A low cost, all European, manned launcher.

A letter to the ESA:

================================================== =======================
Hello. I was interested to read your report, "(title deleted)" from July 2011. On page 65 it states:

"The HHSC appears as the most promising launch concept:
– The current design clearly shows the advantages of a single High Thrust Engine approach
yielding less costly propulsion systems."

Other reports I read also suggest producing a staged combustion engine at about twice the thrust of the Vulcain. This would be a large engine at about the thrust of the space shuttle main engines(SSME) using also the complex and expensive staged combustion cycle of the SSME. The SSME of course was quite an expensive development process for the U.S. How convenient for EADS Astrium and the other Ariane 5 contractors that the recommended format for the NGL is the most expensive one!
The idea that this would be a less expensive proposal than using just two or three Vulcains on the Ariane 5 core stage is highly dubious. In your report and in other reports I've seen this claim is simply stated without given any comparison to the multi-engine Vulcain case. This in itself is highly questionable. I have to wonder why the multi-Vulcain approach among all those various other ones that are considered is not even evaluated.
Your report stated the single engine concept has proven to be less costly. Really? With ArianeSpace requiring a 100 million Euro subsidy every year, without which it would go bankrupt?? Every other space agency in the world, the U.S., Russia, China, India, has found it cost effective to use multi-engine stages. It is highly dubious that the ESA has discovered a great cost saving approach in always using a single engine that no other space agency grasps, yet at the same time ArianeSpace has to be propped up by megamillions every year because this approach has not proven to be cost effective.
I've seen in other reports an attempt to compare this EADS Astrium suggestion (I call it that because it appears that what's most beneficial to EADS Astrium is what's most beneficial to the ESA) to the Delta-IV model. That argument does not hold water either. The Delta-IV could have been launched using two SSME's. However, the SSME is a quite expensive engine meant to be reusable with high thrust using the most expensive cycle in staged combustion. The U.S. developed the RS-68 for the Delta-IV to get an expendable engine with fewer parts and using the simpler and cheaper gas generator cycle, the same cycle the Vulcain uses. It is also important to note in regards to cost it is only 1 and 1/2 times the thrust of the SSME, not twice the thrust, which also saved on cost.
But with the suggestion to develop a staged combustion engine at twice the thrust of the Vulcain, the ESA is reversing this logic. Because this engine will be using the most expensive combustion cycle while having twice the thrust of the Vulcain it very likely will cost more than two Vulcains, *plus* you have added on that very large development cost for this large engine.
Another argument made for the large, high performance engine is that it gives options in the size of the payloads launched. For instance, the cores could be combined a la the Delta Heavy. However, the multi-engine Ariane also has this capability. In fact, as a single stage it could launch small payloads also, giving ArianeSpace another market for launches. I have also done a preliminary calculation that two such cores with the usual Ariane 5 upper stage could launch ca. 16 mT. And with cross-feed fueling, which can increase payload about 25%, you could get the 20 mT capability of the current Ariane 5.
An additional big problem with the large, expensive single engine approach is that it is expected to come into use in the 2020 to 2025 time frame. The multi-Vulcain approach on the other hand probably could be implemented within 2 to 3 years. I would have no objection to the larger, higher performance engine being used at that later time for a *larger* stage as long as for *now* the multi-Vulcain approach is used.
It might be objected the ESA could not afford both. But SpaceX has shown that as largely privately financed launchers can be developed for markedly reduced costs than for government developed ones. It was able to develop the nine engine, not just two or three, Falcon 9 for ca. $300 million, and this included the costs of developing a whole new engine and a whole new stage.. It is larger in all of number of engines, payload capacity, gross mass, dry mass, number of stages, etc. than the multi-Vulcain Ariane core stage would be. Plus there is also the key fact the engine and stage already exist for the multi-Vulcain so you don't have that development cost.
Quite frankly if EADS Astrium couldn't figure out how to add on one to two engines onto the Ariane 5 core *privately financed* for less than the $300 million SpaceX spent to develop the *entire* Falcon 9, then they are doing something wrong and should ask SpaceX to do it for them. But there is no doubt in my mind that the European engineers are at least as smart as the SpaceX engineers if not smarter and can do it in a low cost fashion if they have to.
Yes, if they have to. EADS Astrium and the ESA are in a partnership. The ESA needs EADS Astrium for their launchers and spacecraft, but EADS Astrium needs the ESA for its aerospace division. Then one way the ESA could encourage EADS Astrium to privately finance the conversion of the Ariane core to multi-engines is to agree to pay for the development of the larger, higher performance engine for that later time frame.
Considering the size of the Ariane core stage compared to the entire Falcon 9 rocket, I suspect this conversion could be done, privately paid for, for under $100 million, really no problem at all for EADS Astrium to finance it themselves. But there is a very important way EADS Astrium could attract financing from outside investors. Reports recently are that Europe has given up on plans of an indigenous manned spaceflight capability because of cost. But SpaceX has shown and NASA has confirmed with its commercial crew program that manned launchers and spacecraft can be developed for costs in the few hundred million dollars range as privately financed, perhaps with governmental seed money.
Then a quite important advantage of the multi-Vulcain Ariane approach is that both the single stage and two stage versions can be used for manned launchers. So this would provide Europe with a manned spaceflight capability at a short time frame and at low cost. This is clearly something that could attract outside investors.

To summarize, the ESA should make a public accounting of the comparison of the multi-Vulcain approach compared to the new large, expensive engine approach for a new launcher. Evidence from other space agencies suggests the multi-engine approach can be cost effective. The ESA should encourage EADS Astrium to privately finance the conversion. Lastly, and most importantly, the multi-engine approach can provide Europe with a manned spaceflight capability in a short time frame.



Robert Clark


c.f.,

A low cost, all European, manned launcher.
« on: March 09, 2012, 07:14:49 pm »
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...html#msg146544

A low cost, all European, manned launcher.
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2012, 04:27:58 pm »
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...html#msg147801

================================================== =======================

A letter to the ESA:

================================================== =====================
Hello. I was interested to read your report, "(titled deleted)" from
July 2011. On page 65 it states:

"The HHSC appears as the most promising launch concept:
– The current design clearly shows the advantages of a single High
Thrust Engine approach
yielding less costly propulsion systems."

Other reports I read also suggest producing a staged combustion
engine at about twice the thrust of the Vulcain. This would be a large
engine at about the thrust of the space shuttle main engines(SSME)
using also the complex and expensive staged combustion cycle of the
SSME. The SSME of course was quite an expensive development process
for the U.S. How convenient for EADS Astrium and the other Ariane 5
contractors that the recommended format for the NGL is the most
expensive one!
The idea that this would be a less expensive proposal than using just
two or three Vulcains on the Ariane 5 core stage is highly dubious. In
your report and in other reports I've seen this claim is simply stated
without given any comparison to the multi-engine Vulcain case. This in
itself is highly questionable. I have to wonder why the multi-Vulcain
approach among all those various other ones that are considered is not
even evaluated.
Your report stated the single engine concept has proven to be less
costly. Really? With ArianeSpace requiring a 100 million Euro subsidy
every year, without which it would go bankrupt?? Every other space
agency in the world, the U.S., Russia, China, India, has found it cost
effective to use multi-engine stages. It is highly dubious that the
ESA has discovered a great cost saving approach in always using a
single engine that no other space agency grasps, yet at the same time
ArianeSpace has to be propped up by megamillions every year because
this approach has not proven to be cost effective.
I've seen in other reports an attempt to compare this EADS Astrium
suggestion (I call it that because it appears that what's most
beneficial to EADS Astrium is what's most beneficial to the ESA) to
the Delta-IV model. That argument does not hold water either. The
Delta-IV could have been launched using two SSME's. However, the SSME
is a quite expensive engine meant to be reusable with high thrust
using the most expensive cycle in staged combustion. The U.S.
developed the RS-68 for the Delta-IV to get an expendable engine with
fewer parts and using the simpler and cheaper gas generator cycle, the
same cycle the Vulcain uses. It is also important to note in regards
to cost it is only 1 and 1/2 times the thrust of the SSME, not twice
the thrust, which also saved on cost.
But with the suggestion to develop a staged combustion engine at
twice the thrust of the Vulcain, the ESA is reversing this logic.
Because this engine will be using the most expensive combustion cycle
while having twice the thrust of the Vulcain it very likely will cost
more than two Vulcains, *plus* you have added on that very large
development cost for this large engine.
Another argument made for the large, high performance engine is that
it gives options in the size of the payloads launched. For instance,
the cores could be combined a la the Delta Heavy. However, the multi-
engine Ariane also has this capability. In fact, as a single stage it
could launch small payloads also, giving ArianeSpace another market
for launches. I have also done a preliminary calculation that two such
cores with the usual Ariane 5 upper stage could launch ca. 16 mT. And
with cross-feed fueling, which can increase payload about 25%, you
could get the 20 mT capability of the current Ariane 5.
An additional big problem with the large, expensive single engine
approach is that it is expected to come into use in the 2020 to 2025
time frame. The multi-Vulcain approach on the other hand probably
could be implemented within 2 to 3 years. I would have no objection to
the larger, higher performance engine being used at that later time
for a *larger* stage as long as for *now* the multi-Vulcain approach
is used.
It might be objected the ESA could not afford both. But SpaceX has
shown that as largely privately financed launchers can be developed
for markedly reduced costs than for government developed ones. It was
able to develop the nine engine, not just two or three, Falcon 9 for
ca. $300 million, and this included the costs of developing a whole
new engine and a whole new stage. It is larger in all of number of
engines, payload capacity, gross mass, dry mass, number of stages,
etc. than the multi-Vulcain Ariane core stage would be. Plus there is
also the key fact the engine and stage already exist for the multi-
Vulcain so you don't have that development cost.
Quite frankly if EADS Astrium couldn't figure out how to add on one
to two engines onto the Ariane 5 core *privately financed* for less
than the $300 million SpaceX spent to develop the *entire* Falcon 9,
then they are doing something wrong and should ask SpaceX to do it for
them. But there is no doubt in my mind that the European engineers are
at least as smart as the SpaceX engineers if not smarter and can do it
in a low cost fashion if they have to.
Yes, if they have to. EADS Astrium and the ESA are in a partnership.
The ESA needs EADS Astrium for their launchers and spacecraft, but
EADS Astrium needs the ESA for its aerospace division. Then one way
the ESA could encourage EADS Astrium to privately finance the
conversion of the Ariane core to multi-engines is to agree to pay for
the development of the larger, higher performance engine for that
later time frame.
Considering the size of the Ariane core stage compared to the entire
Falcon 9 rocket, I suspect this conversion could be done, privately
paid for, for under $100 million, really no problem at all for EADS
Astrium to finance it themselves. But there is a very important way
EADS Astrium could attract financing from outside investors. Reports
recently are that Europe has given up on plans of an indigenous manned
spaceflight capability because of cost. But SpaceX has shown and NASA
has confirmed with its commercial crew program that manned launchers
and spacecraft can be developed for costs in the few hundred million
dollars range as privately financed, perhaps with governmental seed
money.
Then a quite important advantage of the multi-Vulcain Ariane approach
is that both the single stage and two stage versions can be used for
manned launchers. So this would provide Europe with a manned
spaceflight capability at a short time frame and at low cost. This is
clearly something that could attract outside investors.

To summarize, the ESA should make a public accounting of the
comparison of the multi-Vulcain approach compared to the new large,
expensive engine approach for a new launcher. Evidence from other
space agencies suggests the multi-engine approach can be cost
effective. The ESA should encourage EADS Astrium to privately finance
the conversion. Lastly, and most importantly, the multi-engine
approach can provide Europe with a manned spaceflight capability in a
short time frame.



Robert Clark


c.f.,

A low cost, all European, manned launcher.
« on: March 09, 2012, 07:14:49 pm »
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...html#msg146544

A low cost, all European, manned launcher.
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2012, 04:27:58 pm »
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...html#msg147801

================================================== =====================

I looked up references on the Japanese H-II rocket since I
remembered it was hydrogen-fueled to see if it could be SSTO. I was
surprised to see that JAXA in upgrading the H-IIA to the H-IIB, that
they converted the single engine on the first stage to two-engines.
Contrary to the ESA, they did this to save on costs rather than
developing a whole new, larger engine:

Rocketing to the future.
http://www.gov-online.go.jp/pdf/hlj_...027e/05-07.pdf

Mitsubishi Heavy To Invest In Next-Generation Rocket.
by Staff Writers
Tokyo, Japan (AFX) Jun 14, 2006
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mi..._Rock et.html

The development cost for the conversion was 27 billion yen. But 5
billion yen of this was paid for by Mitsubishi Industries as prime
contractor, as described in the second article. Note also that this 5
billion yen cost involved increasing the width of the tanks, which
wouldn't be needed in the Ariane 5 case. It is known that increasing
the width of the tanks involves a significant cost increase. Then we
might estimate the cost as 22 billion yen, or $194 million by the
exchange rate used in the second article without this tank width
change. This is about what the ESA gave ArianeSpace last year as a
subsidy.
Note also JAXA was using the opposite of the financing ratio
suggested by the SpaceX success and NASA's commercial crew program
success, with most of the cost being paid for by the government and
only a fraction being paid for by private financing.
Following the SpaceX model of the majority of the cost being
privately financed, we might expect the cost to be cut by a factor of
5 to 10, so to $20 to $40 million.


Bob Clark


On Jun 29, 1:45*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*A letter to the ESA:

================================================== =====================
Hello. I was interested to read your report, "(titled deleted)" from
July 2011. On page 65 it states:

"The HHSC appears as the most promising launch concept:
– The current design clearly shows the advantages of a single High
Thrust Engine approach
yielding less costly propulsion systems."

*Other reports I read also suggest producing a staged combustion
engine at about twice the thrust of the Vulcain. This would be a large
engine at about the thrust of the space shuttle main engines(SSME)
using also the complex and expensive staged combustion cycle of the
SSME. The SSME of course was quite an expensive development process
for the U.S. How convenient for EADS Astrium and the other Ariane 5
contractors that the recommended format for the NGL is the most
expensive one!
*The idea that this would be a less expensive proposal than using just
two or three Vulcains on the Ariane 5 core stage is highly dubious. In
your report and in other reports I've seen this claim is simply stated
without given any comparison to the multi-engine Vulcain case. This in
itself is highly questionable. I have to wonder why the multi-Vulcain
approach among all those various other ones that are considered is not
even evaluated.
*Your report stated the single engine concept has proven to be less
costly. Really? With ArianeSpace requiring a 100 million Euro subsidy
every year, without which it would go bankrupt?? Every other space
agency in the world, the U.S., Russia, China, India, has found it cost
effective to use multi-engine stages. It is highly dubious that the
ESA has discovered a great cost saving approach in always using a
single engine that no other space agency grasps, yet at the same time
ArianeSpace has to be propped up by megamillions every year because
this approach has not proven to be cost effective.
*I've seen in other reports an attempt to compare this EADS Astrium
suggestion (I call it that because it appears that what's most
beneficial to EADS Astrium is what's most beneficial to the ESA) to
the Delta-IV model. That argument does not hold water either. The
Delta-IV could have been launched using two SSME's. However, the SSME
is a quite expensive engine meant to be reusable with high thrust
using the most expensive cycle in staged combustion. The U.S.
developed the RS-68 for the Delta-IV to get an expendable engine with
fewer parts and using the simpler and cheaper gas generator cycle, the
same cycle the Vulcain uses. It is also important to note in regards
to cost it is only 1 and 1/2 times the thrust of the SSME, not twice
the thrust, which also saved on cost.
*But with the suggestion to develop a staged combustion engine at
twice the thrust of the Vulcain, the ESA is reversing this logic.
Because this engine will be using the most expensive combustion cycle
while *having twice the thrust of the Vulcain it very likely will cost
more than two Vulcains, *plus* you have added on that very large
development cost for this large engine.
*Another argument made for the large, high performance engine is that
it gives options in the size of the payloads launched. For instance,
the cores could be combined a la the Delta Heavy. However, the multi-
engine Ariane also has this capability. In fact, as a single stage it
could launch small payloads also, giving ArianeSpace another market
for launches. I have also done a preliminary calculation that two such
cores with the usual Ariane 5 upper stage could launch ca. 16 mT. And
with cross-feed fueling, which can increase payload about 25%, you
could get the 20 mT capability of the current Ariane 5.
*An additional big problem with the large, expensive single engine
approach is that it is expected to come into use in the 2020 to 2025
time frame. The multi-Vulcain approach on the other hand probably
could be implemented within 2 to 3 years. I would have no objection to
the larger, higher performance engine being used at that later time
for a *larger* stage as long as for *now* the multi-Vulcain approach
is used.
*It might be objected the ESA could not afford both. But SpaceX has
shown that as largely privately financed launchers can be developed
for markedly reduced costs than for government developed ones. It was
able to develop the nine engine, not just two or three, Falcon 9 for
ca. $300 million, and this included the costs of developing a whole
new engine and a whole new stage. It is larger in all of number of
engines, payload capacity, gross mass, dry mass, number of stages,
etc. than the multi-Vulcain Ariane core stage would be. Plus there is
also the key fact the engine and stage already exist for the multi-
Vulcain so you don't have that development cost.
*Quite frankly if EADS Astrium couldn't figure out how to add on one
to two engines onto the Ariane 5 core *privately financed* for less
than the $300 million SpaceX spent to develop the *entire* Falcon 9,
then they are doing something wrong and should ask SpaceX to do it for
them. But there is no doubt in my mind that the European engineers are
at least as smart as the SpaceX engineers if not smarter and can do it
in a low cost fashion if they have to.
*Yes, if they have to. EADS Astrium and the ESA are in a partnership.
The ESA needs EADS Astrium for their launchers and spacecraft, but
EADS Astrium needs the ESA for its aerospace division. Then one way
the ESA could encourage EADS Astrium to privately finance the
conversion of the Ariane core to multi-engines is to agree to pay for
the development of the larger, higher performance engine for that
later time frame.
*Considering the size of the Ariane core stage compared to the entire
Falcon 9 rocket, I suspect this conversion could be done, privately
paid for, for under $100 million, really no problem at all for EADS
Astrium to finance it themselves. But there is a very important way
EADS Astrium could attract financing from outside investors. Reports
recently are that Europe has given up on plans of an indigenous manned
spaceflight capability because of cost. But SpaceX has shown and NASA
has confirmed with its commercial crew program that manned launchers
and spacecraft can be developed for costs in the few hundred million
dollars range as privately financed, perhaps with governmental seed
money.
*Then a quite important advantage of the multi-Vulcain Ariane approach
is that both the single stage and two stage versions can be used for
manned launchers. So this would provide Europe with a manned
spaceflight capability at a short time frame and at low cost. This is
clearly something that could attract outside investors.

*To summarize, the ESA should make a public accounting of the
comparison of the multi-Vulcain approach compared to the new large,
expensive engine approach for a new launcher. Evidence from other
space agencies suggests the multi-engine approach can be cost
effective. The ESA should encourage EADS Astrium to privately finance
the conversion. Lastly, and most importantly, the multi-engine
approach can provide Europe with a manned spaceflight capability in a
short time frame.

* Robert Clark

c.f.,

A low cost, all European, manned launcher.
« on: March 09, 2012, 07:14:49 pm »http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...4692.msg146544...

A low cost, all European, manned launcher.
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2012, 04:27:58 pm »http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...4692.msg147801...

================================================== =====================

what an f"ing idiot. And he is allowed to teach math?

A letter to the Japanese Space Agency, JAXA:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello. I saw your IAF reports on the H-II and proposed H-III
launchers. I
thought you might be interested in the letter to the ESA copied below.
The key
question is one of cost. I looked up references on the H-II rocket
since I
remembered it was hydrogen-fueled to see if it could be SSTO. I was
surprised
to see that JAXA in upgrading the H-IIA to the H-IIB, that they
converted the
single engine on the first stage to two-engines. Contrary to the ESA,
they did
this to save on costs rather than developing a whole new, larger
engine:

Rocketing to the future.
http://www.gov-online.go.jp/pdf/hlj_...027e/05-07.pdf

Mitsubishi Heavy To Invest In Next-Generation Rocket.
by Staff Writers
Tokyo, Japan (AFX) Jun 14, 2006
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mi..._Rock et.html

The development cost for the conversion was 27 billion yen. But 5
billion yen
of this was paid for by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as prime
contractor as
described in the second article. Note also that this 5 billion yen
cost
involved increasing the width of the tanks, which wouldn't be needed
in the
Ariane 5 case. It is known that increasing the width of the tanks
involves a
significant cost increase. Then we might estimate the cost as 22
billion yen,
or $194 million by the exchange rate used in the second article
without this
tank width change. This is about what the ESA gave ArianeSpace last
year as a
subsidy.
Note also JAXA was using the opposite of the financing ratio
suggested by the
SpaceX success and NASA's commercial crew program success, with most
of the
cost being paid for by the government and only a fraction being paid
for by
private financing.
Following the SpaceX model of the majority of the cost being
privately
financed, we might expect the cost to be cut by a factor of 5 to 10,
so to
only $20 to $40 million for the conversion in the Ariane 5 case.

I was interested to see in one of your IAF reports you discussed the
possibility of manned launchers. I see also that you intend to make
the H-III
be all liquid fueled. Solid-rocket boosters are problematical for
manned
launchers because they can not be shut down. Perhaps you intend to use
the
H-III for the purpose in that future time frame when it comes into
use.
However, the H-IIB core stage can be a SSTO manned launcher in the
current
time frame with small modifications. First the H-II core is not as
well weight
optimized as the Ariane 5 core. You can improve that by using common
bulkhead
design as used by the Ariane. Note this is a well understood
lightweighting
method at this point, having been used back in the 1960's on the
Apollo
cryogenic upper stages. Also, SpaceX has used it very effectively to
give the
Falcon 9 first stage a 20 to 1 mass ratio.
You could also use aluminum-lithium alloy for the H-IIB core. This
would cut
an additional 25% off the dry mass of the structure aside from the
engines.
This would then give your stage an advantage over the Ariane 5 core
since it
also does not currently use aluminum-lithium.
These structural changes are relatively low cost when you already
have the
tooling in place for a certain diameter tank. You still though would
have to
decrease the propellant load to lift off with only the two engines on
the
stage without the side boosters. You can just fill the tanks partially
to say
158 mT load, as used for example on the original version of the Ariane
5 core.
It would not cost too much to also cut down the length of the tanks
specifically for the 158 mT load. Lengthening or shortening tank size
is not
too expensive as long as you use the same tooling for the same tank
diameter.
However, you might also choose to add a third engine onto the core
instead of
reducing the propellant load. This probably can be done for comparably
low
cost or even less than adding the second one since you don't have the
extra
expense of re-tooling for wider tank size.
In short JAXA, can in a short time frame join the group of manned
space
flight agencies and at relatively low cost. Also at being the first to
demonstrate a SSTO vehicle JAXA will have accomplished a technical
feat in
importance perhaps to rival Robert Goddards first flights with liquid-
fueled
rockets.
The ESA already has the lightweight stages and moderately high
efficiency
engines to do it. All they need to do is make the politically
controlled
decision to add on a second engine to the Ariane 5 core stage. JAXA
has the
advantage though in having already added on the second engine, and
having more
efficient engines.

The only question now is who will be first to make the quantum leap
to SSTO
launchers.


Bob Clark


================================================== ========================
Hello. I was interested to read your report, "(title deleted)"
from July 2011. On page 65 it states:

"The HHSC appears as the most promising launch concept:
– The current design clearly shows the advantages of a single High
Thrust
Engine approach yielding less costly propulsion systems."

Other reports I read also suggest producing a staged combustion
engine at
about twice the thrust of the Vulcain. This would be a large engine at
about
the thrust of the space shuttle main engines(SSME) using also the
complex and
expensive staged combustion cycle of the SSME. The SSME of course was
quite an
expensive development process for the U.S. How convenient for EADS
Astrium and
the other Ariane 5 contractors that the recommended format for the NGL
is the
most expensive one!
The idea that this would be a less expensive proposal than using just
two or
three Vulcains on the Ariane 5 core stage is highly dubious. In your
report
and in other reports I've seen this claim is simply stated without
given any
comparison to the multi-engine Vulcain case. This in itself is highly
questionable. I have to wonder why the multi-Vulcain approach among
all those
various other ones that are considered is not even evaluated.
Your report stated the single engine concept has proven to be less
costly.
Really? With ArianeSpace requiring a 100 million Euro subsidy every
year,
without which it would go bankrupt?? Every other space agency in the
world,
the U.S., Russia, China, India, has found it cost effective to use
multi-engine stages. It is highly dubious that the ESA has discovered
a great
cost saving approach in always using a single engine that no other
space
agency grasps, yet at the same time ArianeSpace has to be propped up
by
megamillions every year because this approach has not proven to be
cost
effective.
I've seen in other reports an attempt to compare this EADS Astrium
suggestion
(I call it that because it appears that what's most beneficial to EADS
Astrium
is what's most beneficial to the ESA) to the Delta-IV model. That
argument
does not hold water either. The Delta-IV could have been launched
using two
SSME's. However, the SSME is a quite expensive engine meant to be
reusable
with high thrust using the most expensive cycle in staged combustion.
The U.S.
developed the RS-68 for the Delta-IV to get an expendable engine with
fewer
parts and using the simpler and cheaper gas generator cycle, the same
cycle
the Vulcain uses. It is also important to note in regards to cost it
is only 1
and 1/2 times the thrust of the SSME, not twice the thrust, which also
saved
on cost.
But with the suggestion to develop a staged combustion engine at
twice the
thrust of the Vulcain, the ESA is reversing this logic. Because this
engine
will be using the most expensive combustion cycle while having twice
the
thrust of the Vulcain it very likely will cost more than two Vulcains,
*plus*
you have added on that very large development cost for this large
engine.
Another argument made for the large, high performance engine is that
it gives
options in the size of the payloads launched. For instance, the cores
could be
combined a la the Delta Heavy. However, the multi-engine Ariane also
has this
capability. In fact, as a single stage it could launch small payloads
also,
giving ArianeSpace another market for launches. I have also done a
preliminary
calculation that two such cores with the usual Ariane 5 upper stage
could
launch ca. 16 mT. And with cross-feed fueling, which can increase
payload
about 25%, you could get the 20 mT capability of the current Ariane 5.
An additional big problem with the large, expensive single engine
approach is
that it is expected to come into use in the 2020 to 2025 time frame.
The
multi-Vulcain approach on the other hand probably could be implemented
within
2 to 3 years. I would have no objection to the larger, higher
performance
engine being used at that later time for a *larger* stage as long as
for *now*
the multi-Vulcain approach is used.
It might be objected the ESA could not afford both. But SpaceX has
shown that
as largely privately financed launchers can be developed for markedly
reduced
costs than for government developed ones. It was able to develop the
nine
engine, not just two or three, Falcon 9 for ca. $300 million, and this
included the costs of developing a whole new engine and a whole new
stage. It
is larger in all of number of engines, payload capacity, gross mass,
dry mass,
number of stages, etc. than the multi-Vulcain Ariane core stage would
be. Plus
there is also the key fact the engine and stage already exist for the
multi-Vulcain so you don't have that development cost.
Quite frankly if EADS Astrium couldn't figure out how to add on one
to two
engines onto the Ariane 5 core *privately financed* for less than the
$300
million SpaceX spent to develop the *entire* Falcon 9, then they are
doing
something wrong and should ask SpaceX to do it for them. But there is
no doubt
in my mind that the European engineers are at least as smart as the
SpaceX
engineers if not smarter and can do it in a low cost fashion if they
have to.
Yes, if they have to. EADS Astrium and the ESA are in a partnership.
The ESA
needs EADS Astrium for their launchers and spacecraft, but EADS
Astrium needs
the ESA for its aerospace division. Then one way the ESA could
encourage EADS
Astrium to privately finance the conversion of the Ariane core to
multi-engines is to agree to pay for the development of the larger,
higher
performance engine for that later time frame.
Considering the size of the Ariane core stage compared to the entire
Falcon 9
rocket, I suspect this conversion could be done, privately paid for,
for under
$100 million, really no problem at all for EADS Astrium to finance it
themselves. But there is a very important way EADS Astrium could
attract
financing from outside investors. Reports recently are that Europe has
given
up on plans of an indigenous manned spaceflight capability because of
cost.
But SpaceX has shown and NASA has confirmed with its commercial crew
program
that manned launchers and spacecraft can be developed for costs in the
few
hundred million dollars range as privately financed, perhaps with
governmental
seed money.
Then a quite important advantage of the multi-Vulcain Ariane approach
is that
both the single stage and two stage versions can be used for manned
launchers.
So this would provide Europe with a manned spaceflight capability at a
short
time frame and at low cost. This is clearly something that could
attract
outside investors.

To summarize, the ESA should make a public accounting of the
comparison of
the multi-Vulcain approach compared to the new large, expensive engine
approach for a new launcher. Evidence from other space agencies
suggests the
multi-engine approach can be cost effective. The ESA should encourage
EADS
Astrium to privately finance the conversion. Lastly, and most
importantly, the
multi-engine approach can provide Europe with a manned spaceflight
capability
in a short time frame.



Robert Clark


c.f.,

A low cost, all European, manned launcher.
« on: March 09, 2012, 07:14:49 pm »
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...html#msg146544

A low cost, all European, manned launcher.
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2012, 04:27:58 pm »
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...html#msg147801
================================================== ===================================

A letter to the Japanese Space Agency, JAXA:

================================================== =============
Hello. I saw your IAF reports on the H-II and proposed H-III
launchers. I thought you might be interested in the letter to the ESA
copied below. The key question is one of cost. I looked up references
on the H-II rocket since I remembered it was hydrogen-fueled to see if
it could be SSTO. I was surprised to see that JAXA in upgrading the H-
IIA to the H-IIB, that they converted the single engine on the first
stage to two-engines. Contrary to the ESA, they did this to save on
costs rather than developing a whole new, larger engine:

Rocketing to the future.
http://www.gov-online.go.jp/pdf/hlj_...027e/05-07.pdf

Mitsubishi Heavy To Invest In Next-Generation Rocket.
by Staff Writers
Tokyo, Japan (AFX) Jun 14, 2006
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mi..._Rock et.html

The development cost for the conversion was 27 billion yen. But 5
billion yen of this was paid for by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as
prime contractor as described in the second article. Note also that
this 5 billion yen cost involved increasing the width of the tanks,
which wouldn't be needed in the Ariane 5 case. It is known that
increasing the width of the tanks involves a significant cost
increase. Then we might estimate the cost as 22 billion yen, or $194
million by the exchange rate used in the second article without this
tank width change. This is about what the ESA gave ArianeSpace last
year as a subsidy.

Note also JAXA was using the opposite of the financing ratio
suggested by the SpaceX success and NASA's commercial crew program
success, with most of the cost being paid for by the government and
only a fraction being paid for by private financing. Following the
SpaceX model of the majority of the cost being privately financed, we
might expect the cost to be cut by a factor of 5 to 10, so to only $20
to $40 million for the conversion in the Ariane 5 case.

I was interested to see in one of your IAF reports you discussed the
possibility of manned launchers. I see also that you intend to make
the H-III be all liquid fueled. Solid-rocket boosters are
problematical for manned launchers because they can not be shut down.
Perhaps you intend to use the H-III for the purpose in that future
time frame when it comes into use.

However, the H-IIB core stage can be a SSTO manned launcher in the
current time frame with small modifications. First the H-II core is
not as well weight optimized as the Ariane 5 core. You can improve
that by using common bulkhead design as used by the Ariane. Note this
is a well understood lightweighting method at this point, having been
used back in the 1960's on the Apollo cryogenic upper stages. Also,
SpaceX has used it very effectively to give the Falcon 9 first stage a
20 to 1 mass ratio.

You could also use aluminum-lithium alloy for the H-IIB core. This
would cut an additional 25% off the dry mass of the structure aside
from the engines. This would then give your stage an advantage over
the Ariane 5 core since it also does not currently use aluminum-
lithium.

These structural changes are relatively low cost when you already
have the tooling in place for a certain diameter tank. You still
though would have to decrease the propellant load to lift off with
only the two engines on the stage without the side boosters. You can
just fill the tanks partially to say 158 mT load, as used for example
on the original version of the Ariane 5 core. It would not cost too
much to also cut down the length of the tanks specifically for the 158
mT load. Lengthening or shortening tank size is not too expensive as
long as you use the same tooling for the same tank diameter.

However, you might also choose to add a third engine onto the core
instead of reducing the propellant load. This probably can be done for
comparably low cost or even less than adding the second one since you
don't have the extra expense of re-tooling for wider tank size.

In short JAXA, can in a short time frame join the group of manned
space flight agencies and at relatively low cost. Also at being the
first to demonstrate a SSTO vehicle JAXA will have accomplished a
technical feat in importance perhaps to rival Robert Goddards first
flights with liquid-fueled rockets.
The ESA already has the lightweight stages and moderately high
efficiency engines to do it. All they need to do is make the
politically controlled decision to add on a second engine to the
Ariane 5 core stage. JAXA has the advantage though in having already
added on the second engine, and having more efficient engines.

The only question now is who will be first to make the quantum leap
to SSTO launchers.


Bob Clark


================================================== =============(The
attached letter to the ESA letter was in the June 29 post.)