You are not logged in.
Europe has gone through a number of launch sites and a number of rockets over the years, the Swedish test sounding rockets at Esrange, the British did small launches from Australia, France had a rocket base in Algeria, the Spanish studied a Capricornio launcher and the Italian ASI have tested rockets at San Marcoin Kenya but the most important European lifter has been the Ariane. The French started Ariane back in the 70s with an attempt for Europe to develop its own launcher. From the year 1979 to 1988 the Europeans have launched models Ariane 1,2,3 and Ariane 4. The Ariane-V is their latest launcher there are future plans for an Ariane-ES-ATV, the Ariane has launched many important missions such as the Smart-1 spacecraft, Giotto, XMM-Newton, ISO, Rosetta....howeevr as powerful as the Ariane is it can not be compared to the giants like Saturn-V or Energia. The future Euro-HLLV would launch massive payloads into orbit, but I think Ariane-M would need a massive change in European space policy for it to be built.
another item here
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/500/1
Making the case for Ariane 6
another mention here PDF
http://staging.snapmedia.com:8080/docs/document3.pdf.
race to Mars and Ariane-M
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
It's plain and simple: they (ESA) have to see an economical reason to build a bigger rocket. ESA is not like NASA, since it is partially a business-for-profit, partially a science-driven thing.
If they see no reason how a bigger launcher would be competitive economically, they won't build one.
Offline
But they have announced a new LV with the Russians--the Oural. I would like to see Ariane M myself--or this concept:
Offline
But they have announced a new LV with the Russians--the Oural. I would like to see Ariane M myself--or this concept:
Yes Publiusr,
I have some ideas about what's going on in the background from people I know but I'd like to ask a few more questions directly on this issue, does anyone here work for European space or work at the ESA ?
Here's what I think about it - ever since the tragic Columbia disaster where the Shuttle became fireball over Texas, things have changed the Canadians, ESA and Japanese have become worried about their experiements on the ISS ( which depended on the STS-Shuttle ) and the Russians and China have been pushing forward with their manned missions. Foreign space plans have started to change, the ESA no longer uses Shuttle to launch its joint NASA/ESA projects and a future JWST will likely be lifted by the Ariane. European plans to develop a more powerful launcher and deploy next-generation manned spacecraft appear to have accelerated
In the background I have seen plans for future launcher like Russia's Angara-100 or an Ariane-6 or ESA's Ariane M -
None of these Heavy launchers seem serious yet as they are only proposals or in the study/design phase ( and it seems both projects might become a joint mission down the road )
If ESA/Russia are going to do a joint rocket two important things must happen first
-
ESA must launch their latest Ariane to lift the ATV ( even though ATV is not a manned flight this will help them gain experience in manned support vessels for cosmonauts & astronauts )
-
Russia must first launch their latest Soyuz launcher from French Guiana, the Russians have already launched European probes by Baikonor/Soyuz and lately Arianespace with Roscosmos have already signed contracts for Soyuz operation at Kourou.
I would think French and ESA's Ariane-6 plans or Angara100 designs likely to be shelved or re-named the Oural/URAL program this program has already started with the study of technology needed for a launcher in co-operation with Russia, however this launcher might lift 100 tonnes to orbit with power like a Saturn-V. The French Space Agency (CNES) and Roscosmos have already agreed to collaborate on the design of future Heavy Lift. This will be part of a 5-year program ( 2005-2010 ? 2006-2011 ? ). This has been named Oural - it seems French are to provide millions of Euros in funding so France/Russian tech can work in harmony for heavy lift. Part of the project will be production of new cryogenic tank material, testing technology on the upcoming Soyuz-Guiana flight, building of experimental liquid oxygen-methane engines, plus a demonstrator re-entry gliding vehicle called Pre-X ( however this Pre-X might be shelved in favour of Kliper ). It appears several studies have already come forth in order to determine if it is right for ESA to develop a new Ariane-6 or would it be better to do a joint Oural/Ural launcher with the Russians.
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
I wonder if the Euros will abandon LH2 altogether for an all kerolox system. They may wind up spending more money for the Oural and Pre-X nonsense than they would if they kept everything in-house with Ariane-M.
They don't listen to me though.
Offline
If they can get methane to work, methane would be possible middle ground between kerosene and liquid hydrogen. Higher specific impulse with better density, however it also comes with the disadvantages, cryogenic tankage and low density versus kerosene.
I still don't see France/Russia making a real heavy lifter, because they wouldn't have any use for it. Its not like they are going to the Moon or Mars any time soon.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Even so--the cost in materials to simply make an wide-body Ariane-M may wind up being less costly than having a less capable rocket be reusable. I have no problem with Methane--indeed the Energiya core-block's RD-0120 was to have a methane burning follow-on. Ariane -M needs more solids, but a new winged system will cost a lot up front. Need often follows capability. People didn't know they needed containerships until larger metal vessels came along and proved something besides clipper ships were possible.
An HLLV is mostly empty space, and the amount of metal needed for Ariane M really isn't much more than for Ariane 5. Oural could be a very costly design if they start from scratch. A compromise with Ariane 5 being replaced by a modular Energiya M might be possible...
Offline
What could happen in Kourou ?
Post Ariane5 - the Ariane-M would be the Very Heavy lift
Soyuz would be the Medium-heavy ( 7,000 or 9,000 kg LEO ? )
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0602/14kourousoyuz/
while Vega would be the light ( such as rokot, japanese-M5, delta-2, athena, tsyklon )
http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15432
ESA's ATV
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpB … php?t=3279
The European Space Agency (ESA) Jules Verne Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) spaceship should be ready to support International Space Station supply missions in 2007, according to ATV Project Manager John Ellwood.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3964
Europe's Venus mission
http://orbit.m6.net/v2/read.asp?id=27747
European Mars Analogue Research Station
http://marsdrive.com/node/310?PHPSESSID … b11dc8131b
Smart-1 to the Moon
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … 91&start=0
ESA testing Australian plasma rocket
http://orbit.m6.net/v2/read.asp?id=28516
In the theoretical event NASA can't get the Shuttle off the ground and are forced to ask ESA to fly more ATVs in order to replace STS flights, NASA would then have to pay for those additional ATVs in one form or another - an ATV isn't cheap to build so this is rather unlikely to happen in the current budget climate.
Europe has no manned flight and is still trying to hitch a ride from Russia and the USA, if they are serious about an Aurora mission to Mars, they are going to need a manned craft and a much more powerful launcher
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3985
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
The following outlines a highly possible and affordable joint Euro-Russian heavy lift programme that could easily be the decisive factor that puts Europeans, Russians and others on the Moon by 2015 and on Mars by 2025. How could this be? Simple: Go with the Americans!
Now that NASA has decided on a more or less definitive manned lunar architecture, the ESA/RKA should propose to cover a large portion of the launch costs by providing an alternative/supplementary HLLV at their own expense, with capabilities identical or superior to SD-HLLV. At this point, GCN will normally start spewing the old paranoid/xenophobic diatribe about how angelic America should never allow itself to become dependant on the evil Ruskis. His arguments are misleading and irrelevant.
Unless grossly mismanaged, NASA should be able to fly at least three or four lunar missions a year within the present budget. To justify development costs, such a programme should be maintained for at least 10 years or more, which would require around 40 HLLVs. A follow on Mars programme would require many more. By all means NASA should go ahead with the SD-HLLVs, but may only need to buy half as many if an agreement could be reached with international partners to share the launch load. The U.S. aerospace industry should not object to this idea as the money saved could be used to build more U.S. spacecraft and fly more missions, and/or help ensure the programme is actually started and maintained as a result of the reduced costs.
Neither Ariane-M nor Angara 100 represent rational concepts. neither come close to matching/being interchangeable with SD-HLLV. Ariane-M requires entirely new tank structures. The development and production costs of this "Europe Only" option would have to be covered exclusively by the ESA, together with the much greater costs of the associated "home grown" manned spacecraft. Angara 100 is an even more absurd proposal as the RKA has nowhere near enough funding to develop it by themselves, and nobody else is interested in helping them do so.
If ESA/RKA can reach an agreement with NASA, by far the best option for all concerned would go something like this:
-RKA halts funding for Kliper and the Progress re-supply programme.
-European and Japanese ATVs replace Progress.
-EADS and RSC Energia develop jointly an HLLV utilizing a core of identical diameter and propellant capacity of original Energia core, to be built initially at Samara Space Centre, with option for production at EADS.
-Four RD-0120s identical to original producion models, initially Russian built with option for production at SEP.
-LH tank identical to original.
-Original ogival oxygen tank replaced by flatop tank, overall stage length reduced.
-New aluminum-lithium shell stressed for top mounted rather than side mounted payload. No new composites required.
-Initial model to be fitted with six Ariane 5 derived SRBs.
-New pad and VAB built at Kourou
The vehicle could be fitted with either the proposed U.S. built translunar injection stage or a similar Energia-M derived upper stage; either one to be fitted with the proposed U.S. lunar lander. GCN will claim that Russia cannot afford to build as few as one or two such core stages each year. Cancellation of Kliper and the Progress re-supply programme should more than cover the cost.
References:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/arie5ecb.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/eneacore.htm
Offline
"At this point, GCN will normally start spewing the old paranoid/xenophobic diatribe about how angelic America should never allow itself to become dependant on the evil Ruskis. His arguments are misleading and irrelevant. "
Wow, your naieveity, ignorance, and vitriol are all really amazing...
The biggest problem about any joint mission where major systems aren't American is really very simple; if Russia or whoever decided that they needed some political leverage, they would be able to make the $300Bn VSE plan fail with a relativly small penalty in return. Its not misleading nor is it irrelivent, at some time or another the US is going to want to do something that Russia won't like (regieme change in Iran, oppose Russian-backed thugs in former Soviet satelites, Russian sales of advanced offensive weapons, etc etc etc), and Russia will probobly want to retaliate. All they have to do is pull the plug on spaceflight cooperation, which will hurt us much worse then it will hurt them, who would have no space program at all beyond Soyuz/Klipper to ISS otherwise.
Say we're almost ready to send a flight to the Moon, the CEV is stacked an on the pad, while the EDS/LSAM is on the pad in French Guiana, with Hypergolic fuels loaded and batteries charged - whoops! Nope, Russia decides to veto the launch. They'll be happy to ship back the EDS/LSAM stack... eventually... and NASA has to spend months preparing an SDV launch, while the Lunar base sits unmanned.
To say that this is irrelivent or xenophobic is just naieve. Until AltSpace grows up (if ever), spaceflight will still be funded by governments, which means the rockets will be powerd by politics just as surely as they are powerd by rocket fuel, and to ignore implications of partnering with an international rival with a much smaller stake in the endeavour shows you are a fool.
I'm also very, very sure that Russia will be happy to rush to scrap their only means of launching people into space and send their Cosmonauts to fly on CEV out of Florida. I'm sure they'd just be breathless and unable to catch a wink of sleep on the plane heading to Washington or Houston to sign the paperwork.
"...but may only need to buy half as many (SDVs) if an agreement could be reached with international partners to share the launch load...
...The U.S. aerospace industry should not object to this idea as the money saved could be used to build more U.S. spacecraft and fly more missions, and/or help ensure the programme is actually started and maintained as a result of the reduced costs...
...GCN will claim that Russia cannot afford to build as few as one or two such core stages each year. Cancellation of Kliper and the Progress re-supply programme should more than cover the cost."
So Russia can economically run a much, much larger operation (Energia production), which won't have a commercial use (Soyuz for satelites), with only one or two flights a year? Right... But that asside for a minute, its going to be hard enough for NASA to make use of its infrastructure with a few flights a year, but there is no way they could cut it down efficiently to only one or two. NASA just wouldn't save any money, the workers would be sitting on their duffs and the infrastructure would collect dust while waiting for the next shot.
This is on top of the political disaster that it would be despite if it did save some money, since NASA would naturally have to either commit the money saved by partnering with Russia/Europe, or else this money would always be "hot," that it could disappear at any moment from whatever program it was in the moment that political fortunes change... and Russia/Europe know it. They will hang it over our heads too, if we rebuff their threats to pull the plug and go back to SDV-only. Given how tight NASA's budget is, having a few billion dollars disappear suddenly would very likly be fatal to VSE, and trusting Congress to come through is too high a risk.
And the "xenophobe" thing, which is quite insulting too, frankly it would be bad for American pride, and the American voter will remember the absolute disaster that the ISS was, and balk at any substantial "internationalization" of VSE. Its been my experience that notions to the contrary usually come from people who aren't American, but none the less would be just as ignorant if they were I suppose.
And this Frankenstein of a rocket you have in mind...:
-VAB and pad facilities for an HLLV class rocket in the corner of nowhere known as Kourou? How much will that cost?
-The Energia-M lost to the Angara because Energia's core isn't built in Russia, its Ukranian. Russia will have much the same problem depending on them as we would on Russia.
-Energia's "flat top" version was never built, and redesigning the core stage to accept the different attach points and loads for Ariane SRBs doesn't make any sense, the original Zenit rocket booster is still in limited production.
-RD-0120 production lines no longer exsist, and Energia engineers are probobly dispursed by now.
Later on, when we are ready to talk about Mars, NASA should still have enough reserve launch capacity, since plans like DRM-III only require four launches every two years or so, and Shuttle (a far more complex beast) has been launched eight times a year before. A 50% increase in production rate should not be a problem.
Edit: Don't get me wrong now, if the ESA/JAXA/RSA want to donate science hardware or other non-mission-critical stuff in return for seats, thats just fine by me, by NASA must absolutely not place itself into any "partnership" that risks something like the Russian extortion over Soyuz seats and the Iran Non-Proliferation Act again.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Wow GCN! That was fast. Sometimes I wonder if you have a day job. I’m jealous of the time you are able to devote to posting on this site.
Anyhow, when I predict you will respond to the idea of international co-operation with paranoid xenophobia, you call me ignorant, then explain how the Ruskis are out to get U.S. You are not an “ignorant fool”. You are an intelligent and sophisticated master of disinformation techniques.
Even assuming that the Ruskis are the monters you make them out to be, constantly conspiring against America the Pure, how exactly would the availability of a Euro-Russian HLLV “make the VSE plan fail”? How would it prevent VSE launching more SD-HLLVs should this alternative become unavailable?
You give the impression that HLLVs are built one day, then flown the next. If this were the case, a partner pulling out without warning would be a big problem. The individual mission may have to be cancelled or postponed. In the real world, the boosters would be in the pipeline perhaps years before launch, with a reserve of at least two or three flight articles at any given time. At any rate, Russia would never be in a position to “pull the plug on spaceflight cooperation” because the individual boosters, or at least their components, would be under ESA control for a year or more before any given launch.
The Russian government has never used co-operation as a weapon against NASA in the way you describe. The Russians were very much opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but never stopped flying NASA astronauts to and from the ISS, and keeping them supplied while there.
Quote:
“I'm also very, very sure that Russia will be happy to rush to scrap their only means of launching people into space and send their Cosmonauts to fly on CEV out of Florida. I'm sure they'd just be breathless and unable to catch a wink of sleep on the plane heading to Washington or Houston to sign the paperwork.”
What the hell are you talking about? I clearly stated that the Progress re-supply programme should be replaced by the European and Japanese ATVs. You want people to think that I’m suggesting that Russia cancel Soyuz.
Quote:
“So Russia can economically run a much, much larger operation (Energia production), which won't have a commercial use (Soyuz for satelites), with only one or two flights a year? Right...”
In the long term, two core tanks and eight RD-0120s per year, (sent to Kourou for final assembly) should not cost very much more than two complete Progress re-supply missions (including vehicles, spacecraft, facilities and management etc). Why would R-7 production stop, commercial or otherwise? I never suggested this. Stop twisting my words.
I suggested a flight rate of at least four per year would be reasonable. In the unlikely scenario that international partners should pull out without warning, if at all, drawing on reserve vehicles while U.S. production is ramped up would not be anywhere near the impossible task you make out to be.
Quote:
“corner of nowhere known as Kourou”
I think that attitude speaks for itself.
Quote:
“The Energia-M lost to the Angara because Energia's core isn't built in Russia, its Ukranian. Russia will have much the same problem depending on them as we would on Russia.”
You are not ignorant, but you are full of crap. The truth is that Energia-M lost to Angare because the Zenit boosters were built in Ukraine. Energia’s core was built at Samara in Russia, and the Energia-M core prototype was also built at this location. Production would have continued there.
Quote:
“Energia's "flat top" version was never built, and redesigning the core stage to accept the different attach points and loads for Ariane SRBs doesn't make any sense, the original Zenit rocket booster is still in limited production.”
SD-HLLV flat top version was never built either. So what? Redesigning the core shell to accept the different attach points and loads for the Ariane SRBs makes perfect sense in the context of this discussion because this “Frankenstein” is an option the ESA/RKA should consider funding as a superior alternative to the hypothetical Ariane 5-M or Angara 100.
Quote:
“RD-0120 production lines no longer exsist”
Same distortions over and over. The factory still exists. All technical production data and most tooling is still available. Many key personell are still in place and Russia is full of qualified personell looking for work.
Offline
"You are an intelligent and sophisticated master of disinformation techniques. "
Ha. Rick Dobson has already found me out, so I guess we at the NSA won't have to oppress you too. (Rick Dobson being a famous crazy guy who thinks these things and tries to post here occasionally, not that I think you are.) And its spring break here at the university.
"The Russian government has never used co-operation as a weapon against NASA in the way you describe. The Russians were very much opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but never stopped flying NASA astronauts to and from the ISS, and keeping them supplied while there. "
I wouldn't classify the Russians as monsters, but I think that "rival" would be a good term, and they have put both NASA and the USA in general under pressure about forcing us to abolish the spaceflight provision of the Iran Nonproliferation Act so we that our "partners" would "let" us buy seats to our station... I don't recall us charging Russia to launch Cosmonauts on Shuttle either.
They did this with the assurance that they had little or nothing to lose compared to us, just like if they pulled the plug on a launch. This kind of thing does happen, it is written history, and having it happen again on a much larger and more important scale is not an acceptable risk. If Russia wants to help, fine, but we shouldn't rely on them at all for VSE to suceed.
"Even assuming that the Ruskis are the monters you make them out to be, constantly conspiring against America the Pure, how exactly would the availability of a Euro-Russian HLLV “make the VSE plan fail”? How would it prevent VSE launching more SD-HLLVs should this alternative become unavailable?"
In principle, the SDV-HLLV could make up for Russia/Europe vetoing launch of their own HLLV, but I think in practice this isn't really practical. If the ESA/RSA rocket is saving NASA some $1-2Bn a year, NASA is going to either spend this money elsewhere or Congress will cut it as unessesarry. If the former occurs, whatever that money is being spent on, all $30-60Bn of it between now and when we get to Mars, will always be at risk. Basically, NASA can't rely on that money. If the latter happens and Congress cuts that funding, then having ESA/RSA "help" doesn't save NASA a dime, and even hurts the economies of scale most likly.
Speaking of which, it takes a minimum number of people to operate the construction, assembly, and launch facilities for the SDV-HLLV reguardless how many times it is flown. Because these people make up the largest part of the cost of each SDV-HLLV, if they are sitting on their duffs while ESA/RSA "helps" NASA, then NASA doesn't save much money. The cost will be rolled into each SDV-HLLV that does fly, which makes each one proportionally more expensive. So, the bennefit of ESA/RSA "help" is dubious when we are talking about SDV-HLLV only flying three times annually or less.
"In the real world, the boosters would be in the pipeline perhaps years before launch, with a reserve of at least two or three flight articles at any given time.
Why yes, which is another reason why we should not bother with any ESA/RSA "help:" it could very well take too long to arrange for bringing one of these spare SDV-HLLV units to readiness, and to get our payload back from Kourau in a timely fasion. If we have a Moon base, and a crew exchange were delayed months, then the base would have to be abanoned. A Mars vehicle with multiple stages might even be ditched and burned up if it carried time-sensitive cryogenic fuel.
"Russia would never be in a position to “pull the plug on spaceflight cooperation” because the individual boosters, or at least their components, would be under ESA control for a year or more before any given launch."
Yeah right... maybe in print, but never in practice. Russia wouldn't ever permit itself to not have effective veto power over such a convienant way to twist our arm politically. And then there is out pals in France to consider too.
"What the hell are you talking about? I clearly stated that the Progress re-supply programme should be replaced by the European and Japanese ATVs. You want people to think that I’m suggesting that Russia cancel Soyuz."
You said previously that Klipper and Progress would be scrapped, since Klipper is going to replace Soyuz, and because building & flying this frankenstein of a rocket will be fairly expensive, it seemed logical that you were calling for all R-7 derived vehicles would be scrapped too. It would be awfully tight for even the ESA/RSA combo to afford both programs simultainiously if the Energia-derived vehicle were built in part with Western-level labor costs. Then there is the cost of operating an ESA version of Kennedy Space Center, perhaps complete with vertical assembly if the Ariane SRBs are equidistant like Ariane-M... I didn't twist your words, you just didn't state them explicitly enough.
In the long term, two core tanks and eight RD-0120s per year, (sent to Kourou for final assembly) should not cost very much more than two complete Progress re-supply missions (including vehicles, spacecraft, facilities and management etc)."
Given the relativly small facilities required to handle and launch R-7 rockets compared to the big and involved Energia or Ariane, I find this very hard to take seriously. Take a look at the Bruan launch pad for instance, and tell me that would cost about the same as a Ariane-Energia hybrid. Each Soyuz capsule flight only costs a few tens of millions of dollars, so the unmanned Progress costs even less I bet.
Oh, and speaking of the CIA, here is what they have to say about French Guiana: "mostly an unsettled wilderness" with Koraru being pretty much the middle of nowhere, hence, it would be difficult and expensive to build considerably larger facilities there. 25% of their economy comes from the ESA actually.
"The truth is that Energia-M lost to Angare because the Zenit boosters were built in Ukraine. Energia’s core was built at Samara in Russia, and the Energia-M core prototype was also built at this location. Production would have continued there."
You are correct, I got the boosters and the core mixed up, but it makes very little difference. Modifying Energia to be compatible with the Ariane SRBs would be difficult since it was designed for Zenit boosters. Also, the control systems will have to be re-done, since Energia used the Zenit boosters to help guide it during launch. If you have to change the LOX tank, and change the structural arrangement, and change the control systems, and change the launch pad, what do you have left? It might make sense, but it won't be as quick, easy, or cheap compared to building Zenits.
Same distortions over and over. The factory (for RD-0120) still exists. All technical production data and most tooling is still available. Many key personell are still in place and Russia is full of qualified personell looking for work."
We have been over this before, the physical factory building may remain, but the tooling and hence the guts of the factory is gone, changed to build household items instead of rockets. Some of the workers may remain, but many workers are gone for good without a doubt too. It would take more time and expense to resurect the engine from blueprints and a few old units then Russia boasts.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
No spring break for me. Looks like I will have to sacrifice eating, sleeping or personal hygiene….. too bad for my co-workers. Anyhow, back to it:
Quote:
“You said previously that Klipper and Progress would be scrapped, since Klipper is going to replace Soyuz, and because building & flying this Frankenstein of a rocket will be fairly expensive, it seemed logical that you were calling for all R-7 derived vehicles would be scrapped too.”
And
“I didn't twist your words, you just didn't state them explicitly enough.”
I would have thought that within the context of this discussion, Kliper cancellation would logically suggest that Soyuz should continue. For future reference, if I do not say that Soyuz or any other major programme should be cancelled, then I do not mean that it should be cancelled. I cannot be held responsible for your misinterpretations of what you think I might mean as opposed to reading what I actually say. I hope that is explicit enough.
You are quite right about economies of scale. I am very much aware of the fixed costs vs. marginal costs issue. Ideally, at least four SD-HLLVs could be produced and launched from Kennedy each year in order to utilize NASA infrastructure at an minimum efficient level. This could be done regardless of Energia-Ariane availability, and instead of buying half as many SD-HLLVs, a surplus of spacecraft could be maintained to support an average of two flights a year out of Kourou. The programme could be configured such that a mission critical capability would be maintained by NASA at all times, independent of international participation.
Also, detailed contractual obligations could be worked out well ahead of time, with severe penalty clauses enforced should any partner refuse to (as opposed to being unable to) live up to the conditions of the agreed programme over the agreed timeframe. Such agreements should have some degree of flexibility, but no politically motivated launch veto should be granted to anyone.
Such measures should effectively eliminate your nightmare scenario bogeyman.
Quote:
“the physical factory building may remain, but the tooling and hence the guts of the factory is gone, changed to build household items”.
Where do you get this stuff? The factory in question is operating at a low level, but builds aircraft parts; mostly for Antonov. Since when are wings and tail surfaces “household items”?
Cheers.
Offline
"...a surplus of spacecraft could be maintained to support an average of two flights a year out of Kourou. The programme could be configured such that a mission critical capability would be maintained by NASA at all times, independent of international participation.
Also, detailed contractual obligations could be worked out well ahead of time, with severe penalty clauses enforced should any partner refuse... no politically motivated launch veto should be granted to anyone."
This is nonsensical, a surplus of spacecraft? Just which spacecraft are you talking about? "Spacecraft" are expensive vehicles (particularly manned ones) that aren't to be expended lightly, and not as make-work for the ESA & RSA so they can "be Moon/Mars pioneers too." Or do you mean spare SDV-HLLV units as a "political reserve?"
The current NASA plans that require HLLV class rockets are all time-sensitive except for Lunar base componets: the EDS/LSAM combo and the CEV both have to be launched close together in order to keep a Lunar base perminantly staffed, and Mars missions will have to mate in orbit and depart before their fuel boils off or the biannual window closes. The Lunar base NASA envisions will be built with only half a dozen pieces, and supplies not carried by the LSAMs surplus mass would be shipped via medium rocket.
Basically, just about everything NASA does with HLLVs is going to be fairly time sensitive; could NASA jerk the parts of a 40 story tall HLLV together, rip the payload off the ESA/RSA rocket in French Guiana and sail it back to Florida, slap the stack together and roll out to the pad, and skip detailed pre-departure on orbit checkout in the month or so it would take for a Mars TMI stage to suffer terminal fuel loss? I don't think so. Nor would NASA want to decide between stranding a Lunar crew for months more or closing down the Lunar base. Having a "political reserve" of rockets is a fine idea on paper, but it would never work in practice.
And please, a "strongly worded contract?" You are kidding, right? We're talking international government politics here, not business contracts. Russia or France could just break their word and thumb their noses at us and refuse to pay any fines, but what could we do about it? Take it up with the United Nations? No piece of paper with foreign leaders names on it makes me feel the least bit better.
The moral of the story is, there is no way to eliminate the risk of foreign powers using rocket supplies as a political weapon except to not rely on foreign powers, and thats all there is to it. Given that economies of scale would be improved with increased SDV-HLLV production might even be cheaper overall not to.
I want to reiterate, that the "savings" involved with using foreign rockets is not as simple as numbers on a balence sheet, that the money saved is big enough that it could not be readily jerked out of what it was going to and put back into building/flying SDV-HLLVs if our foreign "partners" stab us in the back again (like Russia has over the ISS, twice), which will ensure that the money never goes to doing anything important and would be wasted. And wasted money is often cut by Congress anyway.
And then there is the pride issue, that manned spaceflight will probobly gain increasing interest again now that we are going to stop going in circles soon, and average Americans are going to wonder why we are putting expensive American payloads on top of foreign rockets when we have perfectly good rockets ourselves. This is a nontrivial political effect that will impact national support for VSE.
There is also the positive domestic political effect of building more rockets in America; enough of the world launch business is being served by Proton, Soyuz, Zenit, and Ariane rather then Delta or Atlas that Congress would smile on more American rockets despite higher financial cost and increase political support for VSE.
"Where do you get this stuff? The factory in question is operating at a low level, but builds aircraft parts; mostly for Antonov. Since when are wings and tail surfaces “household items”?"
My last knowledge about the RD-0120 plant was from RobertDyck's research into it some time ago about using the engine instead of SSME, and he said that if memory serves. If that is in error, blame him, not me... Wings and tail surfaces are also a long, long way from cryogenic turbopumps and ultrahigh pressure/temperature combustion chaimbers.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Robcwillis this is going to definitly veer into what is politics but any consideration of the use of international partners to develop the Moon/Mars Initiative will have to be a political discussion.
Russia has used its leverage over the ISS to inflict costly (to the USA) victories in public and financial causes. The US has learned that with international partners things cost more and the compromises that are needed usually lead to a weakened project. The ISS is in the wrong orbit to support the Moon Mars programme so the Russians could launch to it.
But also incidentally other space powers have discovered that working with the USA is a bad thing and are less likely to want to do so in the future. ESA and JAXA both have major science modules sitting in a warehouse slowly reaching obscelescence. Certainly in the case of the ESA science module the original plan and up until guite late in development was to launch this module from an Arianne and it was to be able to move itself into position it was also to have its own power and atmosphere. In short a spacestation within a spacestation. But due to NASA and its order that all modules must be delivered by the Shuttle a lot had to be cut out of the plan. And with the problems of the shuttle all the money spent is at the moment wasted.
Add to this other things like the current furore over the JSF and you see that for NASA getting partners would not necassarily be as easy as it was for the ISS programme.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
To me the ideal situation would be if both the US and the EU/Russian alliance develop HLLV, but the US builds the only ITV necessary for the transit to Mars. We could then sell these to ESA/RSA at cost or for other considerations, but the US would be the a political veto option this time.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Offline
To me the ideal situation would be if both the US and the EU/Russian alliance develop HLLV, but the US builds the only ITV necessary for the transit to Mars. We could then sell these to ESA/RSA at cost or for other considerations, but the US would be the a political veto option this time.
Huh? Sell American-made Mars vehicles to the ESA/RSA? Honestly, I don't think they would do it, since they really couldn't afford to buy them in any number and the parts to go with them (TMI stage, reactors, rovers, etc). And how could we have veto power? They would own the things wouldn't they?
And what good does that do anyway? The point is to save NASA money, and if NASA is selling Mars ships at cost, then that doesn't save NASA anything at all. If other countries are buying NASA ships and flying them on their own rockets, that would trigger political fallout, since they would have an advantage with cheaper launch vehicles and not having to have paid to develop the ships in the first place. Why should we finance other countries' space programs, especially if we don't get anything out of the deal? It would be "giving away" Mars to the ESA/RSA, just so they can "come along too?" That'll never fly.
If they want to come along, by all means, buy or barter seats on our vehicles, but selling them outright isn't going to happen.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
"...no politically motivated launch veto should be granted to anyone."
I also wanted to comment more about robcwills' statement about contractual obligation: this talk about "granted to anyone" makes it sound like NASA would veto flights on foreign rockets. Why would they do that? NASA is the one here with much, much more to lose! Thats part of the problem, that the deal is so asymmetric, that Russia/Europe don't have anything to lose by going back on their word.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
GCN, you quote me one moment, then attack what you want the reader to think I meant as opposed to what I actually said. For example:
Quote:
“This is nonsensical, a surplus of spacecraft? Just which spacecraft are you talking about? "Spacecraft" are expensive vehicles (particularly manned ones) that aren't to be expended lightly”
I’m using the generic term “spacecraft” to refer to all the spacecraft/LVs associated with the programme. Why is this nonsensical? All I meant by “surplus” was having at least a small reserve of vehicles at any time. I believe Russia has several Soyuz in stock at any given time. NASA has (or had?) quite a surplus of ETs and SRBs. Several CSMs, LMs and Saturn Vs had been completed before the first Apollo mission. So let’s say we build and launch four SD-HLLV/LSAM combos etc. a year, but have at least three or four in stock before the first flight. We use the oldest first but maintain a reserve or “surplus” of at least three or four vehicles in stock at any given time. What is “nonsensical”? This is so simple that I feel sick having to explain it. You use the term “expended”, but the term “surplus” should not be equated with “thrown away”. Everything would be used.
Quote:
“Mars missions will have to mate in orbit and depart before their fuel boils off or the biannual window closes.”
Thus far I was only discussing lunar missions, not Mars. But since you mention it, your paranoia about our hypothetical partners suddenly taking a political hissy fit and stopping a launch at the last second could be partially addressed by insisting that they always launch their half of any given pair first.
Quote:
“could NASA jerk the parts of a 40 story tall HLLV together, rip the payload off the ESA/RSA rocket in French Guiana and sail it back to Florida, slap the stack together and roll out to the pad, and skip detailed pre-departure on orbit checkout in the month or so it would take for a Mars TMI stage to suffer terminal fuel loss? I don't think so.”
Who suggested they could? Not me.
Quote:
“Average Americans are going to wonder why we are putting expensive American payloads on top of foreign rockets when we have perfectly good rockets ourselves.”
No. Fortunately, most Americans are not like you. They would be proud to see Americans and their partners going to the Moon on perfectly good American and Euro-Russian Rockets.
Quote:
“the deal is so asymmetric, that Russia/Europe don't have anything to lose by going back on their word.”
A multi billion Euro programme down the drain? No Europeans or Russians on the Moon after having invested these billions? You must be right GCN, they obviously would have nothing to lose.
Offline
average Americans are going to wonder why we are putting expensive American payloads on top of foreign rockets when we have perfectly good rockets ourselves. This is a nontrivial political effect that will impact national support for VSE.
Strange how you see offshoring to China, Europe, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Canada and Russia as a national crime but at the same time you vigorously defend outsourcing SPACE EXPLORATION TO INDIA,
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4504
GCN, you got stock or shares on one of those Indian pads ?
Offline
"So let’s say we build and launch four SD-HLLV/LSAM combos etc. a year, but have at least three or four in stock before the first flight. We use the oldest first but maintain a reserve or “surplus” of at least three or four vehicles in stock at any given time. What is “nonsensical”? This is so simple that I feel sick having to explain it. You use the term “expended”, but the term “surplus” should not be equated with “thrown away”. Everything would be used."
It would make you a better debater if you would at least try to address the points I have raised that refute your impractical plans and actually state your ideas without contextually garbled paragarphs.
You didn't specify which "spacecraft" would be in reserve, nor did you say that all VSE vehicles would be in reserve, and since we are talking about launch vehicles but these aren't the "spacecraft" rather only launch vehicles for them, hence you were being ambiguous and confusing.
You also aren't following the rather simple problem here, that simply having launch vehicles in reserve does not fix anything, because NASA's launches are time-sensitive for a number of reasons. So these ESA/RSA rockets will be used in place of the SDV-HLLV for the Moon? It is likly that we won't be able to leave crews on the Moon any longer then on the ISS, so twice annual crew exchanges will have to be timely to avoid abandoning the Lunar base, which would be an national embarrasment and risk the viability of the base. If regular crew transit cannot be assured, then the base won't be good for anything except a little science.
Timely launch is also required if we want a sustained Mars program, because the ideal departure window is not that long, the vehicles will have to be launched, assembled, and tested within one month of this window to avoid cryogenic fuel loss. NASA-DRM, for one mission every other year, will require three vehicles depart per window consisting of two componets each, the Mars craft and the hydrogen TMI stage. That means multiple flights in relativly tight grouping must suceed. If any one of the flights is substantially delayed, that year or the following years' mission will fail.
"Who suggested they could? Not me. (NASA launch HLLV on short notice to replace ESA/RSA launch)."
You should have realized that NASA requires timely launch, so I took the initiative and brought up this point. I don't think that NASA will be able to quickly pull one of the reserve SDV-HLLV rockets out of storage, get the payload back from the French, and launch the payload on time ourselves. Hence, this entire idea about eliminating the risk of foreign monkey-wrenching with reserve rockets is useless.
Then there is again the problem that the money saved by NASA will not be money in the bank, which you continue to refuse to address: if NASA saves $1-2Bn a year by "partnering," NASA will spend this money on something else, or else Congress will cut it. If NASA does the former, its very unlikly that NASA could quickly pull this money out of whatever it was being spent on given how large the sum is. So in this case or if Congress cuts it, NASA won't be able to rely on this money. Let me say that one more time, NASA won't be able to rely on this money, since it must always be available to go back into building and launching SDV-HLLVs to make up for Russia/France cutting off the supply. So is NASA really saving any money? My answer is "no"
"A multi billion Euro programme down the drain? No Europeans or Russians on the Moon after having invested these billions? You must be right GCN, they obviously would have nothing to lose."
They really wouldn't. Because, if not for partnering or hitching a ride with NASA, neither Russia nor Europe would be going to the Moon or Mars anyway. NASA is going to spend in excess of $300,000,000,000 over the next twenty years, most of that on VSE, which would be drasticly interrupted for years and at huge cost for Europe/Russia to stop spending ~$20Bn.
The penalty that Europe/Russia face compared to NASA is so small, that it is basically "free," so they really don't have much to lose.
"Fortunately, most Americans are not like you. They would be proud to see Americans and their partners going to the Moon on perfectly good American and Euro-Russian Rockets."
Then you have alot of learn about Americans, since you obviously don't know how much national pride is embodied in our space program. To see on television the first astronauts go to the Moon in fourty years or Mars for the first time in a rocket with a big EU or Russian flag on the side instead of the Stars & Stripes? I think I might be ill.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
average Americans are going to wonder why we are putting expensive American payloads on top of foreign rockets when we have perfectly good rockets ourselves. This is a nontrivial political effect that will impact national support for VSE.
Strange how you see offshoring to China, Europe, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Canada and Russia as a national crime but at the same time you vigorously defend outsourcing SPACE EXPLORATION TO INDIA,
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4504
GCN, you got stock or shares on one of those Indian pads ?
Again, the USA-India technology transfer is not "outsourcing," its just not denying India the opportunity to get American space hardware and technology like our European or Austrailian allies.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I just want some HLLV capability for humanity--I don't care who builds it so long as it gets done and kept up. I will say this. Ariane-M would be all European unlike OURAL. It might be cheaper to make a "bigger rocket than needed" than to get tangled up with the former Soviets with a winged Oural system that might just wind up costing more. Once again, Ariane M is a simple tube--and they already know how to build solids. We just need to stamp out the anti-HLLV sentiment coming from the alt.spacers. The Soviets had no fear of size--with their Saturn IB--the UR-500 Proton--being a best seller along with R-7; both of which were considered 'overlarge' at the time.
It's always better to have too much truck than not enough.
HLLV plans from the past
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 66&posts=3
Ariane M again
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 6&posts=23
Sea Dragon
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 44&posts=3
Updated Russian Craft--with pictures
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 36&posts=7
NEP
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 1&posts=38
RLV
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 07&posts=1
Breakthroughs
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
New batteries:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/batteries-0208.html
Space Business Space Elevator
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business … /index.htm
Offline
I wonder if the Euros will abandon LH2 altogether for an all kerolox system. They may wind up spending more money for the Oural and Pre-X nonsense than they would if they kept everything in-house with Ariane-M.
They don't listen to me though.
The big problem is Ariane isn't man-rated...
....or is it ?
Offline
The Ariane-V was built extra-heavy so it could launch the Hermes European spaceplane (see also HL-20, X-38), so in theory it probobly could be.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline