Talk:EADS Phoenix

I am sorry to say that this article is quite out of touch with the realities of the space business. Phoenix is a nice and successful descent and landing demonstrator, but it is very far from a RLV precursor.

Furthermore, the Hopper concept is quite dead now in Europe, and it very unlikely that Europe will commit euros to the development of a RLV anytime soon, even during next decade, especially since it is extremely difficult to compete with the Russian launcher prices (Proton, Soyus).

What is more likely is that the next European launcher from 2010 to far later is Soyus launched from French Guiana, and that Ariane 5 will be quietly retired from service around 2009.

Future ESA launchers

From what I understand about current policy, you are quite wrong. The EU Commission decided it is important for the EU to retain native launch capability, see the Green Paper, and Soyuz would not allow that.

This sums up what I know about future ESA launchers (from several public papers):

Ariane 5 will not last forever. By the 2010s the design will be around 20 years old, so it will need a replacement. Ariane 5 also had the problem of having a bad size. Too big for a single regular satellite, too small for having two regular satellites. The Ariane 4 launch category was much missed. Soyuz will fill the void Ariane 4 left. Ariane 5 will get bigger to cope (Ariane 5 ECA, etc).

The Germans pushed a program called FESTIP in the 90s to investigate which new launcher architecture was most suitable for replacing Ariane 5. The results claimed that to obtain substancial launch cost reductions would require the use of advanced RLVs. Things like SSTO VTVL were dismissed allegedly because EU engine technology wasn't good enough, SSTO VTHL was dismissed because it was considered too risky to be possible, Shuttle like designs were dismissed because the non-reusable bits added to the cost and complexity of the vehicle to be economic. Two vehicle types were pushed as favourites: TSTO VTHL (like the early Shuttle proposals) and something which was basically Hopper. Basically a quasi SSTO HTHL vehicle which uses rail launch boost and a special kick stage to put the satellite into orbit.

Now the French will have none of that without having their own funded study first (they and the Germans will be putting most of the money into it I bet). They think it will be impossible to have a new RLV launcher without new engines, so the focus will be on the new engines first, as was done for Ariane 5. Two RLV engines are being planned for an Ariane 4 payload class reusable launch vehicle: LOX/Methane Volga and LOX/LH2 Veda. The engines are being jointly designed with the Russians since they have more experience with high performance reusable hydrocarbon burning staged combustion designs of the type desired (experience they got from designing the Energia engines). These new engines may be used for a TSTO VTHL (both engines), a reusable first stage vehicle with expendable second stage (Volga), or basically Hopper (Veda).

To better decide on which of the RLV designs are viable, testbeds for reentry, GNC, etc will be made. DLR pushed their Phoenix (which is shaped like a scaled down Hopper) as a demonstrator for automated horizontal landing GNC.

The dark horse in the race is a new expendable based on Ariane 5 and some new, cheaper to manufacture, Vulcain 3 engine.

What I think will likely happen:

The TSTO will be dismissed as too expensive or risky. Something else will win. I doubt it will be Hopper. I all depends on how the engine development goes on. Volga is probably the riskier engine, but it also has the highest possible payoff, so I think they will try to push that engine through thick and thin. By 2020 we should know.

Google this presentation for more info (it should be someplace in the EADS site):

Future Propulsion Systems – The Key to Reach the Stars
Technologies for Next Generation Launcher Propulsion Systems
by Dieter Preclik - link to PDF.

Quasarstrider 01:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice info ;-) --Bricktop 12:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What I get from the recent European Ministerial conference in early December is that there will be no effort in the next four years on future reusable launchers for the successor of Ariane and that the successor of Ariane, if any, should be expendable. So could we remove all this nonsense about Hopper and stuff ? 83.157.224.36 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am somewhat out of touch with the latest developments, but last I heard some small funding was being made for basic R&D on advanced reusable engines, reentry and GNC. Namely, the Volga and Veda engines, EXPERT and PRE-X for reentry, EADS Phoenix for GNC. AFAIK there is no concrete plan for a reusable vehicle. Just a bunch of inexpensive paper studies and small technology demonstrators. A decade from now these will mature and *maybe* then a reusable design will be pushed and possibly funded. This old BBC article elaborates on it a bit, as does this ESA page. From what I understand this research is being done for the long term (i.e. decades, not next 4 years) and may not pan out. If anything, the latest developments point to a scaling down in investment due to the lackluster launch market, leading to an expendable replacement/upgrade for Ariane 5. Quasarstrider 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First manned flight?

it will be the first manned European attempt at space operations

Vostok 1? ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ

for a given value of Europe... is there any information on propulsion yet, or is that still up in the air (pun not intended) -- sourcejedi (unregistered user)

Phoenix is more of a concept demonstrator vehicle than a prototype for Hopper. Like the DC-X was a demonstrator for DC-Y. From what I understand they are using this vehicle to develop the navigation and control systems. Read this: [1] -- anonymous@home

Launching

An article in Interavia Business & Technology claims that the Hopper is solely intended for unmanned launches and that the idea is to launch the Hopper on a 4 km magnetic track. Can anyone actually find any sources that claim the Hopper could be launched on the Ariane 5?

German spelling?

From the Page History: "A German project should use German spelling." I don't think that because it is a German project we should use German spelling. After all, the article is in English as far as I can see. In this case, should we then use nationalised versions of the SI units in all cases? I can't see why, but I would very much like to know the reason behind it.

Maver1ck 09:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

It was an act of courtesy on my part.

Darrien 16:01, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see why that would be a reason to change the spelling of SI units to the German conventions, when the article is in English. I do believe that this is strange to say the least. What do they do over at the German Wikipedia in articles about American or British projects? Do they change spelling of the SI units to English conventions? Hopefully not. Should they? Hardly. I'm amazed that an English article shouldn't be in English.

Maver1ck 17:07, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

This issue is dealt with in various wiki references. They are "only" guidelines, but I think should be adhered to. If the article is scientific, SI should be used. To me this article at least aspires to being scientific, so should be SI. The issue of the German-ness of the article is neither here nor there, except to describe things like official names, where the language the organisation uses to describe itself prevails. User:Magicmike 23 May 2004.

Maverick, this user has been very active in going through Wikipedia and removing British spellings from many articles. See their contributions history.

Bremen or Torino - NGL Prime Co

As far as I know, development of future launchers in Europe, are not piloted from Bremen but from Torino, where the new joint NGL Prime Co company of EADS and Finmeccanica has been headquartered, the French and German teams have been transferred there.

Quote: "Based in Turin, the NGL Prime Co team includes specialists from France, Germany and Italy. A great share of the work will also be subcontracted to specialised industries in many European countries."

Pictures missing from article?

Howdy, Could someone add some pics from this craft? For example from here:

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.250.192 (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Source Europe looks to the future

We should create a NGL Prime Co article.Hektor 05:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)