CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal

[Rik ISS-fan]

ONERA and CNES are currently studying 3 possible solutions for first stage return:

• Toss-back, á la #SpaceX
• Fly back, using 4 air-breathing jet engines, horizontal landing (similar to the old Liquid Fly Back Booster concept from the Germans)
• Glide back, again with horizontal landing

Source (french): http://www.futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/acces-espace-ariane-next-ressemblera-successeur-ariane-6-66350/

I guess Blue Origin will use Glide Back (or a mix of Toss-back & Glide Back) on New Glenn.
I read there was a presentation at IAE2016 about many different types of stage reuse, I think this is the first time something of that presentation came out in public.

[TrevorMonty]

Article said they were going to build Grasshopper equivalent for testing, I assume VTVL. Developing VTVL technology gives them more options when deciding on a RLV configuration.

[savuporo]

Prometheus/Promethee is a follow-on project on the ACE-42R rocket engine development project.

One thing i learned about it : laser ignition.

EDIT: also this:

Airbus Defence and Space Defense initiated LOX/Methane studies for rocket engines of a 350 kN, 420 kN and 600 kN thrust class named ACE-35R, ACE-42R and ACE-60R, respec- tively, followed by sub-scale and equipment tests. It is stated that the engine demonstrator ACE-35R could be ready for test in 2018 Ref.

[ulm_atms]

Here is a new news article with some new info that was released last Thursday.

http://host.madison.com/business/investment/markets-and-stocks/airbus-promises-to-build-a-reusable-rocket---/article_77612082-e152-597d-9cef-8417bfaa4674.html

I think this is the right place for this...but if not...please move.

[calapine]

A further (small) preview of Prometheus from EUCASS 2017.

Source is http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/

As for the abbreviations:

ALM = Additive Layer Manufacturing
HMS = Health Monitoring System (?)

[TrevorMonty]

They are developing right engine to design a RLV.  A larger 2000-3000kn engine would be better ie BE4, Raptor.

[russianhalo117]

They are developing right engine to design a RLV.  A larger 2000-3000kn engine would be better ie BE4, Raptor.

One that is not as gas generator or expander cycle would be much better for an RLV in terms of thrust and ISP.

[Space Ghost 1962]

They are developing right engine to design a RLV.  A larger 2000-3000kn engine would be better ie BE4, Raptor.

One that is not as gas generator or expander cycle would be much better for an RLV in terms of thrust and ISP.

Yes.

However, suggest they are not trying to "win" the reusable "race", but only to "place".

Please note the absence of solids. Moving well away from the prior interest in "PPH". Which is why the bigger engine.

[russianhalo117]

They are developing right engine to design a RLV.  A larger 2000-3000kn engine would be better ie BE4, Raptor.

One that is not as gas generator or expander cycle would be much better for an RLV in terms of thrust and ISP.

Yes.

However, suggest they are not trying to "win" the reusable "race", but only to "place".

Please note the absence of solids. Moving well away from the prior interest in "PPH". Which is why the bigger engine.

Their was a staged combustion demonstrator programme that was proposed by industries of several ESA member states, however ESA turned down the proposal saying ESA would not fund it.

[Alpha_Centauri]

They are developing right engine to design a RLV.  A larger 2000-3000kn engine would be better ie BE4, Raptor.

One that is not as gas generator or expander cycle would be much better for an RLV in terms of thrust and ISP.

Yes.

However, suggest they are not trying to "win" the reusable "race", but only to "place".

Please note the absence of solids. Moving well away from the prior interest in "PPH". Which is why the bigger engine.

Their was a staged combustion demonstrator programme that was proposed by industries of several ESA member states, however ESA turned down the proposal saying ESA would not fund it.

The issue is cost, Staged Combustion is not cheap. The Prometheus is heavily rationalised for cost saving, if they are seriously targeting 1m euros then that would be one tenth the cost of BE-4 for example. That gives you a huge amount of flexibility in stage design.

[TrevorMonty]

With RLV engines reliability and low operating costs are main target with performance being secondary.

[Chasm]

Momentum of the project is a big concern and rightly so.
There was one talking point that has been repeated each time the question came up during the publicly streamed round table discussions at the Paris Air Show. That the development of a reusable vehicle is a concern, that there is funding and progress according to plan and so on and so forth BUT that a much more aggressive pace would be welcome.
I think it's hard for ESA directors to say more in a public setting, again and again.

Are there any public target dates for the new engine?

[gosnold]

Momentum of the project is a big concern and rightly so.
There was one talking point that has been repeated each time the question came up during the publicly streamed round table discussions at the Paris Air Show. That the development of a reusable vehicle is a concern, that there is funding and progress according to plan and so on and so forth BUT that a much more aggressive pace would be welcome.
I think it's hard for ESA directors to say more in a public setting, again and again.

Are there any public target dates for the new engine?

Increasing funding to Ariane Next is admitting that Ariane 6 is a dead-end. You can understand why ESA does not call for that.

[russianhalo117]

Momentum of the project is a big concern and rightly so.
There was one talking point that has been repeated each time the question came up during the publicly streamed round table discussions at the Paris Air Show. That the development of a reusable vehicle is a concern, that there is funding and progress according to plan and so on and so forth BUT that a much more aggressive pace would be welcome.
I think it's hard for ESA directors to say more in a public setting, again and again.

Are there any public target dates for the new engine?

Increasing funding to Ariane Next is admitting that Ariane 6 is a dead-end. You can understand why ESA does not call for that.

(http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/New_Technologies/FLPP_preparing_for_Europe_s_next-generation_launcher)
Airane Next (A7) is developed under the guise of the Future Launchers Preparatory Programme

[Chasm]

Of course they can't say that. I actually don't think that A6 is that bad. Cutting cost in ~half goes a long way and finally getting ECB is way overdue. ...If it wasn't for the price tag...

More ontopic I wonder if we'll see an early A6 evolution with Prometheus replacing Vulcain rather sooner than later. Throwing away 1M€ or two is cheaper than 10M€.
That lego rocket idea needs much more performance data though.

[TrevorMonty]

Momentum of the project is a big concern and rightly so.
There was one talking point that has been repeated each time the question came up during the publicly streamed round table discussions at the Paris Air Show. That the development of a reusable vehicle is a concern, that there is funding and progress according to plan and so on and so forth BUT that a much more aggressive pace would be welcome.
I think it's hard for ESA directors to say more in a public setting, again and again.

Are there any public target dates for the new engine?

Increasing funding to Ariane Next is admitting that Ariane 6 is a dead-end. You can understand why ESA does not call for that.

(http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/New_Technologies/FLPP_preparing_for_Europe_s_next-generation_launcher)
Airane Next (A7) is developed under the guise of the Future Launchers Preparatory Programme

My take of website is ESA is do what they do best study ideas. While commercial section just gets on and builds HW. I'd say there are few more studies required before something is built.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Prometheus will introduce C into the option equation besides H and P (Myra also does this).
The first laucher that will use C is Vega-E (PPC), the second one is Vega-L (PC)[or PPS].
As I've written before, the next launcher I expect is another PC, and a Vega replacement (PPC or CC). This CC could be part of the Ariane Next family. By combining Prometheus and Callisto, a first stage reusable CC or CH Ariane Next could be developed. (Aka F9 copycat)
I think Prometheus and Callisto are demonstrator programs, like Airbus Vahana; the X3 helicopter, enz. Instead of maturing technologies using TRL, they switched to demonstrator programs to speed up the R&D & Introduction proces.
It's a total switch in technology, lots of these technologies can also be implemented into the Vinci, Vulcan and Myra engine production. So I expect the cost of Vulcan and Vinci can also go down a lot in the future.

For the Expendable / Reusable discussion lets write down the Jan Werner analoge:
'For bottles you have lots of different options. Glas / PET; Expendable / Reusable. All combinations are used, so there isn't a clear best solution.'
Within the 10-20 annual launches range, PHH expendable is for now the best solution in Europe. I think C will be introduced and expendable will remain. Launch frequently is to low for volume production and reusable.

If I'm not mistaken, the SC engine development (HTE) was droped because of lack of funding. Don't forget, the budget for prometheus development was estimated at €100mln, and it isn't completely funded. A FFSC Methalox engine could be a next demonstrator, switching back to dual shaft. (BE-4 = single shaft; Raptor = dual shaft).
Reusable, C (LOx-HyroCarbon) and 1000kN is a good match, aka multi engine architecture.  (F9)
2400 or 3000kN multi engine is total overkill. So single engine architectuur,  but that doesn't work well with reusable.

[floss]

I hope that Vega grows to replace Ariane 6.2

  Ariane 7 expands to  5   Prometheus engine first stage 5 Vulcain second stage 1 Vulcain third stage

[woods170]

I hope that Vega grows to replace Ariane 6.2

Ariane 7 expands to  5   Prometheus engine first stage 5 Vulcain second stage 1 Vulcain third stage

Your post comes dangerously close to trolling.

Vega-to-Ariane 6.2 would have to be one hell of a growth-path. Vega would have to grow about 450% in payload capacity. Never gonna happen. The current evolution of Vega into Vega-C is barely a 55% increase in payload capacity.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? An all-solid Ariane 6 was initially proposed AND rejected, for all the right reasons. A "next-vehicle" evolution of the Ariane family is never again going to be based on an all-solid design.

Also, ESA will never need the monstrosity you propose to be Ariane 7. And you over-looked the minor detail that Vulcain is still very much incapable of air-start and thus incapable of upper stage(s) duty.

[calapine]

I can ser Vega-E replacing Ariane 6.2 if not on paper at least defacto in practice. Vega-E payload capabilities should be "good enough" for a majority of institutional missions.

Floss' idea for Ariane 7 is special indeed though and wouldn't even get of the ground: As currently proposed Prometheus is a 100 ton-force engine. Less than Vulcain 2.