A low cost, all European, manned launcher.

[This is in reference to an argument attached below that the Ariane 5 core stage can be SSTO with 3 Vulcain engines.]

The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they showed in such stark terms the savings possible when launchers are privately financed:

SpaceX Might Be Able To Teach NASA A Lesson.
May 23, 2011
By Frank Morring, Jr.
Washington

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene.../awst/2011/05/23/AW_05_23_2011_p36-324881.xml

The SpaceX experience of developing a launcher in the Falcon 9 at 1/10th the cost of a government financed one also holds for the crew capsule development costs since the Dragon capsule cost about $300 million to develop while the Orion costs several billion and still counting. So it can't be said this cost saving is just due to the Falcon 9 being, so far, unmanned.
Speaking about Orion and billions of dollars, I read an article about plans to use the Orion on the Ariane 5 to get a European manned spaceflight capability:

French govt study backs Orion Ariane 5 launch.
By Rob Coppinger
on January 8, 2010 4:45 PM
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/01/french.html

This would cost several billion dollars to man-rate the Ariane 5. I have to believe the solid rocket boosters, which can not be shut down when started, play a significant role in that high cost. The article mentions also the core stage would have to be strengthened. But such strengthening is based on it having to support a 20 mT Orion capsule and a 20 mT upper stage which wouldn't be used with a much smaller capsule such as the Dragon, at a dry mass of about 4 mT.

Note also that quite likely an even smaller manned capsule could be designed at about a 2 mT dry mass to carry a 3 man crew, which given its half size compared to the Dragon, might cost in the range of only $150 million to develop as privately financed. It's hard to imagine that private investment could not be found to finance such a capsule development when it could lead to a manned European space capability.

In regards to the costs of a privately financed SSTO version of the Ariane launcher we might make a comparison to the Falcon 9. It cost about $300 million to develop and this includes both the structure and engines, the engines making up the largest share of the development cost of a launcher. But for the SSTO Ariane both engine and structure are already developed and it's only a single stage instead of the two stages of the Falcon 9. You would have the development cost of adding 2 additional engines and of the new avionics, but again I have to be believe the development cost would once again be less than the SpaceX development cost of the Falcon 9 if privately financed.

I also read that the ESA is attempting to decide whether to upgrade the Ariane 5 or move to a Next Generation Launcher(NGL):

Ariane rocket aims to pick up the pace.
25 June 2011 Last updated at 06:39 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13911901

Thu, 9 February, 2012
France, Germany To Establish Working Group To Resolve Ariane 5 Differences.
By Peter B. de Selding
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/120209-france-germany-resolve-ariane5-differences.html

If the NGL is chosen then a quite expensive new large engine development would have to be made, and the launcher might not enter service until 2025. In contrast the SSTO-Ariane, given that the engine and stage already exist, a prototype probably could be ready within 1 to 2 years, and moreover by using a second stage it could also be used to launch the medium sized payloads.

So the SSTO-Ariane would solve the twin problems at low cost of providing Europe with a manned spaceflight capability and giving it a lower cost medium lift capability.


Bob Clark



======================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.history, rec.arts.sf.science
From: Robert Clark
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.

I saw this discussed on a space oriented forum:

WSJ: Europe Ends Independent Pursuit of Manned Space Travel.
"LE BOURGET, France—Europe appears to have abandoned all hope of
independently pursuing human space exploration, even as the region's
politicians and aerospace industry leaders complain about shrinking
U.S. commitment to various space ventures.
"After years of sitting on the fence regarding a separate, pan-
European manned space program, comments by senior government and
industry officials at the Paris Air Show here underscore that budget
pressures and other shifting priorities have effectively killed that
longtime dream."
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=23006

In this post I discussed getting a SSTO by replacing the Vulcain
engine on the Ariane 5 core with a SSME:

Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.history
From: Robert Clark
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:14:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e1736e7586cc269f?hl=en

However, in point of fact Europe can produce a manned launch vehicle
from currently *existing*, European components. This will consist of
the Ariane 5 and three Vulcain engines. The calculations below use the
Ariane 5 generic "G" version. You might need to add another Vulcain
for the larger evolution "E" version of the Ariane 5 core.

In a following post I'll also show that the Hermes spaceplane also
can become a SSTO by filling the entire fuselage aft of the cockpit
with hydrocarbon propellant.

The impetus for trying the calculation for a Ariane 5 core based SSTO
using Vulcains instead of the SSME was from a report by SpaceX that
you could get the same performance from a planned heavy lift first
stage using a lower performance Merlin 2 compared to the high
performance RS-84 engine. The reason was the lower Isp of the Merlin
was made up for by its lower weight.

THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT FACT BECAUSE WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT YOU DON'T
NEED THE HIGH PERFORMANCE ENGINES TO GET THE SSTO. YOU CAN USE ENGINES
OF LOWER CHAMBER PRESSURE AND SIMPLER COMBUSTION CYCLES, SUCH AS THE
VULCAIN WITH A CA. 100 BAR COMBUSTION PRESSURE AND A GAS GENERATOR
CYCLE. THIS MEANS THE ENGINES ARE CHEAPER, EASIER TO MAKE REUSABLE,
REQUIRE LESS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, AND CAN LAST FOR MANY RESTARTS.

In the discussion of the Ariane/Vulcain SSTO below, I note you can
get a prototype, test vehicle quite quickly since the components are
already existing. To improve the payload though you would want to use
altitude compensation on the Vulcains. In a following post I'll
discuss some methods of altitude compensation.
In regards to achieving this at low cost, I think the most important
accomplishment of SpaceX might turn out to be that they showed in
stark terms that privately financed spacecraft, both launchers and
crew capsules, can be accomplished at 1/10th the developmental cost of
government financed ones. Imagine a manned, reusable orbital launcher,
for example, instead of costing, say, $3 billion, only costing $300
million to develop.

Here's how you can get an all European manned SSTO using the Ariane 5
core stage but with Vulcain engines this time. Note that this is one
that can be produced from currently existing components, aside from
the capsule, so at least an unmanned prototype vehicle can be
manufactured and tested in the short term and at lowered development
cost.

We'll use three Vulcain 2's instead of the 1 normally used with the
Ariane 5 core stage. There are varying specifications given on the
Vulcain 2 depending on the source. I'll use the Astronautix site:

Vulcain 2.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/vulcain2.htm

From the sea level thrust given there, using three Vulcain 2's will
give us one engine out capability. The weight is given as 1,800 kg. So
adding on two will take the dry mass from 12 mT to 15.6 mT.
To calculate the delta-V achieved I'll use the idea again to just use
the vacuum Isp, but adding the loss due to back pressure onto the
delta-V required for orbit, as I discussed previously. However, here
for hydrogen fuel which has higher gravity loss, I'll use a higher
required delta-V of 9,400 m/s when you add on the back pressure loss.
With the vacuum Isp given for the Vulcain 2 of 434 s, we get a payload
of 3.8 mT:

434*9.8ln(1+158/(15.6+3.8)) = 9,412 m/s.

Note this is just using the standard nozzle Isp for the Vulcain, no
altitude compensation. So this could be tested, like, tomorrow.
However, for a SSTO you definitely want to use altitude compensation.
Using engine performance programs such as ProPEP we can calculate that
using long nozzles, you can get a vacuum Isp of 470 s for this engine.

As a point of comparison of how high an Isp you can get even with a
low chamber pressure engine as long as you have a long nozzle, or
equivalent, note that the RL10-B2 with a ca. 250 to 1 area ratio, and
only a ca. 40 bar chamber pressure, gets a 465 s vacuum Isp. So we'll
assume we can get a comparable Isp by using altitude compensation.
This allows us to get payload of 8 mT:

470*9.8ln(1+158/(15.6+8) = 9,400 m/s.

This allows us to add a Dragon-sized capsule and also the reentry and
landing systems to make it reusable.


Bob Clark
======================================================================

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The CST-100 crew capsule is largely privately financed by Boeing, though they have gotten some commercial crew development dollars from NASA as has SpaceX. This is a very important point that the CST-100 is primarily privately financed. I can guarantee you Boeing is not spending several billion dollars of their own money developing the CST-100 like what Orion is costing using government money. (Note to Boeing: come up with a better name for your capsule.)

My guess is that it's costing a few hundred million dollars tops, comparable to what the Dragon cost SpaceX to develop. Note this once again means a privately financed spacecraft can be developed for 1/10th the cost of a government financed one. That Boeing was able to do this just as SpaceX has done overwhelmingly implies this is valid as a general principle. Note this also strongly implies that the large launch providers such as Boeing can produce a launcher capable of manned flight as privately financed for 1/10th the cost of the billion dollar estimates given for such launchers, so in the few hundred million dollar range, just as SpaceX has done with the Falcon 9.

This also strongly implies the same is true for the space programs in other countries. In this thread I argue the ESA could produce a manned launcher for a few hundred million dollars if privately financed. On another forum, it was argued the same kind of cost savings SpaceX made wouldn't apply in this case.

However, the ESA is a government organization which supplies government finances from the ESA member countries to the private companies that build the Ariane 5 launcher. Then all that would be required is that the ESA also, like NASA, make a proposal of European aerospace companies to privately develop launchers and spacecraft, perhaps with some amount of seed money as NASA is doing, and that the ESA would make a commitment to purchase such launchers and spacecraft even if such launchers undercut the prices of the Ariane 5.

Note that Boeing originally lost out to Lockheed to build the Orion capsule. But with the CST-100 it will be able to make more manned launches to orbit, at an earlier start date, and at much reduced cost than the Orion. And in fact, several different companies will now have the opportunity to offer manned launch services to NASA.

The same would be true of the European aerospace companies, to allow several different companies to operate offering launch and spacecraft services to the ESA, not just EADS Astrium with the Ariane 5. This will have the effect of increasing the European space industry not reducing it.


Bob Clark

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.