ESA ATL Plausibility Checks and Development

I've been looking at developing a TimeLine where ESA - European Space Agancy - is far more involved with the various aspects of Space Exploration compared to OTL.

To summerise. OTL, the primary contributions of ESA have been.

1) ATV for the ISS

2) Some Manned Space Platforms - Columbas, SpaceLab which was used in the Space Shuttle Cargo Bay while it was in service.

3) Gallileo Satellite Navigation System

4) Some Deep Space Exploration - Huygens, Smart 1, etc

5) Commercial Launch Services - where they've been most successful, IMHO

Those are the only ones I am really aware of. With most of their business conducted through use of the Ariane Series of Launch Vehicle. Starting in 24/12/1979 with the successful launch of Ariane 1 from the Kourou Launch Facilities in French Guiana. And was upgraded into Arianes 2, 3, and 4 - Ariane 4 to date being the most successful of the series - before the all-new Ariane 5 entered service in the late 1990s.


What I intend to do is develop a full TimeLine that's focused a much more ambitious ESA. One that is realistic, yet believable. That stays on the correct side of Plausible without heading into ASB. It's effects in not only Europe, but the US, Russia & China.

My personal POD preferance is somewhere around the mid-late '60s, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. And to use the build-up of capabilities, that is, starting small and working it up over the years, via upgrade programmes and new development.


Your thoughts? What would be probable? Possible? And total ASB?

I'll be working on this bit by bit to try and make it work. Hopefully, I'll have something you can really enjoy.


EDIT: Can't believe I forgot to mention this! :eek: Any help and/or advice you can provide will be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
I've been looking at developing a TimeLine where ESA - European Space Agancy - is far more involved with the various aspects of Space Exploration compared to OTL.

I think your analysis of their achievements is largely accurate, though in the space platform section it would be worth noting that more than 50% of ISS pressurized modules were Thales-built, including my personal favorite, the Cupola. They have done a fairly amazing amount considering the issues they've faced, and largely by using what they could offer to add to the capabilities of other nations, rather than by maintaining an entire parallel program.

What I intend to do is develop a full TimeLine that's focused a much more ambitious ESA. One that is realistic, yet believable. That stays on the correct side of Plausible without heading into ASB. It's effects in not only Europe, but the US, Russia & China.

My personal POD preferance is somewhere around the mid-late '60s, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. And to use the build-up of capabilities, that is, starting small and working it up over the years, via upgrade programmes and new development.

ESA has two major issues. The first is that it's a multinational organization, which means you can take all the inter-program/inter-center rivalries and budget allocation debates of the US and Russia and roughly double it. Starting most projects requires careful balancing of what's being done by each country. The second major issue, budget, only adds to this. ESA has less to work with than the US or even Russia, and that's going to be hard to change.
With less to work with and the added battles over how and where that money should be spent, I think you've set yourself a very challenging goal, but I'll be following your progress with interest.

What are you thinking as far as your PoD? It's well before ELDO and ESRO were rolled up into ESA, so it your plan revolving around Europa in some fashion? Save Europa, thereby keeping things together a bit better and forming a different ESa, perhaps with the UK involved? Or let it fail but differently from OTL so that your ESA ends up different? (I'm not quite sure how a change here might help, but it's possible...)

Anyway, I think without a major budget boost Europe's not really going to be able to independently play at the level of NASA or the USSR, so it'd still be better off focusing on complimentary efforts instead of developing its own redundant parallel effort.
 

Archibald

Banned
History of ESA
http://www.esa.int/esapub/sp/sp1235/sp1235v1web.pdf

Manned spaceflight sounds obvious.

Hermes was a failure, but there was no reason ESA could not afford an Apollo- like capsule. Bonus: it can be launched on an Ariane 44L.
Alternative to Ariane 4 includes Blue-Streak (Europa III A) or Super Diamant.

What else ? man tended robotic platforms might be a good start for a space station. Things Eureca A and Eureca B, but independent from the shuttle (butterflying the shuttle might be a good idea).

Both capsules and man tended platforms are things that can be done in cooperation with NASA. Beyond that - I don't know.
 

Riain

Banned
I'd have a successful ELDO programme, perhaps a cape York launch site by 1970. This would give 5 more years development to the emerging ESA and put it in a better position in the 80s when Ariane really took off.
 
I'm not an expert on matters pertaining to ESA, NASA, etc., but talking about a stronger ESA, I wonder if that would mean that we could see a more extensive and significant Esrange Space Center....
 
I think your analysis of their achievements is largely accurate, though in the space platform section it would be worth noting that more than 50% of ISS pressurized modules were Thales-built, including my personal favorite, the Cupola. They have done a fairly amazing amount considering the issues they've faced, and largely by using what they could offer to add to the capabilities of other nations, rather than by maintaining an entire parallel program.

Ah. Some of that I didn't know. Thanks for the info. It'll help a lot.

So you love the Cupola too? Same here, and I suppose that's why the ability to see the Earth from inside the SkyLab and SpaceLab featured in your own TL - Eyes Turned Skywards.

Augmenting another nation's spacefaring capabilities seems the most reasonable scenario to me as well, though I plan on giving TTL ESA some more oomph. Personally, the MTFF designs they had in the late 80s-early 90s combined with independant manned flight/resupply capability is as far as I feel it can go in that particular respect.



ESA has two major issues. The first is that it's a multinational organization, which means you can take all the inter-program/inter-center rivalries and budget allocation debates of the US and Russia and roughly double it. Starting most projects requires careful balancing of what's being done by each country. The second major issue, budget, only adds to this. ESA has less to work with than the US or even Russia, and that's going to be hard to change.
With less to work with and the added battles over how and where that money should be spent, I think you've set yourself a very challenging goal, but I'll be following your progress with interest.

IIRC, the ESA has about 1/3 the budget of NASA. Even with the UK in the game, I can't see it going over 1/2 the NASA budget - since I'm not looking into ASB, but possible scenarios. And I'm well aware of the Pork-Barrel Syndrome that causes both NASA and ESA grief. That's gonna be my real sticking point.

It is going to be a real challenge for me. But that's what makes me love it so much! :D



What are you thinking as far as your PoD? It's well before ELDO and ESRO were rolled up into ESA, so it your plan revolving around Europa in some fashion? Save Europa, thereby keeping things together a bit better and forming a different ESa, perhaps with the UK involved? Or let it fail but differently from OTL so that your ESA ends up different? (I'm not quite sure how a change here might help, but it's possible...)

Anyway, I think without a major budget boost Europe's not really going to be able to independently play at the level of NASA or the USSR, so it'd still be better off focusing on complimentary efforts instead of developing its own redundant parallel effort.

In order to keep the UK inside the ESA. It's essential, IMHO, to save Europa. That means having it's faults identified a lot sooner. Which means I may need to copy/paste your part of your TL which revolves around ESA early days if I can't develop an effective 'Make-Europa-Work' scenario there myself. Though having them noticed before Phase II of the project is my favoured way forward. Less 'Make-It-Work Juice' required IMO. It's also the only way I can really see any serious funding increase for ESA.

My preliminary plans revolve around upgrading Europa to number IV, which - if I get it right - will have the ability to take a Soyuz/Apollo-type capsule to 200-240Km orbits at 51.6 degrees inclination. An Ariane 5 style LV might come later, but the need will be somewhat less, so later, if at all.

I still plan on complementing NASA and/or Russian Space Services with TTL ESA, simply have them more able to act independantly in some respects.



History of ESA
http://www.esa.int/esapub/sp/sp1235/sp1235v1web.pdf

Manned spaceflight sounds obvious.

Hermes was a failure, but there was no reason ESA could not afford an Apollo- like capsule. Bonus: it can be launched on an Ariane 44L.
Alternative to Ariane 4 includes Blue-Streak (Europa III A) or Super Diamant.

What else ? man tended robotic platforms might be a good start for a space station. Things Eureca A and Eureca B, but independent from the shuttle (butterflying the shuttle might be a good idea).

Both capsules and man tended platforms are things that can be done in cooperation with NASA. Beyond that - I don't know.

Manned Spaceflight is obvious, and a goal I make for TTL. And yes. Hermes is Dead In The Water. So I won't even go there - unless it's in the planning stages where it gets killed off early on. My initial plan is to have a Europa IV able to carry and Apollo/Soyuz type spacecraft to a Mir/ISS orbit.

The Man Tended Free-Flyer (MTFF) is part of my plan. But don't expect to see more than one or two of them. Personally, I'm leaning towards having them able to dock with the ISS as well as with Apollo/Soyuz type craft.

As for what else? Cassini/Huygens is still on. No way can I afford to ditch that one! Only question I ask there is, should I have them remember to switch on both receivers on Cassini or not?


To cover one more point. The over 20,000Kg Launch Capability. They may have less need for it or more - depending on how well they can get along with other Space Agencies, I hope for pretty well. They could for for an Ariane 5 type LV of their own, though I have doubts over funding for it. The other is to use other launch vehicles that will exist at that time. i.e. STS, Titan 4, Proton. If the third one, they could set up a launch pad in Kourou for it as they did with Soyuz LV OTL and modify it. e.g. Digital Flight Control Systems, Block R development - which, given that the basic hardware would most likely be bought from a financially crippled Russia, they may be willing to allow, and possibly utilise themselves. So many things that can be done. But only one of them can be taken. I'll need to look long and hard to pick out the most plausible options. NOT, just the one I like.
 
Okay. I've had time to think this through. And I believe I have some prelimanary designs for this TimeLine.



1) Europa: With the problems associated with it's 2nd & 3rd stages, electrical systems and general quality assurance techniques early on - either prior to are in the early stages of Phase II - the redesigns are conducted and the subsequent flights are able to succeed. This, I believe, is vital in order to keep the UK in the project, and provide not only additional workforce, but vital extra funding for a more ambitious ESA when ELDO and ERSO are merged into a single organisation. After all, the only reason IMHO Ariane 1 was ever approved was because the French Govt. pledge to not only cover 60% of the development costs, and the entirety of the cost overruns - they floated about 61-63% of development costs.

Following this, I plan for three series of upgrades to the Europa Launch Vehicle;

Europa 2. I plan to be largely the same as OTL - a small solid kick stage for a small payload boost.

Europa 3 will be the first to feature solid and liquid strap-on boosters, with the Blue Streak 1st stage strengthened to support this - OTL, Blue Streak used pressure-stabalised tanks. By this point, it would make sense for me to upgrade the engines to improve their performance - even in it's early days, they were somewhat inefficient - to aid in payload increases for ESA.

Europa 4 will use constant diameter stages and Common Core Boosters that ignite on their own at lift-off, effectively making it a 4-stage launch vehicle. This is also the variant I intend to use to support Manned Spaceflight for ESA, it should be able to carry a 7000-8000Kg spacecraft to a Mir/ISS orbit.



2) Ariane: Won't be developed as OTL as a direct result of point 1. For obvious reasons. A 20+ Tonne LV may be developed later on, but no decision has been taken on that just yet.



3) Funding: The sticking point. OTL they have approximately 1/3 the funding of NASA IIRC. Raising it to 40% should not be too difficult. 45% is possible. 50% is pushing it to the limit IMHO. So it will not be higher than 50% of NASA funding, otherwise I enter ASB territory.



4) MTFF: The Man Tended Free Flyer. I am envisioning at least one in use, holding the same orbit as the ISS - which will exist ITTL, if not in the same form - that can dock with it or another manned spacecraft. But no more than two launched by 2011.



5) Gallileo: Given other missions I have planned. This one may need to go. I can only make so much happen before it gets too silly and ridiculous.



6) Manned Flight: Will happen TTL. Planned to be made possible via Europa 4. Looking at the Soyuz design for planned ESA Manned Spacecraft. Could use a good name for it though - was thinking Aeris.



Those six points form the initial framework for what I have planned. The real challenge though, will be making it work. Something tells me my general inexperience in such work is going to show. Still, only one way to go. Up - I think 400,000,000Km should cut it. :p:p
 
6) Manned Flight: Will happen TTL. Planned to be made possible via Europa 4. Looking at the Soyuz design for planned ESA Manned Spacecraft. Could use a good name for it though - was thinking Aeris.

You're gonna name it after a bankrupt French low-price airline? :p

Why not go for something from Greek or Roman mythology (though that's a bit cliché), or maybe name it after some famous European astronomer?
 
You're gonna name it after a bankrupt French low-price airline? :p

Why not go for something from Greek or Roman mythology (though that's a bit cliché), or maybe name it after some famous European astronomer?

Actually. Aeris is also the name of a Constellation in the sky. Like Virgo & Aquarius. Still looking into a good name. But Aeris works well enough as a benchmark.
 
1) *good summary of ESA's problems, and how to fix.*

Following this, I plan for three series of upgrades to the Europa Launch Vehicle;

Europa 2. I plan to be largely the same as OTL - a small solid kick stage for a small payload boost.

Europa 3 will be the first to feature solid and liquid strap-on boosters, with the Blue Streak 1st stage strengthened to support this - OTL, Blue Streak used pressure-stabalised tanks. By this point, it would make sense for me to upgrade the engines to improve their performance - even in it's early days, they were somewhat inefficient - to aid in payload increases for ESA.

Europa 4 will use constant diameter stages and Common Core Boosters that ignite on their own at lift-off, effectively making it a 4-stage launch vehicle. This is also the variant I intend to use to support Manned Spaceflight for ESA, it should be able to carry a 7000-8000Kg spacecraft to a Mir/ISS orbit.
The issue Europa has is that it's just a smaller LV than Ariane was, meaning it has less evolution potential. Ariane 1 massed almost twice as much, with a little less than 1.6 times the thrust. Even with common core design, uprated RZ2 engines or solid rocket boosters, the basic Europa design was going to max out at somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 tons or so to LEO in my book. From looking at Atlas V, Delta IV, and other CCB designs, your heavy will be capable of roughly 2.8 times the core-only performance. Thus, for your 7-8 metric ton launcher, you need a core with about 2.5 tons, well beyond Europa's core-only capability. Thus, what I suspect is that they get looking for a Europa replacement (about mid-to-late 70s?), and go with an Atlas V/Delta IV/Ariane V evolution path in the sense of lifting up the family name and slotting a new rocket type underneath it. Europa IV ends up being an Ariane-sized first stage, with optional solids or CCBs (as with Atlas V and Delta IV). Mix and match second and third stages to optimize it for LEO crew flights or GEO injections. 2.5 ton base capability (900 kg to GTO), able to be dialed between 2.5 and 5 tons IMLEO with solids, then boosted to 7.5ish in the Heavy configuration. This would roughly suit Europe's needs for a while, at least for crew flights. Stations, even man-tended mini-stations, would still be a bit more than this unless they're in the Tiangong-1 class of "hardly even a station at all."

3) Funding: The sticking point. OTL they have approximately 1/3 the funding of NASA IIRC. Raising it to 40% should not be too difficult. 45% is possible. 50% is pushing it to the limit IMHO. So it will not be higher than 50% of NASA funding, otherwise I enter ASB territory.
I'd say sticking more to 45% might be better. Maybe look at OTL ELDO and ESRO funding breakdown and see how it works out if the OTL ESA nations maintain their support levels and Britain's proportional support is added?

4) MTFF: The Man Tended Free Flyer. I am envisioning at least one in use, holding the same orbit as the ISS - which will exist ITTL, if not in the same form - that can dock with it or another manned spacecraft. But no more than two launched by 2011.
I'm really not sure about the benefit of the MTFF in technical terms, and OTL at least ESA was willing to combine its Columbus free-flyer plans for the simplicity of doing the same with a lab on ISS. I'm really not sure why they wouldn't ITTL as well--maybe a spun sattelite for variable gravity research on lab animals, where the centrifugal effects would couple badly or conversely crystal growth or other experiments where ISS/Freedom's microgravity wouldn't be "pure" enough?

5) Gallileo: Given other missions I have planned. This one may need to go. I can only make so much happen before it gets too silly and ridiculous.
Do you mean the probe or the GPS network? By the time the network is a plan, there'll be serious butterflies, and it's worth noting that when ESA was created from ELDO and ESRO one major addition to its goals was satellite communications and other commercial aspects of spaceflight. Galilieo is very much in keeping with this goal, so it may re-appear in another form, perhaps even earlier.

6) Manned Flight: Will happen TTL. Planned to be made possible via Europa 4. Looking at the Soyuz design for planned ESA Manned Spacecraft. Could use a good name for it though - was thinking Aeris.
Already mentioned my thoughts on Europa 4, see above. As far as the spacecraft...Soyuz isn't a bad design if a little small even for three. Are you thinking that they'd design their own variant on the multi-module design or license the design for local construction? And what's the time scale for the development, the mid-to-late 80s?
 

Archibald

Banned
Part 2 of the ESA history
http://www.esa.int/esapub/sp/sp1235/sp1235v2web.pdf
(page 28)

Europa II could have made it to work. After the F11 disaster (November 5, 1971) french General Robert Aubinière led the inquiry. The report was issued in June 1972, but Aubinière did not waited that long. He become boss of ELDO in February.
Then he made sweeping changes to the organization.
Aubinière inquiry over F11, and the changes he did at ELDO, give clues at how Europa II could have worked.

The final report of Aubinière’s Commission of Enquiry was submitted the month before.67 It identified
poor management and technical difficulties with the third stage as the main causes of the failure of
firing F11 of Europa II. The project had suffered above all from the absence of a strong centralised
project management scheme. This lack of strong overall project management had been particularly
serious as regards the third German stage. Here the report identified major failures in quality control
and evidence of sloppy workmanship: “Its design is complicated and its wiring needs to be thoroughly
revised. Its integration has been particularly deficient”. Indeed it was here that the proximate cause of
the explosion lay: the inertial guidance system had failed because of electrical interference of a few
volts between the checkout line connecting its computer to its power supply. Notwithstanding these
problems Aubinière’s Commission felt that with a further 21-27 MAU, and an improved system of
management, “the Europa II vehicle should achieve a normal probability of proper functioning similar
to that for comparable space projects”. The ELDO Council concluded that it would be for the
Ministers to decide, at the meeting of the European Space Conference scheduled for 11 and 12 July
1972, the kind of commitment to be made to the Europa II development and construction programmes,
and particularly if they should continue with firings F17 and F18 as originally planned.

The history of ELDO / ESRO / ESA is extremely interesting, but also quite tortuous. Give me headaches anyday.
 
The issue Europa has is that it's just a smaller LV than Ariane was, meaning it has less evolution potential. Ariane 1 massed almost twice as much, with a little less than 1.6 times the thrust. Even with common core design, uprated RZ2 engines or solid rocket boosters, the basic Europa design was going to max out at somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 tons or so to LEO in my book. From looking at Atlas V, Delta IV, and other CCB designs, your heavy will be capable of roughly 2.8 times the core-only performance. Thus, for your 7-8 metric ton launcher, you need a core with about 2.5 tons, well beyond Europa's core-only capability. Thus, what I suspect is that they get looking for a Europa replacement (about mid-to-late 70s?), and go with an Atlas V/Delta IV/Ariane V evolution path in the sense of lifting up the family name and slotting a new rocket type underneath it. Europa IV ends up being an Ariane-sized first stage, with optional solids or CCBs (as with Atlas V and Delta IV). Mix and match second and third stages to optimize it for LEO crew flights or GEO injections. 2.5 ton base capability (900 kg to GTO), able to be dialed between 2.5 and 5 tons IMLEO with solids, then boosted to 7.5ish in the Heavy configuration. This would roughly suit Europe's needs for a while, at least for crew flights. Stations, even man-tended mini-stations, would still be a bit more than this unless they're in the Tiangong-1 class of "hardly even a station at all."

You appear to have assumed that I would fire all the core stages on the ground at once. It's only the outer core stages that ignite on the pad, acting as a 1st stage to the core stage's function as the 2nd stage. That would turn it into a four-stage LV for payload launch purposes.

The Falcon 9 Heavy and Delta IV Heavy have wildly different payload capabilities for two reasons.

1. Delta IV Heavy is already in service, Falcon 9 heavy is not.

2. Falcon 9 Heavy is to use propellant transfer systems to shift 1/3 of their LOX/Kerosene propellant from the outer boosters to the core stage. This means their propellant is expended in 2/3 of the normal time while the core stage burn time is increased by 2/3. The Delta IV Heavy simply throttles down the core stage engine to preserve propellant there for when the boosters are seperated. I may not know the precise nature of how this affects the payload capabilities, but there's going to be some, that much is certain.

How this affects the Europa LV, we'll see. Though I'll need to uprate the upper stages to get the payload above 5,640Kg LEO I seem to be getting when devising it like Falcon 9 series. A stage-stretching + engine upgrade programme may be required to make it work.



I'd say sticking more to 45% might be better. Maybe look at OTL ELDO and ESRO funding breakdown and see how it works out if the OTL ESA nations maintain their support levels and Britain's proportional support is added?

The 45-50% region is what I'm after insofar as funding is concerned. Made possible in part by UK in the game.



I'm really not sure about the benefit of the MTFF in technical terms, and OTL at least ESA was willing to combine its Columbus free-flyer plans for the simplicity of doing the same with a lab on ISS. I'm really not sure why they wouldn't ITTL as well--maybe a spun sattelite for variable gravity research on lab animals, where the centrifugal effects would couple badly or conversely crystal growth or other experiments where ISS/Freedom's microgravity wouldn't be "pure" enough?

You've pretty much already declared what the MTFF is for. Mainly for the most sensitive of microgravity experiments where a Butterfly beating its wings would be more than enough to completely wreck it. I. Kid. You. Not.

The other being AG experiments via centrifugal forces, though that will probably require a dedicated MTFF for use. That is why I'm not looking at more than two in use.



Do you mean the probe or the GPS network? By the time the network is a plan, there'll be serious butterflies, and it's worth noting that when ESA was created from ELDO and ESRO one major addition to its goals was satellite communications and other commercial aspects of spaceflight. Galilieo is very much in keeping with this goal, so it may re-appear in another form, perhaps even earlier.

The Satellite Navigation Network. I said it may go, not that it will go. It's being looked into.



Already mentioned my thoughts on Europa 4, see above. As far as the spacecraft...Soyuz isn't a bad design if a little small even for three. Are you thinking that they'd design their own variant on the multi-module design or license the design for local construction? And what's the time scale for the development, the mid-to-late 80s?

The Soyuz design is okay for it's primary purpose, as an LEO ferry, so 3.5-4.5 ms3 per crew member seems about acceptable. Though, to be perfectly honest, I really should be calling it a Shenzhou design, since it'll look more like that. Even if Shenzhou is basically an uprated Soyuz.

As for the timescale. I think late 80s to early 90s is about right, taking up to 6 years to build, test and verify the spacecraft from the time of go-ahead.



One final note for now. I'm under no illusion that in order to get above 10,000Kg LEO payloads, that will absolutely demand the development of a brand new launch vehicle. For that, an Atlas V/Falcon 9 setup is my favoured approach.
 
I am subscribing to this since I don't know much about the story of Europe in space and want to learn and so I won't burden your timeline with lots of my patented tangential comments...not yet anyway, until inspired to...:)

But...

...
6) Manned Flight: Will happen TTL. Planned to be made possible via Europa 4. Looking at the Soyuz design for planned ESA Manned Spacecraft. Could use a good name for it though - was thinking Aeris.

Well I never heard of the airline; a Wikipedia search turns it up along with misspellings (or rather mistranslations) of some anime character, and other characters and place names in video games and the like. Google search turns up more company names...

...And the first thing I thought it might mean, a variation on the spelling of the goddess Eris.

So--is this meant to be a tribute to Discordianism or what?
 
On ELDO TL had the European Minster keep the Program alive
the first successful flight of EUROPA II would be F12 on May 1973
but Already the Europa II program was death, because ELDO start EUROPA III project
the EUROPA II fights had go until 1979/80 until EUROPA III was ready
The EUROPA III was french first stage N2O4/UDMH fuel and German second stage Lox/LH2
the Irony: EUROPA III survived the end of ELDO as transform L3S and became ARIANE 1 !

Parallel to that was bigger EUROPA IV project for late 1980
Hawker Siddeley Dynamics prosed a Blue streak with 2 Blue Streaks as Booster and Second stage Lox/lh2 in size of Centaur


on ESA TL
had the HERMES shuttle fraction not won in ESA, the ARIANE 5 would look very different
a Modify ARIANE 4 with Booster N2O4/UDMH, second and third stage with Lox/LH2
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane5/1979 concept 01.jpg
but HERMES became a French prestige project: bigger and Heavier mini Space Shuttle of 20 tons
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane5/1982 concept 05.jpg

had the CNES guys of SOLARIS Project won
today US astronaut would fly with ESA Minotaur capsule on ARIANE 5 Rockets to ISS

SOLARIS = Station Orbitale Laboratoire Automatique de Rendez vous et d'Interventions Spatiales
was a space Platform were unmanned Minos capsule dock, later by Manned Minotaur Capsule
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/hermes/1981 solaris 02.jpg
The Project transform under HERMES to Man Tended Free Flyer MTTF, both of them canceled 1992
 

Delta Force

Banned
The ESA could carry out a large space probe program. There are so many places to send probes that the ESA could get a lot more innovative science published through probes than by manned spaceflight. ESA could focus on the farther planets and asteroid belt, areas not as well explored by the US and USSR. How about a probe mission to investigate Ceres, the first large asteroid found and a planet in the 1800s?
 
How this affects the Europa LV, we'll see. Though I'll need to uprate the upper stages to get the payload above 5,640Kg LEO I seem to be getting when devising it like Falcon 9 series. A stage-stretching + engine upgrade programme may be required to make it work.

One final note for now. I'm under no illusion that in order to get above 10,000Kg LEO payloads, that will absolutely demand the development of a brand new launch vehicle. For that, an Atlas V/Falcon 9 setup is my favoured approach.
How about using a Big Europa for manned flight and 10T+ payloads: a 360-380 cm diameter first stage with 4 uprated RZ2's, which essentially recreates Ariane with LOX/RP1? Lots of modularity with a 4-engine core, the Blue Streak 2-engine stage and a 1- engine booster* in all possible combinations.

* perhaps useful for a small payload LV.
 
The ESA could carry out a large space probe program. There are so many places to send probes that the ESA could get a lot more innovative science published through probes than by manned spaceflight. ESA could focus on the farther planets and asteroid belt, areas not as well explored by the US and USSR. How about a probe mission to investigate Ceres, the first large asteroid found and a planet in the 1800s?

The asteroid belts and comets I can see (and indeed, the ESA has had several successful probes to that area OTL), but outer planets...not so much. That area is very technologically challenging, mostly due to Jupiter's intense radiation belts, the sheer distance from the Sun (incidentally requiring Pu-238 production, which only the US and USSR/Russia ever seem to have invested in, for power), and the overall challenging environment for spacecraft reliability. The ESA could do it--and has (Ulysses and of course Huygens were ESA)--but only in conjunction with the US or Russia/USSR.

There's a reason only 7 spacecraft (8 if you want to include Juno already) have been dispatched to the outer planets IOTL...
 
Top