Towards Every European Country's Own Crewed Spaceflight, Page 2: saved costs and time using already developed, operational engines.

 Copyright 2024 Robert Clark

Vulcain-based launchers.

 ESA head Josef Aschbacher made the remarkable statement that the Ariane 6 can not be guaranteed to be the launcher of choice in the European launch market:

“We are worried,” says European rocket chief at prospect of launch competition
On the continent, Ariane 6 may be the last launcher with a monopoly.
PEGGY HOLLINGER AND SYLVIA PFEIFER, FT - 1/9/2024, 9:18 AM
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/we-are-worried-says-european-rocket-chief-at-prospect-of-launch-competition/

 In the blog post, "Towards Every European Country's Own Crewed Spaceflight", I suggested any European country could build their own manned spaceflight capable launcher by buying an Ariane 5 or 6, disposing of the side boosters, and adding 1 or 2 additional Vulcain engines to the core. ArianeSpace might raise a squawk however since it would be using their tech to build a direct competitor to the Ariane 6 and at a cheaper price in not using the large, expensive side boosters.

 Another approach might be to design their own launcher designed around the Vulcain engine. The Vulcain engine developer Snecma, now Safran Aircraft Engines, is independent of ArianeSpace so likely the Vulcain could also be purchased from Safran. Purchasing an already developed and operational engine would save on costs since engine development is typically the biggest development cost for a new launcher. See for example this breakdown on the costs of the Ariane 5:

Development budget

Again, Ariane 5, from 'Europäische Tragerraketen, band 2', Bernd Leitenberger:

Studies and tests 125
solid boosters 355
H120 first stage 270
HM60 (Vulcain) engine and test stands 738
other elements of the first stage and boosters 95
upper stage and VEB 200
ground support in Europe 80
Buildings and other structures in Kourou (launch pad) 450
Test flights 185
Total 2498
ESA and CNES management 102

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/17777/what-is-the-rough-breakdown-of-rocket-costs

 For our scenario we would not be using solid rockets. So that rather large cost would be saved. Note also in our scenario using the already developed and fully operational Vulcain, the engine development costs and test stand costs would also be saved. For the Ariane 5, the ESA also built entire new launch facilities in Kourou, Guyana in equatorial Africa. For this new launcher we'll assume it will use the already constructed launch facilities at Kourou, or the country where the new launcher is being developed would construct an independent launch facility for their nascent space industry.

 To sure, we'll assume this new launcher would be developed using the commercial space approach spearheaded by SpaceX. SpaceX demonstrated development costs could be cut by a factor of 10 following this approach:

Falcon 9.

1Development history

• 1.1Conception and funding

In 2011, SpaceX estimated that Falcon 9 v1.0 development costs were on the order of US$300 million.^[39] NASA estimated development costs of US$3.6 billion had a traditional cost-plus contract approach been used.^[40] A 2011 NASA report "estimated that it would have cost the agency about US$4 billion to develop a rocket like the Falcon 9 booster based upon NASA's traditional contracting processes" while "a more commercial development" approach might have allowed the agency to pay only US$1.7 billion".^[41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Conception_and_funding

  Now, several companies world-wide have also shown that following the commercial space approach of using private financing can cut development costs by a factor of 10.

 The total development cost of the Ariane 5 was $2.5 billion in 1990's dollars. Now take into account the costs that wouldn't need to be included, solid booster development, engine development, and launch facilities. This reduces the development cost to $955 million in 1990's dollars. Now consider by following the commercial space approach this could be cut by a factor of 10 to ca. $95 million, or about $200 million in 2024 dollars. Quite remarkable also in particular is the development of the core stage without engines could be done for only about $54 million.

 So an approx. 10 ton payload capacity all-liquid launcher could be developed for approx. $200 million, by using already developed and operational engines. This launcher would have the advantages, by not using solid rocket boosters, of being capable of reusability and being made manned flight capable.

 Quite surprising also is how quickly such a manned-flight capable launcher might be developed. ArianeSpace could develop it the most quickly, probably in less than a year. All it would have to do is acknowledge large solid side boosters are not price competitive. As I discussed previously, JAXA showed with its H-II rocket, an additional engine can be added to a core stage for less than $200 million. And SpaceX showed with its Raptor engine that additional Raptors can be added to a core stage on a time scale of just months, not years, even if a new thrust structure is required to accommodate the new engines. 

 But even for those countries making the new launcher from scratch quite surprisingly it could also be done quite rapidly, assuming it used an already developed and operational engine. A fact not generally appreciated is how rapidly SpaceX was able to develop the Falcon 9 rocket by using the already developed and operational Merlin engine. After the first successful flight of the Falcon 1 in 2008, SpaceX built and successfully launched the Falcon 9 in only two years in 2010. Note because the Falcon 9 had a larger diameter and used 9 engines instead of just one, SpaceX had to use completely different tooling in constructing the Falcon 9.

 Then following the SpaceX example, and the SpaceX commercial space approach, a company could build and launch a 10-ton payload capable launcher in only 2 years by using already developed and operational engines.

 

Methane-fueled Prometheus-based launchers.

 ESA has received much criticism in not keeping up with SpaceX on reusability. The Ariane 6 in fact won't be reusable and it is now acknowledged it won't be competitive to the SpaceX Falcon 9 in price, necessitating hundred million dollar subsidies yearly to stay afloat. 

 Recognizing the need for reusability in future launchers, ESA has begun the development of the methane-fueled, reusable Prometheus engine. And through its subsidiary Maiaspace, ArianeSpace is developing an all-liquid reusable launcher using the Prometheus engine for launch:

ArianeGroup to Increase MaiaSpace Investment to €125M

https://europeanspaceflight.com/arianegroup-to-increase-maiaspace-investment-to-e125m/

 The MaiaSpace launcher will be capable of about 1,500 kg payload to LEO as an expendable rocket, using three Prometheus engines at ca. 100-ton thrust capability. It is expected to make its first launch in 2025.

 It is illuminating to make a comparison to the early development of SpaceX. The Falcon 1 had an approx. 600 kg to LEO capability using a single ~100-ton thrust Merlin engine. It had its first successful launch in 2008. Remarkably just 2 years later in 2010, SpaceX had the 9 Merlin-engine Falcon 9 rocket make a successful launch at a ca. 10-ton payload to LEO capacity.

 Then following the SpaceX example, MaiaSpace using 9 Prometheus engines could have a 10-ton to LEO capable launcher available in 2027. This could be man-rated to be manned flight capable.

 Then going by the SpaceX example of the $300 million development cost of  Falcon 9, and considering engine development cost makes up the bulk of launcher development cost, any European country using an already developed and operational Prometheus engine could have a 10-ton to LEO capable launcher at less than $150 million development cost following the commercial space approach.

 And again following the SpaceX example such a launcher could be built and launched within 2 years.

Manned Space Capsules.

 ESA has announced opening a competition among European companies for cargo capsules to deliver supplies to the ISS, with manned capsules to follow in development:

ESA to start commercial cargo program

Jeff Foust

November 6, 2023

https://spacenews.com/esa-to-start-commercial-cargo-program/

 SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, now a subsidiary of Northrup Grumman, with their Dragon and Cygnus cargo capsules, showed space capsules like launchers also could be developed at costs 1/10 that of the usual government-financed ones following the private financing approach of commercial space. 

 Then I advise the European companies entering the competition follow the commercial space approach in developing their space capsules. They could accept seed funding from ESA to get started, but the bulk of the development costs should come from private funding. Note that winning these seed dollars from the ESA could be used as a selling point in acquiring the private funding.

 According to the SpaceNews article the cargo capsules are expected to be ready by 2027 or 2028. It is notable that this is around the same time MaiaSpace might be able to have a 10-ton to LEO capable launcher ready. 

 Because of this I advise the cargo capsules and manned capsules be developed concurrently. It is my thesis that manned capsules can also be developed at costs in the few hundred million dollars cost range by following the commercial space approach as found with cargo space capsules.

 It is notable in this regard that when SpaceX accepted NASA funding for the development of the manned version of the Dragon capsule, costs ballooned to the billion dollar range. I'm arguing the costs were that high because NASA was paying for it.

 

  Robert Clark