SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Airbus, which leads production of the Ariane rocket, has a new re-usable rocket concept called Adeline.
The firm's engineers believe the basic Adeline idea could be incorporated into any liquid-fuelled launcher, however big or small.
It takes the form of a winged module that goes on the bottom of the rocket stack.
Inside are the main engines and the avionics - the high-value parts on all rockets.
The module would be integral to the job of lifting the mission off the pad in the normal way, but then detach itself from the upper-stages of the rocket once the propellants in the tanks above it were exhausted.
The Adeline module's next step would be re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. For this, it would have a protective heat shield on its bulbous nose.
At a certain point in the descent, Adeline would pull up using its small winglets, and steer itself towards a runway.
Small deployable propellers would aid control as it essentially operated like a drone to find its way home.
Herve Gilibert, technical director for Airbus’ Space Systems division, said the Adeline propulsion unit — engine and avionics — is where lies most of the value of the first stage. The Airbus team concluded that SpaceX’s design of returning the full stage to Earth could be simplified by separating the propulsion bay from the rest of the stage, protecting the motor on reentry and, using the winglets and turbofans, return horizontally to a conventional air strip.
“We are using an aerodynamic shield so that the motor is not subjected to such high stress on reentry,” Gilibert said. “We need very little fuel for the turbofans and the performance penalty we pay for the Ariane 6 launcher is far less than the 30 percent or more performance penalty that SpaceX pays for the reusable Falcon 9 first stage.
It sounds like they're planning on modifying the Ariane 6 (set to fly for the first time in 2020) to use this technology at some point, but not right away. They expect it will reduce launch costs by a projected 20 to 30 percent.
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gman003 on Tuesday June 09 2015, @01:45PM
And I think that's a bad idea.
Falcon 9R is getting full first-stage reusability. Refuel it, attach a new second stage and payload, and it's good to fly again. Their way has its difficulties (it is rocket science after all), but the end result is a first stage you can fly again and again.
This Adeline system gives objectively worse results. If you already can just land the entire stage back at the launchpad, there's no reason to start dumping the tankage and switching to a glider mode, to get back only the engines. So functionality-wise, they'd be a halfway step between expendable and full stage reusability - they'll save the expensive parts of the rocket, but not everything.
I'm not fully qualified to comment on whether the Falcon 9R way or the Adeline way is easier, but I'll comment anyways.
Falcon 9R's problems mainly stem from using the same engines for going up and going down. A Merlin 1D engine can throttle down only to 70%, and 70% of a single Merlin 1D is too much for a first stage with nearly-empty tanks and no payload. I suspect they'll end up either upgrading the engines with even deeper throttle-down capabilities, or adding a set of smaller engines just for landing. But other than that, it's all software, and they're almost done with the software.
Adeline might be a good way to design a rocket from the ground-up for partial reusability, but retrofitting it onto an existing design, as you said, could be difficult. It's a lot of work, but it's not intrinsically hard work. But they're adding some further complications to it - jet engines? And there's the difference in basic rocket design that makes it less suitable - namely, Ariane 6 uses solid boosters, which means first-stage cutoff happens higher and faster than for Falcon 9.
Overall, I can't quite decide which task is ultimately harder. So perhaps this sort of partial reusability is the best way for Ariane to go. But it's definitely not a track SpaceX should switch to, not when they're so close to getting full stage reusability working.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Tuesday June 09 2015, @03:35PM
The argument will likely come down to dollars and cents. Similar to how the Space Shuttle was recoverable, however the cost per launch was much higher than disposable rocket systems.
The amount of reconditioning of the SpaceX stage will be a major factor - if the fuel tanks need to be closely inspected the costs could resemble new assembly (particularly if an assembly line is involved).
Additionally, every pound of recovery equipment lifted costs money. So recovering a smaller portion of the rocket (motor only) likely requires less recovery equipment than the whole stage. This is a huge IF considering the two very different strategies used here.
Moral of the story - I want to see more rockets in space, and am thrilled that the space race seems to be about decreasing the cost to orbit. Best of luck to all space goers.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:35AM
Did we recover any payloads and fly them back with disposable rockets?
Frankly, I don't remember, but we must have tried it once or twice.
It wash't ONLY about reuse of the vehicle. The Shuttle had capabilities that would
have required a one-off very expensive use-once vehicle.
The basic fact is that chemical rocket launch is still pretty ridiculous.
Personally, I think the only reasonable long term solution
is going to be runway to orbit and back again. Scaled Composites seem on the right track, and the
rest of the rocket guys are clinging to a dying business model.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @04:52AM
Mind elaborating on that? From my perspective, Scaled Composites is chasing a dead end. SpaceX is the only one pursuing a viable economic model, and REL is the only one looking at an actual new system design (although I doubt they'll actually succeed). But I'm interested in what your reasoning is.