The document discusses various developments in launch vehicles, including the increasing number in development compared to those that have been operational. Major topics of discussion include efforts to reduce launch costs through reusable and smaller launchers, decreasing government involvement, and developing environmentally friendly propulsion systems. Specific vehicles discussed include the SLS, Falcon Heavy, and Ariane 6, along with perspectives on their capabilities and debates around appropriate roles and designs.

1. 1
Launch vehicles: Discussion

2. 2
Launch vehicles: Discussion
1. Short overview of future launchers
2. Set-up of discussion
3. Let's talk rockets!

3. 3
Fact:
More launch vehicles are currently in
development than those that have ever been
operational since 1957.

4. 4
Major developments
Market-focused
Expendable solids
Re-usability
Assisted launches
Advent of small launchers
Revival of super-heavy launchers

5. 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. 6

7. 7

8. 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. 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. 10

11. 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. 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. 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. 14

15. 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. 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. 17

18. 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. 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. 20

21. 21
We live in the most exciting time since Apollo

22. 22
DEBATE

23. 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. 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. 25
Claim #3—Launcher Policy
Defence capability synergies with orbital rockets are
still essential for the selection of future launch systems.

26. 26
Claim #4—Human Spaceflight
The AR-6 should have the possibility to be
human-rated.

27. 27
Claim #5—Small Payloads
Assisted launchers for small payloadswill be a
game-changer in the market.

28. 28
Claim #6—Launcher ecology
“Green” or “Bio”-Propellants should be a driver for the
Ariane 6 propulsion system.

29. 29
Claim #7—Small Payloads
Dedicated small launchers will replace piggy backing
for small satellites.

30. 30
Claim #8—Assisted Launches
Stratolaunch will mark a (re)naissance of air launched
vehicles.

31. 31
Claim #9—Payload Return
Europe should develop the capability to return
payloads from space.

32. 32
© NASA
@SocietyVisViva +Society Vis Viva /SocietyVisViva