Slashdot Mirror
ESA Completes Important Step Toward Vega Launcher
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."
Is anyone researching fuel free launches?
...or possibly using a HUGE rubber band to send a capsule flying into space.
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.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
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.
I think Europe just wants a complete complement of space technologies at their disposal; they don't want to depend on either the Americans or the Chinese to provide it for them, neither for research satellites nor for military ones.
To back up my assertion that the vega is not competitive: here are a few launch prices:
The vega 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.
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
i know you are kidding, but there are fuel free research. some almost exact replicas of Verne's canon. Of course, since you have to travel through dense atmosphere for a _long_time_, 7.9km/s is not nearly enough.
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.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
"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!"
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?
Exactly. The reason why ESA is developing its own line of launchers is because they want to ensure independent European access to space - both for heavy loads (Ariane 5) and lighter loads (Vega). Perhaps ESA will also incorporate the EADS Phoenix shuttle in its launcher family, which would give us independent manned access to space as well. I believe that this is where we might be going, and I would gladly see more money go to European space research. The Aurora programme is especially intriguing.
You forget many readers are from the US and they are becoming increasingly concerned that their technological lead in space is being eroded. I think the US really would prefer to have all other countries depend on it for satellite and space access.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
what technological lead
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
stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
Then why has the ESA been issuing so many statements about trying to keep up with the US?
Make a modern space-plane like the shuttle, and strap it to the back of a modified large commercial jet-aircraft like a 747, as seen here. Then use the concept used by Scaled Composits for SpaceShipOne, to bring the space plane up to a high altitude and release it there. It then continues into orbit using rocket power.
:)
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 problem. Planes can do that; even 747s
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 were designed to be all-weather from the beginning.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
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.
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. Imagine having to work on a launch vehicle full of highly explosive propellant. A liquid fueled launch vehicle on the other hand gets fueled on the pad, so as long as it is in the assembly building it is just a bunch of totally inert metal. Even if you can control the risk, the safety precautions make assembling the solid-fueled launcher much more expensive.
The first falcon I launch will be in this summer, and the first falcon V launch will be in the fall of next year if all goes according to plan. The first vega launch will be in 2006.
Conspiracy theory time! I wonder what the throw weight is, say, halfway around the globe?
About three to four tons. But that was just a joke. It could be used as an ICBM though.
--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
Property is a central economic institution of any society, and private property is the central institution of a free society.
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 few billion USD they could certainly reactivate the energia.
--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
Reasons this story is interesting: Space frontier: A new rocket is developed Economic: It will have to compete with the cheap decommissioned Russian ICBMs Technological: solid fuel (aka firework material) that is harnessed to produce thrust Geekly: the test reported refers to the casting process for the solid fuel using an inert alternative (which? sugar cake - yamm!) Flamebait: another stage for US-European space antagonism Italians in space: it is mostly an Italian project within ESA
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!
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 on an Ariane 5), and this alone can cause some scheduling complications.
Tell that to the Russian Navy. They just had a misfire of one of their Cold War era manufactured ICBMs a couple of weeks ago. Dnepr, also known as the SS-18 Satan ICBM, was signed out of use by Reagan and Gorbachev. These launchers are old refurbished ICBMs people.