ESA Completes Important Step Toward Vega Launcher 158
Sven-Erik writes "ESA is reporting that 'An important step forward has just been made in the development of ESA's Vega launcher. After several months' work at the Guiana Propellant Plant at Europe's Spaceport the inert casting of the main Vega motor has been successfully carried out.' The 30-meter tall Vega launcher will be capable of placing a 1.5 ton payload into polar orbit, and it is scheduled for its first launch in 2006 from Europe's Spaceport in French Guiana, where the Ariane 1 launch facilities are being adapted for its use. It will be a perfect complement to ESA's large Ariane 5 and the medium-classed Soyuz."
Could someone... (Score:1)
Re:Could someone... (Score:1)
Re:Could someone... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could someone... (Score:3, Informative)
It will also be sharing technology with the Ariane-5 program
Re:Could someone... (Score:5, Informative)
Vega
Main Data Vega
Height 30 m
Diameter 3 m
Liftoff mass 136 tonnes
Payload mass* 1500 kg
Although there is a growing tendency for satellites to become larger, there is still a need for a small launcher to place 300 to 2000 kg satellites, economically, into the polar and low-Earth orbits used for many scientific and Earth observation missions.
Europes answer to these needs is Vega, named after the second brightest star in the northern hemisphere. Vega will make access to space easier, quicker and cheaper.
Costs are being kept to a minimum by using advanced low-cost technologies and by introducing an optimised synergy with existing production facilities used for Ariane launchers.
Vega has been designed as a single body launcher with three solid propulsion stages and an additional liquid propulsion upper module used for attitude and orbit control, and satellite release. Unlike most small launchers, Vega will be able to place multiple payloads into orbit.
Development of the Vega launcher started in 1998. The first launch is planned for 2006 from Europe's Spaceport in French Guiana where the Ariane 1 launch facilities are being adapted for its use.
* Launch in circular orbit, 90inclination, 700 km
So basically it is europes light payload rocket.
Re:Could someone... (Score:2)
Re:Could someone... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Usually Rokot or Dnepr launches (old refurbished Russian ICBMs) are bought for small and cheap payloads, but they aren't exactly reliable...
Actually, if you look at their launch records both the Rockot and the Dnepr are quite reliable. (Beware the dangers of small sample statistics, however.) Care to share your analysis regarding why these specific boosters are not reliable?
Re:Could someone... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Could someone... (Score:2)
Well, at the very least, I can say that this *wasn't* written by an engineer.
Re:Could someone... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Could someone... (Score:4, Informative)
The Vega launcher is intended to be much simpler and cheaper than Ariane (or similar rockets), for smaller payloads. It's a business jet to complement the jumbo that is already in service, if you will.
The reduced cost is partly due to being a (mostly) solid-fuel rocket, which are a lot simpler in construction and require less maintenance. Extra cool: A second, future use for the Vega is to be replace the solid-fuel boosters currently used on the Ariane 5, thus significantly boosting the payload.
Re:Could someone... (Score:2)
Re:Could someone... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you had ever owned a Vega, [qis.net] you would understand why they want to launch any remaining ones into space...
Re:Could someone... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Could someone... (Score:2)
Because it is using bat crap for propellant.
oh damn, I'm sorry, it guiana, not guano.
Economics (Score:1)
Re:Economics (Score:1)
I would have said that the issue with launching many payloads on the top of one Ariane-5 would be more of an insurance problem that logistical
I'm not sure of the numbers, but, strapping 10 payloads (worth $25M a pop) onto a firework, is more risky than strapping 2 payloads a time onto 5. There is certainly a greater chance that you'll get at least some of your toy's into orbit.
Re:Economics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Economics (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be more economical to lauch many small payloads at once using a large rocket, e.g. Ariane 5.
Contrary to another response, this is as much a logistical issue as anything else: you need to find enough small payloads going to the same orbit at the same time to make this worthwhile. Coordinating this would be a significant challenge, particularly given the paucity of small payloads in general. Arianespace routinely dual-manifests larger communication satellites (that is, launch two at a time o
Useless (Score:4, Insightful)
ESO need to concentrate on improving Ariane 5 reliability and cost.
Or yeah, and ESO needs to build the OWL!! This earth based telescope should be able to image some planets better than space probes that visited them up and saw them up close.
http://www.eso.org/projects/owl/
Re:Useless (Score:5, Insightful)
I give you two quotes from TFA
Costs are being kept to a minimum by using advanced low-cost technologies and by introducing an optimised synergy with existing production facilities used for Ariane launchers.and
Unlike most small launchers, Vega will be able to place multiple payloads into orbit.Seems to me like two damn good reasons to me. Another, being; If you were Europe, would you REALLY want the Chinese to launch your Top Secret military satelites...?
multiple payloads. (Score:4, Insightful)
While indeed that no *small* chinese launchers can do this, there are really not such a big market for satellites small enough that several fit into a Vega.
Can't argue with the military aspects, though. I don't think EU trusts the US pushing military satelites into space either these days...
Re:multiple payloads. (Score:3, Insightful)
All fair points, but, I suspect the major reason that the EU want their own "fleet" of vehicles is just plainly and simply that they don't want to have to rely on another countries space program
I can understand the mentality, in a way... If we screw up, then WE'VE screwed up.
Re:multiple payloads. (Score:1)
Re:Useless (Score:2)
It's good that the synergy is optimised. For in a world without optimised synergy, I do not wish to live.
Oh, and for those playing buzzword bingo, I just completed a line.
Re:Useless (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Useless (Score:2)
Re:Useless (Score:2, Insightful)
Vega is a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) launcher. There isn't a commercial market for low earth orbit satellites.
Yes, there is a market. Universities and small companies, for instance.
I would go with the cheaper reliable Chinese launcher
What part of "competition" you did not understand?
Re:Useless (Score:2, Informative)
The European Southern Observatory (ESO), makes telecopes (like VLT and OWL), not rockets. You've mixed up ESO and ESA (European Space Agency).
Re:Useless (Score:2)
Re:Useless (Score:2)
No? I guess these satellites [spotimage.fr], among many others, aren't 'commercial'? Communications birds want geosynch so they can cover the largest possible swath of ground and provide a stable point for the ground antenna to point to. Most everybody else wants to be down lower, especially imaging birds.
Is it any good? (Score:4, Informative)
The Soyuz design is a good one because it is proven, and very very simple. No fiddly bits. You could probably launch in a hurricane if you absolutely had to [floridatoday.com]: little short of a thunderstorm over the pad will stop the launch. This is no space shuttle, and weather-related scrubs are almost unheard of here.
On the other hand, the Arianes have fiddly bits [space.com] and can't launch in bad weather. [rednova.com] So where does this thing fall, somewhere in between? Even more fiddly than Ariane? Less complex than Soyuz?
Re:Is it any good? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find interesting is that it is such a small vehicle. I imagine its going to push some g's on launch because its thrust to weight ratio is quite high. I haven't seen any numbers to support this theory though.
Re:Is it any good? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is because Soyuz booster is based on an early days military design, or should we say multiple-use design. I believe at one time a couple of these boosters were on standby with nuclear warheards attached (until USSR installed better ICBMs). You don't want weather over the launch pad to preclude a nuclear strike, don't you? No wonder the boosters w
Re:Is it any good? (Score:2)
Why not fuel free? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean things like shooting the payload from a cannon or something...
As long as we need 100*X pounds of fuel to launch X pounds into space, space travel will remain uneconomical for most purposes.
Re:Why not fuel free? (Score:2)
But there are several designs for using large cannons and electrorail runs for launching somethings.
Re:Why not fuel free? (Score:4, Informative)
Check out this [tethers.com] for plenty of information about what is possible. here [tethers.com] is a paper about a tether for LEO to GTO boost that could be built today.
All the other things like electric catapults are much too large to be practical if you want reasonable g-forces.
--
who said there arn't? (Score:5, Interesting)
And the payload would go through something like 10,000G through the acceleration phase. I think they are suggesting that electronics can generally handle this, which is surprising to me.
AND the payload would burn through about five inches of ablative.
I think the current technical problem they are facing is to get the huge acceleration out of the canon - because chemical charges can not ever get you the muzzle velocity, probably ever. So now you are in the realm of railguns. don't expect to see payloads shot up this way for a few years. =)
but, like i said, there are ideas floating around about it.
Re:who said there arn't? (Score:2)
Re:Why not fuel free? (Score:2)
The problem is acceleration. If we shoot the payload like a bullet, everything/body goes splat. I remember seeing one design once that kinda looked like a traintrack up a mountain. The idea was to give it a decent speed upon launch after accelerating over a good deal of track (via maglev I'd imagine). The pr
Re:Why not fuel free? (Score:1)
We we're actually planning to launch people across the British Channel, because we thought it would be a hell of a ride. Research was limited to some rough calculations on the back of a beer coaster. Turns out that using a trebuchet isn't economically feasible for these kinds of things.
Re:Why not fuel free? (Score:5, Informative)
The projectiles they were firing (the martlett) had a bunch of electronics in them, and they had designed them with a small rocket motor to maneuver at that altitude, not sure if they actually flew any with the motor.
The entire story is quite interesting, after the Harp project ended, Gerald Bull (the engineer behind it) went on to continue the research covertly funded by the cia initially. When he had a major falling out with the cia, he worked with other foriegn governments to continue the upscaling of the concept. He was assasinated when he built one that was capable of launching a 1000kg projectile over a distance of a thousand miles, before they had a chance to fire it. Interestingly, that one was capable of orbiting a much smaller projectile.
Re:Why not fuel free? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why not fuel free? (Score:4, Informative)
One suggestion is building a HUGE railgun into a mountain range of decent height. That way you get your highest speed in a height of 4-5km, where air density is already quite a bit lower than on ground, and you can spread your acceleration over a minute or so.
Re:Why not fuel free? (Score:3, Informative)
Why should they? Fuel is *cheap*. (Filling the Shuttle's various fuel tanks costs something under 10 million dollars.) Rocket scientists wish they could get launch costs down to where the fuel costs dominate (as it does for air travel), but that's somewhere down around a 10-15 fold reduction in costs from current levels, I.E. quite distant.
Re:Why not fuel free? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean things like shooting the payload from a cannon or something..
The main problem is that any reasonable gun size requires thousands of Gs acceleration. That eliminates most cargo options (so you still have to use another launcher type for much of your cargo).
You're also limited by the atmosphere. While you *could* try to build a 1000-km long human-rated mass driver, you'd be plowing through the atmosphere at Mach Silly for most of the acceleration distance, a
Re:Why not fuel free? (Score:2)
I'll just add that any low-G accelerator implies that you'll be launching at a low elevation, unless you plan to dig a shaft hundreds of km into the earth. This increases the distance you have to travel through the atmosphere, and therefore the amount of wasted energy.
A step backward (Score:4, Informative)
Since they arrive at the launch complex fully fueled, they are a major safety risk. There have been numerous accidents with solid-fueled boosters. The last major accident was in brazil, and it killed several people and completely destroyed the launch complex.
The solid fueled boosters of the shuttle make assembly much more difficult, and if a shuttle SRB were to accidentally go off while in the assembly building, it would probably kill hundreds of people. That is why NASA tries to limit the number of people working on the shuttle while the SRB are attached, which of course increases the cost and the processing time.
For a really modern and cheap small launcher, take a look at the falcon [spacex.com].
--
Re:A step backward (Score:4, Interesting)
The vega [esrin.esa.it] is supposed to cost 20 million USD for a payload of 1500kg to LEO. The Falcon I will cost 6 million USD for a payload of 700kg to a similar orbit, and the Falcon V will cost 12 million USD and have a payload of 4200kg to LEO.
So commercially vega will be a complete desaster. The only payloads that will go to vega will be government payloads that can not go to falcon for reasons of national prestige.
On the other hand, vega is a decent ICBM with MIRV capability.
Re:A step backward (Score:1)
Re:A step backward (Score:2)
On the other hand, the market is extremely small for light payloads to LEO, so both maybe a commercial disaster.
Re:A step backward (Score:2)
Another problem with solid rockets is that they have a rather extreme launch environment (lots of vibration), so you have to beef up your payload to handle the vibrations.
Solid rockets for civilian applications are just a bad idea.
--
Re:A step backward (Score:3, Insightful)
Those Falcon launchers sound impressive, but are completely unproven and it remains to be seen how they perform in reality and what the real cost is. Saying that something is "a step backward" from stuff that doesn't exist doesn't make much sense.
On the other hand, vega is a decent ICBM with MIRV capability.
Conspiracy theory time! I wonder what the throw weight is, say, halfway around the globe?
--
Re:A step backward (Score:3, Interesting)
The falcon launchers are just as unproven as the vega launcher. Neither of them has flown, but the engines of both falcon and vega have been tested on test stands.
And I am totally convinced that using solids for civilian launchers is a major step backward. Imagin
Re:A step backward (Score:2)
But yes, I agree. Solids are not very good for anything but military launches where rapid response time is paramount. Hybrids like Rutan's SpaceShipOne is using are better, but the technology is not as well developed. One last note: these solids are being made by the same people who do the P230 solids of Ariane 5. P230 has never failed on an Ariane launch.
Re:A step backward (Score:3, Interesting)
About three to four tons. But that was just a joke. It could be used as an ICBM though.
In case you didn't know about it, some people who work on P230 and P80 also help develop the French M51 SLBMs and manufacture explosives for car airbags. So yeah, solid rocket technology can be used for a log of things. Fear the intercontinental airbags!
Re:A step backward (Score:2)
Re:A step backward (Score:2)
Re:A step backward (Score:2)
Polar orbit? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Space Shuttle's delta wing design was based on a requirement from the military that it be capable of polar orbit. But they've never used it for that. If they'd just told the military to get lost, they could have used a better design. Sigh.
Re:Polar orbit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientific satellites very often use polar orbits since it allows them to cover the whole of the earth surface.
And if the US military hadn't been involved with NASA and space development throughout its history, I doubt there would be much, if any, NASA.
Re:Polar orbit? (Score:2)
Re:Polar orbit? (Score:2)
True, but how "big" would NASA have been if all the knowledge and the technology developed by and/or for the military and its presence in space had to been developed entirely for the civilian sector? It seems it is easier to get heavy federal funding for military scientific projects than for purely civilian scientific projects.
Re:Polar orbit? (Score:4, Informative)
The ESA payload GOCE [esa.int] - Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer - for example would preferably fly in a polar orbit to gather gravity field data for the entire planet including the poles. Instead near-ground (i.e. airplane) measurements will need to fill in the data gaps at the poles. GOCE will fly in a dawn-dusk sun-synchronous [ku.edu.np] orbit, launched by Rockot [eurockot.com].
- charboy
Re:Polar orbit? (Score:4, Informative)
If you now move the satellite in a polar orbit, you'll see that the footprint will cover the entire basketball-earth in a series of vertical stripes.
Why is this useful? Consider remote data collection anywhere on the planet. If you're observing weather in Peru, or ice flows in the North Atlantic shipping channels, and want to convey that information to your university research center in the Bahamas, then you need global coverage for the transponders (especially for the ice flows - you can't determine where they're going to go.) Polar orbit spacecraft like NOAA7 and NOAA9 performed store-and-forward functions for jobs like these. I built sonar-buoy hardware for tracking conditions in the North Atlantic shipping lanes waaaay back. Here's a decent summary of some of the NOAA satellites that used polar LEO orbits. [fsu.edu]
Re:Polar orbit? (Score:2)
Re:Polar orbit? (Score:2)
The idea was that a ring of these satellites would chase after each other in a single orbit, while the earth spins under it. The reason thi
What's the matter with you people? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, I really have a hard time believing that your random slashdotter would have sufficient knowledge to make any intelligent observations about the projects involved (posting as AC doesn't certainly help); furthermore, even if they would have (I've seen people claim working for NASA here), ESA press relases are (naturally) very thin on technical details. After all, you wouldn't want the whole world to know all of your research, right?
OK, so there have been failed ESA projects (NASA/Russians have also failed more than once if I'm not mistaken), Beagle 2 being the latest (however it is often forgotten here that Mars Express was the real purpose of the mission). So yeah, they might be wasting my tax Euros. I wish they'd waste more! IMHO more research put into space programs ultimately helps everybody, it certainly isn't "useless".
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:1)
Sigh. I also get the impression that ESA-related news on ./ often enough are not actually worth posting. Like this one, IMHO. That makes it a cakewalk for numerous dolts to get cheap ego boosts by picking it apart.
VEGA is not news because, obviously, it is not really new. Nobody even claims so. Its a reconfiguration of existing technology.
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you completely - however, just to point out that I believe Beagle 2 was not funded by the ESA...of course, clearly some money from the ESA went towards Beagle 2 due to the cost of adpating Mars Express and payload launch costs, but I think the probe itself wasn't funded by ESA.
Which leaves even more money to spend on other exciting ESA projects - people may be complaining about how VEGA is "useless", but would they rather the ESA not invest money in space technology at all?
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:2, Informative)
As a result we now have a good idea on how cheaply we can make a planetary probe with present technology.
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:1)
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:2)
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:3, Interesting)
maybe the moon landing?? (if it was real)
some missions to mars
the russians are the only ones flying humans to space
ESA has about 60 % of all comercial payload
i don't think there is a leader at all
except maybe in their head
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:2)
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:3, Informative)
What IS the matter with you people? (Score:2)
There you have it. Proof that at least this /. poster doesn't have the technical expertise to discuss rockets.
To all moon hoax "experts" I have a simple question. Thousands of people directly watched the launches of the 363 foot tall, 6 million ton rockets. What was the point of creating and launching a vehicle capable of reaching the moon if they didn't actually go there?
Re:What IS the matter with you people? (Score:2)
Re:What IS the matter with you people? (Score:2)
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:3, Insightful)
And everybody on sci.space.tech or sci.space.policy will agree that using solid propellant for a civilian launcher is just asking for trouble.
21 rocket scientists [spacetoday.net] from brazil would definitely agree with this. Unfortunately they can't because they are all dead!
--
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:2)
Why do you say that? They were working on the project. Presumably, they had at least some faith in it. Every time someone dies in an automobile accident should we conclude that the victims believe cars are too dangerous to drive? It really steams me when someone on Slashdot or elsewhere presumes to speak for the opinions of the deceased.
Someone who actually reads the linked article w
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:2)
There is still a huge difference. A liquid fueled vehicle is fueled on the pad, when the next human being is in a bunker about 500m away. The fuel and oxidizer themselves (usually kerosene and liquid oxygen) are not that dangerous as long as they don't mix.
With
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:2)
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:2)
Oh and dumping Ariane 4, losing their midsized launcher, was a stupid, stupid idea... Now they are replacing it with Soyuz. Oh well, at least Soyuz has the benefit of being man-rated. So they can launch some Soyuz and Progress ships from Kourou to
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, I really have a hard time believing that your random slashdotter would have sufficient knowledge to make any intelligent observations about the projects involved
The reality is lots of slashdotters are in this business. This isn't about failure rates - this market is way oversaturated - nobody is making money off launches with this payload size. Launcher companies the world over grossly overestimated the size of this market (wha
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:2, Insightful)
But I disagree with your "competition can't hurt" point. When too many competitors enter a crowded market they all lose money. The problem with government-sponsored projects is they aren't allowed to fail, since they "create" jobs. So you end up with a situation where multiple countries are shelling out taxpayer money to outbid e
Re:What's the matter with you people? (Score:1)
It'll be a historical day. . . (Score:2)
Sorry, I meant 'launched.'
Here is a plan for a low-cost reuseable launcher. (Score:2, Interesting)
The trick is that because the shuttle is attached to the TOP of the 747, and not underneath, you have to do a roll and fly upside down for a bit when releasing the shuttle. But that's no p
Re:Here is a plan for a low-cost reuseable launche (Score:2)
The problem is... You don't actually save any money that way. You shave maybe 1% of the fuel requirements, but you need vastly more structure to handle the loads, thus raising your total f
Re:Here is a plan for free ponies (Score:2)
The takeoff mass of the shuttle is about 2,000 metric tonnes, and the landing mass is only 100 tonnes. (Source: wikipedia [wikipedia.org]). That's a big difference! 1900 tonnes, or 95% of the mass is burnt or otherwise used in getting up there. This is pretty typical of orbital systems: the higher you want to go, the more of your mass you need to burn
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, there's a glut
Where? Primarly in the US. I'm sorry, but I don't think EU would like to financially help Lockeed-Martin. Yes, there are some LEO/low-cost vectors actually developed in China, Brazil and India, but the same reasoning applies.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
The truely sad part of the Saturn is that we develop it, but have lost most of the engineers from those days. I suspect that it will take much longer to develop something similar these days.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Not true. Russian Energia can lift considerably more than Saturn. (175 tons to LEO in the maximum configuration, although only lighter configurations have actually flown). There just hasn't been much demand for this sort of capability, so the last Energia sits mothballed in a hangar...
--
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
If you had enough money, you could buy an Energia launch from RSC Energia - but not a Saturn launch from NASA. (Well, maybe you could with really enough money...)
--
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
That is not true. The RD-170 engines for the boosters are still in production for the zenit sea launch vehicles. And the first stage of the zenit vehicle was used as the booster rockets of the energia. So the only thing you would have to do would be to resume production of the core stage.
The problem is that there is no demand for such large payloads. But if you gave the russians a