Thursday, July 6, 2023

A Follow On

Yesterday's post talked briefly (since it had just happened) about the final flight of the European Space Agency's Ariane 5.  There's a larger story lurking there that I didn't get to, which is that the ESA is, at best only temporarily, unable to launch anything.  

Their own development programs are stalled and won't be available until 2024 at best.  They're unable to go to Russia's Roscosmos, and apparently have no agreements with China.  Consequently, they're depending on SpaceX for the foreseeable future. 

The Ariane 5’s successor, Ariane 6, is still in development and appears increasingly unlikely to be ready for its inaugural launch before 2024. The Soyuz is no longer available in Europe after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Vega C remains grounded after a December 2022 launch failure, and its return to flight, previously planned for late this year, is facing delays after an anomaly during a static-fire test June 28 of that rocket’s Zefiro 40 motor

A partial workaround exists for the Vega C launches; a portion of the Vega C manifest could be launched on the less-powerful predecessor than the troubled C version, and they're arranging to build more of the older Vegas and resume launches in September, but for the bigger payloads there simply are no other options than SpaceX.  The ESA has talked about a reusable rocket called Themis, clearly patterned after the Falcon 9, but the first launches aren't even talked about as before 2028.

A year ago (to the day), I did a background story on what appears to be a developing European Rocket Industry, but while startups such as Isar Aerospace and Rocket Factory Augsburg are working on small launch vehicles whose first flights could take place before the end of the year, none of them are flying yet, let alone flying regularly.  

In October of '22, the ESA announced it was moving two missions to Falcon 9; last week's launch of the Euclid space telescope and the Hera mission to the same asteroid pair (Didymos and Dimorphos) that the DART mission crashed a probe into last September.  The launch window for Hera is a short period in October of '24.  I'm taking the bet that more missions will be moving to Falcon 9.  

At a June 29 briefing after a meeting of the ESA Council, the agency announced that the Earth Clouds, Aerosols and Radiation Explorer, or EarthCARE, mission that has been moved from Soyuz to Vega C last October would instead likely fly on Falcon 9 in the second quarter of 2024. 

There are more moves in process.  The ESA has a fleet of navigation satellites, like the US's GPS, called Galileo.

At the same briefing, ESA officials said they were also in discussions with SpaceX for the launch of up to four Galileo satellites on Falcon 9 vehicles. “We are moving ahead with negotiations to conclude hopefully soon with SpaceX,” said Javier Benedicto, ESA’s director of navigation. That is contingent on concluding the negotiations with SpaceX as well as securing approvals from the European Union and its security agreement with SpaceX.

The Falcon 9 payload fairing with the logos of ESA and the Euclid spacecraft, in the days before last Saturday's launch from SLC-40 at the CCSFS.  Credit: SpaceNews/Jeff Foust.

When you consider the versatility and the reliability of the Falcon 9, coupled with the twice-a-week launch cadence that SpaceX is striving for, there really is no alternative in the world.  As someone commented recently, "when it absolutely, positively has to be in orbit ASAP." 

 

 

5 comments:

  1. If we had an effective NASA, this could have happened in the 1990s.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's sad. Really. At one time Arianespace was talking about a partially recoverable reusable rocket, basically recovering the engine sections of the boosters, which is the really expensive part. But they failed to innovate. They failed to progress.

    It's a pattern we see with pretty much all legacy aerospace programs. There's no new Russian rocket. Still waiting on ULA, which has had problems with Centaur and with BO's failure to provide engines. Lockheed, Boeing (the entities separate from ULA) have failed to provide new improved products (Starliner, SLS are perfect examples. Nothing really new. And nothing really reusable, yet, maybe ever. Seriously, who'd willingly fly in Starliner?)

    Look at just in the US. SpaceX has dominated the world market with paid-for human spaceflight and commercial spaceflight. Sierra Nevada has been building the NASA mini-shuttle that should have flown 30 years ago but looks like it will fly this year or maybe early next year, given, of course, a launch vehicle (SpaceX is available, but will SN go with them?) Same with all the little launch companies that are innovating and achieving while legacy companies are failing.

    Yeah, JPL is still doing wonders and wonderful things, but that's it. Who else in Legacy Aerospace worldwide is achieving?

    Not JAXA which has been legacying since 1960's.

    Not anything Russian as noted above.

    China really isn't legacy, as they've only really been active since the 90's, but they're busy copying everything successful about all the innovators and are still relying on Soviet/Russian designs and design philosophy.

    India's space program is a kludge of Soviet and post-Soviet Russian design with some innovation, but it's still relying on Soviet/Russian tech and nothing really innovative.

    Crazy times. Absolutely crazy times. Competitive aerospace is beating the pants off of providing-jobs-programs aerospace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Competitive aerospace is beating the pants off of providing-jobs-programs aerospace.

      That's because their goals are completely the opposite of each other. "Competitive aerospace" is based on providing services and expanding our presence in space. The other is just buying votes.

      Delete
  3. SpaceX should begin negotiations to make launches from ESA French Guiana. Ease capacity under FAA, assuage European sentiments and wallets.

    ReplyDelete