European space strategy and tech road maps

[Halken]

In order not to pollute the different treads on Ariane 6/Ariane 7/Callisto/Prometheus I have created this new tread. The subject is the European space strategy, and especially in the light of the new and much faster moving competitors.

ESA/Ariane has had a really good run with Ariane 4 and 5, and likely Ariane 6 will defend this, but I do not think it will see 100 launches as the others have. The main reason is Space X and Blue Origin. Esp SX has shown a relentless high pace for innovation. It means that while the may be lagging behind today, their direction takes them in front in a couple of years, and their pipeline of innovations allow for continues cost reductions. From competing in a market that did not really change albeit slowly, it is now totally different.

First the question should be asked. What is the European mission in space? While we where building a strategic capability of conducting launches, we have been lucky and filled a vacuum with competitive commercial LS, that has generated an income in a slow moving market. Now when the rules has changed, one have to ask if the European consortium/organization is capable of keeping up? Do we want to defend our market share and can we defend it? While it is different it is also alike: we have seen with Airbus that Europe can make European champions that are globally competitive in the market for passenger planes. Can and will we do the same in the market for launching satellites and other stuff into orbit under the conditions in the space consortium?

Personally I believe that we can, if we want to. If we have the right determination and support, this can succeed. We don't need to be first with the latest, but should pursue a strategy of being fast second. Let others do the heavy lifting in showing the way and developing and testing new concepts, but be quick to follow the ideas that proves to work. If SpaceX and BO continues at its present pace it will drive down costs and EU cannot be to far behind, if we are to defend our market share.

Currently there is a few technology projects running.
The prometheus engine program that seeks to develop a reusable merlin size engine running on methalox.
The callisto LV demo, which is essentially a grasshopper to demonstrate re-usability of the LV.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41330.0

Later there is a project for a demonstrator for combining both the prometheus engine in a reusable demonstrator called termis.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47498.0

Ariane 6:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.0

There is also the RETALT project to increase the knowledge of reuseable LVs.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48428.0

[Halken]

Elon writes on twitter:
Payload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3

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

The fairings cost 5-6 m$ for a pair.

The raptor engine is developed to be easier than the merlin to be reused. While the raptor cost twice as much as the prometheus, it is also twice as powerful, so the price is comparable when you procure one item as both total around 1m€/1MN.



The prometheus is expected to have a ISP of 300 at sea level which is better than the merlins 282 but less than the raptors 330.

Where the raptor will shine is that while the prometheus is made for possibly up to five reuses, the raptor is designed to more than 50 with very low maintenance needed between flights, and this drives down cost pr flight. The full flow staged combustion also contributes to higher efficiency and lower turn around times.

They have also reached a chamber pressure of 300 bars.

While the raptor does not fly yet, it has been used for tests. The prometheus is scheduled to start testing in 1H2021.

Calculations indicated that the raptor has hit a sweet spot in terms of performance, as if it becomes lower, reuseability of the LV becomes increasingly worse.

So the real question is if the prometheus is too little too late? The prometheus project only has a limited budget of 100m€, but that may not be enough to play catch up and the time is wasted setting them even further behind.

[ChrisWilson68]

So the real question is if the prometheus is too little too late? The prometheus project only has a limited budget of 100m€, but that may not be enough to play catch up and the time is wasted setting them even further behind.

I think whether it's "too little, too late" depends on how you look at it.

If you're asking in the sense of looking back at historical decision making and asking if the right decisions were made, I think that the answer is definitely yes that it's too little, too late.  To be a fast follower of SpaceX, Europe could have and should have put a lot more money into programs like this a lot earlier.

But if you're asking about too little too late in the sense that the game is over and Europe might as well give up, I think the answer is definitely not.  There's always more future.  Some time might have been lost, but the sooner the policies shift, the sooner Europe, and the whole world, will see the benefits of having another strong program for cheap, reusable access to space.

I think the important thing is for the leadership of the space programs in Europe to really internalize that cheap, large scale access to orbit is not only possible, but it's going to happen.  When people really get that, they won't want Europe to miss out on all its benefits.

[Arb]

Minor quibble with your chart. For "Flight Record" it'd arguably be more accurate to show flights * number-of-engines per flight. Thus:

Merlin  99*9  = 891[2]
RD-180  79*?  =
F-1     13*5  = 65[1]
Raptor  N/A
BE-4    N/A
RS-25   135*3 = 405

[1] According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#Locations_of_F-1_engines "Sixty-five F-1 engines were launched aboard thirteen Saturn Vs".
[2] According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches as of 2020-08-18 there had been 93 launches which reached orbit of which three were Falcon Heavy for a total of 99 boosters. YMMV.

[yoram]

Another possibility is also that one of the European small launch startups or projects becomes successful and that company then develops a larger launcher as a followup. Even though the small rocket market seems a bit oversaturated with startups currently this is still quite possible.

For me it's not clear that Ariane alone will always be the future of European rocketry. They certainly have a very complicated structure for historical reasons.

[Zed_Noir]

Minor quibble with your chart. For "Flight Record" it'd arguably be more accurate to show flights * number-of-engines per flight. Thus:

Merlin  99*9  = 891[2]
RD-180  79*?  =
F-1     13*5  = 65[1]
Raptor  N/A
BE-4    N/A
RS-25   135*3 = 405

<snip>

The RD-180 is an engine with dual thrust chambers. So total is 79.

With the SAOCOM-1B mission completed. The Merlin engine total is updated to 900. Plus the 94 Merlin Vac engines.

[ChrisWilson68]

Minor quibble with your chart. For "Flight Record" it'd arguably be more accurate to show flights * number-of-engines per flight. Thus:

Merlin  99*9  = 891[2]
RD-180  79*?  =
F-1     13*5  = 65[1]
Raptor  N/A
BE-4    N/A
RS-25   135*3 = 405

[1] According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#Locations_of_F-1_engines "Sixty-five F-1 engines were launched aboard thirteen Saturn Vs".
[2] According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches as of 2020-08-18 there had been 93 launches which reached orbit of which three were Falcon Heavy for a total of 99 boosters. YMMV.

Another issue with the chart: the price listed for a raptor is too high.  The chart says $2 million.  Some time ago Musk did say the current cost was $2 million each but the goal was $200,000.  More recently, in October 2019, Musk said that the cost per engine was already "well under $1M for V1.0.  Goal is <$250k for V2.0".

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1179107539352313856

[baldusi]

RD-180  79*?  =

Why 79? You have 85 Atlas V launches plus 6 Atlas II, so 91 as of today.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Okee a new topic about Europe's space strategy and tech roadmap. And nearly all post are about US launchers. .

The European Space Transportation strategy is postulated on this ESA page. My summary is; that Europe requires independent and guaranteed acces to space. This requirement originated from the situation around the Symphonie satellites in the 1970's. It was proven that that the US can't be relied on for acces to space.
In ESA's project structure Launchers are an enabling technology. CSG is the main orbital launch site, Arianespace is the launch operator from this site. Arianespace currently is supplied with launchers from:
Arianegroup: Ariane 5 to transition into Ariane 6.
ELV (Avio): Vega later also Vega-C and possibly Vega-E and Vega-L
Starsem: Soyuz-ST/A and /B. (this might be phased out)
Possibly micro satellite launchers will also start launching from CSG. But I expect they start launching from continental Europe launch sites.

There isn't a market share goal from European institutions. Possibly Arianespace has a market share goal, but I have no source for this.

Now the interesting question is what is the European requirement for launch. This stems from Europe's space strategy. AFAIK, this is an interesting topic that could fill a discussion on it's own.
The EU (European Union) had two programs; Copernicus [Earth monitoring] and Gallileo GNSS [positioning], for the 2021-'27 budget a third project is added; Govsatcom (Goverment Satellite Communication). Besides these programs the EU also funds technology development via it's Horizon's program.
The IGO EUMETSAT operates the SSO and GTO satellite systems for it's member meteorological institutes. (EUMETSAT could be viewed as Europe NOAA)
The IGO ESA has the most diverse space programs, from Earth observation, to space science and exploration.
Several European countries also have their own space projects, mostly communication and earth observation.
European companies also have space projects, also mostly communication and earth observation.
All the European institutional space programs require probably ~3 Vega/C and <5 Ariane 6 launches annually.
Until Ariane 6 becomes operational, a lot of European institutional satellites rely on Soyuz-ST for launch, this is the second reason for developing Ariane 6. The first is the implementation of the Vince upperstage engine on the Ariane launcher.

In my opinion the launch demand has changed a lot, because the type of satellites have changed.
The commercial market used to be mainly GTO comsats with a launch requirement of ~20/year. Because more capable payloads, electric propulsion and longer operational live (/satellite servicing). China and India also started offering GTO comsat + launch deals that compete with commercial comsats.
Besides there is the uncertainty around the LEO comsat constellations. Thus demand for GEO comsats is uncertain this was the market where Ariane 5 ECA and Ariane 4 were so successful.
Another change is miniaturization of satellites/payloads, thus requiring smaller launchers.
This change in commercial launch demand was already foreseen by Arianespace/ESA and was the third reason to develop Ariane 6 and Vega-C. 

The European launcher technology roadmap is also a complex situation. It's formed by:
- ESA's FLPP (Future Launchers Preparatory Program)

- European Union's Horizon projects for launchers.
- European country independent launcher programs.
I think that the situation around micro launchers (<1mT to SSO 500km) is going to cause problems when it's continued the current unregulated way. 

I would like to also add the suborbital launch requirement into this discussion. And possibly also the military missiles. These are important for strategic choices around launchers.

The available budget for space project is much smaller in Europe than in the US.
The available budget can be spend on development of a launcher or on payload/satellite development.
AFAIK the European launch demand does NOT justify a serial produced reusable launcher, and the technology for it isn't available (jet) in Europe. My priorities are getting guaranteed independent acces to space via Ariane 6. Further diversification of launch capability via rideshare launch services, in orbit propulsion, Vega-E/ Vega-L and micro launchers. If launch demand for Ariane 5/6 class payloads really picks up, and launch service cost really goes down a lot, then it's time for Europe to develop a reusable Ariane.

I think a (partially) reusable micro launcher, using expander cycle engines, might be the most affordable path to a reusable launch system. This micro launcher could also be used as large suborbital rocket.
Don't expect ArianeNext before the 2030's, unless (Airbus) Arianegroup funds it themselves because they require it for their own commercial space projects.   

[Halken]

I know I started out with a lot of stuff of SX etc, but we need to know where the target is, if we are going to have any meaningful dialogue on Europe's space strategy when is comes to launches. If you have any supporting links/info please share it.

For the moment, as Rik pointed out, there may be 6 institutional launches for a larger EU LV such as a Ariane Next. If Ariane build a new LV for these only, R&D paid for by European govs, it makes no sense with a reusable tech as it is so few launches. Cost optimize it to the 6 launches/year and let that be it. I saw somewhere that development cost for Ariane 6 was around 4B€??? If the ESA members founded that for Ariane 6, then it is likely that they will pay something similar for the version. I don't know if these are sunk costs for the members, but I assume they are. If they are investing this kind of money, they might as well try and get a LV that is cheap enough per kg/obit that it can grab some of the commercial launches.

I don't think there is any doubt that the race to build LV that are capable of delivering increasingly cheaper launch services per kg to orbit, lead esp by BO and SX and while it take a while, it will transform the market, as lower launch prices will translate to more launches both commercial and institutional, as more can afford it. So the market of commercially launches will expand in number and in tons.

If Europe want to be a part of that, we have to develop the technology that can support lowering the launch costs like a re-usable rockets. We don't have to lead, but we have to follow and follow pretty quickly. We have to be in front of China, India and the other national LS organizations. We might want to change the organization if that is necessary to compete. The EU does have a policy of creating European champions, and that may also be the case here. To create one company that construct LVs and provide LS, like SX.

With the projects in both DLS and ESA/Ariane, and the newly formed ArianeWorks acceleration framework, it does seem as they want to catch up, they want to develop the same tech as SX. I don't think it is fast enough to be ready with a new LV in 2030. They have to speed this up.

Regarding engines, if the raptor can come down below 1m$ and be reused with almost no refurbishment, it does seem the one to beat.

The ETID/LE9 could be a competitive concept, as it has lower temperatures and simpler parts and no critical seals, reducing the cost of a reusable engine.

[Halken]

"Breton, the former French head of IT company Atos, said that for the first time, the EU budget will be used to support new technology to launch rockets, including reusable ones.

The EU will for the first time sign a 1 billion euro agreement with Arianespace with guaranteed orders to give it more visibility, in exchange for more innovation."

EU is expecting 2,3B€/year for space in the next budget and some it set to promote more startups.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-space-idUSKBN23Z0JC

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1301353526967390211

Alt commentary: "SpaceX made us do this."

Reusability.

[Halken]

Yes, they are forced to innovate. That is a good thing in my view. The big question is if they can keep enough up with fast moving SX, to defend their market share, or they loose it. It does appear that CNES and DLR has realized the gravity of the situation.

https://satelliteobservation.net/2020/01/26/cnes-future-launcher-roadmap-analyzed/

[Rik ISS-fan]

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1301353526967390211

Alt commentary: "SpaceX made us do this."

Reusability.

That's your oppinion. I think it's a French political misconception. For the launch demand in Europe a reusable large launcher doesn't work.
Reusable large launchers are required and justified by LEO comsat constellations.

This 30s snipped is from A >3min video. I think whole video shows there are multiple launcher development requirements. Reusability isn't the most important in my oppinion.

The phase out of toxic propallents; Hydrazin, UDMH, NTO, MON and MMH is more important in my oppinion.

I also think; the development of a couple of micro-satellite launch vehicles and suborbital launchers is more important for Europe.
Besides the SpaceRider and the in orbit stages for Vega and Ariane6 are important developments.

In my oppinion with Ariane 6, Vega C/E (light) and micro launchers Europe had a nice launcher fleet, that has more launch capability than the launch demand requires.

France industry would gladly develop and manufacture Themis for several x00mln. I think this money can be spend beter. But it's French tax money. A reusable ArianeNext would cause a problem for Arianegroup, Avio   and Regulus. And it ruins the Vega C/E and Ariane6 case. Very risky in my oppinion.

[Jakdowski]

ESA Long-Term Plan 2020-2029

https://ideas.esa.int/apps/IMT/UploadedFiles/00/f_d1d5f2e05060a7a5b0848d5343db0990/ESA_Long-Term_Plan_2020-2029.pdf?v=1598965477

[TrevorMonty]

Whether the future is RLV or lower cost A6, they need new low cost reuseable engine. Which makes Prometheus most important item on their todo list. Using expendable low cost Prometheus on A6 would save few $M per launch.
Flying grasshopper type demostrator would develop VL technology and some idea of what its like to operate a RLV. Take it step further and develop a New Shepard class booster with expendable US to compete in small LV market while gaining RLV operational knowledge.

At present current market demand doesn't really justify development cost of RLV. Only large LEO broadband constellations justify RLVs and launch for two the constellations won't be competed. Starlink is all SpaceX and Kuiper is likely to go to Blue. OneWeb will be mostly deployed before europe could fly a RLV.

Let SpaceX and Blue develop market and then follow if market is big enough to justify it. Being late to RLV market doesn't matter as long as launch price is competitive. SpaceX has shown that with F9, it was new entrant in well established market.

[ChrisWilson68]

At present current market demand doesn't really justify development cost of RLV. Only large LEO broadband constellations justify RLVs and launch for two the constellations won't be competed. Starlink is all SpaceX and Kuiper is likely to go to Blue. OneWeb will be mostly deployed before europe could fly a RLV.

I'm not sure why you assume that only the already-announced competitors will move into this space.  And as to your dismissal of OneWeb, if they're successful, they'll expand their initial constellation.  Even to maintain a constellation of a given size requires continuing launches to refresh it.

Let SpaceX and Blue develop market and then follow if market is big enough to justify it. Being late to RLV market doesn't matter as long as launch price is competitive. SpaceX has shown that with F9, it was new entrant in well established market.

SpaceX wasn't able to enter the market by being a follower.  It was only able to enter the market by going far beyond what existing players were doing to lower prices.

Being a fast follower can work, but the key is that it has to be fast.  You have to be watching where the one you're following is going.  You can't wait for the one you're following to become fully successful and only then start your program to follow.  That's a recipe for failure.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Developing a reusable first stage similar to Falcon 9 should be easy for Europe. Use the same architecture for a small vehicle to replace Vega as well and get rid of those large polluting solid motors. Use the money saved from reuse for other projects, such as a European crew vehicle, which could also be sold commercially.

[hektor]

Easy but as said above only if they have an engine.

[woods170]

Easy but as said above only if they have an engine.

Also: politics.