Towards Every European Country's Own Crewed Spaceflight.

 Copyright 2023 Robert Clark

 In my blog post, "Who in European space will ask the impertinent question: How much would it cost to add a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?", I noted the reason why ESA is using the more expensive solid rocket boosters rather than just adding another Vulcain is political. The majority of the development funds and the revenues from launches go to those ESA member states producing the solids, more than the amount going to all the other member states combined. If those solids were no longer used that majority of funds would drop down to nearly nothing.

 So that‘s a severe political problem for the other member states who might want to go to an all-liquid propulsion form for the Ariane 6. But there may be a way to get there anyway. If a member state wanted to spend their own money to build a prototype Ariane 6 core using two Vulcains how could other member states prevent it? It’s their own money. They can spend it anyway they want. Remember quite key to why this is approach is preferable is because how low cost the development costs would be. The example of JAXA adding a second hydrolox engine to the H-II core for ca. $200 million(27 billion Yen) demonstrates this:

 In point of fact it’s probably even cheaper than this just to add the second engine. The transition from the H-IIa to the H-IIb actually involved multiple systems:

 Then conceivably the development cost just for adding the engine only might be only $100 million or less. But when there is no multi-billion dollar development cost, any of the ESA member states could afford to add an additional engine to an Ariane 5/6 core on their own. It’s so low that even the member states that already spent billions developing the solids could also adapt a Ariane core to have two Vulcains at this low cost.

 At such a low development cost and each per rocket cost being even lower than the Falcon 9 each ESA member state could have their own independent all-liquid Ariane launchers. And each ESA member state could have their own independent manned flight capable rockets.

  Robert Clark

Who in European space will ask the impertinent question: How much would it cost to add a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?

 Copyright 2023 Robert Clark

 

ArianeSpace Needs to Transition to Reusability to Survive.

 European space advocates have been lamenting that there seems to be no near term route to keeping up with SpaceX, getting reusable launchers, and towards achieving manned space flight. However, in point of fact ESA already has the components to form a launcher comparable to the Falcon 9 and at lower price, while keeping pace with SpaceX in reusability, and in manned spaceflight.

 All it would require is someone, anyone in the Europeans space community to ask the impertinent question, "How much would it cost to add a 2nd Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?"

  For once that question is asked, and ArianeSpace forced to answer honestly, they would have to admit it could be done for only a development cost in the range of only ~$200 million. But then it would become obvious how to proceed.

 First, note that the Ariane 6 that was planned to compete with the SpaceX Falcon 9 has been pushed back to 2024, when its original launch date was in 2020, extending the time where SpaceX is cornering the market. Note also the Ariane 6 will not be reusable. In fact ArianeSpace has admitted they won't be fielding a reusable launcher until the 2030's. 

 ULA was driven to the brink of bankruptcy by denying the importance of reusability. There is little doubt the same will happen to ArianeSpace if they wait a decade to field a reusable vehicle. Independent European space observers have also made this point about the choice of the non-reusable Ariane 6:

Europe’s lack of rocket ‘audacity’ leaves it scrambling in the space race
European policymakers want to stop SpaceX from dominating the launch market.
BY JOSHUA POSANER
JANUARY 15, 2021 12:28 PM CET 6 MINUTES READ
That 2014 decision haunts French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire, who keeps a warning of that moment on his desk.
“The European space adventure is magnificent, but in 2014 there was a fork in the road, and we didn’t take the right path,” Le Maire told a conference last September. “We should have made the choice of the reusable launcher. We should have had this audacity.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-arianespace-rocket-space-race/

 The Fast Route to Reusability.

 The problem with reusability for the Ariane 5 and 6 is they use solids for a large portion of their takeoff thrust. These large side boosters also make up a large portion of the cost. In fact, the situation has actually gotten worse with the Ariane 6. But the Space Shuttle program demonstrated you don't save on reuse with solid side boosters. By the time you fish the SRB's out of the ocean, tow them to port, transport them from port back to the manufacturing facility, clean them out from all the burnt on combustion products, and then finally refill them with propellant, the cost is no better than just using new ones to begin with. A little thought makes it easy to see why. Solid side boosters are just a filled in metal pipe. The cost of that metal pipe is small compared to all the processing involved in making the SRB. Keeping the same metal pipe but increasing all the needed steps for processing does not reduce the cost of the SRB.

 So to get the low cost reusable rocket you have to dispense with the SRB's. Necessarily that means you have to use additional liquid-fueled core engines. Then is adding an additional core engine a multi-billion dollar, or euro, development? 

 No! I was quite startled to find JAXA was able to add an additional hydrolox engine to the H-II first stage for only an approx. $200 million development cost.

 See the highlighted passage in this article where the cost to add another engine to the H-II was only 27 billion Yen, about $200 million: 

 

 But that means instead of the multi-billion current development cost of the Ariane 6, the same could have been accomplished for just a few hundred million and would also have been reusable! I made this point here:

Multi-Vulcain Ariane 6.

https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2018/02/multi-vulcain-ariane-6.html

 Thus the importance of asking that impertinent question of ArianeSpace, "How much to add an additional Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?"

WHY Are the Far More Expensive SRB's Used Rather then the Cheaper Liquid-fueled Engines? 

 Knowledgeable ESA observers have been aware for awhile now that the ESA policies for distributing funds and costs to the differing member states do not result in the most cost effective vehicles. It’s a policy called geographical-return that requires member states costs to be apportioned by some set proportion of the billion dollar development costs. So if some member states have been contributing some large proportion of the costs through solid side boosters, that cost continues to be part of the development for new rockets or upgrades.

 The governments of the member states regard this as a good thing because it helps to keep active, and paid, the space industries and space industry employees in their countries. But another key reason why some member states like the funds for the ESA to go to develop solid rocket side boosters is because those funds help also to develop solid rockets for their defense programs. So rather than those countries having to pay the entire cost of the solid rocket missiles in their defense programs on their own, some portion of that is actually paid for by the ESA in developing solid rocket side boosters for space launchers.

 You can see why there is a great incentive for those member states, which have great influence on the direction and funding choices for the ESA, to continue to want to use solid rocket boosters in all launchers produced by the ESA.

 But the stunning fact is how much more expensive the solids are for the Ariane 6 than just adding another Vulcain engine! The latest cost figures for the Ariane 6 are the €75M for the two SRB version and €115M for the four SRB version. 

 This suggests, as a first order estimate, that we can take the cost of two SRB’s as €40M. But the cost of a single Vulcan is only €10 million! So the two SRB’s on the Ariane 6 base version costs 4 times more than an additional Vulcain! Therefore, again as a first order estimate, we can take the cost of a two Vulcain Ariane 6 with no SRB’s as only €45 million, ~$50 million. This compares quite favorably to current $67 million cost of the Falcon 9.

 The reason why this isn’t done can not be attributed to some supposed multi-billion development cost to add an additional Vulcain to the Ariane core. Actually, it’s the current plan for the Ariane 6 with the newly developed solids, new upper stage, and new Vinci engine whose development cost is in the $4+ billion range. It’s really quite stunning to realize the same could have been accomplished at only a ~$200 development cost simply by adding another Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core, using the same original cryogenic upper stage. Nearly a factor of 20 times cheaper!

 But nobody knows this because nobody asks that one simple question, “How much would it cost to add a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?”

 Now, once you have the all-liquid Ariane 6 that costs even cheaper than the Falcon 9, you can also keep up with SpaceX in reducing price by reusability by also reusing the core stage via powered landing a la the F9 booster. Again, the solids in the current Ariane 6 version would not save on reusing them as the Space Shuttle program abundantly showed. So that huge €40 million cost just for the SRB’s on the Ariane 6(more than the cost of the entire rest of the rocket!) out of the total  €75 million would be fixed no matter how many times you wanted to reuse the core.

 It might be argued that even a fully throttled down single Vulcain would have too much thrust for a hovering landing. Actually, this is the case also with the Falcon 9. It uses what SpaceX calls "hover-slam" for landing. The thrust is precisely timed so the booster just reaches 0 velocity as it touches down. Actually, I'm not a fan of "hover-slam". Much better for the Ariane case would be to use two Vinci engines for the landing only. It is designed to be air-startable and restartable. It weighs without the nozzle extension for vacuum use only 160 kg. So two would weigh only 320kg on the first stage. It's use would allow true hovering landing for the first stage.

Three Vulcains on the Ariane 5/6 Match the Falcon 9 in Payload at a Lower Price.

 The two Vulcain Ariane 5/6 would have lower payload than the Falcon 9. But it would be quite competitive for the lucrative geosynchronous transfer orbit(GTO) used by many communications satellites, at ~6,000 kg to GTO at lower price than the F9. The F9 is at about 8,000 kg to GTO. But most satellites don't need this full capacity anyway.

 However, if we used three Vulcains we could then match the Falcon 9 in payload and still be at lower price. This comes from again using the first order estimate of €40 million for the two SRB's. So the Ariane 6 with no SRB's would be €35 million, as a first order estimate. So adding on two Vulcains would be €55 million, as a first order estimate. But this is still less than the $67 million price for the Falcon 9.

 In an upcoming blog post I'll discuss further the three Vulcain case showing it can match the Falcon 9 in payload. Intriguingly, by using multiple copies of such 3 Vulcain cores, I estimate 4 to 6, you can also get a 'superheavy' lift vehicle capable of 100-tons to LEO, a 'moon rocket'. Using multiple copies  of already existing cores allows you to get the 'superheavy' lift at far less development cost than the $20 billion of the SLS, or the $10 billion of the ill-conceived Superheavy/Starship.

 Manned Launchers.

 Finally, in regards to manned launchers, just use the all-liquid Ariane 6 since you no longer have the safety issues of using SRB’s on manned launchers.

 

  Robert Clark

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 4: how the Ariane 6 can beat both SpaceX and the Russians.

Copyright 2013 Robert Clark

Europe Urged To Halt Work on ‘Dead End' Ariane 6 Design.
By Peter B. de Selding | May. 30, 2013

The academy is urging the agencies to stop work on the Ariane 6 they approved in November with a view to beginning full development in 2014. The academy-favored rocket would use liquid propulsion instead of solid, and would face four more years of preparatory work before moving to full development in 2018.
In the meantime, the academy says, Europe should focus on an upgraded heavy-lift Ariane 5 that would fly for a decade before both it and the Europeanized version of Russia’s medium-lift Soyuz rocket are replaced by the all-liquid Ariane 6 in 2027. This rocket, called Ariane 5 ME, has been in design for several years. Continued work on it was approved, alongside Ariane 6, at the November meeting of European Space Agency (ESA) governments.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35546europe-urged-to-halt-work-on-%E2%80%98dead-end-ariane-6-design

 The Academy should also emphasize another key advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6 that it could be used for a manned launch vehicle.
 Note that Russia is raising their prices to $73 million per seat or $220 million for three. This is greater than the launch cost of the full 20 metric ton class Ariane 5. The smaller Ariane 6 would certainly be cheaper than that. By producing this liquid fueled Ariane 6, Europe could also get their own manned space flights and more cheaply than by paying the Russians.
 Both Russia and China have their own manned spaceflight programs, as will the U.S. in the near, short time frame. And even India and Japan are planning their own manned spaceflight programs. The Japan case is quite notable in that their plan is to use twin cryogenic engines of similar characteristics to the Vulcain II.
 The European Union has been the highest economic power or a close second to the U.S. in the world over the last few years. It should be regarded as unacceptable by European space advocates, private, governmental, and industry, that there has been no plan to give Europe a manned space program as with these other space agencies.
 Such a manned-capable launcher could be done more quickly and cheaply by using a commercial space approach. The Falcon 9 and the Antares only took 4 years and a few hundred million dollars in development cost that had to be paid by NASA.
 I also estimate the cost per launch of a single stage version could be done for half the $127 million cost given by the Academy in that report for their version of the Ariane 6, vastly undercutting the Russians:

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 3: towards European human spaceflight.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-lasting-importance-of-spacex.html

 Here's an argument for producing the Ariane 6 at a faster time frame than just 2027. The Ariane 6 is supposed to be one-half to one-third as expensive as the Ariane 5. The Ariane 5 is already being used to deliver cargo to the ISS but using the very expensive to develop and produce ATV. In fact ESA doesn't want to produce any more ATV's after the last one to launch in 2014.
 But if you have this less expensive launcher in the Ariane 6 then you have a much less expensive route to sending cargo to the ISS. But then you need a pressurized capsule to transport it. Why spend the expense of developing a new small pressurized capsule when you already have one in the European developed Cygnus? (By the way this raises an interesting economic question I'll discuss at the end.)
 SpaceX is charging NASA $133 million to transport a maximum of 6,000 kg to the ISS. Note this is well above the launch cost of the Falcon 9 alone. The large extra cost is due to the use of the expensive Dragon capsule. The Ariane 6 would have comparable payload capacity as the Falcon 9 but using a 2,000 kg lighter capsule in the Cygnus. Then it could be at or above the cargo capability of the Falcon 9 to the ISS. And from the estimated launch cost of the Ariane 6 and the low cost of the Cygnus compared to the Dragon their price could be at or below that of the Falcon 9/Dragon. How's that for wanting to be competitive with SpaceX?
 Now, the Academy wants ESA to make a liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6 instead of the planned solid-fueled one. Imagine you have that and it is being used to send cargo via the Cygnus capsule to the ISS. It's not much of leap at all that if you add life support and a heat shield to the Cygnus then you would have a European vehicle capable of sending astronauts to the ISS as well. And you could do it at a price to undercut the Russians.
 I want to argue again here for the commercial space approach for accomplishing this. The 2027 time frame for such a liquid fueled Ariane 6 is following the usual glacial pace of government financed space programs. This would be near the end of the ISS (expected) extended life time. However, both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences by following the commercial space approach were able to develop their launchers in 4 years. Commercial space is both cheaper and faster than government space.
 To do the cost sharing of commercial space though the industry partners, or their investors, would have to be convinced it could be profitable. Note that SpaceX has gotten a $1.6 billion contract from NASA for delivering cargo to the ISS. The $127 million per launch cost estimated by the Academy is coming from the large, billion dollar, development costs under the usual governmental financing approach that would need to be recouped. Commercial space has proven though that both total development cost and the portion paid by the government are a fraction of those of the usual governmental financing. Then getting a similar billion dollar ISS supply contract as SpaceX and with a development cost that, literally, might only be a few hundred million dollars, would result in such a contract being highly profitable.

 About that economic question I mentioned above, Orbital Sciences paid for the development of the Cygnus to the Italian Space Agency(ISA). But certainly the ISA would not want to turn over the full rights to the Cygnus to a foreign company. It's quite likely ISA retains ownership of the Cygnus. This becomes interesting in regards to the price they would charge for the Cygnus compared to the price Orbital Sciences would charge.
 Because Orbital paid for the development of the Cygnus they would want to recoup that cost in the price they charge. But the ISA does not have to recover that cost. This means they could charge much less. But then why would anyone pay for the higher cost from Orbital when they could get it cheaper from the ISA?
 A puzzling question. It may be Orbital retains the rights to sell the Cygnus to NASA or even for all American launches.


    Bob Clark

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 3: towards European human spaceflight.

Copyright 2013 Robert Clark 

 

European Human Spaceflight

The EU released a report critical of the ESA's policy on new launchers:

The EU Seems to Really Dislike ESA’s New Launch Vehicle Policy.
Doug Messier
on March 17, 2013, at 5:57 am
www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/17/the-eu-seems-to-really-dislike-esas-launch-vehicle-policy/

  The report is rather opaque about what changes the EU wants in space policy as opposed to what the ESA is proposing. One thing I noted is that it wants the ESA to keep up with technological advances the other space programs in the world are embarking on.

 This possibly might relate to the proposal of the Ariane 6 to use all solids on the lower stages. This is going backwards, not forwards in technology. A forwards suggestion for the Ariane 6 would have been the option that uses liquid fuel for a core stage simply by adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core stage.
 Note this would have high commonality with the current Ariane 5 which the ESA also wants to save on costs rather than having to design entire new solid lower stages. But the most important advantage of this is a key technological advance it would provide to keep up with the other space faring nations.

 Russian and China have manned orbital launchers, and the U.S. will again also in the short near term. India is even planning on manned launchers. But the ESA has no plans on producing a manned launcher. Space advocates in Europe should regard this as unacceptable. But the key point is by using the multi-Vulcain option for the Ariane 6 this would provide Europe with a manned spaceflight capability.

 Another source of friction with the EU is that ESA is constrained to apportion work according to members financial participation, while the EU is under no such constraints:

CNES Design Team Sets ‘Triple-seven’ Goal for Ariane 6.
By Peter B. de Selding | Jan. 2, 2013
https://spacenews.com/33019cnes-design-team-sets-triple-seven-goal-for-ariane-6/

From the article:

...after months of hard selling that saw them pitted against much of France’s industry, CNES officials last year convinced Fioraso that Ariane 6 — less expensive and less powerful than Ariane 5, and carrying just one satellite at a time to orbit — is the way of the future.
The design of the rocket — two solid-fueled lower stages and a cryogenic upper stage, plus solid-fueled strap-on boosters — was frozen Nov. 21 during a meeting of ESA government ministers.ESA Launcher Director Antonio Fabrizi said this design, and no other, is what ministers approved.

and:

Ariane 6 has been conceived from the start as a “next-generation” rocket that in many ways looks like a throwback — more of a less-expensive Lockheed Martin Atlas 5, or a Proton launched from the equator. Ariane 5 can do more things for more customers.
But if it meets its design goal, Ariane 6 will reach a financial equilibrium that has eluded Ariane 5. CNES officials say economic criteria account for 43 percent of the design decisions made for the rocket, with technical criteria accounting for just 30 percent.
The remaining 27 percent of the design choices are being made on the basis of Europe’s existing industrial capacity.
French industry is responsible for around 50 percent of the construction of Ariane 5. Eymard said the agency assumes France will carry about the same load for Ariane 6.
Beyond the French contribution, all bets are off. CNES has penciled in Germany at 25 percent, and Italy at 10-15 percent. The Italian share should be relatively easy to secure because Italy already is heavily involved in production, with Snecma of France, of the solid-fueled strap-on boosters used on the Ariane 5 rocket. Italy is also the lead investor in the new Vega small-satellite launcher, which made its inaugural flight in early 2012.
Because of the all-but-guaranteed work share of Italian industry in the Ariane 6 solid-fueled stages, the Italian government is not likely to resist taking its 10-15 percent stake despite its public-debt crisis.
Ensuring German industry sufficient work will not be as straightforward, European government and industry officials said.

 This article shows the difficulty the ESA will have in developing innovative launch solutions. The biggest factor in deciding which launcher to develop is how much work it can provide to the ESA, member countries. This supersedes even lowered costs.

The ESA could develop a low cost launcher that would be comparable in cost to the SpaceX Falcon 9, AND moreover would give Europe an independent manned launch capability simply by adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core. Ironically though, this option is not chosen because it would be TOO low cost: it would be simple, quick - and not provide enough work to the ESA member countries.

The only way Europe is going to get low cost space access, it now appears, is if it is done under the commercial space approach. As proven by SpaceX this can cut 90% (!) off the development costs when privately financed. And in fact it should be even easier and cheaper than the SpaceX case since the components already exist in the Ariane 5 core, built in France, and Vulcain II engines, built in Germany. Even the capsule for the manned launchers is largely already designed in the Orbital Sciences, Cygnus capsule, which is actually built in Italy. You would just need to supply life support and heat shield to the capsule already designed to be pressurized.

 The only thing needed are entrepreneurs in Europe like Elon Musk in the U.S. with the insight to carry it out. In the blog posts "On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment" and "On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 2" I discussed the fact that space development costs were cut dramatically by SpaceX by private financing.

 NASA has found with its commercial crew program that it can develop manned launchers in general at lower costs by opting for a more commercial approach to their development. In fact NASA's commercial space program was presaged by the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The Air Force only had to pay $500 million out of a $3.5 billion development cost for the Delta IV and $500 million out of a $2 billion development cost for the Atlas V. For the Delta IV, that's a 86% (!) savings in development cost.

 NASA also has saved in development cost on Orbital Science's Antares launcher. It only had to pay $288 million out of a development cost of $472 million for a 5 metric ton class launcher. 

 Then the suggestion to the EU is to institute a similar program for European manned launchers. Politically the ESA appears to be set on the all-solid Ariane 6. But what the EU could do is put out a request to European industry for commercially developed man-rated launchers that would be largely privately funded aside for perhaps some seed money, a la SpaceX. To sweeten the pot, the EU could state that as part of their policy they will use these European launchers for their manned flights as long as they are comparable in price to say what they are paying the Russians for their launchers.

 The Russians are charging $63 million per seat for flights on the Soyuz, so for three crew in the range of $190 million. This is almost the cost of a full Ariane 5 launch, a vehicle capable of 20 metric tons (mT) to LEO.

 A vehicle capable of carrying a manned capsule could be done at a 5 mT payload capability, a quarter the size of the Ariane 5. SpaceX spent $300 million developing the Falcon 9, capable of 10 mT to LEO. Then a vehicle half the size, that was also largely privately funded as was the Falcon 9, might cost ca. $150 million.

 Considering the payload for our twin-Vulcain Ariane likely will be above 5 mT though, we might instead estimate the development cost as $200 million based on how much JAXA spent to add a second cryogenic engine to the H-IIA core.

 Also, I've been informed by people who aware of CNES studies on a multi-Vulcain Ariane that the estimated price for the two-Vulcain Ariane 5 core would be only 50 million euros, about $60 million(!) So for only a ca. $200 million development cost and a $60 million launch cost the ESA could have manned spaceflight ability.

 Another source of income for such a launcher with the Cygnus capsule would be deliveries to the ISS. SpaceX is charging NASA about $133 million for ca. 6,000 kg delivery of cargo using the Falcon 9. Part of this inflated cost above the $54 million cost of the Falcon 9 is the use of the expensive Dragon capsule. The Cygnus is a smaller capsule with a much smaller development cost, so would be much cheaper than the Dragon. Using a ca. 8,000 kg payload for the launcher and ca. 2,000 kg mass for the Cygnus, this launcher could match the 6,000 kg delivery capacity of the Falcon 9 at a much reduced price.

 European Moon Flights

 According to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, NASA will not be returning us to the Moon but may engage in partnerships with other space agencies or private entities who could. Then it's interesting the ESA has the required lightweight in-space stages and lightweight capsule in the Cygnus to accomplish this at low cost.

Another key fact is that NASA has shown with SpaceX and now with Orbital Sciences that development costs can be cut drastically (by 80 to 90% !) by following a commercial approach. Then this could be a project NASA could encourage, at low cost to NASA, by partnering with ESA and private entities like Golden Spike, Planetary Resources, Inc., etc, while at the same time satisfying the critics who want us to return to the Moon.


   Bob Clark