Author Topic: New cost effective next generation launcher proposal by MT Aerospace (Read 10517 times)

spacediver · « **on:** 12/04/2011 02:08 pm »

MT Aerospace of Augsburg, Germany, proposed an alternative approach for a next generation European launcher system.
The annexed presentation was shown during the 1st Space Access Conference in Paris end of September 2011.

The concept, based on the common core booster architecture, is strictly driven by recurring cost minimization.

What do you think?

Spacediver

simonbp · « **Reply #1 on:** 12/04/2011 03:34 pm »

If I'm understanding that right, it's a basically a European EELV with common-core first stages (single GG RP-1 engines) and LH2 upper stage (1x Vinci). Sounds plausible as a concept (it's basically Euro-Atlas), but developing the engine (with RD-180-class thrust) is not going to be cheap or fast.

Also they have to be careful of calling it a "common-core booster" as that is trademarked by ULA...

hektor · « **Reply #2 on:** 12/04/2011 04:11 pm »

Simple answer. France wants Ariane 6. Therefore, France will kill that type of solution because it does not protect the industrial capability in solids. And for France solids are strategic due to the nuclear missiles.

EE Scott · « **Reply #3 on:** 12/04/2011 04:40 pm »

Seems like a very common-sense type approach. Fun to read, and interesting that it was open to trading RP-1 on the first stage with Methane as well.

I'm glad to read that there are multiple viewpoints able to be expressed in Europe with respect to the way forward.

Hauerg · « **Reply #4 on:** 12/04/2011 04:58 pm »

Nice, but the need for a new booster engine makes this DOA.
An RD-180 version on the other hand ...
But France will take the role of ATK and there will be no money, end of story.

mmeijeri · « **Reply #5 on:** 12/04/2011 05:03 pm »

Quote from: hektor on 12/04/2011 04:11 pm

Simple answer. France wants Ariane 6. Therefore, France will kill that type of solution because it does not protect the industrial capability in solids. And for France solids are strategic due to the nuclear missiles.

I don't think that's correct. France wants an all LOX/LH2 vehicle, more like a Euro-Delta. The Italians want the solids.

hektor · « **Reply #6 on:** 12/04/2011 08:59 pm »

What you are describing is what the French Industry wants.

I am talking about the French political authorities.

simpl simon · « **Reply #7 on:** 12/04/2011 10:26 pm »

Quote from: spacediver on 12/04/2011 02:08 pm

MT Aerospace of Augsburg, Germany, proposed an alternative approach for a next generation European launcher system.
The annexed presentation was shown during the 1st Space Access Conference in Paris end of September 2011.

The concept, based on the common core booster architecture, is strictly driven by recurring cost minimization.

What do you think?

Spacediver

Thanks for providing the information.
Can you post the rest of the presentations, or provide a link?

mmeijeri · « **Reply #8 on:** 12/05/2011 04:01 pm »

Quote from: hektor on 12/04/2011 08:59 pm

What you are describing is what the French Industry wants.

I am talking about the French political authorities.

Do you have references for that? I vaguely recall a study by the French PM (?) that argued for an all LOX/LH2 Ariane 6.

hektor · « **Reply #9 on:** 12/05/2011 04:38 pm »

http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/fichiers_joints/05.25_Rapport_sur_lavenir_de_la_politique_spatiale_europeenne_en_matiere_de_lanceurs.pdf

mmeijeri · « **Reply #10 on:** 12/05/2011 05:19 pm »

That must be the report I was thinking of, but quickly skimming through it I don't see any preference for either LOX/LH2 or solids, although there is a preference for choosing one over retaining both and over developing a LOX/HC stage.

sdsds · « **Reply #11 on:** 12/05/2011 09:26 pm »

Wow, putting the attach points on the modular interstage adapter panels is a really cool concept. Has that been done or proposed for other vehicles?

Proponent · « **Reply #12 on:** 12/06/2011 03:55 am »

Quote from: hektor on 12/04/2011 04:11 pm

Simple answer. France wants Ariane 6. Therefore, France will kill that type of solution because it does not protect the industrial capability in solids. And for France solids are strategic due to the nuclear missiles.

You don't think Vega is sufficient to keep the pro-solid forces happy?

spacediver · « **Reply #13 on:** 12/06/2011 07:12 am »

Quote from: sdsds on 12/05/2011 09:26 pm

Wow, putting the attach points on the modular interstage adapter panels is a really cool concept. Has that been done or proposed for other vehicles?

Yes!
The Ariane 5 Boosters are attached to the so called "Front Skirt", an MT Aerospace build structure.
All axial loads from the boosters are introduced in that structure.

It makes sense for the CCB concept as the axial load for the center CCB can be reduced. That allows all core stages to be identical.
If I recall correct, in case of the Delta 4 the center stage is different from the side CCB's because it has to take all the axial loads.

Spacediver

Edit:
Of course the modular approach for the interstage is a new idea...