CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal

[john smith 19]

Besides, the future is not companies being both the launch vehicle and launch service provider, but separate companies, one providing reusable launch vehicles and the other launching satellites on those reusable vehicles. This way, a launch vehicle manufacturer has lots of business since they can sell their vehicles to launch service providers all over the world.

You mean the way every other transportation system on the planet does it?

I'd agree but I'm doubtful of anything that looks anything like an ICBM operating like that. 

[Rik ISS-fan]

Arianespace is the only company currently only providing launch service. Since 2016 the launchers are designed and produced by ELV/Avio for Vega and Arianegroup for Ariane 5 and 6.
I disagree with the notice that supplying launchers to multiple launch service providers will work. Everyone is assuming launch demand will grow a lot. But that might happen, it just as well can not happen. If the launch demand doesn't grow, the demand is spit over more launch service providers. The launcher manufacture still has to build the same amount of launchers.
This won't work for all parties concerned. The size of the pie has to grow a lot.
The main difference of opinion is that I doubt launch demand will increase very much while most assume launch demand will increase a lot. I doubt LEO comsats are viable, HAPS are a beter alternative in my opinion.
This is why I think a reusable small satellite launcher is a beter option to develop a reusable first stage (smaller Themis). This is where RFA, PLD space, ISAR aerospace and others are working towards. Preferably there is some commonality between Vega-E/Myra engine and the smaller reusable launcher.
Sorry, but I fear a load of money is going to be wasted on to many different launchers. European demand hardly justifies one <200kg launcher and a >500kg launcher, besides Vega and Ariane 6. Especially when the later are providing rideshare launch services. Ariane 6 might get into the odd situation of launch demand being lower than supply. That will be a new situation for Arianespace. This is because Ariane 6 can launch a double the rate of Ariane 5. A reusable Ariane Next won't work unless launch demand quadruples (4x) to >20/y.
That's how I (realistically and pessimistically) view the situation.

[john smith 19]

I disagree with the notice that supplying launchers to multiple launch service providers will work. Everyone is assuming launch demand will grow a lot.

Actually most are not.

They are assuming BAU and the mfg is the operator. YATSTO.

Treating launch like every other transportation system on the planet requires a fully reusable LV with a high life time that can be operated like a transport system. A heavy truck, a ferry, an airliner, a cargo plane.

Who buys it decides when they launch and if they will launch. They may want to offer Launch as a Service but then again they may just want that capability as an organizational asset. Launching when and at what time they choose, not at the pleasure of their LV mfg (which is essentially how all launch is conducted now).

It's time for ESA, their government members, and Arianespace to consider their relationship with each other.
IOW Full employment in the European aerospace industry is not their direct problem. Lowering cost of access to space (and hence making taxpayers money go further, as well as stimulating multiple new possible applications) is.

IMHO the commercial case for a properly designed even partially reusable launch vehicle has already  been proved.  If the numbers coming from Musk and SX are half way accurate reuse adds 10s of $m of profit to their bottom line for each launch, as anyone with a spreadsheet can work out for themselves.

If Rocket Lab also demonstrate recovery and reuse that pattern will be replicated at 1/100 the size as well.

A new fully ELV makes no sense unless you have other motives for its development, such as solids development for an ICBM programme.

[edzieba]

A lot of transportation is moving in the other direction: rather than buying your car/train/plane, you lease it along with a service contract. You still get to use it how you want when you want, but without all the hassle of having a standing army of support personnel and infrastructure to maintain yourself regardless of use rate. This is even being applied to individual components, e.g. aircraft engines: rather than buying a single turbine engine and maintaining it yourself, you buy an 'engine capacity' and pay for it while you are using it, and the engine manufacturer deals with monitoring it, maintaining it, and getting you a replacement if needed https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rolls-royce-jet-propulsion-as-a-service-kristofer-hunt.

[Halken]

I know that the existing model has served EU well. But that was also when othe competitors was other primarily state entities.
I am convinced that BO, SX, RL are changing the paradigm, as they are private enterprises that are making money from launching stuff into space. For the EU effort (not gonna spell out the different actors her), the commercial launches are a way to make the EU launch service cheaper to maintain. The capability being of strategic importance to have in Europe. EU has been quite successful in providing these launches at competitive prices and have a dominant marked share. While NASA don't much care for that and did not work hard to increase innovation, reduce cost and gain market share, its entirely different for those who have replaced it in the LS market. Companies are innovating much much faster in a bid to increase market share. This is also what we have seen. Its not only their present position, but just as much their rate of development.

I'm not convinced that the EU effort is organized in such a way that it can compete with the new comers. While it gets R&D funded at some rate, it too slow and cumbersome, and too many national interests can prevent that the most competitive solutions are chosen. If reusing rockets are not an options due to jobs, and this prevents the cost reduction, then they may find their market share of the commercial market diminishing, and then in the end there is only the lunches for governments in EU to pay for it, and the the price also goes up as the launches goes down together with the jobs associated with building the rockets.

I do believe that we in EU has to have the capability to launch stuff into space and we need a European champion in this market like Airbus is in the market for planes. But to get there, we need to make a integrated European company that does that - that develop and manufacture LVs and provide the LS, and that can make decisions on a commercial basis, innovate freely. Merge the necessary functions into Arianespace and have it compete with SX, BO, RL etc on a more commercial basis as a integrated launch provider, while freeing it from requirements to use special solid boosters. The EU governments can still provide funds, but the governance has to change and the framework. Only then can we continue to have a European champion in the LS market, and ensure we maintain this strategic ability, in a way that can compete in the new market paradigm created by SX et al.

[Rik ISS-fan]

May I give the moderators a suggestion.
This topic is morphing more into 'how ESA/Europe gets toward reusable rocket technology'. I think also including the 'Themis' topic in here might prevent duplication of a discussion. If this is done, possibly also include 'RETALT'.

Prometheus is a new engine development. Callisto and Themis are reusable first stage demonstrators, RETALT is AFAIK mainly software development. So actually it's odd Prometheus and Callisto are in the same topic. (just my opinion) AFAIK in R&D project execution, there is alignment between Prometheus and Themis.

Many things happening in Europe aren't posted here, because of the negative attitude of many NSF members.
Another reason for not posting here is protecting technologies (developments) and competitive advantage.
I think ESA/European launch industry is developing reusable launch tech as fast as they can, with the conditions they have to work with. If the launch demand really picks up, a reusable stage is developed. Currently the demand doesn't justify the development. 
Prometheus will provide cheaper engine technology. That can also be implemented back in Ariane 6 (Vulcain 2) improvements.

Sorry I refuse to discuss Arianespace launch offering here, because:
1) I think it's off topic.
2) It's duplication of the Ariane 6 discussion topic.
3) The discussion will be predictable, with the outcome that I don't enjoy NSF.
Please keep this topic positive and about launcher R&D work done in Europe/ESA.

[ChrisWilson68]

Please keep this topic positive and about launcher R&D work done in Europe/ESA.

We would be doing an enormous disservice to Europe to limit the viewpoints expressed to those that agree with everything currently being done.  You never get innovation if you never hear anything negative about the status quo.

[john smith 19]

A lot of transportation is moving in the other direction: rather than buying your car/train/plane, you lease it along with a service contract.

What you're missing is at that point those vehicles cease to be assets and become costs to support.

As an asset you can  a) Go to a lender with a business case based on your modelling of the market and seek to raise funding to buy them or b)If you have other businesses that generate revenue raise funding to buy it based on them meeting your payments regardless of how many launches the vehicle makes. c) If organizational needs change you can sell it and recover a portion of your costs.

None of which works if it's just leased. That's just the BAU model of ELV operations with all they issues it inherits about control and independence. Those issues are very important in this market in a way that simply does not exist in other transportation systems.

Pooled servicing facilities (or servicing offered by the mfg as a separate company, not connected with actual launches) is separate model.

[john smith 19]

I know that the existing model has served EU well. But that was also when othe competitors was other primarily state entities.

True.

I'm not convinced that the EU effort is organized in such a way that it can compete with the new comers. While it gets R&D funded at some rate, it too slow and cumbersome, and too many national interests can prevent that the most competitive solutions are chosen.

True.

If reusing rockets are not an options due to jobs, and this prevents the cost reduction, then they may find their market share of the commercial market diminishing, and then in the end there is only the lunches for governments in EU to pay for it, and the the price also goes up as the launches goes down together with the jobs associated with building the rockets.

Correct and completely predictable. Arianspace becomes ULA, with a slightly lower, or higher, success rate but no one can afford to use them. 

I do believe that we in EU has to have the capability to launch stuff into space and we need a European champion in this market like Airbus is in the market for planes.

Airbus doe not operate airlines. Siemens does not run rail services. Renault does not operate a trucking line.

Do you see a pattern here?

But to get there, we need to make a integrated European company that does that - that develop and manufacture LVs and provide the LS,

And so the market remains the fragmented, impossible to get economies scale, thing it is already.

and that can make decisions on a commercial basis, innovate freely. Merge the necessary functions into Arianespace and have it compete with SX, BO, RL etc on a more commercial basis as a integrated launch provider, while freeing it from requirements to use special solid boosters. The EU governments can still provide funds, but the governance has to change and the framework. Only then can we continue to have a European champion in the LS market, and ensure we maintain this strategic ability, in a way that can compete in the new market paradigm created by SX et al.

Or shift from being an implementor of designs that are basically handed to it and become a true developer of a design that can be sold to multiple operators (or even individual nations if they feel the need for truly independent access). when they want, to what orbit they want.

[john smith 19]

So roughly speaking...

Calisto and Prometheus are parallel development projects for RTLS landing tech and reusable Vulcaine II size main engine. But Calisto is way too small to carry a full size Prometheus.

Themis is more akin to a prototype Ariane Next stage which can carry the full size Prometheus engine.

Do I have the picture about right?

Such a pity there does not seem any mechanism for Arianespace to take requests for flight requests after stage use to gain additional information.  Obviously that would also require software change processes and telementry flow to continue after separation, and I'm not sure that even happens.

[Halken]

I do believe that we in EU has to have the capability to launch stuff into space and we need a European champion in this market like Airbus is in the market for planes.

Airbus doe not operate airlines. Siemens does not run rail services. Renault does not operate a trucking line.

Launching stuff into orbit is a one stop shop and hence different. I can see no commercial justification for have companies that construct and build rockets and other companies that launch them. You would want to capture as much of the value generated by your product as possible. Space X is not selling rockets for others to launch. They selling "launching stuff into orbit". Not rockets and not launching others rockets into space.

Or shift from being an implementor of designs that are basically handed to it and become a true developer of a design that can be sold to multiple operators (or even individual nations if they feel the need for truly independent access). when they want, to what orbit they want.

They correctly have to become the true developer of LVs and LS and make a product road map that is commercially feasible.

[Rik ISS-fan]

So roughly speaking...

Calisto and Prometheus are parallel development projects for RTLS landing tech and reusable Vulcaine II size main engine. But Calisto is way too small to carry a full size Prometheus.

Themis is more akin to a prototype Ariane Next stage which can carry the full size Prometheus engine.

Do I have the picture about right? ...

Precisely how I view it as well. (Vulcain 2 being >100mT thrust _/>1000kN

I share the opinion that Europe is technically behind in launcher tech development. I think this can't be corrected because of the much lower funding levels available. Besides the environmental regulations are much stricter in Europe than in the US, this prohibits fast technology development. I think only a startup will be agile enough to approach development speeds in the US. But SpaceX working conditions wouldn't be allowed in Europe. That's just how it is.

Only the US has one reusable launcher and another is developed. At the same time there are three expendable launchers being developed. Japan, China and Russia also work on new expendable launchers. So ELV remains the status quo.
AFAIK, TRL level of reusability technologie has to increase before implementation gets to acceptable risks. This is what is happening (Callisto, Prometheus, ...) at the same time as development of Ariane 6. The urgency of improving the flexibility of European launchers, to guarantee  independent acces to space, was to high to wait longer. I think most investments done for Ariane 6 can be reused if a reusable launcher is developed.

But Ariane 6 and European launcher offering can better be discussed in the Ariane 6 discussion topic. This prevents duplication of the discussion. I would like this topic to be about the technologies being developed in Europe.

Sidenote; I'm actually hoping ArianeGroup will do Pro/Met/H(LOx) Experimental Universal Systems (engine), as Prometheus.

[john smith 19]

Launching stuff into orbit is a one stop shop and hence different. 

And as long as they look like an ICBM it never change.

But there are other options, some of them are European.

[RedLineTrain]

Only the US has one reusable launcher and another is developed. At the same time there are three expendable launchers being developed.

Aren't three reusable launchers being developed in the US?  Starship, New Glenn, Electron.  Or are you making a distinction with regard to New Glenn and Electron?

[Halken]

Elon writes on twitter:
Payload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1295734479814684672

Even the raptor engine is developed to be easier than the merlin to be cleaned.

I think A6 will have a short life, unless it can be merged into something, where reusability can start to be tested.

[john smith 19]

Precisely how I view it as well. (Vulcain 2 being >100mT thrust _/>1000kN

Thanks for the confirmation. Which leaves the question of what they are using for an engine for Calisto if it's LH2/LO2.

Besides the environmental regulations are much stricter in Europe than in the US, this prohibits fast technology development. I think only a startup will be agile enough to approach development speeds in the US. But SpaceX working conditions wouldn't be allowed in Europe. That's just how it is.

Sorry but this is just nonsense.    The French Diamant launchers used UDMN/NTO for the booster and the solids for the US. Those are very nasty materials to have around. No one in their right mind would chose that combination for a commercial launcher today.

And citing the EU Working Hours Directive as a reason why European companies can't compete with SX? Are you kidding me?

Only the US has one reusable launcher and another is developed. At the same time there are three expendable launchers being developed. Japan, China and Russia also work on new expendable launchers. So ELV remains the status quo.

Perhaps because they are the Nth generation of their respective designs and ELV designers are historically terrified of change. 

AFAIK, TRL level of reusability technologie has to increase before implementation gets to acceptable risks. This is what is happening (Callisto, Prometheus, ...) at the same time as development of Ariane 6. The urgency of improving the flexibility of European launchers, to guarantee  independent acces to space, was to high to wait longer. I think most investments done for Ariane 6 can be reused if a reusable launcher is developed.

Only if you insist on doing everything as a one-of-a-kind cannot-possibly-fail test. That mindset fosters endless CFD and FEA runs and still can result in failures anyway. Over a long enough baseline failure is inevitable.  It's how you handle it that determines ultimate winners from losers.

But Ariane 6 and European launcher offering can better be discussed in the Ariane 6 discussion topic. This prevents duplication of the discussion. I would like this topic to be about the technologies being developed in Europe.

Agreed. But Europe is not like the US.
Arianespace is the European launcher provider. It should be cooperating with the people tasked with designing the next generation (which they are going to operate and build) of Ariane's.  SX saved a huge amount of time and money by running flight experiments on boosters after they had separated and before hopper was built.

Without that data Calisto will start a long way behind.  Themis has an even stronger case for having Ariancespace in co-operating with the design team up to conducting flight experiments, even possible hardware mods.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Callisto is propelled by a 40kN LOx/LH2 engine provided by JAXA (Japan). Callisto is a shared project from CNES. DLR and JAXA. It's like the SpaceX Grasshopper/ F9R Dev1 or BO Goddard / New Shepard. It's a VTVL reusable demonstrator that should be able to reach 30-40km and than return to the ground.

Prometheus is the new 1000-1200kN LOxLNG GG engine development lead by Arianegroup.
Themis is a proposal from ArianeWorks (ArianeGroup) for a follow on reentry demonstrator that uses Prometheus engines. (All this info is discussed earlier in this topic).

Possibly it's interesting to look back at how SpaceX developed their reusable F9 first stage. Where the Grasshopper and/or F9R Dev1 at the same time as the first stage post launch mission tests. Or were they performed earlier or later?

I think reentry tests using Ariane 5 won't work. Possibly some tests can be done, but they can't test boost phases. Vuclain2 isn't restartable, because it uses pyrotechnic igniters.
I'm refusing to discuss European launcher strategy here. Let's use the Ariane6 discussion topic for that, or make a new topic. And I've warned, I'll not share new updates for a month.

[john smith 19]

Callisto is propelled by a 40kN LOx/LH2 engine provided by JAXA (Japan). Callisto is a shared project from CNES. DLR and JAXA. It's like the SpaceX Grasshopper/ F9R Dev1 or BO Goddard / New Shepard. It's a VTVL reusable demonstrator that should be able to reach 30-40km and than return to the ground.

I wondered what the engine was.

Possibly it's interesting to look back at how SpaceX developed their reusable F9 first stage. Where the Grasshopper and/or F9R Dev1 at the same time as the first stage post launch mission tests. Or were they performed earlier or later?

AFAIK SX were performing tests after every booster separation.  They guided F9 upgrades then eventually the grasshopper drove further upgrades.

I think reentry tests using Ariane 5 won't work. Possibly some tests can be done, but they can't test boost phases. Vuclain2 isn't restartable, because it uses pyrotechnic igniters.

so does Merlin. It's not the choice, it's how it's implemented that matters.

[edzieba]

AFAIK SX were performing tests after every booster separation.  They guided F9 upgrades then eventually the grasshopper drove further upgrades.

I was curious, so I made a little chart.

Ignoring the parachute attempts there were:
- 7 grasshopper flights up to a 100m hop-and-divert.
- First F9 v1.1 retropropulsion and ocean landing attempt (impacted at speed). CASSIOPE, NASA collaborated to observe supersonic retroproplusion for this flight
- A final Grasshopper flight and the first F9R flight
- First ocean landing test with legs, no grid fins
- Two F9R flights, first grid-fin flight test
- Ocean landing test with legs, no grid fins
- Successful F9R test, then F9R loss
- Failed ocean landing
- Failed droneship landing, first F9 with gridfins
- Successful ocean landing
- Failed droneship landing
- Successful LZ-1 landing.

Note: no F9 v1.0 flights attempted propulsive recovery. Grasshopper program completed and replaced by F9R before first successful ocean soft landing. Legs and grid-find tested on F9R prior to fitting to F9. Two years between last F9R flight and first successful landing.

[john smith 19]

AFAIK SX were performing tests after every booster separation.  They guided F9 upgrades then eventually the grasshopper drove further upgrades.

I was curious, so I made a little chart.

Most instructive.

What's not known was how much data SX were taking on every launch.

In the context of this thread that would be Arianespace providing the Calisto designers with that data in order to better scope the design.