1

Launch vehicles: Discussion

2

Launch vehicles: Discussion

1. Short overview of future launchers

2. Set-up of discussion

3. Let's talk rockets!

3

Fact:More launch vehicles are currently in

development than those that have ever beenoperational since 1957.

4

Major developments

Market-focusedExpendable solids

Re-usability

Assisted launchesAdvent of small launchers

Revival of super-heavy launchers

5

Themes

Overarching goal ★Reduce cost of accessing space

Other developments ★Payload-return capabilities (X-37b, ISV) ★Slowly vanishing government involvement ★Developing ecological conscience

6

7

8

SLS: The new Saturn V

● Move from Ares I and V to SLS● Carries MPCV● Block I: 70 tons (LEO)

Block II: 130 tons (> Saturn V)● Shuttle-derived lower stages in Block I● Saturn V derived upper (cryogenic) stage● Below budget, ahead of schedule, passed PDR in July

9

SLS: Some arguments

● SLS = “Senate Launch System”● “There should be a commercial launcher instead.”● “Cost of BN$10 too much” (> BN$1 per year)● “There is no mission for SLS. Cost unjustified.”● “Launch cadence of 1/year too low.”

10

11

Falcon Heavy: Brute Force Rocket

● Two-stage-to-orbit● LOX-Kerosene combination● 53,000 kg to LEO (vs. Delta IV Heavy 22,950 kg)● 27 engines (N1: 30 engines), 3 x Falcon 9● Propellant cross-feed● Possibly reusable

12

Falcon Heavy: Some arguments

● “Which market?”● “Customers do not want to launch multiple

payloads at the same time ( Ariane 6).”→● “Did SpaceX sell themselves to the DoD?”

13

Falcon Heavy vs. SLS

● Falcon Heavy GTO: 12,000 kg (Isp = 330 s)● Ariane V GTO: 10,500 kg (Isp = 465 s)● SLS GTO: 32,500 kg (est.) (Isp = 448 s)

– Commercial customers don't care about Isp– But: Falcon Heavy single-batch exploration missions

impossible on-orbit assembly required→

14

15

Ariane 6

● Single major concern: market needs● “Triple 7 goals”

– 7 years development– 7 tons to GTO (actually, now 6.5 t in most recent design)– 70 Million per launch

● Identical lower stages, SRBs (Vega synergy)● Not carved in stone yet

16

Ariane 6: Some arguments

● “Smaller commsats? Where is the evidence?”● “Focus on commsats? What about agency missions?”● “Human missions (also ATV) impossible until the mid

2030s”● “Loose cryogenic capabilities”● “Concept not scalable and evolvable”● “Not much cheaper, merely easier to plan”

17

18

StratoLaunch

● Initially:– 2 x 747 & SpaceX (did not want to change design)

● Now:– Scaled Composites & Orbital Sciences– mp = 6,100 kg to LEO– Largest airplane of all time (540,000 kg, 117m)

● Main goal: flexibility (not cost!)● Founded by Paul Allen (Microsoft), Burt Rutan

19

Stratolaunch: Some arguments

● “What if engine fails to ignite?”(was especially of concern with initial liquid-fueled Falcon concept)

● “M$300 development cost estimate too low”● “What's your market?”

20

21

We live in the most exciting time since Apollo

22

DEBATE

23

Claim #1—Super-heavy Launchers

SLS is the wrong way to go for NASA. There should be a commercial development program for a very heavy

launch vehicle, similar to CCDev.

24

Claim #2—Ariane 6 focus

AR-6 should focus on satisfying current market needs rather than representing a sovereign heavy

space-access capability for Europe.

25

Claim #3—Launcher Policy

Defence capability synergies with orbital rockets are still essential for the selection of future launch systems.

26

Claim #4—Human Spaceflight

The AR-6 should have the possibility to be human-rated.

27

Claim #5—Small Payloads

Assisted launchers for small payloadswill be a game-changer in the market.

28

Claim #6—Launcher ecology

“Green” or “Bio”-Propellants should be a driver for the Ariane 6 propulsion system.

29

Claim #7—Small Payloads

Dedicated small launchers will replace piggy backing for small satellites.

30

Claim #8—Assisted Launches

Stratolaunch will mark a (re)naissance of air launched vehicles.

31

Claim #9—Payload Return

Europe should develop the capability to return payloads from space.

32

© NASA

@SocietyVisViva +Society Vis Viva /SocietyVisViva