Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
The European Space Agency is Funding Its Own Reusable Rocket (digitaltrends.com) 78
The French space agency CNES, along with the aerospace company Ariane Group, unveiled its plans for a reusable rocket last year. The ESA has now chosen to fully fund the Prometheus engine design to create a usable version that it hopes can be produced considerably cheaper — down to a tenth of the cost — than current options… The ESA will soon begin testing the hardware components of the Prometheus engine at the German Space Agency facilities in Lampoldshausen, Germany. It says it already has manufactured components including the turbo pump’s turbine, pump inlet, and gas generator valves, and it is currently manufacturing main subsystems.
The aim is to finish the first combustion chamber model this month, then deliver the real version of this combustion chamber by the end of the year, before assembling a full demonstration version of the engine for testing by 2021.
They are going to try to get cost efficiency as good or better than SpaceX, by getting multiple governments involved in the process at each point. Best of luck to them.
It seems to me that people want their governments to be fair, democratic, transparent, and a lot of other things that actually don’t tend to increase efficiency.
Elon Musk wasn’t careful to be “fair” in distributing the work to different countries, and different companies in each country. He doesn’t have a three-year, transparent bidding proc
Re:Best of luck (Score:4, Insightful)
by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday June 07, 2020 @09:52AM (#60155814) Homepage JournalCost is just one factor. The programme as a whole exists to maintain Europe’s independent launch capability.
I don’t think there is much in the way of bidding on this one, Airbus is basically the only company that can build rockets and they sort out their own suppliers of components.
Does Europe even have any independent launch capability to speak of in the first place? They’ve always relied primarily upon Russia and the US, and I don’t see them changing that any time soon. This honestly smells a lot like Quaero [wikipedia.org], which was an ill-conceived project with the main goal of restoring French pride at the expense of the rest of Europe by copying something nice that the USA already had in its private sector. Especially so considering France itself is the most likely to benefit from this as Fran
I must be imagining the Ariane rockets.
Yes, the current generation Ariane. The EU launches satellites with it, like the Galileo GNSS. Been doing it for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]
So you rather have Elon export rocket tech to the Chinese like Clinton did?
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/0… [nytimes.com]
Yeah, that would go over well.
- From your link:
permit the launching of a communications satellite aboard a Chinese rocket next month
So in other words the Chinese already had the technology, the USA needed it to get their satellite up. Hmm. I’m not saying that Clinton didn’t do that, but your link doesn’t support your case. Why is it that there’s such a strong correlation between people who support Trump and errr… “statements which do not match the reality of the situation”, let’s say?
And once in office, the Democrat Clinton used his security to rape a powerless intern in the Oval Office?
It’s amazing how you are able to articulate your opinion in such well written English while at the same time demonstrating some sever degraded brain function. I mean the history of your posts show a clear and worrying trend of mental retardation, but yet doesn’t seem to be associated with the usual English impediment.
I am so glad I am not you.
It’s one thing to assume something can be done, and another to prove it has been done. Once reusable rocket tech has been proven, China and others will develop their own native solution. But, why design when you can acquire the plans? It is the least path of resistance.
I have no doubt that if Elon’s designs and engineering data got released to our friend, they themselves could very well be compromised by the Chinese already (moles / espionage) . Do you really want them to have the tech at this point in time
You do realise that Arianespace was the original commercial launch service provider?
- by lgw ( 121541 )
My big hope for this project is that it will allow ESA to stop using large solid fuel boosters. The biggest source of small debris in low Earth orbit (1 cm or less) is small flakes of aluminum/alumina from boosters that burn late in flight – either big boosters, or second stage rocket motors.
Large solid fuel boosters are the low tech/bigger hammer approach to reaching orbit. ESA, India, and the silly NASA SLS still use them, as do some Chinese rockets. Each nation that can move away from them is a good t
I’m struggling to understand how the burnt propellant from large early stage solid fuel boosters ends up in orbit. The Ariane boosters are discarded in a suborbital trajectory and fall into the sea.
I can understand the issue with small upper stage motors, but not with the large P238/24 and P120 SRBs that Ariane 5 and 6 use (will use).
Not happening, the solid boosters are so France can maintain its expertise for its SLBM’s.
They are going to try to get cost efficiency as good or better than SpaceX, by getting multiple governments involved in the process at each point.
That’s called an ideal outcome not a requirement. The ESA currently launches rockets. The ESA would prefer not to be dependent on the USA (much like the NASA was hurting as it was dependent on others). The ESA should continue to develop and conduct R&D and not just sit on an existing platform until the end of time.
Honestly the newsworthy item here is that there are still people launching disposable vehicles into space and *aren’t* developing reusable systems. Everyone should regardless if they get to Sp
“It seems to me that people want their governments to be fair, democratic, transparent, and a lot of other things that actually don’t tend to increase efficiency.”
All of that stuff DOES increase efficiency. Democratic is how you get all of those other things, transparent is how you get fair and protect democracy, fair leads to efficient by ensuring that the right parties have the right jobs.
All of that stuff DOES increase efficiency. Democratic is how you get all of those other things, transparent is how you get fair and protect democracy, fair leads to efficient by ensuring that the right parties have the right jobs.
No, it really doesn’t. Democratic tends to mean design by committee, which almost never works out very well. Having one single vision where somebody can make decisions that are subject purely to their own merit and best fit that vision is always going to win over each decision being subject to the whims of the community, or worse, multiple communities in this case. While democracy makes perfect sense for governing how people will live their lives and interact with one another, it’s absolutely terrible for e
Wrong. They way it works is this.
New improvements are made. The world learns from this, and improves on it. Efficiently, or inefficiently, with varying success, but thats the way it goes.
We move forward, not backward.
No country will fund a steam powered rocket anymore.
So it doesn’t matter about your world view or your politics, us scientists & engineers will creep forward.
Like I said, I wish them luck.
If you think a few governments getting involved in a project will make the engineer’s job easier, great.My experience working with just a single government agency, which had to take orders from higher government bureaucracy, was that that it didn’t make our work quicker or easier at all. Rather, it was things like a requirement to design new systems using standards that had been deprecated for 10 years at that point.
We’ll see how it goes.
- Glad they’re finally doing something useful. However, it’s kinda pathetic it took SpaceX to get them motivated. Unfortunately, they are 10 years behind SpaceX but it will employ a lot of Europeans so that’s nice.
Re:10 years behind (Score:5, Insightful)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Sunday June 07, 2020 @10:15AM (#60155870)Well the reality is everyone is 10 years behind SpaceX. Don’t forget that everyone mocked SpaceX for its ideas. All the established players thought nothing would come of it. SpaceX proceeded to prove them wrong and now the world (which doesn’t want to rely on a private American company) gets to scramble to play catchup.
Now where have I heard that before… how many electric cars has GM shipped last month?
- SpaceX listened to the tech guys. Refined stainless steel welding and nickel coatings Smart trial and error with sensors everywhere. Inherited NASA’s corporate memory / Lessons learnt. Better costings. Now anyone with a sliderule or calculator can calculate optimum dimensions for required loads. It seems SpaceX and ESA should do a deal – to keep China on the back foot.
>to keep China on the back foot.
This about humanity, not racists. You can stay on Earth.
- Go back to harvesting organs, you “non-racist,” you.
- Right, so the tech already existed but all the others with DEEP knowledge never applied it in the real world. That is what happens when people with a lot of knowledge thinks they know all and all the methods that can be used. The beauty of Musk is not what he knows, it is in how he applies it.
They still mock SpaceX… every time a skunkworks StarShip pops it’s lampooned on the junk media. Reality is that SpaceX is on a rapid development cycle and this happens. SpaceX knows that of course which is why they have a steady stream of StarShip prototypes running along the conveyor, each one more capable and smarter.
- 5 bucks says the retards equip it with a harpoon.
Re-inventing the wheel sounds like oh, so much fun.
Why not just invite Elon to start SpaceX Europe?
The SpaceX technology is done, debugged, mature, working.Mark your calendars, ESA says they will have a demo unit available by the end of 2021.
Anyone want to make a wager on this prediction?This is the same bunch that blew up a rocket in 1996 due to 64-bit floating point to 16-bit signed integer conversion.
The devil is in the details and SpaceX has learned how to iterate quickly and fail fast, put they run eveRe:Why? Just start SpaceX Europe, it’s already don (Score:5, Insightful)
by Marquis de Pattymelt ( 6800258 ) on Sunday June 07, 2020 @10:24AM (#60155894)Huh. It’s almost as if the Europeans don’t feel they can rely on America in the long term.It’s because European institutions are overwhelmingly protectionist. They don’t want their money going to other countries like America – they want it at home where it can circulate around in their own economies. An interesting idea, that. When we Americans do it, it’s bad, but when Europeans do it, it’s good. Kind of a weird concept.
“Germany’s economy minister, Peter Altmaier, on Tuesday officially launched a controversial plan aimed at developing the country’s industrial sector and increasing its intern
I was listening until I read your sig, then I realised you were a parents basement dwelling racist. Keep it up, you will do well in life, lol.
- Insults aren’t arguments. You have to engage with ideas. The EU has been a protectionist organization since its founding. That’s what makes it all the more rich that they would complain about America wanting fair trade deals and for Europeans to pay their fair share of NATO.
We are protectionist for damn good reasons.
We can’t send money via the existing channels because the US controls SWIFT, which means European countries and even governments are blocked from doing normal day to day business with countries and entities the US doesn’t like. See the whole issue about dealing with Iran and also the interesting story about the US seizing a SWIFT payment between a German business and a Danish buyer because the goods involved were Cuban cigars.
We can’t sell Airbus aircraft to whom
Yup, let me count all the times America has turned it’s back on Europe.
Hm, wait, hasn’t happened.
Unless you’re referencing us asking you to actually pay for NATO, etc?
Yup, let me count all the times America has turned it’s back on Europe.
Hm, wait, hasn’t happened.
Unless you’re referencing us asking you to actually pay for NATO, etc?
You are forgetting those two minor wars? WWI and WWII where the U.S. had to be forced by the actions of Germany and Japan to join the Allies?
The US government was chomping at the bit to start a war. It was the American people who wanted no part of it. We were the ones who were going to do the dying, and we did. In massive numbers.
Have you read General Smedley Butler’s “War is a Racket”? [wanttoknow.info] You should. Here’s a short excerpt.
Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress
+1
But that guy is an idiot, so lets just move on.
- by quenda ( 644621 )
Yup, let me count all the times America has turned it’s back on Europe.
1914, 1915, 1916, 19… oh high guys!
1939, 1940, 194Yup, let me count all the times America has turned it’s back on Europe.
1914, 1915, 1916, 19… oh high guys!
1939, 1940, 194But on Dec 7th 1941, Canada declared war on a super power in support of the U.S.. That is supporting an ally.
Re:Why? Just start SpaceX Europe, it’s already don (Score:5, Insightful)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Sunday June 07, 2020 @10:27AM (#60155906)Re-inventing the wheel sounds like oh, so much fun.
No where near as fun as a world with only one vehicle platform run by only one company. I don’t understand how Americans can at the same time hate monopolies providing their internet, but praise a world where the only shop is Amazon, the only restaurant is Taco Bell, and the only space agency is SpaceX.
Not only should everyone the rest of the world re-invent the wheel (it’s how you drive technology forward through competition and diverse ideas like how SpaceX got founded in the first place), but Boeing and ULA should pull their finger out and start heading this direction too.
It reminds me of 3D printing. I could buy a PRUSA kit and put it together and be printing today or I could buy parts of Ebay, Amazon, and AliExpress and possibly be printing next month while running the risk of spending more and burning down my house.
False equivalency. If SpaceX is Prusa, that doesn’t make the ESA’s efforts Ebay, Amazon or anything else cheap. Rather it make’s the ESA’s efforts a quality Prusa clone following the ideas of the platform, but maybe with a Volcano extruder, or a Bear frame. Just like how the alternative to SpaceX isn’t always cheap and nasty, the alternative to Prusa isn’t always to burn your house down. (Sidenote: If your Prusa printer is still stock from how it was delivered you haven’t even begun to unlock some of 3D printing’s potential).
When you have reasonably priced mature technology available, USE IT!
Or do R&D and produce something even better rather than enriching single companies giving them monopoly status and stagnating the development of technology.
This post brought to you by someone who thought like me, deciding to develop yet other computer platform in an already busy market which inadvertently led to the commodification of the personal computer. I hope you’re thankful to those people who don’t think like you. Without them it’s unlikely you’d be here posting right now.
- by phayes ( 202222 )
The problem is that ESA is NOT moving rapidly towards building a F9 clone but is planning waste another decade building Ariane 6 and as a sop to reusability an almost useless sub-scale F9 clone. ESA claims that Prometheus will enable ESA to build a future reusable rocket but what they claim they are trying to prove is of almost no interest. We already know that re-use is workable by looking at F9. Instead of taking baby steps and trying to catch up to where Space-X was three years ago in a decade or so, ESA
SpaceX’s success wasn’t overnight: they took 7-9 years to mature their idea for a reusable rocket into a working system.
It’s unrealistic to expect Arianespace to repeat that in 1/3 of the time SpaceX took. So Arianespace needed a 2-part solution to their problem: the current Ariane 5 architecture is unsuitable as the basis for a reusable rocket, and it’s very expensive to operate. So they decided to reduce costs NOW by building Ariane 6 using existing technology (halving their launch cost) while developing
This is ironic, when the euro model for such massive projects is ENTIRELY non competitive, ENTIRELY rent-seeking massive pork distribution schemes spreading even functions like basic manufacturing pointlessly across dozens of locations chosen solely to serve political pie-sharing.
How’s Galileo working out, beeteedubs? A380?
Yes, certainly the euros have a lot to teach Americans about capitalism and free enterprise.
Re:Why? Just start SpaceX Europe, it’s already don (Score:4, Informative)
by kot-begemot-uk ( 6104030 ) on Sunday June 07, 2020 @10:55AM (#60155988) HomepageFirst of all on Reinventing the wheel.Space X is a verbatim implementation of the original Tsiolkovsky design from the 1930es. The only difference is modern engineering and the only truly inventive part are the aerodynamic controls. That both as design and implementation is an absolute gem.
The full design for the original Enegrya II (aka Hurricane) auxiliary boosters which specified winged landing for them probably still better, but the question is actually moot now. Musk has won so it will be a long time until someone attempts it. I bet ESA will just try to copy him.
The real winner is still not in play. The issue with ALL of them – SpaceX, ESA, Chinese, Roskosmos, ULA, etc is that pushing things higher and bigger is diminishing returns. You have to push the fuel and oxidizer every time. The winner in the race will be the one who will build the first viable space tug. Ion engine with nuclear electric feed. Something which can grab payload delivered to the minimal possible earth orbit and shove it to the final destination. Most of the bits for this including the ultra-compact nuclear reactor now exist. What is missing is cooling. If someone builds the cooling and launches that, they do not even need a very efficient launcher. They will murder the competition by being able to price launching to higher orbits at mere percentages of what Space X asks for at present. As they saying goes – “watch this space”.
Why not just invite Elon to start SpaceX Europe?
The SpaceX technology is done, debugged, mature, working.You really expect the U.S. to allow the export of “U.S.” Defense Technology? Doubt it.
- Ouch, I bought a mini-printer ($249) from Amazon and was printing 3D objects the same day it arrived. My friend bought different parts to make a FAR better 3D printer (>$1000 so far) and all he has after three months is a bunch of half assembled parts and he still has not built the controlling computer either.
It is a bit disappointing to see the big ugly exhaust port on the side of the Prometheus rocket engine, wasting propellant.
Not what you want to see on a new development.Even the Space Shuttle main engine, designed in the 1970’s, had a closed-cycle engine.
Is there any good reason to use the less efficient open cycle, or is Ariane Group just way behind?Staged combustion is older than the shuttle and it is difficult and expensive.
Re:open-cycle gas generator (Score:4, Informative)
by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@earthl … k.net minus poet> on Sunday June 07, 2020 @11:18AM (#60156064)Is there any good reason to use the less efficient open cycle, or is Ariane Group just way behind?
Yes. The reasons are explained in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?… [youtube.com]It’s a long video so I’ll summarize as best I can. One problem open cycle avoids is having to fight the full pressure of the rocket bell for running the pump power pack. Another problem this avoids is having the soot from a fuel rich cycle being fed into the rocket bell, this soot could clog injectors and lead to engine failure. This soot problem can be avoided by running the power pack on an oxidizer rich mix but liquid oxygen is very cold and when it gets hot it likes to burn through just about everything. As in burn through things like the metal parts that make up the pump power pack. Another way to avoid soot is to use liquid hydrogen as fuel but that has it’s own set of problems, such as the cost of the fuel.
It took SpaceX a long time and a lot of work to figure out how to use a closed cycle on their pumps. This will likely pay off in time but whether this was necessary to the success of their rockets, or optimal in anything besides fuel burned, will certainly be debated.
It is a bit disappointing to see the big ugly exhaust port on the side of the Prometheus rocket engine, wasting propellant. Not what you want to see on a new development.
Sort of like Musk using the old heavy common 301 stainless steel in Starship instead of lighter, more modern materials. Not what you want to see.
Oh wait, maybe that is is what you want to see when total cost of the system over its (reusable) lifetime is considered.
The cost of a gas generator is a slightly lower specific impulse, in exchange for a simpler (read cheaper), more reliable (read cheaper), lighter (read cheaper) hardware design. Can’t be that those European engineers did a sophisticated design tra
- by quenda ( 644621 )
Sort of like Musk using the old heavy common 301 stainless steel in Starship instead of lighter, more modern materials. Not what you want to see.
Actually, I was delighted. But maybe because I studied a bit of materials science back in the day, and steel is an awesome material, especially if you want re-use.
And I know how Columbia failed. I’ve seen a lot of problems with composites too.Now I’m no rocket scientist, and the closed-cycle Raptor is yet to be flight-proven. (Shuttle was hydrogen-oxygen, so not a direct comparison, but does provide a lesson in maintenance). But I hear so much hype about the full-flow staged combustion, and the extra up-f
- by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Sunday June 07, 2020 @10:26AM (#60155904)
Yes, “SpaceX already did it” but that only proves it’s possible. SpaceX shouldn’t have monopoly on reusable rockets just because they did it first. Regardless of who controls it, monopolies are not good. It’s also good to have a diversity in designs because there is no perfect design which means the designs will continue to evolve in interesting directions. A diversity of minds promotes innovation!
SpaceX was started in the hopes that it would interest people in space travel and by all measures it’s been a success. Godspeed and good luck ESA.
Can only be good to have competition as it helps provide motivation, and the more people working on rockets the more good design ideas will exist, along with a wider talent pool.
Can they do anything that the Americans didn’t do first? I swear so much of Europe is predicated on “we’re not America” rather than “we are Europe”. I guarantee if SpaceX hadn’t been the leader, this plan wouldn’t be around today. It’s just this obsessive “me too”-ism that seems to define Europe. If the Americans do something, we have to do the same thing, only more expensive and more protectionist.
You can’t have a negative identity. Not only is it unhealthy to become obsessed with envy, but your enemy
Europe wants independent access to space because of what happened when they didn’t. In the early 1970s, Europe was ahead of everyone else in the development of commercial telecommunications satellites. They were hoping to launch the Symphonie [wikipedia.org] satellite on a Europa II rocket. When that programme collapsed, they asked the US to launch the sat.
The US agreed, on one condition: the satellite could not be used for commercial purposes.
That gave Europe the impulse to found ESA and start development of the Ariane ro
Can they do anything that the Americans didn’t do first?
You do know that the 13 colonies that eventually rebelled and became the U.S. did so using technologies and institutions first evolved in Europe right? It was the English who invented the tank and the Germans who expanded the concept into mechanized warfare. The rockets launched now are descended from German designs. The A-Bomb was developed from European science with many European scientists being involved.
Look at most of what you teach in your schools and it is almost all derived from what Europeans
You mean they’re really, really good at starting wars? OK that’s not something to be proud of, class.
The US has kept Europe free from the wars it started for 75 years, and gotten little in the way of gratitude. The US has no obligation to stop you nationalist, tribalist, violent genocidal Europeans from murdering each other. Of course, we always end up doing it anyway, like when in Bosnia you all sat by and watched people starve in concentration camps, and saw others lined up and shot dead.
Srebernica happ
- The development of the EU stopped the european countries fighting, that was the purpose of the creation of the EU. The Balkans was not in the EU when they were at war. The EU does not have an army to step into war zone, peace-keeping is the point of UN/NATO.
>The US has kept Europe free from the wars it started for 75 years
Korean war?
Middle east?What planet you from?
- Yes, start two world wars! That’s what all that intelligence and culture got them. (i’m half joking)
Yes, start two world wars! That’s what all that intelligence and culture got them. (i’m half joking)
Look at how many countries the U.S. currently had combat troops deployed in and how many they are bombing (and killing civilians). This in spite of Trump campaigning on pulling out of those countries. How many fewer are being bombed than when Trump took office? Has he even stopped in ONE country?
Your ego is entertainingly wrapped up in the idea that America (and therefore you by association) is superior to Europe. Thing is though even if the first bit is true, the second isn’t.
What, like radar?
- Another failure of the European Union not focusing on their strengths – ITER (France) vs. Wendelstein 7-X (Germany) and now reusable rockets vs. SABRE [wikipedia.org]. Europe is not too big for a single government, but they do need to get past S.R. Hadden’s first rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
- The ESA can accelerate their progress simply by contracting with Russia and China to steal SpaceX’s IP.
French makes things different just to be different. Not to make it better.
They do not know about electricity. Half the French cars on streets has only one forward light working. The other is blown.
Need the Germans to build itFrench makes things different just to be different. Not to make it better.
They do not know about electricity. Half the French cars on streets has only one forward light working. The other is blown.
Need the Germans to build itSays the nation that changed spelling and pronunciation of words to change English into American English just to be different. Also changed the Imperial System gallon into the U.S. Gallon. What else did the U.S. change just to be different from the English?
Says the nation that changed spelling and pronunciation of words to change English into American English just to be different.
It’s hilarious that you think he’s american. You’re completely tone deaf.
Also changed the Imperial System gallon into the U.S. Gallon. What else did the U.S. change just to be different from the English?
Took the concept of guilty until proven innocent, and turned it into innocent until proven guilty.
Improved on the sheep-intestine based condom by first removing the intestines from the sheep.
I’ve studied the trends in EU legislation and regulation in the last ten years, and it invariably leads to a failure of their plan.
Europe has regulated itself out of any reasonable market. They like to think that the EU is like the US, lots of states working together as one big nation, but reality is that nationalism, pride, and anti-other-country sentiments make it impossible to get cooperation without significant cost.
It is VERY possible that if this project was handed to one company (someone suggested A
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
- 548 comments‘No Clear Evidence’ Hydroxychloroquine Works Against COVID-19
- 533 commentsTrump Declares National Emergency To Speed Coronavirus Response
- 526 commentsCoronavirus: Trump Suspends Travel From Europe To US
- 472 commentsAlone In A Crowded Milky Way
- 467 commentsWHO Lauds Lockdown-Ignoring Sweden As a ‘Model’ For Countries Going Forward
Slashdot Top Deals
- Get more comments
- 75 of 75 loaded
“Out of register space (ugh)” — vi
