A low cost, all European, manned launcher.

[N_Molson]

Essentially, the specification was: The Shuttle should carry the equivalent in computing power, that NASA had on the ground during the Apollo missions

I never thought to that but... do you think that if one of our home desktop computers was sent in 1969 (using a TARDIS ) and put in the hands of the best electronical engineers of that era, it could replace alone all the heavy equipement that took all a complex of rooms at KSC, and "run" an Apollo mission ? After all, our computers can perform billions of operations by second, and I doubt they had that computing power back then (there were rooms with mathematicians checking everything by the hand) ?

 

[RGClark]

Overhauling the SSME was not much cheaper than buying a new one, but it was cheaper... it did cut some costs since the test effort during refurbishment is the same as the test effort during manufacturing, but without the manufacturing effort.

No, it was very much cheaper. By your estimate of $65 million new, it would be nearly $200 million per flight just on engine maintenance and it wasn't anything near that.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

Wrong. France rejoined the integrated military command of NATO in 2009, while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#After_the_Cold_War

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#French_withdrawal

I stand corrected that France has rejoined NATO, with an independent nuclear force.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ----------

It's not just a manned European launcher that could be ready by 2018 in the form of a liquid-fueled Ariane 6 so also could be a European manned crew spacecraft.

The liquid-fueled Ariane 6 would have comparable capability to the Atlas V. Sierra Nevada is planning to use the Atlas V to launch their Dream Chaser manned spacecraft to orbit. Note the Dream Chaser was also planned to be used for suborbital flights.

Now consider that Swiss Space Systems has announced the development of a launch system using a suborbital spaceplane stage, that they have now said will also be used to carry crew to suborbital flight:

Swiss Rocket Plane May Launch People on Private Science Trips.
Stephen Clark, SPACE.com ContributorDate: 19 June 2013 Time: 02:13 PM ET
http://www.space.com/21629-swiss-private-rocket-plane-evolution.html

This would be quite similar if not identical to the Dassault Aviation Vehra suborbital spaceplane:

The Vehra would be smaller than the earlier Hermes, which was cancelled by weight and cost growth. At only 6.5 metric tons dry mass according to Astronautix, the Vehra could be carried to orbit by an Ariane 6 size launcher.

Then just as for the Dream Chaser it could be used both as a suborbital spaceplane or an orbital crewed spaceplane with stronger heat shield.


Bob Clark

 

[Alfastar]

It's not just a manned European launcher that could be ready by 2018 in the form of a liquid-fueled Ariane 6 so also could be a European manned crew spacecraft.

The liquid-fueled Ariane 6 would have comparable capability to the Atlas V. Sierra Nevada is planning to use the Atlas V to launch their Dream Chaser manned spacecraft to orbit. Note the Dream Chaser was also planned to be used for suborbital flights.

Now consider that Swiss Space Systems has announced the development of a launch system using a suborbital spaceplane stage, that they have now said will also be used to carry crew to suborbital flight:

Swiss Rocket Plane May Launch People on Private Science Trips.
Stephen Clark, SPACE.com ContributorDate: 19 June 2013 Time: 02:13 PM ET
http://www.space.com/21629-swiss-private-rocket-plane-evolution.html

This would be quite similar if not identical to the Dassault Aviation Vehra suborbital spaceplane:

Dassault Aviation - Vehra - YouTube

The Vehra would be smaller than the earlier Hermes, which was cancelled by weight and cost growth. At only 6.5 metric tons dry mass according to Astronautix, the Vehra could be carried to orbit by an Ariane 6 size launcher.

Then just as for the Dream Chaser it could be used both as a suborbital spaceplane or an orbital crewed spaceplane with stronger heat shield.


Bob Clark

Well, I don't think that Swiss Space Systems is a very serious plan. And even it is, then still I got not really the feeling that it ever reach its main goal.

Its a bit worry how much private spaceflight company exist this days. Its a bit like: Private spaceflight is hip, so we doing it also. However, don't be surprised that we see in 2020 only a few private spaceflight company exist really.

I don't think this is a good reason to start with development of the Ariane 6. It would be maybe cost even more, because you need to make it man-rated. I don't see a good, strong fact why we need a Ariane 6 at this moment. It can put less mass into orbit, it would cost years of development, and more. We got the Ariane 5 for GEO mostly, and in GEO, you can make some serious profit. The Soyuz can do the MEO missions, where you can make nice profits also.

Maybe somewhere in 2015 we can think about the Ariane 6. But still at this moment, ESA is still a serious space agency.

I still ask myself why ESA is not really known by the mass, it got blue letters on it, and we have a white painted rocket, the Vega :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

No, it was very much cheaper. By your estimate of $65 million new, it would be nearly $200 million per flight just on engine maintenance and it wasn't anything near that.

To put your numbers in relation: Alone a 24 hour scrub of the Space Shuttle costs $1 million.

I still haven't found any exact number except the $5 billion per year for all Shuttle program costs - while NASA is right to say that most of the costs are fixed costs, they still could have broken things down into smaller numbers to explain where the money goes. I can't even find out, how many USA employees do what - because the USA are a private company.

 

[N_Molson]

Officially, the 2009 CNES report that puts forward the current design of Ariane 6 lays the following points as a general frame :

- Ariane 6 has to be expendable, because the developpement of a reusable launcher would be far too expensive (13-19 billions (10^9) euros), with maintenance costs probably not cheaper than the operation costs of Ariane 5.

- Forget the idea of manned flight, Europe has not the means to develop a technology similar to the US and Russian ones.

- Forget dual-payload launches, to focus on single payload launches (3-6 tons).

- Confirm the developpement of an LOX/LH2 upper stage powered by the Vinci engine.

- Study, in parallel with the use of solids, the possibility of a LOX/Kerosene fueled first stage.

- Allow 3 parallel first stages configurations.

- Ariane 6 should allow an "extreme modularity".

That report was requested in 2009 by the Prime Minister François Fillon, and under Sarkozy's leadership. I get it better now. He has a lot of rich "friends" in the defense industry. :facepalm:

That "new" rocket will be pretty much a technological regression.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, some aspects of it are back to the roots. The extreme modularity of Ariane 4 was key to its success.

But I strongly disagree to "Europe has no means to develop manned spaceflight". We can and we should. But not at all costs.

And which French politician does not have friends in the Defense Industry. You can't make any meaningful political career without sitting in one supervisory board for one of the state owned industries in France.

 

[N_Molson]

And which French politician does not have friends in the Defense Industry. You can't make any meaningful political career without sitting in one supervisory board for one of the state owned industries in France.

Some more than other, and the Sarkozy band of thugs is really, really nasty believe me. Currently they are evading trial after trial for various frauds commited during the last years, and this really more than "usual". They have absolutely no other interest than making money.

The current President and his first minister are not sitting in any supervisory board of any state owned industries I know of. Well, of course as leaders of the state they have (some) influence on the state-owned industries, but that's pretty obvious...

 

[Urwumpe]

The current President and his first minister are not sitting in any supervisory board of any state owned industries I know of. Well, of course as leaders of the state they have (some) influence on the state-owned industries, but that's pretty obvious...

OK... but that doesn't make Hollande better I fear :lol:

In Germany, it is very common to have members of parliament sit in so many boards of directors of many different companies, that you have reasonable doubt that they do any meaningful political work during the day.

 

[T.Neo]

I still haven't found any exact number except the $5 billion per year for all Shuttle program costs - while NASA is right to say that most of the costs are fixed costs, they still could have broken things down into smaller numbers to explain where the money goes. I can't even find out, how many USA employees do what - because the USA are a private company.

There is some pretty interesting information posted in http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=21024 this thread.

- Ariane 6 should allow an "extreme modularity".

Hi there! :shifty:

 

[RGClark]

...

I still ask myself why ESA is not really known by the mass[es], it got blue letters on it, and we have a white painted rocket, the Vega :lol:

It would be if it were launching manned flights.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

There is some pretty interesting information posted in http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=21024 this thread.

​

​

Thanks... so about 8.85% of the costs for orbiter maintenance go into the SSMEs. (and if I read the other file correctly, 3500 Man-hours as by number of tasks x task time)

 

[Alfastar]

It would be if it were launching manned flights.

Bob Clark

Or making a hipster cargo spacecraft, who is painted white, and got a cool name :lol:

 

[RGClark]

Officially, the 2009 CNES report that puts forward the current design of Ariane 6 lays the following points as a general frame :
...

- Forget the idea of manned flight, Europe has not the means to develop a technology similar to the US and Russian ones.

I respectfully disagree. People are not aware of the economic might of the European Union (EU) as a whole. It exceeds those of Russia and China. Its technological advancement and industrial might also exceeds those countries. It is in fact comparable to the U.S. in all those categories.
The only thing needed for Europe to develop its own manned space flight program is to produce an Ariane 6 sized liquid-fueled launcher, either by the Ariane 6 itself or a separate commercially developed one.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

It would be if it were launching manned flights.

Bob Clark

ROSKOSMOS! :lol:

 

[N_Molson]

Hi there! :shifty:

Well, I think that's the point, they want a sort of light EELV. That design is very popular those days. And it's a pretty good one. But maybe not by stacking SRMs together.

 

[RGClark]

Or making a hipster cargo spacecraft, who is painted white, and got a cool name :lol:

A good point. To me it is an important fact that both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences were able to cut both the total development costs and the costs that needed to be paid by government in developing their launchers.
I don't think it is a coincidence that Orbital was started by three Harvard Business School graduates and SpaceX by a Wharton School of Business graduate, the two leading business schools in the United States.
What's needed are entrepreneurs with both great technical knowledge and great business skills. This is possible also in Europe in following the commercial space model to producing new launchers and/or spacecraft.


Bob Clark

 

[Alfastar]

A good point. To me it is an important fact that both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences were able to cut both the total development costs and the costs that needed to be paid by government in developing their launchers.
I don't think it is a coincidence that Orbital was started by three Harvard Business School graduates and SpaceX by a Wharton School of Business graduate, the two leading business schools in the United States.
What's needed are entrepreneurs with both great technical knowledge and great business skills. This is possible also in Europe in following the commercial space model to producing new launchers and/or spacecraft.


Bob Clark

Well, commercial spaceflight is not always cheaper, but I understand you point. But is ESA not already largely focus about commercial launches?

But, if you ask, then the best would be a company like Orbital science. There are a company who known how to make profit, how to commercialism spaceflight in a realistic way, and don't spend almost everything towards non-profit missions.

But, why you think development and launch costs of a commercial spaceflight company is always cheaper? On what for fact you got that argument?

 

[Urwumpe]

But, why you think development and launch costs of a commercial spaceflight company is always cheaper? On what for fact you got that argument?

He just points at the Space Shuttle development costs and puts the number published by Musk for the pure Falcon 9 development against it ($300 million, costs previously spend for Falcon 1 and Falcon 5 are not included).

And for example ignores that SpaceX already received alone $1.8 billion for developing the Dragon Spacecraft and flying it 12 times from NASA, and will receive $3.3 billion all together if the flights are successful. That is $275 million per unmanned Dragon flight. The manned Dragon should suddenly cost $140 million, once the US tax payer has paid the expensive R&D.

In contrast: The European ATV did cost 1.35 billion Euro ($1.76 billion) and costs $300 million per flight. All by the European tax payer, but at least you can tell the exact costs - something that is impossible for SpaceX, since it is simply a private company. What it costs and what the price is, are two not directly related, different things.

The European ATV weights twice as much, delivers twice as much cargo, does more the than the Dragon. it can't return cargo, but:

• it also does reboost maneuvers,
• fuel transfer,
• can also transfer liquid water directly into tanks of the USS,
• bring oxygen and nitrogen to the ISS
• It does supervised autonomous rendezvous and docking instead of ground controlled manual guidance (Like any other commercial satellite does)

It does only half as many flights (5) because of the ISS treaties, which means it has less launches to compensate the R&D.

Also the ATV had been in development since 1994, while the Dragon development started in 2004, which means the Dragon had one decade more technology available, that had to be developed when the ATV started its career.

And still it is almost equivalent to the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft in its costs. Despite all disadvantages in its environment: The Dragon with a way more favorable environment costs almost as much as the ATV.

And I think the HTV of the Japanese is even cheaper than the ATV.

 

[N_Molson]

Yes, what makes me angry with the Ariane 6 is that it means the loss of the ATV. That was really a good cargo ship. Might even have been improved with a capsule section to return stuff.

 

[Capt_hensley]

Where is it written that by building the A-6, all of the sudden the A-5e along with the ATV just magically goes away?