A low cost, all European, manned launcher.

[Hlynkacg]

Maybe so, but there are still valid reasons to those costs. Unless you want someone to strap an arm chair to an ICBM and call it Man rated..(i know its abit of an extreme example but you get the idea). The requirements for man rateing exist for a reason, and those same reasons that existed in the early days still exist today.

Not really, and yes you could. Though it might be hard to find volunteers to go for that ride.

Ariane 5, Delta IV, and Falcon 9 in their current forms are already as, if not far more, safe and reliable than the Shuttle was much less anything we flew in the 60s.

Also According to this the Falcon 9 has a predicted failure rate of 33%, and Ariane 5 of has a predicted failure rate of 5%.

I think it should be noted that by the Space Launch Report's grading metric, SpaceX has yet to have a "Successful" Launch. As such, I do not think that those numbers accurately reflect genuine risk to crew or vehicle.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think it should be noted that by the Space Launch Report's grading metric, SpaceX has yet to have a "Successful" Launch. As such, I do not think that those numbers accurately reflect genuine risk to crew or vehicle.

And I think that these numbers also don't represent the accurate risk for a crewed mission. Unmanned launches only care about reaching the right orbit. For manned launches, you also have a few more constraints.

 

[Hlynkacg]

And I think that these numbers also don't represent the accurate risk for a crewed mission. Unmanned launches only care about reaching the right orbit. For manned launches, you also have a few more constraints.

And manned launches only care about loss of crew or vehicle, by that metric Ariane and Delta have better safety records than any so-called "Man Rated" launcher.

 

[Urwumpe]

And manned launches only care about loss of crew or vehicle, by that metric Ariane and Delta have better safety records than any so-called "Man Rated" launcher.

No, they also include reaching a trajectory that the payload can survive during an abort. They include reaction times during an anomaly.

Even if you think 5% failure rate is good: The Shuttle failed only 2% of its launches, but both of them dramatically.

 

[Hlynkacg]

No, they also include reaching a trajectory that the payload can survive during an abort

I'd say that was covered under loss of crew or vehicle.

Even if you think 5% failure rate is good: The Shuttle failed only 2% of its launches, but both of them dramatically.

Likewise SpaceX currently has a failure rate near 100% and yet...

 

[Urwumpe]

I'd say that was covered under loss of crew or vehicle.

Yes, but the second deadly failure was still something that an unmanned launcher would have counted as success.

Likewise SpaceX currently has a failure rate near 100% and yet...

Still people hype it like they have invented the rocket.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Yes, but the second deadly failure was still something that an unmanned launcher would have counted as success.

Not if your metric for success include survival of the payload.

Still people hype it like they have invented the rocket.

Not sure how that is relevant to current discussion.

 

[RGClark]

Yes, UK should have progressed with Ariane -1 AKA:
Engineering Britain's Superweapons [Ep3 5/5]: "Blue Streak" - YouTube
Sorry about that, just a bit of nostalgia.
N/

Thanks for that. It ends with this line "...Britain had the brains but not the financial brawn to be a superpower in space."
But the point of the matter is that it can be by following the commercial space approach to vehicle development. Orbital Sciences was able to develop both the 5 metric ton class Antares and the Cygnus pressurized spacecraft at only a $288 million cost to the government in development costs. (I won't mention a certain other six letter company here because a member of this forum doesn't like it when its successes are discussed. )
Even the capsule could be home grown rather than using the Italian-developed Cygnus by using a capsule developed by Andy Elson:

PICTURE: UK built ****** capsule revealed.
By: ROB COPPINGER LONDON 11:25 15 Apr 2008

This was meant to be carried by the 4 metric ton class Falcon 5 before that six letter company decided to go with the Falcon 9, so it could be carried by an Antares-sized launcher.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

5-letter company... Intel? Skoda? Oh I love the Yeti, great car. No problem discussing their successes.

But if you mean SpaceX (with six letters): No problem with their successes, but keep in mind that they have not done anything, that Boeing or Convair or Lockheed-Martin didn't do already 30 years ago.

And if your accounting is constantly 16% too low, it at least explains a few percent of the difference between your cost estimates and reality. :hmm:

 

[RGClark]

5-letter company... Intel? Skoda? Oh I love the Yeti, great car. No problem discussing their successes.
But if you mean SpaceX (with six letters): No problem with their successes, but keep in mind that they have not done anything, that Boeing or Convair or Lockheed-Martin didn't do already 30 years ago.
And if your accounting is constantly 16% too low, it at least explains a few percent of the difference between your cost estimates and reality. :hmm:

Corrected.

Bob Clark

 

[Alfastar]

5-letter company... Intel? Skoda? Oh I love the Yeti, great car. No problem discussing their successes.

But if you mean SpaceX (with six letters): No problem with their successes, but keep in mind that they have not done anything, that Boeing or Convair or Lockheed-Martin didn't do already 30 years ago.

And if your accounting is constantly 16% too low, it at least explains a few percent of the difference between your cost estimates and reality. :hmm:

Well, about SpaceX self. I see at this moment just a company who stays alive by government funds, and does almost nothing to find commercial ways to make profit in spaceflight. No, there more focusing in non-profit projects and a new launch site.

The whole point is that a manned spacecraft cost a lot of development money already, and then don't forget that the launch cost of it become higher then a normal launch. And in the economic situation we are now, it would be even not a wise step to think about a manned spacecraft, if you already got our Russian friends for sending Europeans to the ISS. We need not to pay development costs then, and wait years before we got a manned spacecraft in the name of ESA.

 

[RGClark]

...
The whole point is that a manned spacecraft cost a lot of development money already, and then don't forget that the launch cost of it become higher then a normal launch. And in the economic situation we are now, it would be even not a wise step to think about a manned spacecraft, if you already got our Russian friends for sending Europeans to the ISS. We need not to pay development costs then, and wait years before we got a manned spacecraft in the name of ESA.

As I mentioned in post #117 in this thread, once you have a liquid-fueled launcher it can be relatively low cost to make it man-rated. So all Europe has to do to get a manned launch system is to choose a liquid-fueled launcher as a follow on to the Ariane 5.
The only thing preventing such a liquid-fueled follow-on being the Ariane 6 itself are political reasons, for one thing because of the nature of geographical return guaranteeing work in the ESA member countries.
However, another key reason holds for why France supports the solid-fueled version of the Ariane 6: it's because it helps to subsidize the solid-fueled rockets France uses for its long-range missiles. Then Germany and the other European countries would in effect be helping to subsidize financially the French military. This is discussed here by someone who took part in studies looking at various options for the Ariane 6:

Ariane 6: solid vs. liquid.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30749.0

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

However, another key reason holds for why France supports the solid-fueled version of the Ariane 6: it's because it helps to subsidize the solid-fueled rockets France uses for its long-range missiles. Then Germany and the other European countries would in effect be helping to subsidize financially the French military. This is discussed here by someone who took part in studies looking at various options for the Ariane 6:

Yes, and he is absolutely right about this assessment.

Though it has to be said, that the effects on the military might be not that big, since the french M51 missiles are already pretty much state-of-the-art. Still, the technology could be used for making them better, especially range-wise, where the rather high dry mass is the limitation.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_SLBM"]M51 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

But: Don't forget that any technology can also have military applications.

 

[Alfastar]

But: Don't forget that any technology can also have military applications.

Well, was the begin of spaceflight not started with a military goal in it? :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, was the begin of spaceflight not started with a military goal in it? :lol:

Yes. And it was the same with penicillin.

The only technology that still has no military application is magnetic levitation. But even that will change:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System"]Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[RGClark]

Well, was the begin of spaceflight not started with a military goal in it? :lol:

I'd like to see a survey on this question put to German and other European tax payers outside of France:

Which would you prefer:

1.)Spending billions of their tax dollars developing a solid-fueled rocket that would help to support France's nuclear arsenal.

Or

2.)Spending billions on a liquid-fueled rocket that would give Europe an independent manned spaceflight capability.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

I'd like to see a survey on this question put to German and other European tax payers outside of France:

Which would you prefer:

1.)Spending billions of their tax dollars developing a solid-fueled rocket that would help to support France's nuclear arsenal.

Or

2.)Spending billions on a liquid-fueled rocket that would give Europe an independent manned spaceflight capability.

Bob Clark

1.

Simply because if you translate it to reality:

1. Spending billion of their tax dollars developing a solid-fueled satellite launcher that fills the gap between Ariane 5 and Soyuz, which could also improve EADS capabilities to build better SLBMs for France.

2. Spending billions on a liquid-fueled satellite launcher, that would not give Europe an manned spaceflight capability, but could do so, if we would spend another couple of billions for developing a manned spacecraft and manned spaceflight infrastructure.

Manned spaceflight is more than just a rocket, it is a full large complex program for ESA. Not a small budget item that is paid once for a rocket and then all is done. It is a large investment that you have to do for years until the first results become visible.

 

[Face]

I'd like to see a survey on this question put to German and other European tax payers outside of France:

Which would you prefer:

1.)Spending billions of their tax dollars developing a solid-fueled rocket that would help to support France's nuclear arsenal.

Or

2.)Spending billions on a liquid-fueled rocket that would give Europe an independent manned spaceflight capability.

As a European tax payer, I know what I would answer to this. Unfortunately though, it would be a topic for the basement, so I won't elaborate on that here. Just rest assured that it would be neither of your presented options.

regards,
Face

 

[RGClark]

1.

Simply because if you translate it to reality:

1. Spending billion of their tax dollars developing a solid-fueled satellite launcher that fills the gap between Ariane 5 and Soyuz, which could also improve EADS capabilities to build better SLBMs for France.
2. Spending billions on a liquid-fueled satellite launcher, that would not give Europe an manned spaceflight capability, but could do so, if we would spend another couple of billions for developing a manned spacecraft and manned spaceflight infrastructure.
Manned spaceflight is more than just a rocket, it is a full large complex program for ESA. Not a small budget item that is paid once for a rocket and then all is done. It is a large investment that you have to do for years until the first results become visible.

The liquid-fueled rocket would have the same lift capacity as the solid, so the solid has no advantage. The survey is operating under the premise that they have comparable capabilities. Then the distinguishing features between the two choices is what is included in the survey.
But the problem was the manned spaceflight capability for the liquid-fueled version was not even mentioned as part of its advantages in the ESA discussion between the two.
If it were mentioned then a full discussion could be made about the additional costs for a manned system for this liquid-fueled Ariane 6. Given its smaller size, and fully liquid-fueled design it would likely be much less than the estimates put forward for the Ariane 5. Also, as the example of the low cost of man-rating the Atlas V shows, the man-rating of the launcher aspect can be relatively small.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

The liquid-fueled rocket would have the same lift capacity as the solid, so the solid has no advantage. The survey is operating under the premise that they have comparable capabilities. Then the distinguishing features between the two choices is what is included in the survey.

Both designs are to meet the same requirements for the customers. And it is design to requirements. The rocket is not made better or worse than specified. Should a design prove to be overperforming in the simulations, its performance will be reduced in the next iteration while increasing quality or reducing costs. And that until a launcher design is there, that does exactly what it is meant to and do that in the most effective way, with efficiency meaning in first place : costs, reliability, costs and agility, in the sense of: How long it takes from signing a launch contract to launching the satellite.

The Ariane 5 is pretty poor there, since it usually has to wait for two fitting satellites to be dual-launched.

But the problem was the manned spaceflight capability for the liquid-fueled version was not even mentioned as part of its advantages in the ESA discussion between the two.

Yes, because the Ariane 6 is, as I have said above, especially and explicitly designed to be a cheaper launcher as the Ariane 5 for small and medium sized geostationary satellites with higher flexibility than the Ariane 5.

Why should they investigate which is the better manned launcher? Maybe they should also investigate which of the two looks better as Revell modell? Or which has the smaller CO2 footprint?

If it were mentioned then a full discussion could be made about the additional costs for a manned system for this liquid-fueled Ariane 6. Given its smaller size, and fully liquid-fueled design it would likely be much less than the estimates put forward for the Ariane 5. Also, as the example of the low cost of man-rating the Atlas V shows, the man-rating of the launcher aspect can be relatively small.

If it were mentioned, the project would take 30 years before being cancelled without any bit of hardware being produced. You would have too many requirements to investigate in the first phase, too many engineer hours wasted in meetings, because you try to do it all. And even in the best case, you would only get a compromise, an expensive satellite launcher and a poor manned rocket.