Author Topic: SUSIE, (Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration) concept from ARIANE  (Read 56813 times)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
<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 Starshipís 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.

Offline TheKutKu

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • France
  • Liked: 182
  • Likes Given: 309
<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 Starshipís 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.

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.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2023 06:43 pm by TheKutKu »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
.....

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?
« Last Edit: 11/01/2023 08:14 pm by Zed_Noir »

Offline TheKutKu

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • France
  • Liked: 182
  • Likes Given: 309
.....

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 donít think this fits with the renders, I may be wrong)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
.....

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 donít 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.

Offline TheKutKu

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • France
  • Liked: 182
  • Likes Given: 309
.....

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 donít 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.

The previous article also mentioned an intermediary version with 3 tons payload, it may be that only this intermediary version is planned to launch on A6, with the full version on a hypothetical Ariane Next. Arianegroup also specifically mentions using the  A64+ (With P160, claimed 25 tons to LEO) For SUSIE, so depending on the assumptions, one could also find 22 tons for the Payload-less Spacecraft, still too optimistic at a glance, but who am I to Judge


https://www.ariane.group/fr/actualites/susie-le-transport-spatial-reutilisable-a-leuropeenne/

That 2022 announcement also said that it could be developed in an incremental way starting with an unmanned cargo version, but the article in the last page said that Arianegroup plans on first building (After mid-2025) the intermediary version with reduced cargo payload but still the same crewed capabilities. This is all highly theoretical, but I imagine that arianegroup would have better odds of selling an automatic cargo version to ESA than a primarily crew transport  spacecraft given the current esa contracts.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2023 12:51 am by TheKutKu »

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131
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 .

 

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
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 .
It seems unlikely that future crewed spacecraft designs will carry fewer than 4 persons or there will be a Soyuz/Delta II class launcher.

It will likely to cost as much to developed and operated a larger spacecraft as a smaller spacecraft. Also a larger spacecraft will have reasonable volume and mass for returning cargo. Plus Soyuz size crewed spacecraft is too cramped for anything other than quick missions to a LEO destination with very little loitering time.

Don't think there is enough payload mass for a reusable Soyuz/Delta II class light medium launcher. Presuming fully expendable launchers will be priced out of the market.

IMO, the New Glenn is the minimum size for a fully reusable two stage to orbit launcher without strapped-on boosters.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48463
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82196
  • Likes Given: 37085
twitter.com/arianegroup/status/1721613878663012393

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/arianegroup/status/1721613882450497718

Quote
#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

Offline jstrotha0975

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • United States
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 2666
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.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
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.
To fly frequently with SUSIE requires it to be launcher agnostic. Which means it will be flying on top of a Falcon 9 stack eventually, as the Falcon 9 is the launcher with the highest launch frequency.

Amusingly, the SUSIE seems to be a better fit as an orbital delivery/retrival vehicle on the Falcon 9 than on the Ariane 6. Cheap frequent launches with the reliable Falcon 9 that is crew rated.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131
Susie is really a really  expensive way to remove space junk .

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2653
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 953
  • Likes Given: 2076
Susie is really a really  expensive way to remove space junk .

I think the aim is to return malfunctioning satellites to Earth for repair and relaunch. Yes, *that* shuttle mistake. The rubbish bin is just PR fluff.

It would also be kind of hilarious if it was capable of recovering its own 2nd stage.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2024 10:01 am by Lampyridae »

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • Liked: 1092
  • Likes Given: 33
It would also be kind of hilarious if it was capable of recovering its own 2nd stage.

As much as we would like to laugh, I bet ESA would be willing to pay for that, at least once.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1