe to have <1% of global launch market share. one percent...this year, SpaceX is on track to deliver ~600 adjusted tonnes to orbit. That's equal to Europe's totals in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and projected 2021... combined.They need to move now
It looks like Ariane will launch about 3 times each in 2021 and 2022 (Vega is too small to even really make a dent either way). This means that Europe's market share for launch this year will have fallen to ~6%.
Quote from: ZachF on 05/21/2021 03:24 pmIt looks like Ariane will launch about 3 times each in 2021 and 2022 (Vega is too small to even really make a dent either way). This means that Europe's market share for launch this year will have fallen to ~6%.According to the schedule thread 12 A5/A6 launches are planned for 2022, which would be roughly in line with the launch rate A6 was designed for. Not sure how accurate that is.
Quote from: ZachF on 05/21/2021 03:24 pmQuote from: woods170 on 05/21/2021 02:25 pmQuote from: jbenton on 05/20/2021 10:01 pmMuch as I always liked STS, wasn't America's attempt to rely on it exclusively the whole reason Arianespace became so competitive in the first place? Yes, that is one of the prime drivers behind the succesful rise of Ariane and Arianespace. And although the USA reversed course after Challenger, it was already too late. Europe was flying a fairly affordable and reliable family of launchers by then.By the time Boeing and LockMart got their EELVs ready to compete, they had become so expensive that they stood no chance against Ariane. Arianespace subsequently enjoyed almost 3 decades of massive market domination.Delta IV and Atlas V are still horrendously expensive. But the thing is that another US company managed to produce a working reuseable launcher, thus lowering the cost of a launch to such a low level that even Ariane stood no chance. Full role reversal... Market dominiation is now firmly back in US hands. And yes, ESA and Arianespace should have sleepless nights over that. Because it makes Ariane 6 unaffordable in both the short and long term. The rocket will never attract as much commercial business as Ariane 5 and Ariane 4 did. Meaning that a disproportionally large part of the cost comes down on the shoulders of ESA and CNES. And the whole point of Ariane 6 was to finally get rid of the need for subsidies for European launchers.But the flawed development decision from 2014 (go for conventional expendable instead of development of reuse) has had the opposite effect, courtesy of the rise of Falcon 9: Ariane 6 will need much more subsidies than were ever given to Ariane 5.Short version:ESA and CNES shot themselves in the foot with their shortsightedness and lack of imagination.Indeed.I want to express that Europe's collapse in the market share of global launch isn't some far-off hypothetical based on Starship appearing... It's happening right now.Attached below is the table I put in the SpaceX manifest thread comparing the delta-v adjusted tonnage to orbit of various providers. DV-adjusted payload takes the rocket equation and the ISP of hypergolic orbit raising rockets, and the DV difference in delivered orbit vs LEO to adjust it to a LEO-equivalent standard.Taking these numbers, Europe's share of global adjusted tonnage to orbit is this:2014: 22.4%2015: 20.5% 2016: 21.9%2017: 19.3%2018: 16.7% 2019: 14.1%2020: 8.0%It looks like Ariane will launch about 3 times each in 2021 and 2022 (Vega is too small to even really make a dent either way). This means that Europe's market share for launch this year will have fallen to ~6%.Next year, if Starship launches only a few times, this number will drop to 3-4%.... A few years from now it is not hyperbole for Europe to have <1% of global launch market share. one percent...this year, SpaceX is on track to deliver ~600 adjusted tonnes to orbit. That's equal to Europe's totals in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and projected 2021... combined.They need to move nowWhat does 2019 and 2020 look like if you don't include Starlink launches? Since those are SpaceX satellites including them in the launch market tonnage skews the numbers. No one else gets to compete for those launches.
Quote from: RonM on 05/21/2021 04:01 pmQuote from: ZachF on 05/21/2021 03:24 pmQuote from: woods170 on 05/21/2021 02:25 pmQuote from: jbenton on 05/20/2021 10:01 pmMuch as I always liked STS, wasn't America's attempt to rely on it exclusively the whole reason Arianespace became so competitive in the first place? Yes, that is one of the prime drivers behind the succesful rise of Ariane and Arianespace. And although the USA reversed course after Challenger, it was already too late. Europe was flying a fairly affordable and reliable family of launchers by then.By the time Boeing and LockMart got their EELVs ready to compete, they had become so expensive that they stood no chance against Ariane. Arianespace subsequently enjoyed almost 3 decades of massive market domination.Delta IV and Atlas V are still horrendously expensive. But the thing is that another US company managed to produce a working reuseable launcher, thus lowering the cost of a launch to such a low level that even Ariane stood no chance. Full role reversal... Market dominiation is now firmly back in US hands. And yes, ESA and Arianespace should have sleepless nights over that. Because it makes Ariane 6 unaffordable in both the short and long term. The rocket will never attract as much commercial business as Ariane 5 and Ariane 4 did. Meaning that a disproportionally large part of the cost comes down on the shoulders of ESA and CNES. And the whole point of Ariane 6 was to finally get rid of the need for subsidies for European launchers.But the flawed development decision from 2014 (go for conventional expendable instead of development of reuse) has had the opposite effect, courtesy of the rise of Falcon 9: Ariane 6 will need much more subsidies than were ever given to Ariane 5.Short version:ESA and CNES shot themselves in the foot with their shortsightedness and lack of imagination.Indeed.I want to express that Europe's collapse in the market share of global launch isn't some far-off hypothetical based on Starship appearing... It's happening right now.Attached below is the table I put in the SpaceX manifest thread comparing the delta-v adjusted tonnage to orbit of various providers. DV-adjusted payload takes the rocket equation and the ISP of hypergolic orbit raising rockets, and the DV difference in delivered orbit vs LEO to adjust it to a LEO-equivalent standard.Taking these numbers, Europe's share of global adjusted tonnage to orbit is this:2014: 22.4%2015: 20.5% 2016: 21.9%2017: 19.3%2018: 16.7% 2019: 14.1%2020: 8.0%It looks like Ariane will launch about 3 times each in 2021 and 2022 (Vega is too small to even really make a dent either way). This means that Europe's market share for launch this year will have fallen to ~6%.Next year, if Starship launches only a few times, this number will drop to 3-4%.... A few years from now it is not hyperbole for Europe to have <1% of global launch market share. one percent...this year, SpaceX is on track to deliver ~600 adjusted tonnes to orbit. That's equal to Europe's totals in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and projected 2021... combined.They need to move nowWhat does 2019 and 2020 look like if you don't include Starlink launches? Since those are SpaceX satellites including them in the launch market tonnage skews the numbers. No one else gets to compete for those launches.It doesn't make sense to not count Starlink, because the only reason Starlink is possible is the ultra low cost of Falcon 9. OneWeb has already gone bankrupt once using Soyuz.Ariane 64 could lift ~75 Starlink satellites for $140m. Thats $1.9m in launch costs per satellite.Ariane 62 is even worse... ~$90m for ~35 satellites... $2.6m each.SpaceX's cost for F9 is about $28m for 60 satellites... <$500k each.
What does 2019 and 2020 look like if you don't include Starlink launches? Since those are SpaceX satellites including them in the launch market tonnage skews the numbers. No one else gets to compete for those launches.
You're just biasing the numbers to make your point. What's Ariane's percentage of the available market?
Quote from: RonM on 05/21/2021 08:33 pmYou're just biasing the numbers to make your point. What's Ariane's percentage of the available market?Sorry, too much hand-waving. You run the numbers and then come back and tell us what you think the numbers mean, and what they are base on.
Quote from: ZachF on 05/21/2021 08:05 pmQuote from: RonM on 05/21/2021 04:01 pmQuote from: ZachF on 05/21/2021 03:24 pmTaking these numbers, Europe's share of global adjusted tonnage to orbit is this:...2020: 8.0%...They need to move nowWhat does 2019 and 2020 look like if you don't include Starlink launches? Since those are SpaceX satellites including them in the launch market tonnage skews the numbers. No one else gets to compete for those launches.It doesn't make sense to not count Starlink, because the only reason Starlink is possible is the ultra low cost of Falcon 9. OneWeb has already gone bankrupt once using Soyuz....You're just biasing the numbers to make your point. What's Ariane's percentage of the available market?
Quote from: RonM on 05/21/2021 04:01 pmQuote from: ZachF on 05/21/2021 03:24 pmTaking these numbers, Europe's share of global adjusted tonnage to orbit is this:...2020: 8.0%...They need to move nowWhat does 2019 and 2020 look like if you don't include Starlink launches? Since those are SpaceX satellites including them in the launch market tonnage skews the numbers. No one else gets to compete for those launches.It doesn't make sense to not count Starlink, because the only reason Starlink is possible is the ultra low cost of Falcon 9. OneWeb has already gone bankrupt once using Soyuz....
Quote from: ZachF on 05/21/2021 03:24 pmTaking these numbers, Europe's share of global adjusted tonnage to orbit is this:...2020: 8.0%...They need to move nowWhat does 2019 and 2020 look like if you don't include Starlink launches? Since those are SpaceX satellites including them in the launch market tonnage skews the numbers. No one else gets to compete for those launches.
Taking these numbers, Europe's share of global adjusted tonnage to orbit is this:...2020: 8.0%...They need to move now
It doesn't make sense to not count Starlink, because the only reason Starlink is possible is the ultra low cost of Falcon 9. OneWeb has already gone bankrupt once using Soyuz.
2019 Starlink launch payload = 15,600 kg. World total 671,350 kg - 15,600 kg = 655,750 kg. Ariane percentage = 93,518 kg / 655,750 kg = 14.2%2020 Starlink launches payload = 217,382 kg. World total 807,255 kg - 217,382 kg = 589,873 kg. Ariane percentage = 63,709 kg / 589,873 kg = 10.8 %...
Quote from: RonM on 05/21/2021 09:44 pm2019 Starlink launch payload = 15,600 kg. World total 671,350 kg - 15,600 kg = 655,750 kg. Ariane percentage = 93,518 kg / 655,750 kg = 14.2%2020 Starlink launches payload = 217,382 kg. World total 807,255 kg - 217,382 kg = 589,873 kg. Ariane percentage = 63,709 kg / 589,873 kg = 10.8 %...Thanks for the numbers, but how much of that tonnage was actually addressable? As in, how much of that tonnage was launches not competed? If you want an apples-to-apples comparison; need to factor those out. Again, you appear to be conflating "world total" with a fuzzy definition of "addressable".
The Ariane schedule thread has been wildly inaccurate for as long as it has existed, and you may be mistaking payloads for launches (remember A5 launches two payloads at a time)There are only 8 Ariane 5 launches left. After this year it will be 5.There are NOT going to be several Ariane 6 launches next year. No new rocket has ever ramped like that... ever. There will be one maybe two if they are lucky, and the 64 probably wont launch until 2023+. The first 62 launch is scheduled for Q2-22, which probably means Q3. And remember, Ariane 62 only lifts about half the tonnage that 5/64 does.Ariane 6 really isn't selling well, which is why the grumblings about more state subsidies continue to get louder. Unfortunately it's also an especially poor platform for LEO constellation work.
You will have ask SpaceX or their one eyed amazing peoples. amazing peoples think 1000s tonnes per year of payloads a will appear once SS is flying.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 05/28/2021 11:40 pmYou will have ask SpaceX or their one eyed amazing peoples. amazing peoples think 1000s tonnes per year of payloads a will appear once SS is flying. If the projected Starlink constellation of ~40K sats is achieved, with a life expectancy of ~5yr/sat and ~250kg/sat = ~2000t/yr. SpaceX is making their own LV market.
Why is Starlink so big? Well, it’s just big enough to justify a fully reusable Starship vehicle. As far as I can tell, justifying Starship is one of the key design parameters of the full Starlink constellation.
But what will happen when the constellation is complete and only replenishment / renewal of the fleet is needed ?
I understand that this results in eye-popping total cost figures for Europe to keep up, especially since European industry's spending efficiency is nowhere near SpaceX's. But that may be just the cost of doing business in this new world.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 05/29/2021 03:59 pmI understand that this results in eye-popping total cost figures for Europe to keep up, especially since European industry's spending efficiency is nowhere near SpaceX's. But that may be just the cost of doing business in this new world.Where does this nonsense come from that "Europe" needs a constellation? If satellite operators feel there's a market opportunity, they're free to pursue it. And of course to some extent they are, e.g. SES builds mPower and Eutelsat has invested in Oneweb.If anything Europeans should drop the government-to-the-rescue attitude.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/20/2021 10:48 amQuote from: Pipcard on 05/19/2021 10:20 pmQuote from: woods170 on 05/17/2021 01:30 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 05/17/2021 01:27 pmSo reusability mentioned six times in two paragraphs, including four quotes. Seems like they got the message.Yeah.... only eight years late...What do you want, a country in an alternate timeline that does it ten years earlier than SpaceX?No, what I want is an ESA and a CNES and an Arianspace that know how to read the writing on the wall. Because they failed to do so in 2014. They had the perfect opportunity to become close followers of SpaceX and thus remain competitive within the global LSP market.But ESA, CNES and Arianespace failed to read the writing on the wall. And now Europe is stuck with a 'new' launcher which is obsolete by the time it starts flying, having wasted 5 billion Euros and 8 years. Current ESA and CNES efforts for reusability developement are severely being hampered by the money pit that is Ariane 6. Had those Euros been spent on a (partially) reusable launcher eight years ago, than Ariane 6 would be a close follower of Falcon 9, instead of a launcher with no chance of competing.They didn't have engines then to do RLV. A6 was best ELV they could do with what they had and most importantly cheaper and more versatile than A5. Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Agreed that it is nonsense and the Europeans don't need a megaconstellation. But if you insist on having a reusable rocket (because that is the definition of having an independent launch capability), then it needs to be paired with one or more megaconstellations.
Exactly. How can anyone look at a thousand-odd Starlink sats and hundreds of OneWeb sats on orbit, be aware of OneWeb's and Amazon's and Telesat's future plans, and keep thinking "But where will the market demand needed for a reusable launcher come from?"If Europe/Ariane is now "joining the re-usability bandwagon", then it's about time -- the time to develop a reusable launcher was years ago.
A european RLV could compete for Kupier launches. AWS has lot of european servers and customers, would be in their interest to spread these launches around, especially if RLV is competitively priced with other RLVs AWS is using.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 05/29/2021 07:52 pmAgreed that it is nonsense and the Europeans don't need a megaconstellation. But if you insist on having a reusable rocket (because that is the definition of having an independent launch capability), then it needs to be paired with one or more megaconstellations.Quote from: GreenShrike on 05/30/2021 03:56 amExactly. How can anyone look at a thousand-odd Starlink sats and hundreds of OneWeb sats on orbit, be aware of OneWeb's and Amazon's and Telesat's future plans, and keep thinking "But where will the market demand needed for a reusable launcher come from?"If Europe/Ariane is now "joining the re-usability bandwagon", then it's about time -- the time to develop a reusable launcher was years ago.This leads me to wonder, how early could a market for megaconstellations + RLVs have happened? There were the failed constellations of the 1990s (like Teledesic), and VTVL reusable rockets have been demonstrated in the 90s with the DC-X. If a partially reusable Falcon 9-like two-stage rocket was available back then, could those constellations have been more viable from a business perspective? Would an internet megaconstellation and Starship-like vehicle have made sense in the late 2000s with the rise of user-generated streaming video? Or were they destined to fail until the Internet grew in bandwidth and potential userbase, so they could only work starting from the late 2010s/early 2020s?
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 05/29/2021 07:52 pmAgreed that it is nonsense and the Europeans don't need a megaconstellation. But if you insist on having a reusable rocket (because that is the definition of having an independent launch capability), then it needs to be paired with one or more megaconstellations.Exactly. How can anyone look at a thousand-odd Starlink sats and hundreds of OneWeb sats on orbit, be aware of OneWeb's and Amazon's and Telesat's future plans, and keep thinking "But where will the market demand needed for a reusable launcher come from?"If Europe/Ariane is now "joining the re-usability bandwagon", then it's about time -- the time to develop a reusable launcher was years ago.Their Ariane 6 mis-step has done them -- and Starlink's competitors -- no favours. As it stands today, the lack of a non-SpaceX reusable launcher is forcing constellation developers to either award launches to a direct competitor, or pay current non-SpaceX launch prices. Launch may be the "cheapest part of a satellite's cost", but -- as the ex-bankrupt OneWeb knows from experience -- at a mega-constellation's scale the current retail launch costs can be ruinous.As I pointed out in the OneWeb thread, OneWeb's second gen constellation is 6000+ sats. Assuming a hundred sats per launch, and you're looking at 60 launches.Unless another reusable launcher comes online, Falcon 9 will continue to lead in pricing. New Glenn might help, but between Kuiper and the Telesat contracts, free slots will likely be difficult to come by as Blue ramps New Glenn's cadence. If SpaceX is to be avoided, then OneWeb is looking at paying the high cost of Ariane 64. Note that A64, a GTO-optimized launcher, isn't great at bulk LEO deliveries, performing between a Falcon 9 Reusable and F9 Expendable. At maybe something like $125M * 60 launches, that's $7.5B in launch costs alone.If ArianeNext can reusably lift what Ariane 64 can put into LEO for Falcon 9's ~$50M price rather than A64's ~$125M, that's a $4.5B difference.Starlink gets rockets at cost; it's obvious any mega-constellation which needs to pay retail for launch will be operating at a major disadvantage.As such, I'd suggested that Bharti, the Indian co-owner of OneWeb, might partner with ISRO to develop a Falcon 9-class (or bigger) reusable launcher. OneWeb can either pay $7.5B for lift, or pay $4.5B for a reusable launcher and $3B for lift. It's $7.5B either way, but the latter gets them an asset which will reduce their launch costs from then on -- and replenishment of the constellation will give the launcher steady work.However, such a scheme would work for ArianeGroup, too -- just develop ArianeNext under a Bharti/OneWeb/ArianeGroup partnership. The European taxpayers would get a break, Europe would get its independent access to space at pricing that's actually competitive, and OneWeb would neutralize one of Starlink's biggest advantages.
If a partially reusable Falcon 9-like two-stage rocket was available back then, could those constellations have been more viable from a business perspective?
Now to REALLY go out on a limb, I wonder if Europe has forgotten to seriously revisit the assumptions that originally got Arianegroup started. Relative to back in the day, there are launcher alternatives all over the place. In a business that operates in a world where most parts of the supply chain are in massive global oversupply you do not guarantee assurance of supply by investing in your own assets. You spend a fraction of that money on redundant supply agreements and invest your own money only on things that are or might go into shortage. With ISRO, multiple Chinese entities, Russia, Jaxa, two or three American suppliers, and innumerable startups to choose from, a bombproof assurance to space should be an easy thing to assemble even without your own rocket.
Quote from: groundbound on 05/31/2021 12:39 amNow to REALLY go out on a limb, I wonder if Europe has forgotten to seriously revisit the assumptions that originally got Arianegroup started. Relative to back in the day, there are launcher alternatives all over the place. In a business that operates in a world where most parts of the supply chain are in massive global oversupply you do not guarantee assurance of supply by investing in your own assets. You spend a fraction of that money on redundant supply agreements and invest your own money only on things that are or might go into shortage. With ISRO, multiple Chinese entities, Russia, Jaxa, two or three American suppliers, and innumerable startups to choose from, a bombproof assurance to space should be an easy thing to assemble even without your own rocket. US commercial suppliers: no go. They're under the thumb of ITAR. China, Russia: hostile enough that you don't want to depend on them without an alternative. Soyuz in Kourou is an interesting experiment, but it's one diplomatic spat away from its supply line being cut off. Startups: the only ones that have a proven launch capability are US-based and under ITAR. That leaves ISRO and JAXA, and the political quagmire of outsourcing your launch needs to India.
I think the US puts a restriction on the resolution of commercial EO satellites. For foreign intelligence payloads, l would guess you'd have to get a special license from DoD to launch on US LV, correct?
The point of Starlink is to make money. If putting some Starlinks on other LVs helps SpaceX make Starlink profitable, they would do it. Those LVs would have to be cheaper than the internal cost of F9. The fact that nobody else has a LV that currently does compete with that cost does not mean that it's impossible to beat that cost, or that they couldn't pull some Starlinks off F9 if they did beat that cost.That's a market segment that is almost entirely captured by price, rather than by politics or national security concerns. It's a market segment a European RLV could compete in, if costs were sufficiently low....
Quote from: hektor on 05/20/2021 10:55 amWhat is the point of competing for Europe ?The priority for Europe should be to make sure they can timely launch their own payloads at a reasonable cost without having to beg for a launch from a foreign partner.A commercially competitive launcher reduces the public cost of assured access to space by spreading the fixed costs over more launches and more private customers.
Absolutely. The prime driver behind the Ariane series of launchers was assured independent access to space for Europe. However, it was well understood in Europe that for such a launch system to be affordable it would have to pay for itself by attracting as much commercial business as possible, ON TOP OF the purely institutional and government launches.
Quote from: envy887 on 05/29/2021 11:02 pmQuote from: hektor on 05/20/2021 10:55 amWhat is the point of competing for Europe ?The priority for Europe should be to make sure they can timely launch their own payloads at a reasonable cost without having to beg for a launch from a foreign partner.A commercially competitive launcher reduces the public cost of assured access to space by spreading the fixed costs over more launches and more private customers.Absolutely. The prime driver behind the Ariane series of launchers was assured independent access to space for Europe. However, it was well understood in Europe that for such a launch system to be affordable it would have to pay for itself by attracting as much commercial business as possible, ON TOP OF the purely institutional and government launches.This has not changed for Ariane 6. Nor will it change for any other future Ariane launcher. This requirement is exactly why Ariane 6 is already failing. By being expendable it is still too costly to operate and it is already losing business to SpaceX. Despite this being well understood by both ESA and CNES, there is still not a large enough sense of urgency to accelerate the limited reuseability efforts (Themis and Prometheus).
Having said that I fully agree with you that "Europe" does not need its own internet satellite constellation.
QuoteHaving said that I fully agree with you that "Europe" does not need its own internet satellite constellation. gimme a break... the point of Starlink, Kuiper and others is global broadband Internet access - I mean, for the unfortunate 2 or 3 billion people living in poor countries not rich enough to get the same high broadband Internet via ground networks. Now if we agree on this point, indeed, Europe has an ultra-dense and up-to-date ground network perfectly able to bring broadband internet into european smartphones anywhere on the continent... no ? for example in france, the 5G certainly goes through updated ground networks - people are even protesting or even going conspiracy nut about it. Or maybe it is just a matter of not staying behind a potential revolution that are spaceborne megaconstellations (think Concorde or... Ariane or Eutelsat or Galileo) ? Don't forget Galileo is not only "a GPS for Europe" but also a soft power tool "You don't like America and GPS ? go Galileo !" China is doing the same, they are creating their own GPS (Beidu ? can't remember) just for the technology, the jobs, and soft power. Does this apply to broadband internet mega-constellations ? Does europe needs a "broadband Internet Galileo or Eutelsat" ? There is certainly an old tradition of creating an "European matching capability" as far as satellites systems and markets go: Inmarsat (at sea) , Eutelsat (TV), Meteosat (weather), SPOT (remote sensing), Galileo (GPS)...
What the EU and ESA are proposing to do, is to compete with a PRIVATE COMPANY instead of other nations.
Interesting Ariane Ultimate concept from @CNES's #ArianeWorksSSTO, using a 450s Isp monopropellant, reusable. It seems to be more of a research roadmap than an actual concept to replace Ariane 6 with. Source is the latest @aerospatium
So what is this Ariane Ultimate stuff? Monopropellant with 450s Isp seems too good to be true.https://twitter.com/stromgade/status/1098676265844920321QuoteInteresting Ariane Ultimate concept from @CNES's #ArianeWorksSSTO, using a 450s Isp monopropellant, reusable. It seems to be more of a research roadmap than an actual concept to replace Ariane 6 with. Source is the latest @aerospatium
So what is this Ariane Ultimate stuff? Monopropellant with 450s Isp seems too good to be true.QuoteInteresting Ariane Ultimate concept from @CNES's #ArianeWorksSSTO, using a 450s Isp monopropellant, reusable. It seems to be more of a research roadmap than an actual concept to replace Ariane 6 with. Source is the latest @aerospatium
reflections for the post-2040 are well underway with the Ariane Ultimate project . At this stage, it is still only a concept, that is to say a pool of new technologies which are in an embryonic state but which we want to make mature by this time, in order to develop a launcher that must be carbon neutral, fully reusable and at almost zero marginal launch cost. It is also a question of projecting on the new uses of space in the coming decades as we can imagine them on this horizon: for example the need for high speeds to reach the low orbits which could serve as hubs of exchange towards the Moon or towards Mars. Ariane Ultimate will represent a departure from previous generations of launchers. It is about finding the ideas and technologies to meet these objectives and these future uses. Cheaper, simpler, more efficient, easier to recover: this type of single-stage launcher would be the holy grail! However, it is not currently possible, especially because the materials we use are too heavy. We must therefore find a way to lighten the structures,” explains Nathalie Girard. Initial research is therefore oriented towards the development of new, lighter and extremely resistant materials such as carbon nanotubes, graphene, or architectural materials made possible by 3D manufacturing. Another avenue is to work on propulsion, with new high energy density propellants which would make it possible to drastically reduce the mass and the cost on the launcher. Ariane Ultimate finally incorporates reflections on avionics and software that will benefit from emerging technological advances, such as “many cores” processors or the quantum computer.
Why wouldn't they go with Skylon instead?
Skylon is UK based which is no longer part of the EU. ESA can only lose by treating the UK as an adversary but this is what they're going to do: notice recent squabbles over OneWeb.
In other words, it is a science fiction rocket...Why wouldn't they go with Skylon instead? That is much closer to being doable and would still be a novel and potentially competitive approach. Also much closer to reality.
So, if Europe really wants to compete with Starlink....let a private company do it.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/02/2021 07:35 pmSo, if Europe really wants to compete with Starlink....let a private company do it.But therein lies the rub. Why isn't SpaceX european? You'd think we were in a good position back when Spacex started. Or Facebook or google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple (I know this one is technically european lol) ... companies that changed the world. US will control the flow of information. Barriers to private enterprize - regulatory, social, mental, are too high here. There is nothing we can do about this unless something fundamental changes in EU. European government led megaconstellation is a Buran project.
Quote from: saliva_sweet on 06/10/2021 09:21 pmQuote from: woods170 on 06/02/2021 07:35 pmSo, if Europe really wants to compete with Starlink....let a private company do it.But therein lies the rub. Why isn't SpaceX european? You'd think we were in a good position back when Spacex started. Or Facebook or google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple (I know this one is technically european lol) ... companies that changed the world. US will control the flow of information. Barriers to private enterprize - regulatory, social, mental, are too high here. There is nothing we can do about this unless something fundamental changes in EU. European government led megaconstellation is a Buran project.As someone who lives in the US, you could also say that the barriers to public enterprise is too high here, as seen by the fight over something as basic as infrastructure.
Quote from: libra on 06/01/2021 05:25 pmQuoteHaving said that I fully agree with you that "Europe" does not need its own internet satellite constellation. gimme a break... the point of Starlink, Kuiper and others is global broadband Internet access - I mean, for the unfortunate 2 or 3 billion people living in poor countries not rich enough to get the same high broadband Internet via ground networks. Now if we agree on this point, indeed, Europe has an ultra-dense and up-to-date ground network perfectly able to bring broadband internet into european smartphones anywhere on the continent... no ? for example in france, the 5G certainly goes through updated ground networks - people are even protesting or even going conspiracy nut about it. Or maybe it is just a matter of not staying behind a potential revolution that are spaceborne megaconstellations (think Concorde or... Ariane or Eutelsat or Galileo) ? Don't forget Galileo is not only "a GPS for Europe" but also a soft power tool "You don't like America and GPS ? go Galileo !" China is doing the same, they are creating their own GPS (Beidu ? can't remember) just for the technology, the jobs, and soft power. Does this apply to broadband internet mega-constellations ? Does europe needs a "broadband Internet Galileo or Eutelsat" ? There is certainly an old tradition of creating an "European matching capability" as far as satellites systems and markets go: Inmarsat (at sea) , Eutelsat (TV), Meteosat (weather), SPOT (remote sensing), Galileo (GPS)... Two things:- You left out my disclaimer: "Or at least, not one initiated and paid for by European governments."- All the "European matching capability" stuff you mentioned is government-initiated. Starlink isn't.European governements initiating Galileo, to match the US goverment-initiated GPS, makes perfect sense.European governments initiating Meteosat, to match the US government-initiated NOAA sats, makes perfect sense.European governments initiating SPOT, to match the US government-initiated LandSat, makes perfect sense.However, European governments initiating a European satellite internet constellation, to match the SpaceX PRIVATELY initiated Starlink constellation, makes no sense at all. What the EU and ESA are proposing to do, is to compete with a PRIVATE COMPANY instead of other nations. That is silly. Not to mention a downright stupid way to spend European taxpayers' money.So, if Europe really wants to compete with Starlink....let a private company do it.
A bit more detail on Ariane Ultimate, via Parabolic Arc:Quote reflections for the post-2040 are well underway with the Ariane Ultimate project . At this stage, it is still only a concept, that is to say a pool of new technologies which are in an embryonic state but which we want to make mature by this time, in order to develop a launcher that must be carbon neutral, fully reusable and at almost zero marginal launch cost. It is also a question of projecting on the new uses of space in the coming decades as we can imagine them on this horizon: for example the need for high speeds to reach the low orbits which could serve as hubs of exchange towards the Moon or towards Mars. Ariane Ultimate will represent a departure from previous generations of launchers. It is about finding the ideas and technologies to meet these objectives and these future uses. Cheaper, simpler, more efficient, easier to recover: this type of single-stage launcher would be the holy grail! However, it is not currently possible, especially because the materials we use are too heavy. We must therefore find a way to lighten the structures,” explains Nathalie Girard. Initial research is therefore oriented towards the development of new, lighter and extremely resistant materials such as carbon nanotubes, graphene, or architectural materials made possible by 3D manufacturing. Another avenue is to work on propulsion, with new high energy density propellants which would make it possible to drastically reduce the mass and the cost on the launcher. Ariane Ultimate finally incorporates reflections on avionics and software that will benefit from emerging technological advances, such as “many cores” processors or the quantum computer.
French President @EmmanuelMacron: France 2030 goal is a reusable min-launcher by 2026 and a stronger French participation in smallsat constellations. @ESA @defis_eu @CNES.
...How else is Europe’s Recovery Plan helping Italy’s space industry?Another good chunk of money from it is going toward developing rocket technology. We will use this funding to create a demonstrator of a new rocket using our liquid oxygen-methane engine. {A demonstrator stage that uses M10 engines, or the VUS Vega E upperstage }And also to develop a new liquid oxygen methane engine that will be six times more powerful. So that paves the road for the next generation launchers that we will likely have in the 2030s.
I think this topic is the right place to discuss a question I've got.What is the best approach to develop reusable launchers in Europe?<snip>I'm interested in other views/ thoughts about how Europe can develop reusable stages.<snip>
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 06/19/2022 02:30 pmI think this topic is the right place to discuss a question I've got.What is the best approach to develop reusable launchers in Europe?<snip>I'm interested in other views/ thoughts about how Europe can develop reusable stages.<snip>Before hardware considerations. Decide what the reusable launcher is going to be use for and from which launch sites. Also decide if the upper stages is to be recoverable.Program have to prioritizes less production cost and ease of assembling the launcher. Not a jobs program in other words.On the propulsion hardware side. Some sort of pump fed semi-cryogenic liquid engine that can landed the booster stage or allows the booster stage to reentry the atmosphere from orbit.Finally, Europe doesn't have much time to field a reusable launcher before window of opportunity to gain market share in the commercial reusable launch market closes.
I think this topic is the right place to discuss a question I've got.What is the best approach to develop reusable launchers in Europe?I think Callisto is a right start. But I think Themis as next step is a leap to far. It's to large for a demonstrator, thus to expansive. I also think there are multiple roads to Rome / methods to recover a stage). Thus different recovery methods need to be tested. Parachute recovery, landing legs, landing catch mechanism. The engine used on the testbed/demonstrator needs to be proven/qualified/certified before the reusable demonstrator can be developed. Otherwise engine reliability risks, harm the reusable stage demonstrator.Thus developing the engines is the first priority. I think a liquid engine is required.I think the first stage of Sirius Space Services; Sirius 1 could be a nice step after Callisto. It uses a simple 38kN pressure-feed LOx LNG engine. Other options are the first stages of micro launchers. I really like the Skyrora XL, but UK ain't EU any longer.PLD space could us Miura 1 or make a demonstrator with a cluster of Teprel-B (pressure feed) engines.ISAR could use the first stage of their Spectrum launcher, RFA the first stage of RFA One.Several Avio M10 engines could be used in a demonstrator, ? Avio / Maia Space? A reusable first stage could be use for suborbital express (experiments) and as lander demonstrator. (Blue Origin; New Sheppard / Masten; Xogdor).I think both (Suborbital and Diamond sites) CSG, France Guiana and SSC Esrange, Sweden are launch sites where a reusable suborbital rocket could be operated. I think SSC Esrange LZ-3 is the primary launch site for a reusable stage demonstrator.Europe also needs to mature (lunar/mars) lander technologies, also for this purpose the launch sites and reusable stages are required. I think a nearly decade long development plan is required. Another scenario is that P120C(+) production will soon become limiting in launching Vega C/E and Ariane 6. several 1000kN Prometheus or the Avio proposed 6xM10 thrust (600kN ? Romeo) engines could be used on a reusable stage that replaces the P120C. This reusable stage is very similar to the Themis demonstrator. I think Themis as demonstrator is to large, if higher launch rates is enabled by a affordable liquid booster. They could use it on decent to develop stage recovery. But initially they will likely expend this liquid booster. So it's a development approach with high material costs. I'm interested in other views/ thoughts about how Europe can develop reusable stages.Spacenews Avio Q&AQuote...How else is Europe’s Recovery Plan helping Italy’s space industry?Another good chunk of money from it is going toward developing rocket technology. We will use this funding to create a demonstrator of a new rocket using our liquid oxygen-methane engine. {A demonstrator stage that uses M10 engines }And also to develop a new liquid oxygen methane engine that will be six times more powerful. So that paves the road for the next generation launchers that we will likely have in the 2030s.
...How else is Europe’s Recovery Plan helping Italy’s space industry?Another good chunk of money from it is going toward developing rocket technology. We will use this funding to create a demonstrator of a new rocket using our liquid oxygen-methane engine. {A demonstrator stage that uses M10 engines }And also to develop a new liquid oxygen methane engine that will be six times more powerful. So that paves the road for the next generation launchers that we will likely have in the 2030s.
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 06/19/2022 02:30 pmI think this topic is the right place to discuss a question I've got.What is the best approach to develop reusable launchers in Europe?I think Callisto is a right start. But I think Themis as next step is a leap to far. It's to large for a demonstrator, thus to expansive. I also think there are multiple roads to Rome / methods to recover a stage). Thus different recovery methods need to be tested. Parachute recovery, landing legs, landing catch mechanism. The engine used on the testbed/demonstrator needs to be proven/qualified/certified before the reusable demonstrator can be developed. Otherwise engine reliability risks, harm the reusable stage demonstrator.Thus developing the engines is the first priority. I think a liquid engine is required.I think the first stage of Sirius Space Services; Sirius 1 could be a nice step after Callisto. It uses a simple 38kN pressure-feed LOx LNG engine. Other options are the first stages of micro launchers. I really like the Skyrora XL, but UK ain't EU any longer.PLD space could us Miura 1 or make a demonstrator with a cluster of Teprel-B (pressure feed) engines.ISAR could use the first stage of their Spectrum launcher, RFA the first stage of RFA One.Several Avio M10 engines could be used in a demonstrator, ? Avio / Maia Space? A reusable first stage could be use for suborbital express (experiments) and as lander demonstrator. (Blue Origin; New Sheppard / Masten; Xogdor).I think both (Suborbital and Diamond sites) CSG, France Guiana and SSC Esrange, Sweden are launch sites where a reusable suborbital rocket could be operated. I think SSC Esrange LZ-3 is the primary launch site for a reusable stage demonstrator.Europe also needs to mature (lunar/mars) lander technologies, also for this purpose the launch sites and reusable stages are required. I think a nearly decade long development plan is required. Another scenario is that P120C(+) production will soon become limiting in launching Vega C/E and Ariane 6. several 1000kN Prometheus or the Avio proposed 6xM10 thrust (600kN ? Romeo) engines could be used on a reusable stage that replaces the P120C. This reusable stage is very similar to the Themis demonstrator. I think Themis as demonstrator is to large, if higher launch rates is enabled by a affordable liquid booster. They could use it on decent to develop stage recovery. But initially they will likely expend this liquid booster. So it's a development approach with high material costs. I'm interested in other views/ thoughts about how Europe can develop reusable stages.Spacenews Avio Q&AQuote...How else is Europe’s Recovery Plan helping Italy’s space industry?Another good chunk of money from it is going toward developing rocket technology. We will use this funding to create a demonstrator of a new rocket using our liquid oxygen-methane engine. {A demonstrator stage that uses M10 engines }And also to develop a new liquid oxygen methane engine that will be six times more powerful. So that paves the road for the next generation launchers that we will likely have in the 2030s.In my opinion, as soon as Ariane 6 is operational, ESA and CNES should immediately begin the active development phase of the Ariane Next reusable LV (which means canceling the development of Ariane 6 upgrades like the Astris upper stage). I also think they should cancel the development of Vega-E except for the M10 engine, which might be useful to them later.I think that they should skip one of the two demonstrators because having two demonstrators does not seems necessary to me. I understand why they want to have two demonstrators but that's too incremental (and therefore slow) of an approach compared to what SpaceX and China are doing.In terms of design, I think Ariane Next should be a Falcon 9 clone. They should use the Prometheus engine similarly to the Merlin, with a vacuum-optimized version for the upper stage. It's a tried and tested design that can put around 20 metric tons into low orbit, a payload capacity roughly equivalent to that of Ariane 5 and 6.If Europe has a Falcon 9 clone by the second half of the decade that would be a major win. Ariane Next could compete with Rocket Lab's Neutron, which will enter service around the same time. (They could also develop a high-energy upper stage based on the M10 engine to compete with ULA's Vulcan Centaur)The experience gained should allow them to begin the development of a heavy reusable LV in the 2030s (either by slapping 3 Ariane Next cores together Falcon Heavy-style, or by developing a new design from scratch).That would be an ideal timeline I think, but I'm 100% sure things won't go that way at all IRL.France has recently ceased to be the main financial contributor to the Ariane 6 program. Germany took that role, and Germany wants Ariane 6 to become ESA's workhorse launcher for the next ten years, so they are pushing for the development of A6 upgrades like the Astris kick stage. The whole Ariane Next/MaiaSpace thing is a French-led effort that's radically different from Germany's vision of the future. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
I think this topic is the right place to discuss a question I've got.What is the best approach to develop reusable launchers in Europe?I think Callisto is a right start. But I think Themis as next step is a leap to far. It's to large for a demonstrator, thus to expansive. I also think there are multiple roads to Rome / methods to recover a stage). Thus different recovery methods need to be tested. Parachute recovery, landing legs, landing catch mechanism. The engine used on the testbed/demonstrator needs to be proven/qualified/certified before the reusable demonstrator can be developed. Otherwise engine reliability risks, harm the reusable stage demonstrator.Thus developing the engines is the first priority. I think a liquid engine is required.I think the first stage of Sirius Space Services; Sirius 1 could be a nice step after Callisto. It uses a simple 38kN pressure-feed LOx LNG engine. Other options are the first stages of micro launchers. I really like the Skyrora XL, but UK ain't EU any longer.PLD space could us Miura 1 or make a demonstrator with a cluster of Teprel-B (pressure feed) engines.ISAR could use the first stage of their Spectrum launcher, RFA the first stage of RFA One.Several Avio M10 engines could be used in a demonstrator, ? Avio / Maia Space? A reusable first stage could be use for suborbital express (experiments) and as lander demonstrator. (Blue Origin; New Sheppard / Masten; Xogdor).I think both (Suborbital and Diamond sites) CSG, France Guiana and SSC Esrange, Sweden are launch sites where a reusable suborbital rocket could be operated. I think SSC Esrange LZ-3 is the primary launch site for a reusable stage demonstrator.Europe also needs to mature (lunar/mars) lander technologies, also for this purpose the launch sites and reusable stages are required. I think a nearly decade long development plan is required. Another scenario is that P120C(+) production will soon become limiting in launching Vega C/E and Ariane 6. several 1000kN Prometheus or the Avio proposed 6xM10 thrust (600kN ? Romeo) engines could be used on a reusable stage that replaces the P120C. This reusable stage is very similar to the Themis demonstrator. I think Themis as demonstrator is to large, if higher launch rates is enabled by a affordable liquid booster. They could use it on decent to develop stage recovery. But initially they will likely expend this liquid booster. So it's a development approach with high material costs. I'm interested in other views/ thoughts about how Europe can develop reusable stages.Spacenews Avio Q&AQuote...How else is Europe’s Recovery Plan helping Italy’s space industry?Another good chunk of money from it is going toward developing rocket technology. We will use this funding to create a demonstrator of a new rocket using our liquid oxygen-methane engine. {A demonstrator stage that uses M10 engines }And also to develop a new liquid oxygen methane engine that will be six times more powerful. So that paves the road for the next generation launchers that we will likely have in the 2030s.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 06/20/2022 01:09 amQuote from: Rik ISS-fan on 06/19/2022 02:30 pmI think this topic is the right place to discuss a question I've got.What is the best approach to develop reusable launchers in Europe?<snip>I'm interested in other views/ thoughts about how Europe can develop reusable stages.<snip>Before hardware considerations. Decide what the reusable launcher is going to be use for and from which launch sites. Also decide if the upper stages is to be recoverable.Program have to prioritizes less production cost and ease of assembling the launcher. Not a jobs program in other words.On the propulsion hardware side. Some sort of pump fed semi-cryogenic liquid engine that can landed the booster stage or allows the booster stage to reentry the atmosphere from orbit.Finally, Europe doesn't have much time to field a reusable launcher before window of opportunity to gain market share in the commercial reusable launch market closes.You are describing a competitor to Falcon 9. But Falcon 9 is now a decade old. By the time a new design is operational, Falcon 9 will be used only for legacy missions because it will have been superseded by Starship. Your new design will only serve customers that are forced by policy or law to use it. In 2022, Falcon 9 will reach its highest launch rate, because half its launches are Starlink and Starlink will migrate to Starship in 2023, and by 2024 F9 will carry only those payloads (Crew dragon, perhaps) that cannot or will not migrate to Starship.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 02:44 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 06/20/2022 01:09 amQuote from: Rik ISS-fan on 06/19/2022 02:30 pmI think this topic is the right place to discuss a question I've got.What is the best approach to develop reusable launchers in Europe?<snip>I'm interested in other views/ thoughts about how Europe can develop reusable stages.<snip>Before hardware considerations. Decide what the reusable launcher is going to be use for and from which launch sites. Also decide if the upper stages is to be recoverable.Program have to prioritizes less production cost and ease of assembling the launcher. Not a jobs program in other words.On the propulsion hardware side. Some sort of pump fed semi-cryogenic liquid engine that can landed the booster stage or allows the booster stage to reentry the atmosphere from orbit.Finally, Europe doesn't have much time to field a reusable launcher before window of opportunity to gain market share in the commercial reusable launch market closes.You are describing a competitor to Falcon 9. But Falcon 9 is now a decade old. By the time a new design is operational, Falcon 9 will be used only for legacy missions because it will have been superseded by Starship. Your new design will only serve customers that are forced by policy or law to use it. In 2022, Falcon 9 will reach its highest launch rate, because half its launches are Starlink and Starlink will migrate to Starship in 2023, and by 2024 F9 will carry only those payloads (Crew dragon, perhaps) that cannot or will not migrate to Starship.Huh. Where did you get the idea that I was proposing a Falcon 9 clone?Only stated that Europe don't have much time and couldn't be a decentralized jobs program approach. Europe have to decide the roles to be fulfilled with a reusable or a partially-reusable launcher.IMO. The Europeans need an interim reusable launcher with limited service life to have some experience before trying to compete with the large reusable launchers from SpaceX and maybe Blue Origin.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 06/20/2022 10:12 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 02:44 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 06/20/2022 01:09 am<snip>Before hardware considerations. Decide what the reusable launcher is going to be use for and from which launch sites. Also decide if the upper stages is to be recoverable.Program have to prioritizes less production cost and ease of assembling the launcher. Not a jobs program in other words.On the propulsion hardware side. Some sort of pump fed semi-cryogenic liquid engine that can landed the booster stage or allows the booster stage to reentry the atmosphere from orbit.Finally, Europe doesn't have much time to field a reusable launcher before window of opportunity to gain market share in the commercial reusable launch market closes.You are describing a competitor to Falcon 9. But Falcon 9 is now a decade old. By the time a new design is operational, Falcon 9 will be used only for legacy missions because it will have been superseded by Starship. Your new design will only serve customers that are forced by policy or law to use it. In 2022, Falcon 9 will reach its highest launch rate, because half its launches are Starlink and Starlink will migrate to Starship in 2023, and by 2024 F9 will carry only those payloads (Crew dragon, perhaps) that cannot or will not migrate to Starship.Huh. Where did you get the idea that I was proposing a Falcon 9 clone?Only stated that Europe don't have much time and couldn't be a decentralized jobs program approach. Europe have to decide the roles to be fulfilled with a reusable or a partially-reusable launcher.IMO. The Europeans need an interim reusable launcher with limited service life to have some experience before trying to compete with the large reusable launchers from SpaceX and maybe Blue Origin.I did not say you proposed an F9 clone. I said you proposed to compete with F9.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 02:44 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 06/20/2022 01:09 am<snip>Before hardware considerations. Decide what the reusable launcher is going to be use for and from which launch sites. Also decide if the upper stages is to be recoverable.Program have to prioritizes less production cost and ease of assembling the launcher. Not a jobs program in other words.On the propulsion hardware side. Some sort of pump fed semi-cryogenic liquid engine that can landed the booster stage or allows the booster stage to reentry the atmosphere from orbit.Finally, Europe doesn't have much time to field a reusable launcher before window of opportunity to gain market share in the commercial reusable launch market closes.You are describing a competitor to Falcon 9. But Falcon 9 is now a decade old. By the time a new design is operational, Falcon 9 will be used only for legacy missions because it will have been superseded by Starship. Your new design will only serve customers that are forced by policy or law to use it. In 2022, Falcon 9 will reach its highest launch rate, because half its launches are Starlink and Starlink will migrate to Starship in 2023, and by 2024 F9 will carry only those payloads (Crew dragon, perhaps) that cannot or will not migrate to Starship.Huh. Where did you get the idea that I was proposing a Falcon 9 clone?Only stated that Europe don't have much time and couldn't be a decentralized jobs program approach. Europe have to decide the roles to be fulfilled with a reusable or a partially-reusable launcher.IMO. The Europeans need an interim reusable launcher with limited service life to have some experience before trying to compete with the large reusable launchers from SpaceX and maybe Blue Origin.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 06/20/2022 01:09 am<snip>Before hardware considerations. Decide what the reusable launcher is going to be use for and from which launch sites. Also decide if the upper stages is to be recoverable.Program have to prioritizes less production cost and ease of assembling the launcher. Not a jobs program in other words.On the propulsion hardware side. Some sort of pump fed semi-cryogenic liquid engine that can landed the booster stage or allows the booster stage to reentry the atmosphere from orbit.Finally, Europe doesn't have much time to field a reusable launcher before window of opportunity to gain market share in the commercial reusable launch market closes.You are describing a competitor to Falcon 9. But Falcon 9 is now a decade old. By the time a new design is operational, Falcon 9 will be used only for legacy missions because it will have been superseded by Starship. Your new design will only serve customers that are forced by policy or law to use it. In 2022, Falcon 9 will reach its highest launch rate, because half its launches are Starlink and Starlink will migrate to Starship in 2023, and by 2024 F9 will carry only those payloads (Crew dragon, perhaps) that cannot or will not migrate to Starship.
<snip>Before hardware considerations. Decide what the reusable launcher is going to be use for and from which launch sites. Also decide if the upper stages is to be recoverable.Program have to prioritizes less production cost and ease of assembling the launcher. Not a jobs program in other words.On the propulsion hardware side. Some sort of pump fed semi-cryogenic liquid engine that can landed the booster stage or allows the booster stage to reentry the atmosphere from orbit.Finally, Europe doesn't have much time to field a reusable launcher before window of opportunity to gain market share in the commercial reusable launch market closes.
I'm a bit shy on my math here but:What would be the implications of a (reusable) first stage with a slightly ad-hoc tripropellant combination? Say, an engine cluster containing both Prometheus and Vulcain engines? The Prometheus engines can do much of the thrust at the start of flight, light the A5 / A6 do with solids, and then swap to Vulcain only later in the primary flight, improving the specific impulse of the stage over all? Then use the Prometheus engines for landing, and the boost back and / or re-entry burns, if those exist? Would this help to reduce the extreme wet mass requirements of re-usability from an all Prometheus stage? Would using hydrogen in a first stage make it unacceptably high volume?
Quote from: Solarsail on 08/08/2022 06:09 amI'm a bit shy on my math here but:What would be the implications of a (reusable) first stage with a slightly ad-hoc tripropellant combination? Say, an engine cluster containing both Prometheus and Vulcain engines? The Prometheus engines can do much of the thrust at the start of flight, light the A5 / A6 do with solids, and then swap to Vulcain only later in the primary flight, improving the specific impulse of the stage over all? Then use the Prometheus engines for landing, and the boost back and / or re-entry burns, if those exist? Would this help to reduce the extreme wet mass requirements of re-usability from an all Prometheus stage? Would using hydrogen in a first stage make it unacceptably high volume?The extra tanks required for LH would add so extra dry mass that any gains from LH higher ISP would be loss. LH is better as US propellant.
Interesting development: @esaspaceflight announced on 10 March its intention to conduct a study on a future European family of reusable launch systems with a human space transportation capability. The study is part of the agency's Future Launchers Preparatory Programme.
STUDY ON A FUTURE EUROPEAN FAMILY OF REUSABLE LAUNCH SYSTEMS ENCOMPASSING HUMAN SPACE TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITY, BASED ON COMMON BUILDING BLOCK AND REUSABILITY1-11695IntendedClarification Request DeadlineN/AClosing Date Extension Request DeadlineN/AAnnouncement Date10/03/2023Last Update On10/03/2023 11:48 CETUpdate Reason New Tender ActionDirectorateEstabilishmentESAHQOpen DateN/AClosing DateN/AECOS RequiredNoClassifiedNoPrice Range200-500 KEUROResponsibleGiorgio TuminoInitiating ServiceSTS-FIP MeasureN/AProg. ReferenceE/A222-01 - FLPP Human Sp TranspTender TypeOpen CompetitionOpen To Tenderers FromBE+CH+ES+FR+ITTechnology KeywordsProducts KeywordsIf you wish to access the documents related to the tender action and/or express interest (in case, you are assigned to a Bid Manager role), you have to log in
https://twitter.com/andrewparsonson/status/1635377628743098371QuoteInteresting development: @esaspaceflight announced on 10 March its intention to conduct a study on a future European family of reusable launch systems with a human space transportation capability. The study is part of the agency's Future Launchers Preparatory Programme.https://esastar-publication-ext.sso.esa.int/ESATenderActions/details/58379QuoteSTUDY ON A FUTURE EUROPEAN FAMILY OF REUSABLE LAUNCH SYSTEMS ENCOMPASSING HUMAN SPACE TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITY, BASED ON COMMON BUILDING BLOCK AND REUSABILITY1-11695IntendedClarification Request DeadlineN/AClosing Date Extension Request DeadlineN/AAnnouncement Date10/03/2023Last Update On10/03/2023 11:48 CETUpdate Reason New Tender ActionDirectorateEstabilishmentESAHQOpen DateN/AClosing DateN/AECOS RequiredNoClassifiedNoPrice Range200-500 KEUROResponsibleGiorgio TuminoInitiating ServiceSTS-FIP MeasureN/AProg. ReferenceE/A222-01 - FLPP Human Sp TranspTender TypeOpen CompetitionOpen To Tenderers FromBE+CH+ES+FR+ITTechnology KeywordsProducts KeywordsIf you wish to access the documents related to the tender action and/or express interest (in case, you are assigned to a Bid Manager role), you have to log in
IMO there are two lessons to learn from SpaceX and the last decade of US government space purchases: reusable launch vehicles reduce costs if done well and competition reduces costs if done well. Europe seems to be learning the first lesson but shows no signs of learning the second lesson. I don't think Europe will succeed at producing a cost effective launcher unless they learn both lessons.
QuoteSTUDY ON A FUTURE EUROPEAN FAMILY OF REUSABLE LAUNCH SYSTEMS ENCOMPASSING HUMAN SPACE TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITY, BASED ON COMMON BUILDING BLOCK AND REUSABILITY1-11695....Open To Tenderers FromBE+CH+ES+FR+IT...ESA doing what it does best, studies.
STUDY ON A FUTURE EUROPEAN FAMILY OF REUSABLE LAUNCH SYSTEMS ENCOMPASSING HUMAN SPACE TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITY, BASED ON COMMON BUILDING BLOCK AND REUSABILITY1-11695....Open To Tenderers FromBE+CH+ES+FR+IT...
