ArianeGroup SUSIE (Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration) concept

Michel Van

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
11,001
or Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration,
The human/cargo transport capsule imagined for Ariane6 !
Presented on IAC2022 in Paris

Unclear if European ministers council will approve this proposal....

Fc8WhG6X0AEujxh


Fc8fsBjWAAEFO_A


It land vertical
Fc8a3Y6WIAE3Ysh


Fc8agNzWIAIBYBY


Fc8ztQVakAIvNIz
 
By Playmobile

Hmm. Looks familiar
www.businessinsider.com

Elon Musk says 'do not worry too much' about methane, a gas that accounts for 20% of global greenhouse emissions

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said at the company's annual shareholder meeting Thursday that a carbon tax "is really needed" even though it would hurt SpaceX.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

That was—what? A Falcon Heavy to allow reuse of the second stage as a mini-ITS?

The biggest aeroballistic craft—-outside of Biconic Mars craft or MTKVA:
www.ebay.com

OKB-1 MTKVA OKB1 Airplane Desk Wood Model Free Ship New | eBay

This magnificent and Museum-Quality crafted MTKVA OKB-1 Airplane WOOD MODEL is finely handmade from kiln-dried Wood Mahogany and skillfully hand-painted by gifted artists. This pre-sale model isMade-to-Order, which has a production period of 1 month.
www.ebay.com

—was this perhaps?

JF&A

John Frassanito & Associates
www.frassanito.com www.frassanito.com

The Falcon Heavy mini-ITS looks more doable…just eyeballing it…more immune to weight-creep than Ariane 6.
 
Last edited:
SUSIE = Smart Upperstage for Innovative Exploration

www.challenges.fr

Susie, l’ambitieux projet de module habité d’ArianeGroup

Lors du Congrès international d’astronautique, ArianeGroup a présenté un concept de nouvel étage supérieur réutilisable, qui pourra servir de capsule pour transporter cinq astronautes
www.challenges.fr www.challenges.fr

European astronauts sent into space from the Guiana Space Center in Kourou by 2030? The scenario is now clearly on the table. During the first day of the International Astronautical Congress (IAC), which takes place in Paris from September 18 to 22, ArianeGroup, prime contractor for the Ariane 5 and Ariane 6 rockets, unveiled a new upper stage concept, SUSIE (Smart Upperstage for Innovative Exploration), capable of carrying five astronauts. 12 meters long and 5 meters wide, for a weight of 25 tonnes, this stage is designed to be embarked on Ariane 64, the heavy version of Ariane 6, of which it would replace the current fairing. This totally reusable stage can also be used, without major modification, on the successors of the European launcher, assures the Franco-German group.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1571500250300559364
View: https://twitter.com/jemckevitt/status/1571500250300559364/photo/1

Edit : I just saw that Michel Van opened yestderday a SUSIE's topic on the Secret Space Projects forum :


what is the best place ?
 
Last edited:
Propulsive, well rocket powered which I assume (?) it is, isn't really efficient for something this size.

Randy
 
This seems to be an hybrid of
a) a fairing
b) starship
c) hermes
d) a third stage
Nice concept but weird mix.

en.wikipedia.org

Ariane 6 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Present Ariane 6 is boosters + Vulcain core + hydrolox second stage. And so SUSIE would go on top of that as a versatile upper stage.

I remember that Ariane 5 was kind of similar: boosters (big ones) with a Vulcain core stage. But the hydrolox stage could be either deleted (for LEO missions like Envisat or ATV) or replaced by an Aestus.

Can Ariane 6 fly without that hydrolox second stage ? and then SUSIE would fly like an Aestus or an ATV, with some internal propulsive capability but not too much.

Next step would be to replace the main core and its booster with something akin to a F9R booster (MAIA, is that thou ?) , with a much stretched and heavier SUSIE on top; and boom, fully reusable TSTO.

Still I doesn't find that path very convincing, there are some performances gaps here and there...

It looks like a slightly chaotic path toward a Falcon 9 -size BFR-Starship system.
 
Last edited:
 

Attachments

  • Susie_Ariane6_Fc9hHXIXgAMTzrN.jpg
    Susie_Ariane6_Fc9hHXIXgAMTzrN.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 27
  • Susie_ArianeGroup__Orbital (1).png
    Susie_ArianeGroup__Orbital (1).png
    699.2 KB · Views: 27
  • Susie_ArianeGroup__Orbital.jpg
    Susie_ArianeGroup__Orbital.jpg
    390.4 KB · Views: 27
  • Susie_Fc_0lIiXwAEVm_r.jpg
    Susie_Fc_0lIiXwAEVm_r.jpg
    222.4 KB · Views: 25
Archibald said:
Next step would be to replace the main core and its booster with something akin to a F9R booster (MAIA, is that thou ?) , with a much stretched and heavier SUSIE on top; and boom, fully reusable TSTO.

Still I doesn't find that path very convincing, there are some performances gaps here and there...

It looks like a slightly chaotic path toward a Falcon 9 -size BFR-Starship system.
Click to expand...

Chaotic yes, but rather canny. It looks to me like the brief called for working with existing or immediately projected systems as much as possible and accept the inevitable compromises. It would give Ariane 6 more missions, helping to get that project some more cash. Anything else would mean a longer timetable and higher development costs before anything flies. In the absence of a European Elon Musk (they could just buy Starships from him, but that's another story), it makes sense in the political dimension and suggests that this is a serious proposal that they want to move forward.
 
Last edited:
Having it as a ride atop Falcon Heavy would allow non-cryogens and a beefier design, I would think.
 
publiusr said:
Having it as a ride atop Falcon Heavy would allow non-cryogens and a beefier design, I would think.
Click to expand...

Non-cryo upper stages are less efficient. Having a cryo (even just cryo-propane or methane) upper stage for Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy would greatly boost the payload capability. (In other words you get a more 'beefier' design with cryo-propellant than with RP :) ) Besides it rides ON the upper stage not "is" an upper stage so it replaces Dragon really.

Randy
 
cattalonX said:
starviking said:
cattalonX said:
View attachment 684360View attachment 684361
Click to expand...
Is this official, or just fan-work?
Click to expand...
www.space.com

Europe's reusable 'Susie' spacecraft could launch astronauts on future deep-space missions

ArianeGroup's 'Susie' is a fully reusable craft designed to fit future rockets, one of which is being made right now for Arianespace.
www.space.com www.space.com
Click to expand...

I mean 'technically' it could be its own Lunar Lander with a descent stage :)

Randy
 
Got these from the Arianespace website.
 

Attachments

  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (1).png
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (1).png
    699.2 KB · Views: 30
  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (4).png
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (4).png
    1.4 MB · Views: 25
  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (6).png
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (6).png
    3 MB · Views: 25
  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (5).png
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (5).png
    1.2 MB · Views: 31
  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (7).png
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (7).png
    3.7 MB · Views: 38
  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (2).jpg
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (2).jpg
    390.4 KB · Views: 33
  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (3).png
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (3).png
    2.7 MB · Views: 30
  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital.png
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 31
  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (8).png
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (8).png
    2.7 MB · Views: 38
  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (9).png
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (9).png
    232.2 KB · Views: 36
  • Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (10).png
    Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (10).png
    191.1 KB · Views: 25
RanulfC said:
publiusr said:
Having it as a ride atop Falcon Heavy would allow non-cryogens and a beefier design, I would think.
Click to expand...

Besides it rides ON the upper stage not "is" an upper stage so it replaces Dragon really.

Randy
Click to expand...
That is the case now-but with Falcon Heavy...maybe it could also serve as its own upper stage...RP and nitric acid-some kind of non cryogenic's weight and lower performance would be off-set by Falcon Heavy's greater lifting power-such that the whole LV stack is not only reusable-but the payload/craft filled in shirtsleeves. Save the cryo-hassle for Falcon cores that don't burden the smaller craft but for a few minutes. What is left has nothing but room-temp liquids in small tanks.
 
publiusr said:
That is the case now-but with Falcon Heavy...maybe it could also serve as its own upper stage...RP and nitric acid-some kind of non cryogenic's weight and lower performance would be off-set by Falcon Heavy's greater lifting power-such that the whole LV stack is not only reusable-but the payload/craft filled in shirtsleeves. Save the cryo-hassle for Falcon cores that don't burden the smaller craft but for a few minutes. What is left has nothing but room-temp liquids in small tanks.
Click to expand...
Nitric acid is not filled in shirtsleeves.
Cryogenics are easier to deal with than hypergols, which are more of a PITA
 
Byeman said:
publiusr said:
That is the case now-but with Falcon Heavy...maybe it could also serve as its own upper stage...RP and nitric acid-some kind of non cryogenic's weight and lower performance would be off-set by Falcon Heavy's greater lifting power-such that the whole LV stack is not only reusable-but the payload/craft filled in shirtsleeves. Save the cryo-hassle for Falcon cores that don't burden the smaller craft but for a few minutes. What is left has nothing but room-temp liquids in small tanks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You missed the point, Falcon Heavy actually doesn't HAVE all the much 'lifting power' due to the choice of propellants for its upper stage (and technically it's side boosters but that's more a nit) :)

While LH2 is "hard" most of the other 'cryo' propellants are relatively easy and vastly boost performance so you wouldn't need to swap payload for propellant in SUSIE which is what you're actually suggesting. Likely (since it's planned land with rockets) SUSIE already has 'storable' propellants on-board but as noted those are needed for landing, (and abort I assume) so anything else would take up payload. Besides it would have to be compatible with the existing SUSIE thrusters so likely you're adding more toxic propellants to the payload bay anyway.

Swap out the Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy upper stage RP1 for cryo-propane or liquid methane (sub-cooled IIRC) and it should fit in the existing fuel tank with only slight modification and just about double your payload. (Going off memory of the Silverbird Calculator here) The big question of course being can Merlin be adjusted to use them. (Arguably a non-trivial issue but it's a pintle injector so that's a point in the 'advantage' column)

Keep in mind any savings and advantage in the upper stage, (unlike the booster) is pretty much a one-to-one add to the payload capability. The much higher ISP's of even the really 'soft' cryo's (for example cryo-propane which is stored at LOX temps) is a vast advantage.

Byeman said:
Nitric acid is not filled in shirtsleeves.
Cryogenics are easier to deal with than hypergols, which are more of a PITA
Click to expand...

Well LH2 is well known to be the ultimate PITA propellant but the advantages outweigh that... Most of the time :)

To be fair anyone who actually deals with propellant knows NO propellant is a 'shirtsleeve' operation but most who are not 'assume' gasoline and RP1 are close enough :)
From handling RP1 along with other propellants while you CAN (I've had to soak my hands in JP10 for example :) ) do so it's dangerous and more of a PITA than people would think. Heck getting the smell of gas off my skin is a process when filling my car!

Randy
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
Got these from the Arianespace website.
Click to expand...

Thanks but I have to say those leave me even more confused with what's up with those appearing/disappearing 'secondary flaps' that seem to randomly be place in certain pictures and absent from others. I initially thought they were covers for the landing gear but they don't appear in the landing pictures (nor most of the on-orbit ones) but appear during separation and in the open bay one. (At least I think they do, hard to tell) I mean it would make some sense to have them but on the converse side they would be in the way of the gear (too short) and complicate the reentry aerodynamics. Anyone?

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
XP67_Moonbat said:
Got these from the Arianespace website.
Click to expand...

Thanks but I have to say those leave me even more confused with what's up with those appearing/disappearing 'secondary flaps' that seem to randomly be place in certain pictures and absent from others. I initially thought they were covers for the landing gear but they don't appear in the landing pictures (nor most of the on-orbit ones) but appear during separation and in the open bay one. (At least I think they do, hard to tell) I mean it would make some sense to have them but on the converse side they would be in the way of the gear (too short) and complicate the reentry aerodynamics. Anyone?

Randy
Click to expand...
Judging by this image, both it's angle and the TPS, it re-enters by Adama manoeuvre and the flaps allow hypersonic control, opening fully when it's descending tail-first on rockets to land. That builds on experience from the IXV and Space Rider. A rather different layout from the flaps on Starship though.

Susie is radially symmetrical, unlike IX/Space Rider and that's because the latter were/will be launched within aerodynamic shrouds. Putting something that generates lift on the top end of a rocket will cause stress and control problems once it gets up to speed while still in the atmosphere. I wonder how Sierra plans to deal with those with the full-sized manned Dreamchaser?

Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (4).png
IXV_final_tests.png
 
Rhinocrates said:
RanulfC said:
XP67_Moonbat said:
Got these from the Arianespace website.
Click to expand...

Thanks but I have to say those leave me even more confused with what's up with those appearing/disappearing 'secondary flaps' that seem to randomly be place in certain pictures and absent from others. I initially thought they were covers for the landing gear but they don't appear in the landing pictures (nor most of the on-orbit ones) but appear during separation and in the open bay one. (At least I think they do, hard to tell) I mean it would make some sense to have them but on the converse side they would be in the way of the gear (too short) and complicate the reentry aerodynamics. Anyone?

Randy
Click to expand...
Judging by this image, both it's angle and the TPS, it re-enters by Adama manoeuvre and the flaps allow hypersonic control, opening fully when it's descending tail-first on rockets to land. That builds on experience from the IXV and Space Rider. A rather different layout from the flaps on Starship though.

Susie is radially symmetrical, unlike IX/Space Rider and that's because the latter were/will be launched within aerodynamic shrouds. Putting something that generates lift on the top end of a rocket will cause stress and control problems once it gets up to speed while still in the atmosphere. I wonder how Sierra plans to deal with those with the full-sized manned Dreamchaser?

View attachment 684528
Click to expand...

I get that for the 'main' flaps but in some pictures (and not this one :) ) there is another set of straight 'flaps' between those four which is what I was asking about :)

Randy
 
RanulfC said:

I get that for the 'main' flaps but in some pictures (and not this one :) ) there is another set of straight 'flaps' between those four which is what I was asking about :)

Randy
Click to expand...
Ah yes, I see what you mean. Some images don't show them. This compilation below contradicts itself. Hmm. I think they' might be housings for the landing legs. Maybe we can put this down to renders in different stages of completeness.

Susie @ArianeGroup Orbital (8).png
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
RanulfC said:

I get that for the 'main' flaps but in some pictures (and not this one :) ) there is another set of straight 'flaps' between those four which is what I was asking about :)

Randy
Click to expand...
Ah yes, I see what you mean. Some images don't show them. This compilation below contradicts itself. Hmm. I think they' might be housings for the landing legs. Maybe we can put this down to renders in different stages of completeness.

View attachment 684530
Click to expand...

Actually I'm going to point out the second and third image seem to be different "models" I guess? Both have the secondary "flaps" but also different size primary flaps which is rather odd.

Randy
 
publiusr said:
That’s one of the reasons I suggested a bigger ride. More margin.

I wonder if this might see new life:

Gut instinct…better than Roton?
Click to expand...

Not really, the internal rotor storage takes up a lot of room and the deployment system adds complexity. It's workable but studies showed it would likely work better using a 'standard' capsule design such as the CEV:

Roton was about the same really though the original concept used the rotors on take off too. (There were trade-offs and problems which is always the case but they ended up needing a rocket from the start anyway so dropped that part to just used during landing)

Randy
 
The thread at NASAspaceflight.com is hopeless, as usual: with Arianespace taking a lot of shit compared to precious SpaceX. And as usual, the narrow reasoning bother me and since I have next to zero patience... there will be blood all over the carpet.
 
The biggest problem SUSIE face it's concept not real ESA Program
and to become one it has to past the conservative Council of Europan minister of Science.
a bunch, how i put it polite "Don't care" about European Manned Spacecraft,
Since ESA get cheap seats NASA, SpaceX and Russia. (Russian service is currently not available)

 
Last edited:
Michel Van said:
The biggest problem SUSIE face it's concept not real ESA Program
and to become one it has to past the conservative Council of Europan minister of Science.
a bunch, how i put it polite "Don't care" about European Manned Spacecraft,
Since ESA get cheap seats NASA, SpaceX and Russia. (Russian service is currently not available)

Click to expand...
Fingers crossed though...
spacenews.com

France to increase space spending by 25%

France will increase spending on national and European space programs as the European Space Agency works to secure commitments for its own significant budget increase.
spacenews.com spacenews.com

The overall increase is in lockstep with ESA’s plans to seek a 25% budget increase at November’s ministerial meeting. ESA will request more than 18 billion euros from its member states to fund existing programs and new initiatives for the next three years.

Josef Aschbacher, ESA director general, defended the increase as a necessity for Europe to keep up with other major space players. During the IAC roundtable, he noted budgets in both the United States and China are rising at similar or even faster rates. “Our proposal of a 25% increase is more or less keeping pace,” he said. “What we are aiming at doing is making sure we are not thrown out of the race.”
 
Susie doesn't look so silly anymore, now that Stoke intends to do something broadly similar...
 
The technology behind SUSIE is definitely interesting, but it does seem like the exact worst use of it, a mixed Crew-Cargo orbiter-payload without LES, and with a 25tons mass restriction? The entire world found out it was a bad idea by the 90s at the latest, and this one doesn't even have landing contingency.

This particular hopper is somewhere in between the Masten ones and the old Japanese RVT. A cute project, but Hopefully it doesn't fool anyone at ESA into believing SUSIE as presented is viable.

Now maybe an ESA funded, intermediary and adapted version could maybe be salvaged into a european "belly flop" landing technology demonstrator. A small SN-8.
 
TheKutKu said:
but it does seem like the exact worst use of it, a mixed Crew-Cargo orbiter-payload without LES, and with a 25tons mass restriction?
Click to expand...

After January 1986 had Hermes the same problems, missing LES, what follow were various concept and Hermes got heavy and heavier
in the end the overweight mini shuttle had 3 ejection seats as program was cancel...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom