Airbus - reusable space launcher

I'm sorry I don't have an English site for this but Airbus is planing on
a space launcher with reusable engines. After separating from the second
stage, the first stage would jettison its tanks and fly back the engine
module.

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article...spacex.N333885

I prefer the SpaceX approach. But I still think this is cool.


Alain Fournier

On 6/7/15 4:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:


I'm sorry I don't have an English site for this but Airbus is planing on
a space launcher with reusable engines. After separating from the second
stage, the first stage would jettison its tanks and fly back the engine
module.

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article...spacex.N333885

I prefer the SpaceX approach. But I still think this is cool.


Once SpaceX seriously started working at it, everyone wants to jump on
board.

Yes.

http://www.21stcentech.com/airbus-pl...cket-launcher/

http://spacenews.com/meet-adeline-ai...spacex-rocket/

Note that it's seeking government investment and it needs 10 years
after that investment is available.

I didn't see anywhere mentioned that they were seeking government
investment. I also thought that their time frame is quite long.
Specially since they have already been working on this for several years.

And as I said, I think that the SpaceX approach of returning the whole
first stage is superior. So I think they will have an inferior vehicle
ten years after SpaceX. Nonetheless I still think it is cool that they
are doing this.


Alain Fournier

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news

Alain Fournier wrote:

On 6/7/15 4:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:


I'm sorry I don't have an English site for this but Airbus is planing
on
a space launcher with reusable engines. After separating from the
second
stage, the first stage would jettison its tanks and fly back the engine
module.

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article...spacex.N333885

I prefer the SpaceX approach. But I still think this is cool.


Once SpaceX seriously started working at it, everyone wants to jump on
board.

Yes.

http://www.21stcentech.com/airbus-pl...cket-launcher/

http://spacenews.com/meet-adeline-ai...spacex-rocket/

Note that it's seeking government investment and it needs 10 years
after that investment is available.

I didn't see anywhere mentioned that they were seeking government
investment. I also thought that their time frame is quite long.
Specially since they have already been working on this for several years.


So far all they've invested is a little bit of internal seed money;
around $16 million or so. See the last paragraph or two of the
Spacenews article.

S.S.T: Moderator note: We'll probably have to break the "politics" of who is
paying for it out of here at some point.


And as I said, I think that the SpaceX approach of returning the whole
first stage is superior. So I think they will have an inferior vehicle
ten years after SpaceX. Nonetheless I still think it is cool that they
are doing this.


Both approaches seem to have their advantages. The SpaceX approach
probably requires less refurbishment and reintegration, since you get
the whole stage back as a piece, but it also eats up a lot more of the
vehicle's total performance in order to do it.


Yeah. The good part here I think is that we're going to get more than one
group trying more than one idea.

Most will probably not pan out, but the more methods we try, the more likely
we are to find one or more that work. Or work for specific circumstances.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 06/09/2015 10:23 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news

Alain Fournier wrote:

On 6/7/15 4:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:


I'm sorry I don't have an English site for this but Airbus is
planing on
a space launcher with reusable engines. After separating from the
second
stage, the first stage would jettison its tanks and fly back the
engine
module.

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article...spacex.N333885


I prefer the SpaceX approach. But I still think this is cool.


And as I said, I think that the SpaceX approach of returning the whole
first stage is superior. So I think they will have an inferior vehicle
ten years after SpaceX. Nonetheless I still think it is cool that they
are doing this.


Both approaches seem to have their advantages. The SpaceX approach
probably requires less refurbishment and reintegration, since you get
the whole stage back as a piece, but it also eats up a lot more of the
vehicle's total performance in order to do it.


Yeah. The good part here I think is that we're going to get more than
one group trying more than one idea.

Most will probably not pan out, but the more methods we try, the more
likely we are to find one or more that work. Or work for specific
circumstances.

And it won't necessarily be one approach which wins. I can easily
imagine something of the kind vertical landing à la SpaceX and dumping
the tanks à la Airbus wins. Or vice versa. The more things are tried the
more knowledge we get, at the worst on what doesn't work, hopefully on
what does.


Alain Fournier

In article ,
says...
And it won't necessarily be one approach which wins. I can easily
imagine something of the kind vertical landing à la SpaceX and dumping
the tanks à la Airbus wins. Or vice versa. The more things are tried the
more knowledge we get, at the worst on what doesn't work, hopefully on
what does.

Agreed. Competition is a good thing.

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