Adeline concept for Ariane 6

[AngelLestat]

None of these new partial reusable launch vehicles will be able to compete with spacex, so not sure what is the idea behind these companies (which are already very delay against spacex achievements).

They will waste a lot of money and time developing something that from start is behind of today falcon9 achievements, not to mention future achievements for falcon9.

--------------------------

Edit: Ok, maybe I was too hard. Just with this it seems they reduce the 30% of the total rocket cost.. Is better than the vulcan approach. But still, not enoght.

Edited June 8, 2015 by AngelLestat

[fredinno]

Falcon 9660, as stated earlier, needs a much more powerful rocket to be reusable, adding much more to r+d costs than just recovering engines.

[AngelLestat]

it does not matter how much fuel do you need if you achieve to recover almost all and be ready to launch it few days after.

Of course you have an extra cost of r+d, but that cost is reduced by a lot if you do it very often. (and very often is the key)

The ultimate goal to launch cost reduction is 1 stage to orbit and back. More you approach to that goal you will be able to reduce the cost exponentially.

1 stage to orbit will be able to reduce cost in 1/200 or even less.

So you achieve only engine.. you get 30% cost reduction, you achieve tank and engine.. 60%..., second stage 95%.... but if you can launch, go back, just refuel and be able to launch again without even a check.. the cost reduction is huge.

The most important is know that it works and can be reusable without so many quality tests or different preparations.

[Iskierka]

Falcon 9 has managed most of its achievements - once it can RTLS, it'll have little more to do, as it'll still have its very large fuel penalty that is insurmountable with boostback and vertical landing. Every other concept has room for improvement, as they're all looking at not sacrificing fuel, and how to get the engines back cheaply.

Being able to single-stage and reuse the entire vehicle with minimal maintenance is certainly the best goal, and SABRE engines are on track for test firings in 2019 or so - but until then, everyone else is going to look at how to improve conventional rocketry. Once SABRE proves itself, it'll come down to how quickly people can develop a vehicle capable of using them.

[ComradeWolfe]

With such a stubby wings on such a chubby body I can't help wondering if those tiny propellers would really do much of anything. It almost looks like it would be better off coming in way steep and leveling at the last moment for an unpowered approach and landing.

Also, does anyone else think it looks like the French just installed Firespitter?

Edited June 8, 2015 by ComradeWolfe
Edited for clarity.

[Nibb31]

So you achieve only engine.. you get 30% cost reduction, you achieve tank and engine.. 60%..., second stage 95%.... but if you can launch, go back, just refuel and be able to launch again without even a check.. the cost reduction is huge.

You are pulling numbers out of your backside again.

[Findthepin1]

What if he forgot to write the source?

[Nibb31]

With such a stubby wings on such a chubby body I can't help wondering if those tiny propellers would really do much of anything. It almost looks like it would be better off coming in way steep and leveling at the last moment for an unpowered approach and landing.

Also, does anyone else think it looks like the French just installed Firespitter?

The pictures that I posted seem to show the subscale models flying, so the design seems to be airworthy...

[78stonewobble]

I think the concept of only returning the most expensive parts intriguing and I wish them luck with it.

To me it does make sense, without having run the numbers that is, since returning things also "cost" and returning more will cost more.

[AngelLestat]

You are pulling numbers out of your backside again.

I am not, the 30% is mention by adeline and vulcan design, the 60% is mentioned by spacex for the first stage, more than 95% is mentioned by spacex if they accomplish recover all stages, and the 1/200 is the estimated of skylon.

This analogy is easy to see it with an airline model as the 747, how much it will cost the ticket if you need to drop each airplane every time you used, plus all the testings that the plane needs before enters in commercial operation.

[H2O.]

The ultimate goal to launch cost reduction is 1 stage to orbit and back.

No it is not, or only in your head. The ultimate goal is to make launch economical. SSTO are borderline doable in theory, forget about them being profitable. Servicing them will cost far more thant a expendable (or partially) rocket.

I get that SSTO are elegant, but elegant doesn't matter, what matter is the bottom line.

Comparing spaceships to a 747 is irrelevant. Apart from being in the sky they don't have anything in common.

[Cirocco]

None of these new partial reusable launch vehicles will be able to compete with spacex, so not sure what is the idea behind these companies (which are already very delay against spacex achievements).

They will waste a lot of money and time developing something that from start is behind of today falcon9 achievements, not to mention future achievements for falcon9.

--------------------------

Edit: Ok, maybe I was too hard. Just with this it seems they reduce the 30% of the total rocket cost.. Is better than the vulcan approach. But still, not enoght.

I disagree with the fact that it's wasted money. Yes, other companies jumping on teh re-usability train might have some catching up to do, but that is hardly enough to kill your entire research. Airbus is taking a different approach than SpaceX, they'll need different technologies. If they're smart and/or lucky, their tech might be faster to be developed/matured.

Additionally, having multiple players on the market urges each individual player to keep on investing and keep on innovating to try and keep their share of the market. If several different technologies/approaches are investigated, it also increases the odds of one of those technologies working really well.

I'm a big fan of SpaceX, but they are hardly infallible. Their tech might turn out to be too complex, too expensive, or run into a whole slew of other unexpected problems. If more companies want to try and innovate and invest in more economic spaceflight (as mentioned before, re-usability is a means to an end, not the actual goal in and of itself), then I'm all for it.

as for which technology is the best one: I'm neither economist, aerospace engineer nor fortune teller so I have not a signle clue. I'll leave that one up to the experts and a whole slew of feasability and market studies.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Cirocco

[sgt_flyer]

I am not, the 30% is mention by adeline and vulcan design, the 60% is mentioned by spacex for the first stage, more than 95% is mentioned by spacex if they accomplish recover all stages, and the 1/200 is the estimated of skylon.

This analogy is easy to see it with an airline model as the 747, how much it will cost the ticket if you need to drop each airplane every time you used, plus all the testings that the plane needs before enters in commercial operation.

Except airliners are built to be reusable, and of easy servicing ! (Adding to structural integrity (to prevent stress fractures from happening too fast) and have various hinged access panels to allow maintenance without having to take apart the plane. These kind of hinged panels on a 'reusable' rocket / ssto are not good. they both decrease the structural integrity of the zone they are put on (there's a hole after all) needing to reinforce (thus add weight) to the surrounding structures. If the vehicle has to also withstand a fiery reentry, you need to make sure that the superheated air wont get inside those panels.

So the choices are : either increase the dry weight to allow easy servicing (and that's bad for the kind of performances wanted with current chemical rockets) or need more time / workforce to dissassemble the thing for integrity checks and refurbishment (which adds a lot to the cost of reusability)

Besides, with the kind of costly payloads that are sent on rockets, the customers will want thorough checks on refurbished parts - insurance costs will also go up, chipping away reusability savings.

That's one of the problems with spacex figures - they only give material cost figures and never speak about refurbishment costs.

[Nibb31]

I am not, the 30% is mention by adeline and vulcan design

Actually, the article claims 80% of the launcher cost (which is grossly exagerated). It's possible that the engine and avionics might represent 80% of the core stage, but not the cost of the launcher nor the cost of the launch operation.

Tankage is cheap in comparison. It's basically just reinforced sheet metal, and as SpaceX has learned on its latest landing attempts, getting and empty tank back in one piece complicates things a lot by making the recovered section heavier and more instable. It's much easier to dump the tank and concentrate on the expensive parts.

The difference between restacking a reusable core stage with an upper stage and a reusable engine pod with a tank and upper stage is marginal, so it won't make that much difference in terms of ground ops. The biggest activity in that area will always be payload integration, where reusability doesn't make any difference.

This analogy is easy to see it with an airline model as the 747, how much it will cost the ticket if you need to drop each airplane every time you used, plus all the testings that the plane needs before enters in commercial operation.

The difference is the flight rate. Airliners are an answer to demand for mass transport. There is no demand for mass transport to orbit and back.

Orbital launches are a niche activity with different economics. The payloads are more valuable that the launcher. For the satellite operators, the launcher is like disposable packaging. Launch providers can save money by reducing launch costs, but those savings are marginal compared to the total operation cost for the customers.

[Pipcard]

I've read those "flight rate" and "not enough demand" arguments about RLVs so many times already. Do you think we will always be stuck with launch vehicles that end up at the bottom of the ocean (except for Russia), and that no one should even bother with making a reusable vehicle because it just isn't worth it?

Edited June 9, 2015 by Pipcard

[Nibb31]

Do you think we will always be stuck with throwaway rockets?

If you throw a party once a year with 100 guests, it makes sense to buy disposable cups and plates. If you open a restaurant with 100 guests every night, it makes sense to invest in reusable glasses and plates.

Reusable rockets only make sense if you have high launch rates, which means increased demand for orbital flights. You don't increase demand by only cutting prices. There also needs to be a reason for people to want to send stuff to space, which means actual applications and business models built around them.

The technology isn't the limiting factor here. The economics are. If demand appears for reusable rockets, then the industry will figure out ways to make rockets reusable. It's just that until now, the economics of spaceflight are balanced in favor of disposable hardware, just like the fast food market is balanced in favor of disposable cups. This might change in the future if someone finds a business model that requires frequent orbital launches. For the moment, there is no such business model because the only applications for orbital flight are defense, research and comsats.

[Pipcard]

Yes, expendables are still capable of being more economical for the very low flight rates of today, but should we keep on going until the seafloor is (metaphorically, not literally) covered in spent rocket stages (except for Russia)? Is that sustainable? Disposable cups can get recycled. Rocket engines at the bottom of the ocean are much harder to retrieve.

To everybody else in the thread: if you didn't know, the reason why people say "flight rate" is so important is because the development costs and maintenance overhead of a reusable launcher have to be amortized. But SpaceX, ULA, and Airbus probably know about the lessons learned from the Space Shuttle, and don't plan on having giant heat shields with many tiles in their partially reusable systems, so refurbishment costs might be less. What will the cost of repair be compared to building an entirely new vehicle?

Edited June 9, 2015 by Pipcard

[Rune]

Actually, the article claims 80% of the launcher cost (which is grossly exagerated). It's possible that the engine and avionics might represent 80% of the core stage, but not the cost of the launcher nor the cost of the launch operation.

Tankage is cheap in comparison. It's basically just reinforced sheet metal, and as SpaceX has learned on its latest landing attempts, getting and empty tank back in one piece complicates things a lot by making the recovered section heavier and more instable. It's much easier to dump the tank and concentrate on the expensive parts.

The difference between restacking a reusable core stage with an upper stage and a reusable engine pod with a tank and upper stage is marginal, so it won't make that much difference in terms of ground ops. The biggest activity in that area will always be payload integration, where reusability doesn't make any difference.

The difference is the flight rate. Airliners are an answer to demand for mass transport. There is no demand for mass transport to orbit and back.

Orbital launches are a niche activity with different economics. The payloads are more valuable that the launcher. For the satellite operators, the launcher is like disposable packaging. Launch providers can save money by reducing launch costs, but those savings are marginal compared to the total operation cost for the customers.

Yeah, something like orbital tourism taking off, or SSP architectures becoming cheap enough to be profitable, would be about the only things that could make reusable launchers really pay off. BUT. SpaceX and it's simple booster and giant satellite constellation will surely give it a good try trying to make the numbers meet. And once R&D is done, you have to admit, the operating costs start looking much better even in traditional markets.

The jury is still out, methinks, and SpaceX seems not to lack investors to try.

Rune. And that is probably the most important thing of all.

[sojourner]

That's the great thing about SpaceX's approach. They're just trying to get a few more uses out of the disposable cups.

[GeneCash]

Except airliners are built to be reusable, and of easy servicing ! (Adding to structural integrity (to prevent stress fractures from happening too fast) and have various hinged access panels to allow maintenance without having to take apart the plane. These kind of hinged panels on a 'reusable' rocket / ssto are not good. they both decrease the structural integrity of the zone they are put on (there's a hole after all) needing to reinforce (thus add weight) to the surrounding structures. If the vehicle has to also withstand a fiery reentry, you need to make sure that the superheated air wont get inside those panels.

So the choices are : either increase the dry weight to allow easy servicing (and that's bad for the kind of performances wanted with current chemical rockets) or need more time / workforce to dissassemble the thing for integrity checks and refurbishment (which adds a lot to the cost of reusability)

Besides, with the kind of costly payloads that are sent on rockets, the customers will want thorough checks on refurbished parts - insurance costs will also go up, chipping away reusability savings.

Not really. Remember rockets are mostly empty balloons with an engine at one end and the payload at the other. The engine is easily accessible. You can get into the fuel tank by removing the engine or the "dollar" (the center circular closure of the end dome) and there's not much inside other than anti-slosh baffles and level sensors. Any avionics are in some sort of exterior pod that's just blistered on anyway. Things like helium pressurization bottles are usually located out in the open at the end dome for easy servicing already.

Rockets do have little "oops" in the factory, so they're built with little features like this to repair and inspect them.

Any major hatches are usually in the payload or payload fairing so you can put in batteries, short-life experiment stuff, and air conditioning at the pad. This is a standard feature. For example, the Saturn V LM adapter had hatches so you could get to the LM on the pad.

Insurance costs will go *down* because the rocket has been tested and proven to actually fly, and is thus statistically more reliable than one fresh out of the factory. Right now we do things like flight readiness firings, plugs-out tests, and other testing hacks *because* we haven't flown them.

Edited June 9, 2015 by GeneCash

[78stonewobble]

If you throw a party once a year with 100 guests, it makes sense to buy disposable cups and plates. If you open a restaurant with 100 guests every night, it makes sense to invest in reusable glasses and plates.

Reusable rockets only make sense if you have high launch rates, which means increased demand for orbital flights. You don't increase demand by only cutting prices. There also needs to be a reason for people to want to send stuff to space, which means actual applications and business models built around them.

The technology isn't the limiting factor here. The economics are. If demand appears for reusable rockets, then the industry will figure out ways to make rockets reusable. It's just that until now, the economics of spaceflight are balanced in favor of disposable hardware, just like the fast food market is balanced in favor of disposable cups. This might change in the future if someone finds a business model that requires frequent orbital launches. For the moment, there is no such business model because the only applications for orbital flight are defense, research and comsats.

Possibly some massive government investing in projects that require such launch rates or government "enabling" projects like space manufacturing/mining via a scheduled service to space.

[Nibb31]

Possibly some massive government investing in projects that require such launch rates or government "enabling" projects like space manufacturing/mining via a scheduled service to space.

But government funds are limited and won't increase demand by a level of magnitude. You need private commercial applications for that.

[78stonewobble]

But government funds are limited and won't increase demand by a level of magnitude. You need private commercial applications for that.

Government funds and demand is as limited as "we", say they are. In principle... In reality it's gonna take a helluva lot of convincing to 7 billion people that space exploration is the numero uno priority, like a big asteroid hurtling towards those 7 billion people, til then there's other things also needing money.

[AngelLestat]

I disagree with the fact that it's wasted money. Yes, other companies jumping on teh re-usability train might have some catching up to do, ..........

......

as for which technology is the best one: I'm neither economist, aerospace engineer nor fortune teller so I have not a signle clue. I'll leave that one up to the experts and a whole slew of feasability and market studies.

Ok, I am agree with all you said and I understand you. Of course I like the fact that many companies are trying the reusability approach to reduce cost.

But unlike you, I take a posture.. thats all.

Just knowing from the base, that the cost of these new rockets would not be lower than the cost of today falcon9 without reusability.

And they will take at least 5 years for the first launch in case the project is not cancelled.

Except airliners are built to be reusable, and of easy servicing ! (Adding to structural integrity (to prevent stress fractures from happening too fast) and have various hinged access panels to allow maintenance without having to take apart the plane. These kind of hinged panels on a 'reusable' rocket / ssto are not good. they both decrease the structural integrity of the zone they are put on (there's a hole after all) needing to reinforce (thus add weight) to the surrounding structures. If the vehicle has to also withstand a fiery reentry, you need to make sure that the superheated air wont get inside those panels.

In my post I dint said nothing about how easy or difficult it will be to achieve reusability, I was just saying how much cost reduction you can have with different reusability steps. Even if you need to use more expensive materials or technology, it does not change much the final cost reduction, because you will be able to reuse it many times, 5 or 10 or 100 times, even if is just 5, the cost reduction mostly /5 for that stage step. So even if it cost 2 or 3 times more, you still reduce cost.

Also airlines makes maintenance each month +-, this equal to 300 hours of flight or an average of 60 flights.

And not all mechanism are in easy access.

Besides, with the kind of costly payloads that are sent on rockets, the customers will want thorough checks on refurbished parts - insurance costs will also go up, chipping away reusability savings.

That's one of the problems with spacex figures - they only give material cost figures and never speak about refurbishment costs.

payload cost will reduce according to the launch cost. That happens with any related product.

And there is not point to talk about that because is obvious.

Actually, the article claims 80% of the launcher cost (which is grossly exagerated). It's possible that the engine and avionics might represent 80% of the core stage, but not the cost of the launcher nor the cost of the launch operation.

All my % numbers are based in the total cost. Not the stage.

Tankage is cheap in comparison. It's basically just reinforced sheet metal, and as SpaceX has learned on its latest landing attempts, getting and empty tank back in one piece complicates things a lot by making the recovered section heavier and more instable. It's much easier to dump the tank and concentrate on the expensive parts.

If you have a new joint, it adds weight and complexity. I guess there is not point to explain why, I am sure you already notice it.

The difference is the flight rate. Airliners are an answer to demand for mass transport. There is no demand for mass transport to orbit and back.

yeah, that was always our biggest difference in opinion.

You are willing to talk of launch cost reduction, but you keep your demand and hardware payload cost without changes...

This is similar to think that if you reduce the cost of cars 100 years ago it will be pointless because you imagine that the demand will be the same.

The same that some people in the past never imagine to have a computer in each house, and maybe they could not even see the utility in that.

[Pipcard]

The same that some people in the past never imagine to have a computer in each house, and maybe they could not even see the utility in that.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

Edited June 9, 2015 by Pipcard