Europe’s upcoming reusable spacecraft! Space Rider on Vega-CSUSIE on Ariane 6📸: @brickmack - ArianeGroup
And here it is! "Susie" from @ArianeGroup @Arianespace - making Ariane 6 more flexible for next-generation space infrastructure #IAC2022
7 tonnes back to Earth, and critically, the ability to abort during any phase of the mission *including during powered vertical descent* - not sure that would be the most comfortable experience...
Some fantastic renders of the vehicle, showing some of the flexible architecture features we can expect #IAC2022
And missions will end with a vertical landing, from which abort will be possible during all phases! Looks promising to help Ariane 6 rival other competitors in this area
ARIANEGROUP UNVEILS SUSIE AT IAC16/09/2022ArianeGroup presents Susie (Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration), an entirely reusable stage project which meets the future needs of transport and other missions to and in space.Susie will be able to function as an automated freighter and carry out crewed missions with astronauts in complete safety, from lift-off to landing.Susie replaces the launcher fairing and is designed to fly on an Ariane 64 as well as on a launcher of the following generation.Unveiled for the first time at the International Astronautical Congress in Paris (IAC 2022), Susie is a concept aiming to support European space efforts in the coming decades. It is based on an in-depth study of Europe’s future needs in terms of space transport and on-orbit services (OOS), and on the need for a profound change in the approach to access to space. ArianeGroup reveals Susie (Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration) for the first time at this year’s International Astronautical Congress (IAC) held in Paris. Susie is an entirely reusable rocket stage project which replaces the launcher fairing, is capable of going into space and carrying out many different types of missions there – whether automated or crewed – and coming back to land on Earth.Susie will be able to fly both on Ariane 64 and on a launcher of the following generation, paving the way for fully reusable launchers of the future. Susie is a flexible, modular, safe and reliable vehicle that will be used to perform essential missions in space – the need for which will increase in the future – whether as an automated freighter and payload transporter, or carrying a crew of up to five astronauts. Susie will be entirely reusable and will come back to Earth for a soft touchdown, after a high-precision atmospheric re-entry, offering the greatest possible end-to-end safety for the flight personnel in a crewed mission.“With ESA and the European Commission calling for renewed European ambition for space exploration and crewed flight, and launching initiatives in this area, ArianeGroup proposes Susie. Susie is the result of several years of work by our design teams and provides a particularly ingenious solution for future in-space servicing needs and for automated or crewed flight, the demand for which will only grow in the future. This is a project built on all the existing know-how at ArianeGroup and within European industry. It is consistent with ongoing or future technological developments in the field of space transport and reuse,” says Morena Bernardini, Head of Strategy and Innovation at ArianeGroup. “It is our industrial duty to contribute to this ambition and offer European decision-makers smart and ambitious technological solutions capable of contributing to independent access to space, and also to open the door to European space exploration and address commercial and institutional needs for services in space over the coming decades.”Susie is extremely flexible and is designed to be able to conduct numerous types of missions in space. Its large-volume internal bay (40 m3) will make it highly adaptable for cargo or payload transport and for crewed flight. Missions made possible by Susie include towing, inspecting and upgrading satellites and other payloads, and supplying fuel, food, and equipment to space stations. It will also be able to carry out crew changeovers and facilitate human in-orbit activities.Further down the line, it will enable the in-orbit construction of large infrastructures, such as manufacturing plants which require microgravity conditions, and transport goods. It will also help reduce orbital debris and assist with removing or deorbiting end-of-life satellites. Susie could bring payloads of more than seven tons back to Earth. It will contribute to achieving the operational and commercial efficiency needed to develop activities in space.Susie is a fully integrated concept, in order to maximize reuse potential, and therefore bring down operating costs. In particular, it comprises all mission functions, such as equipment for on-orbit support equipment and for landing or for crew safety. The mission abort safety system covers the entire mission, from lift-off to landing, guaranteeing maximum safety for the crew.Susie is also designed from the outset to be adaptable and respond to future needs or perform new missions. For exploration purposes, Susie will thus be able to carry out long-distance missions, notably to lunar orbit, thanks to its ability to receive a space transfer module, providing propulsion and the energy and air supply needed by the crew.The Susie concept has been designed with a view to be adaptable to different types of future launchers coming into existence over the long term.Initially it will be launched by Ariane 6, with no modifications needed for the automated freighter version: for crewed flight, a few adaptations to launcher and ground segment will be made. Ariane 6 compatibility was defined in terms of Susie’s geometry (length 12 meters and width 5 meters to fit the diameter of the launcher) and its mass (25 tons, corresponding to Ariane 64’s low Earth orbit (LEO) performance)..With no major subsequent modification, Susie could then be used on a future generation of European reusable heavy-lift launchers. Susie is in fact a component of the launcher family project being proposed by ArianeGroup and its partners to the European Space Agency (ESA), for its NESTS (New European Space Transportation Solutions) initiative. This family of reusable, modular launchers is built around common technological building blocks, such as the Prometheus engine, or those developed under the Themis program. It comprises a mini-launcher, a medium launcher and a heavy-lift launcher, each being a bigger-scale version of the previous one. A “super-heavy” version could be made up of the heavy-lift launcher plus two reusable liquid propulsion boosters which are used for the first stage of the mini-launcher. These heavy-lift launchers will be able to carry Susie, thus paving the way for future entirely reusable European launchers.This vision of the future for Europe’s launchers is based on an in-depth study of possible future scenarios and the corresponding space missions. Space transport from Earth to space is today based on a direct “point-to-point” approach, which involves waste and launchers which differ widely from one another according to the masses to be carried and the destinations to be reached. In the near future, in order to optimize development and operating costs and to be able to carry out the wide variety of future missions, it will be necessary to adopt a “networked” approach, similar to the current air transport “hubs”. With this new approach, launchers will serve LEO and a new orbit beyond the Van Allen Belts called a “parking orbit”. From these orbits, other spacecraft would take over and head for the final destinations. Susie aims to be a stakeholder in this future, resilient and scalable space transport system, performing missions in space and bringing goods and humans back to Earth.
ArianeGroup Susie video:https://player.vimeo.com/video/749959501
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/18/2022 07:54 pmArianeGroup Susie video:https://player.vimeo.com/video/749959501What chopsticks just said: This keeps getting billed as an upper stage, but it appears from this video that most of the ascent delta-v is coming from an expendable stage that separates. So it appears to be more like a Dragon 2 on steroids (complete with the original D2 powered landing) than an actual reusable second stage, doesn't it?
I'm not sure how heavy SUSIE would be, but I bet that it's more than the Ariane 64 payload to LEO, so I bet it actually does need to use it's own fuel to get to orbit. So it would be a reusable upper stage, it's just it's a 3rd stage, not a 2nd.
How much of this is Spacerider lineage though? I get more of a Kliper capsule vibe, as well as DC-X with the necessary swoop-of-death.Hopefully not Hermes part deux...
Despite the Ariane 64 image, a candidate for pairing with the Maia Space launcher perhaps?How much of this is Spacerider lineage though? I get more of a Kliper capsule vibe, as well as DC-X with the necessary swoop-of-death.Hopefully not Hermes part deux...
All the errors of Hermes, repeated 40 years later. The managers and system engineers of Hermes are still around, these guys should have talked to them.
When I was saying still around, I meant not dead. The two Hermes project managers which I know for a fact are still around are significantly younger than Bill Nelson (to give a benchmark), they are still able to have a technical discussion and they know their turf, if you allow me this judgement.
Arianespace unveils 'Susie' - Reusable spacecraft for crew and cargo missions
Effectively, if SUSIE is approved by minister's council, it will be in the same delays than Ariane NEXT. But I don't know if Ariane NEXT will be capable to launch a 25T spaceship. I have see on an Arianespace document the maximum payload will be about 20T.
Quote from: JEF_300 on 09/19/2022 03:45 amI'm not sure how heavy SUSIE would be, but I bet that it's more than the Ariane 64 payload to LEO, so I bet it actually does need to use it's own fuel to get to orbit. So it would be a reusable upper stage, it's just it's a 3rd stage, not a 2nd. Its mass is given in the press release as 25 t. The press release says this is the payload mass of Ariane 64, but the Arianespace web site only gives a 21.6 t LEO payload mass! If Susie acts as a third stage, then the 25 t could be the payload put into a suborbital trajectory, with Susie then using some of the extra 3.4 t of propellant to get into LEO."Ariane 6 compatibility was defined in terms of Susie’s geometry (length 12 meters and width 5 meters to fit the diameter of the launcher) and its mass (25 tons, corresponding to Ariane 64’s low Earth orbit (LEO) performance)."https://www.arianespace.com/vehicle/ariane-6/"Ariane 64, with four boosters, can place up to 11.5 tons into GTO in dual launch configuration, and up to 21.6 tons into LEO."
Yes effectively with this evolution, that can be possible. I just have a little question... Did we know the type of the SUSIE's motors? An architecture with many engines like the ESM, or just a single Prometheus?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1571508727970136066?s=20&t=WPgHI02s0leFTxSoPB3Fgghttps://twitter.com/StefanBarensky/status/1571504931814662144?s=20&t=WPgHI02s0leFTxSoPB3Fgg
Maybe learn to walk before attempting to run a marathon. I see a lot of resemblance of the Expert Reentry demonstrator that has been dusting away for nearly a decade.This SUSIE will have a development timeline of over a decade. It could be a future development, phase A study nothing more for this ministerial. A microlauncher is needed to launch Expert and Shefex and execute those test. They should experiment with a lander / reusable suborbital rocket (microlauncher first stage).This shouldn't be on the table at this ministerial!
Quote from: hektor on 09/19/2022 11:20 amAll the errors of Hermes, repeated 40 years later. The managers and system engineers of Hermes are still around, these guys should have talked to them.Sorry, but most of them are in fact no longer around. That is: a lot of them have retired or moved on to other businesses. And industries like Airbus et al. do not make a habit of asking the opinion of their retired engineers and managers before launching (pun intended) another bad idea.But I fully agree with you that SUSIE is repeating all the errors of Hermes. Starting with the unrealistic wet mass of just 25 metric tons for a vehicle that is 5 meters in diameter, is 12 meters long, has a crew compartment for 7 AND also having a 40 cubic meter payload bay AND a 7 metric ton payload capacity. That does not add up. Throw in a multi-ton propellant load and engines strong enough to land the entire thing propulsively and it does not add up AT ALL. Much like the numbers never added up for the initial 10 development iterations of Hermes. And when they finally DID start to add up for Hermes, the vehicle had lost most of its originally promised capabilities.If SUSIE remains marrried to a 25-ton-to-LEO launcher, than it will start losing capabilities and capacities fast, once they start to seriously develop this contraption.This book should be required reading for everyone who works in the European spaceflight industry: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-44472-7
Quote from: woods170 on 09/19/2022 12:51 pmQuote from: hektor on 09/19/2022 11:20 amAll the errors of Hermes, repeated 40 years later. The managers and system engineers of Hermes are still around, these guys should have talked to them.Sorry, but most of them are in fact no longer around. That is: a lot of them have retired or moved on to other businesses. And industries like Airbus et al. do not make a habit of asking the opinion of their retired engineers and managers before launching (pun intended) another bad idea.But I fully agree with you that SUSIE is repeating all the errors of Hermes. Starting with the unrealistic wet mass of just 25 metric tons for a vehicle that is 5 meters in diameter, is 12 meters long, has a crew compartment for 7 AND also having a 40 cubic meter payload bay AND a 7 metric ton payload capacity. That does not add up. Throw in a multi-ton propellant load and engines strong enough to land the entire thing propulsively and it does not add up AT ALL. Much like the numbers never added up for the initial 10 development iterations of Hermes. And when they finally DID start to add up for Hermes, the vehicle had lost most of its originally promised capabilities.If SUSIE remains marrried to a 25-ton-to-LEO launcher, than it will start losing capabilities and capacities fast, once they start to seriously develop this contraption.This book should be required reading for everyone who works in the European spaceflight industry: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-44472-7From my reading of the press release SUSIE would be either crew or cargo but not both, which makes it sound a lot like Dragon2. Also the press release said 5 crew not 7. The video showed a kick stage thus answering how a 25 t craft could be launched on Ariane 6. I am curious how SUSIE will do a propulsive landing, though.
In addition, it may be a way for ArianeGroup to extend its' monopoly on launchers in Europe (again) since I suspect that there won't be an open competition to chart a way forward on european crewed vehicles (the discussion will be largely political, and probably occur already at the C-MIN22 in November).
Lots of taxpayer money will follow, likely without any benefit in cost of access to space unless explicitly forced by other ESA members (because Ariane 6 + Susie will still be a lot more expensive than the partially reusable Falcon9 + Dragon).
Europe cannot afford the kind of waste that NASA can, and this sure looks expensive. Let's see what the next steps are.
Quote from: Try_NBS on 09/19/2022 05:49 pmEffectively, if SUSIE is approved by minister's council, it will be in the same delays than Ariane NEXT. But I don't know if Ariane NEXT will be capable to launch a 25T spaceship. I have see on an Arianespace document the maximum payload will be about 20T.SUSIE has some of its own propulsion, right? It could do the circularization burn.
From my reading of the press release SUSIE would be either crew or cargo but not both, which makes it sound a lot like Dragon2. Also the press release said 5 crew not 7.
The video showed a kick stage thus answering how a 25 t craft could be launched on Ariane 6. I am curious how SUSIE will do a propulsive landing, though.
Quote from: hektor on 09/19/2022 11:20 amAll the errors of Hermes, repeated 40 years later. The managers and system engineers of Hermes are still around, these guys should have talked to them.And Hermes was bascially modelled on the X20 Dyna-soar.Which also got cancelled due to unforseen weight growth (among a bunch of other reaasons, but it didn't help).You'll note the video give no idea of how this vehicle is going to re-enter the atmosphere. Since it has no wings it's closest resemblance is Crew Dragon, but with powered landing.
Quote from: beb on 09/19/2022 11:25 pmFrom my reading of the press release SUSIE would be either crew or cargo but not both, which makes it sound a lot like Dragon2. Also the press release said 5 crew not 7.Emphasis mine.Correct. That is my bad. I mixed up the numbers for crew and metric tons of cargo returned. Crew is five. Metric tons of cargo returned is seven.Thanks for pointing out.Quote from: beb on 09/19/2022 11:25 pmThe video showed a kick stage thus answering how a 25 t craft could be launched on Ariane 6. I am curious how SUSIE will do a propulsive landing, though. The video showed the Vinci-powered ULPM, which is not a kick stage but the standard upper stage of Ariane 6. The video also mentions that SUSIE would launch on Ariane 64 Evolution, which has a predicted payload-to-LEO capability of 25 metric tons.What I doubt (and so does Hektor if I read his posts correctly) is that the given capabilities of SUSIE, as presented in the video and press release, fit within the 25 metric ton wet mass limit. I think that they don't fit.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/19/2022 05:59 pmQuote from: Try_NBS on 09/19/2022 05:49 pmEffectively, if SUSIE is approved by minister's council, it will be in the same delays than Ariane NEXT. But I don't know if Ariane NEXT will be capable to launch a 25T spaceship. I have see on an Arianespace document the maximum payload will be about 20T.SUSIE has some of its own propulsion, right? It could do the circularization burn. Not if it also needs the same propulsion to do the deorbit burn AND land propulsively, all within a wet mass budget of max. 25 metric tons while having a crew cabin for 5 AND a 40 cubic meter payload bay with airlock for EVA AND other unpressurized cargo.The projected capabilities and the wet mass don't match. That is UNLESS the vehicle, after reaching orbit, goes to a propellant depot first. Needless to say: a propellant depot was not mentioned during the ArianeGroup presentation.So this thing, if considered for actual development, will be going down the same road as Hermes: once the engineers start adding up the numbers the mass will go up, which requires the capabilities and size going down to get the mass numbers back down to where they can meet the launch capabilities of the projected launch vehicle.
Quote from: woods170 on 09/20/2022 09:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/19/2022 05:59 pmQuote from: Try_NBS on 09/19/2022 05:49 pmEffectively, if SUSIE is approved by minister's council, it will be in the same delays than Ariane NEXT. But I don't know if Ariane NEXT will be capable to launch a 25T spaceship. I have see on an Arianespace document the maximum payload will be about 20T.SUSIE has some of its own propulsion, right? It could do the circularization burn. Not if it also needs the same propulsion to do the deorbit burn AND land propulsively, all within a wet mass budget of max. 25 metric tons while having a crew cabin for 5 AND a 40 cubic meter payload bay with airlock for EVA AND other unpressurized cargo.The projected capabilities and the wet mass don't match. That is UNLESS the vehicle, after reaching orbit, goes to a propellant depot first. Needless to say: a propellant depot was not mentioned during the ArianeGroup presentation.So this thing, if considered for actual development, will be going down the same road as Hermes: once the engineers start adding up the numbers the mass will go up, which requires the capabilities and size going down to get the mass numbers back down to where they can meet the launch capabilities of the projected launch vehicle.25t is the dry mass budget.
True, but it's not about cost, it's about guaranteed access, and there is a history of the US denying access to space launch when it's economic well being (or more accurately the well being of a US business) is threatened.
Quote from: woods170 on 09/20/2022 09:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/19/2022 05:59 pmQuote from: Try_NBS on 09/19/2022 05:49 pmEffectively, if SUSIE is approved by minister's council, it will be in the same delays than Ariane NEXT. But I don't know if Ariane NEXT will be capable to launch a 25T spaceship. I have see on an Arianespace document the maximum payload will be about 20T.SUSIE has some of its own propulsion, right? It could do the circularization burn. Not if it also needs the same propulsion to do the deorbit burn AND land propulsively, all within a wet mass budget of max. 25 metric tons while having a crew cabin for 5 AND a 40 cubic meter payload bay with airlock for EVA AND other unpressurized cargo.The projected capabilities and the wet mass don't match. That is UNLESS the vehicle, after reaching orbit, goes to a propellant depot first. Needless to say: a propellant depot was not mentioned during the ArianeGroup presentation.So this thing, if considered for actual development, will be going down the same road as Hermes: once the engineers start adding up the numbers the mass will go up, which requires the capabilities and size going down to get the mass numbers back down to where they can meet the launch capabilities of the projected launch vehicle.Unless they go directly to the Ariane NEXT...
Quote from: john smith 19 on 09/20/2022 08:15 amQuote from: hektor on 09/19/2022 11:20 amAll the errors of Hermes, repeated 40 years later. The managers and system engineers of Hermes are still around, these guys should have talked to them.And Hermes was bascially modelled on the X20 Dyna-soar.Which also got cancelled due to unforseen weight growth (among a bunch of other reaasons, but it didn't help).You'll note the video give no idea of how this vehicle is going to re-enter the atmosphere. Since it has no wings it's closest resemblance is Crew Dragon, but with powered landing. Emphasis mine.Think IXV and Space Rider: lifting body reentry.
They call it upper stage yet the upper stage is expended. For cargo it only reuses the fairing, for manned flights it's arguably too big.I don't get it.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/19/2022 05:59 pmQuote from: Try_NBS on 09/19/2022 05:49 pmEffectively, if SUSIE is approved by minister's council, it will be in the same delays than Ariane NEXT. But I don't know if Ariane NEXT will be capable to launch a 25T spaceship. I have see on an Arianespace document the maximum payload will be about 20T.SUSIE has some of its own propulsion, right? It could do the circularization burn. Not if it also needs the same propulsion to do the deorbit burn AND land propulsively, all within a wet mass budget of max. 25 metric tons while having a crew cabin for 5 AND a 40 cubic meter payload bay with airlock for EVA AND other unpressurized cargo.The projected capabilities and the wet mass don't match. That is UNLESS the vehicle, after reaching orbit, goes to a propellant depot first. Needless to say: a propellant depot was not mentioned during the ArianeGroup presentation.
I didn't realize this but it seems that Susie could fly to lunar orbit:https://twitter.com/SPACEdotcom/status/1572317608271028226
Quote from: woods170 on 09/20/2022 09:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/19/2022 05:59 pmQuote from: Try_NBS on 09/19/2022 05:49 pmEffectively, if SUSIE is approved by minister's council, it will be in the same delays than Ariane NEXT. But I don't know if Ariane NEXT will be capable to launch a 25T spaceship. I have see on an Arianespace document the maximum payload will be about 20T.SUSIE has some of its own propulsion, right? It could do the circularization burn. Not if it also needs the same propulsion to do the deorbit burn AND land propulsively, all within a wet mass budget of max. 25 metric tons while having a crew cabin for 5 AND a 40 cubic meter payload bay with airlock for EVA AND other unpressurized cargo.The projected capabilities and the wet mass don't match. That is UNLESS the vehicle, after reaching orbit, goes to a propellant depot first. Needless to say: a propellant depot was not mentioned during the ArianeGroup presentation."This vision of the future for Europe’s launchers is based on an in-depth study of possible future scenarios and the corresponding space missions... In the near future... it will be necessary to adopt a “networked” approach, similar to the current air transport “hubs”... launchers will serve LEO and a new orbit beyond the Van Allen Belts called a “parking orbit”. From these orbits, other spacecraft would take over and head for the final destinations." It's pretty vague, but it sounds like SUSIE might be a surface-to-station shuttle, with the station potentially resupplying it in orbit.
I don't think they will use a refuelling station, they will do the same method as the Starship. 1 SUSIE Hab, 1-2 Susie Tanker.
Quote from: Try_NBS on 09/21/2022 10:07 amI don't think they will use a refuelling station, they will do the same method as the Starship. 1 SUSIE Hab, 1-2 Susie Tanker.On a single launch pad infrastructure that supports - at best - six launches per year? That will be interesting.
The more details we get the more it sounds odd. European industry should refrain to put forward projects with such a low maturity.
Quote from: Exastro on 09/20/2022 08:44 pmQuote from: woods170 on 09/20/2022 09:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/19/2022 05:59 pmQuote from: Try_NBS on 09/19/2022 05:49 pmEffectively, if SUSIE is approved by minister's council, it will be in the same delays than Ariane NEXT. But I don't know if Ariane NEXT will be capable to launch a 25T spaceship. I have see on an Arianespace document the maximum payload will be about 20T.SUSIE has some of its own propulsion, right? It could do the circularization burn. Not if it also needs the same propulsion to do the deorbit burn AND land propulsively, all within a wet mass budget of max. 25 metric tons while having a crew cabin for 5 AND a 40 cubic meter payload bay with airlock for EVA AND other unpressurized cargo.The projected capabilities and the wet mass don't match. That is UNLESS the vehicle, after reaching orbit, goes to a propellant depot first. Needless to say: a propellant depot was not mentioned during the ArianeGroup presentation."This vision of the future for Europe’s launchers is based on an in-depth study of possible future scenarios and the corresponding space missions... In the near future... it will be necessary to adopt a “networked” approach, similar to the current air transport “hubs”... launchers will serve LEO and a new orbit beyond the Van Allen Belts called a “parking orbit”. From these orbits, other spacecraft would take over and head for the final destinations." It's pretty vague, but it sounds like SUSIE might be a surface-to-station shuttle, with the station potentially resupplying it in orbit.Tell me, what space station is currently in orbit that is able to refuel SUSIE with several tons of storable propellants?Answer: None.
Yes, but if Susie is a concurrent of Space X, I don't think they will be ok to refuel it with the Starship. I think they will use a tank version to refuel the spacecraft, like the Starship.
If the ESA can launch missions to the Moon orbit, they will do it. And that will be cheaper than any SLS launch. If they use their reusable Ariane NEXT versions, the cost of a launch will be cheaper too.
Just read five pages of very knowledgeable people saying the numbers don’t add up for this concept, apparently by a long shot. Which begs the question, *why* would Ariane publicize this thing when knowledgeable observers can see it can’t work?Naïve question, I guess. “We fooled ourselves into getting a decade (or two) behind the American upstart that is preparing AGAIN to kick our butt six ways from Sunday. What can we do to avoid bad publicity before the unwashed masses? Ah, yessss… a diversion.”
Ok, so you think Arianespace is dumb enough to be lectured by an internet space forum (even the best of the best). You may note my post was conveniently ignored. I was trying to make sense of the whole thing - but it is much easier to dismiss it as "some B.S P.R effort compared to precious SpaceX" (this forum rampant illness, alas)
Yeah, that's an interesting question. Is SUSIE Arianespace atempt at a Project Jarvis, related to Maia ?
Quote from: libra on 09/25/2022 06:15 amOk, so you think Arianespace is dumb enough to be lectured by an internet space forum (even the best of the best). You may note my post was conveniently ignored. I was trying to make sense of the whole thing - but it is much easier to dismiss it as "some B.S P.R effort compared to precious SpaceX" (this forum rampant illness, alas) Yes, I was being a bit snarky, and now to double down: It’s not purely a PR exercise; it’s also a way to finagle funding, from the hard-pressed European taxpayers, for studies, and more studies, for as long as possible, before the inevitable occurs.I may be wrong—it’s a hard habit to break—but just because you find something like this fun to analyze (perfectly understandable), I, chastened by past disappointments and sad lessons in how the world works, choose to look at the probabilities. If Europe had a long history of developing and flying crew spacecraft, I’d adjust my expectations. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
And that is putting it mildly IMO.Europe has a very long history of doing studies with regards to new spacecraft. But actually developing and building them happens only rarely.
THIERRY BRETON-The Susie program is very interesting. It is a project that offers an opening for the next decade. We will look at it with great interest because it is indeed a major subject. However, it is very important in the field of space - especially in the geopolitical moment in which we find ourselves - to target our priorities well, but also to have a medium- and long-term vision, in which manned spaceflight is obviously part. The short-term priorities are to ensure European programs and projects, which are linked to our sovereignty and autonomy in the various segments perfectly identified in the framework of the strategic compass
THIERRY BRETON-Le programme Susie est très intéressant. C'est un projet qui offre une ouverture pour la prochaine décennie. Nous allons le regarder avec beaucoup d'intérêt parce qu'effectivement c'est un sujet majeur. Toutefois, il est très important en matière d'espace - surtout dans le moment géopolitique où nous nous trouvons - de bien cibler nos priorités mais aussi d'avoir une vision de moyen et long terme dans lequel s'inscrivent évidemment les vols habités. Les priorités de court terme sont d'assurer les programmes et projets européens, qui sont liés à notre souveraineté et à notre autonomie dans les différents segments parfaitement identifiés dans le cadre de la boussole stratégique.
Quote from: woods170 on 09/26/2022 11:03 amAnd that is putting it mildly IMO.Europe has a very long history of doing studies with regards to new spacecraft. But actually developing and building them happens only rarely.Interestinlgly it's the Germans who IIRC are most keen to have a human spaceflight capability, over and above an ESA astronautcorp.
Europe isn't tying anything. Arianegroup made a proposal so they can waist billions of taxpayer money.
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 09/27/2022 04:05 pmEurope isn't tying anything. Arianegroup made a proposal so they can waist billions of taxpayer money.Apologies. Arainegroup. Question still stands... Monetary waistlines aside... Lol
Quote from: AstroWare on 09/27/2022 04:26 pmQuote from: Rik ISS-fan on 09/27/2022 04:05 pmEurope isn't tying anything. Arianegroup made a proposal so they can waist billions of taxpayer money.Apologies. Arainegroup. Question still stands... Monetary waistlines aside... LolIf you say Europe, you mean a political will (and thus the required budgets). If you talk about Ariane's proposal, that's just a company asking for a lot of money. Talk is cheap, but if actual money is invested, then you have an actual decision. A huge government contractor asking for billions to develops "the next big thing" is just another Thursday.
Quote from: baldusi on 09/27/2022 04:31 pmQuote from: AstroWare on 09/27/2022 04:26 pmQuote from: Rik ISS-fan on 09/27/2022 04:05 pmEurope isn't tying anything. Arianegroup made a proposal so they can waist billions of taxpayer money.Apologies. Arainegroup. Question still stands... Monetary waistlines aside... LolIf you say Europe, you mean a political will (and thus the required budgets). If you talk about Ariane's proposal, that's just a company asking for a lot of money. Talk is cheap, but if actual money is invested, then you have an actual decision. A huge government contractor asking for billions to develops "the next big thing" is just another Thursday.The question is neither. Please forgive this engineer... I'm asking technically - why would this proposal suggest* to develop a vertical landing crew vehicle for Europe's** first crewed vehicle?
Some people thought that 2020's Ariane 6 was too little too late. 2023 is too little really late. But compare that to the four solids proposal that CNES was pushing, and ArianeGroup got their act together saving the whole Ariane program from the French unexplainable love for solids. Now, they should have been at least four years into an F9 like reusable launcher, and they are just proposing Maïa. So again very late.With SUSIE they finally are trying to match Starship recoverable upper stage AND getting a crewed spaceship (again, quite like a mini Starship concept) and we say they are too early. I personally think they are trying to fish for study money, but have to give them props for actually trying to actually think how to get ahead of the competition instead of replicating last decade systems.
I personally see another reason for this. Say it frankly Ariane 6 is a launcher without payload. Even though it is cheaper than Ariane 5, the advances in reusable rockets make it obsolete for commercial missions. This is a rocket, destined to be retired soon after the start of the program.To keep it alive they need a reason, and human space flight with a sexy space craft might work to make a flag ship program, that will keep running even though it is economically unsound.Europe want independent access to space. That is a political goal. But if they do, they have either carry the high cost of using an commercially obsolete system, create a commercially viable system or buy one.I for one, would start to get into discussions with SpaceX to buy a launch tower and 6 Starships.
The french wanted continuing large scale solid use to exercise their SLBM military industrial base. People sometimes forget France is a nuclear power operating missile submarines. Ariane 5 P80 solids share some commonality with France's currently deployed M51 SLBM's. Of note, the new wider P120 solids for Ariane 6 and Vega probably won't fit in the missile tubes of the french SNLE 3G SSBN submarine that will start construction soon.
I for one, would start to get into discussions with SpaceX to buy a launch tower and 6 Starships.
With SUSIE they finally are trying to match Starship recoverable upper stage AND getting a crewed spaceship (again, quite like a mini Starship concept) and we say they are too early. I personally think they are trying to fish for study money, but have to give them props for actually trying to actually think how to get ahead of the competition instead of replicating last decade systems.
If they never start to work on this, at least in a serious way, they will again go about doing a thousand studies about "how to copy SpaceX without it being too obvious". The Californian company will have done trades on Starship for ten years by the time they start work on something similar. Of course they will have to copy if they don't put years of effort on designing, testing, redesigning, etc. As much as I think SUSIE as proposed is a bad design, with imaginary numbers of margin, it is their design. I would rather have Europe think out their own solution for a reusable upperstage/spaceship to get something different.Not unlike how RocketLab designed Neutron: a one for one competitor with F9 with absolutely different technological solutions in every possible way. Europe needs to do something like that. So I think SUSIE is a good place to start the thinking. But for God's sake, don't try to deliver as presented.
I would dare to suggest that "P120" by name means "120 tons of solid fuel" - that's how the french have named their rocket stages since 1960 at least. "H" stands for "Hydrogen" "P" for "poudre" - closest english word is "powder" but "solid fuel" is a far better translation"L" for "liquid" - as in storable / hypergolics (little love for kerolox on the french side). And the number is for the propellant mass. "L17" was for Diamant, 17 tons of storables. "L140" was Ariane similar but much bigger stage. Rinse, repeat. From "P120" a wild guess could be made related to specific impulse and mass fraction, for example 290 seconds and 0.95 but I can understand "official" numbers are much preferable than wild guesses...
Does Europe have to develop a reusable launcher, or is Ariane 6 fine for the launch demand Europe has.In Europe politicians are destroying their own economy for Environmental misconceptions. There are more than a 1000 more important things to develop than reusable rockets. Engines can't be tested because of the environmental misconceptions. A lot of testing has to take place, to figure out what reuse method works best. Smaller systems use less fuel and 'pollute' less. So they should test on smaller vehicles. So beter do a test of a 50% scale SUSIE on Vega C/D/E than on Ariane 6, or on a even smaller vehicle.I don't want promotion of piss pore performance on the development of Ariane 6; by awarding follow on development contracts before Ariane 6 is operational. Arianegroup should deliver what they promise otherwise as they did with Ariane 6 development, they destroy the whole European launch industry. I think the real reason for Ariane 6 development delays haven't be published, because the company at fold will be held accountable for 1.5years without production demand on all dedicated Ariane 6 production assets. That will be a huge claim.
Quote from: baldusi on 10/01/2022 09:53 pmIf they never start to work on this, at least in a serious way, they will again go about doing a thousand studies about "how to copy SpaceX without it being too obvious". The Californian company will have done trades on Starship for ten years by the time they start work on something similar. Of course they will have to copy if they don't put years of effort on designing, testing, redesigning, etc. As much as I think SUSIE as proposed is a bad design, with imaginary numbers of margin, it is their design. I would rather have Europe think out their own solution for a reusable upperstage/spaceship to get something different.Not unlike how RocketLab designed Neutron: a one for one competitor with F9 with absolutely different technological solutions in every possible way. Europe needs to do something like that. So I think SUSIE is a good place to start the thinking. But for God's sake, don't try to deliver as presented.Does Europe have to develop a reusable launcher, or is Ariane 6 fine for the launch demand Europe has.In Europe politicians are destroying their own economy for Environmental misconceptions. There are more than a 1000 more important things to develop than reusable rockets. Engines can't be tested because of the environmental misconceptions. A lot of testing has to take place, to figure out what reuse method works best. Smaller systems use less fuel and 'pollute' less. So they should test on smaller vehicles. So beter do a test of a 50% scale SUSIE on Vega C/D/E than on Ariane 6, or on a even smaller vehicle.I don't want promotion of piss pore performance on the development of Ariane 6; by awarding follow on development contracts before Ariane 6 is operational. Arianegroup should deliver what they promise otherwise as they did with Ariane 6 development, they destroy the whole European launch industry. I think the real reason for Ariane 6 development delays haven't be published, because the company at fold will be held accountable for 1.5years without production demand on all dedicated Ariane 6 production assets. That will be a huge claim.
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 10/02/2022 10:47 amQuote from: baldusi on 10/01/2022 09:53 pmIf they never start to work on this, at least in a serious way, they will again go about doing a thousand studies about "how to copy SpaceX without it being too obvious". The Californian company will have done trades on Starship for ten years by the time they start work on something similar. Of course they will have to copy if they don't put years of effort on designing, testing, redesigning, etc. As much as I think SUSIE as proposed is a bad design, with imaginary numbers of margin, it is their design. I would rather have Europe think out their own solution for a reusable upperstage/spaceship to get something different.Not unlike how RocketLab designed Neutron: a one for one competitor with F9 with absolutely different technological solutions in every possible way. Europe needs to do something like that. So I think SUSIE is a good place to start the thinking. But for God's sake, don't try to deliver as presented.Does Europe have to develop a reusable launcher, or is Ariane 6 fine for the launch demand Europe has.In Europe politicians are destroying their own economy for Environmental misconceptions. There are more than a 1000 more important things to develop than reusable rockets. Engines can't be tested because of the environmental misconceptions. A lot of testing has to take place, to figure out what reuse method works best. Smaller systems use less fuel and 'pollute' less. So they should test on smaller vehicles. So beter do a test of a 50% scale SUSIE on Vega C/D/E than on Ariane 6, or on a even smaller vehicle.I don't want promotion of piss pore performance on the development of Ariane 6; by awarding follow on development contracts before Ariane 6 is operational. Arianegroup should deliver what they promise otherwise as they did with Ariane 6 development, they destroy the whole European launch industry. I think the real reason for Ariane 6 development delays haven't be published, because the company at fold will be held accountable for 1.5years without production demand on all dedicated Ariane 6 production assets. That will be a huge claim. Far as I know A6 development is going to plan. The schedule slips are no more than usual for new LV, COVID hasn't helped. The delays are nothing like SLS. Compared to Vulcan they aren't doing to badly.The $4.4B development cost does seem very high given competition are doing it for lot less. F9R V1.2 would be around $1B. Vulcan is likely to be $1-2B. Terran R <$1B and it is a F9R class LV. Smaller LVs like Neutron and Beta <$500M.With addition of NGIS SRMs Beta could also compete in GEO satellite launch market.
Ah. There goes the logic. As per F-35...
Technology and space has become clearly a most important intelligence and military asset that Europe needs to keep at any cost. The future is clearly on at least partially reusable launchers. And Europe has botched this segment of the space chain. Regrettably they need to work right now on short term solutions (specially on the medium polar segment), medium term (partially reusable heavy (16 to 25 tonnes to LEO) launchers, and long term (fully reusable).They shouldn't go full bending metal on SUSIE, that's clear. But keep studying it, and ideally agree on a small set of top-level requirements that it must comply with. Then, add a couple of extra companies getting the same requirements but absolute design freedom to achieve them.
Quote from: baldusi on 10/03/2022 06:54 pmTechnology and space has become clearly a most important intelligence and military asset that Europe needs to keep at any cost. The future is clearly on at least partially reusable launchers. And Europe has botched this segment of the space chain. Regrettably they need to work right now on short term solutions (specially on the medium polar segment), medium term (partially reusable heavy (16 to 25 tonnes to LEO) launchers, and long term (fully reusable).They shouldn't go full bending metal on SUSIE, that's clear. But keep studying it, and ideally agree on a small set of top-level requirements that it must comply with. Then, add a couple of extra companies getting the same requirements but absolute design freedom to achieve them.Unfortunately "At any cost" has gotten them A6. Interesting strategy. Remember though that the funding usually goes through ESA, and ESA has other members than those of the EU, the UK, Canada and Israel to name a few.
Quote from: baldusi on 10/03/2022 06:54 pmTechnology and space has become clearly a most important intelligence and military asset that Europe needs to keep at any cost. The future is clearly on at least partially reusable launchers. And Europe has botched this segment of the space chain. Regrettably they need to work right now on short term solutions (specially on the medium polar segment), medium term (partially reusable heavy (16 to 25 tonnes to LEO) launchers, and long term (fully reusable).They shouldn't go full bending metal on SUSIE, that's clear. But keep studying it, and ideally agree on a small set of top-level requirements that it must comply with. Then, add a couple of extra companies getting the same requirements but absolute design freedom to achieve them.Unfortunately "At any cost" has gotten them A6.
I don't want to sound like a broken record but A6 is actually a wonderful achievement in comparison to the four solids monster that CNES was pushing. I think they actually saved the program with that.
Quote from: baldusi on 10/09/2022 03:25 amI don't want to sound like a broken record but A6 is actually a wonderful achievement in comparison to the four solids monster that CNES was pushing. I think they actually saved the program with that.I don't think it matters. The CNES design and the current design are already obsolete.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.ESA has 22 member states. Neither Canada, nor Israel are member states of ESA.Canada has a Cooperation Agreement with ESA and has a seat on the ESA council. As such they have a voice in how ESA spends its money. But Canada is not a member state of ESA.Three European countries are Associate Members of ESA.And five EU states have a Cooperation Agreement (ECS - European Cooperating State) with ESA, similar to the one Canada has, but WITHOUT a seat on the ESA council.Israel is neiter a member state, nor an associate member. And it also is not an ECS.There is a cooperation agreement between ESA and ISA (the Israeli Space Agency), but it is similar to the agreement between ESA and NASA. It does not give ISA any leverage in what ESA spends its funds on.
The really bad thing here, if ESA starts to copy F9 now (and that would include minor improvements), they would again end up with a system that is outdated, when reaching the market.
A lot of patronizing about the EU space industry here ...Well, I think A6 would have been a good design, if the Space Industry would have stayed in the status quo, that reuseability simply does not work. A6 is a good last decades design.The really bad thing here, if ESA starts to copy F9 now (and that would include minor improvements), they would again end up with a system that is outdated, when reaching the market.The good argument against reusability has always been, that the base cost are so high, that it does not make sense, if you have very limited payloads. Either the payloads grow (which is likely taking the huge cost reduction in transport to LEO), or the market is already saturated by SpaceX. Pick your poison.
Quote from: volker2020 on 10/17/2022 06:06 amThe really bad thing here, if ESA starts to copy F9 now (and that would include minor improvements), they would again end up with a system that is outdated, when reaching the market.Better to be 10 years out of date (after starting on a Falcon 9 clone), then waiting another 10 years (and doing nothing) and be 20 years out of date!
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 10/18/2022 05:40 amQuote from: volker2020 on 10/17/2022 06:06 amThe really bad thing here, if ESA starts to copy F9 now (and that would include minor improvements), they would again end up with a system that is outdated, when reaching the market.Better to be 10 years out of date (after starting on a Falcon 9 clone), then waiting another 10 years (and doing nothing) and be 20 years out of date!Interestingly, there is private money (RocketLab with Neutron) chasing the idea of Falcon 9 with improvements. Many suspect they will need to raise more money to complete this project. If so, for a fraction of what they would spend on their own competitor, perhaps ESA could help fund Neutron development, in return for IP rights, the right to manufacture in Europe, and a pad in Guiana.This would solve the problem of assured European access to space, if they can build and launch their own vehicle, from their own spaceport, at a reasonable (even if not StarShip level) cost. It could also preserve some manufacturing capabilities, though not the large solids some EDA factions would prefer. This project alone would not preserve the ability to design and qualify new vehicles, but that might be covered by project working on next generation (fully reusable) concepts.However, spending significant money outside the ESA for a core function (design and qualification) seems implausible, no matter what the practical benefits might be.
I checked the IAC program. Susie was presented by the same people who gave us Adeline. Do I need to elaborate ?
The ESA budget for space transportation has risen to €2.8 billion. ESA will further strengthen its Ariane 6 and Vega-C launchers, complete the development of the reusable Space Rider that can stay in low Earth orbit for more than two months before returning to Earth for refurbishment, and develop a green hydrogen system to fuel Ariane launchers at Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana, with the goal of eliminating carbon in hydrogen production by 2030. It will continue to mature critical technologies that underpin European capabilities while responding to environmental sustainability and cost-efficiency requirements, along with preparatory activities for the advent of human space transportation capabilities. ESA will also increase the efforts of its Boost! programme to help space entrepreneurs turn their space transportation projects into commercial reality.
Fundings ArianeGroup’s Susie concept would be a mistakeAndrew Parsonson[…]As a fan of exciting developments in spaceflight and specifically European spaceflight, I was excited about the concept when it was first announced. However, the more I thought about it the more I realized how cynical the proposal had been and how little about it made sense.
https://europeanspaceflight.substack.com/p/funding-arianegroups-susie-conceptQuoteFundings ArianeGroup’s Susie concept would be a mistakeAndrew Parsonson[…]As a fan of exciting developments in spaceflight and specifically European spaceflight, I was excited about the concept when it was first announced. However, the more I thought about it the more I realized how cynical the proposal had been and how little about it made sense.
I'd like to ask a question. How does Susie compares to Stoke second stage ?(...)
I'd like to ask a question. How does Susie compares to Stoke second stage ? Can't help thinking they look vaguely similar at least. Was wondering whether the Europeans could go the Stoke way, bringing together Callisto / Prometheus and Susie ? What if Europe was heading that way ?
Unveiled in Paris last fall during the 2022 IAC show, SUSIE starts to get real today. The reduced-scale demonstrator you see in this video constitutes the first brick in #ArianeGroup's development plan to swiftly master the key technologies of the #SUSIE concept.
SUSIE (Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration), a new and entirely reusable stage concept, designed to meet the future needs of transport to-, in- and from space. In the coming days, we will suggest a few examples of SUSIE's many possible missions.#ArianeGroup #SUSIE
Gotta say, this feels like a weirdly invested press push from Ariane Space for a project that is almost certainly dead on arrival.
Quote from: JEF_300 on 10/31/2023 09:40 pmGotta say, this feels like a weirdly invested press push from Ariane Space for a project that is almost certainly dead on arrival.Well, if you allegedly have a european reusable first stage/expendable second stage launcher coming along by a startup that is underfunded, shopping around an reusable upper/second stage funded by someone else might be attractive...
<snip>-SUSIE is not supposed to be a reusable upper stage, it is a mixed crew-cargo reusable VTVL orbiter without main propulsion (engines are only doing orbital insertions and landing) Its closest comparison would be Buran, but Downscaled to Hermes-scale and with Starship’s landing methods, definitely technologically interesting, but practically useless.<snip>
Quote from: TheKutKu on 11/01/2023 09:34 am<snip>-SUSIE is not supposed to be a reusable upper stage, it is a mixed crew-cargo reusable VTVL orbiter without main propulsion (engines are only doing orbital insertions and landing) Its closest comparison would be Buran, but Downscaled to Hermes-scale and with Starship’s landing methods, definitely technologically interesting, but practically useless.<snip>It seems that a closer SUSIE analog is the forthcoming Dreamchaser series 200 on a reusable launcher like the Falcon 9. Which have the advantage of able to landed on a runway. So the business case for SUSIE appears to be extremely weak. Probably might wind up as an expensive LEO crew taxi for a few missions as a prestige ESA project, IMO.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 11/01/2023 02:01 pm.....The communications around SUSIE emphasise its cargo capabilities, particularly its return capabilities, calling it a "fairing", And having modular cargo capabilities as the main difference between its two versions. With its huge unpressurised cargo bay, it distinctively seems like a downscaled Buran orbiter, or maybe more accurately the unbuilt LKS spacecraft (or some of the earlier glider-small shuttle proposals of the early 70s). The larger diameter may improve the Cargo bay volume.
.....
Quote from: TheKutKu on 11/01/2023 06:16 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 11/01/2023 02:01 pm.....The communications around SUSIE emphasise its cargo capabilities, particularly its return capabilities, calling it a "fairing", And having modular cargo capabilities as the main difference between its two versions. With its huge unpressurised cargo bay, it distinctively seems like a downscaled Buran orbiter, or maybe more accurately the unbuilt LKS spacecraft (or some of the earlier glider-small shuttle proposals of the early 70s). The larger diameter may improve the Cargo bay volume.How useful SUSIE may turns out to be. Depends on the up mass and the down mass numbers not the volume available for payload. Do we have any mass numbers?
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 11/01/2023 07:33 pmQuote from: TheKutKu on 11/01/2023 06:16 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 11/01/2023 02:01 pm.....The communications around SUSIE emphasise its cargo capabilities, particularly its return capabilities, calling it a "fairing", And having modular cargo capabilities as the main difference between its two versions. With its huge unpressurised cargo bay, it distinctively seems like a downscaled Buran orbiter, or maybe more accurately the unbuilt LKS spacecraft (or some of the earlier glider-small shuttle proposals of the early 70s). The larger diameter may improve the Cargo bay volume.How useful SUSIE may turns out to be. Depends on the up mass and the down mass numbers not the volume available for payload. Do we have any mass numbers?They claim 7 tons up- and down-mass in a 40m3 payload bah (I don’t think this fits with the renders, I may be wrong)
Quote from: TheKutKu on 11/01/2023 09:08 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 11/01/2023 07:33 pmQuote from: TheKutKu on 11/01/2023 06:16 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 11/01/2023 02:01 pm.....The communications around SUSIE emphasise its cargo capabilities, particularly its return capabilities, calling it a "fairing", And having modular cargo capabilities as the main difference between its two versions. With its huge unpressurised cargo bay, it distinctively seems like a downscaled Buran orbiter, or maybe more accurately the unbuilt LKS spacecraft (or some of the earlier glider-small shuttle proposals of the early 70s). The larger diameter may improve the Cargo bay volume.How useful SUSIE may turns out to be. Depends on the up mass and the down mass numbers not the volume available for payload. Do we have any mass numbers?They claim 7 tons up- and down-mass in a 40m3 payload bah (I don’t think this fits with the renders, I may be wrong)So that leave about 14 tonnes from the Ariane 64's maximum LEO payload mass of about 21 tonnes for the SUSIE spacecraft dry mass and enough propellants for a non-hoverslam powered landing plus orbital maneuvering. Interesting.
All the mistakes of shuttle except smaller . What is needed is a small ship like Soyuz on a small handy launcher that launches a lot th a goes up and down a lot .To put it in cars the shuttle is a lorry ,Susie is a pick-up Truck what we need is a mini .3 people able to dock and lands with a paragliding wing as simple as possible .
The amount of space debris in Earth's orbit is constantly rising as more space trash is left behind. Limiting the risks of collision with satellites or space stations or to protect our communications networks, protecting the space environment matters at #ArianeGroup. #SUSIE 1/2
#SUSIE is part of this philosophy and could help reduce space debris and assist with removing or de-orbiting end-of-life satellites. #ArianeGroup 2/2
To remove space debris/junk, SUSIE will have to fly frequently. This does not seam to be the case since Ariane 6 won't fly often enough because of it's expense.
Susie is really a really expensive way to remove space junk .
It would also be kind of hilarious if it was capable of recovering its own 2nd stage.
