.

Europe don't has an high space-budget (maybe around $2.5 billion/year) but, if the Europena countries will decide to invest more... why not an European (orbital and lunar) space plan with a new "European Launch Vehicle"?

This is my proposal of ELV and my idea of (possible) "European Moon Missions" (EMM) with a low budget and a Multiple Launches Architecture (MLA): www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/007arianeX.html

what do you think about it?

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

There is a mistake in your first sentence. Europe has had and still has a manned space program. They have their own astronaut corps, and they designed things such as Hermes (which did not succeed however). They have never made a functional manned spacecraft, but they have a manned space program.

Furthermore I do not agree with your opinion about motives and consequences for (not) having a manned space program.

I do understand your overall idea and there is something to it. But how do you come to the dates, costs and performance stated in your article? You talk about 5 Vulcains on the first stage (plus 4 boosters). Will you use the same diameter as Ariane5? If so, is there even room for 5 Vulcains?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I talk of a manned space program with "our own astronauts", "our own vehicles", "our own money" and "our own RISKS"... like USA, Russia and China!

about Hermes... an "european paper-vehicle" don't mean an "european space program"...

about the ArianeX diameter... the 1st stage tank of the drawings clearly is twice an Ariane5; I think it must be around 10-12 mt. (however I will specify in my article)

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

That's the essence of my point. A design that never left the drawing board does mean a "european manned space program" (I added "manned" as obviously you meant that). The fact that we did not launch our own astronauts with our own vehicles does not mean we do not have a manned space program. There is a huge difference between having a program and having results, a difference you do not acknowledge in the first statement of your article.

If you increase the diameter by a factor 2, you might have enough room for all engines and supporting equipment (and structure!) indeed. However, I would not use the word "clearly" as long as you specify nothing on dimensions in your article. Furthermore, if you double the diameter, you are doing far more than just increasing Ariane5's capabilities. So a simple extrapolation of Ariane5 costs will not be a solid cost estimation in that case. While you use the original boosters and engines, you create basically a brand new rocket to house them into, a rocket that needs to be man-rated after a few years. So costs figures that are pulled out of thin air or Ariane5 will not have a large certainty.

Did you check whether the current Ariane5 and booster engines have enough steerability for the ArianeX, or would they need to redesign the steering functions such as nozzle deflection?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

then... also I have many (manned and robotic) "space programs" ...on my website...


my proposal ("clearly"...) is only a "concept", NOT a (ready to fly) project

my suggestion is to use the ready available Ariane5-derived hardware to build an European Launch Vehicle

of course, the real ArianeX (that may need 5+ year to develop, build and test) will be different from my design

the final version may use (e.g.#1) less Vulcain 2 and more boosters or (e.g.#2) three engines in the 1st stage and two engines in the 2nd stage or (e.g.#3) many Vinci engines for the 2nd stage, etc.

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

I think that such a significant departure from the Ariane5 design will require more than 5 years to design in any non-race frame of reference.

The difference between your concepts on your website and the manned space program involving thinks like Hermes (and Ariane5 originally) is that the ESA manned space program designed things with as goal to put them into reality. It did not work out for Hermes, but they had the intention. Your concepts are mind exercises, which are perfectly acceptable. But they are not quite a space program.

I think that a space agency that designs manned craft with the intention to build and fly them, that trains their own astronauts, that does research into applications for manned space flight and that itself claims to have a manned space program, indeed does have a lot more than just mind exercises in the form of concept descriptions. On one hand, it is a pitty that an agency with a quite extensive manned program and its own launchers does not have manned craft of its own. On the other hand, one could wonder whether it is necessary. Why should Russia and ESA not use the same craft to launch people? Why should they not design Klipper together? After all, for the Eurovision Song Contest Russia is a part of Europe as well

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

the 1st step to build a new rocket is the design of its engines

the Ariane5 engineers already have the engines, then, they don't need dozens of years to build the ArianeX (or another Ariane5-derived rocket)

I think that a little shuttle (like Kliper and Hermes, that don't needs a new Ariane) is the best choice for LEO/ISS crew travels

but the ArianeX is for moon missions

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

I know that Hermes/Klipper can't be put forward as alternatives for your ArianeX.

Even with the engines readily available (let's not go into things like steerability and the like) it will still take years to develop an almost completely new launcher from those engines. You want a first test launch in 2009. That's 3 years. I don't think that is realistic. That's only 3 years to develop a concept, design the thing, do all aerodynamic and acoustical tests, write all the software etcetc, so I don't think 3 years would be enough.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Hermes was abandoned many years ago (and I don't think it may born again)

Kliper needs 10+ years to fly (IF it will really fly)

both are for LEO, not for moon missions

about the time to test the ArianeX... I think you're right, it needs more time

but I don't agree about the "problems" to build a bigger vehicle with existing engines

why NASA can build two "shuttle-derived" rockets, while, we can't build an Ariane5-derived rocket?

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

In case you missed it, I agreed on Hermes and Klipper with you (though I do see quite a good chance for Klipper becoming reality). Hermes will not be reborn indeed, it is completely stopped years ago due to showstopping problems with getting it onto Ariane 5. btw there were plans to send Klipper to the moon, so it is not a purely LEO concept.

I did not say we couldn't build a large Ariane5 derived rocket, I said we couldn't within 3 years.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

.

Will "my" Lunar Space Station be built by ESA/FSA?

Flight International's Jun 13 article here:

www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/13/Navigation/200/207228/Kliper+dropped+for+lunar+capsule.html

and, of course, the "new" lunar vehicle will needs "my" ArianeX www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/007arianeX.html

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

do I read correctly that europe steps out of Klipper?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

the article suggests that, but it's only about ESA funds for Kliper R&D

thanks to the very high oil/methane prices Russia has LOTS of Billion$$$ then (if they want) may develop DOZENS vehicles like the Kliper with their own money

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

I think that any prediction about massive money out of Russian economy should be taken with great care. Things might go better there, but enough money to develop dozens of shuttles at a time hasn't even been available during the best of economical times. Besides, Russia has quite some other issues to spend any surplus money on...

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

it's not a prediction!

I've read that Russia ALREADY has $230B of reserve!

but, of course, not all that money will be spent for space...

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

"reserve" as in "more income than expenses" or as in "more than last year's income"?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

to explain my post:

thanks to oil/gas (very high) prices, Russia has (to-day) $230B "cash" in its "pocket"

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

OK so they have those extra incomes, but of course those are needed to pay the bills, and go to various projects. I doubt that there will be enough left for developing dozens of shuttles...

But it's good to hear that Russian economy has some good news. Of course, high oil and gas prices don't make a solid, long-term economy, so let's hope for them that they can get back to a solid economy through various ways rather than having all eggs in one basket.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.