Ariane 6 and crewed ARV?

[pierre]

I have a few questions...

What's the relation between the French proposal to replace Ariane 5 with Ariane 6 in 2020-2025 and the ESA plans to launch crews on an ARV derivative in 2020?

All ESA presentations show the ARV on top of an Ariane 5. Does it make sense to manrate Ariane 5 if it will be used for crewed missions only for a few years?

Or the plan will be revised to use Ariane 6 right from the start of the crewed flights? If this is the case, does it mean that the first human mission will be delayed from 2020 to around 2025?

Ariane 6 will probably be modular, but apparently even the "heavy" version will be less capable than Ariane 5; will this have effects on the ARV?

Thanks in advance for any answer!

[Stephan]

What's the relation between the French proposal to replace Ariane 5 with Ariane 6 in 2020-2025 and the ESA plans to launch crews on an ARV derivative in 2020?

It's not an official proposal, that's more a study. And it's not very clear that this launcher is aimed to replace Ariane 5, in my opinion it's more something to close the gap between Vega and Ariane 5. In fact the report pushes for Ariane 5 Evolution development.

[nooneofconsequence]

...All ESA presentations show the ARV on top of an Ariane 5. Does it make sense to manrate Ariane 5 if it will be used for crewed missions only for a few years?...

ATV itself is a development project. ARV is a development project. Neither requires a manned presence, so no manned rating for Ariane 5.
ARV is just a "down payload" ATV derivative.

Has nothing to do with a real manned program for ESA. But ... it proves the capability, just like ATV did/will.

The EU is not going to go all out on an obvious manned space project. They will incrementally get into manned space. As they should. Low cost and low risk. Never quick.

add: Always King Log. Never King Stork.

[mmeijeri]

The EU is not going to go all out on an obvious manned space project. They will incrementally get into manned space. As they should. Low cost and low risk. Never quick.

Suppose that the Obama administration were to decide to invite ESA to use Ariane 5 as a backup launcher for Orion, both as part of an effort to close the gap and as part of an effort to reach out to international partners. That could have ... interesting results. ESA would have to pay for it of course, the commander and pilot would have to be US citizens, and ESA would not get to own Orions. Still, I'd be surprised if ESA turned down such an offer. Now that would be American leadership.

[robertross]

The EU is not going to go all out on an obvious manned space project. They will incrementally get into manned space. As they should. Low cost and low risk. Never quick.

Suppose that the Obama administration were to decide to invite ESA to use Ariane 5 as a backup launcher for Orion, both as part of an effort to close the gap and as part of an effort to reach out to international partners. That could have ... interesting results. ESA would have to pay for it of course, the commander and pilot would have to be US citizens, and ESA would not get to own Orions. Still, I'd be surprised if ESA turned down such an offer. Now that would be American leadership.

If they were invited, I think (imo) they would still persue the incremental approach. Too many mistakes have been made on foolish ambitions. The turtle always seems to win in the end, and I applaud their accomplishments to date. They have one heck of a rocket! They did a great job with ATV. Let's give them their space.

[Jim]

Suppose that the Obama administration were to decide to invite ESA to use Ariane 5 as a backup launcher for Orion, both as part of an effort to close the gap

never will happen on both sides

[mmeijeri]

If they were invited, I think (imo) they would still persue the incremental approach. Too many mistakes have been made on foolish ambitions. The turtle always seems to win in the end, and I applaud their accomplishments to date. They have one heck of a rocket! They did a great job with ATV. Let's give them their space.

I agree they would still pursue the incremental approach, as they should and as I wish NASA would do too. ATV -> ARV -> CRV -> fully functional capsule. But Ariane 5 was designed with man-rating in mind (for the long since cancelled Hermes spaceplane) and being able to use it as a backup launcher for Orion would allow that capability to be used earlier.

[mmeijeri]

never will happen on both sides

Why are you so sure about this? There was a rumour the Obama transition team had asked about this. It sounds like something even the French would like.

[robertross]

I agree they would still pursue the incremental approach, as they should and as I wish NASA would do too. ATV -> ARV -> CRV -> fully functional capsule. But Ariane 5 was designed with man-rating in mind (for the long since cancelled Hermes spaceplane) and being able to use it as a backup launcher for Orion would allow that capability to be used earlier.

The US has more than enough domestic capability available to them to launch Orion: Delta 4H, Atlas V, Direct (hopefully), Ares-I (heaven help the treasury).

If ESA goes it alone with their own spacecraft they may actually be able to employ features like complete safety systems & radiation shielding...something Orion had removed from it.

[nooneofconsequence]

Suppose that the Obama administration were to decide to invite ESA to use Ariane 5 as a backup launcher for Orion, both as part of an effort to close the gap

never will happen on both sides

Yup. Historically every time it's tried it gets shut down. I think the last time was X-38 IIRC. Between governments it won't happen.

Commercially it *might* happen - but only if the vendor *only* did the capsule/plane/vehicle and *not* LV's. Keep telling those that talk to the Dragon guys they should play the exception to this rule - but I doubt it will be listened too (in this case there are issues). Too much to be made in selling the whole package together, and too much to be lost on being responsible for everyone else's technology. They don't wish to play fair.

However, if I was selling these vehicles, I'd want as large a market and as frequent a sale as possible. Because I could dominate a small, expensive market and cheaply gain an advantage of being most reliable/dependable.

[mmeijeri]

Yup. Historically every time it's tried it gets shut down. I think the last time was X-38 IIRC. Between governments it won't happen.

What is it that makes sure this gets shut down every time? And what do you make of the questions about Orion on Ariane 5 in the transition team questionnaire?

[nooneofconsequence]

Yup. Historically every time it's tried it gets shut down. I think the last time was X-38 IIRC. Between governments it won't happen.

What is it that makes sure this gets shut down every time? And what do you make of the questions about Orion on Ariane 5 in the transition team questionnaire?

Lets take X-38 first. There was joint ESA/NASA work:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V1N-4FM5CVM-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=07b7541a8ad4c1c190b08198573b67f2
With DLR:
http://www.dlr.de/bk/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-4520/7396_read-10111/

And it could be launched on Ariane-5:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/photo/X-38/HTML/index.html

It was also mostly complete. Actually still might be completed.

The real reason it was killed was because not everyone in DC wanted to share technologies/development across borders. Because you wouldn't know where it might go. If you think some have trouble with the necessity of ITAR, this takes it much, much further.

Both sides felt burned by X-38. And it was just a CRV.

But yes Obama wants to do space collaboration.  But does this mean he can get EVERYONE in two to N governments to play by the rules, assuming he can even ... describe them?

[veryrelaxed]

If I may say so there is a little bit of hand waving wrt the wishful ATV->CRV transition.  There is nothing that I can see that would put the ATV on a fast tract to a re-entry capable vehicle.  An ATV 'type' of system would make a great service module perhaps, but a re-entry human carrying capable module?  Still need a lot of design.  Might as well start from scratch.  (BAE had a good design ideas back in the 80s, but they were buried with all the Hermes spaceplane bruhaha)

[Space Lizard]

Re-entry is not the biggest show-stopper. ARD paved the way quite nicely in 1997. Safety at launch is much more tricky when flying from Kourou. It's even a problem if we consider flying manned Soyuz from there.

[ckiki lwai]

Re-entry is not the biggest show-stopper. ARD paved the way quite nicely in 1997. Safety at launch is much more tricky when flying from Kourou. It's even a problem if we consider flying manned Soyuz from there.

Why exactly?

[nooneofconsequence]

Suggest you look at ATV, ARD, and even the Ariane in the same light. The point isn't the end products so much as the journey it takes Europe on.

Culturally space is very differently executed - unlike Shuttle/Saturn, where the US invests itself massively all at once in a great set of capabilities, and then rides on them for decades until the next, things are more tentative and capabilities are gradually gained, with the following industry filling in behind, just like in aviation.

The effect on US industry is just as pronounced, but the pulse is much larger/peak shorter, and the effect can be hit or miss sometimes.

The trouble with valuing the journey more than the destination, is that you're not always certain of what you get when you arrive. The US, who originally got pantsed by the Soviets (because they didn't care then), woke up and got obsessed with destinations (they cared), and like the Soviets then Russians reveled in the moments - signature points of their greatness. China is eyeing this cautiously, but Europe isn't, fearing the boondoggles that they've experienced themselves and watched with the US, USSR, and Russia many, many times. These doomed the USSR in part, and is why Russia is wary of them. It is the price of leadership risking them.

In replacing the Shuttle over many decades, the US has repeatedly risked (and lost) many times, not getting any better at it in the mean time. Europe, Russia, and China can experience the same joy, but they cannot match the US in affording as many times "at bat".

ATV is only ever going to be a handful of vehicles. None of the ATV/Ariane missions will result in an economically effective capability. Nor will ARV. The ARV/ATV program is Europe's Gemini program ironically, even though its not launching a single man. So is Shenzou China's Gemini, which interestingly enough the LV it uses is extremely close in many ways to a Titan II. ARV/ATV is not Apollo/Orion like.

Europe is slowly backing into manned space. Ariane 6 will probably be Europe's first real manned launcher. Perhaps there will be a real manned vehicle as well to match.

[mmeijeri]

But yes Obama wants to do space collaboration.  But does this mean he can get EVERYONE in two to N governments to play by the rules, assuming he can even ... describe them?

Good question, although European decision making is consolidating slowly. ESA is not an EU institution and cannot be because it has member states that are not member states of the EU. However, the decision making process of those member states that are member states of the EU as well as ESA will come under the EU umbrella. And that is the vast majority of all ESA member states.

It is interesting to note that Boeing's COTS proposal included launching ATV/HTV on Delta IVs. If we could get an agreement that ATV and any successor, Orion and HTV would be allowed to fly on Delta/Atlas/Ariane/H2A (once payload capacity allowed it), then that would provide enormous redundancy.

[nooneofconsequence]

... It is interesting to note that Boeing's COTS proposal included launching ATV/HTV on Delta IVs. If we could get an agreement that ATV and any successor, Orion and HTV would be allowed to fly on Delta/Atlas/Ariane/H2A (once payload capacity allowed it), then that would provide enormous redundancy.

Should we operate, as a global community, redundantly - IMHO absolutely. It isn't even remotely a shared goal by most I know.

Could we achieve such - yes it is possible, but we'd have to agree more on certain aspects, and if you think that the EU moves slowly and less predictably, you have no idea how difficult this is. Even getting Russia and US to have certain "constants" isn't/wasn't easy.
What you're asking for is much, much more.

Will we - not now. Too much to be lost by it. But I was amazed that we got what we did with the ISS as it is. The more ISS like or related projects, the easier this gets. Maybe in several decades, who can see that far ahead?

If we *had to make it march*, HTV/ATV wouldn't be entirely HTV/ATV but specifically built for the purpose - which would cost dearly. BTW, HTV would be much, much easier than ATV, and probably almost worth it.

A better choice is convincing Space X that they want to own the market on capsules for any launcher, and not just F9. Martijn, that's how you'll get both your redundancy AND economics, all in one. And Space X would get a excellent, independent revenue stream in addition to LV's.

They don't have to worry about undercutting themselves, because (except for the Chinese and *almost* the Russians) they are the low price leader in the manned segment. If they pull it off, of course.

add: Almost forgot - if I were ESA (or certain others), I'd actually go after Space X and strongly encourage this interest. Of course certain industries would scream about it, but there are no indigenous companies like Space X, so it wouldn't matter.

That alone makes it very interesting for both Space X AND ESA - Space X gets an international lock on a one of a kind industry, and ESA gets a secondary manned capability at a fraction of the cost of others.

[mmeijeri]

If I may say so there is a little bit of hand waving wrt the wishful ATV->CRV transition.  There is nothing that I can see that would put the ATV on a fast tract to a re-entry capable vehicle.  An ATV 'type' of system would make a great service module perhaps, but a re-entry human carrying capable module?  Still need a lot of design.  Might as well start from scratch.  (BAE had a good design ideas back in the 80s, but they were buried with all the Hermes spaceplane bruhaha)

The idea is to reuse the SM and to replace the ICC (=integrated cargo carrier, consisting of both a pressurised and an unpressurised part) with a new capsule. Maybe some of the limited life support systems in the pressurised section can also be reused for the capsule.

[veryrelaxed]

@nooneofconsequence
SpaceX will need to establish a record of safe ascent, docking, loiter, and descent for 6 people (as per their specs)  It has not even started to do so.  Talking of any sort of 'lock' on human space flight is premature.  Whole different ballgame.  Then there is ITAR... as far as selling their services to other countries...  Neither Russia nor China, (nor US for that matter) will stop manufacturing/deploying their capsules, even if SpaceX manages to deliver a safer and cheaper vehicle.  And ISS has only so many docking ports.  ISS docking ports are covered and spoken for.

What firms like SpaceX *really* need are non-government based destinations in LEO (like Bigelows 'hotels'), to cover the *demand* side of the market (*if* there is any market)

@mmeirjeri
Some of ATV's subsystems would make a great start for a eruopean's capsule's SM, no doubt.  The cargo carrier section does not scale well to a potential re-entry capsule.  The components distribution, weight and volume management... it speaks New Design to me.

Here's what I meant by my previous post re Europe's (well British) robust designs back in the 80s:

 http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mulpsule.htm

Could have been flying in your own no-nonsense vehicle by now!  (BAE's MRRC above launched (as envisioned orginally!) on an Arianne, if not for those ridiculous Hermeses, Hotols, etc... and other overdesigned crap that'd interfered)