Vega Discussion (includes Vega-C, Vega-E) Thread

[Rik ISS-fan]

AFAIK the test benches in Europe can only accommodate engines up to 2MN of thrust.
Modifications are taking place to accommodate LOxLNG engines on some test benches.
Test benches are a limited resource, and further restricted by environmental regulations. So if many different engines are developed at the same time, development will take longer, because of testbench availability.   
We don't have information what type of engine (M60) Avio might be allowed to develop.
AFAIK the M10 engine, VUS => VEGA-E, is a dual expander cycle. I think the M60 testing and qualification will start after the M10 engine has been qualified. Subcomponents might be developed earlier.

Another topic. What to do about the uncertainty of the availability of engines for AVUM+?
I think the best approach is to accelerate VUS (Vega-E) development. And the develop of a kick-stage for Vega-E. This kick-stage could function as interim replacement for AVUM+ when the engines can't be delivered.
It might be useful to use the kick-stage on multiple launch vehicles; as 3th stage. Skyrora XL; RFA One, ENVOL and a Vega-E kick-stage might share a lot of commonality. And the kick-stage is needed for SpaceRider on Vega-E. There might also be some commonality with the Ariane 6 ASTRIS kick-stage.

AFAIK the P120C+ development has not been funded jet. And P120C production ramp-up to 35/year has been in the planning for a long time. It's repurposing infrastructure that was used for Ariane 5 booster production.
I think increased launch rate of Vega (C) isn't significant for production.
With 6x Ariane 5 and 3x Vega Avio had to manufacture: 24 empty casings; and 12 casted segments. 3x P80; Z23, Z9A and AVUM. Now they are going to produce 35 P120C casings; and each Vega C a Z40; Z9A and AVUM+. I think the tooling setup for Vega will get higher utilization for Vega C.

I think the AVIO two stage to orbit liquid rocket demonstrator might be very similar to Relativity Terran 1. With 98kN instead of 126kN (Tvac) engines, thus ~20% less powerful/ shorter.
I think the Vega Ø2.6m fairing might be modified for it.

[GWR64]

...
Another topic. What to do about the uncertainty of the availability of engines for AVUM+?
...

I think as long as there is no problem according to Avio, ESA's hands are tied.
ESA needs to put more pressure on Avio to get clarity.

[Rik ISS-fan]

If Avio doesn't clarify the situation, ESA member-states won't make funding available for an alternative.
I don't want preparations for an equal alternative. The alternative should use less toxic (normally named 'green') hypergolic prepollents. I hope funding is made available for this. I would prefer a scenario where a micro launcher 3th stage get's funding for development and modification to also function as kick-stage.

[GWR64]

Ironically, the Italian ASI had leveled criticism at Avio Spa 2021. Politically well packaged but clearly understandable. 

https://www.asi.it/en/earth-science/cosmo-skymed/

The second COSMO SkyMed Second Generation satellite (CSG-2) was planned to be launched with VEGA-C within 2021, but the launcher development has been impacted by the VV15 and VV17 failures and, above all, by the COVID pandemic. The delays, postponing the VEGA-C Maiden Flight to Q1 2022, with a consequent tight schedule of launches in 2022, made the  launch period of CSG-2 no longer compatible with the needs of the COSMO Mission. Since Arianespace backlog was already full on Soyuz and Ariane systems in 2021, it was not possible to have a European back-up solution compliant with the CSG-2 schedule, thus an alternative solution with the US provider SPACE X has been adopted allowing to keep the CSG-2 launch within the current year. In line with its long-lasting support ensured to the European launch industry, ASI confirmed its trust in Arianespace and VEGA-C capabilities by contracting the launch of the CSG-3 satellite, planned for 2024. Moreover, other future launch opportunities for ASI missions with VEGA-C are under discussion, confirming Arianespace as a key partner for the Agency.

(I think, the order for CSG-3 is probably only a compensation for the CSG-2 launcher costs.)

[GWR64]

Now a statement from the ESA. 

https://spacenews.com/esa-studies-options-for-vega-c-upper-stage-engine-ahead-of-first-launch/

ESA studies options for Vega C upper stage engine ahead of first launch

An ESA official said there were no worried about any disruption in Vega C launches through the "medium-term" as it studies options to deal with any disruption in the supply of upper stage engines manufactured in Ukraine.
...
“We have a completely new launcher which comes from the heritage of Vega,” said Stefano Bianchi, head of ESA’s Flight Programmes Department, during a July 7 media briefing about the upcoming Vega C launch.

No worries in the medium term, since possible replacement have been found for the worst case.
Which I (GWR64) do not hope, because Ukrainian engines will be built in Dnipro for a long time to come !

Bianchi said ESA was studying several options, including business as usual. “We wish to continue our cooperation with Ukraine for reasons that you can certainly understand. They have been, so far, a very reliable partner,” he said.

Avio, the prime contractor for Vega, has a stockpile of AVUM engines in Italy, he said, but did not disclose how many engines are in that stockpile. In an April interview, Josef Aschbacher, ESA director general, said six engines had been delivered, enough for launches through 2023.

ESA is also looking at several options to replace the AVUM engine. One is to accelerate development of Avio’s M10 engine, a liquid oxygen/methane engine the company is developing for the future Vega E vehicle. Bianchi said testing of the M10 engine is in progress.

ESA is also considering two other engines that could replace AVUM in the near term if the supply of that engine is cut off, but he did not disclose which ones are under study. “We are doing everything to avoid any discontinuation in the launches of Vega because it is crucial.”

(maybe) 6 engines versus 14 launch orders for the Vega C

There are 14 Vega C launches on the vehicle’s manifest through 2025, including five in 2023 and four each in 2024 and 2025. Bianchi said the launches are for a mix of institutional customers, such as ESA, the European Union and the Italian Space Agency ASI, as well as commercial customers that he did not identify.

The Vega C is more than two years behind schedule, with its first flight originally planned to take place by the end of 2019. Bianchi blamed the delays on two Vega launch failures in 2019 and 2020 that took engineers away from the Vega C program. The pandemic also slowed progress, he added.
...

But the ESA needs the cooperation of Avio.

Please read for yourself, I am not allowed to copy the entire article.
A moderator may shorten the quote if that is too much.

[GWR64]

Worst case, what could the options for a possible RD-843  replacement be?
-Berta

perhaps, adapted to AVUM+
-Starliner OMAC, aerojet rocketdyne ?
-or PSLV, stage 4 engine, ISRO ?

[baldusi]

Worst case, what could the options for a possible RD-843  replacement be?
-Berta

perhaps, adapted to AVUM+
-Starliner OMAC, aerojet rocketdyne ?
-or PSLV, stage 4 engine, ISRO ?

Ariane 6 Artris stage has an engine (BERTA) that's almost a 1 for 1 replacement. You'd only need to swap propellants on the engine, or on the stage. I guess engine would be easier, but for stage would mean full European independence. If I'm not mistaken, Europe does produce MMH, but not UDMH, which has to be imported from Russia or Ukraine. So, using the N2O2/MMH Berta as used on the Artris stage, not only reduces propulsion cost and schedule risk, but also simplifies the logistics as it uses same propellant as satellites.

[baldusi]

I'm worried about engine cycles. Where CH4 shines is with staged-combustion+reusability. I see a lot of gg methalox developments, which is fine as a first engine. But I see little to no work on ORSC for methane. That's the key next technology that will be needed. And if government wants to subsidize something, they should subsidize that. So it can be licences RAND to all the european private companies.
The only ORSC that I know of in actual development in Europe, is RFA's. And it's kerolox. So you simply have no work done on what will be the next step needed to compete. You might argue that they still have to walk before they run. But ORSC (or even better, full flow) is an order of magnitude more difficult and propulsion is always the long pole in rocket development. Starting now to have a base system for a 1MN methalox ORSC/FF engine that can then be licensed to the industry will allow that when they need to start developing it in five years, they will not need a decade.
Look at the Russian and American experience on complex staged engines and a decade seems to be what it takes to highly experienced rocket design teams like NPO Energomash, MHI, Rocketdyne, SpaceX and Blue Origin. How can they expect taking less time with less experience and less government help?

You appear to be advocating for EU or ESA to subsidize development that will result in at best a 1 MN FF methalox engine prototype in 2027, and commercial production engines by perhaps 2030. Is this correct?

Raptor 2 is in series production now.  It is a 2.25 MN FF methalox engine. Is there a reason you are advocating for a less capable engine? There are a bunch of really good European engineers, and they now know that it is achievable.

Europe is two generations behind SpaceX, and they need something that's fully reusable post 2030. I'm not saying sooner because there's simply not feasible for the usual R&D budgets on Europe. So, they are working now on something like a Falcon 9, but with methalox. The next thing they need will be something like Starship, which requires full flow methalox, but sized for their institutional needs. A 1MN FF methalox would allow a fully reusable rocket on the range of Falcon 9/Ariane 6 with a minimum of engines. If they were willing to use many engines, 500 to 700kN would suffice, too.
But they need staged combustion and that's a 10 year development, no matter how much proven it is in the world. As I said, Energimash, Rocketdyne, MHI, SpaceX, Youshmash, CASC, ISRO, etc. have needed at least 10 years. No matter how excellent European engineers are (and they are), you can't get that experience shortened. Specially without Moonshot-like budgets.
Again, I'm not one that likes subsidies, but if Europe wants a self-financing independent access to space, I don't see how they can get to seriously get teams to do full flow methalox work without some sort of significant economic incentive.

[baldusi]

We don't have information what type of engine (M60) Avio might be allowed to develop.
AFAIK the M10 engine, VUS => VEGA-E, is a dual expander cycle. I think the M60 testing and qualification will start after the M10 engine has been qualified. Subcomponents might be developed earlier.

From this paper (2019) I get that M10 is a closed-expander that works on the methane side only. A 60-ton engine is simply not feasable as a closed-expander, single or dual doesn't matter. There's simply not enough heat to power the turbines. They might do as the RD-0162 engine, which had the fuel TP powered by methane expander cycle, and the LOX side powered by ORSC. This would allow to use much of the technology of the M10. But as I said before, you just need ORSC development. Unless they go with a bleed (i.e. open cycle expander) option. But that's basically a very reliable gas generator. Which would make relatively little sense given the rest of European developments. Now, at 600kN full flow (expander/preburner is the same effect), you can really do a Falcon 9 sized fully reusable LV. So AVIO might be thinking bug within the traditional government-funded mindset.

[GWR64]

Worst case, what could the options for a possible RD-843  replacement be?
-Berta

perhaps, adapted to AVUM+
-Starliner OMAC, aerojet rocketdyne ?
-or PSLV, stage 4 engine, ISRO ?

Ariane 6 Artris stage has an engine (BERTA) that's almost a 1 for 1 replacement. You'd only need to swap propellants on the engine, or on the stage. I guess engine would be easier, but for stage would mean full European independence. If I'm not mistaken, Europe does produce MMH, but not UDMH, which has to be imported from Russia or Ukraine. So, using the N2O2/MMH Berta as used on the Artris stage, not only reduces propulsion cost and schedule risk, but also simplifies the logistics as it uses same propellant as satellites.

BERTA of course, I've written.
But consider possible problems between Germany, my country from the beginning against Vega, and Italy.
I don't get it for 10 years. But maybe that has changed, hopefully.

[Rik ISS-fan]

For the M60 we know they want to do static fireing tests in 2026. So that's 4 years development time untill first tests. I don't think that's enough for a SC-engine.
I think a beter reference for a European reusable launcher is RocketLab Neutron or Relatvity Terran R. I expect also a heavy version, at least initially. Possibly available by 2030.

I think for an alternative for AVUM+, they should look at HTP- hydrocarbon engines with 2.5 to 10kN of thrust. There are multiple engine options in development. NTO, MMH, UDMH and Hydrazine should be phased-out in my opinion.

[russianhalo117]

Worst case, what could the options for a possible RD-843  replacement be?
-Berta

perhaps, adapted to AVUM+
-Starliner OMAC, aerojet rocketdyne ?
-or PSLV, stage 4 engine, ISRO ?

Ariane 6 Artris stage has an engine (BERTA) that's almost a 1 for 1 replacement. You'd only need to swap propellants on the engine, or on the stage. I guess engine would be easier, but for stage would mean full European independence. If I'm not mistaken, Europe does produce MMH, but not UDMH, which has to be imported from Russia or Ukraine. So, using the N2O2/MMH Berta as used on the Artris stage, not only reduces propulsion cost and schedule risk, but also simplifies the logistics as it uses same propellant as satellites.

Merck Schuchardt OHG subsidiary of Merck KGaA supplied UDMH for commercial launches of Strela, Rockot and Proton-M launches upto the 2022 Special operation. There was also a supplier in Ireland which inactivated there production line in a mothballed state at the beginning of the pandemic.

[bolun]

There are 14 Vega C launches on the vehicle’s manifest through 2025, including five in 2023 and four each in 2024 and 2025. Bianchi said the launches are for a mix of institutional customers, such as ESA, the European Union and the Italian Space Agency ASI, as well as commercial customers that he did not identify.

Source: SpaceNews / Stefano Bianchi, head of ESA’s Flight Programmes Department

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43287.msg2384745#msg2384745

 

Hm ? recalculated:
5+4+4=13,
+2022 VV21 and VV22 (?) =15
So not counting ESA's Vega-C launch VV21 or is VV22 Pléiades Neo Jan. 2023?

Next: Classic Vega no more?

Bianchi's statements are here

Vega-C pre-launch press briefing (video)

https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2022/07/Vega-C_pre-launch_press_briefing

Vega C

04:43 Backlog complete for 2023, 2024 and 2025 (14 launches)

18:47 Manifest complete for 2023, 2024 and 2025 (14 launches)

Avum

20:18 Medium term (engines stocked in Italy)
          Long term (new engine M10)
          Backup solutions (2 options)

Space Rider

31:08 some info

40:20 new solution for Space Rider with Vega E

Microlaunchers

35:23: some talks about German microlaunchers and Maia

[hektor]

Let them swallow their pride and ask Aerojet. I am sure there are engines which would fit the need there (R-40B like or else).

A US solution is way better than not flying Vega any more.

The R-40B is out of production.
https://www.rocket.com/sites/default/files/documents/In-Space%20Data%20Sheets_7.19.21.pdf

Yes but R-40A used on the Shuttle Orbiters are no longer produced but still physically exist... They can dig in the stockpile of former Orbiter RCS engines.

Vega C : une piste américaine envisagée pour propulser l'étage supérieur du lanceur italien

[GWR64]

Daniel Neuenschwander at La Tribune:
Google translate
https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/nous-avons-un-seul-objectif-la-continuite-des-vols-de-vega-c-daniel-neuenschwander-esa-928551.htm

"We have a single objective: the continuity of Vega C flights" (Daniel Neuenschwander, ESA)
Since Vega C's top engine is made in Ukraine, the European Space Agency (ESA) is considering alternative solutions. ESA's director of space transport Daniel Neuenschwander confirms that he has entrusted the Italian industrialist Avio with a study to assess the various options: an American off-the-shelf solution with Aerojet, an Italian solution and a solution proposed by ArianeGroup Germany (Berta engine) .

"I'm going to be perfectly clear. We're not going to try to free ourselves from one addiction to fall into another addiction. That's obvious. But like I said, the number one criterion is planning. If we If we had to use intermediate solutions, they could only be of limited duration" (Daniel Neuenschwander, director of space transport at ESA) (Credits: Avio)

LA TRIBUNE- Today, the AVUM upper stage of Vega and Vega C is powered by a Ukrainian engine. Do you have a sufficient stock of engines to ensure the continuity of service of the Italian launchers?
DANIEL NEUENSCHWANDER - Absolutely. I confirm that we have in the short term (two to three years) the stocks necessary for the exploitation of the last two Vega, then of Vega C. This is very good news for the European institutional missions, which must absolutely take advantage of these flight opportunities.
...

The rest is behind a pay wall, my summary and opinion

The first priority is to continue using the Ukrainian Vega/Vega-C upper stage engine.
Enough engines for the next 2-3 years are (allegedly) available.

In the case that this should no longer be available, there are several options.
Although I don't know exactly what ESA's plans are and what the plans of AVIO and ASI (Italy).
At the end, AVIO will propose and ESA should evaluate and fund it.

1. Consider using an existing Aerojet Rocketdyne engine. Without saying which engine it is exactly.
No new engine development should be funded outside of Europe. This will only be a temporary solution.

2. Italy wants to develop a replacement for the Ukrainian engine.
This means an engine for the Vega-C, not the M10 for the Vega-E.
That seems to be AVIO's top priority. Maybe also for future Space Riders.
However, it is questionable whether this is feasible in the time frame.

3. Berta from Germany,
Use is unlikely. If only as an emergency solution.
The 4 kN variant for Astris (already being tested) will not be well suited for the Vega-C.
The development of the matching 2.5 kN variant of Berta was discontinued. Resuming development would take too long.

The reasons given for the rejection of the Berta engine, do not seem conclusive to me.
Like the 4kN Berta, an existing Aerojet Rocketdyne engine will not be a perfect match for the Vega-C.
Also, why should the development of an Italian 2.5 kN engine go faster than the finished development of a 2.5 kN variant of the Berta?

In reality, using the German Berta engine seems to be an absolute no-go for Avio. Presumably based on Vega history.
It's a shame given the difficult situation.
But I don't blame either side, I don't know the current background.

[hektor]

So how about taking the R-40A of the Shuttle for whatever warehouse they are stored into (like Orion OMS-E on Artemis I)

[GWR64]

So how about taking the R-40A of the Shuttle for whatever warehouse they are stored into (like Orion OMS-E on Artemis I)

The original intention in development the BERTA engine was an engine for the Vega as a replacement for the now used Ukrainian engine. (10 years ago, or so)
Because this obviously cannot be regulated politically, the ASTRIS kick stage was invented as a new use for BERTA.
After Hera is rebooked to the Falcon 9, there will be no more mission for ASTRIS, first off.
And if the Falcon 9 Hera can launch without a kick stage, the Ariane 6 could have done it too.
 

[Rik ISS-fan]

Avio should swallow their pride.
I think one of the possible replacements for Avum (propulsion module) already had a firing test.
Skyrora third stage.
The another option already had over 35 firing tests, but designed for a different purpose.
In my oppinion N2O4 + MMH or UDMH should not be used in both the successor of Avum and Astris.
But politicians rather waist 600 mln on Ariane 6 transition. (No production in the Ariane 6 factories between 2021 and 2023.) Than improve launcher technologies, make less harmful launchers. Or guaranty europe has acces to space.

I've the impression Avio has engines for 9 Avum(+) stages. So at the end of 2024 they are in trouble.
The M10 engine development looks to progress smoothly. ELV launch site modifications are likely the development time line constraint.
I think an kick-stage that utilises less toxic hypercolic propellants is in all scenario's a good development for European acces to space.
But I'm just an armchair space fan with some idea's and thoughts, form a ESA memberstate that doesn't care to much about spaceprojects and/or national pride.

[GWR64]

H.K. for ESA-STS  (Has anyone asked him?) 

[Zed_Noir]

I managed to catch up with one of my sources at ESA. From initial quick looks at telemetry this failure showed (and I quote) "haunting similarities to VV15".

Anyway...a solid rocket stage does not usually quit burning until the fuel is exhausted. But in this case pressure and thrust dropped rapidly, indicating a breach in the booster casing. Which is what happened on VV15 as well.

My source expects Vega-C to be out of action for at least a year.

With the Vega C expected to be grounded for a long period of time. What will happen to the payloads on the Vega C manifest? Specifically the payloads on the 5 Vega C launches schedule for 2023.