ESA European Heavy Lift Launcher “PROTEIN”

Michel Van

Michel Van

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
10,425
Reaction score
18,117
https://commercialisation.esa.int/2023/05/protein-the-new-european-heavy-lift-launcher-study/
FvL9JKSXoAMkBl9
 
ESA has secured contracts both with ArianeGroup and Rocket Factory Augsburg which will last until September 2023.
Click to expand...

That’s a bit interesting, their rfa one tooling and propulsion certainly can’t be easily scaled up to a heavy launcher, let’s see what they propose, even if there is a 100% chance it never happens
 
TheKutKu said:
even if there is a 100% chance it never happens
Click to expand...
Never gonna happen.
There was the Super Ariane proposal to Land ESA Astronauts on Moon in 1990s
like proposal for Manned European Spacecraft
The European Council of Ministers don't care

under current development ESA and Arianespace has no future
in end SpaceX, RocketLab and others will launch more and cheaper...
 
Michel Van said:
TheKutKu said:
even if there is a 100% chance it never happens
Click to expand...
Never gonna happen.
There was the Super Ariane proposal to Land ESA Astronauts on Moon in 1990s
like proposal for Manned European Spacecraft
The European Council of Ministers don't care

under current development ESA and Arianespace has no future
in end SpaceX, RocketLab and others will launch more and cheaper...
Click to expand...

ESA may have a future but Arianespace not so much
 
PMN1 said:
Michel Van said:
https://commercialisation.esa.int/2023/05/protein-the-new-european-heavy-lift-launcher-study/
FvL9JKSXoAMkBl9
Click to expand...

What is it describing as 'Heavy-lift'
Click to expand...
"In fact, the vehicle must guarantee access to low Earth orbit and beyond, offering at the same time large payload capacities (at least 10 000 t per year), a high launch rate, low construction and operating costs, and a reduced environmental footprint, in line with the European Green Deal initiative.”

The tentative date is 2035.

For comparison, 10,000 t a year is about 10 times what SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9 fleet could do at current launch cadence if every launches were maxed out. Very much in Starship territory.

PMN1 said:
Michel Van said:
TheKutKu said:
even if there is a 100% chance it never happens
Click to expand...
Never gonna happen.
There was the Super Ariane proposal to Land ESA Astronauts on Moon in 1990s
like proposal for Manned European Spacecraft
The European Council of Ministers don't care

under current development ESA and Arianespace has no future
in end SpaceX, RocketLab and others will launch more and cheaper...
Click to expand...

ESA may have a future but Arianespace not so much
Click to expand...

And if we’re being honest, Arianespace’s planned disappearance has more to do with its ownership change and subsequent gutting than any foreign competition
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Still curious what the individual LEO payload capability will be supposed to be.
Click to expand...

I suspect this study doesn't specify a payload per launch, instead it specifies 'find the cheapest way to launch 10 kt per year'.
 
For practicality considerations it's reasonable to assume that there would be a minimum payload threshold though.
 
martinbayer said:
Still curious what the individual LEO payload capability will be supposed to be.
Click to expand...
Powersats maybe. This is where Sea Dragon-or at least shipyards-may be of some use. Not a big shipyard-launches would disturb refits. Small affairs. Not much difference between flame trenches and a slip. Here I might flip propellants...hydrolox flyback-methane upper stage. Hydrogen from ocean-methane from animal husbandry. We know SLS' RS-25 can burn for twelve minutes.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
martinbayer said:
Still curious what the individual LEO payload capability will be supposed to be.
Click to expand...
Powersats maybe. This is where Sea Dragon-or at least shipyards-may be of some use. Not a big shipyard-launches would disturb refits. Small affairs. Not much difference between flame trenches and a slip. Here I might flip propellants...hydrolox flyback-methane upper stage. Hydrogen from ocean-methane from animal husbandry. We know SLS' RS-25 can burn for twelve minutes.
Click to expand...
I meant a quantitative figure of metric (I'm European, so sue me) tons of payload delivered to a minimum sustainable (let's say at least a year of acceptable decay before a reboost is required to maintain orbit) LEO. That is *really* the most basic requirement of any launch vehicle. As an aerospace engineer who has dabbled (on pay, I might add) in launch vehicle design for a while, as a first approximation, apart from payload density, I don't really care what, other than its mass, the nature of the payload is, i.e. SPS or not, so let's focus on the essentials here, shall we?
 
Last edited:
Readily agree with the above statement. "Payload to orbit" might seems at first glance like a space nerd obsession; but it is actually the all important metric across ELVs, RLVs, SSTOs and TSTOs.
Even more if the payload is SBSP: those things tend to be immensely heavy.
 
publiusr said:
martinbayer said:
Still curious what the individual LEO payload capability will be supposed to be.
Click to expand...
Powersats maybe. This is where Sea Dragon-or at least shipyards-may be of some use. Not a big shipyard-launches would disturb refits. Small affairs. Not much difference between flame trenches and a slip. Here I might flip propellants...hydrolox flyback-methane upper stage. Hydrogen from ocean-methane from animal husbandry. We know SLS' RS-25 can burn for twelve minutes.
Click to expand...
Again, nonsense.
Big difference between a flame trench and a slip.
There is no engineering or economic reason to have a hydrolox first stage with a methane upper stage. RS-25 has nothing to do with this. Plus it can't airstart.
 
Especially if you want to immerse a stage filled to the brim with cryogenic propellants in sea water and ignite it there. I am truly at a loss to formulate what I would put at the top of a "what could possibly go wrong" list for such a concept, because there are way too many contenders...
 
Kourou has only so many pads and room for pad, you’re unlikely to ever be able to send a heavy launcher from mainland Europe either. Any alternatives that aren’t from Kourou and therefore sea based or based from another non-european (continent) territory will also receive less funding.

SpaceX has improved pad turnaround and vehicle refurbishment time, but they’ve yet to demonstrate order of magnitude improvements in either, compared to what has already been done in the past, so the dream of multiple launches a day from the same pad using the same rocket is still sci fi as far as I’m concerned

European companies also aren’t able to systematically exploit the same hours a week from a worker as spacex does, this matters in the context of quick turnaround.

All this considered, I doubt that >10,000t a year, in a european context, means sending a <10t payload vehicle several thousands times, but rather necessarily needs a (potentialy super)heavy launch vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Beside that, I feel so sad that French made Hermes never flew...

1683384601791.png

We would have now a very nice sovereign manned spaceship...

Hopelessly, politicians killed the project, and brought us lose all our capacities in favor of USA or Russia.

Right now, ESA programs are mostly led by scientists, who don't have a single interest about operations and business, but only about their scientific articles and observations...

Radium
 
Last edited:
I
Radium said:
Beside that, I feel so sad that French made Hermes never flew...

View attachment 699062

We would have now a very nice sovereign manned spaceship...

Hopelessly, politicians killed the project, and brought us lose all our capacities in favor of USA or Russia.

Right now, ESA programs are mostly led by scientists, who don't have a single interest about operations and business, but only about their scientific articles and observations...

Radium
Click to expand...


The main goal of LEO crewed spaceflight is prestige and awareness, but 40 years of european crewed spaceflight have demonstrated that the european public only cares about astronauts from their own countries (or at best, own language).

A Hermes which flies once or twice a year carrying 3 euronauts (including A Frenchman, A German all the time) wouldn’t have been very palatable for most of ESA’s members, it wouldn’t have inspired the polish or Spanish public, this would be fine if it was free, but Hermes needed 10 billion dollars to develop + 1 billion per year of operation, and this would have come at the expense of every other ESA program, many of which they are or were world leaders in.
 
TheKutKu said:
I
Radium said:
Beside that, I feel so sad that French made Hermes never flew...

View attachment 699062

We would have now a very nice sovereign manned spaceship...

Hopelessly, politicians killed the project, and brought us lose all our capacities in favor of USA or Russia.

Right now, ESA programs are mostly led by scientists, who don't have a single interest about operations and business, but only about their scientific articles and observations...

Radium
Click to expand...


The main goal of LEO crewed spaceflight is prestige and awareness, but 40 years of european crewed spaceflight have demonstrated that the european public only cares about astronauts from their own countries (or at best, own language).

A Hermes which flies once or twice a year carrying 3 euronauts (including A Frenchman, A German all the time) wouldn’t have been very palatable for most of ESA’s members, it wouldn’t have inspired the polish or Spanish public, this would be fine if it was free, but Hermes needed 10 billion dollars to develop + 1 billion per year of operation, and this would have come at the expense of every other ESA program, many of which they are or were world leaders in.
Click to expand...

That's not really true.

In my country, when Thomas Pesquet, and earlier Claudie André Haigneré flew, there was a big hype around their missions.

We can indeed see things negatively. But here is the most important questions to ask :

  • Do we European want to believe in ourselves and produce our own solutions within a sovereignty doctrine ?
  • Do we European want to follow master USA because they are the best so better to be a part of their dominion ?
  • Do we European want a budget flight program and just buy a couple of mission to SpaceX ?
Europe has the second GDP of the world. I trust that if we want to make it, we can make it.

But as long as we will prefer to follow master USA and grow their business, nothing will change.

Radium
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Especially if you want to immerse a stage filled to the brim with cryogenic propellants in sea water and ignite it there. I am truly at a loss to formulate what I would put at the top of a "what could possibly go wrong" list for such a concept, because there are way too many contenders...
Click to expand...
I was thinking a pad that might slide out a dock and slide back.
 
Kat Tsun said:
The obvious solution would have been to rotate nationalities per mission? Polish, Spanish, Italian for one mission; French, German, Swedish for the next; Dutch, Belgian, Finnish; and so on.

robunos said:
martinbayer said:
I guess spam is protein too...
Click to expand...
I'm waiting for Musk to rename SuperHeavy 'STEAK' . . .

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...

SpaceX Two Scoops.
Click to expand...

Why not... After all it's just like any fighter aircraft... In my country, we had USA, Belgian, German, British, Taiwanese and others fighter pilots who flew with us, sometimes as flight leaders... We even had a Belgian squadron commander. I don't even know a country where a non-national from a different air force became squadron commander.
 
Well yeah, someone said Hermes "died" because "Europeans only care about their own nationalities". I'd think Hermes died because it didn't offer any meaningful economic advantage over an ESA-owned Mir-2 module serviced by Soviet/Russian launch vehicles, as the ISS was for literal decades, which is sort of the point.

Manned space planes are kind of the worst possible investment for a space agency. The ESA was, and perhaps still is, very smart.
 

Attachments

  • efs-day-2-valere-girardin.pdf
    944 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
I meant a quantitative figure of metric (I'm European, so sue me) tons of payload delivered to a minimum sustainable (let's say at least a year of acceptable decay before a reboost is required to maintain orbit) LEO. That is *really* the most basic requirement of any launch vehicle. As an aerospace engineer who has dabbled (on pay, I might add) in launch vehicle design for a while, as a first approximation, apart from payload density, I don't really care what, other than its mass, the nature of the payload is, i.e. SPS or not, so let's focus on the essentials here, shall we?
Click to expand...
Isn't that all RFA would need to use there software to produce the cheapest rocket "they could get with it"?
 
This could be a two-fer... Spaceliner first stage strap-ons.

Another bloody SS/SH clone.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom