Q: Is CNES already looking ahead to Europe’s next space launch system?Le Gall: We need to start work on that now. When Ariane 6 got the go-ahead at the ESA ministerial council meeting in Luxembourg in December 2014, we were able to get the program on the rails quickly because CNES had started the conceptual studies back in 2007–2008. That’s why we’re continuing to focus on the future with the new Prometheus methane-liquid oxygen engine and the Callisto technology demonstrator.
ESA launcher director Neuenschwander: We wanted EUR 100M for reusable LOX/methane engine, we got EUR 83. So program can start.#ESACM16
Joel Barre, deputy director of the French space agency, CNES, said after the ministerial conference that France is paying the vast majority of the Prometheus program so as not to lose development time.[...] Barre said France is determined to test reusability technologies.
20 April 2016PROMETHEE, an evolution towards European launch systems at very low costWith the PROMETHEE engine, CNES and Airbus Safran Launchers are preparing European launch systems at very low cost.Since its inception, the Ariane 5 launcher has been a remarkable success. To date, the European pitcher has completed a series of 71 successful consecutive launches.As early as 2020, Ariane 6 will continue this success, especially in the face of the significant emergence of new players in the field of space transportation and at a cost twice as low as Ariane 5.Indeed, fueled by new investors and the multiplication of innovative applications, the environment of the space sector is changing rapidly, whether from the satellites or the launch services offered by new players. All indications are that these new operators will continue their efforts to reduce the costs of access to space by 2025/2035.For A competitive launcher beyond Ariane 6In order for Europe to continue to have a competitive launcher beyond Ariane 6 in the long term, CNES, in partnership with Airbus Safran Launchers, is preparing to develop new engines to Production costs and increase the pace of launch. "We think we need to work on a new engine that could be reusable but, beyond that, we need a much cheaper engine than the ones we are currently using, which has to be reduced by a factor of Whether it is a reusable engine or not, "explained Jean-Marc Astorg, CNES launcher director in the February-March 2016 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology.PROMETHEE (Precursor Reusable Oxygen METHane cost Effective Engine), 100 T LOX / Methane thrust gas generating cycle engine, will be an evolution towards very low cost European launch systems. The goal is to have a launcher that will cost twice as much as Ariane 6 with technologies of the 21st century. The first PROMETHEE engine bench tests are planned for 2018.The studies currently under way, jointly carried out by ASL and the CNES launcher division, have made it possible to define technological solutions capable of meeting the very low cost objectives of this engine. In parallel, prototyping of some parts has already been launched.Through PROMETHEE, the objective is also to reduce engine development times, notably by using the latest technologies in 3D printing.The Promethee engine could lead to launchers ten times cheaper than at present. Credits: CNES
http://web.archive.org/web/20160827123254/https://ariane.cnes.fr/fr/moteur-promethee-une-evolution-vers-des-systemes-de-lancements-europeens-tres-bas-coutGoogle translate:Quote20 April 2016PROMETHEE, an evolution towards European launch systems at very low costWith the PROMETHEE engine, CNES and Airbus Safran Launchers are preparing European launch systems at very low cost.Since its inception, the Ariane 5 launcher has been a remarkable success. To date, the European pitcher has completed a series of 71 successful consecutive launches.As early as 2020, Ariane 6 will continue this success, especially in the face of the significant emergence of new players in the field of space transportation and at a cost twice as low as Ariane 5.Indeed, fueled by new investors and the multiplication of innovative applications, the environment of the space sector is changing rapidly, whether from the satellites or the launch services offered by new players. All indications are that these new operators will continue their efforts to reduce the costs of access to space by 2025/2035.For A competitive launcher beyond Ariane 6In order for Europe to continue to have a competitive launcher beyond Ariane 6 in the long term, CNES, in partnership with Airbus Safran Launchers, is preparing to develop new engines to Production costs and increase the pace of launch. "We think we need to work on a new engine that could be reusable but, beyond that, we need a much cheaper engine than the ones we are currently using, which has to be reduced by a factor of Whether it is a reusable engine or not, "explained Jean-Marc Astorg, CNES launcher director in the February-March 2016 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology.PROMETHEE (Precursor Reusable Oxygen METHane cost Effective Engine), 100 T LOX / Methane thrust gas generating cycle engine, will be an evolution towards very low cost European launch systems. The goal is to have a launcher that will cost twice as much as Ariane 6 with technologies of the 21st century. The first PROMETHEE engine bench tests are planned for 2018.The studies currently under way, jointly carried out by ASL and the CNES launcher division, have made it possible to define technological solutions capable of meeting the very low cost objectives of this engine. In parallel, prototyping of some parts has already been launched.Through PROMETHEE, the objective is also to reduce engine development times, notably by using the latest technologies in 3D printing.The Promethee engine could lead to launchers ten times cheaper than at present. Credits: CNES
Its not an FFSC Methalox LRE so it will have a very tough fight on their hands with Raptor, and BE-4 LRE families in the States.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 12/04/2016 06:45 pmIts not an FFSC Methalox LRE so it will have a very tough fight on their hands with Raptor, and BE-4 LRE families in the States.BE-4 is also not a full flow staged combustion engine, it is an Oxigen rich staged combustion engine. Both BE-4 and Raptor 1&3 MN are multi billion rocket engine development programs. That take at least five years of development time. I think CNES wants a cheap and fast rocket engine development after the disastrous Vince engine program. Promethee should cost less then one million where Vulcain2.1 costs roughty ten million.I expect the following will happen. With the transition from Vega to Vega-C the 139mT launchet with 1.4mT payload changes into a 200mT launcher with 2.3mT payload. Vega-C still will use (toxic) solids and (toxic) hypergolic liquids. The VUS (Myra or possibly HM7C) Vega 3th stage will eliminate the hypergolics and boosts Vega-E performance further. If I'm not mistaken this is a subject for the 2019 ministerial.I've seen already two <500kg satellite launcher proposals that look like they will use a Romeo derived first stage engine. They first will launch expendable, but possibly later?? A 80mT GLOW singele promethee first stage and the VUS as second stage will form a nice expendable <1mT satellite launch vehicle. The most logical path to reusability in my oppinion would be to try to softly land this first stage in the ocean.The promethee stage on top of an ESR (P142) with optionally an VUS will form a nice launcher with slightly more capability then Vega-E, I guess up to 4mT payload.Experiments with highly reusable engines and stages will happen on 35kN scale engines, as is already ongoing. If these smaller scale reusable stages have proven a path to an efficient business case with less then 20 annual launches. I expect a Ariane 7 program with reusable single, 5 and 7 engine first stages and expendable VUS, Romeo and Promethee upper-stages. I expect Vince and even HM-7 will still be used for a long time. For really heavy >50mT payloads even Vulcan can remain in use. But I don't see a market for such an insanely large launch vehicle.Don't forget the only flown reusable launch vehicle was the space shuttle. And was that such a succes? My oppinion is that a 10% failure rate as Falcon9, Proton and Zenith have shown are not acceptable. Even the 3% soyuz has shown is to low if you ask me. With the high launch cost of ULA launchers or Ariane 5 the launch cost is rarely more then half as expensive as the payload. I think it is much more important to have a launcher available when needed, that is reliable. Launch cost is much less of a priority.Also don't forget that these agencies have fresh memories of programs like Hermes, Ariane 5 ME/Vince, Crew Reentry Vehicle, ATV/Orion service module, Expert, PAZ, QB-50, ACES (ISS atomic clock), EDR-2 (ESA magnatic furnice rack), etc. And I forgot to name the financial situation in France, Italy, Spain, the UK, Irland, Portugal. Not that the situation in the USA is any better.
