Advance Ariane 5 studies from 1990s

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
7,797
Reaction score
8,768
ESA made in beginn 1990 several study for advance Ariane 5 rocket, what let to big Ariane super lourd concept 1991

also they study this interesting Idea
Ariane 5 with TWO Vulcain (HM60) engines with each 800 kN thrust and 220 tons fuel in EPC

The Idea behind the concept is this Problem:
after the solid booster are drop, the acceleration falls 1.18G from to 0.74 G!
This is because Vulcan 1 has thrust of only 1145 kN (vac) lower as rest mass of rocket.
that fault founds in the original design of Ariane 5 who had much lower Payload. but Hermes became heavy, so HM60 replace by Vulcain 1 and they accepted gravity drag temporary.
what let to the R&D on Vulcain 2 engine for Ariane 5 ECA

Back to Ariane 5 with 2x Vulcain (HM60) engines and 1600 kN thrust what reduce the gravity drag, also the wished thrust for R&D on future Vulcain 3
The source tell about EPC 210 stage, that's 50t more fuel as EPC155 would make the EPC210 - 38 meter high.
but this problematic for the EAP Solid Booster with 31 meter length to fit on ECP210

Source:
Flug Revue Nr 9 September 1993 page 56

Got some one more Info on this Ariane 5 version ?
 
i made more calculation on Ariane 5 with 2 x Vulcain (HM60)
the EPC must use super cooled fuel (LOX at 1,24 and LH2 at 0,076 gr/cubic centimeter)
what reduce the high of ECP210 to 32 meters compare to standard ECP with 31 meters

The scann picture show Models of Ariane 5, left the Two engine version right the Super lourd concept
behind are two standard Ariane 5 with payload Fairing in diverse length (12 and 17 meter)?

The small rocket in middel is DAL or ALD
Dérivé Léger d'Ariane/Ariane Light Design for low cost launcher for medium payloads by french CNES.
Build from Solid Boosters the EAP 230 as first stage, second P85 is short version of EAP and P30 or H10 as third stage. also it use Ariane 4 payload Fairing.
if all tree stages are Solid, a fourth stage L6 (similar to Ariane 5 EPS stage) is used.
DAL-S 3500kg into Sun-synchronous orbit of 800 km
DAL-P 1000 kg into 1000km high orbit, use only P85 and P30 and L6 sound familiar ? that's almost VEGA launch rocket
by the way the DAL had to launch french Military satellite

in 1993 ESA look themselves on medium launch rocket ELS: European Small Launcher
they wanted R&D new Solid booster P50 and P7 and use them on EAP 230 or P50 as first stage
1000 kg in Sun-synchronous orbit of 700 km P50/P50/P7
3500 kg in Sun-synchronous orbit of 700 km P230/P50/P7

in 1998 ESA study the combination EAP230 with VEGA as upper stages.

But in end ESA management not take the proposals, instead they went in Join venture with Russia Soyuz rocket launch from Kourou
the major reason was France need to launch Military satellite in Sun-synchronous orbit, who were to heavy for VEGA.

During "Ariane 2010" study the concept again as "Half Ariane 5 Soild"
a EAP 260 booster (extends 2 more Segment) as First stage, second stage a EAP 130 single segment, Thrid stage cryogen stage.
and Ariane 5 short payload Fairing.
Payload 5,5~6 tons into GTO

also study under Next Genration Launcher was the BBPH Building Block: Powder Hydrogene
First stage: a advance EAP with 250 tons fuel, Second stage: advance P80 80~100 tons fuel, third stage H28 with Vinci engine
Payload 3 tons in GTO
with use of P23 soild stap on Booster 5 tons inGTO with 2 P23, 8t in GTO with 6Xp23 booster

Picture source
Flug Revue Nr 9 September 1993 page 56

Source On DLA, ELS, HAS and BBPH and P230/Vega
Europäische Trägerraketen Band 2 by Bernd Leitenberger ISBN-13: 978-3-8391-0165-0
 

Attachments

  • supAriane90s.jpg
    supAriane90s.jpg
    102.7 KB · Views: 582
I've checked "Europe's space programme" (by Brian Harvey), but this has no info on advanced Ariane 5 concepts from the 1990s.
 
Hobbes said:
I've checked "Europe's space programme" (by Brian Harvey), but this has no info on advanced Ariane 5 concepts from the 1990s.

There not much information about them
i lock true allot Flug Revue magazine until i found two picture with info

here the Ariane super lourd concept aka ESA moon rocket.
1874 ton launch weight.
it use 4 EAP230 booster
second stage is almost Shuttle ET size: the H620 with five Vulcain engine
The third stage is shorten EPC stage called H70 with one Vulicain engine
this rocket is capable to launch 35 tons to moon from GTO
Payload in LEO would be around 90 tons

Source Picture:
Flug Revue

Source: data
Europäische Trägerraketen Band 2 by Bernd Leitenberger ISBN-13: 978-3-8391-0165-0
 

Attachments

  • ariane5-mondrakete.gif
    ariane5-mondrakete.gif
    26.7 KB · Views: 549
You know it's funny. I was on NASA Spaceflight Forum the other night, and I swear I saw a similar vehicle in the the thread about future Chinese HLVs.

Check out Response 101:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8447.90
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
You know it's funny. I was on NASA Spaceflight Forum the other night, and I swear I saw a similar vehicle in the the thread about future Chinese HLVs.

Check out Response 101:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8447.90


beware of foreign exchange student, who make tons of photocopy, use the Fax machine for hour's
and send giga byte big Emails to home...
 
Michel Van said:
ESA made in beginn 1990 several study for advance Ariane 5 rocket, what let to big Ariane super lourd concept 1991
also they study this interesting Idea
Ariane 5 with TWO Vulcain (HM60) engines with each 800 kN thrust and 220 tons fuel in EPC
...

Thanks for that. Such paired Vulcain's could launch the smaller Ariane 5 "G" core stage at 158 mT propellant load as an SSTO.
For the later Ariane 5 "E" version at 170 mT propellant load you would need three Vulcains for the SSTO, and this would also suffice for the 220 mT load version you mention.

c.f.,

A low cost, all European, manned launcher.
« on: March 09, 2012, 07:14:49 pm »
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14692.msg146544.html#msg146544
 
Ariane 5 with TWO Vulcain (HM60) engines with each 800 kN thrust and 220 tons fuel in EPC
And this 2 vulcain Ariane 5 was also Itself doubled in a 1989-1991 CNES study

From Philippe Jamet, "Ariane 5 et le vol habite”, 1996

. Long before these studies, however, there were already plans in the pipeline to make Ariane 5 derivatives important vehicles for manned flight. In the early 90s, Ariane 5 was seen as the backbone of further developments, envisaged as follows:

- either a conventional launcher, operational between 2015 and 2020 and designed around a system of 4 boosters and a main cryogenic stage, this time equipped with 4 fourth-generation engines derived from the HM-60. This solution, which could be further improved by the introduction of methane engines, was presented at the 1989 IAF congress by CNES engineer Johnson and ESA's Jean-François Lieberherr. In some respects, it is similar to the solution proposed by Roger Vignelles (ex CNES and ex SEP), and would bring us into the 40 to 60-ton class of launchers, with the possibility of putting a large vertical-launch shuttle into low-Earth orbit.

- or a partially recoverable two-stage launcher (with the exception of two small liquid hydrogen tanks flanking the second stage) inspired by the studies on the Taranis concept carried out at Aérospatiale by Patrick Eymar's team. The advantages of this solution would be to build the launcher around several Vulcain engines derived from the propulsion system of the current Ariane 5, to provide greater flexibility than a conventional launcher, and to offer possibilities for a manned version.

The second is Taranis (described in French Secret Project 3 book) but the former was a shown in the paper "ARIANE 5: A MATURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME" 1989/1991



824D8368-F4FF-438A-8602-590260B7BA0A.jpeg
F5D1358F-5686-4FB2-869C-ED0E3A87A09A.jpeg

8ABD2F01-CF62-4CF9-95F2-1A98A916BD85.jpeg
C9E43B7C-8CD6-4B52-AEDC-4AC66DF6BFD9.jpeg

The small launchers can also be seen as a early iteration of the Dérivé léger Ariane (DLA)/European small launcher (ESL) of the early-mid 90s
 
I seem to remember an "Ariane M" as a pre-PROTIEN HLLV

Not Energia M mind you---that was a Soviet A5 really.
 
I seem to remember an "Ariane M" as a pre-PROTIEN HLLV

Not Energia M mind you---that was a Soviet A5 really.
Ariane M was, i think, a mars society proposal.

There was a ESA HLLV study from 2005 that had a mega-Ariane 5 too, this was esa-sanctioned at least. Never found a render of it

1E75A78E-29A6-420B-AF40-55FEF6FE0436.jpeg
 
It's a shame it never got to launch the Hermes.


If you're building Hermes, already a technologically complete and polyvalent spacecraft, and a Mega-Ariane 5 like those in this thread, then the cost of building a true Buran/Shuttle scale Hermes is not that much more! So why not go all the way...

After all, the whole A5+Hermes system would have, had it gone to completion and according to 1992 hermes estimates, cost over $33 billion in 2023USD by the time Hermes would have been operational, if you've got that amount of money, what's a bit more...
 
Associated paper with your attached pictures in the attachments
 

Attachments

  • 6.IAC-06-D2.7.07.pdf
    572.6 KB · Views: 36
Last edited:
A source that I think had been neglected: the Internal newspapers of the SEP.

SEP Inter April 1994 (courtesy of Franck Laidin on twitter)

SEP_Inter_85-Avril_1994-Notre_vision_du_futur_page-0001.jpg
SEP_Inter_85-Avril_1994-Notre_vision_du_futur_page-0003.jpg
SEP_Inter_85-Avril_1994-Notre_vision_du_futur_page-0004.jpg
SEP_Inter_85-Avril_1994-Notre_vision_du_futur_page-0005.jpg
SEP_Inter_85-Avril_1994-Notre_vision_du_futur_page-0006.jpg
This one is cleaner... I'll machine translate it later.

Notably, it mentions the MCA (Moteur Cryogenique Avancé, Advanced Cryogenic Engine) program, the early closed cycle Hydrolox program, that ran alongside RECORD (Joint study of Energomash engines) and would eventually give the MC150 project (150 kN expender cycle engine), which became the MESCO/VESCO engine, renamed to Vinci, upgraded to 155, 170 and then 180 kN, and which will - at last! - launch this year, 30 years after this article.
---
SEP Inter February 1993
SEP5Q11993.jpg


But beyond traditional commercial applications, we must think of more distant ambitious missions. The elements of Ariane 5 allow the construction without great difficulty of a heavy launcher with a view to a return to the Moon or a European space laboratory program and possibly exploration missions
This launcher would be made of a cryogenic main stage powered by 5 Vulcain engines and flanked by 4 P230 Solid Propellant Engines identical to those of Ariane 5. Above, a cryogenic upper stage would be powered by a single Vulcain. The latter, which would start up in a vacuum and operate permanently in this environment, would require additional specific development.
Based on the technologies developed for propulsion of the Ariane 5, the SEP and its European cooperators are able to respond to discernible needs... pending attractive economic conditions. By maintaining its technical skills and having existing industrial intrastructures, the world of european space propulsion - including SEP - is ready to very quickly satisfy future demand and respond to possible developments in Ariane 5

Comparison: Ariane 5/Heavy Launcher
Ariane 5Heavy launcher
CoreCryogenic stage, 155t of propellant, Vulcain engine, Upper stage L9.7Cryogenic stage, 620t of propellant, 5 Vulcain 2 engines, Cryogenic Upper stage, 70t of propellant, 1 Vulcain 2 Engine
Boosters2 P2304 P230
Gross Lift Off Mass800t1900t

---SEP Inter Q4 1993 'Ariane 5-derived launchers"
s-l16004.jpg

Two derivatives, whose capabilities would be lower than those of Ariane 5, could be considered, with the basic propulsion of the Solid Propellant Engine (MPS) of Ariane 5. The DLA-S, Light Derivative of Ariane for SSO satellites, would use 3 solid propellant motors on its first three stages and a storable liquid propellant motor in its upper part. The first stage is made up of an Ariane 5 MPS, the P230, with its 230 tonnes of powder and its 3 m composite nozzle at the divergent outlet. The second stage is a shortened version of the P230, with only part of the structure (2 cylindrical segments) and a reduced nozzle but using the same technologies. Called P85, it will be loaded with 85 tons of powder. The 3rd stage. P30, whose structural mass will have an important role in the overall performance of the launcher, will use the most advanced technologies. Their possibilities have been demonstrated in French military programs: a wound-tank with carbon reinforcement and a specially adapted nozzle. The propulsion of the upper part is very close to that of the upper stage of Ariane. The DLA-S could be launched from ELA-3, Ariane 5 launch base in Guyana
The DLA-P version; P for small (petit) launcher, is simply obtained from the DLA-S by removing the P230 first stage. This could have the mission of launching satellites up to one ton into polar orbit at 1000 km

Heavy Launcher
This Super-Ariane 5, which could be a transportation vehicle to the moon - a subject of scientific focus for the ESA -, or a cargo or crew transport vehicle. This launcher would be propelled by 5 Vulcain engine and 4 MPS, the second stage would use a Vulcain. Its size would impressive: 8.2m diameter and 40m tall for its first stage alone. The total height of the launcher, using the same fairing as an Ariane 5, would be about 74m

---SEP Extreme June 1996

LanceurComplementaireArianeExtremeJuin1996.jpg

Ariane Complementary Launchers
As a market for Polar launches of satellite constellations appear, Ariane 5, optimised for Geostationary orbit dual launches, cannot efficiently answer it. This is why Industrials are proposing to self-fund a range of Ariane Complementary Launchers derived from Ariane 5

Reusing as much existing hardware as possible
The basic idea is to apply proven technologies and to reuse as much as possible existing hardware and infrastructure. Particularly to fullfill the need to launch "4 tons in a 700 km polar orbit", it is possible to design a LCA (Ariane Complementary Launcher) launcher whose first stage is based on the the EAP P230 of Ariane 5. Its second stage could be a P85 derived from the P230. It would also be possible to fill the need to launch small scientific satellites in a simple and economical way with a LCA 1 derived from the LCA 4. Such a launcher, using the LCA 4 upper stages without the P230 stage, would indeed be capable to launch 1 ton to 700 km polar orbit
 
"Satellite constellations" at the time didn't mean "starlink broadband internet" but "satellite phones". However GSM, ground antennas and the dotcom bubble burst of 2000 killed it. Satellite constellations would not return until 2007 with Greg Wyler OneWeb. And Starlink thereafters.
 
A similar (potentially related) promotional concept of a EAP-boosted VTVL Reusable core similar to the second-to-right launcher from a 90s Arianespace brochure for the Bourget.


"To conquer space and exploit all its promises, one first has to leave Earth. Today with Ariane 4, Tomorrow with Ariane 5 and its derivatives, Europe has more and more powerful and cheaper space transportation means at its disposal. Later, astonishing reusable launchers will be made: Single stage rockets capable of vertically landing back on Earth, spaceplanes using the air's oxygen before turning into rockets, then landing back on conventional runways.
1711671139818.jpeg

1711671148528.jpeg
 
Seems to be a persistent ESA pattern to this very day - the French have all the visions of grandeur, while all the Germans have is the cold hard cash... I'm just glad that I'm not subsidizing this dysfunctional parasitic *paneuropean* relationship with my taxpayer money anymore...
 
Last edited:
"Satellite constellations" at the time didn't mean "starlink broadband internet" but "satellite phones". However GSM, ground antennas and the dotcom bubble burst of 2000 killed it. Satellite constellations would not return until 2007 with Greg Wyler OneWeb. And Starlink thereafters.
In principle it's still always all just about streaming bytes - I really think you're overanalyzing it, so don't get wrapped up in any marketing hype. All that has changed is *quantitative* bandwidth, but *not* the *qualitative* principle of satcoms. Everything else is just noise (though I am admittedly not sure of the specific noise colour) for hyping up the utterly technology ignorant hoi polloi consumers.
 
A similar (potentially related) promotional concept of a EAP-boosted VTVL Reusable core similar to the second-to-right launcher from a 90s Arianespace brochure for the Bourget.


"To conquer space and exploit all its promises, one first has to leave Earth. Today with Ariane 4, Tomorrow with Ariane 5 and its derivatives, Europe has more and more powerful and cheaper space transportation means at its disposal. Later, astonishing reusable launchers will be made: Single stage rockets capable of vertically landing back on Earth, spaceplanes using the air's oxygen before turning into rockets, then landing back on conventional runways.
View attachment 723913

View attachment 723914
IMG_4433.JPG
A drawing of what looks like the same concept from "La propulsion fusée en Normandie, volume 1: Ariane 1 à 4", Association des Anciens de la SEP, 2021; no information except a date of the start of the studies: 1993.
 
Is that Plug-in Engine propose for ROMBUS and now build by Stoke Space ?
 
Is that Plug-in Engine propose for ROMBUS and now build by Stoke Space ?
Likely, the next page illustrates this kind of vehicle with a sample of ROMBUS-like vehicles. Which is almost identical to this picture
1714667705109.png Frankly I wouldn't take this design too seriously.

I do know that Aerospatiale briefly studied VTVL TSTO applications for Ariane 5 at around the same time which may be linked to this, but they didn't use plug nozzles, these were closer to DC-X.

Attached is H. Lacaze; C. Fazi; Aerospatiale; "Exploration of VTOL Reusable Launchers Concept", 1993.
1714668036518.png 1714668104462.png 1714668130207.png
 

Attachments

  • IAF93_VTOVL_Lacaze_Fazi-1.pdf
    5.2 MB · Views: 15
That's very bad copy out Ron Miller The Dream Machine
1714667705109-png.727713


What to hell is this ?!
1714668130207-png.727717
 
That's very bad copy out Ron Miller The Dream Machine
1714667705109-png.727713


What to hell is this ?!
1714668130207-png.727717
Thanks for the source, the picture reminded me of another book.

It's a EAP-derived Medium launcher with a reusable 2nd stage, as explained in the document I linked:

THE PROBLEM 0F POLAR ORBITS

Our customer base for high inclination orbits is smaller than for GEO, and orbital planes required are usually different, so that multi satellite launches are difficult to arrange. One may therefore try to f md ways of orbiting SPOTIERS replacements by more cost effective systems than the overpowerfuli ARIANE 5. Applying the VTOL concept to this problem led to the TSTO architectures shown as fig. 8.

These vehicles include a single ARIANE 5 P230 booster and a vertical landing second stage. The first architecture places the two stages in one, but this had to be discarded when assessing the impact of two conflicting constraints:
(a) To keep the maximum acceleration below 5 g, the second stage has to be over 61 tons.
(b) To keep hammerhead shape and overall slenderness within reasonable limits (i.e. 2nd stage diameter :9 5 m compared with 3 m diameter first stage) the second stage has to remain under 27 tons.

Although these figures retain some flexibility they are too far apart to enable any satisfactory compromise.

The second architecture is a parallel configuration. The second stage is 36 m long, 6 m base diameter, Take-Off Mass 91.5 tons. This resuits from an assessment of the impact of 2nd stage size on performance, based on stage efficiency as per fig. 5b. The basic stage architecture is indeed the same as that of Vehicle (3) (although the structural concept would differ somewhat, due ta the specific Ioad paths resulting from the booster fittings) and the requirements for orbit adjustment, retroboost and braking are those of an orbital vehicle.

This size is enough to comply with the 5 g requirement (actually ymax # 4 g), to allow installation of booster link fittings, and is only a few percent below optimum as far as payload is concerned. Since this optimum would require about twice this mass, it would clearly not be economically warranted to plan for a bigger stage.

Propulsion of the stage could be provided by several clustering schemes. For instance, a thrust level cf the order of 550 to 600 kN could be provided by:
9xHM7B : 564kN
8xRL1OA3 : 588kN
6xRL1OA4 : 556kN
5xLE5A : 608kN
4xRL10C : 623kN

0f course these engines would require extensive modification te implement the reusable VTOL specific throttling, starting, low altitude and maintenance requirements. Our calculations have been performed with RL10A4 data. There would be growth potential from switching to 6 LE5A or (stiil prospective) RL10C. The second stage would start during the last phase of booster operation, when the acceleration drops tram 4 gs to 2 gs and below. Data for the booster are taken from ref. 9. Output of this analysis yields payload mass close ta 6 tons, which is quite satisfactory. The ARIANE 5 pad could be used for launch, since the second stage is net ignited an the ground, thus avoiding flame bucket compatibility problems.
 
It just dawned on me that Arianespace could have created a quasi -SSTO by putting a few PAPs from Ariane 42 / 44 (propulseurs d'appoint à poudre), on an Ariane 5 EPC (Vulcain core).
 
It just dawned on me that Arianespace could have created a quasi -SSTO by putting a few PAPs from Ariane 42 / 44 (propulseurs d'appoint à poudre), on an Ariane 5 EPC (Vulcain core).
If it's got boosters, it's *NOT* a "quasi-SSTO".
 
When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.
 
The MS100, a hypergolic engine designed and built by SEP (now part Safran) in the late 90s as a potential Ariane 5 upper stage engine, before the choice of the Ariane 5 ECA's hydrolox ESC was set, it is comparable to EADS's Aestus 2/RS-72 engine which originated in the same context, but is much better known.

Documents are from "La Propulsion fusée en Normandie, volume 2", 2021, Amicale des anciens de la SEP.

MS100_1.jpg

The book gives the context for the start of this program:

Generalities: Choice of configurations


In the context of increasing satellite size and to maintain the dual launch capacity required for the financial balance of the Ariane sector, the search for increased performance led very early to planning the replacement of the EPS upper stage equipped with the Aestus engine by a much more efficient stage.

The choice of the configuration of this new stage was the subject of lengthy analyses focused on 2 very important choices: - storable propellant propulsion with a new, more powerful turbopump engine to replace the Aestus, allowing an increase in the mass of propellants and a reduction in the structure index; or a cryogenic propellant thruster?

What type of engine for a cryogenic stage: gas generator-open cycle such as the HM7 and the Vulcain, or an expander-type closed cycle such as the American RL10 or the Japanese LE5 allowing easier re-ignition in orbital phase?

As is often the case in the context of European cooperation, this technical choice is coupled with a choice of industrial organization. For Ariane 5, the upper stage allowed Germany to access the complete project management of the upper stage and its engine. It is therefore understandable that it wishes to retain it; while SEP, which has 2 major technological assets, the mastery of hydrogen turbopumps and cryogenic propulsion systems and which expects a considerable drop in its Vernon workload plan with the prospect of stopping Ariane 4 and the associated production of Viking and HM7 engines, wishes to be able to maintain its skills by regaining a major role in the propulsion of the orbital stage.

These technical and industrial perspectives are at the origin of the self-financed work by the SEP on the study of the MS 100 storable propellant and turbopump engine, with 100 kN of thrust, and the definition, manufacture and testing of the turbopump demonstrator (see chapter 3-2)

This unprecedented self-financing and this demonstration aimed to claim the project management of this engine in the event that the ESA and the CNES chose to retain a storable stage as on the generic Ariane 5, while retaining in particular the possibility of easy re-ignition of the orbital stage

If cryogenic propulsion is chosen, while project management is much better assured for SEP, the choice of the technical configuration of a new engine is more laborious. A preliminary project for a so-called "bimodal" engine demonstrator (DEMCA or VEDA, see chapter 3.4), based on a so-called "bicycle" engine configuration, has made it possible to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the two cycles considered (expander or staged combustion) with the possibility of re-ignitions, thus preparing the eventual replacement of the EPS stage

With the help of commercial urgency and performance needs, CNES simultaneously proposed two developments to ESA, which adopted them together in 1998

Both retained cryogenic propulsion, very good news for the Vernon teams, who see the decline in activity resulting from the scheduled shutdown of production of the Viking and HM7 engines at the end of the Ariane 4/Ariane 5 transition receding

The Ariane 5 Plus Program

The second program, called Ariane 5 plus, was launched in the spring of 1998 by the ESA, then confirmed at ministerial level. Its objective was to improve the performance of the upper composite by replacing the storable propellant stage with a stage with cryogenic liquid hydrogen and oxygen propellants.

Indeed, the storable EPS stage was no longer sufficient to ensure the dual launch of large 5-tonne class satellites into orbit and the development of a new stage was necessary, the ideal being to make it relightable to allow multi-mission orbital maneuvers.
We then observe a proliferation of proposals:

-Germany, which defends its storable propellant stage, proposes an Aestus engine with turbopumps, the "powerpack" (generator and turbopumps) being developed in cooperation with Pratt and Whitney (USA). The thrust would thus increase from 29.6 to 55.4 kN (This is Aestus 2)

-France, which is making a counter-proposal for a storable turbopump engine called MS100 with 100 kN thrust (see specific chapter)

-A cryogenic upper stage, available in 2 versions

Finally, it was the latter choice that was retained, with initially the HM7 engine from Ariane 1 to 4, - non-reignitable and then a new engine, reignitable, the Vinci. The stage with the HM7 engine was called ESC-A, the one with the Vinci engine ESCB. The ESCA is capable of placing 10 tonnes in geostationary orbit, the ESCB 12 tonnes.

The ESA Council, which met at ministerial level on 11 and 12 May 1999 in Brussels, ratified the Ariane 5 plus programme. This programme was estimated to cost 1,164 million euros. It received the firm support of the States to the tune of 533 million euros for its first two stages, covering up to 2001, when a new Council was to decide on the future. Since public support does not cover all the costs of the program, a significant contribution has been requested from manufacturers.

The Council's decisions allow the work undertaken to replace the upper stage with storable propellants with the stage designated ESC-A to continue. Finally, the ESCB would not be used on Ariane 5, but the development of the Vinci engine would still start at a slow pace, with the new deadline being Ariane 6.
The German and French's large hypergolic (storable) upper stage proposals for Ariane 5 are described in these papers, which I don't have access to;
German Upper stages https://dl.iafastro.directory/event/IAC-1997/paper/IAF-97-V.1.05/
French Upper stages https://dl.iafastro.directory/event/IAC-1997/paper/IAF-97-V.2.02/
The French hypergolic Ariane 5 upper stage proposal would hold about 20 tons of propellants.
3-2-1 Context and Start of the project
As soon as the development of the Vulcain engine and Ariane 5 was completed, the question arose of its evolution to increase performance and thus be able to respond to the increase in mass of geostationary satellites in the 2000s. In 1996, the Vulcain 2, derived from the Vulcain 1, with increased thrust (115 to 135 t) was already on the drawing board, and the question of replacing the Aestus engine of the storable upper stage was also raised, for which DASA (Ottobrunn center) proposed a 50 kN thrust engine equipped with a Rocketdyne turbopump. This orientation was not considered acceptable by SEP because it would open the door to the introduction of American equipment on Ariane 5. SEP decided to respond by proposing a storable engine with a turbopump and gas generator of approximately 100 kN thrust, and reignitable. This will be the MS100, the industrial assembly being similar to that of the HM7 engine, DASA being responsible for the combustion chamber, and SEP for the “powerpack” (turbopump assembly, gas generator, regulation).


The objective being to allow a first flight in 2003 on Ariane 5 Evolution, the management of Vernon decided to accelerate the design and manufacture of a first prototype of "powerpack" that could be tested on the bench around mid-98. This choice was favored to have a re-ignitable upper stage and to achieve a satellite capacity of 9 t in GTO orbit, corresponding to a double launch of two geostationary satellites of 4.5 t.


At the start of the project, at the beginning of 1997, the specifications were not yet fixed: the thrust of the engine was between 80 and 120 kN, the oxidizer was nitrogen peroxide, the choice of UDMH or MMH (monomethylhydrazine) fuel had not yet been made. A gas generator cycle was quickly chosen to preserve the achievements of the Viking engine.

While a dedicated team studies the engine, the Turbomachinery, Combustion and Equipment Design Units tackle the components that will make up the "powerpack". An initial three-month phase allows the specifications necessary for dimensioning the subassemblies to be specified, the different architectures of the engine and stage to be studied, and different equipment concepts to be evaluated in order to make the best choice. This preliminary study phase culminates in a System Concept Review (RCS) held in April 1997.

For the turbopump, different architectures are studied: two separate turbopumps, and a single single-shaft machine with the turbine in the center or the turbine cantilevered (in this case, the propellant pumps are adjacent). The turbopump selected will be called TP SUN (for Stockable UDMH N2O4).

Similarly for the control valves or the gas generator, this period is used to research the best technologies. The project is organized around concurrent engineering (coordination between the different project stakeholders).Monthly meetings are organized at the engine level, and weekly in the Design Units. The manufacturing, laboratory, and testing teams are involved in the work from the start to integrate their constraints into the sizing studies.

The RCS allows the project to be presented to managers and to freeze the choices of architecture and technologies, as well as the specifications of the "powerpack". The thrust chosen for the engine is 100 kN, the fuel chosen is initially UDMH, then we will move on to MMH, without any significant impact on the sizing of the subsystems (the difference in density has a small influence on the fuel pump and the generator). The schedule for May 97 provides for starting the generator tests on the SYBIL bench in Villaroche in the fourth quarter and the tests of turbopump components (bearings and dynamic seals) from June 98. The tests of the complete "powerpack" are planned for the fourth quarter of 98

This engine is very classic: gas generator cycle, regenerative circuit chamber, hot divergent collecting the turbine exhausts, generator operating in a very fuel-rich mixture ratio, its temperature nevertheless remains high (1080 K) to avoid the formation of soot, single-shaft turbopump with central turbine. The turbine is partially injected (33% of the wheel circumference), total injection would have led to ridiculously low blade heights. Generator and control valves are integrated on the turbopump to form the "powerpack". The turbopump shaft is vertical, the fuel pump being located below, supplied by a 180° elbow, so as not to penalize the cavitation limit of the N pump, the most critical


Once the architectural choices have been finalized, the Design Units tackle the detailed definition of the valves, generator and turbopump. The generator begins its tests on the SYBIL bench in Villaroche in October 97. Sixteen tests will be carried out to finalize the choice of the injection configuration, check the correct temperature setting, check the stratification, and test the combustion stability by bomb tests. The results will be satisfactory. At the same time, the long-cycle supplies of the turbopump parts (foundries, forged blanks) are launched in order to have a first prototype by mid-98. The test means for the turbopump are also studied and prepared: component bench to test the bearings and dynamic seals, PF2 bench for testing the integrated turbopump and gas generator
Basic specs of the engine:
MS_100_specs.png
Component test fire:
MS_100_Test.jpg
Turbopump schematics:
MS_100_Turbopump.jpg
More attached.

The end of the MS100 project

At the beginning of 98, CNES and ESA decided on the configuration of the upper stage of Ariane 5 evolution. It would be a cryogenic stage; initially an H14 equipped with an HM7 allowing 10 tonnes to be placed in GTO for the period 2002 - 2006, then a new stage equipped with a 170 kN thrust cryo-expander engine that could be reignited, capable of placing 12 tonnes in GTO from 2006. This would be the Vinci engine

The MS100 adventure then ended, but the Vernon management wanted to finish the project "properly". The prototype turbopump would be manufactured and tested on test bench PF2 on 01/12/1999 as a passenger in the ELD 16 test of the Viking engine. For 100 s the turbine was supplied with hot gas at 650°C taken from the Viking generator outlet, and the pumps are supplied with water. Under these conditions, the turbopump will rotate at 25,600 rpm (85% of the nominal speed), delivering a power of 310 kW (60% of the nominal power). The total flow rate of the two pumps will be 20 kg/s and the overpressure of pump U will be 142 bar
Conclusion:
The conclusion was written by Georges Dorville at the end of the project (end of 1998):

"In 1997, the development of a 100 kN storable propellant engine, called MS100, was launched using the company's own funds. It reflected SEP's desire to play a major role in the propulsion of the upper stage of Ariane 5. To do this, SEP had to demonstrate its ability to develop a "storable" propellant engine in a very short period of time (we were already essential if the choice fell on a cryogenic engine).
From the start , we knew that the probability of completion was at most 50%. But the challenge was not so much the completion of the project as meeting the deadlines, development costs and production costs of the engine.

What remains of the MS100 engine? First of all, the powerpack was fully completed in 1998. It is possible that in the future, hypergolic propulsion will be used again for small or medium launchers. Having gone as far as production, we could test an engine very quickly. Especially since the design of the engine allows the use of other semi-storable propellants to avoid possible environmental problems

In summary, the MS 100 was a good exercise in integrated engineering, from design to manufacturing and testing, since starting from a blank slate, it took less than 2 years to arrive at a virtually operational product. We thus have, in front of the environment and our customers, a visible and tangible argument to claim, for the future, the development of similar products

The engine is also mentioned in a few contemporary articles, such as "MS100 powerpack demonstrator status and future prospects", Souchier, 2000 which is attached; it describes the engine, and mentions some potential derivative, such as a Alcohol/H2O2 version or a CH4/O2 version.
Other papers include "STATUS OF THE SEP 100 kN STORABLE PROPELLANT UPPER STAGE ENGINE", Bonniot, Thomas, 1998 or "STATUS OF THE MS 100 STORABLE PROPELLANT UPPER STAGE ENGINE POWERPACK", Laithier, 1999
 

Attachments

  • 6.2000-3158.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 2
  • MS_100_2.jpg
    MS_100_2.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 6
  • MS100_GG.jpg
    MS100_GG.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 6
  • MS_100_Components.jpg
    MS_100_Components.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 6
  • MS_100_TPSUN.jpg
    MS_100_TPSUN.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 8

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom