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: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @11:52AM
I looked at the queue and saw some shitty submissions that aren't worthy of the front page here.
This is a friendly notice to the editors, so that they can just throw these shitty submissions into the trash right away.
SWAT Team Destroys Man's Home with Explosives, Ram in Pursuit of Shoplifter [ soylentnews.org (Warning: Unicode in URL) ]: The credibility of the linked-to news source is questionable, and this submission is pushing a biased agenda rather than delivering news.
Rick Santorum Wants Pope Francis To Stop Talking About Climate Change [ soylentnews.org (Warning: Unicode in URL) ]: This one is just plain fucking stupid, like that fucking moronic and irrelevant submission about horse racing [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 3, Funny) by janrinok on Tuesday June 09 2015, @12:32PM
We will replace them with your submissions just as soon as we receive them.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @05:46PM
The problem isn't with the number of submissions. There were and are lots of other good submissions in the queue.
The problem is with the small number of really shitty ones.
As an editor, you need to focus on getting rid of those shitty ones, rather than putting them on the front page like has happened so often lately.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:17PM
Perhaps not everyone agrees with your own view of what constitutes a good submission and what doesn't. If you want to edit submissions then you will be welcome on the team. Contact either myself or mrcoolbp via email or on IRC.
Maybe an editor will think that the story is worth printing, Perhaps another will want to rewrite it. But we don't just delete them because an AC doesn't like them. Somebody has put some effort into producing them, the least we can do is to see if they are worth putting through the editorial system. And simply because you don't agree with what someone has written doesn't mean it can't reach the front page. We are not here to censor, nor support or counter any particular political viewpoint. As long as the submission can be backed up with a factual report then there might be something in it that is worth discussing.
The best way to counter what someone is saying is to make your own submission - backed up with factual reporting of course - to put across your own point of view. Or simply wait and see if it makes the front page and then make as many comments as you wish. But please don't try to have other voices silenced by asking us to remove submissions before anyone has a chance to look at them.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday June 09 2015, @12:37PM
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
The falcon 9 stage has been flying and has gradually improved its landing attempts. Very close to being production ready.
The Adeline project made some really cool computer animations and some artists interpretation pictures. Also they built a scale glider in the shape of their lander (essentially a medium size model airplane) and flew it around a bit.
This shows the bankruptcy of journalism. If a journalist points this out, they'll never be invited to a press conference or launch again. So, sure, say whatever bullshit you want and we'll publish it in our magazine to keep you happy.
Aside from the incredibly bad journalism being demonstrated, there is an interesting reliability issue that the currently flying spacex hardware has relatively little changes to hardware and what changes there are, are not terribly disruptive.... ooh they have slightly larger apu fuel tank now and a slightly larger hudraulic tank, thats not exactly "scary science" there. The spacex plan is basically software changes, which isn't too scary. On the other hand the adeline project is trying a pretty major design shift, putting pyros on tank lines, basically making a whole new stage, trying a somewhat more ambitious flight plan. I hope pogo oscillations or a screaming injector don't set off a fuel line pyro early, etc. Also you have interesting stage sep issues, best be careful you don't smash a wing of during separation. Its just a little over complicated.
In the long run, after spacex version 1 is working, they might implement something like the adeline project as version 2. I think its a mistake for adeline project to try and skip that far ahead.
Reusability is just greenwashing anyway. All the money and environmental damage comes from immense labor costs and reusing a piece of scrap metal just makes even more environmental damage from ever higher labor, or the lower performance required to use used parts means more fuel burned. Something you found along the side of the road is no longer aerospace grade, unlike a piece of certified serial numbered fresh material. The economic model and environmental model of a rocket are not that of a homemade sailboat, sorry.
(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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday June 09 2015, @02:12PM
Airbus's supposedly bolder-than-SpaceX approach will be implemented around 2025-2030. I wonder what SpaceX will be doing in 10-15 years.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 09 2015, @02:59PM
I wonder what SpaceX will be doing in 10-15 years.
http://sen.com/news/elon-musk-outlines-future-plans-for-spacex [sen.com]
Manned mission to mars.
Despite whatever drama is in the story, "everybody knows" the MCT acronym for the new project he mentions stands for Mars Colonial Transport. Yeah it pretty much means what it sounds like. Even wikipedia has more info about MCT than the article.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday June 09 2015, @03:14PM
I was thinking along the same lines. SpaceX launches a rocket and then lands a rocket. Airbus launches a rocket and then transforms into an aircraft that lands.
I'm glad someone else is attempting reusable rockets though. Other space companies won't be able to compete if they keep doing the same old thing.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by jdccdevel on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:12PM
Labor can definitely be a high financial cost, but environmentally? I just don't see it. (Even if you count CO2 from people breathing...). Any environmental cost from aerospace labor is going to be absolutely dwarfed by the manufacturing process for new parts and the launching of the rocket itself. (Some types of rocket fuel are really nasty.)
Your suggestion that re-building from scratch is somehow better environmentally is absurd. All components have to be inspected before they're used on a rocket, so the only additional cost for a re-used part is recovery (minimal compared to the launch itself) and disassembly (almost entirely labor). The goal is to eliminate disassembly as much as possible, by keeping units intact, and they want to learn enough about part wear through recovery and re-use cycles to be able to be able to certify entire assemblies through non-invasive inspection.
You're right about the sailboat analogy. I think a high-performance racing team (Drag racing or Formula 1) would be a better analogy. They're the only other high-performance undertaking I can think of where the vehicle is significantly disassembled, inspected, and re-assembled between events. Even there, teams are finding that disassembling and reassembling their engines is more likely to induce early failure, and a non-invasive inspection and re-use is the better way to go. That's the savings companies like SpaceX and Airbus trying for.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday June 09 2015, @09:00PM
Labor can definitely be a high financial cost, but environmentally? I just don't see it.
Just as a thought experiment, think of a dysfunctional megacorp, lets call it Innitech. And 99% of the middle managers exist mostly to argue and have meetings with the other middle managers and fight each other over meaningless metrics. I've worked at places like that. Lets say you got 1000 workers doing basically nothing. They all get paid and spend it on cars and all kinds of BS. If you got rid of 90% of them so you got 100 workers obviously the environmental cost of commuter gasoline just dropped 90%. Even if they did something, you still cut the environmental cost by 90%, right? Now what has more environmental impact, one dinky little rocket fired once, or an entire freaking city of employees plus ten cities of upstream contractors employees? Well obviously, the employees...
I don't think this is a ridiculous analogy. It is a big old .gov dept and the .com side is all flunkies and cost-plus contracts to monopoly players.
Aside from that, another thought experiment. So you're building an engine mount. Normally you walk over to purchasing and purchasing acquires a serial numbered aero space grade tested and characterized piece of aluminum bar stock. Its been x-rayed for voids, inspected for alloy content using a neutron scattering spectrometer, all sides have been tested for metallurgical treatment/temper. An inspector weighed it, measured its volume, measured all lengths of each side. Every step of its creation from raw electrorefining at the cryolite plant onward has been documented and serial numbered and tracked thru the entire process. It is very near the most verifiable perfect statistically analyzed bar of aluminum that human kind has ever created. And now its going to be an engine mount. This is, believe it or not, pretty much how aerospace stuff is made. It is HIGHLY likely to be reliable. Which is good, because you'll be building something with a factor of safety of maybe 2... or less.
However, "to save money" the bean counters send you out to Sanford and Son's junk yard and give you an old used VW Beetle transmission case to re-use as an engine mount. Where was it refined? Damfino, you can send samples to verify its not contaminated. Hey wait Sanford, this thing sat around soaking in the ocean for hours and then the salt water sat there for days and then it sat out in the rain in your junk yard for months till you gave it to me, how do I know its not internally corroded to hell and back? Damfino, you can spend 500 mechanic hours tearing it down and inspecting the F out of it. But Sanford, economy of scale and all that shit, I can get 10 brand new traceable documented engine mounts made of new material for less than the cost of doing a research project on your old VW transmission case... can't we skip all that inspection hours? Damfino its your spaceship and you gotta re-use this old piece of shit for greenwashing reasons no matter how much it costs and you don't wanna crash so cough up the dough.
Its like those nutcases who get auction fever and bit up something used on ebay to a higher price than a new one from amazon, WTF greenwashers?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Absolutely.Geek on Tuesday June 09 2015, @11:16PM
You know SpaceX is goint to be landing the rockets on a floating platform / landing pad. The components are not gonig to get wet / salty.
They are going to spend a shit pile of money on the first few rockets they recover successfully; analysing the fuck out of them to get an idea how the material stands up to the stresses of the reentry and recovery. This exercise will lead to data; and probably easier / cheaper ways to analyse these parts. In 10 years the data will be in and SpaceX will be able to provide a probility of failuer on successive launches. The cost of launching on those successive launches will reflect that probability; and the value of the cargo will also reflect that probability.
Expensive satellites and humans will always be sent on the lowest risk launches; which may well end up being launch #2. Non-critical resupply; food stuffs and water will go on the latter launches. There will be a massive market for cheaper launches; currently the value of the cargo is independent of the cost of launch; this will change in the future.
Your strawman is made of straw.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:34AM
The components are not gonig to get wet / salty.
Something tells me you've never been out on the ocean... Regardless the point stands, you simply can't compare something thats had serial number certification and tracking for its entire lifespan and beyond with something that kinda "sat around out there in the uncontrolled weather for awhile".
Think about it from a different tangent. If control and and care and assembly environment didn't matter, they'd scrap all that serial number certification and assembly cleanrooms and aerospace work would resemble something like a weird episode of "junkyard wars" aka "scrapheap challenge"
It's possible by expending enormous amounts of energy, materials, labor, and environmental damage to make a re-usable spacecraft, it'll just be cheaper and cause less environmental damage to go disposable.
I guess its a fundamental misunderstanding of how aerospace works. The primary goal of, say, a shipyard, is to make an immense and heavy ship as economically as possible, and environmental issues are a serious topic for a shipyard. The primary goal of an aerospace project is to produce papers with the right peoples names on them that CYA all possible failure modes away from those individuals and as a side effect flight hardware is sometimes produced, yet plenty of cancelled projects are "successful" from the point of view of career managers if all the paperwork was good enough.
If an ocean ship motor mount takes one dude a bunch of filthy cutting oil dripped into the ocean and some aluminum, the primary environment effect comes from the cutting oil and the embedded energy of the aluminum. If a spacecraft motor mount takes months of meetings of 15 people to design and document and inspect and report, and also a dude mills it out in a cleanroom and properly disposes of the cleanroom waste, the primary environmental effect is no longer the chunk of aluminum but dozens of person-months of commuter gasoline and endless printouts of certification documents and dozens of gallons of imported coffee and all of this times a thousand other parts is why the metal on the pad really isn't the primary environmental effect of a rocket.
(Score: 1) by Absolutely.Geek on Monday June 15 2015, @09:56PM
Something tells me you've never been out on the ocean...
I live in New Zealand...
I have worked in marine environments; there is a major difference between landing on a barge and being towed back to shore within a few hours and spending months or years off shore.
My point stands; oh crap we just blew up a $200M 2 ton satellite vs we just blew up 2 ton of water valued at all of $5. Obviously in both cases you have also lost the launch vehicle; but if that is the 5th launch for that vehicle....well you are probably not too precious about it.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 16 2015, @11:26AM
I admit you have an interesting idea that at some point, they'll be enough cargo shipped that it'll be worthwhile to segregate by value and put humans and animals on the best launcher and bulk storage tanks on the used up POS.
That'll throw a wrench in the simplistic "$10000/kg to orbit" or whatever figures because a human ticket will be quite a bit more expensive per pound than a giant shipment of granola bars.
(Score: 1) by Absolutely.Geek on Tuesday June 16 2015, @09:31PM
Agreed but I beleve they are aiming for $500US / kg; and I always assumed that was an average. But the max / best probability of getting to orbit would be 2 - 3 times that amount. And the class 5 scooby snacks trip at $100US / kg.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.