Author Topic: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread  (Read 70595 times)

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #40 on: 11/20/2018 05:34 am »
Going with M10 is certainly possible. The current design only throttles down to 75% but no reason not to expand the range.
More problematic to me is that such a stage seems to step on the emerging micro launchers. I see the P120C replacement from the assured access/technology development point of view. So ESA/Ariane dumping development money into it until there are results is the name of the game.
The Ariane monopoly and the lack of other options that comes with it has been mentioned here on NSF a few times. In order to get some competition in the future the newcomers have be able to do their thing.

To me fitting into the existing envelope is about changing as little as possible since we all know that any change takes forever. Flying something potentially reusable yesterday would not be too soon.


Yes, a longer stage would be better.
I looked for some better dimensions of the solids. P120C is 14m with the nozzle included. On Vega-C P120C and Z40 together are ~22.75 m from nozzle to separation plane.
Call it 23m long with 3.4m diameter. That starts to look like a reasonable rocket stage. On second look ~23m is also the height of the attachments on A6 measured from the P120C nozzle. What a coincidence...  Overall fitting such a liquid booster on A6 seems straightforward enough.

On Vega it is hard to stage as fast as Z40 does and still reuse the first stage. OTOH trowing more weight is no problem so I'd change the new M10 upper stage from 2.3 to 3.4m diameter doubling the fuel. There should be some headroom in the mobile building for a bit of length stretch. (The Falcon 9 upper stage has ~1/4 the fuel of the first stage. A 0.5-1 upper stage stretch meter to match the ration.) Also change the necked down fairing to constant diameter saving cost, dead weight and dead fairing volume.
Stick 4-5 Prometheus on it and call it half a F9.


Not that anything will happen anytime soon, looks like they'll wait for Callisto results.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8136
  • Liked: 6783
  • Likes Given: 2961
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #41 on: 11/20/2018 01:57 pm »
A 5-Prometheus booster would be nicely sized for SRB replacement on Ariane, but it's rather overkill for just a Vega replacement.

On the other hand watching 4 liquid boosters land downrange after an A64 launch would be awesome, so I vote for this path :D

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #42 on: 11/21/2018 07:30 am »
I like to think that using 4 boosters is a way to learn how to land them real quick. *cough* A crash program in reusability. ;D

Vega C has a bit of oomph at liftoff. Slightly over 2g ramping to ~3.5g. 2nd and 3rd stage max out at 4g.
Today the first and second stage are similar but the 3rd stage goes up to 5g at burnout.

Offline soltasto

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Italy, Earth
  • Liked: 1118
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #43 on: 11/23/2018 08:36 am »
This PDF was posted from the official Vega twitter and it actually is from an IAC presentation. This is the firat time I see it however. It contains a lot of good stuff, the best thing imo is that they are considering 3 Vega E variants, a standard one, one without the first stage, and one without the second stage. The AVUM life extension kit is also very interesting.

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 2106
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #44 on: 11/23/2018 04:55 pm »
This PDF was posted from the official Vega twitter and it actually is from an IAC presentation. This is the firat time I see it however. It contains a lot of good stuff, the best thing imo is that they are considering 3 Vega E variants, a standard one, one without the first stage, and one without the second stage. The AVUM life extension kit is also very interesting.

It's an IAC presentation, the corresponding paper is here:
https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/STS/D213-Tumino-Paper.pdf

They were posted by ESA:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Focus_on_Vega_developments
« Last Edit: 11/23/2018 05:07 pm by gosnold »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1511
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 604
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #45 on: 11/23/2018 07:40 pm »
Here is some footage of the test.
AVIO:


ESA:


I wonder what the thrust level is of this Myra demonstrator engine. I expect it to be a lot less than 100kN (10 mTon).

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #46 on: 06/04/2019 07:50 pm »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Runerdieker

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #47 on: 06/04/2019 09:31 pm »
Nice summary of the progress made on Vega!
ESA, Avio and Arianespace talk a lot about reducing the cost, this is mostly done by improving the hardware itself and improving the production of the hardware.
But to me this raises questions about what isn't mentioned!
The launch campaign seems lengthy and takes typically about 50 days (48 til 69) for the last 4 launches. Looking at the recent launch campaigns of the competition, you would expect a focus on at least slicing this in half! Can someone clearify this?



Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 770
  • Likes Given: 1987
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #48 on: 06/06/2019 01:31 pm »
Great article.
I really love the hard work on this vehicle's development. Solid fuel has normally been a secondary propulsion but Vega makes this closer to practical. Hopefully it'll bridge a competition edge for ESA customers of cost and performance.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1511
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 604
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #49 on: 06/21/2019 09:27 am »
The preparation time for Vega on ELV is very long, because the P80 nozzle gimbeling system has to be tested on the launch pad. As part of the Vega-C and Ariane6 program the P120C SRM is developed. This includes the construction of a veritcal P120C assembly, testing and stowage facility. When this building is finished, the Vega launchers can be prepared within a month.
This is public info since at least 2016.

Lets add this article about Vega improvements and space rider development proposed for ESA Space 2019+.
« Last Edit: 06/21/2019 09:35 am by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Jakdowski

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #50 on: 02/22/2020 05:14 pm »


Another test at Marshall Space Flight Centre

Could we turn this topic into Vega E Development Thread?

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1511
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 604
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #51 on: 02/22/2020 11:54 pm »
May I suggest to do the myra engine development and Vega E discussion here?

Offline GWR64

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1773
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1670
  • Likes Given: 1034
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #52 on: 02/23/2020 09:51 am »
Quote
@Avio_Group
As part of the #VegaC programme, new avionics technologies will be studied and developed, such as TTEthernet, hybrid navigation, telemetry based on the TDRS system, which will subsequently be implemented in the future evolution of the #VegaE launcher....

https://twitter.com/Avio_Group/status/1216756793050849281

Offline Jansen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • Liked: 2235
  • Likes Given: 373
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #53 on: 11/17/2020 06:52 pm »
With the recent launch failure, Vega has a success rate of only 88%. Their previous failure resulted in the largest insurance payout in Space history.

Some people are already predicting a refusal to insure Vega, or at the very least a large (2x or higher) increase to premiums.

Is Vega therefore no longer feasible for commercial launches? Will it take a transition to Vega-C or Vega-E and a series of successful ESA launches before premiums become viable again?


Edit: Bolded commercial part of title since people were missing the point
« Last Edit: 11/18/2020 09:19 pm by Jansen »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10130
  • US
  • Liked: 13700
  • Likes Given: 5871
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #54 on: 11/17/2020 06:58 pm »
The launch provider is Arianespace, not ESA.  Moving to a new generation of vehicles doesn't really matter if the problem was an incorrectly installed cable.  Vega has been a reliable vehicle before the last few launches.  They can still get insurance for it.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2020 06:58 pm by gongora »

Offline Jrcraft

Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #55 on: 11/17/2020 09:36 pm »
Electron has a higher failure rate 13:2 (15 total) compared to Vega's 15:2 (17 total) and I didn't see anyone predicting the end of Electron.
AE/ME
6 Suborbital spaceflight payloads. 12+ minutes of in-space time.

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • England
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #56 on: 11/17/2020 09:50 pm »
Some people are already predicting a refusal to insure Vega, or at the very least a large (2x or higher) increase to premiums.

Who?
« Last Edit: 11/17/2020 09:51 pm by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #57 on: 11/17/2020 10:02 pm »
With the recent launch failure, Vega has a success rate of only 88%. Their previous failure resulted in the largest insurance payout in Space history.

Some people are already predicting a refusal to insure Vega, or at the very least a large (2x or higher) increase to premiums.

Is Vega therefore no longer feasible for commercial launches? Will it take a transition to Vega-C or Vega-E and a series of successful ESA launches before premiums become viable again?

The transfer of Falcon Eye 2 from Vega to Soyuz was already a sign on the wall. The majority of future Vega and Vega-C will probably be for institutional (ESA + European governments and national space agencies) rather than commercial customers.

Why pay 32+ Mio Euros + plus higher insurance rates for your ~1400 kg payload to SSO, when you can hitch a shared ride on a Falcon 9 for a similar (or lower) price?

I'm afraid that this will lead to a lower than expected launch rate for Vega-C, which - given the fixed costs - will increase the cost for the Vega-C 1st stage and the Ariane 6 boosters. Thus overall this might have quite a significant impact on the economics for Arianespace.   :(

Offline Toast

Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #58 on: 11/17/2020 10:36 pm »
Electron has a higher failure rate 13:2 (15 total) compared to Vega's 15:2 (17 total) and I didn't see anyone predicting the end of Electron.
On one level I totally agree with you--any talk of the end of Vega is being a bit too melodramatic. That said, there are some pretty big differences between the two situations and I don't think that comparison is really valid. For starters, one of Electron's two failures was on a test flight with no payload, and was the debut attempt not just for that rocket but for Rocket Lab as a company. And Rocket Lab has the flight cadence to get back into the swing of things a lot more quickly than Vega can--when you're only flying twice a year in the first place it's gonna take a while to build up a good flight record that can ease concerns after two nearly consecutive failures. But given that Vega is flown by a governmental agency and not a private entity, having fewer commercial payloads isn't a death knell.

Offline Jansen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • Liked: 2235
  • Likes Given: 373
Re: Vega Evolution Discussion Thread
« Reply #59 on: 11/17/2020 10:56 pm »
The launch provider is Arianespace, not ESA.  Moving to a new generation of vehicles doesn't really matter if the problem was an incorrectly installed cable.  Vega has been a reliable vehicle before the last few launches.  They can still get insurance for it.

I was referring to ESA as the customer, in order to build up confidence in the launcher again.

I donít think there is any doubt that Vega will continue, just its commercial future when there are so many alternatives.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0