NewSpace Journal » EADS Astrium

A review of space tourism in Europe

Jeff Foust — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:53:19 +0000

I was on vacation last week in London, but that did not stop me from making a visit to the Royal Aeronautical Society last Tuesday for their “Space Tourism: A New Industry in the Making” conference. I’ve written up some highlights of the conference in The Space Review this week.

One of the bigger developments at the event was a confirmation by Hugues Laporte-Weywada of EADS Astrium that their suborbital spaceplane project, launched with great fanfare just over two years ago at the Paris Air Show, is going into stasis because of a lack of funding. They have been working on some key technologies, including the LOX/methane rocket engine that the vehicle will use, but now that this work is wrapping up the project will on until (or if) they can raise the €1 billion (US$1.4 billion) they estimate they need to develop the vehicle. Laporte-Weywada conceded that this means that they won’t be the first to enter the market, but tried to liken the situation to that encountered by Airbus, which entered the commercial jetliner market many years after Boeing and other companies but is now an industry giant.

Another area of focus was on the regulatory situation, particularly in the UK. Will Whitehorn of Virgin Galactic noted that no other country has a regulatory environment as favorable as the US, thanks to the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, although Sweden is the closest, thanks to existing law that has governed sounding rocket launches there for decades. (A representative from Spaceport Sweden noted that they are working with the Swedish National Space Board to get final clarification on the regulations that would govern suborbital commercial human spaceflight there.) The UK has no enabling law, which is hindering proposals to establish a spaceport in northern Scotland. Whitehorn said he wanted to talk with other British space companies to seek a comprehensive overhaul of UK space policy (including but not limited to commercial suborbital spaceflight regulation), with an eye towards the national elections planned for next year.

What does Astrium’s decision mean for suborbital spaceflight?

Jeff Foust — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:07:20 +0000

Rob Coppinger reported this week that Astrium has put on hold “indefinitely” its plans for a suborbital spaceplane. Astrium, a division of European aerospace giant EADS, announced plans for the “space jet” at the Paris Air Show in 2007, but there had been little visible progress in the vehicle’s development since then, beyond some propulsion work, as Astrium tried to raise a significant amount of money—on the order of €1 billion—to proceed with the vehicle’s development. According to Coppinger, Astrium decided in January to put the project on hold, blaming the “world economic situation” for making it difficult to secure funding. (Astrium, though, has kept the space plane section on its web site.)

So is this a sign of retrenchment in the space tourism market? Not necessarily. Astrium stood out as an exception: a large, established company in a market dominated by small entrepreneurial firms, who believe they can develop their vehicles for a small fraction of Astrium’s estimated cost (and in today’s market it’s difficult for any company to raise over a billion dollars for any kind of venture). Some suggested that Astrium was not interested in space tourism at all, instead looking at other applications for the vehicle or as a testbed for technology development, like LOX/methane engines.

Video: Whitehorn assesses the competition

Jeff Foust — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:00:25 +0000

Below is a brief snippet of Will Whitehorn’s speech at the FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference on Friday. In this segment Whitehorn examines some of the other ventures developing suborbital vehicles, including Rocketplane, EADS Astrium, Blue Origin, XCOR, Armadillo Aerospace, and Copenhagen Suborbitals, a little-known Danish firm developing a very minimalist suborbital system. Whitehorn’s theme in this segment is that while some of these ventures may be technically viable, they’re not capable—in his opinion, at least—of expanding to markets beyond tourism.

[Note: the video was shot with a Flip handheld camera, so the quality isn't great, and you'll probably want to crank the sound up.]

Virgin, Surrey, and Astrium

Jeff Foust — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:23:25 +0000

There was some coverage earlier this week of reports that Virgin Galactic and Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. (SSTL) were teaming up to develop a small satellite launcher using a new rocket launched from WhiteKnightTwo, the aircraft being developed to launch SpaceShipTwo. Virgin has been interested in some time in developing a small satellite launcher using elements of the same system developed for SS2/WK2, calling the concept “LauncherOne”, as Flight International reported a couple months ago. Working with SSTL, arguably the world’s leading smallsat developer, makes sense, since launch costs and availability have been key obstacles to wider acceptance of smallsats.

There is an interesting angle to this that has, by and large, not been picked up. Last year SSTL was acquired by EADS Astrium, one of Europe’s largest aerospace companies; the deal closed just last month. Among Astrium’s many other projects is a suborbital spaceplane of its own that would compete directly with Virgin Galactic. Is SSTL’s cooperation with Virgin a sign that Astrium indeed allows SSTL to continue to operate as an independent company “with its individual brand and unique approach to space”, as the January press release about the deal’s closing stated? Or is it a sign that Astrium’s spaceplane project, which has not shown much overt progress since its unveiling in June 2007, is on hold or in greater jeopardy?

ISPS Day 1 wrap-up

Jeff Foust — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:59:25 +0000

(The picture above doesn’t have anything to do directly with the conference, it’s just a nice view of the Moon rising around sunset Wednesday as seen from the conference site in Las Cruces.)

Yesterday’s sessions of the International Symposium for Personal Spaceflight didn’t have any groundbreaking revelations, but there were still some interesting developments and news from the various conference sessions, which I’ll summarize below:

One of the most informative presentations during the day was the first, by Valin Thorn, deputy program manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew & Cargo Program. He addressed head-on the recent decision to terminate the funded COTS agreement with Rocketplane Kistler, saying that they had missed milestones not only for their financing, but also a cargo module critical design review. He called the K-1 concept “outstanding” and said he wouldn’t be surprised to see them resubmit a revised proposal in the new round of COTS bidding.
John Herrington, filling in for George French in the same morning session (French was at the conference but called away to a board meeting), confirmed earlier reports that the company had lined up commitments from investors for $300 million of the sought-for $450 million (not $500 million as reported elsewhere), but those plans fell through because of a variety of reasons, including NASA’s agreement to buy Progress and Soyuz flights from Russia as well as comments by unnamed NASA officials that appeared to be disparaging towards COTS.
Herrington did say that work was proceeding with the XP suborbital spaceplane, and the company plans to announce a revised design of the vehicle on Friday. From what I understand, this will be more than a minor tweak to the existing modified-Learjet approach. Herrington said that some of the investors who has expressed an interest in the K-1 may also be interested in investing in the XP (which is done by a separate subsidiary company, Rocketplane Global), but didn’t have anything specific to say about XP financing.
Thorn’s talk also revealed some new developments by other companies that have unfunded COTS agreements. SPACEHAB is working on a concept called ARCTUS to develop a cargo spacecraft based on the Centaur upper stage. PlanetSpace, in addition to their work on their Nova booster and spaceplane, is also working on a less-ambitious concept that would use a launch vehicle called the Athena 3 (a Lockheed Martin Athena 2 augmented with two shuttle SRB segments) for carrying cargo to the station.
SpaceDev CEO Mark Sirangelo said his company is continuing work on its Dream Chaser design for both orbital and suborbital applications, including working with NASA on an unfunded COTS agreement. The company’s operations have been disrupted because of the San Diego wildfires that forced them to evacuate their Poway, California headquarters; he said their team is working on their new COTS proposal from a trailer on a beach near San Diego.
Sirangelo added that SpaceDev may work with Benson Space Company on engine technology for BSC’s suborbital vehicle, but plans no additional involvement on that project.
Hugues Laporte-Weywada, senior vice president of EADS Astrium, didn’t offer a lot of new details about his company’s suborbital space tourism vehicle. That effort started in early 2006 with market and design studies; the Rocketplane-like spaceplane won out over rocket-and-capsule and air-launched spaceplane approaches. The company is continuing work on both technology and financing, and hopes to have all the money lined up to develop the vehicle as soon as possible in early 2008.
The government-commercial synergy panel was a crowded mix of familiar topics (operationally responsive space, the Marine Corps’ SUSTAIN concept, and other RLV technology development work), without a lot of new developments announced.
Two afternoon panels featuring past and expectant space travelers were combined into one, with Anousheh Ansari and two NASA astronauts (Michael Lopez-Alegria and Dan Barry) discussing what their orbital flights were like, as well as expectant or would-be space tourists Reda Anderson (Rocketplane), Craig Willan (Virgin Galactic), and Lori Garver (who tried to arrange a trip to the ISS in 2002) discussing their expectations. One theme that emerged: when you’re in space, take time to simply soak in the experience rather than get caught up in tasks or taking pictures.

Thursday’s sessions appear focused on spaceport development, financing, and more discussions with astronauts. I will continue, as schedule and technology permits, to microblog some insights from the conference on Twitter during the day.

More on EADS’ suborbital vehicle plans

Jeff Foust — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:26:57 +0000

Some reaction (and clarification) on the EADS Astrium announcement this week about its plans to develop a suborbital vehicle for space tourism markets:

Burt Rutan, contacted by SPACE.com, doesn’t think much of the plan. He thinks it, and other rocket-powered aircraft that take off from a runway under rocket or jet power, will be more expensive to develop and operate, and also have greater operational risks. “The non-recurring development cost of a suborbital spaceship that has rocket and jet engines — both of which leave the atmosphere and experience reentry — will be far more than our SpaceShipTwo program,” he said.

The vice president of the European Commission, Guenter Verheugen, is also dissatisfied with the Astrium proposal, but for very different reasons: “It’s only for the super rich, which is against my social convictions,” he told Reuters. (One wonders what he thinks of the many terrestrial luxury items and resorts that are also affordable only by the “super rich” in Europe or elsewhere.) The article also notes that an Airbus official “declined to answer a question on the apparent paradox of a company trying to cut emissions in one area while investing in a project to blast rich travellers into space.” Perhaps because the paradox wasn’t apparent to him or others.

Also, thanks to a few readers that helped alleviate my ignorance about the seating inside Astrium’s “space jet”. It turns out the seats are hinged on each end, allowing the seats to rotate into the proper position during ascent so that the g-forces are aligned on the G_x vector through the body. It turns out there’s an illustration in a brochure about the vehicle, although, curiously, no matching image in a photo gallery. In any case, it makes much more sense to me now.

EADS reinvents Rocketplane

Jeff Foust — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:32:54 +0000

Yesterday the European aerospace company EADS Astrium announced its proposal to develop a suborbital vehicle to serve the space tourism market. While this is a new design, the concept of operations is almost identical to what Rocketplane Global has been developing for several years: a vehicle the size of a business jet that takes off under jet power, ignites a rocket engine at altitude to fly a suborbital trajectory, then land again under jet power. If nothing else, the Rocketplane people should feel pleased that concept has been “borrowed” by a big aerospace company (even though Astrium’s actual vehicle design is somewhat different from the Rocketplane XP.) It also appears that those earlier reports about the use of an A380F as a carrier aircraft turned out to be unfounded.

EADS didn’t release a lot of technical details about the vehicle design, but one thing about it struck me as odd. Look at the seating design of the cabin:

I can understand why the designed put the seats sideways: it makes it easy for passengers to look out windows, and may allow for a shorter passenger cabin. However, during ascent, this design means that the g-forces experienced by passengers will be on the G_y vector: across the body from left to right (or right to left, depending on how you’re oriented), which doesn’t seem as preferable as taking the g-forced through the body on the G_x vector. One of the features of the SpaceShipTwo cabin, for example, is the movable seat, so that the g-forces go through the G_x vector on both launch and reentry.

So what does Astrium’s entry into the market mean for space tourism in general, and other companies in the market? The endorsement of the suborbital space tourism concept by one of the world’s largest aerospace companies does certainly give industry an additional air of legitimacy, although it’s not clear just how important or necessary that endorsement is (except, perhaps, in the eyes of some contrarians.) And the addition of new ventures may increase the likelihood that one or more of them are eventually successful.

However, how seriously should this proposal be taken? According to the BBC Astrium estimates that it will cost €1 billion (US$1.3 billion) to develop the vehicle, and that the company will seek additional investment. They plan to charge €150,000-200,000 (US$195,000-265,000) per ticket, which puts them on the high end of known prices, particularly compared to Virgin’s $200,000 list price. It’s tough to see how the business plan for this would close, given the huge investment required: at the €200K ticket price, that means a revenue per flight of €800K. That would mean Astrium would have to fly the vehicle 1,250 times to recoup their investment—and that assumes a marginal cost per flight of zero! That’s sharply different from other companies, which require anywhere from five to 20 times less money to develop their vehicles, making it much more likely they can fly enough to pay off the investment.

A conspiratorially-minded person might wonder if this is an example of what’s known in the computer industry as FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt): by playing up their experience and putting such a high price tag on the venture, it could create uncertainty in the market that smaller, less experienced companies can pull off their plans. That may not be an intentional effect, but it is something to look out for in the months to come.