Maļa Space - ArianeGroup reusable launcher (2026)

[hektor]

Maļa Space

What will the MaiaSpace program consist of? If the minister has not given any details, we can outline it. The project will be entrusted to a subsidiary, called MaiaSpace, whose capital could, according to our information, be open to other players. The launcher itself will be based on the reusable Themis stage demonstrator, which will be equipped with the all-new low-cost, reusable Prometheus motor. The program, developed by ArianeGroup in Vernon with the support of CNES, is already well advanced: the first Prometheus engine has already been assembled. The first tests of the liquid oxygen and methane tanks have started in recent days in Vernon.

The next step will be the ground tests of Prometheus, still on the Normandy site, on a version of Themis called Themis 0. A version of Themis with one engine (Themis 1) must then perform take-off and landing tests in Kiruna (Sweden ) in 2023. Tests of a more powerful version with three engines (Themis 3) are planned at Kourou in 2024.

[hektor]

France to mimic Musk with own SpaceX-style launcher, minister says

[hektor]

 

[gosnold]

I think that Themis, the full version with 3 Prometheus engines. They say Prometheus is also used for Maia but it would only be 1 engine (that already 100t of thrust)
Specs of Maia are 500kg to 1t in LEO: https://twitter.com/stromgade/status/1467961089388433410

[Syl35]

In fact, Maia is not the rocket name but the name of the company that is being created to make this new reusable rocket.

[hektor]

Concerned about SpaceX, France to accelerate reusable rocket plans

[docmordrid]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/france-seeks-to-build-reusable-rocket-make-up-for-bad-choices-in-the-past/

Concerned about SpaceX, France to accelerate reusable rocket plans

"It's a real break from French strategy, and clearly inspired by the USA."

The new plan calls for the large, France-based rocket firm ArianeGroup to develop a new small-lift rocket called Maļa by the year 2026. This is four years ahead of a timeline previously set by the European Space Agency for the development of a significantly larger, reusable rocket.

Although the technical details are sparse, Maļa will not be Europe's "Falcon 9." It will have a lift capacity of up to 1 metric ton to low Earth orbit and be powered by a reusable Prometheus rocket engine, which is fueled by methane and liquid oxygen. This engine, which remains in the preliminary stages of development, has a thrust comparable to a single Merlin 1D rocket engine, which powers SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket. But since there are nine engines on the SpaceX rocket, it can lift more than 15 times as much as the proposed Maļa in fully reusable mode.
>

[Oli]

A partially reusable small launcher by 2026? Exciting stuff.

 

[Blackjax]

Concerned about SpaceX, France to accelerate reusable rocket plans

There is one point in particular that stands out to me in the article.  To summarize and paraphrase:

"This has no substantial hope of competing effectively against the Falcon 9, much less the starship, but it does seem to have the potential to damage efforts across europe to get other small launchers up and running."

BTW, everything I've seen about it refers to it a little vaguely as a 'plan', I haven't seen anything mentioning it as an approved and fully funded plan.  Anyone see anything concrete on the actual funding?  No bucks, no buck rogers.

[hektor]

This is financed by a 30 B€ French government plan : France 2030 (30 B€ for 2030  )

France 2030 un plan d'investissement pour la france de demain (sorry in French)

In this plan 1.5 B€ go to space. A significant chunk of these 1.5 B€ will be channeled towards Maļa.

The goal is

Prendre toute notre part ą la nouvelle aventure spatiale.

''Take our full part in the new space adventure.''

which does not mean much.

This is a decision approved at high level (Macron I guess).


By the way it would be the first French orbital launcher since Diamant BP4 in 1975.

[ZachF]

Concerned about SpaceX, France to accelerate reusable rocket plans

There is one point in particular that stands out to me in the article.  To summarize and paraphrase:

"This has no substantial hope of competing effectively against the Falcon 9, much less the starship, but it does seem to have the potential to damage efforts across europe to get other small launchers up and running."

BTW, everything I've seen about it refers to it a little vaguely as a 'plan', I haven't seen anything mentioning it as an approved and fully funded plan.  Anyone see anything concrete on the actual funding?  No bucks, no buck rogers.

Reading between the lines, with this and Stephane Israel continually asking for guaranteed launches, the order book for Ariane 6 must be pretty bad.

[Asteroza]

So with the noted characteristics of the prometheus engine as is, will this be doing a HyperSlam into the trapeze catcher frame currently being envisioned for Themis?

[su27k]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/france-seeks-to-build-reusable-rocket-make-up-for-bad-choices-in-the-past/

For me the most interesting part of the article is this:

Over the last five years Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom (which is a member of the European Space Agency but not the European Union) have started to foster the development of micro-launch companies that are building rockets capable of lifting several hundred kilograms to low-Earth orbit—a bit less than the Maļa rocket aspires to do.

<snip>

France has largely been left out of this new commercial launch industry, and Paris-based ArianeGroup probably would not mind seeing the competition stamped out. In other words, France could be worried enough about losing its launch leadership in Europe.

Giving a large development contract to ArianeGroup for the Maļa rocket would be one way to kill off the competition in other countries before it gets going. Giving money to ArianeGroup now is a little bit like the United States funding United Launch Alliance to build a reusable rocket 15 years ago, which would have substantially harmed or perhaps even killed SpaceX during its formative years.

Is this really to compete against SpaceX or compete against other smallsat launchers in Europe?

[Asteroza]

Is this really to compete against SpaceX or compete against other smallsat launchers in Europe?

Well, a fair bit of Ariane 6 worksharing meant not as much work being done within France. In the face of the relentless march of SpaceX, some people may have felt the only company/country that can do it all alone is ArianeGroup, thus France. I guess Germany/DLR isn't up to building a full rocket on their own, and the italians do a lot of SRM work but haven't really brought it all together themselves yet (focusing on value added manufacturing instead). There is something to be said that the necessary end-to-end expertise probably exists within France alone due to ongoing need to support french SLBM's and general ESA support activities (though whether that translates to startup class speeds and costs is open to debate).

None of the supposed EU startups are up to that weight class, and the EU market itself will have a hard time sustaining even one small/medium launcher (when faced with the small number of EU customers and those customers probably launching with cheap and proven launchers over in the USA).

[Oli]

Once they have Prometheus, they could "easily" make a Methalox Falcon 9 (i.e. Ariane Next).

Why even go with this 3.5m diameter Themis prototype?

Stinks of politics.

[hektor]

They do not want to kill Ariane 6 right away.

[ZachF]

They do not want to kill Ariane 6 right away.

Ariane 6 is basically already dead.

[Welsh Dragon]

They do not want to kill Ariane 6 right away.

Ariane 6 is basically already dead.

Nonsense. There is no way ESA will give up independent access to space. Commercially dead? Sure.

[Rik ISS-fan]

What I find most hilarious; is the fact that ArianeGroup is an European company, not a France company.
The GTO launch orders for Ariane 6 show it isn't commercially dead at all. It hasn't even launched jet.
But France politicians don't seem to realize that they are harming their launch industry by demanding the follow-on system before the maiden launch of Ariane 6.
The capability of the Maia launcher looks equal to RFA One and Spectrum from ISAR Aerospace. It should only use one Prometheus engine. They are late to the game and propose a less optimal configuration for reuse.
The engine development should happen first. Better develop Maia into a Rocketlab Neutron first stage or Methane Falcon9.
I wouldn't be surprised if the EU blocks this, because France is subsidizing one company, and by doing so, is disrupting the European market. ^{Any one discovered the 3th 10mln micro-launcher grand jet?}

[Closer to Space]

What I find most hilarious; is the fact that ArianeGroup is an European company, not a France company.

Arianegroup is 50% owned by Safran, which is a French company, and 50% by Airbus, which is also majority French. The headquarters and the majority of the facilities are in France.

If Arianegroup was really European, then the Germans would never have created Eurockot for example...

And by the way, Maļa Space is a simple subsidiary of Arianegroup.

[libra]

What I find most hilarious; is the fact that ArianeGroup is an European company, not a France company.

Arianegroup is 50% owned by Safran, which is a French company, and 50% by Airbus, which is also majority French. The headquarters and the majority of the facilities are in France.

If Arianegroup was really European, then the Germans would never have created Eurockot for example...

And by the way, Maļa Space is a simple subsidiary of Arianegroup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starsem

[Rik ISS-fan]

I think libra tried to point at this; From that wiki:

ArianeGroup's principal sites in 2016 were Issy-les-Moulineaux, Saint-Médard-en-Jalles, Kourou (space center), Vernon, Le Haillan and Les Mureaux in France as well as Lampoldshausen, Bremen and Ottobrunn in Germany.

Subsidiaries:   
Arianespace
Aerospace Propulsion Products B.V. (dutch company, igniters)
CILAS
Eurockot Launch Services
NUCLETUDES
Pyroalliance
Sodern

I hope Closer to Space gets the irony of his/here reply.
Why would there be the requirement to set up a (France) subsidiary if ArianeGroup was only from France.
The Vince engine was for the mayor part developed in Germany, AFAIK they also made the HM7B and Aestus engines. So with Vince and ULPM assembly/manufacturing in Germany and Vulcan/Prometheus and LLPM in France, and Avio, Italy making the P120C casings; the work for Ariane 6 is nicely devided.
Avio might develop de Vega L; Spain has PLDspace and Pangea Aerospace; Germany has Isar Aerospace; RFA and HyImpulse. In France there is Venture Orbital Systems; and there are pan European launcher initiatives funded by the EU. And now ArianeGroup France needs to undermine all this competition by creating Maia Space.
They better get their act together on Ariane 6 and Themis work first.

Chance this post is here next week <25%.

[Timber Micka]

I think libra tried to point at this; From that wiki:

ArianeGroup's principal sites in 2016 were Issy-les-Moulineaux, Saint-Médard-en-Jalles, Kourou (space center), Vernon, Le Haillan and Les Mureaux in France as well as Lampoldshausen, Bremen and Ottobrunn in Germany.

Subsidiaries:   
Arianespace
Aerospace Propulsion Products B.V. (dutch company, igniters)
CILAS
Eurockot Launch Services
NUCLETUDES
Pyroalliance
Sodern

The Vince engine was for the mayor part developed in Germany

No, Germany did not design the Vinci engine, only the static tests of the hardware took place there. Vinci was entirely designed in Vernon, France alongside Vulcain.
However, France has recently ceased to be the main financial contributor to the Ariane 6 project. It's Germany now. As a result, Arianespace has decided to relocate serial production of the Vinci engine to Germany, which will result in the loss of several hundred jobs in France. This caused controversy in France as Germany did not participate in the design of Ariane 6 apart from the Astrid upper stage.

Vinci is the result of 25 years of hard work in Vernon. Its design dates back to the origins of Ariane 5: the engine was to power the upper stage of the Ariane 5 ECB, which was to enter service a few years after Ariane 5 ECA. When the performance of Ariane 5 ECA proved to be more than sufficient, the Ariane 5 ECB project was put aside. It was renamed Ariane 5 ME and was continuously postponed until its cancellation around 5 years ago. Vinci was transferred to Ariane 6 shortly after.

In compensation for the relocation of the Vinci assembly lines, France and CNES retain the monopoly on the design of the reusable launcher that will succeed Ariane and its Prometheus engine, but this will not prevent the loss of jobs because currently there are only small teams working on these projects in Vernon.

Hope I helped clarify the situation.

[hektor]

The way you articulate it, it sounds like the French government(s) screwed up big time.

[gosnold]

ESA as a whole screwed up by not having Prometheus ready for Ariane 6. The rest is jsut the consequences of that.

[RoadWithoutEnd]

Thought for a moment that "Maļa" was a Silmarillion reference, but I guess it's more likely Greek (daughter of Atlas and mother of Hermes).

[libra]

ESA as a whole screwed up by not having Prometheus ready for Ariane 6. The rest is jsut the consequences of that.

TBH, turning point was 2014. One one hand, ESA screwed up on Ariane 6 with the CNES ugly solid-fuel design. On the other, it was the very year SpaceX truly rocked the barn and stormed the launch market for real, with early Falcon 9 variants. 2014 is the key moment the scales were tipped.

Since then Arianespace has carried on with Ariane 6 as a stopgap while acknowledging the time of reusable launchers had come at least: and Maiia is one side result of this.

I readily agree there is a lot of inertia and time lost compared to SpaceX: that's what happens when you get multiple state actors working together to get a large enough budget, and technical base: Europe as a whole, written large in space, for the best and for the worst. Plus the varied lobbies, notably the Franco-italian solid-fuel, are a nuisance.

[baldusi]

ESA as a whole screwed up by not having Prometheus ready for Ariane 6. The rest is jsut the consequences of that.

They did the best they could. If CNES had had it its way, Ariane 6 would have been built by CNES and be a mostly solid monster. They kept a mostly liquid Ariane 6, mostly industry designed, and got to work on the technologies needed for reusability (mostly Prometheus). Please remember that NASA personnel at the time was sure that the ATK entry (son of Ares-1) was the clear winner for Commercial Crew. It takes a lot to turn around the culture of these huge organizations.

[TrevorMonty]

ESA as a whole screwed up by not having Prometheus ready for Ariane 6. The rest is jsut the consequences of that.

Design choices on A6 were sound. Relying a new engine would most likely delay it by years. Just look at delays with Vulcan due to BE4 issues.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

[pippin]

ESA as a whole screwed up by not having Prometheus ready for Ariane 6. The rest is jsut the consequences of that.

Design choices on A6 were sound. Relying a new engine would most likely delay it by years. Just look at delays with Vulcan due to BE4 issues.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

And actually „delaying the whole thing for years“ would have been the only sound decision to be made about Ariane 6 at the time.
We’re all very lucky if the whole Ariane 6 project doesn’t end up being the death spell of the whole Ariane program.

[libra]

ESA as a whole screwed up by not having Prometheus ready for Ariane 6. The rest is jsut the consequences of that.

Design choices on A6 were sound. Relying a new engine would most likely delay it by years. Just look at delays with Vulcan due to BE4 issues.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

And actually „delaying the whole thing for years“ would have been the only sound decision to be made about Ariane 6 at the time.
We’re all very lucky if the whole Ariane 6 project doesn’t end up being the death spell of the whole Ariane program.

Well... no. Ariane 5 did wonders in the 2000's, but Hermes had made it a bloated, overpowered and unflexible launcher even before its first flight.
Arianespace made that lemon into lemonade by using its oversized lifting power for heavier and heavier comsats up to 7 mt, filling the 3 mt left (10 mt to GTO) with lighter comsats. They suceeded by literally "juggling" with their launch manifest, associating light and large, or two medium, comsats per flight. And they become pretty good at that: tweaking the launch manifest according to payload masses.

I would say that, as long as competition was essentially russian launchers - Proton and Sea Launch - it worked well.

But as soon as Falcon 9 apeared in 2010, Ariane 5 flaws, hidden by its smart launch schedule and lack of competition, become unbearable.

That's the reason why Ariane 5ME was dropped and Ariane 6 was accelerated - although mistakes were certainly made, notably by the CNES insistance on solids, and the pivot year of 2014 I already mentionned.

TBH, before Falcon 9 rocked the barn (say, circa 2012), Arianespace future launchers plans was
- existing Ariane 5
- Ariane 5 ME
- Ariane 6
This had to be scrapped in a hurry in 2014, for good or worse.

[pippin]

Nope. Doing that in a hurry was a huge mistake because what it got them was a multi-billion-Euro development program that resulted in just another launcher that is not going to be competitive.

For all that money it would have been cheaper to subsidize Ariane 5 a little more and then use the learnings from Falcon 9 for something better.

And when they made the decision this was already starting to become apparent. It was not yet clear whether reuse would pay off but what WAS already clear was, that IF it worked, it would dramatically change the landscape and render Ariane 6 uncompetitive.

So now they wasted all that money on both a launcher and a new pad and the result is a launcher that will require just as much subsidy as Ariane 5 and maybe even more due to the lower flight rates.

It remains to be seen whether ESA member states or France o whoever will now be ready to start yet another billion-Euro full-scale development program to replace a launcher already outdated on it's first flight.

If not, Ariane 6 is the end of the program.

And all of this just because CNES wanted to run a development program ASAP.

[edzieba]

For all that money it would have been cheaper to subsidize Ariane 5 a little more and then use the learnings from Falcon 9 for something better.

Financially, maybe.
But in terms of having an experienced workforce and industry to develop a new launcher, you need to start somewhere. Ariane 6 is a 'safe' launcher with little radically new, but it gets all the infrastructure into place for developing a more radical vehicle at a later date. Going straight to a reusable Ariane design would mean doing so from a standing start, and having to relearn the 'easy' lessons of an expendable launcher alongside new lessons of a reusable launcher.
And as maintaining a domestic capability is the entire point the Ariane programme exists in the first place, that has more value than just the financial cost of development or subsidisation.

[libra]

Except that in 2014 (third time...  ) Falcon 9 was just an expendable rocket among others. It went RLV in 2015 and beyond.

And Ariane 5ME was an even worse option, against Falcon 9, if it suceeded going RLV - which it did.

[JayWee]

Nice blast from the past:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20389148

19 November 2012

The Californian SpaceX chief executive Elon Musk has warned Europe it must replace its Ariane 5 rocket if it wants to keep up with his company.

And I do think I remember him telling Ariancespace that they should go reusable few years later.

[RedLineTrain]

Except that in 2014 (third time...  ) Falcon 9 was just an expendable rocket among others. It went RLV in 2015 and beyond.

And Ariane 5ME was an even worse option, against Falcon 9, if it suceeded going RLV - which it did.

I'm not sure that I understand your opinion fully, but of course the European industry was busy mocking SpaceX's reusability goals well before 2015.  For example, Arianespace at the infamous launch panel at the June 2013 Singapore Satellite Industry Forum.  The Grasshopper program was announced in 2011 after all.

The European industry was top-to-bottom on full notice at the initiation of Ariane 6 development.  Actually, it was on full notice at the initiation of serious discussions for Ariane 6.

[pippin]

Except that in 2014 (third time...  ) Falcon 9 was just an expendable rocket among others. It went RLV in 2015 and beyond.

That's what I said: it was unclear whether it would work, but SpaceX was already talking about it big time. It was also becoming apparent that Falcon 9 would be cheaper even in expendable mode.

The right decision at that point would have been to wait and do fundamental research into reuse yourself. Buy time.

And Ariane 5ME was an even worse option, against Falcon 9, if it suceeded going RLV - which it did.

To the contrary. Ariane 5 ME was a much better option. It would have met the goal @edzieba correctly mentions: to keep a qualified workforce. It would not have required building a new pad and infrastructure and it would have freed up a lot of money to do the very developments that Europe now has been falling behind on: technologies for reuse.
It doesn't matter that Ariane 5 ME would have been less competitive per flight. Even Ariane 6 will not fly very often, but the billions of Euros spent on development hurt because they will now be missing for development of new technologies.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Sorry but I don't see the relation of the competition between Ariane 6 and Falcon 9; with Maia Space, a France Ariane group subsidiary developing a Small launcher ~1mT to SSO 700km. Let's not redo the Ariane 6 discussion here, it's OFF TOPIC.
Again, this is a very unpleasant topic.

AFAIK the propper engine for Maia Space is ROMEO, not Prometheus. But Myra or Aquilla might be even better.
FLPP SCORE-D wasn't funded in 2012, that was the decision that lead to the Ariane 6 we know today.

Maia Space is a proposal for a reusable stage with a single engine, can this work? I think a design with multiple engines is more reliable for a reusable launcher.   

[Syl35]

AFAIK the propper engine for Maia Space is ROMEO, not Prometheus.

Maia Space is a proposal for a reusable stage with a single engine, can this work? I think a design with multiple engines is more reliable for a reusable launcher.

ROMEO?? It was a thrust chamber demonstrator, not a full engine like Prometheus. I don't think they will study another new engine, it will take to much time.

[libra]

...and I stick to my point, Ariane 5ME was no longer viable against Falcon 9; better to move, first to Ariane 6 and then to reusables.

As explained here.

https://www.frstrategie.org/web/documents/publications/autres/2017/2017-wohrer-these.pdf

And here, many times. Ariane 6 borrowed many elements from the canned Ariane 5ME except it was more flexible (no Hermes legacy) and thus cheaper.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ariane+5+ME%22%22Ariane+6%22%22cancelled%22

The plans before SpaceX disruption (2013-2015) was Ariane 5 ECA, Ariane 5 ME in 2016 as stop gap, Ariane 6 later: reusables not a priority as neither Falcon 9R nor Starlink had started at the time. The GEO comsat market was stagnating, as he had since the 1980's, and Arianespace ruled it, ahead of Proton. And it did not justified reusables, back then.
To Musk credit, he broke the deadlock and created his own cash cow with Starlink: feeding Falcon 9, 9R and Starship in the future.

Over the year 2014 they decided to skip Ariane 5ME and move straight to Ariane 6, and reusables... as soon as possible. Took many years, for sure...

[zubenelgenubi: edited search link]

[TrevorMonty]

Sorry but I don't see the relation of the competition between Ariane 6 and Falcon 9; with Maia Space, a France Ariane group subsidiary developing a Small launcher ~1mT to SSO 700km. Let's not redo the Ariane 6 discussion here, it's OFF TOPIC.
Again, this is a very unpleasant topic.

AFAIK the propper engine for Maia Space is ROMEO, not Prometheus. But Myra or Aquilla might be even better.
FLPP SCORE-D wasn't funded in 2012, that was the decision that lead to the Ariane 6 we know today.

Maia Space is a proposal for a reusable stage with a single engine, can this work? I think a design with multiple engines is more reliable for a reusable launcher.

Engine failures is something that shouldn't be driving configuration choices. LV is most economic when flying its max payload in which case engine failure in early part of launch will result in mission failure.

SpaceX SH will have engine out capabilities just because it has so many engines. Engine size and number was more do with engine development and build cost not  redundancy.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[floss]

It adds nothing but reinvents the wheel and does not grow the in-space economy one penny and costs a fortune wonder what satellites will be cut while multi-billions are spent on a high-tech park.

[Notaris]

AFAIK the propper engine for Maia Space is ROMEO, not Prometheus.

Maia Space is a proposal for a reusable stage with a single engine, can this work? I think a design with multiple engines is more reliable for a reusable launcher.

ROMEO?? It was a thrust chamber demonstrator, not a full engine like Prometheus. I don't think they will study another new engine, it will take to much time.

Romeo was the engine for the Airbus Space Plane project with a thrust chamber (life-time demo with many tests at P3 in Lampoldshausen) designed by at that time Astrium Space Transportation's Ottobrunn site and a Japanese turbo-pump (it was before the merger with SNECMA to form ArianeGroup and a certain reluctance of Airbus to have SNECMA (Vernon) in the project).

Thus definitely more than just a thrust chamber demonstrator, but certainly far from being a qualified engine. 

[hektor]

Behind a paywall unfortunately

French article on Maia Space

[hektor]

Does look like a semi reusable launcher like Falcon 9 rather than like the fully reusable launcher which was my original understanding

[gosnold]

There's a report than they are studying a reusable 2nd stage (human-rated too). But I can't find an official press release.

[Oli]

It's a whole family, though I don't quite see the point.



https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article236443431/Raumfahrt-Ariane-bekommt-kleine-Schwester-Maia.html

[Syl35]

Ther's a report than they are studying a reusable 2nd stage (human-rated too). But I can't find an official press release.

It is mentionned in an interview on BFMTV, a French news channel:

https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/entreprises/transports/au-dela-d-ariane-6-ariane-group-veut-miser-sur-le-reutilisable-et-le-vol-habite_AD-202201240289.html

"ArianeGroup offers a "reusable second stage concept" of a rocket, which could carry astronauts or satellites depending on the mission."

[Asteroza]

It's a whole family, though I don't quite see the point.



https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article236443431/Raumfahrt-Ariane-bekommt-kleine-Schwester-Maia.html

Interesting, the small single stick with explicit third stage seems to for high C3 missions and/or LH2 perhaps?

Going with an uncommon core in the heavy variants is a bit peculiar...

[Oli]

Interesting, the small single stick with explicit third stage seems to for high C3 missions and/or LH2 perhaps?

Going with an uncommon core in the heavy variants is a bit peculiar...

I imagine the small core can serve as a first stage for the small launcher and also replace the A6 boosters while retaining the A6 core for the time being. There's also a small storable prop kick stage called Astris in development that replaces the hydrolox upper stage, presumably for LEO payloads, similar to A5 ES.

[Asteroza]

Interesting, the small single stick with explicit third stage seems to for high C3 missions and/or LH2 perhaps?

Going with an uncommon core in the heavy variants is a bit peculiar...

I imagine the small core can serve as a first stage for the small launcher and also replace the A6 boosters while retaining the A6 core for the time being. There's also a small storable prop kick stage called Astris in development that replaces the hydrolox upper stage, presumably for LEO payloads, similar to A5 ES.

kick stage explains the lack of second stage on the heavy variant, second from the right...

[libra]

I strongly recommend to take BFM-TV "information" with a grain of salt the size of, say, Phobos (Mars moon I mean). Same for "Le Figaro". It's the usual business of "mass media discussing spaceflight".

[libra]

It seems that Maia will be a small branch of Arianespace (not sure TBH, could be Airbus space group) organized like a "startup" to get Maia off the ground faster and more efficiently that the usual cumbersome ESA and CNES and space ministries process.

Macron is particularly obsessed with the startup model, those days...

The gist of the idea is clearly to go "full startup mode" to move things faster.

[su27k]

France’s CNES: There’s a mini-launcher competition in Europe. We intend to win it

The French government will subsidize development of ArianeGroup’s Maia reusable mini-launcher, and other French mini-launchers as well, to meet a competitive threat from other European small launchers, the president of the French space agency, CNES, said.

The decision was made after France concluded that mini-launchers are not just proving grounds for technologies intended for larger vehicles, but commercially valuable assets in the emerging satellite market.

[RedLineTrain]

Good lord, what is the competitive threat from other European mini-launchers?

[Fabien]

Good lord, what is the competitive threat from other European mini-launchers?

Quite a lot : Isar aerospace, RFA, PLD Space, Venture Orbital Systems, Orbex....

[JEF_300]

Good lord, what is the competitive threat from other European mini-launchers?

Quite a lot : Isar aerospace, RFA, PLD Space, Venture Orbital Systems, Orbex....

Orbex just filed for a launch license actually, so any hope of "winning" seems fruitless. I mean, unless we're not counting the UK as Europe, which is honestly fair post-Brexit.

[RedLineTrain]

Good lord, what is the competitive threat from other European mini-launchers?

Quite a lot : Isar aerospace, RFA, PLD Space, Venture Orbital Systems, Orbex....

They are little threat to one another, at least for the foreseeable future.

[su27k]

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1534566188390535169

[email protected]'s small-launcher spinoff, #MaiaSpace, plans capital raise by early 2023, defends merits of combined expendable (for the business) and reusable (as tech demo for future Ariane) vehicle. @esa @cnes.https://bit.ly/3aQjyVJ

ArianeGroup small-launcher spinoff MaļaSpace plans capital raise by early 2023

Talk about high expectations: When French Economics Minister Bruno Le Maire announced the creation of small-launcher developer MaļaSpace, he said the company’s future reusable rocket ultimately would lead to Europe’s having its own “SpaceX, its own Falcon 9.”

To make that success more likely, he said France needed to abandon its scruples when it comes to subsidizing high-value sectors like space: https://www.spaceintelreport.com/in-commercial-and-military-space-france-is-pulling-europe-toward-a-more-active-government-role/

[Fmedici]

https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1554208552293748740

[Steven Pietrobon]

From the tweet.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/andrewparsonson/status/1571031216949788674

Small update from MaiaSpace: Maia will be capable of carrying 1,500 kg payloads to orbit in an expendable configuration. This is reduced by two-thirds to just 500 kg when it's being recovered. This shows the huge payload tax that's required for recovering these small vehicles.

[libra]

French PM Elizabeth Borne spoke at IAC: France will pour 9 billion euros into its space program(s) - ESA and CNES - within the next three years.

[john smith 19]

Orbex just filed for a launch license actually, so any hope of "winning" seems fruitless. I mean, unless we're not counting the UK as Europe, which is honestly fair post-Brexit.

You do know that both Israel and Canada are members of ESA, right?

[john smith 19]

It seems that Maia will be a small branch of Arianespace (not sure TBH, could be Airbus space group) organized like a "startup" to get Maia off the ground faster and more efficiently that the usual cumbersome ESA and CNES and space ministries process.

Macron is particularly obsessed with the startup model, those days...

The gist of the idea is clearly to go "full startup mode" to move things faster.

So French.  Do what America did a decade ago.

If they were to consider a wider definition of "European" (as ESA does).
<sigh>   

[JEF_300]

Orbex just filed for a launch license actually, so any hope of "winning" seems fruitless. I mean, unless we're not counting the UK as Europe, which is honestly fair post-Brexit.

You do know that both Israel and Canada are members of ESA, right?

Yes, but you'll note I was responding to a post about "the competitive threat from other European mini-launchers". Regardless of their status in the ESA, I wouldn't call a Canadian or Israeli launcher a "European mini-launchers", and seriously doubt they'd be competitive within the EU (without a major advantage like reusability).

[hektor]

Canada is a Cooperating State within ESA, not a member state. Israel has a cooperation agreement with ESA but is not a member state of ESA.

[hektor]

It is far more difficult, performance wise, to do a small reusable launcher - even a partially reusable one - than a bigger one ; so they are really going after something difficult. But obviously they did not want to make Ariane 6 irrelevant by making a partially reusable launcher of comparable performance.

[Robotbeat]

It is far more difficult, performance wise, to do a small reusable launcher - even a partially reusable one - than a bigger one ; so they are really going after something difficult. But obviously they did not want to make Ariane 6 irrelevant by making a partially reusable launcher of comparable performance.

I don’t necessarily agree. Small may be difficult for financial reasons, but it’s not significantly harder technically and in fact opens up the trade space to things like helicopter recovery ala Electron.

[Try_NBS]

Don't forget Maia is just the beginning of ArianeGroup reusable launchers. As we can see on this video.

[Steven Pietrobon]

From left to right. I think only the Heavy Launcher is worth developing. The smaller payloads launched by the Mini and Medium can be carried by the Heavy with RTLS to reduce costs. Instead of Very Heavy, orbital refilling should be used to increase performance above that of Heavy.

Mini Launcher - 3 Prometheus engines on first stage, lightweight second stage.

Medium Launcher - 5 Prometheus engines on first stage, 1 Prometheus engine on second stage.

Heavy Launcher - 9 Prometheus engines on first stage, 1 Prometheus engine on second stage.

Very Heavy Launcher - Heavy Launcher with two Mini Launcher boosters.

Crewed Launcher - Heavy Launcher with SUSIE.

[TrevorMonty]

From left to right. I think only the Heavy Launcher is worth developing. The smaller payloads launched by the Mini and Medium can be carried by the Heavy with RTLS to reduce costs. Instead of Very Heavy, orbital refilling should be used to increase performance above that of Heavy.

Mini Launcher - 3 Prometheus engines on first stage, lightweight second stage.

Medium Launcher - 5 Prometheus engines on first stage, 1 Prometheus engine on second stage.

Heavy Launcher - 9 Prometheus engines on first stage, 1 Prometheus engine on second stage.

Very Heavy Launcher - Heavy Launcher with two Mini Launcher boosters.

Crewed Launcher - Heavy Launcher with SUSIE.

I'd leave small LV market to european startups and concentrate on f9 equivalent plus heavy version ie FH equivalent and use that to supply fuel depot. Side boosters RTLS and core downrange on a barge.

[Try_NBS]

I think we must to know the capacities of the different launchers before saying anyone has no use.

[woods170]

French PM Elizabeth Borne spoke at IAC: France will pour 9 billion euros into its space program(s) - ESA and CNES - within the next three years.

This is a 25% increase over current budgets. Quite substantial.

[baldusi]

Now that RocketLabs has switched Archimedes to an 890kN ORSC methalox with a launch target of 2024, will ESA insist on gas generator Prometheus? It would look like SpaceX, Blue, ULA and RocketLabs are doing reusable staged combustion methalox. RFA is also doing SC, albeit in kerolox. Getting reusability right needs lots of extra delta-v. And if they don't pull a Merlin-like efficiency out of gas generator, they will be in quite a bit of trouble.

[Try_NBS]

We will see soon if all is ok with Prometheus. Yes, it's the first european methalox engine. But the conception of the motor is slow, and we know the expertise of the european industrials. They will do all what they can do to build a reliable engine.

[Alpha_Centauri]

Now that RocketLabs has switched Archimedes to an 890kN ORSC methalox with a launch target of 2024, will ESA insist on gas generator Prometheus? It would look like SpaceX, Blue, ULA and RocketLabs are doing reusable staged combustion methalox. RFA is also doing SC, albeit in kerolox. Getting reusability right needs lots of extra delta-v. And if they don't pull a Merlin-like efficiency out of gas generator, they will be in quite a bit of trouble.

The emphasis of the Prometheus project is reducing manufacturing cost, and hence per unit price.

In Europe there is scepticism that the portion of the international launch market that is available is sufficient for engine reuse to be financially viable. So they are hedging their bets by producing an engine that is cheap enough to use expendibly if required.

Making Prometheus staged combustion would significantly raise the per unit cost.

[hektor]

Official web site

maia-space.com

[Rik ISS-fan]

I'll share my opinion.
The Themis demonstrator and the mini version of Maia derived from it don't make sense to me.
It directly competes with RFA One, ISAR Spectrum (and I think Avio demo rocket).
With only 3 (1MN Prometheus) engines on the first stage, very deep throttling is required for propulsive landing. The mini Maia launcher has 3MN thrust for a payload equivalent to these mini launchers, all with only ~1MN thrust. So the competitors are likely more efficient, with lower G-load.

The Heavy and super heavy versions are good designs. I'm unsure about the medium version.
Arianegroup (France) tried to make launcher designs for the whole market with only the Prometheus engine.
But European competitors are developing other engines that can result in better launcher designs.
If Italy funds the development by Avio of a ~0.5MN engine. Most likely the Vega Next Gen, a reusable stage with 7 - 9 of these engines are superior to the Maia Medium with 5 1MN Prometheus engines.
I think this stage could replace the P120C(+) if launch demand remains high.
And than there is the disruptor Pangea Aerospace that is developing Aerospike engines. In theory aerospike engines should be superior for reusable boosters and first stages.

I think Europe requires 5 sizes of launchers. (and several suborbital rockets)
Micro: <0.5mT to SSO expendable/ ~2mT ~200km suborbital, reusable.
Mini: (Vega successor) 1-1.5mT to SSO .
Medium (Soyuz replacement) 3-5mT to SSO.
Heavy: >15mT LEO / ~5mT to GTO
Super Heavy: >20mT to LEO; >10mT GTO; >6mT Escape.
For extremely heavy, Europe can let a partner contribute launch service.

Possibly with two heavy Maia boosters, a 3-5 engine core and a enlarged Susie with multiple M10 engines, a fully reusable super heavy launcher can be developed. 
In my opinion Maia space should focus on the (super) Heavy development.
But because of the size, stage reuse technology should have been mastered before this development can start.
I think France could use Sirius 1 from Sirius Space Services to master space reuse technology. _{(micro launcher)}
I expect with lower funding the results will be achieved sooner. But this are just the ideas of a space enthousiast.

[Steven Pietrobon]

I think Europe requires 5 sizes of launchers. (and several suborbital rockets)

SpaceX shows that you only need one (Falcon 9) to dominate the market. Build your vehicle a little bigger than Falcon 9 and you cover both Falcon Heavy and Starship (for payloads larger than 25 t, split them into smaller chunks).

[TrevorMonty]

I think Europe requires 5 sizes of launchers. (and several suborbital rockets)

SpaceX shows that you only need one (Falcon 9) to dominate the market. Build your vehicle a little bigger than Falcon 9 and you cover both Falcon Heavy and Starship (for payloads larger than 25 t, split them into smaller chunks).

A single core F9R equivalent would handle most of their missions. Add A6 SRBs for high performance missions and operate as ELV.

Cheaper to add SRBs they already have than try to design FHR equivalent which rarely flies.

[Zed_Noir]

I think Europe requires 5 sizes of launchers. (and several suborbital rockets)

SpaceX shows that you only need one (Falcon 9) to dominate the market. Build your vehicle a little bigger than Falcon 9 and you cover both Falcon Heavy and Starship (for payloads larger than 25 t, split them into smaller chunks).

A single core F9R equivalent would handle most of their missions. Add A6 SRBs for high performance missions and operate as ELV.

Cheaper to add SRBs they already have than try to design FHR equivalent which rarely flies.

Will point out that there is a limit to the number of A6/Vega-C SRB that can be poured at Kourou. Estimate the current limit is about 20 SRB annually. The locals around Kourou prefer less A6/Vega-C SRB being manufactured there, AIUI.

Guessing what @Steve Pietrobon is hinting at is a down-sized New Glenn equivalent. However the Europeans don't really have a suitable engine available. Unless they acquire some recent American cryogenic engines.

[TheKutKu]

I think Europe requires 5 sizes of launchers. (and several suborbital rockets)

SpaceX shows that you only need one (Falcon 9) to dominate the market. Build your vehicle a little bigger than Falcon 9 and you cover both Falcon Heavy and Starship (for payloads larger than 25 t, split them into smaller chunks).

A single core F9R equivalent would handle most of their missions. Add A6 SRBs for high performance missions and operate as ELV.

Cheaper to add SRBs they already have than try to design FHR equivalent which rarely flies.

None of the SRBs they already have (P120, P120+, whatever)  is exactly easy or cheaper to add to a rocket, probably not any more than making a multi-core variant of this Maia.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Guessing what @Steve Pietrobon is hinting at is a down-sized New Glenn equivalent. However the Europeans don't really have a suitable engine available. Unless they acquire some recent American cryogenic engines.

The 980 kN Prometheus is a good place to start. Have nine on a reusable first stage and one on the second. That should give performance as good as Falcon 9.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/andrewparsonson/status/1613112397790584832

THEMIS! The @ArianeGroup Themis reusable launch booster demonstrator has arrived in Sweden ahead of the inauguration of the Esrange orbital launch facility on Friday. This is the first time we've got to see a Themis booster. Credit: Mia Kleregård of @SSCspace on LinkedIn

[TrevorMonty]

I think Europe requires 5 sizes of launchers. (and several suborbital rockets)

SpaceX shows that you only need one (Falcon 9) to dominate the market. Build your vehicle a little bigger than Falcon 9 and you cover both Falcon Heavy and Starship (for payloads larger than 25 t, split them into smaller chunks).

A single core F9R equivalent would handle most of their missions. Add A6 SRBs for high performance missions and operate as ELV.

Cheaper to add SRBs they already have than try to design FHR equivalent which rarely flies.

None of the SRBs they already have (P120, P120+, whatever)  is exactly easy or cheaper to add to a rocket, probably not any more than making a multi-core variant of this Maia.

They've done design work for A6 which will use 2-4 P120 SRBs. Given how few times FH launches I wouldn't many launches would require SRBs.

[Mamut]

Themis arrived in Sweden?
https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1613112397790584832

[Rik ISS-fan]

Will point out that there is a limit to the number of A6/Vega-C SRB that can be poured at Kourou. Estimate the current limit is about 20 SRB annually. The locals around Kourou prefer less A6/Vega-C SRB being manufactured there, AIUI.

Back up that estimate with a source please.
Afaik the limit is around 35 P120C annually.

I think it's odd Themis (mini Maia 1th stage) arrived at Esrange before Callisto.
I thought 1MN thrust was above  the limit for Esrange LZ-3.  Themis is 3x as powerful.
But the limit is 15mT TNT- equivalent, so amount of propallent is limited.
I'm don't know how to convert the TNT equivalent into rocket size allowed.
But Themis is a ridiculously large demonstrator for it's purpose. 
Sirius-1 (multiple pressure feed engines, possible Prometheus gas generator derived) would have been much more logical in my oppinion.

I also want the Maia heavy to be the focus for Maia space/ArianeGroup-France. A 5.4m diameter stage with 7 to 9 Prometheus (Gas Generator) or a staged combustion engines. This could be produced alongside the Ariane 6 LLPM (core).
Heavy could use a modified ULPM, with more powerful Vince, or a Prometheus/M60 powered stage.
The super heavy could use two Maia heavy boosters, with a expendable LLPM, or Maia Heavy with less engines as expendable core. With the same upperstages.

The problem is that if Avio is allowed and able to develop the M60 (ACE-60) and Vega Next gen (3.4m diameter with 7-9 M60 engines) This is similar to the Maia medium and better suitable to be integrated with Ariane 6.

Arianegoup proposes what delivers work for them. Avio does the same. And it's ESA employees or politicians who decide what proposal gets funded. Risks are way to high for private funding (in Europe).
Both Themis/ Maia space Mini and Avio TSTO demo rocket, ruļne the commercial mini/micro launcher market in Europe.
Why invest into a competing system to a fully state funded launcher?!
.
Edit to note that these ideas for launcher might launch n.e.t. 2030s.  This decade Europe needs Ariane 6, Vega-C/E and some smaller rockets. In my oppinion the micro/ mini launchers should be left to the commercial market.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Sorry, but how many second of engine burning time have been achieved on the two demonstrator Prometheus engines?
Is this enough for a demonstrator rocket. NO, Far to few to use it on a reusable stage demonstrator.
Where has commen sence gone to?

[TheKutKu]

Will point out that there is a limit to the number of A6/Vega-C SRB that can be poured at Kourou. Estimate the current limit is about 20 SRB annually. The locals around Kourou prefer less A6/Vega-C SRB being manufactured there, AIUI.

Back up that estimate with a source please.
Afaik the limit is around 35 P120C annually.

I think it's odd Themis (mini Maia 1th stage) arrived at Esrange before Callisto.
I thought 1MN thrust was above  the limit for Esrange LZ-3.  Themis is 3x as powerful.
But the limit is 15mT TNT- equivalent, so amount of propallent is limited.
I'm don't know how to convert the TNT equivalent into rocket size allowed.
But Themis is a ridiculously large demonstrator for it's purpose. 
Sirius-1 (multiple pressure feed engines, possible Prometheus gas generator derived) would have been much more logical in my oppinion.

I also want the Maia heavy to be the focus for Maia space/ArianeGroup-France. A 5.4m diameter stage with 7 to 9 Prometheus (Gas Generator) or a staged combustion engines. This could be produced alongside the Ariane 6 LLPM (core).
Heavy could use a modified ULPM, with more powerful Vince, or a Prometheus/M60 powered stage.
The super heavy could use two Maia heavy boosters, with a expendable LLPM, or Maia Heavy with less engines as expendable core. With the same upperstages.

The problem is that if Avio is allowed and able to develop the M60 (ACE-60) and Vega Next gen (3.4m diameter with 7-9 M60 engines) This is similar to the Maia medium and better suitable to be integrated with Ariane 6.

Arianegoup proposes what delivers work for them. Avio does the same. And it's ESA employees or politicians who decide what proposal gets funded. Risks are way to high for private funding (in Europe).
Both Themis/ Maia space Mini and Avio TSTO demo rocket, ruļne the commercial mini/micro launcher market in Europe.
Why invest into a competing system to a fully state funded launcher?!

The Themis vehicle that is supposed to be tested at Esrange is Themis 1 with only 1 prometheus engine, plus the engine is throtlable down to 30%.

1 T TNT = 4.2 GJ; CH4 = 55 MG/kg, so amount of Methane limited to ~1.1 tons; or about 5 tons of propellant at 3.5:1 ratio (Fuel tank is for 130 tons).
Not a whole lot, if the Prometheus is 1000 kN/350 isp then that's only 20 seconds of full thrust; 1 minute throttled down. But it's only supposed to do 100m hops, if you look it up on youtube, SpaceX's grasshopper hops were no longer than 1 minute.

Furthermore the conversion of energy to "explosive energy" is not perfect since propellant tanks aren't designed to explode lol. So there's margin beyond these 5 tons.

Callisto is a mostly separate project (JAXA's follow up to RVT->RV-X with CNES and DLR grafted on), Themis is pure Arianegroup skunkwork with CNES, ONERA, ESA participation and some French, Belgian and Swiss industrials. Arianework (and now Maiaspace since last august, lots of overlap between the two) was designed to be a more flexible, it would make no sense to wait for an international institutional program which faces delays (was supposed to fly in 2021...).

Sirius was made after Arianeworks and Themis afaik, plus it's less advanced.


To me, Maiaspace has two goals:
1) Offer a direct and targeted competition, or at least the appearance of one, to Avio and OHB (RFA), based on reusing as much of Themis (which was partially publicily funded by ESA CNES ONERA..)

2) Prove that AG has forward thinking and innovation capabilities so that they still get picked as the prime contractor for the post-A6 ESA launcher funding. Everybody knows that if A6 doesn't do well (both on the commercial and institutional market), there is a risk that AG-AS and the CSG will be left behind for the post-A6 (which will surely come sooner than the gap from A5 to A6) and european launcher industry will be split in purely French, German, Italian interests.

In this context, it makes no sense to focus on Maia heavy which would be slower to develop and outsized, plus it would also compete with A62! You can be sure that AG will want to receive funding and subsidies for a institutionnal heavy launcher.

[TheKutKu]

Sorry, but how many second of engine burning time have been achieved on the two demonstrator Prometheus engines?
Is this enough for a demonstrator rocket. NO, Far to few to use it on a reusable stage demonstrator.
Where has commen sence gone to?

From what I've read their goal was only to do short (<5s) tests at Vernon before moving quickly to Kiruna. The prometheus full scale test fire were directly done on a Themis tank after all.
I wouldn't be surprised if the engine come much later however.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/andrewparsonson/status/1613772223818469377

It looks like we're going to have to wait another year before the first hop test of the @ArianeGroup Themis reusable booster demonstrator.

Text on booster sign:

The European space launcher's reusable first stage demonstrator
First lift off in 2024 from Spaceport Esrange, Sweden.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/andrewparsonson/status/1613895083539009537

MaiaSpace finally has a website - https://maia-space.com/

[TrevorMonty]

https://twitter.com/andrewparsonson/status/1613895083539009537

MaiaSpace finally has a website - https://maia-space.com/

Wish they came up with different design than mini F9R booster for recovery. Blue, RL and Stoke are trying different ideas. Aircraft industry tried lots of different tail, wing and land gear configurations before settling on standard layouts now.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/andrewparsonson/status/1615967880285421568

During an interview with @B_SMART_TV MaiaSpace CEO  Yohann Leroy described the challenges of implementing reusability in a small launch vehicle.

https://europeanspaceflight.com/maiaspace-ceo-admits-reusing-small-launchers-is-a-challenging-prospect/