Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

EuroLauncher · 2006-04-12 00:09:12

Guys this thread is really starting to go off-topic

If you want to debate EU vs USA wargames or debate the cartoon jihad protestors in London I suggest you people use some of the other threads here

Let's try to stick to the subject of Ariane-6 or if Europe will be able to build a heavy-launcher

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-13 08:53:36

The Aegis is a joke, it could only stop a few old rusty scud missiles and GCNR has been proven to be lying and false yet again, on this European-fighter subject the USAF CoS really did say such a thing. He remarked that although both aircraft are being designed for different missions, John Jumper said the Eurofighter and the Raptor are equally high-tech aircraft and he believes the two aircraft are running neck-and-neck right now. However he did say the Raptor should soon have upgrades and additional capabilities that allow it to perform as the best. I'm not sure why GCNR is getting so worked up about a Euro threat from America's allies ( who have helped in Afghanistan, supported the US during the Cold-war and helped in Desert Storm ) maybe he's upset with the French or something ( but France pulled out of Eurofighter long ago to give extra support their home-grown Mirage jets ). The most immedient threat to the United States right now is the chaos in Iraq and a bunch of Iranian ayatollah's screaming death to America and trying to get their hands on Nuke Weapons.
I'm not sure if Europe does have what it takes for Lunar projects or Mars mission, but the more industrial nations that are going for space-exploration the better. Personally, I like how the Russian's are re-inventing their space program and I like the idea of the European Mars Sample Return.

Nonsense, the Ageis radar is the very best set in the world and can detect objects only tens of centimeters across, even cannon shells. The multi-megawatt phased array antenna onboard is extemely fast and powerful plus paired with normal Mach-4 missiles or new suborbital ballistic interceptors... Good enough to scare China into pitching a fit over the US selling five destroyers to Taiwan. Also, the Eurofighter and F-22 may be of similar technological complexity, but the F-22 is clearly superior since it is much more stealthy, faster, and supersonic agility. Our weapons are the best in the world, bar none, and I am proud of them.
_______________________________________________

I don't think Russia is "reinventing" anything, they aren't going to Lunar orbit nor the surface in any useful way with their present launch vehicles, Soyuz and Proton are simply too small. Klipper isn't going to be a huge advance other then making the RSA a space tourism provider for the super-rich, and it even uses the old Soyuz for the back half.

I doubt there will be a European heavy lifter, it would likly be sufficently less expensive to get Russia to revive Energia or something like it, or perhaps just talk Ukraine into letting the ESA use Baikonour and licence the blueprints from Russia.

publiusr · 2006-04-13 11:16:30

Sounds like a good idea.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-05-15 20:43:51

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

will ariane ever fly a mars sample mission, here are some reports on launchers around the globe
http://www.physorg.com/news65197255.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1116
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/622/1
http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?i … N=21586028

publiusr · 2006-05-18 16:33:57

Good links.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-05-30 00:27:33

Europe on the Moon with the ArianeX

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/007arianeX.html

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-30 08:44:36

You are, by the way, linking to a site by that gaetano goofball, Yang

Grypd · 2006-05-30 16:18:36

Spacereview Article, EADS, Clearstream, And the Future of France's Space Industry

France has landed EADS in a lot of political trouble and this will affect Ariane Space. Its the usual mix of partisan politics, Bribery, Lies and Scandal.

I suspect Ariane space which relies on its commercial activities to pay for itself will find a lot of customers drying up.

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 13:38:52

They imagine themselves on the moon growing tulips?
Whats next? Trees for wooden shoes?

Carefull, some particularly bitter Dutch have nails coming out of those shoes...

Seriously, ESA may be a somewhat small player in manned spaceflight but somehow whereas bureacracy bogs NASA down ESA somehow manages to get it to work for them AND it has the advantage of not one but over a dozen national budgets working together...and assuming several of those nations get gung-ho over space...you can imagine the accumulated response.

If ESA shows development in its own manned spaceflight to the moon or otherwise I think NASA should offer some help. They're not China - ESA's Ariane series is virtually what we've been lacking: HLV technology. Heck, Ariane 5 WAS originally designed to launch their now canceled Hermes shuttle. Add a booster akin to the 2nd stage envisioned for the CLV and you have a rocket capable of launching some serious hardware into orbit or possibly directly to the moon itself. Tweak their upcoming ATV program and you get something akin to CEV years ahead of time!

In short it'll probably take a little while yet for ESA to build up steam but their time is coming. While China may have the focus now don't hold your breath - everyone gets 15 minutes of fame.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-02 17:20:13

You are, by the way, linking to a site by that gaetano goofball, Yang

Yang is perfectly able to read my article and understand by himself that it is a concept, not a project by ESA (that, however, may have something like it in its drawers)

"my" ArianeX may born sooner than CLV and in half time than CaLV

also, the moon mission suggested with the ArianeX is more rational than ESAS plan

the real problems to start a plan like this are... funds, political decisions and courage... three things that our governments lack

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-05 21:20:39

Oh how you whine and posture...

-Comparing your plan to VSE is silly, since VSE involves the ISS while your plan doesn't.

-Requires large numbers of flights to work.

-Requires long-term storage of components in Lunar orbit, which is not practical without large expenditures of fuel since this orbit is unstable.

-Ignores the problem that landing and launching from the Lunar surface requires signifigant amounts of fuel, which makes multiple sorties from one reuseable lander based in Lunar orbit impractical, one load of fuel would hardly be enough for two trips. Not many multiple trips to and from the surface.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-06 04:02:31

.

the "reusable-LSAM" is a VERY GOOD idea (simply!!!) because a "reusable (already very expensive) airplane" is BETTER than a "100%-expendable-airplane"... with EACH airplane scraped after ONE flight !!!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-06 06:46:57

Rockets are not airplanes, infact they're simpler overall.

The regular LSAM will not be all that expensive, but importing the fuel to operate it from Earth will be, so little money is actually saved in return for a big increase in LSAM development cost.

Weren't you whining and wailing over how awful it is for NASA to have such high development costs?

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-06 06:53:59

...so little money is actually saved in return for a big increase in LSAM development cost...

NOT SO "LITTLE" since the LSAM's tank/fuel costs may be 20% of the full LSAM price... and... launch every expendable-LSAM needs an expendable-CaLV...

100% expendable LSAM are VERY VERY VERY GOOD only for the (lucky!) companies that will SELL them (and the CaLV) to NASA...

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-06 09:41:37

There you go again with the bold, red capital letters...

Sure the fuel tank and actual fuel costs for the LSAM are small, but IMPORTING the fuel from Earth is not. It requires a 80MT class rocket at least and a descrete, probably expendable tug to get that fuel to the reuseable LSAM.

So, just how much money are you really saving? You need an additional rocket and an expendable tug so that your LSAM can be reused. Plus, since rovers and other equipment will have to ride on the LSAM back up as well as down and the LSAM will have to be Methane powerd instead of Hydrogen (which isn't storable), then the LSAM will have very little payload.

Edit: Infact, that 80MT rocket might deliver enough fuel for only one trip, whereas delivering that fuel to the surface would enable multiple suborbital "hops."

RedStreak · 2006-06-06 14:44:25

Edit: Infact, that 80MT rocket might deliver enough fuel for only one trip, whereas delivering that fuel to the surface would enable multiple suborbital "hops."

If you can manage those "hops" then screw manned rovers. The whole moon would open up AND we'd have the benefit of a moble lab too.

publiusr · 2006-06-09 10:46:24

Ariane X (or Ariane M) CaLV--at least we are seeing more support of HLLVs. Maybe we can put fantasies of space elevators to bed now and finally support big, simple rockets for a change.

EuroLauncher · 2006-12-25 08:59:11

good website here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … asp?fid=17

cjchandler · 2006-12-27 17:28:43

Everyone says that a space elevator for the moon is the ultimate solution and can be built with today's materials. Does any serious organization plan to attempt to build one in the near future? It would be a waste to develop reusable landers for the moon if the elevator was right around the corner

John Creighton · 2006-12-28 15:33:08

Everyone says that a space elevator for the moon is the ultimate solution and can be built with today's materials. Does any serious organization plan to attempt to build one in the near future? It would be a waste to develop reusable landers for the moon if the elevator was right around the corner

The elevator would be slow of limited capacity and only accessible from the poles. I reusable lunar Lander is not an inferior technology it is just a different technology.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-29 11:27:28

Everyone says that a space elevator for the moon is the ultimate solution and can be built with today's materials. Does any serious organization plan to attempt to build one in the near future? It would be a waste to develop reusable landers for the moon if the elevator was right around the corner

Since the elevator only goes up and down from where the cables are, and not any place you want to go exploring/prospecting/etc. Plus, the elevator will require a substantial counterweight at L1, which would be mucho expensive to send up.

cjchandler · 2007-01-02 09:16:58

I thought that it would probably be a rotovator in low orbit so it could touch down any where if the orbit was highly inclined, but I guess the answer is that this really isn't on NASA's radar. Probably they'll stick with expendable landers for saftey's sake anyway. A reusable lander will be hard to service when it eventually breaks down.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-02 23:01:40

Rotovators are crazy, they are just the product of excessively easily amused astrophysicists and have no reasonable ground in reality. The difficulty of synchronizing, aligning, and docking with the cable end is a cosmically difficult and for all intents impossible problem. For every high precision thing that must occur simultaneously, the difficulty increases exponentially.

Reuseable landers won't be so bad, we just need to come up with a really, really reliable main engine. The rest is pretty easy.

dicktice · 2007-01-03 18:45:45

You mean tail-first-landing reuseable rockets, right? Straight out of 1940's science fiction!

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-04 08:38:18

A ship trying to dock with a rotavator must...:

-Be at a precise meter-scale region of suborbital space that coincides with the rotavator's orbit
-Be at this region of space when the rotavator will pass overhead
-Be at this region of space at the exact moment the end of the cable passes
-Be moving in just the right direction so that a "soft" capture can occur
-Be moving at just the right velocity to reach this region at near-zero relative velocity to the cable end
-Do all this, reliably, time after time, without failure. If you miss, what happens then?

If this doesn't make the engineer in you shudder in horror, then you have been "drinking the AltSpace kool-aid."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-04-12 00:09:12

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#52 2006-04-13 08:53:36

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#53 2006-04-13 11:16:30

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#54 2006-05-15 20:43:51

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#55 2006-05-18 16:33:57

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#56 2006-05-30 00:27:33

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#57 2006-05-30 08:44:36

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#58 2006-05-30 16:18:36

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#59 2006-06-01 13:38:52

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#60 2006-06-02 17:20:13

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#61 2006-06-05 21:20:39

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#62 2006-06-06 04:02:31

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#63 2006-06-06 06:46:57

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#64 2006-06-06 06:53:59

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#65 2006-06-06 09:41:37

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#66 2006-06-06 14:44:25

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#67 2006-06-09 10:46:24

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#68 2006-12-25 08:59:11

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#69 2006-12-27 17:28:43

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#70 2006-12-28 15:33:08

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#71 2006-12-29 11:27:28

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#72 2007-01-02 09:16:58

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#73 2007-01-02 23:01:40

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#74 2007-01-03 18:45:45

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

#75 2007-01-04 08:38:18

Re: Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ?

Board footer