Adeline concept for Ariane 6

[H2O.]

Today in the French press, there were several articles about recoverable first stage for the new European rocket.

The idea is to use wings and propeller to bring back the avionics and the engine on a commercial airport and to discard the tank.

On this link (challenge) you will find a video (at the end of the page).

Edited June 7, 2015 by H2O.

[sgt_flyer]

Looks like more or less the same base concept as ULA's vulkan, but with wings and deployable propellers to return the engine section (+the stage's avionics) to a runway (no inflatable heatshield) instead of having an helicopter catching the engines floating with parachutes - afterwards, like with vulkan, they would reattach a fuel tank to reform the core stage.

(The boosters were still ariane 6 SRB's)

The concept comes from Airbus defence and space.

We'll have to see how it ends up (though, it might be less risky than vulkan engine recovery)

Edited June 7, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[H2O.]

Yes indeed, if they manage tu pull off the deployable propeller, the weight penalty of this concept can be very low indeed.

It might actually work.

[sojourner]

I don't know, it looks like they manage to add as much weight as the 4 legs used in the SpaceX approach but still don't get the entire stage back.

[H2O.]

The tank cost is pretty low, especially if you build them in quantity. Wings+propellers+landing gear have a weight cost but the fuel+rcs+landing legs on the spaceX solution have one too.

Well, we don't have enough informations to run the numbers, but a winged design allow some comfortable cross-range capabilities (wich will make the design less weather sensible than spaceX).

[Nibb31]

It's cute, but it needs lots of moving parts and complexity. The most expensive part is going to be to develop a new deep-throttlable reusable engine or to reengineer Ariane 5's Vulcain for multiple reuse. There needs to be a serious trade study to determine the development cost of the new hardware vs continuing to use disposable SRBs. The video shows a notional launcher with 2 SRBs. The previous Ariane 6 concept used 4 SRBs, which means that you get economies of scale out of a higher production rate.

The news article claims that Airbus DS has been flying prototypes since 2010, but all they are showing is some crappy CGI...

[Woopert]

I was reading about this on Friday. I'll be making it in KSP once I have time.

Here's some English articles

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056

http://spacenews.com/meet-adeline-airbus-response-to-reusable-spacex-rocket/

http://sen.com/news/airbus-is-testing-concepts-to-reuse-rocket-parts

http://techaeris.com/2015/06/06/airbus-unveils-adeline-answer-spacex-reusable-rockets/

http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/06/07/airbus-defence-and-space-presented-the-adeline-system-to-reuse-rocket-parts/

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/06/07/world/science-health-world/airbus-developing-reusable-space-rocket-launcher/

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeline_(rocket)

Illustration from Wikipedia

And a video

Edited June 7, 2015 by Woopert

[Agate]

To my mind, it looks like they've got a bare concept that they've thrown some 3-d graphics at, but there's no engineering design yet.

This concept is based on Ariane 5: the distinguishing feature of Ariane 5 is that it's got an oversized "main stage" that provides propulsion from liftoff almost all the way to orbit. (SpaceX drops its first stage at about V = 1.8 km/s; Ariane 5 keeps the main stage running until about 7 km/s). That makes the main stage engine big, expensive and worth recovering, BUT it means that the mass of your recovery hardware (wings, landing gear, propellers) has a much bigger impact on payload, since it must be carried almost all the way to space. In addition, re-entry is a lot harsher at this speed.

That means there are a bunch of possible showstoppers:

1) Turboprop and turbofan engines are very heavy compared to rocket engines with similar thrust. Often, that doesn't matter because the savings in fuel and tank mass makes the engine mass negligible, but the plan here is to ditch the tanks, so engine mass matters. (Especially given the flight profile of Ariane 5, see above.)

2) The turboprop engines are going into space, so you're going to need to design them to be vacuum tolerant. A space-rated jet turbine is not exactly off-the-shelf technology.

3) The wings on this thing are very short and stubby, and the payload (a ginormous rocket engine) is pretty heavy. Also, the wings have to be flat boards rather than a classic asymmetric airfoil shape, or they'll throw off the rocket during launch. Odds are good it's going to fly like a brick, with a high stall speed that will make landing an exciting challenge.

4) The video shows folding propellers that deploy in flight. Designing props that fold when you want them to and not when you don't is a challenge. There are a few aircraft (motor gliders) that do this, but they operate under much less stressful flight conditions.

5) The nose of the return vehicle needs a heat shield to protect it during re-entry. But the nose also needs to have ginormous pipes and clamps running through it to mate the engine unit to the fuel tank during launch. This is doable: the Space Shuttle has a bunch of doors in its heat shield to solve this problem. But I think we can all agree that the ideal number of holes you want in your heat shield is zero. And none of this is shown in the video.

The upshot: this may be doable, and hell, it might work better than SpaceX's plan. But the final design would involve a lot more careful design than the "strap some wings onto the side of an Ariane 5 engine" concept shown in the video. Which makes me suspect they haven't even started doing their homework yet. SpaceX will either succeed or prove its design impossible long before this concept ever flies.

SpaceX and Ariane 5 launch videos, to compare staging design:

[sojourner]

(wich will make the design less weather sensible than spaceX).

How so? SpaceX's method only requires conditions to be right at the launch site (where they intend to land). If conditions aren't favorable the rocket won't be launching in the first place.

[Scotius]

Looks like a ugly lovechild of a rocket and a plane Wouldn't it be better to invest into Skylon?

[Woopert]

Looks like a ugly lovechild of a rocket and a plane Wouldn't it be better to invest into Skylon?

Skylon probably has more development risks and requires more infrastructure. I think I saw it would need a really long runway to work.

Adeline is building upon already planned Ariane 6 technology and really only the flyback technology is new.

[fredinno]

I feel this recovery technique is too complex for what it is- too many points of failure in my opinion. ULA had a better idea, with a parachute- based helicopter recovery (though the helicopter part could be a little difficult).

Really, this is the main benefit of SpaceX's cost reduction schemes- it's forcing the rest of the industry to reduce costs and innovate more too to avoid going out of business. I wonder if the SLS will soon be modified to use engine recovery too (or is it a pipe dream?)

Edit: And Russian rockets for that matter.

Edited June 7, 2015 by fredinno

[GeneCash]

I feel this recovery technique is too complex for what it is- too many points of failure in my opinion. ULA had a better idea, with a parachute- based helicopter recovery (though the helicopter part could be a little difficult).

Really, this is the main benefit of SpaceX's cost reduction schemes- it's forcing the rest of the industry to reduce costs and innovate more too to avoid going out of business.

Oh heck yeah. I've seen concepts like these for nearly 50 years now but this is the first time I've seen them seriously considered. And only because SpaceX has made actual physical progress at it. There was a 1969 concept to land the Saturn V S-IC & S-IVB stages with parachutes, and a 1976 concept to re-engine the S-IVB with an aerospike engine and land it with legs SpaceX-style. The aerospike would have been truncated (tip chopped off) to provide a heat shield. (edit: source is Bono/Gatland "Frontiers of Space"]

I'm just dancing with glee. The looks of panic and "where the hell did they come from?" at ULA just makes my day. They've been sitting around selling almost the same damned rockets since the '60s milking the reliable mil-sat government market with zero competition for far too long.

FYI, the helicopter recovery bit has been around for a LONG time. They recovered spy-satellite film canisters in the '60s with planes & helicopters by snagging the parachutes mid-air. I think it's a lot more practical than the goofy self-landing thing, but they may be saying [accent type=snooty french]"we don't want to do it like those ugly Americans!"[/accent]

[Camacha]

Just as a side note - I have seen plenty of well made, incredibly beautiful concept renders for space vehicles, but this one certainly is not one of them Does this come from a real contender?

[Kryten]

Just as a side note - I have seen plenty of well made, incredibly beautiful concept renders for space vehicles, but this one certainly is not one of them Does this come from a real contender?

Is this a joke? Arianespace is currently the indisputable leader on the international launch market, regardless of whether or not their renders for early concepts are up to your standards.

[Camacha]

Is this a joke? Arianespace is currently the indisputable leader on the international launch market, regardless of whether or not their renders for early concepts are up to your standards.

No need to get upset, it was not totally clear this actually came from Arianespace.

And please, do not make this personal with remarks such as up to your standards. NASA, SpaceX, Roscosmos and ESA all have shown significantly more sophisticated footage of their vehicles and plans. Though I am certainly not suggesting this is the most relevant metric when going to space, the disparity here is large enough to cause confusion.

It would not be the first time someone posted hobby footage, only for it to be interpreted as official.

[Woopert]

No need to get upset, it was not totally clear this actually came from Arianespace.

This is from Airbus, not Arianespace. Unless Airbus is part of Arianespace, I don't think Arianespace designed Adeline.

[Camacha]

This is from Airbus, not Arianespace. Unless Airbus is part of Arianespace, I don't think Arianespace designed Adeline.

See, that is what I mean

[SargeRho]

Airbus is, as far as I know, one of Arianespace's major suppliers and shareholders.

[H2O.]

It is not entirely CGI, on the link I provided, there is a photo album with pictures of a small scale demonstrator. (Now, how old are those pictures, I don't know?).

For those who don't read french, a quick summary of the article:

_work started in 2008

_whatever happens, it won't fly right away on Ariane 6

_engine + avionics are 70-80% of the cost of the first stage

_a first launch date is 2025

_contrary to what the CGI show, flyback of Adeline is purely balistic until it turns on his propellers.

@ sojourner: I don't have any source right now but if I recall correctly, the wind limit is lower for the landing of the first stage than for lift-off of the rocket.

[sgt_flyer]

@ sojourner: I don't have any source right now but if I recall correctly, the wind limit is lower for the landing of the first stage than for lift-off of the rocket.

That makes sense, given the stage is much lighter & less aerodynamic for landing (so much more affected by wind - if they need to have more drastic weather conditions than those for normal launches, they are going to have even more scrubs.

-

For the weight penalty of the propellers, they did not say what kind of propulsion they would use (Airbus is experimenting on electric engines for airplanes after all, turboprops could make equal sense too)

for those worried about the weight of the whole return vehicle, remember that Ariane V Vulcain 2 engine has a dry weight of 909kg (for a thrust around 1359kN, instead of 2400kN for Vulcan BE4 engines (vulcan needs two of those, so a much higher weight in their return vehicle)

- besides, the falcon 9 also has a weight penalty coming from the amount of fuel it needs to keep to perform the boostback + landing.

Now, the heat shields on this thing is going to be a headache - current ariane V MECO occurs at speeds near 7km/s, (though, Adeline MECO will likely be at lower speeds, but it'll still be high) and they'll need to make their wings able to withstand this reentry too !

Edited June 8, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[Nibb31]

The propellers wouldn't be turboprops. From the CGI it looks like they are pretty light electric motors, which of course means that there needs to be some sort of battery.

[sgt_flyer]

Seems some people did some math around SpaceX boostback + landing

It looks like they need 20 tons of fuel for a barge landing (payload max weight at 80% of expandable launch)

And for a return to the launch site, nearly 38 tons (they give a payload max weight of 62% of the expandable launch version)

https://m.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2vuy1v/how_much_fuel_do_the_boost_back_reentry_and/

So we'll have to see what's more interesting by balancing limited weight penalty on the payload with Vulcan / adeline concepts vs the less complex refurbishing needed for a Falcon 9 (although, SpaceX might still need to clean up their engines after firing kerosene, while ULA vulcan LCH4 and Ariane LH2 engines won't deposite that much soot into the engines)

[Rune]

Seems some people did some math around SpaceX boostback + landing

It looks like they need 20 tons of fuel for a barge landing (payload max weight at 80% of expandable launch)

And for a return to the launch site, nearly 38 tons (they give a payload max weight of 62% of the expandable launch version)

https://m.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2vuy1v/how_much_fuel_do_the_boost_back_reentry_and/

So we'll have to see what's more interesting by balancing limited weight penalty on the payload with Vulcan / adeline concepts vs the less complex refurbishing needed for a Falcon 9 (although, SpaceX might still need to clean up their engines after firing kerosene, while ULA vulcan LCH4 and Ariane LH2 engines won't deposite that much soot into the engines)

How come I've seen those fuel figures for SpaceX twice this morning, and never before? Makes me wonder if you also follow Daniel Marin's blog Eureka... which would be weird because it's in Spanish.

Anyhow, according to European blogs, which will probably be much more accurate on this kind of thing, this is a small technology demonstrator program that is meant to develop the technique to apply it in any future launcher. Meaning, this is more along the lines of the X-34 program, for example. Meaning, also, it mostly has nothing to do with the Arianne 6.

Rune. I still like the simplicity of "no extra equipment except landing gear and fins" in the F9R better. KISS!!

[Nibb31]

There do seem to be some pictures of flying prototypes and mockups: