Author Topic: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal  (Read 41573 times)

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #80 on: 10/26/2017 08:07 PM »
Agree that things will likely shift.

Please note that Anext might also mean A6 / A7 / A8 / A9 ... might be possibilities.

Don't underestimate how this very capable group might bring in this program in various ways.

They are taking things very seriously. Instead of the "ostrich position".

Keep in mind they don't have to compete at the same scale of rivals, just close the gap enough to not be at a significant disadvantage.

Europe needs to think of Europe's needs, in the context of what the global launch provider market will become.

Online calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #81 on: 10/27/2017 02:38 PM »
Did we have this study yet?

Evaluation of Future Ariane Reusable VTOL Booster stages

Some outtakes:
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 02:38 PM by calapine »

Offline acsawdey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 392
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #82 on: 10/27/2017 05:13 PM »
Did we have this study yet?

Evaluation of Future Ariane Reusable VTOL Booster stages

This is rather interesting. And, I have to wonder ... did they scrape the telemetry from the SpaceX webcast themselves, or just swipe some xls files from here on NSF? Looks like a study pointing towards building a methalox falcon knockoff.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #83 on: 10/27/2017 11:37 PM »
Favorite line:
Quote from:
“Main goal is to compare costs but is tricky due to lack of knowledge of the operational costs”
Understated.

They don't think they can do return to launch site, but can handle down range landing. Like BO.

Which suggests that they don't believe in "gas n go" turnaround. Lower cadence than rival.

The heating issues suggest they've studied those landed boosters carefully.

All of this makes sense. The goal for them is to close the gap by enough of a demonstrator that handles a recoverable booster, where the down range recovery of a full scale booster with its lower cadence and higher number of high quality reuse allows enough advantage.

Two ways of factoring this in to Ariane.

Simplest would be to replace the solids (ESR P120's) with a barge landed methalox boosters (2-4), possibly also on Vega. You'd recover and reprocess. Disadvantage would be in the continued cost of the LLPM. But you'd have the most compact, cost effective program that could allow Ariane 6 to proceed with a phase over to partial reuse with little interruption in plan. And if the demonstrator was scaled to an appropriate size ... one could combine demonstrator program to a follow-on flight demonstration, easing into use.

Most economic for the long run would be to replace the launcher architecture to take most advantage of a single recoverable booster of the scale to loft ULPM and payload. But that would not be compatible with existing facilities/operations. (However it would have the unique advantage of possibly handling RTLS, gas-n-go, and competing with BFR's CONOPs, should those like DLR suddenly get the inspiration to find it "economic"  ;) )
None of this would be Ariane 6 as described.


« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 11:41 PM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #84 on: 10/28/2017 12:20 PM »
The x5 picture with SRB replacement by 2 flyback engines pods is probably lowest risk. This has advantage of one expendable fuel tank in centre stage along with x1 sustainer engine. The pair of engines pods flyback using Adeline concept. No need for downrange recovery, reuse is simple bolt them on new LV, can use existing US.

Payload penalty is lower than booster recovery.
ULA also have picture of similar concept except they don't have sustainer engine just big disposable tank, with 2 flyback engine pods.

For moderate flight rates this maybe better system.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8198
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4328
  • Likes Given: 1335
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #85 on: 10/28/2017 03:58 PM »
Favorite line:
Quote from:
“Main goal is to compare costs but is tricky due to lack of knowledge of the operational costs”
Understated.

They don't think they can do return to launch site, but can handle down range landing. Like BO.

Which suggests that they don't believe in "gas n go" turnaround. Lower cadence than rival.

The heating issues suggest they've studied those landed boosters carefully.

I don't think so. SpaceX has not given them access to the landed boosters. At best they could have studied the images of landed boosters. And those are "clouded" at best due to all the soot on the stages.
Other than that they studied the telemetry from the SpaceX webcasts (which is extremely limited in nature and subject to "filtering"):

Quote from: DLR
Therefore,  different mission trajectories were calculated with the DLR in-house tool toscaand were compared to telemetry data provided by the SpaceX launch webcasts.


All of this makes sense. The goal for them is to close the gap by enough of a demonstrator that handles a recoverable booster, where the down range recovery of a full scale booster with its lower cadence and higher number of high quality reuse allows enough advantage.

Two ways of factoring this in to Ariane.

Simplest would be to replace the solids (ESR P120's) with a barge landed methalox boosters (2-4), possibly also on Vega. You'd recover and reprocess. Disadvantage would be in the continued cost of the LLPM. But you'd have the most compact, cost effective program that could allow Ariane 6 to proceed with a phase over to partial reuse with little interruption in plan. And if the demonstrator was scaled to an appropriate size ... one could combine demonstrator program to a follow-on flight demonstration, easing into use.

Most economic for the long run would be to replace the launcher architecture to take most advantage of a single recoverable booster of the scale to loft ULPM and payload. But that would not be compatible with existing facilities/operations. (However it would have the unique advantage of possibly handling RTLS, gas-n-go, and competing with BFR's CONOPs, should those like DLR suddenly get the inspiration to find it "economic"  ;) )
None of this would be Ariane 6 as described.

Naturally. But this is not for Ariane 6. It is for AriaNEXT. If there ever will be such beyond Ariane 6...
« Last Edit: 10/28/2017 04:06 PM by woods170 »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #86 on: 10/28/2017 11:33 PM »
Favorite line:
Quote from:
“Main goal is to compare costs but is tricky due to lack of knowledge of the operational costs”
Understated.

They don't think they can do return to launch site, but can handle down range landing. Like BO.

Which suggests that they don't believe in "gas n go" turnaround. Lower cadence than rival.

The heating issues suggest they've studied those landed boosters carefully.

I don't think so. SpaceX has not given them access to the landed boosters. At best they could have studied the images of landed boosters. And those are "clouded" at best due to all the soot on the stages.
This is all I meant. Not that there was another "channel" than, say, all observed by this site.

Quote
Other than that they studied the telemetry from the SpaceX webcasts (which is extremely limited in nature and subject to "filtering"):

Quote from: DLR
Therefore,  different mission trajectories were calculated with the DLR in-house tool toscaand were compared to telemetry data provided by the SpaceX launch webcasts.
News to me but not surprising. Just due diligence of their profession.

Quote
All of this makes sense. The goal for them is to close the gap by enough of a demonstrator that handles a recoverable booster, where the down range recovery of a full scale booster with its lower cadence and higher number of high quality reuse allows enough advantage.

Two ways of factoring this in to Ariane.

Simplest would be to replace the solids (ESR P120's) with a barge landed methalox boosters (2-4), possibly also on Vega. You'd recover and reprocess. Disadvantage would be in the continued cost of the LLPM. But you'd have the most compact, cost effective program that could allow Ariane 6 to proceed with a phase over to partial reuse with little interruption in plan. And if the demonstrator was scaled to an appropriate size ... one could combine demonstrator program to a follow-on flight demonstration, easing into use.

Most economic for the long run would be to replace the launcher architecture to take most advantage of a single recoverable booster of the scale to loft ULPM and payload. But that would not be compatible with existing facilities/operations. (However it would have the unique advantage of possibly handling RTLS, gas-n-go, and competing with BFR's CONOPs, should those like DLR suddenly get the inspiration to find it "economic"  ;) )
None of this would be Ariane 6 as described.

Naturally. But this is not for Ariane 6. It is for AriaNEXT. If there ever will be such beyond Ariane 6...
Beg to differ. Matter of perspective on global events (and seemingly unrelated idiocies).

Economics are a powerful motivator. One may want N vehicles to accommodate the sequencing from "current" to "next".

What I've noticed before is the interesting ways that being painted into an economic corner, people rationalize an escape. Please note that Ariane 6 was to be a "PPH", not a Ariane 5 redux that it is becoming.

Smart people always surprise you. Sometimes even surprise themselves.

(Translation: they'll need more than will be allowed, they'll be a crisis, they'll get half a loaf, they'll adapt to get more to do "good enough", and the situation will ultimately close. My hunch if you will.)
« Last Edit: 10/29/2017 02:13 AM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • USA
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #87 on: 10/29/2017 03:26 AM »
The x5 picture with SRB replacement by 2 flyback engines pods is probably lowest risk. This has advantage of one expendable fuel tank in centre stage along with x1 sustainer engine. The pair of engines pods flyback using Adeline concept. No need for downrange recovery, reuse is simple bolt them on new LV, can use existing US.

Payload penalty is lower than booster recovery.
ULA also have picture of similar concept except they don't have sustainer engine just big disposable tank, with 2 flyback engine pods.

For moderate flight rates this maybe better system.

I still don't understand the logic of having two pods in both proposals. Why not just one bigger in-line pod? The dual-pod configuration results in a lot of duplicated hardware (equals extra mass, extra manufacturing and maintenance cost), greater aerodynamic drag, more complicated structures and plumbing on the expendable tank (extra mass, cost, and failure risk), more complicated restacking operations, more complicated separation dynamics, and twice the risk of a recovery failure. Are there any advantages to it at all?

The one advantage I could see is if some mission profiles (namely low-mass but high-energy missions) didn't require the full thrust of two pods and could operate with only 1 (as was the case in some sidemount Shuttle derived concepts), halving the propulsion cost for such missions, but neither of these concepts seem to include that, and I'm not sure such radically asymmetrical thrust is feasible at liftoff without large boosters like the Shuttle had

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #88 on: 10/29/2017 08:20 AM »
I'd say there is higher probability of successful recovery of 2x pods than complete booster in first mission. The pod once detached is just another drone, which has to do a low speed reentry.


Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #89 on: 10/29/2017 04:54 PM »
First I was very presently surprised by the 40kN LOx LH2 engine that will be used on Callisto, I hadn't read about it before and Callisto's budget doesn't allow the development of a new engine. So somehow they (ESA Safran or Airbus) had it hidden from public. This 40kN engine could also be used on Vega(-E).
The second surprise was the added image, stolen from the document, with the layout of CSG.

For the launcher designs in the Prometheus study:
In my opinion;
1) The micro-launcher (1x prometheus) is the design that is the most likely to be developed. (supplements the Vega; Vega-L and Vega-E) (I also think there could be a Vega-F...)
2) A6 evolution is most likely applying the production processes for the injector head and turbines/turbo-pumps to reduce the cost of the Vulcan 2.x engine (could be 2.3 or 2.4)
3) The Reusability Demo and Ariane Next are a combined two stap program towards a Reusable replacement of Ariane 6. But because the launch rate will be below 12 they can't close the businesscase. 
Possibly the micro-launcher first stage could be used on Ariane 6 instead of ESR's(P120c).

Hopefully both programs proceed successfully, that will open a lot more launcher design options that are now to risky.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8198
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4328
  • Likes Given: 1335
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #90 on: 10/29/2017 05:04 PM »
Naturally. But this is not for Ariane 6. It is for AriaNEXT. If there ever will be such beyond Ariane 6...
Beg to differ. Matter of perspective on global events (and seemingly unrelated idiocies).

Economics are a powerful motivator. One may want N vehicles to accommodate the sequencing from "current" to "next".

What I've noticed before is the interesting ways that being painted into an economic corner, people rationalize an escape. Please note that Ariane 6 was to be a "PPH", not a Ariane 5 redux that it is becoming.

Smart people always surprise you. Sometimes even surprise themselves.

(Translation: they'll need more than will be allowed, they'll be a crisis, they'll get half a loaf, they'll adapt to get more to do "good enough", and the situation will ultimately close. My hunch if you will.)
Changing your  launch vehicle configuration from PPH to PHH is easily done when the PPH config hasn't even passed PDR yet.
That's what happened on Ariane 6.
However, the current PHH configuration of Ariane 6 is now well over a year beyond PDR and CDR is looming around the corner. Metal is being bent on the core stage. SRB's are being cast. Vulcain 2.1 has been constructed and the launchpad and HIF are being constructed as we speak. All for the PHH configuration.
This thing is not gonna change course anymore, not even with the recent noise coming from the Prometheus/Callisto teams.

IMO Ariane 6 will have a short life once the absolute necessity of having a reusable booster stage sinks in hard. That, however, is still some time away. Once it does sink in however the Ariane 6 basic design will serve, IMO, as the starting point for an AriaNEXT. The result, with reusability capabilities will not be an Ariane 6 re-hash but basically an almost all-new rocket: Ariane 7.

The only re-use capabilities we will ever see on Ariane 6, IMO, concern re-usable fairings.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2017 07:51 PM by woods170 »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
  • Liked: 406
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #91 on: 10/29/2017 05:10 PM »
Did we have this study yet?

Rather curious that they optimize for GTO while the most likely market for a reusable launcher will be LEO.

Online calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #92 on: 10/29/2017 06:06 PM »
Did we have this study yet?

Rather curious that they optimize for GTO while the most likely market for a reusable launcher will be LEO.

The DLR study looks for an Ariane 5 / 6 replacement and here the market is most clearly GTO.

Most LEO customers are probably better served with Vega C / E.

Offline tobi453

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #93 on: 10/29/2017 06:18 PM »
IMO Ariane 6 will have a short life once the absolute necessity of having a reusable booster stage sinks in hard. That, however, is still some time away. Once it does sink in however the Ariane 6 basic design will serve, IMO, as the starting point for an AriaNEXT. The result, with reusability capabilities will not be an Ariane 6 re-hash but basically an almost all-new rocket: Ariane 7.

The only re-use capabilities we will ever see on Ariane 6, IMO, concern re-usable fairings.

Reusability is killing all the jobs in the solid rocket motor industry. This is not going to happen anytime soon. We are going to fly expendable rockets for a long time. Europe made a huge strategic mistake introducing solid rocket boosters with Ariane 3.

What can Italy contribute to a reusable rocket? Almost nothing.

Online calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #94 on: 10/29/2017 06:30 PM »
Reusability is killing all the jobs in the solid rocket motor industry. This is not going to happen anytime soon. We are going to fly expendable rockets for a long time. Europe made a huge strategic mistake introducing solid rocket boosters with Ariane 3.

What can Italy contribute to a reusable rocket? Almost nothing.


There are far bigger interests at stake here than a few SRB's per year. Ariane 6 uses SRB's because a Vulcain-based launcher needs them. Once there is a strong drive for a reusable launcher the SRB-lobby wont be able to block it.

Offline Mike Jones

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Latvia
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #95 on: 10/29/2017 07:38 PM »
Some people don’t realize how strong is the Italian influence in the European launcher sector in particular within ESA, despite being only the 3rd contributor after France and Germany.

Online calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #96 on: 10/29/2017 08:23 PM »
Some people don’t realize how strong is the Italian influence in the European launcher sector in particular within ESA, despite being only the 3rd contributor after France and Germany.

"Some people" = me? ;D

But seriously, I reject that as too pessimistic. If there is enough pressure from the outside than suddenly "there is a solution". That's the typically European way of doing things. It's the same with the European Union: Without a crisis no meaningful change happens.

Offline tobi453

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #97 on: 10/29/2017 10:18 PM »
Some people don’t realize how strong is the Italian influence in the European launcher sector in particular within ESA, despite being only the 3rd contributor after France and Germany.

"Some people" = me? ;D

But seriously, I reject that as too pessimistic. If there is enough pressure from the outside than suddenly "there is a solution". That's the typically European way of doing things. It's the same with the European Union: Without a crisis no meaningful change happens.

I lost my optimistic view after the ESA ministerial council 2012. Also there is going to be an additional solid rocket motor production plant in Augsburg, Germany. The solid lobby is stronger than ever.

European Union is different from ESA.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2017 10:21 PM by tobi453 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8198
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4328
  • Likes Given: 1335
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #98 on: 10/30/2017 07:02 AM »
« Last Edit: 10/30/2017 09:07 AM by woods170 »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: CNES ESA Prometheus / Callisto proposal
« Reply #99 on: 10/30/2017 08:22 AM »
Please don't do the Ariane 6 discussion here. It's totally off topic and unrelated.
This topic is about two European demonstrators Prometheus a 1000kN GG LOxLCH4 engine; and Callisto a VTVL first stage demonstrator. Both projects run from about 2016-2020.
The technologies developed and proven with these demonstrators can only be applied to operational launchers after the projects are finished. This is past 2020!
Please continue the Ariane 6/ Ariane Next discussion in the Ariane 6 discussion topic.   

The DLR paper is on topic, as are equivalent CNES papers. CNES and DLR are continuously doing these kinds of studies. Hardly ever one comes further that this preliminary study. Those studies do provide insight in launcher designs that could be developed. I think DLR chose the 7mT (+0.5) to GTO -1500m/s because it's the most demanding orbit. The conclusion of the study is that the TSTO VTVL design is not good for a launcher with such a high requirement.
The paper rose a question into my mind. This paper compare three propellant types; LOx-LH2; LOx-LCH4; LOx-LC3H8 (propane). Could ESA/CNES/Arianegroup also use the Prometheus (or subscale) engine to test LOx-Propane propellant combination. Possibly this a beter option then methane because propane has a higher density, although it has a bit lower ISP.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2017 08:38 AM by Rik ISS-fan »

Tags: