Does Ariane rocket can be converted to be man rated?

[Pawelk198604]

I know that original Ariane was designated to be man rated, for ESA Hermes spacecraft with was canceled for budgetary reasons. I wonder why Europe does not try to creating our own space capsule, currently only Russia and China have manned launch capability, America canceled own space shuttle and now NASA haven't any human rated launch system at all.

[Camacha]

I know that original Ariane was designated to be man rated, for ESA Hermes spacecraft with was canceled for budgetary reasons. I wonder why Europe does not try to creating our own space capsule, currently only Russia and China have manned launch capability, America canceled own space shuttle and now NASA haven't any human rated launch system at all.

On the edge of a political discussion: I think Europe does not feel it needs a man-rated system that much, as it does not try to compete for dominance with anyone. The current push for the return of a man-rated of the US obviously has to do with tensions between it and Russia.

[luisair]

As you pointed out by yourself, the Ariane 5 is already man rated

Hopefully someday when budget and political motivation increases, we will see a European Crew Transporter.

[Camacha]

Hopefully someday when [...] political motivation increases

I hope not, as it typically means conflict with some other region or nation.

[Nibb31]

As you pointed out by yourself, the Ariane 5 is already man rated

No it isn't. Hermes was cancelled in the very early inception phases of Ariane, therefore, although Ariane was originally intended to be a man-rated launcher, none of that requirement made it into the final design.

Ariane 5 is reaching its end of life. ESA is gearing up to start work on Ariane 6, which will be a cheaper and smaller launcher designed to be competitive for commercial and institutional payloads. They are not going to invest any more R&D into Ariane 5 at this stage, so man-rating is out of question.

ESA simply doesn't have a policy for independent manned spaceflight because the member states have never agreed on it and none of the governments wants to spend more than they already spend on space. ESA has barter agreements with Roskosmos and NASA so that they can exchange seats on existing vehicles in exchange for technology or components. This isn't going to change in the foreseeable future.

[Streetwind]

An example of the barter system Nibb31 mentioned: ESA is currently responsible for building the service module for NASA's Orion capsule. In doing so, they fulfill their contribution to the ISS project. Previously, the giant ATV resupply vehicle that flew five times to the ISS performed this function, but as the Ariane 5 is a really expensive vehicle, NASA and ESA agreed to discontinue the ATV and do the Orion service module instead so that NASA can have more bang for their buck, so to speak.

The rumored to be pretty much greenlighted by all parties Ariane 6 project is hopefully going to be a much more affordable launcher. ESA has also signaled interest in Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser, which opens up some new avenues. Placing a Dream Chaser on top of an Ariane 5 vehicle inside a fairing would preclude manned missions, and without a fairing would require doing the entire FCS, which is insanely expensive. However, the Ariane 6 FCS could be designed out of the box to allow for a configuration with Dream Chaser on top. Using this, for example, ESA could potentially return to do ISS resupply missions with an Ariane 6 lofted, unmanned Dream Chaser vehicle if the ISS makes it past 2020. And if this configuration exists, then well, ESA has also the option of man-rating the Ariane 6 and flying Dream Chaser manned. Such missions could go to the ISS, or to a proposed Chinese-headed space station with international participation, or on individual LEO science missions.

But whether or not any of that will really happen is pure speculation at this point. For starters, the official announcement on whether or not Ariane 6 will actually be greenlighted will be made no earlier than December. Then a lot depends on the continued development of Dream Chaser, the need for the various international partners to agree on extending the ISS, China's future plans and terms for cooperation, and the direction and speed of space development in general.

[Nibb31]

The rumored to be pretty much greenlighted by all parties Ariane 6 project is hopefully going to be a much more affordable launcher. ESA has also signaled interest in Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser, which opens up some new avenues. Placing a Dream Chaser on top of an Ariane 5 vehicle inside a fairing would preclude manned missions, and without a fairing would require doing the entire FCS, which is insanely expensive. However, the Ariane 6 FCS could be designed out of the box to allow for a configuration with Dream Chaser on top. Using this, for example, ESA could potentially return to do ISS resupply missions with an Ariane 6 lofted, unmanned Dream Chaser vehicle if the ISS makes it past 2020. And if this configuration exists, then well, ESA has also the option of man-rating the Ariane 6 and flying Dream Chaser manned. Such missions could go to the ISS, or to a proposed Chinese-headed space station with international participation, or on individual LEO science missions.

But whether or not any of that will really happen is pure speculation at this point. For starters, the official announcement on whether or not Ariane 6 will actually be greenlighted will be made no earlier than December. Then a lot depends on the continued development of Dream Chaser, the need for the various international partners to agree on extending the ISS, China's future plans and terms for cooperation, and the direction and speed of space development in general.

The agreement that ESA had with SNC was that they would provide ESA's version of the iLIDS docking adapter, presumably in exchange for piggyback seats on DreamChaser/Atlas. That's it. There would never have been any direct funding of DreamChaser by ESA or any of its member states. The barter agreements exist because they provide jobs to member-state companies in exchange for services from other countries. ESA will never directly subsidize or purchase services or products from a US corporation because its primary goal, above any other, is to provide work for the European space industry.

There won't be any manned launches out of Kourou, because the infrastructure simply isn't there, and the ESA member-states simply have no interest in developing that capability.

An unmanned DreamChaser makes little sense. There are very few (if any) payloads that require DC's low-g reentry. It's much easier to package fragile experiments in such a way that they can withstand a trip on Dragon or CST-100 than it is to design a whole new vehicle.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Nibb31

[Streetwind]

A study into the feasibility of using the Dream Chaser as a spacecraft for German and ESA needs has been funded by Germany's space agency. That means there is at least provisional interest in using Dream Chaser for European launches, on European launch vehicles, including manned. Even if everyone on these board knows that you consider Dream Chaser to be the worst invention since Reality TV, you should know this much.

I have no idea what the outcome of said study will be. That's why I wrote the final paragraph in the way that I did: I disclaimed everything I said as "pure speculation". I personally don't consider it my place to make claims about what a certain spacecraft is or isn't suited for; I'm merely listing possibilities based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge on the subject.

[Nibb31]

A study into the feasibility of using the Dream Chaser as a spacecraft for German and ESA needs has been funded by Germany's space agency. That means there is at least provisional interest in using Dream Chaser for European launches, on European launch vehicles, including manned. Even if everyone on these board knows that you consider Dream Chaser to be the worst invention since Reality TV, you should know this much.

None of that ever mentioned using Ariane as a launcher for DreamChaser. It's about using DreamChaser to launch European missions.

I have no idea what the outcome of said study will be. That's why I wrote the final paragraph in the way that I did: I disclaimed everything I said as "pure speculation". I personally don't consider it my place to make claims about what a certain spacecraft is or isn't suited for; I'm merely listing possibilities based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge on the subject.

That study is moot now anyway, because it was suggesting use of DreamChaser by ESA as a complement to NASA's commercial crew contract. Without NASA funding, there is no DreamChaser. ESA will not subsidize the US space industry.

[peadar1987]

Maybe I'm just being daft here, but what makes a rocket "man rated". Surely it's just a rubber stamp based on safety? If we really wanted to, could we not just slap a self-contained Soyuz style capsule (~8000kg) on top of an Ariane V (payload capacity 16,000kg) and fire it away? I know support facilities for manned missions are different, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the rating of the rocket, right?

[Nibb31]

Man rating, the way I understand it, requires additional hardware for sensors and monitoring, launch abort and recovery systems, more extensive quality standards that ensure failure tolerance, and lots of trade studies going through every failure mode throughout the flight.

It is indeed a lot of paperwork and rubber stamping, but also a lot of technical work, testing, monitoring, and validation.

And infrastructure and ground systems are fully part of a launch system.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Nibb31

[Kryten]

A study into the feasibility of using the Dream Chaser as a spacecraft for German and ESA needs has been funded by Germany's space agency. That means there is at least provisional interest in using Dream Chaser for European launches, on European launch vehicles, including manned. Even if everyone on these board knows that you consider Dream Chaser to be the worst invention since Reality TV, you should know this much.

That's purely a proposal for use as an uncrewed cargo vehicle, as is the similar study with JAXA.

[sgt_flyer]

here are the full requirements made by NASA concerning man rating http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002B_

(i guess you'll have to match NASA's man ratings if you want to sell nasa some seats)

[lajoswinkler]

You can't subject people to high accelerations as you can with machines. Have you seen satellite launches recently? Solid rocket boosters in first stage make the payload almost being fired from a cannon.

[magnemoe]

You can't subject people to high accelerations as you can with machines. Have you seen satellite launches recently? Solid rocket boosters in first stage make the payload almost being fired from a cannon.

Space shuttle used solid boosters. However one benefit with solid boosters is that its cheap to get high trust so why don't use it. Note that both airframe and payload has g limits too and you would not want insane g forces as you will have to over engineer the structure.

[lajoswinkler]

Space shuttle used solid boosters. However one benefit with solid boosters is that its cheap to get high trust so why don't use it. Note that both airframe and payload has g limits too and you would not want insane g forces as you will have to over engineer the structure.

Your whole comment is filled with fallacies, sorry.

Space shuttle used SRBs as assist, but also had a liquid fuel engine fueled by that enormous orange external tank. You can not possibly compare a Space shuttle launch with launching a communications satellite which basically jumps into the sky because its only source of propulsion is a brutal SRB first stage. Have you seen those launches? Absolutely uncomparable to Saturn V, Soyuz, Space shuttle, etc.

Of course machines have G-force limits. Otherwise they could be thrown off a cliff and survive the fall. Thing is - people can't survive being launched at 10-15 G. They are launched at much lower accelerations.

[Kryten]

Space shuttle used SRBs as assist, but also had a liquid fuel engine fueled by that enormous orange external tank. You can not possibly compare a Space shuttle launch with launching a communications satellite which basically jumps into the sky because its only source of propulsion is a brutal SRB first stage. Have you seen those launches? Absolutely uncomparable to Saturn V, Soyuz, Space shuttle, etc.

There's only one rocket with a solid first stage large enough to put up a GSO comsat (PSLV), and it's done so exactly once.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Kryten

[Francesco]

Ariane 5 is reaching its end of life. ESA is gearing up to start work on Ariane 6, which will be a cheaper and smaller launcher designed to be competitive for commercial and institutional payloads. They are not going to invest any more R&D into Ariane 5 at this stage, so man-rating is out of question.

That's interesting, I thought Ariane 6 was going to have a SRB-powered core (solid first and second stage, PPH version), but recently Airbus and Safran have spoken against it, proposing instead an upgraded version still with the liquid fuel core.

An Ariane 6 which would actually be an Ariane 5.1.

[Francesco]

That's interesting, I thought Ariane 6 was going to have a SRB-powered core (solid first and second stage, PPH version), but recently Airbus and Safran have spoken against it, proposing instead an upgraded version still with the liquid fuel core.

An Ariane 6 which would actually be an Ariane 5.1.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6#Airbus_and_Safran_counter_proposal

Basically an Ariane 5 with Ariane 6's proposed SRBs, and a new upper stage on some launches.

[sgt_flyer]

well, at least, the technology behind the Ariane 6 SRB's is tested with Vega - (the Ariane 6 SRB's should be a bigger version of Vega's 1st stage (the P80) - which is already the biggest single segment SRB ever built... which itself is derived from Ariane V SRB's aah, reusing working systems )

it seems they also proposed to use up to 4 SRB's for the new ariane 6 around the downscaled LH2 core, for heavier payloads (though, i don't know if it will be followed)

for now, Vega worked correctly on 3/3 of it's launches (including the maiden launch). too soon to know the true reliability, but it has a good start (a failure on Vega's P80 could put into question the future Ariane 6 SRB's afterall)

well, there's the IXV demonstrator launch scheduled for november on a vega - we will see how it goes too

Edited October 14, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[magnemoe]

Your whole comment is filled with fallacies, sorry.

Space shuttle used SRBs as assist, but also had a liquid fuel engine fueled by that enormous orange external tank. You can not possibly compare a Space shuttle launch with launching a communications satellite which basically jumps into the sky because its only source of propulsion is a brutal SRB first stage. Have you seen those launches? Absolutely uncomparable to Saturn V, Soyuz, Space shuttle, etc.

Of course machines have G-force limits. Otherwise they could be thrown off a cliff and survive the fall. Thing is - people can't survive being launched at 10-15 G. They are launched at much lower accelerations.

Ariane 5 uses SRB as assist the same way, liquid core has TWR below one at launch.

One ariane 6 designs is solid first stage but it looks like they go for liquid core.

Again its no reason why an solid stage launch should be more brutal, you can adjust trust during production, however if the basic design is set to provide high TWR an low TWR version would require redesign other stuff too.

[Sky_walker]

You can't subject people to high accelerations as you can with machines. Have you seen satellite launches recently? Solid rocket boosters in first stage make the payload almost being fired from a cannon.

Complete boIIocks.

Ariane 5 ascend profile already fulfils all the requirements necessary for manned spaceflight. In no way EAP boosters make payload launched as if it'd be "fired from a cannon". You have no slightest idea what you're talking about.

[edit]: Latest proposition of Ariane 6 will follow similar ascend profile and have similar LEO capabilities as Ariane 5 making it equally suitable for flying manned spacecrafts. However at the moment it's a pure speculation as ESA has no manned spacecraft it could use on it's rocket.

Maybe I'm just being daft here, but what makes a rocket "man rated". Surely it's just a rubber stamp based on safety? If we really wanted to, could we not just slap a self-contained Soyuz style capsule (~8000kg) on top of an Ariane V (payload capacity 16,000kg) and fire it away? I know support facilities for manned missions are different, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the rating of the rocket, right?

In theory - yes, though it'd require plenty of changes, new adapters, etc. to even mount Soyuz safely inside of Ariane 5. I'd be easier and quicker to just strap someone on a chair inside of an ATV

G-forces involved would be higher than in a space shuttle launch, yes, but comparable to these during Soyuz ascend - still safely within what an astronaut can stand without a g-suit, with added plus being that ATV doesn't require any attention from such a crazy astronaut onboard - it does everything by itself all the way to the docking, so we could strap on TV on the other end of ATV and let him enjoy the views from the outside... or watch Interstellar movie

Jokes aside - each country having manned spacecraft developed it's own requirements for a rockets that will lift it.

NASA "human ratings" apply only to the US vehicles, so Soyuz doesn't have to fulfil any of them just like Orion doesn't have to fulfil Russian requirements. If you're curious - from what I heard Soyuz wouldn't pass NASA certification. Same with Chinese - they also have their own requirements and don't really look after other countries.

If ESA would develop it's own spacecraft - or (very unlikely) use 3rd party spacecraft launched onboard Ariane it'd develop it's own set of "man rating" requirements.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Sky_walker

[lajoswinkler]

Ariane 5 uses SRB as assist the same way, liquid core has TWR below one at launch.

One ariane 6 designs is solid first stage but it looks like they go for liquid core.

Again its no reason why an solid stage launch should be more brutal, you can adjust trust during production, however if the basic design is set to provide high TWR an low TWR version would require redesign other stuff too.

I was commenting a typical satellite launch. In no way it is suitable for launching people. Heavy modifications are needed.

Complete boIIocks.

Ariane 5 ascend profile already fulfils all the requirements necessary for manned spaceflight. In no way EAP boosters make payload launched as if it'd be "fired from a cannon". You have no slightest idea what you're talking about.

[edit]: Latest proposition of Ariane 6 will follow similar ascend profile and have similar LEO capabilities as Ariane 5 making it equally suitable for flying manned spacecrafts. However at the moment it's a pure speculation as ESA has no manned spacecraft it could use on it's rocket.

In theory - yes, though it'd require plenty of changes, new adapters, etc. to even mount Soyuz safely inside of Ariane 5. I'd be easier and quicker to just strap someone on a chair inside of an ATV

G-forces involved would be higher than in a space shuttle launch, yes, but comparable to these during Soyuz ascend - still safely within what average man can stand without a g-suit, with added plus being that ATV doesn't require any attention from such a crazy astronaut onboard - it does everything by itself all the way to docking

Jokes aside - each country having manned spacecraft developed it's own requirements for a rockets that will lift him.

NASA "human ratings" apply only to the US vehicles, so Soyuz doesn't have to fulfil any of them just like Orion doesn't have to fulfil Russian requirements. If you're curious - from what I heard Soyuz wouldn't pass NASA certification.

If ESA would develop it's own spacecraft - or (very unlikely) use 3rd party spacecraft launched onboard Ariane it'd develop it's own set of "man rating" requirements.

I was talking about typical satellite launches and all I got from this thread is dogbiting strawman fallacies. OMG. I'm outta here.

[Sky_walker]

I was commenting a typical satellite launch. In no way it is suitable for launching people. Heavy modifications are needed.

(...)

I was talking about typical satellite launches and all I got from this thread is dogbiting strawman fallacies. OMG. I'm outta here.

You're still not reading carefully. Let me try to clarify it again: Heavy modifications would be mostly around launch escape system, mounting of a vehicle on top of the Ariane, and supporting infrastructure. There would be no heavy modifications required to the launch vehicle itself.

[Kryten]

I was commenting a typical satellite launch. In no way it is suitable for launching people. Heavy modifications are needed.

Name one current commercial launcher with a solid first stage.