It would be interesting to see a comparison of the mass penalty for this concept versus the stage reuse for Falcon. I'm sure there has to be some fairly significant structures to allow the engines to seperate from the tanks and be aerodynamic enough for flight back to a runway and the weight of jet engines and fuel.
Interesting idea. It could be used on Ariane 6 if it works.Now we have three reuse concepts: SpaceX land the whole first stage using the engine, ULA catch the engine module with a helicopter, Airbus fly the engine module back like an airplane. Each plan has benefits and tradeoffs. It will be interesting to see how economics plays out. I'm sure they can all be made to work, but which one results in the lowest reuse costs. Only time will tell.
The mass penalty is certainly a lot lower than with boost-back. Its no secret that flyback is more efficient.
Quote from: RonM on 06/05/2015 03:19 pmInteresting idea. It could be used on Ariane 6 if it works.Now we have three reuse concepts: SpaceX land the whole first stage using the engine, ULA catch the engine module with a helicopter, Airbus fly the engine module back like an airplane. Each plan has benefits and tradeoffs. It will be interesting to see how economics plays out. I'm sure they can all be made to work, but which one results in the lowest reuse costs. Only time will tell.The big difference is that SpaceX has already built its system and is in the midst of a test program for the full-fledged system. The other two are slideware only, with no commitment for funding.
Quote from: Oli on 10/16/2014 07:48 amThe mass penalty is certainly a lot lower than with boost-back. Its no secret that flyback is more efficient.Neither of those is a given. Whether they are true depends on the details of the design.
I find it very interesting that they used the Soyuz ELS pad for the video, even using the tulip! I see that and I see a small plane, with heavy TPS, with wings that need heat protection, plus it's own tank and pressurization system, and a critical design for the downcomers. Plus two turboprops with foldable blades. And then the landing gears that need to damp the high speed of approach. And in the end they'll have to still integrate it again. I still don't see this as easy as they put it now. I keep thinking of the STS concept and what it ended up being.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/05/2015 04:13 pmQuote from: Oli on 10/16/2014 07:48 amThe mass penalty is certainly a lot lower than with boost-back. Its no secret that flyback is more efficient.Neither of those is a given. Whether they are true depends on the details of the design.It's pretty much a given, unless the fly back designers are utterly incompetent. As I said, economics is a completely different question.
These concepts are viable for today-ish flight rates, but utterly fail in comparison with a rapidly reusable rocket that flies on a day-ish rate.
Quote from: meekGee on 06/05/2015 07:18 pmThese concepts are viable for today-ish flight rates, but utterly fail in comparison with a rapidly reusable rocket that flies on a day-ish rate.I don't think that is important in the near future. There are fewer than 100 flights per year worldwide. Aiming for a one month turnaround would be sufficient for the next generation of rockets. SpaceX is getting into the satellite business to drive up the number of launches and they won't be booking any flights with ULA or Ariane.Anyway, if you have to launch everyday then 8 to 10 launch vehicles with about a week turnaround will keep you flying everyday.
Quote from: RonM on 06/05/2015 08:06 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/05/2015 07:18 pmThese concepts are viable for today-ish flight rates, but utterly fail in comparison with a rapidly reusable rocket that flies on a day-ish rate.I don't think that is important in the near future. There are fewer than 100 flights per year worldwide. Aiming for a one month turnaround would be sufficient for the next generation of rockets. SpaceX is getting into the satellite business to drive up the number of launches and they won't be booking any flights with ULA or Ariane.Anyway, if you have to launch everyday then 8 to 10 launch vehicles with about a week turnaround will keep you flying everyday.The point is that if you have to build a new tank for every launch it's very expensive to launch every day.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/05/2015 08:30 pmQuote from: RonM on 06/05/2015 08:06 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/05/2015 07:18 pmThese concepts are viable for today-ish flight rates, but utterly fail in comparison with a rapidly reusable rocket that flies on a day-ish rate.I don't think that is important in the near future. There are fewer than 100 flights per year worldwide. Aiming for a one month turnaround would be sufficient for the next generation of rockets. SpaceX is getting into the satellite business to drive up the number of launches and they won't be booking any flights with ULA or Ariane.Anyway, if you have to launch everyday then 8 to 10 launch vehicles with about a week turnaround will keep you flying everyday.The point is that if you have to build a new tank for every launch it's very expensive to launch every day.True, but we'll have to see how cheap the SpaceX approach is really going to be. They are having to fire some of the engines multiple times, requiring more maintenance. The landing procedure is also risky with the possibility of loosing vehicles. You can't reuse a rocket that blew up on landing.SpaceX is trying to maximize reuse and that's a good thing. However, it is not given that it will be an economic success. Now if it is a success than ULA and Airbus are in trouble because their systems require new tanks. If SpaceX turns out to be spending too much money to recover the tanks than ULA and Airbus have good plans.We won't know until SpaceX is actually flying used cores and adding up the costs.
Quote from: baldusi on 06/05/2015 06:23 pmI find it very interesting that they used the Soyuz ELS pad for the video, even using the tulip! I see that and I see a small plane, with heavy TPS, with wings that need heat protection, plus it's own tank and pressurization system, and a critical design for the downcomers. Plus two turboprops with foldable blades. And then the landing gears that need to damp the high speed of approach. And in the end they'll have to still integrate it again. I still don't see this as easy as they put it now. I keep thinking of the STS concept and what it ended up being.Oh come on, now you're exaggerating. The thing reenters ballistically by the way, so it will probably switch to flying at subsonic speeds. The real issue is who's going to pay for it and whether the cost savings are as high as advocated, which is doubtful. I see it more as a backup plan similar to ULAs.
In other words, Airbus and ULA are betting their companies on SpaceX failing. Even their most ambitious advanced concepts that they might have ready in 10 years at the earliest can't compete if SpaceX succeeds at what SpaceX is all-in on trying to do.
Quote from: Oli on 06/05/2015 06:43 pmQuote from: baldusi on 06/05/2015 06:23 pmI find it very interesting that they used the Soyuz ELS pad for the video, even using the tulip! I see that and I see a small plane, with heavy TPS, with wings that need heat protection, plus it's own tank and pressurization system, and a critical design for the downcomers. Plus two turboprops with foldable blades. And then the landing gears that need to damp the high speed of approach. And in the end they'll have to still integrate it again. I still don't see this as easy as they put it now. I keep thinking of the STS concept and what it ended up being.Oh come on, now you're exaggerating. The thing reenters ballistically by the way, so it will probably switch to flying at subsonic speeds. The real issue is who's going to pay for it and whether the cost savings are as high as advocated, which is doubtful. I see it more as a backup plan similar to ULAs.I never said that it had to work the engines at supersonic speeds. But since their concept is a high energy stage augmented by solids, the stage won't be staging low and slow like Falcon 9's (for a very relative "low and slow"). It means more heat and thus more weight. And then a lot of complexity and cost to get according to them "just a 20% to 25% penalty on payload". ULA's model has 6% of penalty, SpaceX has the only chance at "gas-and-go" and is just 30%, 15% if they used the ASDS. I really don't see the trade, it seems complex and expensive to develop and operate, and still gives them not good economics.Look what ULA did: negligible impact on performance for a 30% cost reduction.Look at what SpaceX did: 30% payload for a cheap to develop and potential >50% price reduction. With the option of 15% hit in performance for 30% price reduction.And Airbus is proposing: most complex system, 20% hit on payload, for a 30% cost reduction.Do you see what I mean? Besides the fact that adding complexity is generally not a good idea for cost, overhead, nor reliability?
In other words, Airbus and ULA are betting their companies on SpaceX failing.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/05/2015 08:55 pmIn other words, Airbus and ULA are betting their companies on SpaceX failing.The world is not black and white. If anything we'll end up with a variety of solutions with slight differences in cost under different market circumstances. Thinking in categories like "failure" and "success" is silly, since it presumes that some engineers are complete idiots while the others aren't.
Look how long it has taken SpaceX, still haven't got it right yet.
Quote from: RonM on 06/05/2015 08:06 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/05/2015 07:18 pmThese concepts are viable for today-ish flight rates, but utterly fail in comparison with a rapidly reusable rocket that flies on a day-ish rate.I don't think that is important in the near future. There are fewer than 100 flights per year worldwide. Aiming for a one month turnaround would be sufficient for the next generation of rockets. SpaceX is getting into the satellite business to drive up the number of launches and they won't be booking any flights with ULA or Ariane.Anyway, if you have to launch everyday then 8 to 10 launch vehicles with about a week turnaround will keep you flying everyday.In 5 years, just SpaceX's comm constellation will eat up an F9 launch per week. And at that point, SpaceX's price point will reflect their flight rate.These "piecemeal" concepts will only be ready about then. They're basically aiming to be, 5 years from now, behind where SpaceX is today.This is what happens when you wait for things to be "proven" to you before you get your butt in gear.
Its only a patent and they call it basic research, I wouldn't get my hopes up.Kind of reminds me of ULA's plans to recover the engine section. Interesting tidbit: Apparently engines, electronics, etc. make up 80% of the stage's value.Quote from: Eric Hedman on 10/16/2014 03:59 amIt would be interesting to see a comparison of the mass penalty for this concept versus the stage reuse for Falcon. I'm sure there has to be some fairly significant structures to allow the engines to seperate from the tanks and be aerodynamic enough for flight back to a runway and the weight of jet engines and fuel.The mass penalty is certainly a lot lower than with boost-back. Its no secret that flyback is more efficient. Whether its cheaper overall is another question.
Here my estimates on price to GTO.F9 7 $65m = <$10m/t.F9R 4t $45m = >$10m/t. (Guesses on unknowns)Vulcan 8t $99m= $12m/t. (Price could be lot less eg $80m)VulcanR 7.5t $84m = <$12m/t (5% payload penalty, $15m saving/discount)Ariane64 11t $99m (90eur) = $9m/tAriane64R 9.4t $84m =$9.3m/t (15% payload penalty, $15m discount)Ariane 62 5t $83m = $16m/tAriane 62 4.25t $68m = $16m/t.In every case reusability doesn't seem to reduce kg to GTO price.
That was the whole point of the Shuttle, you were recovering the Main Engines, the Fairing and the Avionics.
They have no plan for the contingency that SpaceX succeeds.
If you have a satellite of a specific size, you don't care about price per ton, you only care about the price to get that satellite where it's going. Extra tons don't matter.
BBC article Airbus unveils 'Adeline' re-usable rocket concepthttp://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056
Quote from: Prober on 06/05/2015 06:19 pmBBC article Airbus unveils 'Adeline' re-usable rocket concepthttp://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056Airbus are also looking into a reusable space tug/ fuel depot concept. This is similar to what ULA are proposing with ACES upper stage. It is only an idea at present but at least they are thinking about it.
Concept video[youtube]tV29pEvZvZw[/youtube]
Quote from: Borklund on 06/05/2015 07:06 pmConcept video-snip-There is some serious "artistic license" in this video.
Concept video-snip-
There is some serious "artistic license" in this video.
^Can you post that "spacex is awesome and everybody else is doomed" nonsense somewhere else, please?Quote from: Comga on 06/06/2015 04:31 pmThere is some serious "artistic license" in this video.Yeah the video makes no sense. As for the fly back fuel, they say 2t of kerosene.
Quote from: Oli on 06/06/2015 06:59 pm^Can you post that "spacex is awesome and everybody else is doomed" nonsense somewhere else, please?Quote from: Comga on 06/06/2015 04:31 pmThere is some serious "artistic license" in this video.Yeah the video makes no sense. As for the fly back fuel, they say 2t of kerosene.Respectfully, no, since that is in no way what I said. You summed it up as "yeh that video makes no sense" Ok that's fine, and I agree. I just took it one step further and actually listed out, in my opinion, why it didn't make any sense. And no, everyone else is not doomed but they sure do act like it sometimes.
Quote from: rcoppola on 06/06/2015 07:13 pmQuote from: Oli on 06/06/2015 06:59 pm^Can you post that "spacex is awesome and everybody else is doomed" nonsense somewhere else, please?Quote from: Comga on 06/06/2015 04:31 pmThere is some serious "artistic license" in this video.Yeah the video makes no sense. As for the fly back fuel, they say 2t of kerosene.Respectfully, no, since that is in no way what I said. You summed it up as "yeh that video makes no sense" Ok that's fine, and I agree. I just took it one step further and actually listed out, in my opinion, why it didn't make any sense. And no, everyone else is not doomed but they sure do act like it sometimes.I was addressing the visual representation in the video. And yes, this is pretty much what you said, building your entire post around it, spiced with lots of unfounded assumptions and speculation about the future and questionable economics. I just think we have enough of that in other threads.
Quote from: Comga on 06/06/2015 04:31 pmThere is some serious "artistic license" in this video.Yeah the video makes no sense. As for the fly back fuel, they say 2t of kerosene.
Some thoughts on the Airbus way of doing things:Flying the engines back makes a lot of sense if you use heritage engines. Boost-back puts heavy requirements on the engines:-You need to restart them (twice!)-You need to be able to use them as heat shield-You need to throttle them (quickly and accurately)
All in all, it makes sense, which is why it is a shame it is not part of the Ariane 6 design: if modifications have to be made to the design (and to the rocket integration and pad operations) later on, it will be more expensive than if they are taken into account from the start.
Quote from: Comga on 06/06/2015 04:31 pmQuote from: Borklund on 06/05/2015 07:06 pmConcept video-snip-There is some serious "artistic license" in this video.There always is. Think of it as a rough but pretty visualization of the idea and don't look too closely at it.
In contrast, while both ULA and Airbus on focused on reusing only the most expensive part of the rocket, it means that neither of them can ever achieve the ultimate goal of "gas & go" like what SpaceX is planning.
And if we want to expand humanity out into space, we need dramatic reductions in the cost to access space, and I'm not sure the approach ULA and Airbus are taking can do that. Theirs is more of an evolutionary approach, not a revolutionary one.
If Airbus thinks it's such a great idea then they should be making it part of Ariane 6, especially since Ariane 6 still won't be competitive enough with SpaceX launch services that use expendable rockets, and will stand little chance of clawing back any commercial marketshare if SpaceX is able to perfect any version of reusability.
Quote from: Oli on 06/05/2015 06:43 pmQuote from: baldusi on 06/05/2015 06:23 pmI find it very interesting that they used the Soyuz ELS pad for the video, even using the tulip!
Quote from: baldusi on 06/05/2015 06:23 pmI find it very interesting that they used the Soyuz ELS pad for the video, even using the tulip!
I find it very interesting that they used the Soyuz ELS pad for the video, even using the tulip!
Quote from: Oli on 06/05/2015 06:43 pmQuote from: baldusi on 06/05/2015 06:23 pm I see that and I see a small plane, with heavy TPS, with wings that need heat protection, plus it's own tank and pressurization system, and a critical design for the downcomers. Plus two turboprops with foldable blades. And then the landing gears that need to damp the high speed of approach. And in the end they'll have to still integrate it again. I still don't see this as easy as they put it now. I keep thinking of the STS concept and what it ended up being.
Quote from: baldusi on 06/05/2015 06:23 pm I see that and I see a small plane, with heavy TPS, with wings that need heat protection, plus it's own tank and pressurization system, and a critical design for the downcomers. Plus two turboprops with foldable blades. And then the landing gears that need to damp the high speed of approach. And in the end they'll have to still integrate it again. I still don't see this as easy as they put it now. I keep thinking of the STS concept and what it ended up being.
I see that and I see a small plane, with heavy TPS, with wings that need heat protection, plus it's own tank and pressurization system, and a critical design for the downcomers. Plus two turboprops with foldable blades. And then the landing gears that need to damp the high speed of approach. And in the end they'll have to still integrate it again. I still don't see this as easy as they put it now. I keep thinking of the STS concept and what it ended up being.
Quote from: Oli on 06/05/2015 06:43 pmOh come on, now you're exaggerating. The thing reenters ballistically by the way, so it will probably switch to flying at subsonic speeds.
Oh come on, now you're exaggerating. The thing reenters ballistically by the way, so it will probably switch to flying at subsonic speeds.
Quote from: Oli on 06/05/2015 06:43 pmThe real issue is who's going to pay for it and whether the cost savings are as high as advocated, which is doubtful. I see it more as a backup plan similar to ULAs.
The real issue is who's going to pay for it and whether the cost savings are as high as advocated, which is doubtful. I see it more as a backup plan similar to ULAs.
I never said that it had to work the engines at supersonic speeds. But since their concept is a high energy stage augmented by solids, the stage won't be staging low and slow like Falcon 9's (for a very relative "low and slow"). It means more heat and thus more weight. And then a lot of complexity and cost to get according to them "just a 20% to 25% penalty on payload". ULA's model has 6% of penalty, SpaceX has the only chance at "gas-and-go" and is just 30%, 15% if they used the ASDS. I really don't see the trade, it seems complex and expensive to develop and operate, and still gives them not good economics.Look what ULA did: negligible impact on performance for a 30% cost reduction.Look at what SpaceX did: 30% payload for a cheap to develop and potential >50% price reduction. With the option of 15% hit in performance for 30% price reduction.And Airbus is proposing: most complex system, 20% hit on payload, for a 30% cost reduction.Do you see what I mean? Besides the fact that adding complexity is generally not a good idea for cost, overhead, nor reliability?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/06/2015 10:27 pmIn contrast, while both ULA and Airbus on focused on reusing only the most expensive part of the rocket, it means that neither of them can ever achieve the ultimate goal of "gas & go" like what SpaceX is planning. SX's plans are unlikely to deliver that goal before the BFR.
QuoteAnd if we want to expand humanity out into space, we need dramatic reductions in the cost to access space, and I'm not sure the approach ULA and Airbus are taking can do that. Theirs is more of an evolutionary approach, not a revolutionary one.True but it's very doubtful any of those approaches will deliver the reduction needed.
QuoteIf Airbus thinks it's such a great idea then they should be making it part of Ariane 6, especially since Ariane 6 still won't be competitive enough with SpaceX launch services that use expendable rockets, and will stand little chance of clawing back any commercial marketshare if SpaceX is able to perfect any version of reusability.The situation is nowhere near as cut and dried as you seem to think.
I was surprised by turboprop engines, a couple of jets engines could have added boost from pad to about 50,000ft.
Where did you see that fuel mass?Does that seem reasonable for flying several hundred kilometers with what looks to be a highly loaded wing (significant mass, not much wingspan) ?
I'm just not sure I understand their concept. They show two engines on the first stage. Ok, sure that can't be. But there is also an aeroshell between the outer engine and the rest of the stage that would surely need to also have a heat shield. So fuel and oxidizer is routed through the heatshield to the engine? Can someone give a guess as to how they actually plan to make this work?
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/07/2015 04:33 amI was surprised by turboprop engines, a couple of jets engines could have added boost from pad to about 50,000ft.You shouldn't be surprised they did not show that, because such a thing would only make practical sense using looney tunes physics. It is a terrible idea, but there is a thread for it in the "advanced concepts" section.
Quote from: Lars-J on 06/07/2015 07:22 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 06/07/2015 04:33 amI was surprised by turboprop engines, a couple of jets engines could have added boost from pad to about 50,000ft.You shouldn't be surprised they did not show that, because such a thing would only make practical sense using looney tunes physics. It is a terrible idea, but there is a thread for it in the "advanced concepts" section.If you are going rubbish an idea you need to back up you criticism with facts. Up to about 50,000ft a jet is considerably more efficient than rocket.
If you are going rubbish an idea you need to back up you criticism with facts. Up to about 50,000ft a jet is considerably more efficient than rocket.
I commend them for trying; however if you are going to add wings engines and gear etc... Why not go all the way and add forward swing wings and return the entire stage or are they still waiting for Falcon to “stick” the landing?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 06/07/2015 12:30 pmI commend them for trying; however if you are going to add wings engines and gear etc... Why not go all the way and add forward swing wings and return the entire stage or are they still waiting for Falcon to “stick” the landing?That would require whole new load paths for the tanks, making them much heavier. A small unit containing just the thrust structure with engines is much easier to handle. Not a bad idea at all. If competetive with SpaceX bringing the whole stage back vertical we will see.
[0007] This launcher has the advantage of making it possible to completely recover the entire first stage. (they refer to a reusable fly back first stage).[0008] However, such a construction has several drawbacks. Firstly, during separation from the first stage, the tanks of the intermediate part are empty and therefore represent a very large volume with a very low mass. Consequently the mean density of the first stage is low, which makes the first stage very difficult to recover. Moreover, it requires the use of a large wing unit attached to the casing of the launcher, in particular at the tanks, which is generally not very rigid. It is therefore necessary to make provision for stiffening the attachment area. The addition of this wing area and reinforcements represents an additional mass that it is necessary to propel, therefore involving an increase in the size of the tanks and therefore a substantial increase in the cost of the launcher. Consequently the gain obtained by entirely recovering the first stage is partially lost in the modifications involved for enabling this recovery. Moreover, this type of launcher is very different from known launchers.[0012] In other words, provision is made for reusing the components having a high cost, and for this purpose a detachable module is produced equipped with a airfoil surface and an aircraft engine enabling it to land on a conventional runway. Non-recovery of the tanks makes the recovered part much more easily recoverable, because of its increased density. The bearing surface comprising fixed fins and stabilisers, which makes its implementation and control very simple.[0027] The launcher according to the invention may be from the nanolauncher type up to a super-heavy launcher. The invention can apply to the central body or to the lateral acceleration stages added to the central body, also referred to as boosters, as in the rocket of the Ariane V type.[0075] The module 14 also comprises landing gear 30. Since the module is very short, it is not necessary to have a very high landing gear. A fixed or semi-fixed landing gear can therefore advantageously be provided, projecting from the surface of the launcher permanently. It can therefore be very simple and robust in design. Naturally a module provided with a retractable landing gear does not depart from the scope of the present invention.[0094] The module 14 has great intrinsic passive stability, i.e. between supersonic flight and Mach 0.8, the module 14 is automatically positioned with nose forwards in the direction of fall. Thus, in the case where the module and the non-recovered part separate in a non-conventional manner, the module would automatically and naturally resume its stable position without its being necessary to provide specific means for ensuring such repositioning.[0113] By separating the lift and stabilisation functions, the module dispenses with the drawbacks relating to flying wings.[0114] The fins of the launcher according to the invention forming the lift surface of the module according to the invention do not have any twist, which is generally a problem during the launch of the launcher and the re-entry of the module into the atmosphere.[0115] Moreover, these are of simpler and less expensive designs.[0124] In addition, the development cost of the module 14 is significantly reduced compared with the development cost of a completely reusable first stage, by approximately 35%.[0134] The module according to the present invention has been described in the case of a two-stage launcher but it can also apply to a vehicle with a single stage in order to form a demonstrator or as a flying test bench for experiments in flight, or to a launcher having at least two stages, the module being situated in the bottom stage or in one of the upper stages.
[0094] The module 14 has great intrinsic passive stability, i.e. between supersonic flight and Mach 0.8, the module 14 is automatically positioned with nose forwards in the direction of fall. Thus, in the case where the module and the non-recovered part separate in a non-conventional manner, the module would automatically and naturally resume its stable position without its being necessary to provide specific means for ensuring such repositioning.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 06/07/2015 12:30 pmI commend them for trying; however if you are going to add wings engines and gear etc... Why not go all the way and add forward swing wings and return the entire stage or are they still waiting for Falcon to “stick” the landing?The patent provides lots of information on what they think are the advantages (don't shoot the messenger). A selection of paragraphs:Quote[0007] This launcher has the advantage of making it possible to completely recover the entire first stage. (they refer to a reusable fly back first stage).[0008] However, such a construction has several drawbacks. Firstly, during separation from the first stage, the tanks of the intermediate part are empty and therefore represent a very large volume with a very low mass. Consequently the mean density of the first stage is low, which makes the first stage very difficult to recover. Moreover, it requires the use of a large wing unit attached to the casing of the launcher, in particular at the tanks, which is generally not very rigid. It is therefore necessary to make provision for stiffening the attachment area. The addition of this wing area and reinforcements represents an additional mass that it is necessary to propel, therefore involving an increase in the size of the tanks and therefore a substantial increase in the cost of the launcher. Consequently the gain obtained by entirely recovering the first stage is partially lost in the modifications involved for enabling this recovery. Moreover, this type of launcher is very different from known launchers.[0012] In other words, provision is made for reusing the components having a high cost, and for this purpose a detachable module is produced equipped with a airfoil surface and an aircraft engine enabling it to land on a conventional runway. Non-recovery of the tanks makes the recovered part much more easily recoverable, because of its increased density. The bearing surface comprising fixed fins and stabilisers, which makes its implementation and control very simple.[0027] The launcher according to the invention may be from the nanolauncher type up to a super-heavy launcher. The invention can apply to the central body or to the lateral acceleration stages added to the central body, also referred to as boosters, as in the rocket of the Ariane V type.[0075] The module 14 also comprises landing gear 30. Since the module is very short, it is not necessary to have a very high landing gear. A fixed or semi-fixed landing gear can therefore advantageously be provided, projecting from the surface of the launcher permanently. It can therefore be very simple and robust in design. Naturally a module provided with a retractable landing gear does not depart from the scope of the present invention.[0094] The module 14 has great intrinsic passive stability, i.e. between supersonic flight and Mach 0.8, the module 14 is automatically positioned with nose forwards in the direction of fall. Thus, in the case where the module and the non-recovered part separate in a non-conventional manner, the module would automatically and naturally resume its stable position without its being necessary to provide specific means for ensuring such repositioning.[0113] By separating the lift and stabilisation functions, the module dispenses with the drawbacks relating to flying wings.[0114] The fins of the launcher according to the invention forming the lift surface of the module according to the invention do not have any twist, which is generally a problem during the launch of the launcher and the re-entry of the module into the atmosphere.[0115] Moreover, these are of simpler and less expensive designs.[0124] In addition, the development cost of the module 14 is significantly reduced compared with the development cost of a completely reusable first stage, by approximately 35%.[0134] The module according to the present invention has been described in the case of a two-stage launcher but it can also apply to a vehicle with a single stage in order to form a demonstrator or as a flying test bench for experiments in flight, or to a launcher having at least two stages, the module being situated in the bottom stage or in one of the upper stages.http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130087659What seems a bit crazy at first is the "vertical" ballistic reentry with wings, however I'm not sure whether the temperature at the front of the wing will be higher/lower than at the blunt nose of the vehicle.
As with everything else ESA related, I wait until it is finished before I expect tangible results.
I remember Elon Musk talking about rapid and fully reusability.That to use an aircraft just one time would make flying very expensive.I also read somewere (sorry i can ot recall where exactly) that Airbus considered reusability as a no go. They added wings engines and it turned out to be impossibele.So now Airbus decides not to throw the whole rocket.... just a part....By the time they are done Raptor and MCT are already operational.As an European i feel ashamed....The Netherlands spends 74,7 million per year on ESA.....
The intention is, as with the much more loose trial balloon of a space tug, to retrofit this back into the Ariane 6, if it is economical.
Have you not been watching their progress with recovering the Falcon 9 1st stage? They are very close, and they have plenty of potential attempts to refine their processes and procedures. We could see success this year, not next decade. And there are indications that the market is already anticipating the potential lower prices a reusable 1st stage brings.
If their plans turn out that way, SpaceX has already stated that launch costs could drop to below $10M per flight. Compared to an expendable Falcon 9 that is 1/6 the price, but compared to a ULA flight that is 1/16 the price.
My opinion is that will be enough to allow the testing of new business models, or allow for self-funded expeditions. Not immediately of course, but before the anticipated BFR can spur the same interest.
Maybe, but only because they make it complicated. That is the problem whenever you have subsidized or government-controlled transportation systems, they don't respond to market conditions well.
SpaceX will continue to drive down prices - this is a given.
So the only question is when ESA and Airbus finally decide that inaction is more costly than action.
If you were asked to find a way to recover the engines on the 1st stage with minimum technical risk and cost how would you do it?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/07/2015 03:40 amHave you not been watching their progress with recovering the Falcon 9 1st stage? They are very close, and they have plenty of potential attempts to refine their processes and procedures. We could see success this year, not next decade. And there are indications that the market is already anticipating the potential lower prices a reusable 1st stage brings.I have. But the problem is in three parts. Recovering the 1st stageRefurbishing the 1st stageMaking a profit doing it.Only the first stage is anywhere close to delivering this.
The man who started the idea of "Big Dumb Boosters" (or more accurately "cost optimized") was told by his boss at the projects inception "Cutting costs by 1/2 or 2/3 is not enough, as (launch services) price inflation will wipe out any savings). EELV has demonstrated exactly that effect.
Some key numbers from the patent.Unit is designed to decelerate the engine module at 2.5g down to M0.85 at 10Km, eventually going down to 2.5Km. Cruise to be at 3.5Km at M0.3.Patent claims Use of (possibly rechargeable) thermal batteries to give fast start up of propeller driving engine(s). ??Module recovers 80% of the value of the LV.Ask yourself the following question. If you were asked to find a way to recover the engines on the 1st stage with minimum technical risk and cost how would you do it?
Quote from: Im_Utrecht on 06/07/2015 02:25 pmI remember Elon Musk talking about rapid and fully reusability.That to use an aircraft just one time would make flying very expensive.I also read somewere (sorry i can ot recall where exactly) that Airbus considered reusability as a no go. They added wings engines and it turned out to be impossibele.So now Airbus decides not to throw the whole rocket.... just a part....By the time they are done Raptor and MCT are already operational.As an European i feel ashamed....The Netherlands spends 74,7 million per year on ESA.....Nothing wrong with trying something different -- ULA isn't planning to get the whole rocket back, either. It's a lot like the first few decades of heavier-than-air flight ... many different designs, some of which worked (and some of those better than others). It'll all sort itself out, but it will take time. No shame in that!
Quote from: guckyfan on 06/07/2015 01:03 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 06/07/2015 12:30 pmI commend them for trying; however if you are going to add wings engines and gear etc... Why not go all the way and add forward swing wings and return the entire stage or are they still waiting for Falcon to “stick” the landing?That would require whole new load paths for the tanks, making them much heavier. A small unit containing just the thrust structure with engines is much easier to handle. Not a bad idea at all. If competitive with SpaceX bringing the whole stage back vertical we will see.Nice stating of the obvious; so please don’t preach structures and load factors as I happen to be a pilot who teaches Physics... Thanks.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 06/07/2015 12:30 pmI commend them for trying; however if you are going to add wings engines and gear etc... Why not go all the way and add forward swing wings and return the entire stage or are they still waiting for Falcon to “stick” the landing?That would require whole new load paths for the tanks, making them much heavier. A small unit containing just the thrust structure with engines is much easier to handle. Not a bad idea at all. If competitive with SpaceX bringing the whole stage back vertical we will see.
Speaking of feasibility, I didn't see anyone check the other thread's reusability models against reusable (vs expendable) airplanes. Are the two technologies too different to get a feel for if the model is consistent with known reusability cases? (Maybe one could put the upper stages as airplane "cargo", and see if stage 1 reuse matches airframe reuse.)
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/07/2015 05:13 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 06/07/2015 03:40 amHave you not been watching their progress with recovering the Falcon 9 1st stage? They are very close, and they have plenty of potential attempts to refine their processes and procedures. We could see success this year, not next decade. And there are indications that the market is already anticipating the potential lower prices a reusable 1st stage brings.I have. But the problem is in three parts. Recovering the 1st stageRefurbishing the 1st stageMaking a profit doing it.Only the first stage is anywhere close to delivering this. Yes, only the 1st stage, but that is the largest cost segment of a Falcon 9. And you're forgetting the economics of the Falcon Heavy, which has 3ea 1st stage cores and only one upper stage.
As to your three parts:- Recovering the 1st stage - Yes, recovery does come with it's own costs, but if they can perfect land landings those costs will be pretty low.
- Refurbishing the 1st stage - They have designed the 1st stage to be reusable without refurbishment. Post recovery testing will validate that, but it's not hard to believe they can accomplish that considering the engine and airframe reuse the Shuttles had.
- Making a profit doing it - Inherently there aren't many costs that accumulate due to reusability, so I'm not sure how the cost of recovery could ever be a significant portion of the new-build cost.
Its that meant to be 80% of stage cost or LV. For Ariane 6 LV consists of 2-4 SRBs +1sts stage + 2nd stage.
[0123] The module 14 according to the present invention represents more than 80% of the value of the launcher and approximately 60% of the inert mass of the first stage. Naturally the percentage represented by the module with respect to the total cost of the launcher depends on the number of engines 20 in the propulsion system. Consequently the use of the module substantially reduces the operating cost of a new launcher.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/07/2015 07:36 pmIts that meant to be 80% of stage cost or LV. For Ariane 6 LV consists of 2-4 SRBs +1sts stage + 2nd stage.This is what the patent says.Quote[0123] The module 14 according to the present invention represents more than 80% of the value of the launcher and approximately 60% of the inert mass of the first stage. Naturally the percentage represented by the module with respect to the total cost of the launcher depends on the number of engines 20 in the propulsion system. Consequently the use of the module substantially reduces the operating cost of a new launcher. I've no idea if "launcher" includes the SRB's. I don't think so as SRB's are built by someone else but I cannot confirm it one way or the other.
They have designed the stage to be RECOVERED not to be reusable without refurbishment.
They have a margin but it is unclear at this time if the margin is enough to allow reuse until they recover and study a stage that has actually flown. The Shuttle had MUCH higher margins and very robust airframe to accomplish what it did.
The Shuttle had MUCH higher margins and very robust airframe to accomplish what it did.
Quote- Making a profit doing it - Inherently there aren't many costs that accumulate due to reusability, so I'm not sure how the cost of recovery could ever be a significant portion of the new-build cost.Unfortunately history shows that's not always the case. The Shuttle was not economical compared to ELV costs due in part to the high amount of costs associated with its reusability.
ULA and Airbus have investors and not a billionaire backer willing to spend what it takes, so obviously they have to approach the problem differently.
3) Turboprops and props in general are the most efficient aero-propulsion system at low Mach numbers
QuoteThey have a margin but it is unclear at this time if the margin is enough to allow reuse until they recover and study a stage that has actually flown. The Shuttle had MUCH higher margins and very robust airframe to accomplish what it did.The profit margin is determined by the price paid for the customers for reuse, so there are multiple unknowns still. However there are indications that there is customer demand for reused stages, so that is the first indication that this could be a profitable effort for them.
QuoteThe Shuttle had MUCH higher margins and very robust airframe to accomplish what it did.Well yes, but the Shuttle was also designed to fly far more missions and do so much more than what a Falcon 9 stage is asked to do. My point is that reusability for things that go to space, like engines and structures, has been proven - now it just needs to be refined.
QuoteUnfortunately history shows that's not always the case. The Shuttle was not economical compared to ELV costs due in part to the high amount of costs associated with its reusability.The Shuttle was a failed experiment for a reusable VTHL vehicle, and not a good indicator for a reusable VTVL vehicle. And while looking to history for lessons is good, you have to make sure you're taking the right lessons away.
Unfortunately history shows that's not always the case. The Shuttle was not economical compared to ELV costs due in part to the high amount of costs associated with its reusability.
Time will tell if this concept gets enough internal support to be in the A6 "evolution".
The wings will introduce a whole new set of aerodynamic problems during launch.Then you'll need the wings, the engines and the landing gear, all of which are essential to the whole deal. (Might do without the landing gear. But that is the least of it.)On top of that, the Falcon 9 is cheaper even without reusablity and all that the reusability proposed here might accomplish, is to catch up with that! Ariane 64 at 85mio Euro is supposed to be 20mio Euro more expensive than Ariane 62. So, the boosters of Ariane 64 alone cost about 40mio Euro or half the launch cost.
Ariane 64 at 85mio Euro is supposed to be 20mio Euro more expensive than Ariane 62. So, the boosters of Ariane 64 alone cost about 40mio Euro or half the launch cost. Launch etc. should cost about 5-15mio Euro, leaving 30-40mio Euro for the first *and* second stage. So how much is recovering the 1st stage worth? And is any of the pricing even remotely realistic? (Hint: Probably not.)
He's talking about structural and thermal safety margins, not profit margins.
Have SX state how many flights they expect their F9SR to do? Where was this? I can put that in the model and from there.
The trouble is F9 was designed to be an ELV, while avoiding design choices that would prevent it (hopefully) being turned into an RLV one day. Shuttle was (originally) conceived from day 1 to be an RLV.
BTW if you think coking is a peripheral issue think again. Coke build up inside the tubes cuts the ability to remove heat from the inner chamber wall.
LOX/LH2 engines don't suffer from coking.
But you're not thinking like a government contractor, and that mindset is very important in this context.ULA <> Boeing and ULA <> Lockheed Martin. It's a subsidiary they expect to get a steady cash flow from, not one they plan to send money to.
Quote from: tp1024 on 06/08/2015 01:17 pmThe wings will introduce a whole new set of aerodynamic problems during launch.Then you'll need the wings, the engines and the landing gear, all of which are essential to the whole deal. (Might do without the landing gear. But that is the least of it.)On top of that, the Falcon 9 is cheaper even without reusablity and all that the reusability proposed here might accomplish, is to catch up with that! Ariane 64 at 85mio Euro is supposed to be 20mio Euro more expensive than Ariane 62. So, the boosters of Ariane 64 alone cost about 40mio Euro or half the launch cost.- Says who? Falcon 9 performance is around 3.75t to an Ariane-equivalent GTO orbit. With A5 at 9.6t for dual launch, that makes approx. $16k/kg for F9 and $20.8k/kg for A5.- A64 is supposed to cost 90m euros which is roughly $100m for 10t dual launch, which is $10k/kg. So if we believe in the 90m euro cost (which I do not), A6 will be almost 40% cheaper than F9 on a per kg basis. Just saying, its nowhere near as clear-cut as you think it is.- The price for A62 is what governments will pay, not the actual cost which will be higher. I.e. A64 subsidizes A62.I agree with one thing however, to get the advertised benefit of reusability (which overall is small to begin with) I think A6 needs a high-thrust first stage. So Adeline will almost certainly mean a new engine program, IMO.
Now that assumed a reusable 2nd stage, which is not being worked on right now, but Airbus would have more of a challenge trying to match that rate since SpaceX right now would only have to build new the 2nd stage, whereas Airbus would have to new build the 1st stage tank structure too.
Not sure why you think this. Since the beginning SpaceX has publicly stated their goal was to recover and reuse the 1st stage. Their initial plans used cork insulation and parachutes, which didn't work, but it showed their design from the start anticipated recovery and reuse.
Luckily I don't have to think about it at all, since the designer of the Merlin 1D, Tom Mueller, is an expert on rocket engine design. And as long as their design keeps the cooling loop below the coking level, it is not supposed to be a problem.
It's all about trade-offs. Delta IV is arguably the most modern LOX/LH2 powered rocket, and ULA feels it's unaffordable to compete against other expendable launchers, much less partially reusable ones.
Using a 1:1.11 exchange ratio for euro <-> $ isn't realistic, it's the lowest in over a decade. Historically a 1:1.3 ratio was typical, with peaks around 1:1.5. So the assumption in the long run should be a launch price of $115-135mio. You should also take this year's update of F9 into account, which should increase payload to Ariane-equivalent orbit by about 30%.
Quote from: tp1024 on 06/09/2015 08:50 amUsing a 1:1.11 exchange ratio for euro <-> $ isn't realistic, it's the lowest in over a decade. Historically a 1:1.3 ratio was typical, with peaks around 1:1.5. So the assumption in the long run should be a launch price of $115-135mio. You should also take this year's update of F9 into account, which should increase payload to Ariane-equivalent orbit by about 30%. Says who? You make very speculative assumptions. You could argue I do as well, but remember my point was it's far from clear-cut whether F9 will be more competitive. Its a wild guess and unfortunately SpaceX fans have a tendency to sell their amateurish speculations as facts.
Okay, so this idea looks cool - sort of comparable to ULA's reusability idea - but I wanted to ask about the turboprop thingQuote from: RanulfC on 06/07/2015 10:02 pm3) Turboprops and props in general are the most efficient aero-propulsion system at low Mach numbersWow, why not just a glide landing? Why powered flight? I read somewhere that it's a rotary engine and not a turboprop. Anyway, what's wrong with just gliding in?
Wow, these are crazy cool times to be living in A wankel-rotary powered propeller on a re-entering stage! It almost feels Steampunk.So I guess a scramjet would have been too complex?
Quote from: tp1024 on 06/09/2015 08:50 amUsing a 1:1.11 exchange ratio for euro <-> $ isn't realistic, it's the lowest in over a decade. Historically a 1:1.3 ratio was typical, with peaks around 1:1.5. So the assumption in the long run should be a launch price of $115-135mio. You should also take this year's update of F9 into account, which should increase payload to Ariane-equivalent orbit by about 30%. Says who? You make very speculative assumptions. You could argue I do as well, but remember my point was it's far from clear-cut whether F9 will be more competitive. Its a wild guess and unfortunately SpaceX space technology fans on this and other discussion forums have a tendency to sell their amateurish speculations as facts.
Quote from: RanulfC on 06/07/2015 10:35 pmThey have designed the stage to be RECOVERED not to be reusable without refurbishment.Not what SpaceX has stated publicly. From a SpaceNews article last year:“At this point, we are highly confident of being able to land successfully on a floating launch pad or back at the launch site and refly the rocket with no required refurbishment,” SpaceX said in its statement.Musk has stated that they designed the Falcon 9 so that they could "gas & go". The airline model, not the Shuttle refurbishment model.
QuoteULA and Airbus have investors and not a billionaire backer willing to spend what it takes, so obviously they have to approach the problem differently.Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the top two U.S. Government contractors, and between them they generate $150B in revenue per year. SpaceX spent $300M to develop the initial version of the Falcon 9. I think Boeing and Lockheed Martin can afford to do what SpaceX has done and is doing. Airbus too.
The Russian concept had jet engine in nose of stage for fly back. I think Arianespace or ESA might of had some input to this design. The Russians also had designs for mid air recovery of booster.The small size of Angara boosters should make this possible.
Quote from: tp1024 on 06/08/2015 01:17 pmThe wings will introduce a whole new set of aerodynamic problems during launch.Then you'll need the wings, the engines and the landing gear, all of which are essential to the whole deal. (Might do without the landing gear. But that is the least of it.)On top of that, the Falcon 9 is cheaper even without reusablity and all that the reusability proposed here might accomplish, is to catch up with that!* Ariane 64 at 85mio Euro is supposed to be 20mio Euro more expensive than Ariane 62. So, the boosters of Ariane 64 alone cost about 40mio Euro or half the launch cost.- They claim the wings won't cause problems during launch like other fly back designs. Something to do with no twist in the wing, not an expert.
The wings will introduce a whole new set of aerodynamic problems during launch.Then you'll need the wings, the engines and the landing gear, all of which are essential to the whole deal. (Might do without the landing gear. But that is the least of it.)On top of that, the Falcon 9 is cheaper even without reusablity and all that the reusability proposed here might accomplish, is to catch up with that!* Ariane 64 at 85mio Euro is supposed to be 20mio Euro more expensive than Ariane 62. So, the boosters of Ariane 64 alone cost about 40mio Euro or half the launch cost.
- Well it's Airbus, they know how to do that.
- Says who? Falcon 9 performance is around 3.75t to an Ariane-equivalent GTO orbit. With A5 at 9.6t for dual launch, that makes approx. $16k/kg for F9 and $20.8k/kg for A5.
- A64 is supposed to cost 90m euros which is roughly $100m for 10t dual launch, which is $10k/kg. So if we believe in the 90m euro cost (which I do not), A6 will be almost 40% cheaper than F9 on a per kg basis. Just saying, its nowhere near as clear-cut as you think it is.- The price for A62 is what governments will pay, not the actual cost which will be higher. I.e. A64 subsidizes A62.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/08/2015 09:14 amHave SX state how many flights they expect their F9SR to do? Where was this? I can put that in the model and from there.I don't recall an exact number, but the Merlin 1D qualification program required 10 missions worth of use, and the comments I recall is that they don't know the upper end of use yet of the engine. As to the structure, they wouldn't have any data on that yet, which is why they plan to do a test program on their first recovered stage.
However, back in 2012 Elon Musk stated about the Falcon Heavy:"What does it imply for flight rate? "Multiple flights per day for first stage and side boosters," Musk says."
QuoteThe trouble is F9 was designed to be an ELV, while avoiding design choices that would prevent it (hopefully) being turned into an RLV one day. Shuttle was (originally) conceived from day 1 to be an RLV. Not sure why you think this. Since the beginning SpaceX has publicly stated their goal was to recover and reuse the 1st stage. Their initial plans used cork insulation and parachutes, which didn't work, but it showed their design from the start anticipated recovery and reuse.
QuoteBTW if you think coking is a peripheral issue think again. Coke build up inside the tubes cuts the ability to remove heat from the inner chamber wall.Luckily I don't have to think about it at all, since the designer of the Merlin 1D, Tom Mueller, is an expert on rocket engine design. And as long as their design keeps the cooling loop below the coking level, it is not supposed to be a problem.
QuoteLOX/LH2 engines don't suffer from coking. It's all about trade-offs. Delta IV is arguably the most modern LOX/LH2 powered rocket, and ULA feels it's unaffordable to compete against other expendable launchers, much less partially reusable ones.
QuoteBut you're not thinking like a government contractor, and that mindset is very important in this context.ULA <> Boeing and ULA <> Lockheed Martin. It's a subsidiary they expect to get a steady cash flow from, not one they plan to send money to.I've worked for a number of large government contractors, so I do know how they think and operate.
But the bottom line is this - you're either investing in your future to stay in business, or you're deciding to lose business to your competitors that are investing in their future while you're not.
There are plenty of businesses that make massive investments in their future all the time, and Airbus has the wherewithal to make such an investment. Boeing and Lockheed Martin have that ability too. It's just a question of whether they want to be competitive over the long run, and so far they haven't decided that yet.
It will re enter 100s km downrange.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/08/2015 04:02 amMusk has stated that they designed the Falcon 9 so that they could "gas & go". The airline model, not the Shuttle refurbishment model.While they would LIKE to be confident that the rocket will require no "refurbishment" it is highly unlikely as the ENGINES at least require a good amount of work to be ready for the next flight. There are parts that need replacement which they have shown with test firings which is not even close to fully flight regime.
Musk has stated that they designed the Falcon 9 so that they could "gas & go". The airline model, not the Shuttle refurbishment model.
QuoteBoeing and Lockheed Martin are the top two U.S. Government contractors, and between them they generate $150B in revenue per year. SpaceX spent $300M to develop the initial version of the Falcon 9. I think Boeing and Lockheed Martin can afford to do what SpaceX has done and is doing. Airbus too.You would therefore be "thinking" wrong I'm afraid. SpaceX is quite lucky because Musk requires no board of directors confidence and has no public trading so no pool of investors/stockholders to satisfy and therefore has much greater degree of ability to push money around within the company without "oversight" by anyone who might have conflicts with his ultimate goal.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the top two U.S. Government contractors, and between them they generate $150B in revenue per year. SpaceX spent $300M to develop the initial version of the Falcon 9. I think Boeing and Lockheed Martin can afford to do what SpaceX has done and is doing. Airbus too.
Boeing, LM and Airbus do not have that luxury as they are beholden to others who see ANY reduction in profit as a "bad" thing.
ULA has barely gotten "permission" to begin such a process, (and probably would not have if they hadn't NEEDED to begin development of a new booster in the first place) while Airbus is still "floating" a concept and as of yet doesn't seem to have the support to do so.
Mind you IF any of them get enough support to actually move forward in an aggressive manner you will suddenly see VERY different concepts coming forward as all the "players" here have done numerous studies on reusable vehicles with significantly better performance than the F9 architecture but in general they probably won't get enough support to make that aggressive of a transition.
Hey Randy, I love the last line of your post.
While I'm certainly not of the mind that except for RTLS, everything else sucks, I do believe that designing, building, testing and putting RTLS into an operational tempo, will have a more profound impact on the future of spaceflight. The good news is that over the next 12 months, we'll actually get to see if RTLS and subsequent re-use, starts to become what we think it will become. And that is indeed very gratifying. Everything else will remain an intellectual exercise for us to banter about. Which is also very interesting. Just not nearly as gratifying.And let's not forget that there is another company doing RTLS, albeit from sub-orbital. So that makes 2 companies actually doing RTLS and 2 companies studying Propulsion Pod returns. Interesting now that I think about it that way.
Depending on who you listen to it could vary between 10 to 40 "flights" per engine with some (obviously) taking the higher or lower number depending on their degree of belief in the system
As an off the top of my head example, residual RP1 in the engine during zero-g coast could be vaporized by retained heat of the engines and leave some coking in the cooling tubes. This would never show up in ground testing however so would not be a "known" issue until engines have been recovered and examined. This may require more "maintenance" between flights or a shorter engine overall lifetime.Again I doubt it, but you have to recover to know for sure.
Some "crazy" billionaire intent on spending himself into the poor house to prove a point and reach a fully personal goal with no hope of repayment economically is just not something you THINK about when your a CEO of something like Airbus, etc.
They are treating this as an exercise in "updating" the business model which makes perfect sense understanding where this is coming from, they still expect SpaceX to fail and go back to "just" being a slightly cheaper competitor.
They qualified the Merlin 1D with 10 flights worth of firings, without any replacements.
Boards of Directors (BoD) are not there to stop companies from being competitive. Their primary role is to review the performance of the CEO and take measures if necessary, such as rewarding or replacing the CEO.CEO's have the responsibility to grow their companies, and any CEO that is not trying to do that should be let go.
Not true. The market (which includes stockholders) does reward companies for making smart moves, just as the market will punish companies for being too tepid in responding to potential threats to future profits. It's not a one-way street.
Look, let's get back to the basics here. If Airbus doesn't do anything to respond to the market threat SpaceX poses, they will be in far greater financial straights than they are today. That is a given, even if SpaceX doesn't perfect reusability, and it becomes far worse if they do perfect any form of reusability. The same with ULA.
Actually ULA has not received permission to proceed with Vulcan. They are only being funded on a quarterly basis right now, with no guarantee of full funding.
Ooh, I LOVE secret plans that will never see the light of day!!But I tend to believe they don't actually exist, because otherwise they would pursue them....
There is no evidence that F9 merlin engines need anything other than refueling and more igniter fluid and he like loaded between flights. What we do not know is how frequently other maintenance, particularly the center engine which fires multiple time's/launch is needed. Remember the upper stage merlin fires for much longer than the first stage. So asserting lots of maintenance is required every flight is not based on any data; to the contrary, we have evidence gas and go is in fact feasible but not the maintenance interval or total life time, beyond what SpaceX has said publicly.
Quote from: RanulfC on 06/09/2015 06:56 pmDepending on who you listen to it could vary between 10 to 40 "flights" per engine with some (obviously) taking the higher or lower number depending on their degree of belief in the system I don't know what others have in mind, but I would be impressed if they got 10 reuses out of a stage. Now that is the body, not engines, since engines can be swapped out an infinite number of times. And just like with airliners, engines can go off to have maintenance and then put on a completely different vehicle.
So maybe this is one of those situations where there are different interpretations of what "reuse" means, and "gas n go" means. But for a brand new stage with brand new engines, my assumption is that they will be able to re-fly that exact configuration of engines and structures a number of times before they have to swap out an engine or two. At least in the early days. And then as they make improvements the frequency will go down, as it has with airliners.
QuoteSome "crazy" billionaire intent on spending himself into the poor house to prove a point and reach a fully personal goal with no hope of repayment economically is just not something you THINK about when your a CEO of something like Airbus, etc.That is a completely wrong characterization of the situation, and of Elon Musk.Musk is one of the most rational billionaires I've seen, and SpaceX has been grown using only the money Musk invested when he WASN'T a billionaire.
And SpaceX has not been doing any of this in secret, so claiming ignorance is not a rational defense. Experts within Airbus would have been able to provide the CEO with enough information about what they were facing. Heck, I could have told him what he was facing 5 YEARS AGO.
So kudo's to Airbus for having a secret group work on Adeline, but negative points for not funding enough such efforts so that they could come up with a truly competitive solution, and not this half solution.And again, keep in mind that they will lose marketshare unless they come up with a complete solution to competing with SpaceX. Anything less than that is giving up marketshare to SpaceX.
QuoteThey are treating this as an exercise in "updating" the business model which makes perfect sense understanding where this is coming from, they still expect SpaceX to fail and go back to "just" being a slightly cheaper competitor.Evolution in action...
Is there a European engine that is capable of 10 (or 100) launches without extensive (a la STS) refurbishment?
Certains moteurs actuels, comme le Vulcain 2 d'Ariane 5, ont déjŕ démontré en essais leur capacité ŕ effectuer une dizaine de cycles.
Quote from: AncientU on 06/08/2015 08:40 pmIs there a European engine that is capable of 10 (or 100) launches without extensive (a la STS) refurbishment?For example here:QuoteCertains moteurs actuels, comme le Vulcain 2 d'Ariane 5, ont déjŕ démontré en essais leur capacité ŕ effectuer une dizaine de cycles.Meaning Vulcain 2 has demonstrated in tests to be capable of doing 10 cycles.I think RD-180 could also do that (according to ULA), so it seems almost standard for modern rocket engines. I wonder though how it affects reliability.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/08/2015 06:50 amIt will re enter 100s km downrange. Under the assumption that this vehicle would have solid rocket boosters, it's flight might follow a trajectory like the Ariane 5. That rocket's users manual includes the attached map. The first stage reenters off the coast of Africa! That's not just "100s km". More like 5700 km. (51 deg = 0.89 Rad * 6378 km equatorial radius of the Earth = 5677 km)That would be one awfully long flight back at "M 0.3 @ 3.5 km". The velocity and altitutde profiles have also been attached. (Staging is at the point marked "H2") The fomer says the velocity is just under 7 km/sec. At that speed that the engine pod would need a nearly full fledged heat shield, and wings would be problematic. That may mean that the original assumption of solids boosters is incorrect. (edit) Perhaps the solid boosters in the video are more artistic license.
Quote from: Oli on 06/10/2015 02:38 pmQuote from: AncientU on 06/08/2015 08:40 pmIs there a European engine that is capable of 10 (or 100) launches without extensive (a la STS) refurbishment?For example here:QuoteCertains moteurs actuels, comme le Vulcain 2 d'Ariane 5, ont déjŕ démontré en essais leur capacité ŕ effectuer une dizaine de cycles.Meaning Vulcain 2 has demonstrated in tests to be capable of doing 10 cycles.I think RD-180 could also do that (according to ULA), so it seems almost standard for modern rocket engines. I wonder though how it affects reliability.RD-180 derives from the RD-170 that was supposed to be reused 10 time (the Energiya boosters were to be reusable). And new designs like the RD-0162 is designed for 25. Besides, there's a big advantage for development and certification testing with a high number of starts in the engines. An engine desgined for 25 starts might need just 20 to 30 engines for development vs 150 engines if it was just a 5 start engines. You don't want less than that because you need an acceptance testing plus a a couple of abort opportunities during launch.But some upper stage engines, like the RD-0110 are single use, and thus they test 1/3 of each batches, and send the rest for integration. It is probably because it uses some felt ribs on the MCC to stabilize the combustion during ignition.Summing it up, most modern engines are designed for a high number of restarts because of development concerns. But also, because sort of everybody is trying to keep their options open for reuse.
Less than you might think because they COULD be right and then they don't have issues with overreacting to a supposed "threat" that didn't materialize. You seem to be taking them at face value on one hand and then noting they actually CAN mobilize a lot more resources and money than SpaceX IF THEY NEED TO FOR SURVIVAL which at present would be very hard to argue under the current circumstances.Randy
Concept video
The F9 is two stages, no boosters, and their concept returns the entire first stage.
And no, Musk is FAR from the most "rational" billionaire around as he's well known for doing 'crazy' things that just happen to work despite the "common wisdom" around him.
Spending billions to make access to space cheaper isn't anything a 'rational' billionaire does which is why very few DO it. Musk knows this, plays on this, hell he REVELS in it!
Another "assumption" here is that Adeline is in fact the ONLY response they have waiting for SpaceX. As far as we "know" this could be simply to calm current investor/shareholder fears with something really "wonderful" waiting till they actually need to justify the spending on it.
Less than you might think because they COULD be right and then they don't have issues with overreacting to a supposed "threat" that didn't materialize.
You seem to be taking them at face value on one hand and then noting they actually CAN mobilize a lot more resources and money than SpaceX IF THEY NEED TO FOR SURVIVAL which at present would be very hard to argue under the current circumstances.
Under the assumption that this vehicle would have solid rocket boosters, it's flight might follow a trajectory like the Ariane 5. That rocket's users manual includes the attached map. The first stage reenters off the coast of Africa! That's not just "100s km". More like 5700 km. (51 deg = 0.89 Rad * 6378 km equatorial radius of the Earth = 5677 km)That would be one awfully long flight back at "M 0.3 @ 3.5 km".
The velocity and altitutde profiles have also been attached. (Staging is at the point marked "H2") The fomer says the velocity is just under 7 km/sec. At that speed that the engine pod would need a nearly full fledged heat shield, and wings would be problematic. That may mean that the original assumption of solids boosters is incorrect. (edit) Perhaps the solid boosters in the video are more artistic license.
This is also valid for technical details:A non-throttlable engine (in flight) can be made throttlable on a test stand. Otherwise you could only check one operating point during one test firing. That would also be a very expensive development.
The engines could land on Ascension island (which is UK so ESA territory) or in Africa (the French are quite influential there), with a range within 1000-2000km.
A jet engine can be swapped in under an hour, last time I looked it took them a day or so on the pad and about a full day off the pad. This is in no way "gas-n-go" operations but is typical for a launch vehicle and rocket engine system.I'll be impressed if they get one reuse, even more so if they get five but really they will need to find out first how much stress is involved in the whole recovery operation and how much it takes to get it ready to fly again.
The last yes but the first is an assumption because we don't know and the odds are that it will in fact NOT be possible to refly a previously flown stage without major repairs. I've noted over and over again the stage could very well return intact and be recovered and NOT be flyable again for a number of reasons so "assuming" that this will be the case is really being optimistic. Frequency will of course come but you have to have recovery and actual data to make such assumptions and SpaceX nor we have either.
Not at all since that WAS how he and SpaceX were characterized in the beginning And he WAS a billionaire when he stared which is why he is quoted as "How do you become a Millionaire..."And this has only begrudgingly changed as his and SpaceX's success rack up.
And you would have been laughed out of the CEO's office with good reason because you had and still have very little to back up your opinion. And this is money that Elon Musk has SAID he is going to spend whether he makes a "profit" or not if you will recall which is another reason some people call him crazy And no, Musk is FAR from the most "rational" billionaire around as he's well known for doing 'crazy' things that just happen to work despite the "common wisdom" around him. Spending billions to make access to space cheaper isn't anything a 'rational' billionaire does which is why very few DO it. Musk knows this, plays on this, hell he REVELS in it!
Less than you might think because they COULD be right and then they don't have issues with overreacting to a supposed "threat" that didn't materialize. You seem to be taking them at face value on one hand and then noting they actually CAN mobilize a lot more resources and money than SpaceX IF THEY NEED TO FOR SURVIVAL which at present would be very hard to argue under the current circumstances.
Then where do the economics of launch go globally? National institutional launches hold up entire launch architectures as mostly sole users. No cost sharing. Very narrow financial footprints, anemic development given a bimodal distribution of launches with infrequent bump next to "frequent flyer" bump. Launch systems taking decades to modernize if that, next to weekly mods. Runaway.That's when most other launch providers will "get real" about this. But ... what will they have left?
While "dictionary" correct it is a main job of the board of directors to ensure the investors/shareholders are happy which is actually their primary purpose. The CEO is supposed to work within the constraints of that relationship to ensure the company remains competitive. The details of this are what a CEO rises and falls over and the BoD very often can CAUSE a company to fail by not allowing the CEO to spend enough to remain competitive.
This has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. Musk and SpaceX do not have this layer to work with/around and it shows.QuoteNot true. The market (which includes stockholders) does reward companies for making smart moves, just as the market will punish companies for being too tepid in responding to potential threats to future profits. It's not a one-way street.
Look at your company histories, stockholders and investors have been FAR less interested in innovation than protecting profits margins paid back to them in the last 30 years and that hasn't changed recently. The will complain to high heaven over moves that cost them money at the time even if they end up increasing profits at a later date.QuoteLook, let's get back to the basics here. If Airbus doesn't do anything to respond to the market threat SpaceX poses, they will be in far greater financial straights than they are today. That is a given, even if SpaceX doesn't perfect reusability, and it becomes far worse if they do perfect any form of reusability. The same with ULA.
Airbus along with Boeing, and LM which own ULA all have other interests that make their space launch development business' less than a major segment of their business model. While they "have" to do something the amount they can really do is limited. And further it can be argued (and they have) that SpaceX's overall "effect" can easily be far less than many predict if SpaceX finds (a possibility which SpaceX admits to) that reusability is not as economical as they hope it will be. The actual effect becomes even less clear once you segment the market into LEO and GTO/GEO. The former is where SpaceX is hanging it's business case while the latter is where the other companies see the majority of the market remaining.
Going "back-to-basics" Airbus-et-al really do NOT have to "respond" to SpaceX other than finding small ways to cut their prices down some to match the F9H capability and price point. They will still own a share of the GTO/GEO market no matter what and meanwhile they can prep for the change without having to put forth the major investment and effort that actually beating SpaceX will entail.
Full permission no but they have enough of a go ahead to sign contracts and begin development work which is about where Airbus is. This is MUCH further than they have been given before with any other development program.
Far from secret and they have all "seen-the-light-of-day" and are publicly available if you care to look. The problem is they are STILL not proven to be needed or even economically viable given that FOR reusability to be viable it has to have a higher than current flight rate.This is the conundrum of Airbus and everyone else in that they COULD beat the heck out of SpaceX if they could see it being needed but they don't because the overall business case is still very iffy and the up-front cost is more than they can gather unless the case is verifiably (survival at stake) solid.
I don't know what others have in mind, but I would be impressed if they got 10 reuses out of a stage. Now that is the body, not engines, since engines can be swapped out an infinite number of times.
So maybe this is one of those situations where there are different interpretations of what "reuse" means, and "gas n go" means. But for a brand new stage with brand new engines, my assumption is that they will be able to re-fly that exact configuration of engines and structures a number of times before they have to swap out an engine or two. At least in the early days. And then as they make improvements the frequency will go down, as it has with airliners.I would imagine that is something they are curious about too. Good point.
That is a completely wrong characterization of the situation, and of Elon Musk.Musk is one of the most rational billionaires I've seen, and SpaceX has been grown using only the money Musk invested when he WASN'T a billionaire.
So kudo's to Airbus for having a secret group work on Adeline, but negative points for not funding enough such efforts so that they could come up with a truly competitive solution, and not this half solution.
And again, keep in mind that they will lose marketshare unless they come up with a complete solution to competing with SpaceX. Anything less than that is giving up marketshare to SpaceX.
Evolution in action...
Musk is noted as stating that after 40 firings (not flights) that some parts needs to be replaced due to stress. Then engines are going to have to be "maintenance" and inspected between flights which is going to be several hours work at least if not more. (I fully understand WHY SpaceX hasn't done the obvious thing and just keep cycling and engine till it fails catastrophically given the amount of focus directed at them but they really need to do so at some point)
Given the H1 of the 50s was shown to be refurbishable indefinitely I suspect that SpaceX could confidently be able to fly a Merlin till it was literally to the point where they had replaced everything. But I suspect it will be more likely to have the engines fly to a set number of flights (not firings) when the cost of refurbishment is too high.
Unfortunately this is Musk talking without anything to base it on. He's got even less data to support this now as they at least know some of the maintenance and refurbishment required is going to take several hours if not a day or two to "re-qualify" a stage for launch let along actually stack, load a payload and launch.Multiple flights OF multiple vehicles per day is possible but not multiple flights of the SAME stage and boosters.
Not really as noted above the "flight-rate" Elon was talking about wasn't even considering the second stage it was specifically "first stage and boosters" which is not going to be as rapid a turn around as Elon would like to believe. And the tankage production can be ramped up with a back-stock to allow a pretty reasonable flight rate to be achieved. In the same manner as SpaceX Airbus could have multiple flights per day with multiple vehicles and about the same turn around rate of re-qualified vehicles as SpaceX. Operations costs would probably be slightly more due to having to basically build a new stage on the propulsion module but streamlining and experience would be pretty easy to build into the system so in the end the costs and time would be on par with full stage reuse AND possibly somewhat better if stage full stage reuse is limited as could still prove true.QuoteRecovery actually NOT reuse. Musk originally stated they wanted to recovery to see how the parts had worn during use and that they "might" salvage parts but while their end goal was reuse they initially JUST wanted to recover. Since recovery proved problematical (aerodynamics) the decision was made to go from attempted recovery to a fully reusable design with enough margin to withstand the proposed recovery method. The F9 DID start out as an ELV with the possibility of recovery, however once the decision was made for reuse the stage was redesigned to allow enough margin for recovery and reuse which DID impact payload capability as was anticipated. Since they didn't actually recover any of the "sea-landed" stages they still don't know if that margin is enough to actually allow reusability. They won't know if its enough until and unless they actually get a stage back to examine.
Recovery actually NOT reuse. Musk originally stated they wanted to recovery to see how the parts had worn during use and that they "might" salvage parts but while their end goal was reuse they initially JUST wanted to recover. Since recovery proved problematical (aerodynamics) the decision was made to go from attempted recovery to a fully reusable design with enough margin to withstand the proposed recovery method. The F9 DID start out as an ELV with the possibility of recovery, however once the decision was made for reuse the stage was redesigned to allow enough margin for recovery and reuse which DID impact payload capability as was anticipated. Since they didn't actually recover any of the "sea-landed" stages they still don't know if that margin is enough to actually allow reusability. They won't know if its enough until and unless they actually get a stage back to examine.
"Supposed" to be which does not in any way mean it won't. While I agree it PROBABLY isn't an issue (it wasn't for the H1 for example) and RP1 is specifically designed to be a low coking as possible, no one has run an rocket engine over and over again in a reusable manner such as SpaceX so it's a learning experience.As an off the top of my head example, residual RP1 in the engine during zero-g coast could be vaporized by retained heat of the engines and leave some coking in the cooling tubes. This would never show up in ground testing however so would not be a "known" issue until engines have been recovered and examined. This may require more "maintenance" between flights or a shorter engine overall lifetime.Again I doubt it, but you have to recover to know for sure.
QuoteIt's all about trade-offs. Delta IV is arguably the most modern LOX/LH2 powered rocket, and ULA feels it's unaffordable to compete against other expendable launchers, much less partially reusable ones.JS19: Neither do LOX/Sub-Cooled Propane, or LOX/Methane or "technically" any modern LOX/RP1 (or Kerosene) engines if they are designed right. Coking is very much NOT as much an issue as it once was and is NOT a reason for deciding which propellant to use in a reusable LV. As we are all aware (or should be by now anyway) you avoid even THAT minor issue by using your LOX as a coolant instead of your fuel which is what every H2O2 engine did and is pretty much proven to be effective and pretty damn simple these days.
CR: The Delta-IV suffers from the main problem of all LOX/LH2 rockets; it's a pretty crappy combination of propellants for the FIRST STAGE of a launch vehicle. You really want higher density/thrust rather than higher ISP and lower of both. Hence Delta-IV is more "economical" if it's fitted with SRBs which get it off the pad and moving sooner than just relying on the main engines. My main take on the Delta-IV was simply that Boeing got paid to develop the RS-68 under the EELV contract and therefore base a launcher around it rather than trying to leverage any design "advantage" out of the contract. It doesn't seem that it was EVER going to be commercially viable versus the competition of similar ELVs let alone anyone building a semi-or-fully RLV.
Similarly the F9 "suffers" from the lack of an efficient upper stage and could be FAR more effective (but more costly) with anything OTHER than an LOX/RP1 propellant. Here the driver would be engine development since you could use the present tankage with various adaptions for the propellant. (But to my mind it would behoove SpaceX to consider it more seriously because I don't see it being cost prohibitive especially as they are planning on building a new-build methalox engine ANYWAY)
Think/Operate are not the same thing and if you weren't "upper-management" where "engineering" is one of those "minor details" you probably really do NOT "know" how they think as its very often not as intuitive as you'd assume QuoteBut the bottom line is this - you're either investing in your future to stay in business, or you're deciding to lose business to your competitors that are investing in their future while you're not.Which is something the you GENERALLY do at a low level with a constant stream of your profit flow which is quite different when said "investment" suddenly requires a major influx of cash flow enough that your "profits" drop substantially.I addressed this up-thread a bit but in order to do this "properly" (ie you don't get canned as a result or cause a major investor panic) you need to lay the groundwork and preparer the market and investors for the effort. This is Boeing building the 787 with several years of ramp-up time and not something you throw in a couple of billion dollars to achieve unless you have NO choice. And the thing is this has become a lot more 'immediate' than anyone in upper management was planning on.Currently Airbus, Boeing, et-al are scrambling (without looking like they are because that also invites investor panic) to address a situation they were pretty confident that would never come up without a LOT more notice. It was clear, (and Boeing/LM, etc all were pointing out the numbers showing they were right) that RLV versus ELV was a question of economics that the ELV was the answer to. And it all had to do with the flight rate and projected market. Some "crazy" billionaire intent on spending himself into the poor house to prove a point and reach a fully personal goal with no hope of repayment economically is just not something you THINK about when your a CEO of something like Airbus, etc.They are treating this as an exercise in "updating" the business model which makes perfect sense understanding where this is coming from, they still expect SpaceX to fail and go back to "just" being a slightly cheaper competitor. However it's pretty clear that while SpaceX may still "fail" to fully achieve all its goals it will still be below the current competitive price point they can achieve with any LV they currently have. So this is a way to prepare the relevant people with the idea that changes will need to be made and that they can (under this plan) come in at a slightly higher cost than "just" the normal upgrade and competitive costs that are currently planned.Since "the" market is still considered GTO/GEO services and the average flight rate will still remain small enough that this sort of operations will remain economical there is no rush to try and beat SpaceX at a game that still looks economically unfeasible. Should however the market significantly change at least this is prepping the way for significant changes in policy should those be required. NOT taking those steps at this point is a gamble but you can't really argue that history and market is not on their side from their point of view.
For the folks who keep insisting that boost-back RTLS is "obviously" the way to go and everything else sucks I will point out that while SpaceX tried and "failed" with TPS, parachutes, and ocean recovery they NEVER actually got as far as doing any of it but INSTEAD went with the current method. The reason the former failed is because the stage was aerodynamically unstable on entry and broke up before they could open the parachutes and even attempt recovery. Had they added 'grid-fins' capable of withstanding reentry they would have been able to recovery their stages earlier on but they chose to do it this way.
Quote- Says who? Falcon 9 performance is around 3.75t to an Ariane-equivalent GTO orbit. With A5 at 9.6t for dual launch, that makes approx. $16k/kg for F9 and $20.8k/kg for A5.Going to point out that everyone seems to be on the same page that recovery and reuse is a LOT easier if you don't have to go all the way to GTO/GEO with your rocket and more so with the first stage of ANY launch vehicle. The main take away would seem to be (and what has been suggested by numerous companies at this point) that if you can divide your "flight" up into getting to LEO and then getting your cargo to GTO/GEO from there, everything is a lot easier. Actually getting to that point is the key issues as it's NOT cheaper if you are only flying infrequently (current launch rate) and economics is the driving factor. It is much cheaper to launch directly to GTO/GEO than establish and maintain the on-orbit infrastructure for a second system that moves cargo from LEO to GEO unless you delivery prices for LEO are really, really low.
Quote- A64 is supposed to cost 90m euros which is roughly $100m for 10t dual launch, which is $10k/kg. So if we believe in the 90m euro cost (which I do not), A6 will be almost 40% cheaper than F9 on a per kg basis. Just saying, its nowhere near as clear-cut as you think it is.- The price for A62 is what governments will pay, not the actual cost which will be higher. I.e. A64 subsidizes A62."Price" is debatable because of who is defining it and how much they actual costs are or are not included or assumed.Commercial launch costs give me a headache, government ones give me a migraine
[...]The do need to develop or buy a RD180 class engine for the boosters. If the engine is being reused 10 times they will have a choice of engines come mid 2020s. RD180, RD181, BE4 and maybe AR-1 (ITAR willing).The thing that has killed a lot of reusable LV in past has be relying on technologies with to low a TRL. Both Adeline and ULA SMART are using existing technologies, even SMART inflatable heat shield has been flown twice now by NASA. One of the most expensive part of developing these reusable systems is the test flights especially when they repeatable fail. Things have even change here, SpaceX has shown that a company can make a profit on every test flight pass of fail.
Quote from: Oli on 10/16/2014 07:48 amIts only a patent and they call it basic research, I wouldn't get my hopes up.Kind of reminds me of ULA's plans to recover the engine section. Interesting tidbit: Apparently engines, electronics, etc. make up 80% of the stage's value.Quote from: Eric Hedman on 10/16/2014 03:59 amIt would be interesting to see a comparison of the mass penalty for this concept versus the stage reuse for Falcon. I'm sure there has to be some fairly significant structures to allow the engines to seperate from the tanks and be aerodynamic enough for flight back to a runway and the weight of jet engines and fuel.The mass penalty is certainly a lot lower than with boost-back. Its no secret that flyback is more efficient. Whether its cheaper overall is another question.That was the whole point of the Shuttle, you were recovering the Main Engines, the Fairing and the Avionics.
Ascension has quite a long runway as well.
Disagree. Don't think they can pull off what we see because of too much creeping elegance (neither did another rocket reuse video either). Either fast cancel or back-off to a marginalized subset. Not because of competence but because of "will".And I think they only have one shot at this (likewise ULA), because they'll lose never to regain market share before they get another chance. To my prior post's doomsday scenario with low/no follow on development budget.They are spending that shot unwisely. Not in partial recovery or aerostructures to recover passively. Both make sense for hydrolox "fluffy", with the option to do more incrementally. High speed RV's do not make for low speed propulsive craft. Nor do I buy the remanufacturing scenario - too pat.My point is that this is a "rear guard" strategy, not a leadership strategy. As such it's either waiting for the other guy to screw up, or accepting "second place".What is the minimum for an Airbus reuse strategy to succeed?
A lot of people like to point out the shuttle was a failure but it wasn't a complete failure.The system did provide a relatively low reoccurring cost but it's fixed costs were very high.
I read somewhere even some older engines such as the H-1,F-1,and J-2 were good for several firings.
My point is that this is a "rear guard" strategy, not a leadership strategy. As such it's either waiting for the other guy to screw up, or accepting "second place".
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/11/2015 06:07 pmMy point is that this is a "rear guard" strategy, not a leadership strategy. As such it's either waiting for the other guy to screw up, or accepting "second place".Agree completely.Plus, and this is not always recognized until it's underway, but the paradigm change that is happening affects two aspects of the current market:A. $/kg to a destination in space is going down, potentially significantly.
B. With reusable launch vehicles, launch frequency will go up.
Both of these address concerns that the market has had, in that with high launch costs they have been forced to make the most of their payloads, and that drives up costs and complexity.As launch costs go down the market can start looking at lower cost payloads, although the economics of GEO slots probably won't change for a while. However non-GEO locations, like LEO and MEO, could be an opportunity, and that is where SpaceX is headed with their constellation of 700 satellites in LEO.
So what SpaceX is offering the market is the opportunity to fly payloads that cost far less, and fly them whenever they want. That should inspire companies to experiment with business models, and if they find success then it means that ESA will be at a disadvantage for that new market - SpaceX will have create a new Blue Ocean marketspace.ESA also has to watch out for everyone else that plans to "step up their game" against SpaceX, so it's not a matter of being 2nd in the market, but potentially 3rd, 4th, 5th...If SpaceX proves that physics allows for significant recovery and reuse of rocket stages, then ESA and Airbus would be foolhardy to ignore that ability and lock themselves into an uncompetitive architecture for the next decade or so.
I just checked up thread regarding the 1st stage downrange distance... if it's anything like Ariane 5, I was way off when I said the engine pod would need to fly back several hundred miles - it's a lot further. But even if it can make, say... hrmm, Ascension is pretty much it... it's still going to be a fairly long haul on many flights.
How much of a legal quagmire would using Ascension be, assuming they use RAF Ascension Island (which they would have to, Ascension isn't a big place)? I can't imagine it would be too much of an issue, but they'd to build some support facilities whatever occurs. Certainly the runway can accommodate the stage.
IMHO, the concept it interesting, but the contradictions in the video (such as stating no extra rocket fuel needed while showing the rocket engine doing a burn post sep) make it seem unserious. Only the existence of the small test model seen in a photo make me think it's under any real consideration. It's a very interesting concept though.
IMHO, the technical challenges for making this work (both physically and fiscally) would be decidedly non trivial. While it's certainly true that SpaceX hasn't achieved recovery yet (let alone the important part, economical beneficial reuse) and thus it's, obviously, not known if they can achieve it, I think we likewise have to acknowledge that it's unknown whether this airbus concept can be made to work.
If anyone can see other possible strategy, or disregard one of my proposed ones, please do so.
I'm glad you recognize that it's only potentially going to change. At present SX have a cheap ELV. It's good, if your payload fits in its performance envelope.
I'll caution once again that while people expect SX to demonstrate recovery and reuse eventually neither has happened yet.
Given the payload hit every historical design of RLV has taken its assumed that the only way to maintain payload to orbit is to increase launch frequency. It's not a goal, it's a side effect.
Actually one of the selling points of the Shuttle was the ability trun with less reliable payloads (with single string electronics) knowing they could be replaced quickly.
As with 98% of all previous Airbus studies this one won't see anything remotely resembling reality either.Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
Here's an AvWeek article with some good tidbits of further info:http://aviationweek.com/space/airbus-proposes-reusable-core-stage-engine-concept-upper-stage-tug-Adeline concept would enable the Ariane’s Vulcain 2 engine to be reused 10-20 times-notes that the concept could be adapted for solid-rocket motors as well, but that based on experience with the current Ariane 5 and NASA’s Space Shuttle, such engines tend to suffer serious damage in returning to Earth -In addition to Adeline, Airbus is evaluating a concept to preserve an electrically propelled upper stage in low Earth orbit to ferry communications and other satellites from LEO to geosynchronous orbit-Similar to Lockheed Martin’s Jupiter concept proposed under NASA’s commercial cargo program, the solar-powered space tug is based on an Ariane liquid upper stage. Gilibert says the concept could lead to significant savings for satellite operators.-"The launcher’s mission changes to carry the satellite and a little bit of fuel up to 1,000 km altitude, rather than to [geosynchronous transfer orbit],” he notes. With the space tug, the launcher could be somewhat smaller and capable of carrying 5 metric tons of payload, plus 1.5-2 metric tons of propellant.
At somewhere under ten to fifteen tons weight and likely rather limited dimensions you could also just load it onboard most standard cargo aircraft for return to Kourou too.
Launch service providers only exist to serve their customers, not the other way around, but the customers have to abide by the limitations of the launch service providers. If reusability is proven out, two of those barriers, cost and lead-time, will both be decreasing. Historically that's when a market changes, when you dramatically change one or more of the limitations.
Considering how close SpaceX has come, I'd say recovery has been proven enough to take it seriously. As to reuse, if you take it into account when you're building your launcher, then I'd say reuse to some degree is possible using modern design and fabrication methods. This is rocket science, we we've gotten pretty good at it...
Since I'm not an engineer my perspectives are from a marketplace standpoint. Engineers tend to, from what I've observed, look at absolute performance whilst ignoring market needs.So "payload hit" be damned, the market really cares about how they can make money within the capabilities the market provides, which is why reducing cost for some of the parameters could inspire new business models to be tested. Or it could just mean they book the cost savings as unplanned profit. Either way it's good, since that will tend to drive down costs overall more firmly.
And this is what ESA should be fearing the most. Sure it has a lock on some number of payloads, but over time it's customers may come under greater pressure from competitors that are using far bette reusable launch systems. That's why it's so important that ESA gets this right today, because otherwise they will be locked in to an unchangeable cost model for the next decade. Enough evidence exists today to understand what is at stake.
The government-subsidized Shuttle was not a good example to use for how todays commercial market will respond to increased competition and downward pricing trends.
Also I'm not sure why they talk about "preserving the upper stage" when they mention the space tug. The upper stage would still be needed I guess unless they intend to fly the core up to a 1k km orbit.
So in fact it's Arianespace that has the lock on the ESA payloads.
I remember that a couple of years ago some French Arianespace officials burned the idea of reusability.They said that they tried it, put some wings on it, propulsion unit etc. It became to heavy and expensive.
And now they come again with it to save their face (and position) now SpaceX is getting close. It is also a way to get more money from Europe.... It is a political move as well. The Germans are not so happy with the recent developments and the French attitude. By the time 2025 it flies, if it ever flies, BFR and MCT are probably in operation.
I remember that a couple of years ago some French Arianespace officials burned the idea of reusability.They said that they tried it, put some wings on it, propulsion unit etc. It became to heavy and expensive.And now they come again with it to save their face (and position) now SpaceX is getting close. It is also a way to get more money from Europe.... It is a political move as well. The Germans are not so happy with the recent developments and the French attitude. By the time 2025 it flies, if it ever flies, BFR and MCT are probably in operation.
Quote from: Oli on 06/12/2015 10:16 pmAlso I'm not sure why they talk about "preserving the upper stage" when they mention the space tug. The upper stage would still be needed I guess unless they intend to fly the core up to a 1k km orbit.Preserving an upper stage - read: a Vinci engine with some uprated avionics package, a docking mechanism and solar panels.Due to the lower delta-v requirement in subsequent launches using that tug could possibly mean a switch e.g. from Vinci to a cheaper Aestus II (or similar) for the launcher upper stage as originally planned between 6.1 and 6.2, thus reducing cost.
Given that the core is staging at just under 7km/s and a heat shield would be required for re-entry, why not stretch the tanks slightly and take the core to a stable orbit where it could dock the payload with a tug and refuel the tug?
First off that's partial reusability you're talking about. I think we differ on wheather the possible reduction in price is significant enough to grow the market.
History suggests it gets eaten away by launch cost inflation.
You might like to look how F9 prices have changed over the years from first announcement to 1st launch and then till today, versus say general US inflation.
Again the question is wheather the whole process is economical The classic example being the Shuttle SRB's costing as much to refurb as to make, so why not just keep the production line open and the people employed?
OK let's look at what the market might see.1)70% of the payload for 70% of the cost F92)70% of the payload for <70% of the cost of an F93)70% of the payload for 100% of the cost of an F9 4)70% of the payload for 10% of the cost of an F9.
Because a small hypergolic stage is cheap and gives you a lot more performance. I put the A62 specs into Schilling's calculator (with the assumption of 20t dry mass for core + Adeline) and get a payload of 1159kg to a circular 1000km orbit. Adding an EPS gives 8599kg to the same orbit. With 4 boosters and no EPS its 7622kg, plus in-flight start of Vulcain 2 gives 9113kg.You can ignore the absolute values, it's just the rough magnitude of the relative differences that are interesting.That said, if you reenter from orbit there's no need to fly back...on the other the reentry conditions might be more demanding.
Quote from: Oli on 06/13/2015 06:18 pmBecause a small hypergolic stage is cheap and gives you a lot more performance. I put the A62 specs into Schilling's calculator (with the assumption of 20t dry mass for core + Adeline) and get a payload of 1159kg to a circular 1000km orbit. Adding an EPS gives 8599kg to the same orbit. With 4 boosters and no EPS its 7622kg, plus in-flight start of Vulcain 2 gives 9113kg.You can ignore the absolute values, it's just the rough magnitude of the relative differences that are interesting.That said, if you reenter from orbit there's no need to fly back...on the other the reentry conditions might be more demanding.Any idea on the magnitude of cost difference?I was thinking more that the tug would park at a 285 km orbit. What payload would you get then? Is that calculator you used a free online tool?