The European Space Agency is Funding Its Own Reusable Rocket (digitaltrends.com) 112
"SpaceX may be best known for revolutionizing rocket launches with its reusable rockets..." writes Digital Trends, but now, "Europe wants to get in on the action."
The European Space Agency (ESA) has announced it is developing its own reusable rocket engine...with the aim of making rocket launches considerably cheaper. The ESA described its planned engine as "the precursor of ultra-low-cost rocket propulsion that is flexible enough to fit a fleet of new launch vehicles for any mission and will be potentially reusable."
The French space agency CNES, along with the aerospace company Ariane Group, unveiled its plans for a reusable rocket last year. The ESA has now chosen to fully fund the Prometheus engine design to create a usable version that it hopes can be produced considerably cheaper — down to a tenth of the cost — than current options... The ESA will soon begin testing the hardware components of the Prometheus engine at the German Space Agency facilities in Lampoldshausen, Germany. It says it already has manufactured components including the turbo pump's turbine, pump inlet, and gas generator valves, and it is currently manufacturing main subsystems.
The aim is to finish the first combustion chamber model this month, then deliver the real version of this combustion chamber by the end of the year, before assembling a full demonstration version of the engine for testing by 2021.
The French space agency CNES, along with the aerospace company Ariane Group, unveiled its plans for a reusable rocket last year. The ESA has now chosen to fully fund the Prometheus engine design to create a usable version that it hopes can be produced considerably cheaper — down to a tenth of the cost — than current options... The ESA will soon begin testing the hardware components of the Prometheus engine at the German Space Agency facilities in Lampoldshausen, Germany. It says it already has manufactured components including the turbo pump's turbine, pump inlet, and gas generator valves, and it is currently manufacturing main subsystems.
The aim is to finish the first combustion chamber model this month, then deliver the real version of this combustion chamber by the end of the year, before assembling a full demonstration version of the engine for testing by 2021.
Best of luck (Score:3)
They are going to try to get cost efficiency as good or better than SpaceX, by getting multiple governments involved in the process at each point. Best of luck to them.
It seems to me that people want their governments to be fair, democratic, transparent, and a lot of other things that actually don't tend to increase efficiency.
Elon Musk wasn't careful to be "fair" in distributing the work to different countries, and different companies in each country. He doesn't have a three-year, transparent bidding process for each assembly. Actually he's kinda dictatorial - not what I want from my government. But it's efficient.
Re:Best of luck (Score:4, Insightful)
Cost is just one factor. The programme as a whole exists to maintain Europe's independent launch capability.
I don't think there is much in the way of bidding on this one, Airbus is basically the only company that can build rockets and they sort out their own suppliers of components.
Re: (Score:1)
Does Europe even have any independent launch capability to speak of in the first place? They've always relied primarily upon Russia and the US, and I don't see them changing that any time soon. This honestly smells a lot like Quaero [wikipedia.org], which was an ill-conceived project with the main goal of restoring French pride at the expense of the rest of Europe by copying something nice that the USA already had in its private sector. Especially so considering France itself is the most likely to benefit from this as Fran
Re: Best of luck (Score:3)
I must be imagining the Ariane rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ariane rockets are built by a consortium in which Airbus is a major shareholder.
Re:Best of luck (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, the current generation Ariane. The EU launches satellites with it, like the Galileo GNSS. Been doing it for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
permit the launching of a communications satellite aboard a Chinese rocket next month
So in other words the Chinese already had the technology, the USA needed it to get their satellite up. Hmm. I'm not saying that Clinton didn't do that, but your link doesn't support your case. Why is it that there's such a strong correlation between people who support Trump and errr... "statements which do not match the reality of the situation", let's say?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And once in office, the Democrat Clinton used his security to rape a powerless intern in the Oval Office?
It's amazing how you are able to articulate your opinion in such well written English while at the same time demonstrating some sever degraded brain function. I mean the history of your posts show a clear and worrying trend of mental retardation, but yet doesn't seem to be associated with the usual English impediment.
Re: (Score:2)
I am so glad I am not you.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realise that Arianespace was the original commercial launch service provider?
Re: (Score:3)
My big hope for this project is that it will allow ESA to stop using large solid fuel boosters. The biggest source of small debris in low Earth orbit (1 cm or less) is small flakes of aluminum/alumina from boosters that burn late in flight - either big boosters, or second stage rocket motors.
Large solid fuel boosters are the low tech/bigger hammer approach to reaching orbit. ESA, India, and the silly NASA SLS still use them, as do some Chinese rockets. Each nation that can move away from them is a good t
Re: Best of luck (Score:2)
I'm struggling to understand how the burnt propellant from large early stage solid fuel boosters ends up in orbit. The Ariane boosters are discarded in a suborbital trajectory and fall into the sea.
I can understand the issue with small upper stage motors, but not with the large P238/24 and P120 SRBs that Ariane 5 and 6 use (will use).
Re: Best of luck (Score:2)
Not happening, the solid boosters are so France can maintain its expertise for its SLBM's.
Re: (Score:2)
Not happening, the solid boosters are so France can maintain its expertise for its SLBM's.
I have always assumed that was the case for any nation which has them; they use their space program to support their infrastructure for manufacturing large solid rocket engines for ICBMs and SLBMs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are going to try to get cost efficiency as good or better than SpaceX, by getting multiple governments involved in the process at each point.
That's called an ideal outcome not a requirement. The ESA currently launches rockets. The ESA would prefer not to be dependent on the USA (much like the NASA was hurting as it was dependent on others). The ESA should continue to develop and conduct R&D and not just sit on an existing platform until the end of time.
Honestly the newsworthy item here is that there are still people launching disposable vehicles into space and *aren't* developing reusable systems. Everyone should regardless if they get to Sp
Re: (Score:3)
"It seems to me that people want their governments to be fair, democratic, transparent, and a lot of other things that actually don't tend to increase efficiency."
All of that stuff DOES increase efficiency. Democratic is how you get all of those other things, transparent is how you get fair and protect democracy, fair leads to efficient by ensuring that the right parties have the right jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
All of that stuff DOES increase efficiency. Democratic is how you get all of those other things, transparent is how you get fair and protect democracy, fair leads to efficient by ensuring that the right parties have the right jobs.
No, it really doesn't. Democratic tends to mean design by committee, which almost never works out very well. Having one single vision where somebody can make decisions that are subject purely to their own merit and best fit that vision is always going to win over each decision being subject to the whims of the community, or worse, multiple communities in this case. While democracy makes perfect sense for governing how people will live their lives and interact with one another, it's absolutely terrible for e
The government isn't designed to be *bad* (Score:2)
I think you nailed it at the end of your post:
> . emocratic tends to mean design by committee ... While democracy makes perfect sense for governing how people will live their lives and interact with one another, it's absolutely terrible for engineering.
We all know the expression "fast, cheap, good - pick two". The design of any system involves trade-offs.
Personally, I want a system for government designed to be fair, democratic, transparent, and accountable over one that is cheap and fast. Immediately ca
Re: (Score:2)
We all know the expression "fast, cheap, good - pick two". The design of any system involves trade-offs.
You can have all three if you have a good strategy.
The private company model is just faster and cheaper, not better.
In comparing the spacex rockets to the space shuttle, we can say it's definitely cheaper, the turnaround (based on previous rockets) is definitely faster, and I would say better in the sense that it is far less complex and there is far less that can go wrong, and far less work that needs to be done. Think about it: The shuttle needed two booster rockets along with a big fuel tank, and the re-entry system required all of those heat tiles that turned out to b
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. They way it works is this.
New improvements are made. The world learns from this, and improves on it. Efficiently, or inefficiently, with varying success, but thats the way it goes.
We move forward, not backward.
No country will fund a steam powered rocket anymore.
So it doesn't matter about your world view or your politics, us scientists & engineers will creep forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, I wish them luck.
If you think a few governments getting involved in a project will make the engineer's job easier, great.
My experience working with just a single government agency, which had to take orders from higher government bureaucracy, was that that it didn't make our work quicker or easier at all. Rather, it was things like a requirement to design new systems using standards that had been deprecated for 10 years at that point.
We'll see how it goes.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU project has a bigger problem. Not just does it have to execute its function reliably, but it also has to do so as cheaply as Space X's Falcon 9's. And a multi-gov't committee responsible for design (& doling out project pork "equally"), will be dumb lucky to design a recoverable rocket system as cost efficient as Space X. Most likely, they only get to 33% more expensive than Space X to launch, and they only use the rocket for military/gov't missions, and buy rocket rentals from Space X to save
Re: (Score:2)
As an engineer, you're certainly familiar with the phrase "fast, cheap, good - pick two". You understand that a design of any system involves trade-offs.
> So it doesn't matter about your world view or your politics
So my "politics", as I stated, is I prefer a government that is fair, democratic, transparent, and accountable over one that is cheap and fast. For example when Kim Jong-un says do something, they do it right away - there are no public hearings, it doesn't take 17 years and three administrati
Re: (Score:1)
a lofty goal, like many others the E.U. has , but im not sure about practical application , at $55mln they maybe might as well pay Elon but he's like all-American , right ? not really 'private'
if they succeed i will give it a standing ovation (well that is if they can before the next blitzkrieg that definitely seems more and more unavoidable here)
Re: (Score:1)
10 years behind (Score:2)
Re:10 years behind (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the reality is everyone is 10 years behind SpaceX. Don't forget that everyone mocked SpaceX for its ideas. All the established players thought nothing would come of it. SpaceX proceeded to prove them wrong and now the world (which doesn't want to rely on a private American company) gets to scramble to play catchup.
Now where have I heard that before... how many electric cars has GM shipped last month?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>to keep China on the back foot.
This about humanity, not racists. You can stay on Earth.
Re: 10 years behind (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They still mock SpaceX... every time a skunkworks StarShip pops it's lampooned on the junk media. Reality is that SpaceX is on a rapid development cycle and this happens. SpaceX knows that of course which is why they have a steady stream of StarShip prototypes running along the conveyor, each one more capable and smarter.
Re: (Score:2)
This will be good (Score:1)
Why? Just start SpaceX Europe, it's already done. (Score:2)
Re-inventing the wheel sounds like oh, so much fun.
Why not just invite Elon to start SpaceX Europe?
The SpaceX technology is done, debugged, mature, working.
Mark your calendars, ESA says they will have a demo unit available by the end of 2021.
Anyone want to make a wager on this prediction?
This is the same bunch that blew up a rocket in 1996 due to 64-bit floating point to 16-bit signed integer conversion.
The devil is in the details and SpaceX has learned how to iterate quickly and fail fast, put they run eve
Re:Why? Just start SpaceX Europe, it's already don (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's because European institutions are overwhelmingly protectionist. They don't want their money going to other countries like America - they want it at home where it can circulate around in their own economies. An interesting idea, that. When we Americans do it, it's bad, but when Europeans do it, it's good. Kind of a weird concept.
"Germany's economy minister, Peter Altmaier, on Tuesday officially launched a controversial plan aimed at developing the country's industrial sector and increasing its intern
Re: (Score:1)
I was listening until I read your sig, then I realised you were a parents basement dwelling racist. Keep it up, you will do well in life, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? Just start SpaceX Europe, it's already don (Score:4, Insightful)
We are protectionist for damn good reasons.
We can't send money via the existing channels because the US controls SWIFT, which means European countries and even governments are blocked from doing normal day to day business with countries and entities the US doesn't like. See the whole issue about dealing with Iran and also the interesting story about the US seizing a SWIFT payment between a German business and a Danish buyer because the goods involved were Cuban cigars.
We can't sell Airbus aircraft to whom we want, because the US blocks resale of US-made parts to countries and entities it has sanctions on.
Foreign companies around the world now can't sell computer technology to China because the US would treat it as a violation of sanctions, even if the technology is entirely yours - they are basing their ability on the fact that US software is used in the process.
So yeah, we are protectionist for damn good reasons - while the US likes to throw its weight around, all its doing is showing how much other countries need to limit Americas ability to interfere.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, let me count all the times America has turned it's back on Europe.
Hm, wait, hasn't happened.
Unless you're referencing us asking you to actually pay for NATO, etc?
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, let me count all the times America has turned it's back on Europe.
Hm, wait, hasn't happened.
Unless you're referencing us asking you to actually pay for NATO, etc?
You are forgetting those two minor wars? WWI and WWII where the U.S. had to be forced by the actions of Germany and Japan to join the Allies?
Re: (Score:1)
The US government was chomping at the bit to start a war. It was the American people who wanted no part of it. We were the ones who were going to do the dying, and we did. In massive numbers.
Have you read General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket"? [wanttoknow.info] You should. Here's a short excerpt.
Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
And the war indeed never reached the North American landmass.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
But that guy is an idiot, so lets just move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, let me count all the times America has turned it's back on Europe.
1914, 1915, 1916, 19... oh high guys! ... back already!?
1939, 1940, 194
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, let me count all the times America has turned it's back on Europe.
1914, 1915, 1916, 19... oh high guys! ... back already!?
1939, 1940, 194
But on Dec 7th 1941, Canada declared war on a super power in support of the U.S.. That is supporting an ally.
Re:Why? Just start SpaceX Europe, it's already don (Score:5, Insightful)
Re-inventing the wheel sounds like oh, so much fun.
No where near as fun as a world with only one vehicle platform run by only one company. I don't understand how Americans can at the same time hate monopolies providing their internet, but praise a world where the only shop is Amazon, the only restaurant is Taco Bell, and the only space agency is SpaceX.
Not only should everyone the rest of the world re-invent the wheel (it's how you drive technology forward through competition and diverse ideas like how SpaceX got founded in the first place), but Boeing and ULA should pull their finger out and start heading this direction too.
It reminds me of 3D printing. I could buy a PRUSA kit and put it together and be printing today or I could buy parts of Ebay, Amazon, and AliExpress and possibly be printing next month while running the risk of spending more and burning down my house.
False equivalency. If SpaceX is Prusa, that doesn't make the ESA's efforts Ebay, Amazon or anything else cheap. Rather it make's the ESA's efforts a quality Prusa clone following the ideas of the platform, but maybe with a Volcano extruder, or a Bear frame. Just like how the alternative to SpaceX isn't always cheap and nasty, the alternative to Prusa isn't always to burn your house down. (Sidenote: If your Prusa printer is still stock from how it was delivered you haven't even begun to unlock some of 3D printing's potential).
When you have reasonably priced mature technology available, USE IT!
Or do R&D and produce something even better rather than enriching single companies giving them monopoly status and stagnating the development of technology.
This post brought to you by someone who thought like me, deciding to develop yet other computer platform in an already busy market which inadvertently led to the commodification of the personal computer. I hope you're thankful to those people who don't think like you. Without them it's unlikely you'd be here posting right now.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that ESA is NOT moving rapidly towards building a F9 clone but is planning waste another decade building Ariane 6 and as a sop to reusability an almost useless sub-scale F9 clone. ESA claims that Prometheus will enable ESA to build a future reusable rocket but what they claim they are trying to prove is of almost no interest. We already know that re-use is workable by looking at F9. Instead of taking baby steps and trying to catch up to where Space-X was three years ago in a decade or so, ESA
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX's success wasn't overnight: they took 7-9 years to mature their idea for a reusable rocket into a working system.
It's unrealistic to expect Arianespace to repeat that in 1/3 of the time SpaceX took. So Arianespace needed a 2-part solution to their problem: the current Ariane 5 architecture is unsuitable as the basis for a reusable rocket, and it's very expensive to operate. So they decided to reduce costs NOW by building Ariane 6 using existing technology (halving their launch cost) while developing
Re: Why? Just start SpaceX Europe, it's already do (Score:2)
This is ironic, when the euro model for such massive projects is ENTIRELY non competitive, ENTIRELY rent-seeking massive pork distribution schemes spreading even functions like basic manufacturing pointlessly across dozens of locations chosen solely to serve political pie-sharing.
How's Galileo working out, beeteedubs? A380?
Yes, certainly the euros have a lot to teach Americans about capitalism and free enterprise.
Re:Why? Just start SpaceX Europe, it's already don (Score:5, Informative)
Space X is a verbatim implementation of the original Tsiolkovsky design from the 1930es. The only difference is modern engineering and the only truly inventive part are the aerodynamic controls. That both as design and implementation is an absolute gem.
The full design for the original Enegrya II (aka Hurricane) auxiliary boosters which specified winged landing for them probably still better, but the question is actually moot now. Musk has won so it will be a long time until someone attempts it. I bet ESA will just try to copy him.
The real winner is still not in play. The issue with ALL of them - SpaceX, ESA, Chinese, Roskosmos, ULA, etc is that pushing things higher and bigger is diminishing returns. You have to push the fuel and oxidizer every time. The winner in the race will be the one who will build the first viable space tug. Ion engine with nuclear electric feed. Something which can grab payload delivered to the minimal possible earth orbit and shove it to the final destination. Most of the bits for this including the ultra-compact nuclear reactor now exist. What is missing is cooling. If someone builds the cooling and launches that, they do not even need a very efficient launcher. They will murder the competition by being able to price launching to higher orbits at mere percentages of what Space X asks for at present. As they saying goes - "watch this space".
Re: (Score:2)
Ion engine with nuclear electric feed.
...will be very mass-inefficient, compared to even an ion engine with a solar electric power source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why not just invite Elon to start SpaceX Europe?
The SpaceX technology is done, debugged, mature, working.
You really expect the U.S. to allow the export of "U.S." Defense Technology? Doubt it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely because it is entirely built on all the hard work done on research in government projects like this.
open-cycle gas generator (Score:3)
It is a bit disappointing to see the big ugly exhaust port on the side of the Prometheus rocket engine, wasting propellant.
Not what you want to see on a new development.
Even the Space Shuttle main engine, designed in the 1970's, had a closed-cycle engine.
Is there any good reason to use the less efficient open cycle, or is Ariane Group just way behind?
Re: (Score:2)
Staged combustion is older than the shuttle and it is difficult and expensive.
Re:open-cycle gas generator (Score:4, Informative)
Is there any good reason to use the less efficient open cycle, or is Ariane Group just way behind?
Yes. The reasons are explained in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It's a long video so I'll summarize as best I can. One problem open cycle avoids is having to fight the full pressure of the rocket bell for running the pump power pack. Another problem this avoids is having the soot from a fuel rich cycle being fed into the rocket bell, this soot could clog injectors and lead to engine failure. This soot problem can be avoided by running the power pack on an oxidizer rich mix but liquid oxygen is very cold and when it gets hot it likes to burn through just about everything. As in burn through things like the metal parts that make up the pump power pack. Another way to avoid soot is to use liquid hydrogen as fuel but that has it's own set of problems, such as the cost of the fuel.
It took SpaceX a long time and a lot of work to figure out how to use a closed cycle on their pumps. This will likely pay off in time but whether this was necessary to the success of their rockets, or optimal in anything besides fuel burned, will certainly be debated.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I have already watched that video. I thought that SpaceX had solved these problems, and soot is not such a problem with methane anyway, as it is with kerosene.
Everything SpaceX did was incremental improvements on those who came before, for which they paid no royalties. Are the advances not patented or otherwise made public?
or optimal in anything besides fuel burned
Fuel is cheap (on the ground). It is all about payload for a given delta-V. As we know, especially in the upper stage, the increased Ve of closed cycle can make a big in
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It is a bit disappointing to see the big ugly exhaust port on the side of the Prometheus rocket engine, wasting propellant. Not what you want to see on a new development.
Sort of like Musk using the old heavy common 301 stainless steel in Starship instead of lighter, more modern materials. Not what you want to see.
Oh wait, maybe that is is what you want to see when total cost of the system over its (reusable) lifetime is considered.
The cost of a gas generator is a slightly lower specific impulse, in exchange for a simpler (read cheaper), more reliable (read cheaper), lighter (read cheaper) hardware design. Can't be that those European engineers did a sophisticated design tra
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like Musk using the old heavy common 301 stainless steel in Starship instead of lighter, more modern materials. Not what you want to see.
Actually, I was delighted. But maybe because I studied a bit of materials science back in the day, and steel is an awesome material, especially if you want re-use.
And I know how Columbia failed. I've seen a lot of problems with composites too.
Now I'm no rocket scientist, and the closed-cycle Raptor is yet to be flight-proven. (Shuttle was hydrogen-oxygen, so not a direct comparison, but does provide a lesson in maintenance). But I hear so much hype about the full-flow staged combustion, and the extra up-f
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like Musk using the old heavy common 301 stainless steel in Starship instead of lighter, more modern materials.
Lighter and more modern for what? Hot structure of a reentry vehicle that is simultaneously a cryogenic tank? They say they did their calculations but that the "old heavy common 301 stainless steel" actually turned out to be the *more lightweight* alternative compared to "more modern materials".
Re: (Score:1)
Practicality and cost effectiveness is more important than the fuel cycle used.Fuel is the cheapest part of spaceflight.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel is the cheapest part of spaceflight.
No kidding. We are not talking about cars here. Fuel (more accurately, propellant) cost has nothing to do with the need for propulsive efficiency.
Though it is part of the reason for choosing methane over hydrogen.
You can't just "add more fuel" to a rocket. A small increase in launch mass (with same thrust etc) means a big decrease in payload, especially when you need to carry extra weight for landing. That is not very cost effective or practical.
Full re-use requires greater efficiency. It looks like
Re: (Score:1)
Well, when designing a rocket you can just "add more fuel". We're talking about satellites and the occasional planet mission. Maybe adding a couple meters to the rocket is easier than going for an ideal engine.
I know making a larger rocket is more expensive, but rocket engines themselves are also expensive. If a 10% larger fuel tank saves you 20% maybe it's worth it. I'm not an expert so I made those numbers up.
>That is not very cost effective or practical.
Falcon 9 says it was, and is.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe adding a couple meters to the rocket is easier than going for an ideal engine.
I know making a larger rocket is more expensive, but rocket engines themselves are also expensive. If a 10% larger fuel tank saves you 20% maybe it's worth it.
Don't forget you need to add more rocket engines to maintain the thrust-to-weight ratio. So there go your savings?
From my back-of-envelope calculations, I guess you don't need closed-cycle for a booster, as 6% Ve increase gives only about the same initial/final mass ratio improvement. But for a re-usable upper stage, i see a 10% better ratio. And if payload is only say 30% of your orbital mass, adding 10% total means 33% more payload!
I'm guessing SpaceX could have gotten away
GOOD! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, "SpaceX already did it" but that only proves it's possible. SpaceX shouldn't have monopoly on reusable rockets just because they did it first. Regardless of who controls it, monopolies are not good. It's also good to have a diversity in designs because there is no perfect design which means the designs will continue to evolve in interesting directions. A diversity of minds promotes innovation!
SpaceX was started in the hopes that it would interest people in space travel and by all measures it's been a success. Godspeed and good luck ESA.
Also helps SpaceX (Score:1)
Can only be good to have competition as it helps provide motivation, and the more people working on rockets the more good design ideas will exist, along with a wider talent pool.
Re:"Me too!" (Score:5, Interesting)
Europe wants independent access to space because of what happened when they didn't. In the early 1970s, Europe was ahead of everyone else in the development of commercial telecommunications satellites. They were hoping to launch the Symphonie [wikipedia.org] satellite on a Europa II rocket. When that programme collapsed, they asked the US to launch the sat.
The US agreed, on one condition: the satellite could not be used for commercial purposes.
That gave Europe the impulse to found ESA and start development of the Ariane rocket. In the 4 decades that followed, ESA and Ariane kicked everyone's ass when it came to commercial space exploitation.
In the 1970s, ESA looked at making the Ariane reusable. They had a technically viable plan, but at the time and with the launch market that existed then, there was no way to make it cost-effective.
I don't see much evidence of me-tooism in Europe. Thankfully, we don't copy the US or other countries slavishly, we just copy approaches that make sense. the SpaceX method for reusable spaceflight makes sense.
Re: (Score:1)
Can they do anything that the Americans didn't do first?
You do know that the 13 colonies that eventually rebelled and became the U.S. did so using technologies and institutions first evolved in Europe right? It was the English who invented the tank and the Germans who expanded the concept into mechanized warfare. The rockets launched now are descended from German designs. The A-Bomb was developed from European science with many European scientists being involved.
Look at most of what you teach in your schools and it is almost all derived from what Europeans
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>The US has kept Europe free from the wars it started for 75 years
Korean war?
Middle east?
What planet you from?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, start two world wars! That's what all that intelligence and culture got them. (i'm half joking)
Look at how many countries the U.S. currently had combat troops deployed in and how many they are bombing (and killing civilians). This in spite of Trump campaigning on pulling out of those countries. How many fewer are being bombed than when Trump took office? Has he even stopped in ONE country?
Re: (Score:1)
You're not giving Trumf full credit: He did desert the American allies in Syria, and leave it all to Putin.
The U.S. isn't out a Syria and the troops that were removed stayed in the middle east. So no credit. He promised to end the wars and bring troops home. Do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ego is entertainingly wrapped up in the idea that America (and therefore you by association) is superior to Europe. Thing is though even if the first bit is true, the second isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
What, like radar?
Government Spending (Score:1)
Chinese and Russian opportunity (Score:1)
French (Score:1)
French makes things different just to be different. Not to make it better.
They do not know about electricity. Half the French cars on streets has only one forward light working. The other is blown.
Need the Germans to build it
Re: (Score:1)
French makes things different just to be different. Not to make it better.
They do not know about electricity. Half the French cars on streets has only one forward light working. The other is blown.
Need the Germans to build it
Says the nation that changed spelling and pronunciation of words to change English into American English just to be different. Also changed the Imperial System gallon into the U.S. Gallon. What else did the U.S. change just to be different from the English?
Re: French (Score:2)
Says the nation that changed spelling and pronunciation of words to change English into American English just to be different.
It's hilarious that you think he's american. You're completely tone deaf.
Also changed the Imperial System gallon into the U.S. Gallon. What else did the U.S. change just to be different from the English?
Took the concept of guilty until proven innocent, and turned it into innocent until proven guilty.
Improved on the sheep-intestine based condom by first removing the intestines from the sheep.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! Reminds me of an old joke:
If you see a weird and complex technical solution to a simple problem it is either Swiss or French. How do you know which?
If it works, it is Swiss.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's see, Concorde - white elephant. A380 - white elephant.
Let's do it again! Another white elephant! They can build it, then give up again.
They're so cute at that age... (Score:2)
I've studied the trends in EU legislation and regulation in the last ten years, and it invariably leads to a failure of their plan.
Europe has regulated itself out of any reasonable market. They like to think that the EU is like the US, lots of states working together as one big nation, but reality is that nationalism, pride, and anti-other-country sentiments make it impossible to get cooperation without significant cost.
It is VERY possible that if this project was handed to one company (someone suggested A
Re: (Score:2)
For someone who pretends to be able to read legislation, you are remarkably stupid: it says right in TFS that this is being handed to one company: Ariane Group.
Re: (Score:1)
For someone who pretends to be able to read legislation, you are remarkably stupid: it says right in TFS that this is being handed to one company: Ariane Group.
Lol, you might want to look up who "Ariane Group" is. It's not one company.
Hint: The word "Group" is in their title. It's not "ArianeSpace".
It includes several French companies AND their subcontractors. It's a hodgepodge of companies working together.
That's not bad on the face of it, but it's not ONE company.
For someone who pretends to comment on things, you are remarkably stupid.
Now try moving the eye-thingie and engaging the brain-thingie instead of the writing-mouth thingie.
E
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You said:
it says right in TFS that this is being handed to one company
Then when I pointed out it isn't you said:
Oooh, it's a consortium.
And because you have the manners of a goat you added:
...you are remarkably stupid.
No. That's not how it works. We'll see what slashdot readers and mods think.
Have a great Monday calling everyone morons while ignoring the facts.
Also the EU will not have a reusable rocket *EVER*. With every regulation to limit US companies the EU assures itself of mediocrity.
This is no different.
Have a great week, or as they say in Europe "[oh shit, they don't have such a thing because they can't ev
Re: (Score:2)
Let me spell it out to you: Ariane Group is as much a company as Airbus is.
Now go and continue living in your Fox-inspired bubble view of Europe.
Or to simplify it for you: fuck off.
Re: (Score:1)
Let me spell it out to you: Ariane Group is as much a company as Airbus is.
Now go and continue living in your Fox-inspired bubble view of Europe.
Or to simplify it for you: fuck off.
Look, it's clear you like to make up things. the Ariane Group is not a company like Airbus. As I said before "they are a consortium". I know it's a tough word ... but I explained it... so try looking it up.
As for your suggestion that I fuck off, thank you for providing me options. I offer you the same, except I also suggest you close that "talky-talky" thing you can't seem to fix, that keeps saying things without the "thinky-thinky" thing involved.
There will NEVER be a reusable rocket from the EU. Not
Leapfrog SpaceX (Score:1)
SpaceX have essentially leapfrogged all launch competitors by creating reusable rockets. But which technologies could potentially leapfrog SpaceX?
Emdrive? Yes, if it works.
Spaceplanes? Probably, since air breathing engines are much more efficent than rocket enginges.
Some kind of nuclear rocket (fission or fusion) that actually is usable for launches?
ESA should put some money into every opportunity while making their rockets reusable.
Good Luck ESA, you're going to need it (Score:3)
SpaceX has been working on reusable engines/systems for close to two decades and they're just beginning (in industry terms) to make some headway in re-usability. I'm guessing that a governmental agency, even a well managed/funded one, is going to take as long if not longer to achieve the same levels. And that's just to get to where SpaceX currently is. While it's been a bumpy road, if SpaceX can get their issues with Starship/Super Heavy sorted out, by the time the ESA has their partly reusable rocket up and running SpaceX will have a fully reusable one with orders of magnitude more capability. They'd probably be better to focus on a real next gen reusable rocket (Venture Star/MUSTARD/Skylon type) that might actually be relevant by the time it's development is completed rather than something that will be 10-20 years out of date by the time it rolls off the assembly line.
European pride (Score:1)