1
Launch vehicles: Discussion
2
Launch vehicles: Discussion
1. Short overview of future launchers
2. Set-up of discussion
3. Let's talk rockets!
3
Fact:
More launch vehicles are currently in
development than those that have ever been
operational since 1957.
4
Major developments
Market-focused
Expendable solids
Re-usability
Assisted launches
Advent of small launchers
Revival of ...
5
Themes
Overarching goal
★ Reduce cost of accessing space
Other developments
★ Payload-return capabilities (X-37b, ISV)
★...
6
7
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 (> Satu...
9
SLS: Some arguments
● SLS = “Senate Launch System”
● “There should be a commercial launcher instead.”
● “Cost of BN$10 t...
10
11
Falcon Heavy: Brute Force Rocket
● Two-stage-to-orbit
● LOX-Kerosene combination
● 53,000 kg to LEO (vs. Delta IV Heavy...
12
Falcon Heavy: Some arguments
● “Which market?”
● “Customers do not want to launch multiple
payloads at the same time ( ...
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,...
14
15
Ariane 6
● Single major concern: market needs
● “Triple 7 goals”
– 7 years development
– 7 tons to GTO (actually, now 6...
16
Ariane 6: Some arguments
● “Smaller commsats? Where is the evidence?”
● “Focus on commsats? What about agency missions?...
17
18
StratoLaunch
● Initially:
– 2 x 747 & SpaceX (did not want to change design)
● Now:
– Scaled Composites & Orbital Scien...
19
Stratolaunch: Some arguments
● “What if engine fails to ignite?”
(was especially of concern with initial
liquid-fueled ...
20
21
We live in the most exciting time since Apollo
22
DEBATE
23
Claim #1—Super-heavy Launchers
SLS is the wrong way to go for NASA. There should be a
commercial development program fo...
24
Claim #2—Ariane 6 focus
AR-6 should focus on satisfying current market needs
rather than representing a sovereign heavy...
25
Claim #3—Launcher Policy
Defence capability synergies with orbital rockets are
still essential for the selection of fut...
26
Claim #4—Human Spaceflight
The AR-6 should have the possibility to be
human-rated.
27
Claim #5—Small Payloads
Assisted launchers for small payloadswill be a
game-changer in the market.
28
Claim #6—Launcher ecology
“Green” or “Bio”-Propellants should be a driver for the
Ariane 6 propulsion system.
29
Claim #7—Small Payloads
Dedicated small launchers will replace piggy backing
for small satellites.
30
Claim #8—Assisted Launches
Stratolaunch will mark a (re)naissance of air launched
vehicles.
31
Claim #9—Payload Return
Europe should develop the capability to return
payloads from space.
32
© NASA
@SocietyVisViva +Society Vis Viva /SocietyVisViva
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Future launch vehicles and trends on the launcher market - Debate / Discussion - Vis Viva

834 views
681 views

Published on

What are the current initiatives for private Mars exploration? What are their chances of success? These and other questions were discussed at the first bi-weekly meeting of Vis Viva, the Society for Space Professionals.

Our group of space enthusiasts has greatly evolved throughout the past six months since its foundation. If you like discussing space topics, please contact us and join us for debating the most recent developments in the industry.

This debate was hosted by Ingo Gerth at our first bi-weekly meeting in Delft, March 11, 2013.

https://twitter.com/SocietyVisViva
https://www.facebook.com/SocietyVisViva
http://www.visviva.nl

==============

It shall be pointed out that our meetings are about more than just slides—they are about the interaction of our Fellows. Vis Viva offers a forum for the active discussion of space topics, and so our talks are lively get-together with a permanent conversation of the speaker and the audience. Since just slides cannot get this across, we kindly invite you to join one of our bi-weekly activities.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
834
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Future launch vehicles and trends on the launcher market - Debate / Discussion - Vis Viva

  1. 1. 1 Launch vehicles: Discussion
  2. 2. 2 Launch vehicles: Discussion 1. Short overview of future launchers 2. Set-up of discussion 3. Let's talk rockets!
  3. 3. 3 Fact: More launch vehicles are currently in development than those that have ever been operational since 1957.
  4. 4. 4 Major developments Market-focused Expendable solids Re-usability Assisted launches Advent of small launchers Revival of super-heavy launchers
  5. 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. 6
  7. 7. 7
  8. 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. 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. 10
  11. 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. 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. 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. 14
  15. 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. 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. 17
  18. 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. 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. 20
  21. 21. 21 We live in the most exciting time since Apollo
  22. 22. 22 DEBATE
  23. 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. 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. 25 Claim #3—Launcher Policy Defence capability synergies with orbital rockets are still essential for the selection of future launch systems.
  26. 26. 26 Claim #4—Human Spaceflight The AR-6 should have the possibility to be human-rated.
  27. 27. 27 Claim #5—Small Payloads Assisted launchers for small payloadswill be a game-changer in the market.
  28. 28. 28 Claim #6—Launcher ecology “Green” or “Bio”-Propellants should be a driver for the Ariane 6 propulsion system.
  29. 29. 29 Claim #7—Small Payloads Dedicated small launchers will replace piggy backing for small satellites.
  30. 30. 30 Claim #8—Assisted Launches Stratolaunch will mark a (re)naissance of air launched vehicles.
  31. 31. 31 Claim #9—Payload Return Europe should develop the capability to return payloads from space.
  32. 32. 32 © NASA @SocietyVisViva +Society Vis Viva /SocietyVisViva

×