From what I’ve read yes they were also separate For each stage and in their own languages, working one after the other, although they were all in the same control Center room
On Languages
The British used English in documentation
Le français évident français dans la documentation
Die Deutschen gaben Dokumentation in English/Germans
e naturalmente anche gli italiani
No wonder they never were able to launch that Poor Rocket
Best example is that one launch failed because the plugs from the second to the third stage on the French side (Coralie)
were wired differently than on the German side (Astris)...
(Source: Bernd Leitenberger web page)
On Ariane Program they learn from this painful lesson
A French run Project with French/English/German documentation for Europan Subcontractors
The French build Ariane Rocket with Europan parts, put on Launch Lad by French and launch by French.
I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread that the late 1960 Anglo-French rocket proposal was made of Blue streak + Emeraude, but it actually goes a bit further than that in April-May 1960, but not really with an Emeraude, but instead with a Vesta or rather "Super-Veronique" as it was called back then.
There are two sources I could find for this, first Herbe Moulin’s La construction d’une politique Spatiale en France
"The French side, having learnt of the British government’s intent [of the black prince rocket], expressed their desire for the second stage to be French-made, developped from a Vesta"
The source given is an interministerial comitee of May 23 1960
And another, from Varnonteaux’s L’aventure spatiale française
"The british would make a first stage from BLUE streak , while the french would make a second stage from Super-Véronique"
The source given is Jacques-Blamont (who was deeply involved in the negociations at the time) "La politique spatiale française et son avenir" in "Cahier de la fondation Charles de Gaulle #12"
Vesta and Super-Veronique were two names for the same rocket made by the LRBA.
The story: Vesta/Super-Veronique, despite first launching in late 1965 and only flying 4 times is an Older project dating from at least 1957-1958.
It was initially an attempt at scaling up the Veronique technology from 4t of thrust to 20t of thrust, work on it at the LRBA from 1958-1960 was rather successful With good component test firings in 1960 it was even conceived as a first stage of a small french orbital launcher in March 1959 (H. Moulin p134)
After the successful component tests it was branched off in several versions
-A 8t thrust version that was dropped since it was too close to the Veronique-61
-A 12t thrust version that was unsuccessfully bid at the early 1961 French sounding rocket acquisition round
-A 16t thrust version that was successfuly bid at the same round (10 purchases under the name Super-Veronique 16/4 NG), eventually renamed into Vesta.
-A 28t thrust version, which in September 1960 became the basis for the Vexin engine of the SEREB VE-121, initially conceived as the booster stage of VE-111 Topaze, the VE-121 was initially named Cassiopée before being renamed into Emeraude, the first stage of Diamant A
LRBA’s Vesta and SEREB’s Emeraude had relatively close development.
Considering the timing of the April-May 1960 french proposal, the Super-Véronique considered at the time was likely the 20t thrust version, its mass is unknown, but it probably was a bit heavier than the 16t thrust, 5t mass Vesta that flew in 1965
It’s worth remembering that Super-Véronique/Vesta and Emeraude were powered by non-hypergolic Turpentine oil and Nitric acid, unlike the Coralie of Europa which used hypegolic UDMH/N2O4.
Air starting the vexin and the Vesta would have been harder, but then this thread started with a air launcher Diamant A!
By January 1961, according to C N Hill’s a vertical empire, the design of the Europa french upper stage had changed but the french had not chosen yet between a solid fuel version and a UDHM/N2O4 version
So if I get the genesis of Coralie correctly:
May 1960: Blue streak + Super Veronique (Turpentine) (1.2m or 1.0m diameter)
November 1960: Blue streak + 1.4m Cassiopée/Emeraude (Turpentine)
January 1961: Blue streak + Solid stage or 1.37m single chamber stage (UDMH)
February 1961 (Strasbourg proposal): Blue streak +1.8m single chamber stage (UDMH)
Then it became the 2m four chamber Coralie
Why they took Coralie ? a brand new rocket stage yet to build and tested !
Vesta/Super-Veronique evolved slowly into Cassiopée/Emeraude 1957-1964
But Testing was problematic and first Emeraude fly in 1965 with French Satellite,
Turpentine oil and Nitric acid are non-hypergolic, it need Fantol to ignition
The Fantol was on bottom of turpentine tank do higher density
It enter engine first and react with Nitric acid hypergolic and ignite the Turpentine oil.
Understandable this give problems for stage separation but feasible, with Hot-Staging
If Emeraude start up engine in end phase of Blue Streak operation (like Russian Rockets)
But there are other issue
Emeraude mass is 18200 kg
Blue Streak Mk I can carry only 15609 kg as upper stage !
LRBA had to modify Emeraude, cut the rocket half in size, to size of Agena stage
Also Emeraude diameter of 140 cm was problematic for Payload and third stage.
So Coralie with 200 cm diameter and 11894 kg mass, using hypergolic UDMH and NTO
make more sense
I think Coralie was created because Diamant tooling and stage were too narrow for Blue Streak: something a touch larger was seen as necessary
(although Atlas-Agena may disagree : Atlas was Blue Streak half-brother except larger diameter, while Diamant and Agena had exact same diameter of 5 ft)
Drats, ninja'd by @Michel Van (Agena reference included) - he nailed it better than me.
I learned to love the Agena, and I agree that neither Coralie nor Astris were a match to it.
Quick comparison between Vesta and Black Knight (gamma 301)
Black Knight
Vesta
Length (m)
9.23
9.94
Diameter (m)
0.914
1.00
Dry mass (kg)
626
715
Wet mass (kg)
5887
5017
SL. Thrust (kN)
96
141
SL. ISP (s)
213
190
So a Vesta would make for a quite direct substitute for the Second stage of the Black Prince vehicle, the Initial french proposal does make sense when comparing the two, even if the performances would take a moderate hit
After the successful component tests it was branched off in several versions
-A 8t thrust version that was dropped since it was too close to the Veronique-61
-A 12t thrust version that was unsuccessfully bid at the early 1961 French sounding rocket acquisition round
-A 16t thrust version that was successfuly bid at the same round (10 purchases under the name Super-Veronique 16/4 NG), eventually renamed into Vesta.
-A 28t thrust version, which in September 1960 became the basis for the Vexin engine of the SEREB VE-121, initially conceived as the booster stage of VE-111 Topaze, the VE-121 was initially named Cassiopée before being renamed into Emeraude, the first stage of Diamant A
LRBA’s Vesta and SEREB’s Emeraude had relatively close development.
After the successful component tests it was branched off in several versions
-A 8t thrust version that was dropped since it was too close to the Veronique-61
-A 12t thrust version that was unsuccessfully bid at the early 1961 French sounding rocket acquisition round
-A 16t thrust version that was successfuly bid at the same round (10 purchases under the name Super-Veronique 16/4 NG), eventually renamed into Vesta.
-A 28t thrust version, which in September 1960 became the basis for the Vexin engine of the SEREB VE-121, initially conceived as the booster stage of VE-111 Topaze, the VE-121 was initially named Cassiopée before being renamed into Emeraude, the first stage of Diamant A
LRBA’s Vesta and SEREB’s Emeraude had relatively close development.
It will be noted that in this 1961 LRBA document, the engines were fed by tank pressurization thanks to a gas generator whose gases come from a grain of Epictète powder. As a reminder, Veronique used a gas generator whose gases were produced by liquid propellants.
In fact, the powder gas generator was only used on the VE121 Emeraude and is at the origin of the two propulsion failures of this vehicle. The powder gases reacted with nitric acid, raising the temperature and pressure in the tank until it exploded. At the time, the POGO effect was incriminated but the vibrations due to the POGO effect only accelerated the chemical reaction by increasing the contact surface between the gases and the acid.
Subsequently, for Vesta, Coralie and L17 Amethyste (Diamant B), LRBA went back to gas generators using liquid propellants.
The mass of Emeraude stage has NOT mass of 18200 kg. (that mass of Diamant A rocket )
The correct stage mass is 14685 kg
but the issue remain with weight limitation of 15609 kg.
with Blue Streak interstage 156 kg and faring (68kg)
leaving 700 kg for payload and flight electronic from Diamant A.
To compare payload
Diamant A - 80 kg
BS+E - 700 kg (lower)
Europa I - 1440 kg
After the successful component tests it was branched off in several versions
-A 8t thrust version that was dropped since it was too close to the Veronique-61
-A 12t thrust version that was unsuccessfully bid at the early 1961 French sounding rocket acquisition round
-A 16t thrust version that was successfuly bid at the same round (10 purchases under the name Super-Veronique 16/4 NG), eventually renamed into Vesta.
-A 28t thrust version, which in September 1960 became the basis for the Vexin engine of the SEREB VE-121, initially conceived as the booster stage of VE-111 Topaze, the VE-121 was initially named Cassiopée before being renamed into Emeraude, the first stage of Diamant A
LRBA’s Vesta and SEREB’s Emeraude had relatively close development.
Thanks a lot! It finally explains what the number beside the name I had read (Super veronique 16/4, 25/6) meant. There were actually studied guided (G instead of NG) versions considered at the time.
It confirms what I thought, that the 25t thrust version was 1.2m diameter
It fits with the early 1960 Super-Veronique derived Proto-diamant proposal, same diameter, almost the same length, it would have been an orbital launcher under 10 tons!
After the successful component tests it was branched off in several versions
-A 8t thrust version that was dropped since it was too close to the Veronique-61
-A 12t thrust version that was unsuccessfully bid at the early 1961 French sounding rocket acquisition round
-A 16t thrust version that was successfuly bid at the same round (10 purchases under the name Super-Veronique 16/4 NG), eventually renamed into Vesta.
-A 28t thrust version, which in September 1960 became the basis for the Vexin engine of the SEREB VE-121, initially conceived as the booster stage of VE-111 Topaze, the VE-121 was initially named Cassiopée before being renamed into Emeraude, the first stage of Diamant A
LRBA’s Vesta and SEREB’s Emeraude had relatively close development.
It will be noted that in this 1961 LRBA document, the engines were fed by tank pressurization thanks to a gas generator whose gases come from a grain of Epictète powder. As a reminder, Veronique used a gas generator whose gases were produced by liquid propellants.
In fact, the powder gas generator was only used on the VE121 Emeraude and is at the origin of the two propulsion failures of this vehicle. The powder gases reacted with nitric acid, raising the temperature and pressure in the tank until it exploded. At the time, the POGO effect was incriminated but the vibrations due to the POGO effect only accelerated the chemical reaction by increasing the contact surface between the gases and the acid.
Subsequently, for Vesta, Coralie and L17 Amethyste (Diamant B), LRBA went back to gas generators using liquid propellants.
Thanks, yeah I had seen this from one of the link I put above
"By late 1962, the manufacturing reference were complete following wind turbine tests and swapping the Solid gas generator with a proven liquid one, indeed, the solid gas generator for the Diamant’s 1st stage had, at this time, development problems, and that stage was also derived from the 20t thrust one"
The mass of Emeraude stage has NOT mass of 18200 kg. (that mass of Diamant A rocket )
The correct stage mass is 14685 kg
but the issue remain with weight limitation of 15609 kg.
with Blue Streak interstage 156 kg and faring (68kg)
leaving 700 kg for payload and flight electronic from Diamant A.
To compare payload
Diamant A - 80 kg
BS+E - 700 kg (lower)
Europa I - 1440 kg
Thanks, I had never heard of this weight limitation, curious because I remember non-ELDO proposals such as the Blue Streak-Centaur probably ending up heavier. I imagine this limit could be surpassed by structural strengthening, but the British Government was against any additional development for Blue streak...
Thanks, I had never heard of this weight limitation, curious because I remember non-ELDO proposals such as the Blue Streak-Centaur probably ending up heavier. I imagine this limit could be surpassed by structural strengthening, but the British Government was against any additional development for Blue streak...
The so called Blue Streak Mk I were build MRBS for testing as program was cancel.
it had to launch a 2000 kg warhead, they put however a higher upper limit for launching something else.
So they used 0,5 mm metal sheet, like the Atlas and keep the tanks under helium pressure
For the Europa II they made they reduce the empty mass of Blue Streak and 5 tons more propellants.
uprated the RZ2 to MkIII
Now for ELDO-B1/B2 and ELDO-C variants
The Blue Streak Mk II? with tanks out 1,5 mm metal sheet and RZ2 MkIII engines. Also for TA variants need reenforce Blue Streak (either for L17 or P16 booster)
ELDO-C studies were Titan IIIC Approach
either Blue Streak Mk III? with large solids or two other Blue Streak,
Here the core stage is a reenforced and stretch Blue Streak
Source:
Europäische Trägerraketen band 1
Bernd Leitenberger
ISBN 9-783837-095913
I have the JBIS february 1987, vol.40 with Mr. B. Gire article about French MLV, 1964-68. I've cleaned up the MLV data sheet. Added a list of L-17 / Améthyste / Valois combinations and names.
Valois was the ultimate development of press-fed technology, with 35 tons thrust. Next step was to go turbopump, resulting in the M40, later M55, then Viking with 70 tons of thrust.
Sooo...
1*Valois = Améthyste (Coralie too: was kind of L-17 shortened and flattened to 2 m diameter and 12 tons, because Europa)
2*Valois = Diane
4*Valois = Catherine
8*Valois = Octavie
That's what I call "building blocks". Then throw solid-fuel and hydrogen stages into the lot. Never realized before there were so many launcher projects with Diane and Catherine first stages, that is 2*Valois and 4*Valois.
Going to the logical end of this, one could invent a full and entire LEGO family of french launchers, starting from Diamant and ending beyond Supervulcain.
From Fluorine rocket engine demonstrators : design, tests and results Christophe ROTHMUND
SEREB studied, among others, the application of FLOX to the Blue streak first stage of Europa 1 in 1967-68. The computations were made in cases where a 1250 kg satellite was launched from Kourou on an equatorial low earth orbit at 300 km. Two combustion temperatures were studied : a minimal temperature at 3550 K and an optimized temperature at 3750 K. The results for three versions of FLOX (with respectively 30, 50 or 70 % of fluorine in the LOX) were as follow :
Gains in geostationary orbit were identical, but required the use of Europa 2 (with the fourth perigee-apogee stage ìPASî)
The consequences of using FLOX on Blue Streak were two-fold : hardware and processes. The hardware implications were deemed to be minor : only valves, gaskets and bellows would require changes. Processes changes were considered to be more important due to the toxicity of fluorine. This would have required special protective gears for all ground crews, protections against leakages on the launch pad and protecting all populations around the launch center in case of an in-flight emergency leading to vaporization of FLOX. All test areas of Blue Streak (especially the Spadeadam range in the United Kingdom) would have required identical protections. The study concluded that performance gains were very interesting, but would only be of use in case future space programs required such high performances.
Europa IIIA Blue Streak with H14 - launch mass 110t
Europa IIIB French L120 with H25 - launch mass 160t
Europa IIIC L140 (4xRZ-13) with H17 - launch mass 175t
Europa IIID H50 with H17 - launch mass 78t
Europa IIIE Cluster
the IIIE design is very vague a 3 stage rocket from Cluster of fuel tanks
7 tanks in first stage 3 in second and Coralie as Third stage
is Europa IIIE identical with Supervulcain B ?
got some one info about this, Please !
in end Europa IIIB was the winner and later reborn as Ariane 1
I've found the abstract of a tech paper, related to Europa III-E.
" Use of existing systems ASTRIS stage 3 and RUBIS stage 4 of EUROPA I / II and an L.R.B.A. 40 ton engine , use of the parallel staging principle resulting in a consequent module design ( stages 1 and 2 feature the same standard module ) use of medium - energy storable propellant combinations as well as standardi- sation of structural components within the module ."
It seems that LRBA and MAN proposed a Saturn IB like cluster. 7 modules, 75 tons of storable each, 140 tons of thrust, two variants.
- One had 4*Viking and classic steel tanks.
-the other: reinforced plastic tanks, pressure-fed with Valois engines.
I wonder how far is this connected to proposal of cluster of seven Diamant B first stages.
as emergency replacement for Blue Streak after another British crisis at ELDO in late 1960s
I wonder how far is this connected to proposal of cluster of seven Diamant B first stages.
as emergency replacement for Blue Streak after another British crisis at ELDO in late 1960s
You mean Supervulcain B ? That was 100% french Plan B.
Now LRBA may have dusted it off for M.A.N and Europa III...
But only the first stage . A cluster of 8 was called Octavie. 4 modules was called Catherine and was mocked up in 1968.
On an impromptu visit to the National Museum of Scotland yesterday (17th November 2023) I found the Europa II-TA Hammerhead mentioned earlier in the thread... is this an actual manufactures model or a later recreation?
Diagram of Diamant BC, the plan of international cooperation with Germany and India (the latter would provide the fourth stage, which became the basis for the fourth stage of India’s first orbital launcher, SLV), "and maybe Belgium and Argentina"; 70kg to Super-GTO, 50kg to a C3=0 escape trajectory. 40 launches were planned between 1974 and 1985, at an unitary cost of 15 million Francs, 20 to france, 6 to ESRO, 5 to germany, 3 to India and 6 undermined one.
Studies on the Franco-Germano-Indian Diamant BC would join studies of the Franco-British Black Diamant and form the basis of Diamant BP4.
Remnants of an age where micro launchers were conceived (due to budget restrictions, admittedly) at an european level, and not a national one, like today
Source of the diagram is "La France et l’Europe spatiale 1957-1972, actes de la troisième rencontre de l’IFHE"
At the beginning of the 60's ONERA tried to build a minimal satellite launcher based on the Berenice sounding rocket.f
from forum-conquete-spatiale.fr and The report to IAC 2022(Paris) "Onera at the beginning of space exploration (1950-1963)" from Philipe Varnoteaux and. Nicolas Bérend.
That small satellite launcher would have weighted around 3,5 tons and would have launched a satellite around 3 kg. The first Japanese satellite OSUMI (24 kg including the 4th stage of the rocket -empty after combustion of the solid propulsor-) was launched in 1970 by a minimal satellite launcher, based on Lambda 4S launching rocket (weight of that launcher 9,5 metrical tons)
the Germans were also eager into Hydrogen and Fluorine engines
They proposed the Ophos stage pressure fed Hydrolox (also advance version with Fluorine)
OPHOS stans for "Optimierte Hochenergetische Stufe" (eng: Optimized Highenergetic [Rocket]stage)
most illustrations show Ophos as upper stage for Thor.
(in the time Germany look in possibility for license to build Thor/Delta rocket by German Aerospace company's)
Everybody seemingly was obsessed by fluorine. The reason ? with LH2 (mixed with LOX) it gets specific impulse way past 470 seconds - up to 510 at last.
And it is that seemingly small difference in specific impulse that makes a SSTO easier. The mass fraction a little less insane.
Earth is just a little too big and dense for chemical SSTO. Orbital ascent is perched too high, 9200 m/s. Against that dismal background, some were ready to try fluorine at any cost, just to get those few dozen seconds of specific impulse for a SSTO.
At the beginning of the 60's ONERA tried to build a minimal satellite launcher based on the Berenice sounding rocket.f
from forum-conquete-spatiale.fr and The report to IAC 2022(Paris) "Onera at the beginning of space exploration (1950-1963)" from Philipe Varnoteaux and. Nicolas Bérend.
That small satellite launcher would have weighted around 3,5 tons and would have launched a satellite around 3 kg. The first Japanese satellite OSUMI (24 kg including the 4th stage of the rocket -empty after combustion of the solid propulsor-) was launched in 1970 by a minimal satellite launcher, based on Lambda 4S launching rocket (weight of that launcher 9,5 metrical tons)
SATMOS got discussed in the other "French Space Rocket question" thread, it's really interesting, probably feasible technically but justified, and eventually cancelled by purely internal politics within the French space sector.
There are some small, early french launcher projects outside of SEREB and CNES...off the top of my head, CASDN's 4-stages, 40kg@400x400km launcher c. 1957-58; CCES & Polytechnique Projet Meteore (Balloon-launched, 1kg microsat orbital launcher, c.1957-59), some of the largest Sud-Aviation sounding rocket proposals (like the "Persée", 200kg to 1500km, compare 350kg to 1000km of Saphir, Diamant's first two stages... rather close) were also close to orbital-capable, with only an adequate third stage...
Like the French Aviation industry, which rebuilt and flourished through the 50s before truly breaking out just after and eventually consolidating, I think the French missile and rocket industry had reached a certain level of dynamism and development* by the early-mid 60s that other structures than those we knew could have organically "converted the try" into a small orbital launcher with moderate amount of public funding. Now some consolidation and centralised direction of launcher activities was necessary of course, which CNES got by the mid 70s and kept for a generation.
*that Dassault effectively made a nuclear-capable SRBM on its own with only partial government approval proves this.
Everybody seemingly was obsessed by fluorine. The reason ? with LH2 (mixed with LOX) it gets specific impulse way past 470 seconds - up to 510 at last.
And it is that seemingly small difference in specific impulse that makes a SSTO easier. The mass fraction a little less insane.
Earth is just a little too big and dense for chemical SSTO. Orbital ascent is perched too high, 9200 m/s. Against that dismal background, some were ready to try fluorine at any cost, just to get those few dozen seconds of specific impulse for a SSTO.
to complement Jung's paper, an interesting quote by Pierre Soufflet (first director of SEP) and Louis Fouesnant (former head of propulsion at LRBA) in "Naissance de l'industrie spatiale française au debut des années 60; deuxieme rencontre de l'IFHE", p. 164
"Pierre soufflet: I'd like that Mr. Fouesnaut talks a bit about Hydrogen-Fluorine Propulsion
Fouesnant: The DRME wanted to do something, and we wouldn't refuse a bit of work, but we didn't do that much. Either way, I perfectly remember what the americans had said. They had made fluorine-hydrogen engines early one, of a few tons of thrust, and they'd say not to fire it above Florida, because if it explodes who knows what'll happen on the ground
Soufflet: But we did analyse it, because there were test benches
Fouesnant: There weren't large volumes. I remember it was mostly CLO3F, it wasn't fluorine. I did not believe it was a viable technology
Soufflet: The DRME didn't see it this way. We almost had to stop working on Hydrogen-Oxygen propulsion to work on Hydrogen-Fluorine, hence why I bring it up"
The DRME being the old French armed force’s Research and test institute, whose funding of LH2/LO2 propulsion in the 60s was crucial for the future development of Ariane. The obsession was strong there too, and a bullet was dodged.
SATMOS got discussed in the other "French Space Rocket question" thread, it's really interesting, probably feasible technically but justified, and eventually cancelled by purely internal politics within the French space sector.
There are some small, early french launcher projects outside of SEREB and CNES...off the top of my head, CASDN's 4-stages, 40kg@400x400km launcher c. 1957-58; CCES & Polytechnique Projet Meteore (Balloon-launched, 1kg microsat orbital launcher, c.1957-59), some of the largest Sud-Aviation sounding rocket proposals (like the "Persée", 200kg to 1500km, compare 350kg to 1000km of Saphir, Diamant's first two stages... rather close) were also close to orbital-capable, with only an adequate third stage...
As far as I know, the CASDN 4-stage sounding rocket project consisted of a Veronique rocket topped by a Monica rocket. I don’t think this rocket had orbital capability.
As for the Persée project, the choice of the manufacturer (Sud Aviation or Nord Aviation) was not yet fixed, to my knowledge, when it was cancelled.
I enclose two pages from a CNES report of 1965 that give some details about the planned "Famille 2" rockets of which Persée was the most powerful.
Attachments
1965 Programme de développement de fusées-sondes Pl1.jpg
382.6 KB
· Views: 39
1965 Programme de développement de fusées-sondes Pl4.jpg
As far as I know, the CASDN 4-stage sounding rocket project consisted of a Veronique rocket topped by a Monica rocket. I don’t think this rocket had orbital capability.
As far as I know, the CASDN 4-stage sounding rocket project consisted of a Veronique rocket topped by a Monica rocket. I don’t think this rocket had orbital capability.
As for the Persée project, the choice of the manufacturer (Sud Aviation or Nord Aviation) was not yet fixed, to my knowledge, when it was cancelled.
I enclose two pages from a CNES report of 1965 that give some details about the planned "Famille 2" rockets of which Persée was the most powerful.
Your chapter in IFHE's book seemed to refer to the Nord proposal using Rubis-derived upper stages (and therefore not Stromboli and Vega blocks), I thought that this particular design of Persée, using Dragon-derived upper stages, was more of Sud's proposal.
As for CASDN, what I had read (H.Moulin's "Politique Spatiale" book p 73-75) referenced very early (1955-1956) studies of a "Artificial Satellite Study Comitee" that followed feasibility studies of a satellite of this orbit and mass (40kg 300-400 km) and whose Ballistic sub-comittee came to the conclusion of such a 4 stage+1 satellite launcher.
About the rockets of this "famille 2", the CNES report states:
“The rockets of this family are made with a basic motor 800 mm in diameter loaded with a Mammouth grain and having a fixed nozzle.
The assembly of elements made up of Stromboli (Ø 550) and Vega (Ø 305) stages allows to obtain a series of high-performance rockets, whose structures remain classic.
The aim of this rocket family is to enable the replacement of the current Rubis rocket (payload diameter 650) with standard diameter stages (Ø 550 or Ø 305) in a relatively short period of time, that is to say to allow the assembly of scientific payloads, developed during launches on medium-performance rockets of the family 1.”
Regarding the first stage loaded with a Mammouth grain, there was of course the Nord Aviation NA801 motor (Agate and Rubis first stage) and a competing proposal from Sud Aviation. The characteristics of these two engines are described in the attached table.
It can be assumed that this 800 mm stage proposed by Sud Aviation was derived from the motor envisaged for the BAR missile project, intended for Israel and competitor of the Dassault MD620, which was not selected. And the piloted Mammouth (M PILOTÉ) of the "famille 4" would be very close to the BAR first stage which included, like that of Bérénice, four small rotary motors with inclined nozzle (BER stage).
The upper stages with Stromboli ( Ø 550), and Vega ( Ø 305) grains would have been different from those of the "famille 1" (Belier, Centaure, Dragon, Dauphin, Eridan). The report mentions a modification of the fins, nozzles, thermal protections, etc.
Even if the report does not specify it precisely, it is likely that the manufacture of the "famille 2" rockets would have been entrusted to Sud Aviation.
As for CASDN, what I had read (H.Moulin's "Politique Spatiale" book p 73-75) referenced very early (1955-1956) studies of a "Artificial Satellite Study Comitee" that followed feasibility studies of a satellite of this orbit and mass (40kg 300-400 km) and whose Ballistic sub-comittee came to the conclusion of such a 4 stage+1 satellite launcher.
Thank you for that reminder. I must admit that I never discussed this subject with Hervé Moulin.
To think in 1955 that France could launch an artificial satellite "within two or three years" was extremely optimistic.
Here is a text mentioning the four-stage rocket formed by a Veronique topped by a Monica. It was published by Jean Corbeau (who was then in charge of Propulsion Dpt at the LRBA) in the Revue de Défense Nationale.
"The first unit of the VIKING [55t thrust], hastily assembled for presentation during an official visit, made its world debut on December 8, 1970, when it was presented to members of the ELDO technical committee. Assembled on the fifth floor of the IBM building on avenue de Neuilly, it was bound to make a strong impression, especially in a rather low-ceilinged hall. A photographic montage, half artist's view, half reality, which cost our friend SIMON many hours of effort, showed the EUROPA III propulsion bay as we shall see it, if... a fifth engine is not added, for example."
A paper on HORA/ELGO,mentionned earlier in this thread, freely available on google books... but I share it here because google books can have unreliable access.
Future Launch Vehicle With Multi-Mission Capability, Using High energy Propulsion Systems by R. Reichert
A paper on HORA/ELGO,mentionned earlier in this thread, freely available on google books... but I share it here because google books can have unreliable access.
Future Launch Vehicle With Multi-Mission Capability, Using High energy Propulsion Systems by R. Reichert
Hawker Siddeley's proposal for the European Space Tug for the Space Shuttle, when NASA was still offering this as an option for European participation, before the USAF chimed in.
This was led By Hawker Siddeley Dynamics, which led a consortium with ERNO, Dornier, Fokker, Matra, Air Liquide, Fiat, Montedel, Bell Telephone and Contraves.
Taken from old issues of JBIS on the internet. See attachments.
Note that it is a later, separate proposal from Dornier's initial one, see https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dornier-space-tug.11123/ Other sources seem to confirm the later studies had converged on a 10-10.5t propellant load.
Another depiction of it, from
Preparations in Europe for a Possible Participation in the Post Apollo Program with a Space Tug Apollo Program , 1971
Two other consortium also proposed Space tugs, one led by MBB, with Aérospatiale, BAC, Elliott/ICL, Selenia, CASA, ETCA, and another, apparently not NASA-sanctioned by Cryorocket (MBB and SEP) - the Cryorocket one was touted as having commonalities with Europa III's H20 stage.
Would love if someone could find more information on the former MBB proposal
It seems that this is a depiction of it (from H.Hopmann et.al. Status and tendencies for low to medium thrust propulsion systems, 1988) , propellant load varied (15 to 28t ??), but apparently were generally larger than Hawker Sidelley's proposal. Propulsion would have been 8t thrust, 470s isp, 25-100% throttling.
Likely another depiction of it, from "les trentes premieres années du CNES", but widely available on the internet
While neither of the consortium were led by a french company, the space tug also enjoyed a certain popularity in french aerospace industrial circles. I wonder if an European Space Tug and Ariane could have co-existed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
