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."
It will also be sharing technology with the Ariane-5 program
I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
Text on the Vega.
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.
Vega is a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) launcher. There isn't a commercial market for low earth orbit satellites. Commercial satellites want GEO (geosynchronous orbit). The US military is not going to outsource to ESA (they aren't Indian). So I dont see the point of Vega. If I was doing research and needed a LEO for taking pictures or whatever, I would go with the cheaper reliable Chinese launcher.
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/
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: 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 and can't launch in bad weather. So where does this thing fall, somewhere in between? Even more fiddly than Ariane? Less complex than Soyuz?
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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 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.
Vega is a solid-fueled launcher based on the Ariane V boosters. Solid-fueled launchers are great for the military since they can launch at a moments notice, but other than that they are a big PITA.
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.
--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
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.
Chinese can lauch multiple satellites too, you know. However, once a rocket bites the dust, several satellites go with it instead of one.
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...
My life in the land of the rising sun.
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".
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...
--
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
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.
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...)
--
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
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.