Author Topic: More developed European Space Agency/Program  (Read 19962 times)

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #25 on: October 09, 2014, 11:03:13 AM »
Elmayerle, are you visualising Ariane type boosters being used by the ESA, or the older Blue Steel derived vehicles? Timeframe wise, the Blue Steel would allow the Europeans decent sized launch capability by the early 70s.
To start with, I could see them beginning with Blue Streak -->Black Knight -->Black Prince for immediate launch capability while developing new, Ariane-type, boosters.  I would hope the new boosters would be designed to be ganged together like the Delta 4 Heavy and Falcon 9 Heavy concepts.  Too, given when lifting body designs were first developed, I could see the ESA reusable upper stage "shuttle" being one rather than the classic Von Braun concept as illustrated by Chesley Bonestell.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2014, 11:05:26 AM by elmayerle »

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #26 on: October 09, 2014, 11:10:31 AM »
The Shuttle and the ISS are what killed the US space program.  The US did nothing worthwhile in space during the Shuttle period, other than lob some people into LEO. Over and over again.
If the Space Station (originally Space Station Alpha) had been built in the original time frame instead of Congress sending it back for multiple re-designs, we might have done more.  OTOH, if I'm reading Encyclopedia Astronautica correctly, I'd much rather have the Russian module at the core of the ISS in that usage rather than it's original purpose, as the hub of a space battle station to counter the Strategic Defense Initiative.  Of course, I'll contend that a large chunk of the problem with NASA is that the dreamers moved on and the bureaucrats moved in; of all the agencies of the US Government that I've dealt with, NASA probably left the worst taste in my mouth.

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2014, 09:36:35 PM »
Elmayerle, are you visualising Ariane type boosters being used by the ESA, or the older Blue Steel derived vehicles? Timeframe wise, the Blue Steel would allow the Europeans decent sized launch capability by the early 70s.

Alvis 3.1

Think you mean Blue Streak rather than Blue Steel. Before Ariane there was Europa, which used Blue Streak as it's first stage, and it turned out to be the only bit of it that actually worked reliably. My proposed European rocket would use Blue Streak technology, although not neccessarily being limited to literally using the same components.

Oops, yes, that's what I was thinking of.

A lack of any sort of clear goal is currently what appears to be hampering manned spaceflight. This is what happens when you don't follow the Von Braun method. First, build a space plane. Use it to assemble a space station. Use the space station to launch your lunar and Mars missions.
That stupid space race in the 60s completely screwed that idea right up, so you have the moon missions coming first, then a space station, and then last the shuttle.
It's been argued elsewhere the competition between the US and the USSR is what has led to a demise of manned exploration, but modern micro-electronics has a large hand in it as well. When you can send a rover to Mars instead of astronauts, the costs outweigh the golly gee factor. Arthur C Clarke figured that without the modern communications satellite, we'd have a very robust manned program just to service the bulky electronic devices 1950s technology would have required.

The Shuttle was designed around a payload size dictated by the DOD. This drove size and cross range capabilities far past what NASA had desired from the get go. Jumping into partnership with DOD had advantages, like a budget, but cost them in other areas as well. Back to the original idea...how would being in a partnership with the Europeans limit or expand NASA's options?

Alvis 3.1

Offline Frank3k

  • Excession
  • Global Moderator
  • Formerly Frank2056. New upgrade!
    • My new webpage
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2014, 10:00:06 PM »
A lack of any sort of clear goal is currently what appears to be hampering manned spaceflight. This is what happens when you don't follow the Von Braun method. First, build a space plane. Use it to assemble a space station. Use the space station to launch your lunar and Mars missions.

The Von Braun plan would have given us a true space infrastructure: a useful station (with artificial gravity and resupply capabilities) and tugs/ferries for orbital construction and exploration. Repeat on the Moon and you have construction supplies, radiation shielding and a forward base to explore the rest of the solar system.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #29 on: October 09, 2014, 10:14:50 PM »
If memory serves me correctly (and it was a fair while ago), the size of the shuttle's cargo bay was determined by a notional standard module size for a Mars mission vehicle to be assembled in orbit.

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #30 on: October 09, 2014, 10:29:52 PM »
We're definitely not where we could have been, but we're also nowhere near what may have happened, with no manned flight at all. I really keep expecting to see the plug pulled on that in my lifetime, more so than a new manned mission to anywhere. I sure hope I'm really wrong on that. I've seen at least 3 "return to the moon" ideas end with a change in administrations. It's really disheartening.

I've been eyeing the re-issued Von Braun launchers Lindberg has brought out, with an eye to give them the more "modern" NASA style paint schemes. Some of his ideas were impractical but were glorious to look at. I've always been amazed at how far he was able to push space flight.

Alvis 3.1

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2014, 01:55:20 AM »
Of course you have to wonder what would have eventuated if more folk had paid attention to what Goddard was doing in New Mexico (you have to wonder if "someone" was, given that he was working in Roswell, NM) as his 1940 efforts had every feature that the V-2's motor did.

Still, I agree that we're not doing as much as we could here.  Of course, I could argue that the bureaucrats running NASA brook no competition if they can avoid it (they took DC-X over from BMDO and managed to break it without developing a replacement and went with the most technically challenging X-33 concept (I'd argue that composite hydrogen tankage was a challenge too far, but...).

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2014, 03:35:56 AM »
Folks,

Please try to keep to the thread topic which is about a "More developed European Space Agency/Program"!

Regards,

Greg
« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 03:44:26 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2014, 06:16:01 AM »
getting back on the European track as our Fearless Leader reminds us, would the small orbiter of more developed European sapce effort be a delta-winged vehicle like Von Braun's concepts or might it be an early high-speed lifting body concept?  I know that lifting bodies were being studied by the mid-1960's.  Would it, perhaps, draw on teh developmental experience from Concorde?  Lots of possibilities here (imagine a Concorde prototype used as a supersonic drop-test launch vehicle) that could make for very interesting concepts.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2014, 03:39:01 PM »
getting back on the European track as our Fearless Leader reminds us, would the small orbiter of more developed European sapce effort be a delta-winged vehicle like Von Braun's concepts or might it be an early high-speed lifting body concept?  I know that lifting bodies were being studied by the mid-1960's.  Would it, perhaps, draw on teh developmental experience from Concorde?  Lots of possibilities here (imagine a Concorde prototype used as a supersonic drop-test launch vehicle) that could make for very interesting concepts.


In my mind's eye, the European spaceplane is more Von Braun-like, because it's actually more similar, aerodynamically speaking, to a 1960s Skylon, in that it carries a large amount of empty tankage into orbit in order to reduce it's density on re-entry, which in turn leads to a more benign heating curve than the NASA shuttle. That means it's shape doesn't have to be driven by re-entry considerations so much, which was a major factor behind the lifting body studies.

Here's a thought: could you design a liquid fuel rocket motor that used two different fuels with the same oxidiser? The reason I ask is that putting kerosene in the spaceplane's wing would offset some of it's drag/weight/cost penalty at lift off, but I doubt that the volume would be enough for the whole third-stage fuel requirement. You could go for all-kerosene with more fuel in the fuselage, but kerosene isn't the most efficient rocket fuel, just one of the more convenient ones (no pressurisation or cooling required and not outrageously horrible to handle), so I was wondering if you could have, say, liquid hydrogen in the fuselage and kerosene in the wings and mix both in the combustion chamber with the oxidiser of your choice.

In my concept Concorde never happened, which is one of the sources of cash for the ESA programme. It's been said that Concorde was "Europe's moonshot": in my world, we actually had that moonshot (eventually) instead.

Logically, I suppose you could argue that a Mirage IV airframe would be a better spaceplane analogue than a Mirage III for training purposes, but I originally came up with the idea because I've bought a Falcon 3 x 3-seaters conversion in which the Mirage IIIF bits were surplus to requirements.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2014, 01:50:59 AM »
Dual-fuel liquid-fueled rocket engines are possible, but they get complicated; I'd look at staying with a Kerosine/LOX engine (or, if you wanted something that was highly energetic yet safe to store, go with JP10/LOX.  You need a bit of extra work with the aromatic molecules in JP10, but it would give more "oomph" that straight kerosene).  Another advantage to this approach is that it simplifies using attachable jet engines for ferry flights.

Yeah, I can see going with a delta for the first generation since they'd have experience with that configuration.  With no Concorde, would they still be experimenting with blended-delta planforms?  Alternatively, they get part-way into research for Concorde before going this route and the BAC 221 ends up being a chase plane for the trainer and the ESA shuttle.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 10:26:12 AM by elmayerle »

Offline aerospacer

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2014, 02:28:21 AM »
Weaver,

as elmayerle stated, dual fuel or tripropellant rocket engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripropellant_rocket would certainly be more complex than conventional ones, but there has been some (mostly analytic) work, and even your exact idea of putting the kerosene in wing tanks has been considered in this context http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld039.htm. The concept was pioneered by Robert Salkeld in the Sixties, and in the late Eighties/early Nineties the Russians developed and tested some experimental engines to demonstrate the technology for their tripropellant RD-701 and RD-704 engine concepts. The complexity of a combined engine could be alleviated somewhat by using separate engines for the different operational phases, but of course that has geometric and mass disadvantages and would certainly reduce any potential performance advantage. Still, it could be interesting to speculate on how the French HM-4/HM-7 development line of cryogenic engines from the late Sixties/early Seventies (with the HM-4 being the first cryogenic rocket engine developed outside the USA) could be combined with the kerosene fuelled Rolls Royce RZ2 engine technology of the Blue Streak...

Martin
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline aerospacer

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2014, 03:27:14 AM »
With reliable, cost effective transportation to orbit (and back) being a prerequisite for a successful and sustainable space program, I think the various European Aerospace Transporter Studies from the Sixties, some of which are shown in Figure 9 of the paper at http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/new_opportunities_in_commercial_space.shtml, would make a good point of departure for alternate history considerations and associated designs.

Martin
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 03:30:23 AM by aerospacer »
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2014, 03:41:04 AM »
Is this the image you were referring to?

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline aerospacer

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2014, 03:44:47 AM »
That's it, GTX. I wasn't sure about potential copyright issues, which is why I didn't post it directly.

Martin
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 03:46:20 AM by aerospacer »
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2014, 04:17:15 AM »
A European effort based on something like these Dassault proposals from the early '60s might be interesting:



All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #41 on: October 19, 2014, 01:20:02 PM »
That would be very interesting structurally.  I wonder how they would maintain sufficient torsional stiffness once the spaceplane and booster were launched?

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #42 on: October 19, 2014, 11:48:13 PM »
I suspect that the structure over that area is probably rather on the massively reinforced side (I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that the stress analysis and applying the results would be rather challenging).

My own personal favorites are the BAC and HSA proposals.  I could see that HSA booster stage, or a derivative of t, as the launch stage for the Orion used in 2001 per Clarke's novelization.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #43 on: October 20, 2014, 02:04:59 AM »
What about a winged Europa?  Maybe give the Europa first stage the ability to fly back for re-use?

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #44 on: October 20, 2014, 02:38:44 AM »
One that people might appreciate in light of this thread topic:  The Ministry of Space (Also known as “Briiiiiits iiiiin Spaaaaace!”). Created by Mr.Bluenote
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #45 on: October 20, 2014, 03:36:09 AM »
I'm very intrigued by the idea of a Concorde-like booster. I see they were thinking of lift jets in the manned thried stage though...egads!

Alvis 3.1

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #46 on: October 20, 2014, 04:25:33 AM »
What about a winged Europa?  Maybe give the Europa first stage the ability to fly back for re-use?
Something like the flyback Saturn 5 booster studies or something more like a fairing with a deployable Rogallo wing and an adequate control and navigation system to bring it back gently to a predetermined location?  Parenthetically, it's amusing that the Rogallo wing started from a study to bring Gemini back safely to a landing, rather than a splashdown, and ended up being the starting point for a lot of the early ultralight efforts.

What would be nice for Europa would be to return in a manner that Musk is working toward for the Falcon 9, but I doubt the requisite technology, including electronics, existed in the 1960s.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #47 on: October 20, 2014, 08:18:22 AM »
I suspect that the structure over that area is probably rather on the massively reinforced side (I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that the stress analysis and applying the results would be rather challenging).

Exactly.  Looks pretty in the pictures though...

Quote
My own personal favorites are the BAC and HSA proposals.  I could see that HSA booster stage, or a derivative of t, as the launch stage for the Orion used in 2001 per Clarke's novelization.

I like the BAC triple spaceplane.  You'd get at least some economies of scale with that, while two would have their bays filled with fuel tanks, the middle one would carry the orbital load.  IIRC it was called "Mustard".

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #48 on: October 20, 2014, 09:39:39 PM »
Yep, the BAC triple spaceplane was called MUSTARD: Multi-Use Space Transport And Return Device. A rare example of British industry coming up with a good, catchy marketing-driven acronym - somebody would need shooting if they didn't paint it yellow...........

There were a whole bunch of different configurations studied, with manned and unmanned spaceplanes and boosters, different numbers of each and combinations of MUSTARD boosters and conventional upper stages. I like MUSTARD for an all-British effort.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #49 on: October 21, 2014, 03:18:53 AM »
Ysomebody would need shooting if they didn't paint it yellow...........


Well, at least the prototypes... ;)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.