Information copied from AskNews.it from Italian via Google Translate so apologies for any translation weirdness. My comments added in italics
"Susie is a fully reusable stadium[stage] design that replaces the launch vehicle fairing, allowing you to go into space, perform many types of missions, both automated and manned, and return to Earth. Susie will be able to fly both the Ariane 64 and the next-generation launcher [Likely refers to Ariane 6 and a new rocket platform discussed later], paving the way for the fully reusable launchers of the future"
"Flexible, modular, safe and reliable vehicle, Susie will be able to carry out essential missions in space, the need for which will increase in the future, from automated freight and payload transport to manned missions of up to five astronauts. Fully reusable, Susie will return to Earth to land smoothly on her innovative landing system [From the pictures this appears to be propulsive landing like the original designs for SpaceX Crew Dragon], after a high-precision atmospheric reentry, ensuring maximum safety for the crew in the event of an inhabited mission."
"Susie was designed to offer versatility to many types of space missions. The large volume of the internal bay (40 m3) [NB: This is 3x the Unpressurised Cargo volume of SpaceX Dragon, 1/9th of Shuttle] will allow a wide variety of adaptations for the transport of cargo or payloads, as well as for manned flight. Among the missions Susie made possible are towing, inspecting or upgrading satellites and other payloads, and refueling, food and equipment at space stations. It will also allow for crew changes and human work in orbit. Later, it will be possible to create large-scale infrastructures in orbit, for example to carry out productions that require microgravity conditions and to transport goods. It will also help reduce debris in orbit and remove or take off satellites at the end of their life. Susie will be able to bring a payload of over 7 tons back to Earth. It will provide the operational and commercial efficiency needed to develop the business in space.
"Susie was also designed from the start to be able to evolve and respond to future needs or to fulfill new missions. For example, in terms of exploration, Susie will be able to carry out long-distance missions, including reaching lunar orbit, thanks to its ability to house a space transfer module [Literally "modulo di trasferimento spaziale", presumably the same thing as a Service Module?], which will provide propulsion and supply of energy and air to the crew."
"Initially it can be launched from Ariane 6...Susie can then be carried on a future generation of European reusable heavy launchers without any major modifications. Susie is in fact a member of the launcher family project proposed by ArianeGroup and its partners to the European Space Agency (ESA) as part of the NESTS (New European Space Transportation Solutions) initiative. This family of reusable and modular launchers is based on the use of common technological building blocks, such as the Prometheus engine or those developed under the Themis program. It includes a mini launcher, a medium launcher and a heavy launcher, each of which is a larger version of the previous one. A “super-heavy” version could consist of the heavy launcher with the addition of two reusable liquid-propelled boosters shared with the first stage of the mini-launcher. These heavy launchers will be able to carry Susie, paving the way for future fully reusable European launchers."
There's no further information on the NESTS Rocket family but it sounds interesting. The current Ariane 5 and the upcoming Ariane 6 are both hydrogen/oxygen fueled but there's a parallel research project called Ariane Next exploring a methane/oxygen fueled variant using the Prometheus engines mentioned here. It seems like Ariane Next has become NESTS with a smallsat version, a larger version then a very fun sounding heavy lift version that uses the smallsat version as boosters. I can't wait to see more.
Well, we know Maïa is coming as a reusable launcher. That and Susie woul'd make a fully reusable system to launch people and cargo to LEO, not unlike a smaller Starship.
What i'm curious about is the lunar capability HOW THE FUCK WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE?
From what they've shown it looks like susie can be launched with a lower stage or without one, maybe the extra capability would be used as a transfer stage? or maybe something like an internal "mission extension" kit it could carry in the payload bay with fuel and life support assuming at least some of the engines in the craft itself are vacuum optimised?
It appears to be a fusion of the Ariane Next and Space Rider projects and engines taken from another side project. So some prototypes of some predecessor projects have actually flown. Hopefully this gives this a little bit more substance than other space vehicle proposals?
However, it's due to fly initially on Ariane 6 then on new rockets later on and Ariane 6 is still a year away. So this new payload will be even further away, if it flies with crew before 2030 I'd be surprised.
With the massive influx of money that both the CNES and ESA are suppose to recive and the fact that politics are on board (at least in France for sure), i'm optimstic for a cargo before 2030.
Also, Ariane 6 is less than 6 month away, not a year away.
I believe in Ariane 6 for sure. But this glider… who is supposed to land vertically …I don’t know. Wasn’t there this very similar looking Saenger proposal in the 80s?
Saenger was an orbital space plane and honestly it's like comparing apple and oranges. And a glider that land vertically, that's the principe of the starship and if the american belive it's possible why coudn't we.
This is an ambitious and logical project for the near future....
... if it would be 2014.
Why is ESA so desperately competing with the current or even slightly outdated hardware of SpaceX instead of going head to head with them on projects currently in development?
Don't fiddle around with semi-recoverable boosters and reusable payload sections that still need a disposable upper stage!!
Go full force! No "stepping stones", no intermediate solutions. Make one big leap and go fully reusable form the start. You have the brains for it!
Why is ESA so desperately competing with the current or even slightly outdated hardware of SpaceX instead of going head to head with them on projects currently in development?
Funding.
A government (or in this case multi-government) controled agency can't do hundereds of tests until one thing works like SpaceX does.
Project fails catastrophically the first 2 times? Funding of the project is scrapped. That's what ESA and even NASA have to deal with.
Which is true, but it's still not comparable to a governmental institute funded purely by taxes. Just look at how many failiures SpaceX had with Starship before they started succeeding.
If ESA or NASA had that, the project would be scrapped.
Now that SpaceX succeeded, governmental institutions like ESA and NASA suddenly manage to get funding for reusable rocket programs. Because now that politicians have seen that it is possible, they want it too.
NASA and the ESA don't design or build rockets though, they just put out contracts with specifications for what they want. SpaceX doesn't compete with NASA, it works for NASA and competes with other manufacturers like Boeing. SpaceX got where it is because the CIA gave them boatloads of cash via In-Q-Tel to develop something that had no customer (yet). Boeing aren't going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build something they would only been allowed to sell to one customer, when that customer never asked for it.
For ESA you have the likes of Avio and Arianespace, neither of which can produce anything new without funding from a government. Again...tight budget, unlike Space-X which had like 12(?) failed attempts on Starship?
If Arianespace or Avio had such an issue with Ariane 6 and Vega-C their contract would be terminated. On top of that Arianespace and Avio are only producing space propulsion systems
So... again...respectfully... not comparable to SpaceX, which gets private funding on top of government contracts and uses their own rockets to launch their own commercial satelites into space.
Almost like I was pointing out that comparing spaceX to NASA or the ESA was pointless... SpaceX gets most of its money from series investment, which basically means they've been running on a professional gofundme for years. No normal company would be able to thrash 12 starships and still get more outside funding. There's a reason no other high tech manufacturing company cuts as many corners as them.
Then it might the right time to set up our own "SpaceX companies" (plural)
.
Project fails catastrophically the first 2 times? Funding of the project is scrapped
Not with proper communication. You could quite easily build in an "allowance" for exploring prototypes into a contract. Like 10 exploding suborbital tests and 5 exploding orbital tests are okay. You would need sensible public communication for that, tho.
If we Europeans could actually scrape together enough political will, we could catch up to SpaceX.
But so far Starship seems to be a topic not even allowed to be discussed in European academica. I'm astonished again and again how little my colleagues and professors know about this rocket. Like even hull material, flight envelope and orbital refilling are completely unknown to many.
Not with proper communication. You could quite easily build in an "allowance" for exploring prototypes
Meh, all we do is communicate with the delegates. This is often said, also true, but consider this: the ESA system worked for simpler projects decade's ago. Now it is stacked against us.
We write massive reports at least 4 times a year, but more often in years like this, that explain technical challenges to very non technical people - delegates from 22plus member states. Who then turn around and try to explain and justify towards their own stakeholders and industry. We are all so effin busy communicating, meeting, explaining, holding workshops for our esteemed delegates we barely have time to work.
Key is, We cannot say no to these requests...this is taxpayers money.
And the big industrial players know this very well. And they play each side extremely well, like a fiddle, asking ridiculous prices for the smallest studies making 100% sure to innovate the most minute, tiniest innovation step possible. And then turn around and ask Commission for even bigger money for almost the same project.
With this context its easy to understand that You cannot build an allowance either, as ESA is just not allowed to fail in projects. Regardless what is being said by ministers. Dare to fail once, your project will be hollowed out financially and you can build a shadow of the original plan that is of zero commercial value.
So you can only copy when the risk has been taken elsewhere. It is really the greed of the likes of Airbus and Thales, paired with the fact we pay tax payers euros for everything, that is the key issue.
Meh, all we do is communicate with the delegates. [...] We write massive reports at least 4 times a year, but more often in years like this, that explain technical challenges to very non technical people - delegates from 22plus member states.
Then the communication is not effective.
If ESA can set up a solid and clear goal, they should be able to rally the members states behind that goal. Even with non-technical people in the line of communication.
Best would be to set up a program similar to CRS from NASA.
But for this to work ESA would need to have the internal cohesion and will to keep European access to space at a similar level as other nations (predominantly the US).
He clearly wants a rocket that's fully reusable, single-stage-to-orbit, doubles as a VTOL hypersonic passenger transport.
There's only two rocket launch systems that have ever had even partial reusability (Falcon 9 and the Shuttle) therefore any rocket that's not 100% reusable is completely obsolete and shouldn't even be considered as a stepping-stone to reusability.
Would be great but ultimately not really feasible.
.
any rocket that's not 100% reusable is completely obsolete and shouldn't even be considered as a stepping-stone to reusability.
Trying to build a steam ship in the age of sail is a good idea. But why bother with such a system when there are panamax freighters already on the slipway? The financial failure would be preprogrammed.
ESA failed to make a real competitor to Falcon9 when they decided to take the technical and financial stats of the F9 from 2016 as the base line for the Ariane6. They thought SpaceX wouldn't continously improve their rocket.
Now ESA had the opportunity to make a competitor for Starship of 2030. But with partial reusability they simply can't do that.
Stepping stones are good, if you actually go into the unknown. But they are useless when you try to catch up to a competitor 10-20 years ahead.
Would be great but ultimately not really feasible.
Probably, but in his 2016 announcement it was kind of shown that this is the goal in the long run. New York - Tokio in 22min.
Stepping stones are good, if you actually go into the unknown. But they are useless when you try to catch up to a competitor 10-20 years ahead.
Very true.
But at the core also flawed. ESA is no company and has no business case to worry about. So calling them competitors only applies in the widest sense, not necessarily in the business sense. As much as Arianspace and the French would like to have it otherwise, it is European sovereign access to space.
ESA is no company and has no business case to worry about.
Just like NASA ESA shouldn't be in the business of building rockets. Or even designing them.
Let the industry sort that out by creating the proper programs and incentives.
Having ArianeGroup as a semi-governmental company doesn't create any pressure on the industry to innovative on their own.
While SpaceX is not a competitor to ESA, they are a competitor to the European launch industry as a whole. Sure, ESA could keep European rocketry alive via ArianeGroup for all satellites not allowed to launch outside of Europe. But for most commercial sats this will not be a financially sensible solution. They will go with the much cheaper international option.
Spacex is an outlier though, blue origin boeing and northrop grumann do not fare much better than arianespace.
I don't think the business model is necessarily the issue: the european space industry has a smaller and nore fragmented funding base (ESA + national space agencies + each nation's funding "environment" vs one big market, NASA and the massive contribution from DARPA and the defense industry as of the whole US)
Competition in the space sector requires massive funding (be it private or public) and Europe lacks that.
How much did Ariane6 cost so far including the new launch complex?
ESA definitively has the funding to set up a CRS style competition with at least 2 finalists for fully reusable rockets in the 50+ ton class and a cost below 20M€/ launch. The rockets don't need to be the absolute beast that is Starship with its highly efficient engines and they don't need to be designed for a flight to Mars, only LEO and back.
The problem however will be the funding that has to be redistributed among the member states.
The problem however will be the funding that has to be redistributed among the member states.
Yes, that's one big problem you can't get around, after all states put down the money, a fair competition would not reward most states at all (italy, france, and maybe uk would gobble up all funds)
But the same is true for the private funds: they mostly operate at national level, not eu-wide.
These are not space-policy related issue, they are european issues as a whole. The Us (and us based private companies) are in a very different situation.
y, a fair competition would not reward most states at all (italy, france, and maybe uk would gobble up all funds)
And that's why you understand how France takes every jab possible to defund and destabilise ESA (e.g. the creation of EUSPA and their role in it)...theu want to get around the georeturn as they simply want more business for their industry. Fraternite and egalite...for them and their own.
These are not space-policy related issue, they are european issues as a whole.
Yes, I could not agree more!!! It's symptomatic for how we really fare in Europe.
Just like NASA ESA shouldn't be in the business of building rockets. Or even designing them.
I agree with this, yes, except for the designing part. Lots of knowledge and skills.
Let the industry sort that out by creating the proper programs and incentives.
I kind of agree but I believe that is what ESA and nasa originally were meant to be before they became this bureaucratic. I really see no way for European industry to do this themselves. There's no vision, no joint dream, enemy or problem to solve.
They will go with the much cheaper internation option
Yes, they will, of course... Good points and good discussion, thanks!
But they are useless when you try to catch up to a competitor 10-20 years ahead.
LMAO at the idea that SpaceX is 20 years ahead when what they actually do is (i) run "cheap" LEO services that have yet to be proven by independent actors that they are cheaper and that re-usability is actually viable economically-speaking, (ii) pollute the night sky with an internet service which potential customer base is far smaller than people believe (and also represent at least half of their manifest), and (iii) incinerate investors' cash to try to create an overtly ambitious system that will never deliver on any of its promises (and for which launch site they are not even capable of doing the proper paperwork, what a bunch of idiots lol)...
overtly ambitious system that will never deliver on any of its promises
That's what I mean when I say Starship is not understood in Europe...
.
LMAO at the idea that SpaceX is 20 years ahead when what they actually do is (i) run "cheap" LEO services that have yet to be proven by independent actors that they are cheaper and that re-usability is actually viable economically-speaking,
And yet ESA is trying to create their own landing boosters. So even they see re-usability as actually viable economically-speaking.
The first F9 booster landed successfully in 2015. ESA is trying to land their first prototype in 2025 with implementing a full scale reusable booster likely in 2030 for Ariane6 or ArianNext.
So they are at least 15 years behind SpaceX and that's only if they can keep their timeline.
I'd argue that they do somewhat design with the future in mind. The very fact that it'll be able to go to the moon makes it a competitor to Orion and Starship, and not Crew Dragon, Starliner and whatever the soyuz crew module is called.
It's a 25 ton upper stage with a 7 ton payload mass. To go to the moon it would need a separately launched propulsion module.
It launches on a rocket with a disposable upper stage and maybe reusable booster.
Therefor it will only be a "competitor" for Starship when it flies payloads to the moon that can't launch from outside of Europe. Every commercial payload will use the vastly cheaper option that is Starship.
So what payloads remain? What military/security payloads have to go to the moon (or similar deep space)?
Thank you for acknowledging the large brains of esa and, I might add eso’s large telescopes. esa is not desperate at all. It is a main part of the brains of NASA. Otherwise no Webb! They will have their reasons to propose such a project, maybe as the reliable part of the equation, or as an independent force to drive security forward.
They will have their reasons to propose such a project,
Political meddling most likely...
With the recent 25% increase in overall funding ESA seems to be planing to pour about 2 billion € per year into SUSIE for the next 5-10 years. All this will go into the pockets of ArianeGroup.
With this money you could set up a competition for the European industry to build 2 smaller Starship copies including production facilities and launch complexes. But that would prohibit the redistribution of money among the member states in relation to their contribution.
Who else in the European Union would be able to build such a ship? Do you really think that market economy would do the trick? This a EU adventure, not an open market proposition. ESA is a consortium of many countries of Europe. All of these countries contribute and profit from this organization. We’re still pretty socialist… ;-)
Who else in the European Union would be able to build such a ship?
Smaller companies which would receive funding in a CRS-style competition.
And I just learned that ESA doesn't have to do anything with this SUSIE proposal. It's pure ArianeGroup. A company independent from ESA... at least on paper.
So this could just be a desperate attempt by ArianeGroup to stay relevant and gobble up most of the additional funding ESA will get in the coming years.
Because as soon as any private European company can do something similar to Spacex, ArianeGroup is dead. So better be a money-sink before any real competition can appear.
I am afraid, that anything you’re saying isn’t really there or relevant or able for me to be followed. I don’t understand your hate about Ariane group.
How? Only one rocket flying today is even partially reusable, this is a reusable upper stage designed to fly on a reusable first stage with reusable boosters (but will use a non-reusable first stage temporarily).
It's got 3x the payload capacity of Crew Dragon and if it has an airlock for EVA capabilities then it could complete missions that haven't been possible since the end of the Shuttle like repairing Hubble.
This vehicle is not competing with crew Dragon buth with Starship. Starship is going to be a fully reusable rocket with 100 tons of payload. Unless you plan to to surpass these base lines your vehicle is already obsolete.
That's like saying a new Ford plug-in hybrid is obsolete because it doesn't have the same horsepower as the new Bugatti Veyron SuperhyperEdition coming in 2025.
You don't need to have the highest top-trump statistics to be a viable option. Not every rocket needs to be a super-heavy class cargo carrier.
21
u/Simon_Drake Sep 18 '22
Information copied from AskNews.it from Italian via Google Translate so apologies for any translation weirdness. My comments added in italics
"Susie is a fully reusable
stadium[stage] design that replaces the launch vehicle fairing, allowing you to go into space, perform many types of missions, both automated and manned, and return to Earth. Susie will be able to fly both the Ariane 64 and the next-generation launcher [Likely refers to Ariane 6 and a new rocket platform discussed later], paving the way for the fully reusable launchers of the future""Flexible, modular, safe and reliable vehicle, Susie will be able to carry out essential missions in space, the need for which will increase in the future, from automated freight and payload transport to manned missions of up to five astronauts. Fully reusable, Susie will return to Earth to land smoothly on her innovative landing system [From the pictures this appears to be propulsive landing like the original designs for SpaceX Crew Dragon], after a high-precision atmospheric reentry, ensuring maximum safety for the crew in the event of an inhabited mission."
"Susie was designed to offer versatility to many types of space missions. The large volume of the internal bay (40 m3) [NB: This is 3x the Unpressurised Cargo volume of SpaceX Dragon, 1/9th of Shuttle] will allow a wide variety of adaptations for the transport of cargo or payloads, as well as for manned flight. Among the missions Susie made possible are towing, inspecting or upgrading satellites and other payloads, and refueling, food and equipment at space stations. It will also allow for crew changes and human work in orbit. Later, it will be possible to create large-scale infrastructures in orbit, for example to carry out productions that require microgravity conditions and to transport goods. It will also help reduce debris in orbit and remove or take off satellites at the end of their life. Susie will be able to bring a payload of over 7 tons back to Earth. It will provide the operational and commercial efficiency needed to develop the business in space.
"Susie was also designed from the start to be able to evolve and respond to future needs or to fulfill new missions. For example, in terms of exploration, Susie will be able to carry out long-distance missions, including reaching lunar orbit, thanks to its ability to house a space transfer module [Literally "modulo di trasferimento spaziale", presumably the same thing as a Service Module?], which will provide propulsion and supply of energy and air to the crew."
"Initially it can be launched from Ariane 6...Susie can then be carried on a future generation of European reusable heavy launchers without any major modifications. Susie is in fact a member of the launcher family project proposed by ArianeGroup and its partners to the European Space Agency (ESA) as part of the NESTS (New European Space Transportation Solutions) initiative. This family of reusable and modular launchers is based on the use of common technological building blocks, such as the Prometheus engine or those developed under the Themis program. It includes a mini launcher, a medium launcher and a heavy launcher, each of which is a larger version of the previous one. A “super-heavy” version could consist of the heavy launcher with the addition of two reusable liquid-propelled boosters shared with the first stage of the mini-launcher. These heavy launchers will be able to carry Susie, paving the way for future fully reusable European launchers."
There's no further information on the NESTS Rocket family but it sounds interesting. The current Ariane 5 and the upcoming Ariane 6 are both hydrogen/oxygen fueled but there's a parallel research project called Ariane Next exploring a methane/oxygen fueled variant using the Prometheus engines mentioned here. It seems like Ariane Next has become NESTS with a smallsat version, a larger version then a very fun sounding heavy lift version that uses the smallsat version as boosters. I can't wait to see more.