Airbus unveils 'Adeline' re-usable rocket concept

"Airbus, which leads the production of Europe's Ariane rocket, has developed a
concept that could make future vehicles partially re-usable.

Code-named "Adeline", the system would see a booster's main engines fly
themselves back to Earth after a launch.

The returned elements would then be refurbished and put on another mission.

Airbus says it has been working on the concept since 2010 and has even flight-
tested small demonstrators."

See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056

In article ,
says...

"Airbus, which leads the production of Europe's Ariane rocket, has developed a
concept that could make future vehicles partially re-usable.

Code-named "Adeline", the system would see a booster's main engines fly
themselves back to Earth after a launch.

The returned elements would then be refurbished and put on another mission.

Airbus says it has been working on the concept since 2010 and has even flight-
tested small demonstrators."

See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056

I saw that. Interesting concept. I hope it pans out. It's not as
useful as recovering the whole stage, but it at least recovers the most
expensive bits.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 9:24:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
"Airbus, which leads the production of Europe's Ariane rocket, has developed a
concept that could make future vehicles partially re-usable.

Code-named "Adeline", the system would see a booster's main engines fly
themselves back to Earth after a launch.

The returned elements would then be refurbished and put on another mission.

Airbus says it has been working on the concept since 2010 and has even flight-
tested small demonstrators."

See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...ttach=228 775

The airframe looks a lot like the Flyback F1 Booster from the 1960s. Of course, this is the same shape, but carries only an engine, avionics and so forth - dropping the tank in the Ariane case.

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Airbus, which leads the production of Europe's Ariane rocket, has developed a
concept that could make future vehicles partially re-usable.

Code-named "Adeline", the system would see a booster's main engines fly
themselves back to Earth after a launch.

The returned elements would then be refurbished and put on another mission.

Airbus says it has been working on the concept since 2010 and has even flight-
tested small demonstrators."

See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056

I saw that. Interesting concept. I hope it pans out. It's not as
useful as recovering the whole stage, but it at least recovers the most
expensive bits.

The claim is that there is a smaller performance penalty with the
Airbus approach. Of course, they also need government funding and 10
years to do it...

Perhaps there is a smaller mass penalty, but those wings will certainly
impose a drag penalty. Also, the added mass may be less, but the added
mass is also almost certainly more expensive. Competition is good, but
in this case, you're right that Airbus's solution is almost certainly
government funded.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 3:55:58 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Airbus, which leads the production of Europe's Ariane rocket, has developed a
concept that could make future vehicles partially re-usable.

Code-named "Adeline", the system would see a booster's main engines fly
themselves back to Earth after a launch.

The returned elements would then be refurbished and put on another mission.

Airbus says it has been working on the concept since 2010 and has even flight-
tested small demonstrators."

See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056

I saw that. Interesting concept. I hope it pans out. It's not as
useful as recovering the whole stage, but it at least recovers the most
expensive bits.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Agreed. The space tug concept also mentioned increases payload on orbit for subsequent flights. Space services satellites also make a lot of sense.

These are things I've proposed to the White House OSTP back in 1990s during the Clinton Administration.

Consider a booster that used LOX/LH2 and had a 7% structure fraction - and that a tank that had a 3.5% structure fraction replaced a solid propellant kick stage.

The high expansion LOX/LH2 tank has a Ve=4.5 km/sec. The solid rocket kick stage it is replacing has a Ve=2.8 km/sec with a 12% structure fraction.

So, with a 10,000 kg capacity to LEO for Ariane launch from S America we have a delta vee of 1.63 km/sec to go from LEO to GTO and 0.08 km/sec to go from GTO to GEO, and 0.08 km/sec

A solid propellant kick stage that only must impart 1.71 km/sec one time use.

So, with a 2.8 km/sec Ve and a 1.71 km/sec dV we have a propellant fraction equal to;

u = 1 - 1 / exp(1.71/2.8) = 45.7% ~ 4,570 kg

We have a 12% structure fraction - which totals 1,200 kg - and this leaves

10,000 - 4,570 - 1,200 = 4,230 kg

at GEO.

The resuable space taxi does all that and goes from GEO to GTO - another 0.08 km/sec - a total of 1.79 km/sec and we use aerobraking to circularize the orbit and ready it for another round - add another 0.01 km/sec - a total of 1.8 km/sec.

The reusable taxi is 752.6 kg and the orbited mass is 10,000 kg as before. The total is 10,752.6 kg. The propellant fraction is;

u = 1 - 1 / exp(1.8/4.5) = 33.0% == 3,545 kg

which leaves;

10,752.6 - 752.6 - 376.4 - 3,545 = 6,078.6 kg

A 43.7% increase!

A satellite park that had power, navigation, command and control, has the potential to increase the usable payload for a user as well.

The satellite's functions are housed within its components. These include;

(1) Spacecraft bus
(a) The Structural Subsystem

The structural subsystem provides the mechanical base structure with adequate stiffness to withstand stress and vibrations experienced during launch, maintain structural integrity and stability while on station in orbit, and shields the satellite from extreme temperature changes and micro-meteorite damage.

(b) The Telemetry Subsystem (aka Command and Data Handling, C&DH)

The telemetry subsystem monitors the on-board equipment operations, transmits equipment operation data to the earth control station, and receives the earth control station's commands to perform equipment operation adjustments..

(c) The Power Subsystem

The power subsystem consists of solar panels to convert solar energy into electrical power, regulation and distribution functions, and batteries that store power and supply the satellite when it passes into the Earth's shadow.. Nuclear power sources (Radioisotope thermoelectric generator have also been used in several successful satellite programs including the Nimbus program.

(d) The thermal control subsystem

The thermal control subsystem helps protect electronic equipment from extreme temperatures due to intense sunlight or the lack of sun exposure on different sides of the satellite's body (e.g. Optical Solar Reflector)

(e) The Attitude and Orbit Control Subsystem

The attitude and orbit control subsystem consists of sensors to measure vehicle orientation; control laws embedded in the flight software; and actuators (reaction wheels, thrusters) to apply the torques and forces needed to re-orient the vehicle to a desired attitude, keep the satellite in the correct orbital position and keep antennas positioning in the right directions.

(2) Communication payload

The second major module is the communication payload, which is made up of transponders. A transponder is capable of :

(a) Receiving uplinked radio signals from earth satellite transmission stations (antennas).

(b) Amplifying received radio signals

(c) Sorting the input signals and directing the output signals through input/output signal multiplexers to the proper downlink antennas for retransmission to earth satellite receiving stations (antennas).

By separating these functions between a satellite in which spaces and services are rented, and allowing customized features to be added by users, a 50% or more weight reduction may be afforded, permitting more bang for the buck!

It also allows space launch providers to begin earning revenues from the assets they put into place, which increases their business prospects going forward. Ultimately with highly reusable launchers, they have the potential to have an inventory that they can contribute to projects for ownership interest in those projects at no cost out of pocket.

For example, say they put up 10 tons at $100 million each, and that's the going rate. They reuse portions which cost only $30 million per flight for the same 10 tons. At present it takes 7 years or so to complete a launch from beginning of the project to end. This could be considerably shortened if inventories of hardware are kept in storage ready for immediate use. Say 2 years or less.

This rapid response ability should be sold at a premium to those in need of it. So, one can imagine that a launch provider not actively promote their 'used' inventory until someone comes along who is willing to pay a premium, say $110 million for a rapid response. This establishes a market value of between $100 million and $110 million per launch whether new or used.

Now, if a Motorola or Iridium comes along in the future and wants to put up a network of satellites, they can cut a deal where they charge their $30 million out of pocket cost to the program, and realize a $70 million to $80 million capital contribution to the project for providing a $100 million to $110 million launch - depending on the timing of the launch. If the project is valued based on venture capital rates of return - this $70 million to $80 million contribution could grow to $350 million or more per launch in terms of value of continuing revenue. This supports out of pocket costs for a dozen more launches for additional consideration to those who wish to partner in the development of payloads for those launches. One of these could be the 'space park' and 'space taxi' concepts described.

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 11:39:45 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 15-06-08 01:32, Fred J. McCall wrote:

I suspect the wings are almost entirely inside a tank fairing until
the engines separate. And Airbus has said they'll require government
funding and investment starting now to deliver in 2025.


I suspect this is all "me too" vapourware. One of the articles mentioned
a number of times that the current revamp of the Arianne rocket due in a
number of years will NOT include return capabilities and they won't
delay the project to include it.

In other words: we didn't think return capability was possible, but now
that SpaceX is damned c lose to it, we have to pretend to also be
looking at it.

Their little demo prototype is cute, but how big/heavy would landing
gear have to be to get full stage/engines to land smoothly enough for
re-use ?

For a kerosene rocket, the wings can be used as fuel storage, so they
are not a total dead weight. (done every minute on commercial jetliners)

Not sure if this works for LOX and LH2.


I forget where I read it, but I got the impression that the engines
would fly back on small turbojets, so presumably there will be some
small tanks of jet fuel in there somewhere.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

A hydrogen fuelled fuel cell that drives a turbofan engine propels the drone back to the launch center.


http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/201...sable-rockets/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzeCQblYHic

http://ec.europa.eu/research/transpo...c raft_en.htm

http://www.mh-aerotools.de/company/p...%20-%20DLR.pdf

Internal combustion engine drive train using kerosene is 33% efficient whilst the PEM drive train is 55% efficient. A kg of kerosene contains 46.2 MJ whilst a kg of hydrogen containst 141.8 MJ. So, in terms of mechanical energy we have;

1 kg kerosene --- 46.2 * 0.33 = 15.25 MJ
1 kg hydrogen --- 141.8 * 0.55 = 75.99 MJ

Plugging this into an appropriate range equation shows that you can fly 20,000 km - half way around the world - with less than 20% propellant fraction!

The Vulcain II engine masses 625 kg. It produces 1,015 kN of thrust by burning 36.3 kg/sec of LH2 and 199.7 kg/sec of LOX. A 1,500 kg system that contains 300 kg of LH2 (scavanged from the last 10 seconds of flow into a small storage tank) gives the ability for a drone to fly from any point on Earth to any other!

A sphere of liquid hydrogen 2 meters in diameter. The Vulcain 2 is 1.76 m diameter by 3.05 m in length. So, a sphere at the nose of the drone system 2 meters in diameter makes a drone 5.05 m long by 2 meters in diameter. With a 15:1 lift to glide ratio only 50 kgf for each prop is required to maintain flight with full fuel load. This sizes the engines and fuel cell power train along with controllers - 60 kW.

Something about this size and weight - with a Vulcain and Hydrogen tank attached of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma0GRUQv6l0

A wingspan of 9.5 metres and 6.7 metres in length

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 5:34:28 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 3:55:58 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Airbus, which leads the production of Europe's Ariane rocket, has developed a
concept that could make future vehicles partially re-usable.

Code-named "Adeline", the system would see a booster's main engines fly
themselves back to Earth after a launch.

The returned elements would then be refurbished and put on another mission.

Airbus says it has been working on the concept since 2010 and has even flight-
tested small demonstrators."

See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056

I saw that. Interesting concept. I hope it pans out. It's not as
useful as recovering the whole stage, but it at least recovers the most
expensive bits.


Agreed. The space tug concept also mentioned increases payload on orbit for subsequent flights. Space services satellites also make a lot of sense.

These are things I've proposed to the White House OSTP back in 1990s during the Clinton Administration.


Mookie, everything is not about your fantasies.

You're the one who fantasizes, not me.

Can't you just stick
to reality once in a while?

I am. You're not.

Snip MookSpew

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 10:53:35 AM UTC+12, JF Mezei wrote:
On 15-06-08 01:32, Fred J. McCall wrote:

I suspect the wings are almost entirely inside a tank fairing until
the engines separate. And Airbus has said they'll require government
funding and investment starting now to deliver in 2025.


I suspect this is all "me too" vapourware. One of the articles mentioned
a number of times that the current revamp of the Arianne rocket due in a
number of years will NOT include return capabilities and they won't
delay the project to include it.

In other words: we didn't think return capability was possible, but now
that SpaceX is damned c lose to it, we have to pretend to also be
looking at it.

Their little demo prototype is cute, but how big/heavy would landing
gear have to be to get full stage/engines to land smoothly enough for
re-use ?

For a kerosene rocket, the wings can be used as fuel storage, so they
are not a total dead weight. (done every minute on commercial jetliners)

Not sure if this works for LOX and LH2.

LH2 and air driving two 30 kW electric fans - with a 20% LH2 propellant weight - the drone can fly from anywhere on Earth to the launch center.

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 5:34:28 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 3:55:58 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Airbus, which leads the production of Europe's Ariane rocket, has developed a
concept that could make future vehicles partially re-usable.

Code-named "Adeline", the system would see a booster's main engines fly
themselves back to Earth after a launch.

The returned elements would then be refurbished and put on another mission.

Airbus says it has been working on the concept since 2010 and has even flight-
tested small demonstrators."

See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056

I saw that. Interesting concept. I hope it pans out. It's not as
useful as recovering the whole stage, but it at least recovers the most
expensive bits.


Agreed. The space tug concept also mentioned increases payload on orbit for subsequent flights. Space services satellites also make a lot of sense.

These are things I've proposed to the White House OSTP back in 1990s during the Clinton Administration.


Mookie, everything is not about your fantasies. Can't you just stick
to reality once in a while?

Snip MookSpew

The SSME combined with four RL-10 engines on the first stage, and four RL-10 engines on the second stage, create an interesting TSTO-RLV.

This was my old 'Greenspace' program which I proposed to Gates & McCaw back in the early 1990s. This is a VTOVL system.

The SSME pumpset and four RL-10 pumpsets all fed into a modular zero height aerospike engine with integrated thermal protection. The engine is fuelled by hydrogen and oxygen propellants. With a sea level specific impulse of 4.3 km/sec rising to 4.45 km/sec at altitude, with an aeverage 4.38 km/sec delta vee. 2,700 kN at take off and 440 kN at landing. The second stage produces 440 kN as well and has a specific impulse of 4.56 km/sec.

The first stage inert weight is 7,300 kg and the engine weight is 3,900 kg - a total of 11,200 kg structural weight. 21,363.5 kg of LH2 in the first stage and 117,419.2 kg of LOX in the first stage as well. The LH2 tank is a single sphere 8,454 mm in diameter. There are 8 LOX tanks each 2,909 mm in diameter forming a ring upon which the larger sphere sits, forming a cone with an opening angle of 25 degrees.

The first stage is a truncated cone 10.12 m in diameter at the base and 6.55 m wide at the top and is 8.5 meters tall. The second stage is also a truncated cone 6.55 m wide at the base and 4.00 m wide at the top and 14.2 m long and topped by a conical cap 3.5 m tall with a crew cabin and avionics.

This cargo bay carries 15,000 kg of payload - the crew compartment 3,900 kg of useful load.

The system is capable of unpiloted operation.

The second stage totals 58,515.6 kg of which 5,719.5 kg is liquid hydrogen contained in a single 5,384 mm diameter spherical tank. It too is surrounded by eight LOX tanks that are 1,875 mm in diameter each. These carry a total of 31,457.4 kg of LOX. The engine masses 1,108 kg and the inert weight of the stage is 1,330.6 kg. Useful load is 15,000 kg in the cargo bay and 3,900 kg in the crew cabin.

The first stage lands vertically 2,400 km down range from the launch center, on a platform at sea. Here the stage is loaded to 18% initial capacity and launched back to the launch center without a second stage. At the launch center it executes a powered touchdown and is ready for reuse.

The second stage enters orbit and releases its payload. It then executes a deorbit burn and lands at the launch center following re-entry. It is stacked atop the first stage and refuelled ready for nearly immediate reuse.

A 70 MW power plant at the launch center and a 12 MW power plant at the downrange return platform, supplies sufficient power to refuel the system permitting daily flights. At $0.30 per kWh this translates to $590,000 per flight.

Range operations run around $1,000,000 per flight. The cost of the SSME used was quoted at $68 million. The 8 RL10 engies were $4 million each. $100 million for the engines. The airframe $86 million was quoted for both the first and second stages, including avionics, etc. Recovery costs ran about 4% CAPEX - or $7.4 million per flight.


$7.4 million - maintenance
$1.0 million - range operations
$0.6 million - propellant/fuel cost

$9.0 million - TOTAL

15,000 kg - $600/kg

$150 million - value at $10,000/kg.


At 20 kW per kg a 15,000 kg payload orbits a 300 MW power satellite. At 2,500 kg per comsat, each launch orbits 6 advanced networked comsats. At 689 kg per Iridium satellite - 22 satellites are launched per flight.

In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 11:39:45 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 15-06-08 01:32, Fred J. McCall wrote:
I forget where I read it, but I got the impression that the engines
would fly back on small turbojets, so presumably there will be some
small tanks of jet fuel in there somewhere.


A hydrogen fuelled fuel cell that drives a turbofan engine propels the drone back to the launch center.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/201...sable-rockets/


Up to this point what you had to say was useful, although your cite
doesn't quite support what you said preceding it. It uses propellers
(not a turbofan) and nothing is said about how those propellers are
fueled or powered.

Everything from here on is useless MookSpew and doesn't apply to the
AirBus solution at all, so far as any evidence so far shows.

Agree with the MookSpew. From the (English) news reports I've read,
they say the return vehicle will be powered by "turbofans". So, unless
something was lost in translation, I'm guessing Airbus will power the
thing with "off the shelf" turbofan engines, powered by kerosene. Also,
I thought I saw what looked to be intakes on the front of the engines
pods in one rendering, which would support the air breathing turbofan
notion. But, other renderings (video) don't show this.

It's possible at this point that the engineers aren't sure what type of
engines to use for return and how to power them. Since it's Airbus,
they may be toying with the overall design and aerodynamics at this
stage.

This thing is already going to be expensive to develop, so using
bleeding edge LH2/LOX fuel cells and electric propulsion seems likely to
drive up development costs even further, IMHO.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer