Author Topic: New cost effective next generation launcher proposal by MT Aerospace  (Read 10058 times)

Offline spacediver

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 0
MT Aerospace of Augsburg, Germany, proposed an alternative approach for a next generation European launcher system.
The annexed presentation was shown during the 1st Space Access Conference in Paris end of September 2011.

The concept, based on the common core booster architecture, is strictly driven by recurring cost minimization.

What do you think?

Spacediver

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 175
If I'm understanding that right, it's a basically a European EELV with common-core first stages (single GG RP-1 engines) and LH2 upper stage (1x Vinci). Sounds plausible as a concept (it's basically Euro-Atlas), but developing the engine (with RD-180-class thrust) is not going to be cheap or fast.

Also they have to be careful of calling it a "common-core booster" as that is trademarked by ULA...

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2385
  • Liked: 972
  • Likes Given: 38
Simple answer. France wants Ariane 6. Therefore, France will kill that type of solution because it does not protect the industrial capability in solids. And for France solids are strategic due to the nuclear missiles.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 276
Seems like a very common-sense type approach.  Fun to read, and interesting that it was open to trading RP-1 on the first stage with Methane as well.

I'm glad to read that there are multiple viewpoints able to be expressed in Europe with respect to the way forward.
Scott

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 2568
Nice, but the need for a new booster engine makes this DOA.
An RD-180 version on the other hand ...
But France will take the role of ATK and there will be no money, end of story.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Simple answer. France wants Ariane 6. Therefore, France will kill that type of solution because it does not protect the industrial capability in solids. And for France solids are strategic due to the nuclear missiles.

I don't think that's correct. France wants an all LOX/LH2 vehicle, more like a Euro-Delta. The Italians want the solids.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2385
  • Liked: 972
  • Likes Given: 38
What you are describing is what the French Industry wants.

I am talking about the French political authorities.

Offline simpl simon

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
MT Aerospace of Augsburg, Germany, proposed an alternative approach for a next generation European launcher system.
The annexed presentation was shown during the 1st Space Access Conference in Paris end of September 2011.

The concept, based on the common core booster architecture, is strictly driven by recurring cost minimization.

What do you think?

Spacediver
Thanks for providing the information.
Can you post the rest of the presentations, or provide a link?

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
What you are describing is what the French Industry wants.

I am talking about the French political authorities.

Do you have references for that? I vaguely recall a study by the French PM (?) that argued for an all LOX/LH2 Ariane 6.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories


Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
That must be the report I was thinking of, but quickly skimming through it I don't see any preference for either LOX/LH2 or solids, although there is a preference for choosing one over retaining both and over developing a LOX/HC stage.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6441
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1396
  • Likes Given: 1316
Wow, putting the attach points on the modular interstage adapter panels is a really cool concept.  Has that been done or proposed for other vehicles?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7101
  • Liked: 2627
  • Likes Given: 1357
Simple answer. France wants Ariane 6. Therefore, France will kill that type of solution because it does not protect the industrial capability in solids. And for France solids are strategic due to the nuclear missiles.

You don't think Vega is sufficient to keep the pro-solid forces happy?

Offline spacediver

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 0
Wow, putting the attach points on the modular interstage adapter panels is a really cool concept.  Has that been done or proposed for other vehicles?

Yes!
The Ariane 5 Boosters are attached to the so called "Front Skirt", an MT Aerospace build structure.
All axial loads from the boosters are introduced in that structure.

It makes sense for the CCB concept as the axial load for the center CCB can be reduced. That allows all core stages to be identical.
If I recall correct, in case of the Delta 4 the center stage is different from the side CCB's because it has to take all the axial loads.

Spacediver   

Edit:
Of course the modular approach for the interstage is a new idea...
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 08:54 am by spacediver »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1