CNES, ArianeGroup Move Forward on Themis Reusable Rocket Project
PARIS (CNES PR) — The joint innovation team of CNES and ArianeGroup tested the first elements of the future Themis demonstrator in 2020. The project is gaining momentum in 2021, when the ArianeWorks device has entered its second phase.
For ArianeWorks , the joint innovation accelerator created by CNES and ArianeGroup to work on the launchers of the future, season 2 has just started. At the end of the 18-month pilot phase, and in view of the positive results of the first achievements, the mechanism was extended for a further 18-month period with increased resources and renewed support from external partners.
Among the novelties, the Themis project now has three work platforms on the CNES and ArianeGroup sites. This confirmation follows the start, at the end of 2020, of the first test operations in the historic Vernon area, under a contract with ESA. These full-scale filling / emptying tests on a tank constitute an elementary step which allows the equipment, ground resources and operations to be broken in, before launching more complex projects according to the iterative methodology of the project.
We start with very simple things that gradually move us towards our end goal, which is the development of a real reusable rocket stage. The work area sees material germinate every month: this is a good sign of the dynamics of the Themis program.
— Jérôme Vila, animator of ArianeWorks
Toward the First Firing of Prometheus
The pace of innovation and experimentation remains sustained in 2021 along the ArianeWorks roadmap. A new contract has been signed as part of the French space recovery plan , and additional activities will soon be offered to the European Union. Following on from the first tests, the team is currently carrying out technological work and demonstrations in preparation for these next steps. The year will also be marked by the receipt of the first copy of the Prometheus engine to be fitted to Themis.
“This year, we are planning the first ignition tests on the installation foreshadowing the future floor ,” explains Jérôme Vila. “This approach departs from the classic development cycle, where test campaigns on the engine test bench precede the first integration on the vehicle. Here, the 2 stages will be concomitant: our philosophy is to try to go as quickly as possible while accepting the risk of making mistakes, and to multiply the opportunities for testing.”
Finally, in terms of engineering, the ArianeWorks team will formalize the ecodesign objectives associated with Themis this year . The future generation of launchers will be inexpensive and reusable; they will also have to be environmentally efficient. It remains to quantify this environmental performance, which will be done during the year.
Did You Know?
ArianeWorks brings together 15 employees from CNES and ArianeGroup around new agile working methods. Initially, the team devotes itself almost entirely to the development of the Themis demonstrator, which foreshadows the launcher of the future by 2030. But in the longer term, it aims to put its innovation methods inspired by New Space to the fore. service of other missions.
52 responses to “CNES, ArianeGroup Move Forward on Themis Reusable Rocket Project”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sure looks like a Falcon 9, or the old Grasshopper. Guess the “Innovation Team” are reverse engineering it.
I got a chuckle of course most planes all have three landing gear I guess the devil will be in the flight profile. nice job
Funny that the landing gear on the New Shepard look nothing like the landing gear on the Falcon 9. Then you have the landing gear on DC-X which were different as well. I wonder if they realize Elon is using a different gear design on Starship because of the weight and drag of the Falcon 9 landing gear…
This is about as close to the Falcon 9 as the Harrier is to the Yak-36.
in test pilots school I became the “stall expert” as we tried to solve the “OK” but not piper friendly stall issues that gave the Tomahawk the “nick” “traumahawk”. and a useful comparison was the Beech Skipper (take a look at them)
I suspect that any place worth their salt or budget would first try and duplicate what the people who have made a success of the thing that got them insterested in trying the entire concept. what they come up with in an operational vehicle either will be similar in which case they are going for a similar profile or not in which case well one can see how different it is
one thing at a time…gradually 🙂 could not resist
A scale model of the F9 or Grasshopper anyway.
English PRs by CNES are always written like they were translated by google…
Perhaps they are.
It’s interesting that they shamelessly copy. As I would. I’d eat all the crow I need to in order to get a working system going. Yet they’ve kept it as a side project. Interesting dual track policy. It’s not like it’s an unknown if you can make a Ariane 6 class booster reusable. You know it can be done.
The question is if they will be able to copy the computer software that is key the SpaceX landing rockets.
That is a question with many variables. Obviously SpaceX doesn’t have a monopoly on top programmers. It seems more like a management problem to me. Can they attract the right people and motivate them while keeping the less capable from screwing things up? Can they organize, support, and direct the talent to achieve the desired end goal? Is it really better to copy the software of the competition that may not be well understood and may not map precisely onto a different vehicle? Not to mention the possibility of the pirated software umm, modified for export to unfriendlies?
And also, would it be possible to license or hire the expertise directly from SpaceX without all the risk and effort? An expensive purchase just might be cheaper than an even more expensive failure. SpaceX might just have a lucrative sideline selling last years solution to those playing catch up.
You’ve hit the ‘nail on the head’… the problem is institutional and represents the fundamental difference between ‘Old Space’ and ‘New Space’.
The guidance techniques have been out in the open literature for some years (e.g. Google Lars Blackmore) but their success in the way they have been applied and developed relates entirely to the management approach and methods used by SpaceX.
need to think about this a bit today but suspect the money quote is the …and developed…
The other major factor to consider is that, effectively, Musk has the power to say “make it so” and people jump. Unfortunately, large corporations (e.g. Boeing or the ArianeGroup) and especially government organizations (e.g. NASA or CNES) must get approval from committees/boards/shareholders for major decisions. This constitutes an ‘institutional inertia’ that makes agile testing and development difficult if not impossible unless the funding is kept sufficiently low to avoid constraining oversight… or classified sufficiently ‘secret’ to avoid it, like a Skunk Works project.
If this is indeed the major difference between ‘Old Space’ and ‘New Space’, it suggests that efforts like these, though pursued with the best of intents, are likely doomed to failure… or at least fall far short of their intended goal.
exactly.
the biggest issue that I see there however is that I dont think Boeing and ArianeGroup) I dont think either see a market in space much different then the one that they have dealt with all their corporate lives…or at best what they see is a market evolving, not quantum leaping in terms of where it goes
the last time Boeing dealt with a market that took “quatum” leaps was when they moved from the 377 to the 707. they thought maybe they would sell 200 or so 707’s and with the tanker business that would be profitable. they did not grasp that there was a market out there that would reshape the relative levels of their aviation business…ie move commercial out ahead of military
I think at the core of Musk world is what you mention, but it is also the fact that Musk counts on US military eetc business…but he is positioning himself for some “blow out” of new business that swamps the old
And I think thats possible. there are signs of a lot of private money going into both uncrewed and crewed flight…and if some obstacles are cleared the 20’s could roar particulary if improved access finally finds some sort of killer ap.
and in uncrewed flight the killer app could be the constellations that are emerging
Musk sees that. sadly as an alumni…no one at Boeing does
Totally agree about the lack of market vision, which results from ‘institutional inertia’ forcing them to avoid risk.
Interestingly, I recently saw this article…
https://www.defensenews.com…
…which both highlights the benefits of ‘secrecy’ and, more importantly, talks specifically about the new opportunities it may present for Musk and SpaceX as a result of their agile approach to engineering development.
Dave to be honest I am rather uncomfortable with this. The USAF/USN and the other armed forces have fielded a bunch of turkeys lately and the reason is not that they were out in the open. what finally got them labeled as turkeys is that they were out in the open
we’ve come a long way the wrong way in acquisition where these things are pork candy…and well I am willing to see how this works out. but the jury needs a lot of convincing
I dont think ULA cares much about new markets as long as they can maintain their old…and there are few people at Boeing or Lockmart scratching their heads trying to anticipate one
I will be curious to see what happens if Axiom is a success…
hope you are well
I’m uncomfortable with it for a different reason. With the T-38 out of production and the existing base of in-service units rapidly aging out, a new trainer is going to be needed, but only to familiarize the final generation of human pilots to fly combat aircraft with legacy mounts that will remain in service for a time until replaced by future UAVs.
If the point of quickly and cheaply developing a suitable trainer is to get as much use out of it in the limited time it still has a useful purpose, then fine, I approve. What I fear, though, is a mindset that expects the T-7 to have the same decades-long service life as the T-38.
The next generation of combat planes, especially air superiority fighters, needs to be unmanned for both economic and combat power reasons. With F-35 looking increasingly like a quarter-century+ waste of time and money, the U.S. needs to gin up some new combat planes pronto. These need to support a level of air combat maneuvering incompatible with human pilotage.
I agree with most of that
I disagree. The real problem is mechanical. The Europeans have a full understanding of control systems and software development. Any physics based control system will have the ability to compute the proper set of events and execute them. Computer based controls for launch vehicles was solved by the late 80’s with the advent of 32 bit computers running at multi MHz clock speeds. Any 486 class CPU/processor board will do. The trick lies in creating a recoverable vehicle frame with enough propellant margin to still come in as an orbital capable launch vehicle with real payload capability. That’s the magic sauce of Falcon. It’s mechanical. You could argue that a big part of that mechanical solution is the flying that’s done with the ‘hover slam’ landing. But that was developed for McDonnell-Douglas’ X-33 with it’s ‘death dive’ approach to landing, and we also saw it in the proposed mega-launcher proposals of the early 70’s.
there are two issues here and only really SpaceX knows the absolute answer…
one what flight profile to use? SpaceX seems to have found one that makes the vehicle recoverable and saves them money…only they know for sure if thats reality but they claim it is and more and more folks seem to agree with it…or will Aspace come up with a different flight profile?
second is it worth the effort for their customer base?
Great questions of course, and since SpaceX makes the overwhelming majority of its money on attracting speculators to invest directly in SpaceX, we won’t know the answer to those questions.
You just answered the question. Retropropulsive landing and reuse attracts monies greatly in excess of the possible contributions of mere commerce. Clearly reuse more than pays for itself. It’s paying for everything.The last funding round was oversubscribed by 7 or 8 hundred percent. Elon describes the current situation as traversing through a deep chasm of red ink, but people are repelling down the walls of the chasm with bags of money in such numbers that Elon has to turn away all but a happy few. The invisible hand of the market is speaking, and it’s saying, “Elon, I love you. Do it some more.”
Hhahhahha, that’s funny. Great joke. You’re describing a used car salesman selling to willing rubes. The question remains unknown if the concept is profitable in the real world. We will get an answer once the suckers calm down.
Not a good analogy. The investors know exactly how profitable SpaceX already is. They’re not buying a pig in a poke.
I don’t think they’re buying into a pig. But one thing I’ve noticed working in startups. Investors are vulnerable to groupthink, personality cults, and willingly accept bogus information if it fits their worldview. I’d bet lunch they’re being given a sales sepal and are buying it hook line and sinker.
I wouldn’t bet lunch on it either way. I will say that this is one of my concerns without any accusations of snake oil. I think it likely that SpaceX/Musk will come out the other side with happy investors. Many seem to miss that that happy result is not a foregone conclusion.
No investment is ever a foregone conclusion. But good outcomes are hardly Black Swan events either.
SpaceX isn’t exactly hard-selling timeshare condos in FL to rubes from the Snowbelt. Private investors at this level get to see the books.
Private investors can see the books and still get hammered. During the building boom of the early 2000s, I saw the major concrete companies building new plants. Many of the other major construction suppliers were investing heavily as well as developers in new subdivisions. I stuck my neck out thinking they knew what they were doing. I survived the recession by downsizing and getting a partner. Many of the major investors in concrete plants and subdivisions went broke. That is with a known market type and open books.
The airline industry along with tourism and others got hammered last year with open books. Elon and company should keep going forward if anyone can, but things do happen. Optimism tempered with knowledge of business cycles seems appropriate to me. As well as optimism tempered with historical knowledge of technical oops by genius level people. It is still hard to believe that the Space Ship One and Two kludges are a Burt Rutan legacy.
I’m certainly not predicting failure at every turn. Neither am I insulting what has been done and is being done. I am suggesting that success be assimilated as it occurs and not assumed going forward. The DC3, Apollo, and 707 moments of greatness did not prevent future kludges by the same organizations. Even the founders have stumbled from time to time. I think Boca Chica is happening. I also think another arrow in the quiver would be a good thing.
No argument here. Stuff happens sometimes. I certainly sympathize with your business failures/hard times – I’ve had a few of my own. A good argument could probably be made that startup entrepreneurs, as a class, are no better at divining the future than are investors, as a class – maybe even worse. And yet both money and progress continue to be made.
It’s certainly not as though there aren’t possible circumstances that could cause SpaceX to fail. It’s just that, the more time goes by, the more outre and improbable the scenarios have to get. Ten years ago there were still a lot of people convinced SpaceX was going to crash and burn. They’re a lot thinner on the ground now – nearly extinct. Just not quite.
The question is if they will be able to copy the computer software that is key the SpaceX landing rockets.
I assume you mean the computer software development process? there would be no point in copying the spaceX software unless they copy the exact spaceX system and build it…and just having four landing gear doesnt mean they have done that
what its clear they are trying to do is “recreate” or develop or whatever word you want to use the Vertical landing expertise in their software systems that SpaceX has.
what will be the difference here I suspect is that Aspace will do it more the conventional way then the SpaceX Crash and burn way. and we will see if that works. I am not sure that it can be done other then the SpaceX way
It can probably be done in other than the SpaceX way, but only at the cost of considerably more time. The SpaceX way depends upon construction of multiple, cheap test articles and the willingness, going in, to sacrifice them all, if necessary, to acquire the needed knowledge.
The Europeans are at least as pecksniffian as the U.S. legacy primes about doing anything that makes a mess. The result will be the usual takes-forever, paralysis-by-analysis approach that, in the end, will still probably result in a certain amount of mess anyway. Far better to just accept this up-front and get on with things.
Especially as a vehicle with only 1st stage reusability of roughly the Falcon 9 type is going to be dead on arrival as a competitive offering if it doesn’t debut until 2030. In aircraft terms, that’s roughly equivalent to designing and building a Boeing P-26 for initial operation in 1945.
see my note to DAve Salt
I did. And I agree with you, but also have additional concerns I’ve laid out above.
The OldSpace mindset about spacecraft has long since also metastasized into the aircraft units of the legacy primes with devastating consequences for affordability and combat effectiveness. Developing space vehicles in the dysfunctional way that has become normative these past four or five decades is completely unacceptable going forward.
Fortunately, SpaceX has arisen to administer that lesson good and hard to everyone who needs to learn it.
But SpaceX – worse luck – seems uninterested in branching into military aircraft development and production. So some other entity needs to do that and soon. And I have no idea who might stand up to do this or even if anyone will. That is, as the saying goes, concerning, because I very much do not see the legacy primes stepping up and doing the right thing.
it will be curious to see how Starship works out. if they win, they take it all
Well, they take a lot anyway. But the largest part of that “lot” will likely be things no one can do now and that only SpaceX will be able to do until someone else comes up with something both as big and as capable as Starship. Settling Mars will be among those things. That’s going to suck up a lot of Starships. So will settling the Moon. So will doing relatively affordable space tourism to LEO and building a really big space station or two there. So will rolling out terrestrial P2P ballistic suborbital service.
The only other space launch company even making noises about both completely reusable rockets and Mars is Relativity Space. We’ll have to see if they can back their brag.
In the realm of things that others can do now, I think a number of other outfits will still find it possible to make a living launching stuff. But neither NorGrum nor ULA will likely be among them a few years down the road.
Ha ! Again ! I usually take you are less of a zealot. And you usually are. But on this subject, I guess you’re a believer. You argue as if it’s already done. As of all those people are already on Mars.
I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say about the useful illusion of human endeavor. I just don’t think that kind of blind stupidity should be embraced. It should be discussed and exposed so people don’t fall into a trap of believing in something like Amazon. Which … SpaceX is not. Musks instance on vertical integration and flying is what makes him better than Bezos. Amazon is just a vast confidence scheme, and you described the con very well.
It appears my post got marked as spam.
Anyway, I don’t assume SpaceX will make it to Mars. Certainly doing it on their own seems close to impossible. A good deal less impossible is making NASA think it was their idea, and that it is in fact NASA going to Mars and SpaceX is but a humble contractor rather than the prime mover.
I do believe that Musk sincerely intends to go to Mars. More to the point, that is what he has told his investors up front. And he said that his only interest in money is to facilitate getting to Mars. And Starlink exists to generate money to get to Mars. And SpaceX won’t go public because operating it as a public company would be an impediment to getting to Mars. He had said all those things, over and over, at every opportunity.
So at that fundamental level, what he’s doing and why he’s doing it, I think Musk is an honest actor. At other levels, tactically, maybe not so much. In the Space Show archives I believe you can find a 2008 interview where he talks about the strong financial health of the company. Today he recalls how 2008 was the year both SpaceX and Tesla were careening toward bankruptcy. Either the Musk of 2008 or the Musk of today is fibbing. He’s not a saint. But he might get to Mars.
I don’t disagree. I would say that Musk is a gambler. If he was not a serial entrepreneur I think he’d be a card shark in Vegas trying to beat the house. ….. Kinda like Andy Beal come to think of it.
If anyone is going to lead humanity to Mars, I agree it’s going to be Musk. That will be a very mixed blessing. However, that said, if we go to Mars, Starship as a concept will be working, and new players will be coming in to play. Not to mention by the time Mars really opens up as an option for development, nature will have its inevitable way with Mr Musk and myself as we’ll both be quite old.
I’m probably ahead of you on that timetable, having entered this world three weeks after Sputnik flew. I’ve been waiting for my science fiction future for some time.
You and me both. And I’m a Truman baby. I was alive and in 1st grade when Sputnik 1 went up.
I don’t disagree. I would say that Musk is a gambler. If he was not a serial entrepreneur I think he’d be a card shark in Vegas trying to beat the house. ….. Kinda like Andy Beal come to think of it.
yes
He’s a gambler alright. But he’s a gambler who knows how to count cards and beat the house.
He has beat the house a lot. But when you beat the house once, that does not means you can keep doing it again, and again, and again.
If it was just luck, no. But Musk, as you say, is a serial house beater. If he was an actual casino gambler, he would long since have earned a prominent spot in the Vegas Black Book.
New players may or may not come in fast enough to keep SpaceX from taking on more and more of the total space settlement job itself.
As for age, Musk is 20 years younger than me. So, if he lives to be merely my own current age – which seems quite likely absent any unknown genetic timebombs – he’s got two more full decades to plow quickly and relentlessly onward on increasingly broad fronts. Look at what SpaceX has been able to achieve in its not-yet-20-years of life, then apply the compound interest formula to that growth function for an additional 20 years.
I have, and that’s why I think they’re going to come up short.
Check your math.
Musk is a hard egg to fry. (you can tell what I am doing 🙂 ) but I agree I think he wants to go to Mars, but along with that I think that two other things are in play. First he wants his companies to be a success and make money and TWO he wants them to change industry and the world/nation much as Henry Ford or Donald Douglas or …Gates or…did in their time
and yes I think he is as honest as any one in their scheme of “change”.
having said all that, I suspect that he knows what is making his company profitable and right now that is federal dollars honestly earned pouring into his company from both NASA and the US military and semi military side. I dont have anywhere near the money musk has, but I know in my business…the government contracts are where the profit is…and those profits shape my dreams 🙂
I suspect Musk believes that if he can make Starship a success (whatever that is defined as in terms of operating cost etc) then at some point we do branch out into the solar system…and I think thats true
because at some point the economics will kick in and the hardware will be there to do it and do it for not a lot of money
but I suspect the time cycle on this is far greater then what the fan boys think and well thats why they are fan boys
we have to have some “change” and economics are one of it, or th efuture in space looks a lot like the sad past
Except for the estimated timeframe, I pretty much agree.
Musk has said in the past that he wants a lot of others to get involved in humanity’s Diaspora into the Solar System, but if those others are too slow off the mark, Musk will simply take on that job himself.
Starlink is a model of how a space-based application can be made to pay for both itself and a lot else. Once Starship is available as underpinning, there are other space-based applications that can be turned into the same sorts of serial cash cows as Starlink.
Orbital space tourism in LEO is one such. But it’s far from the only one.
I agree on the timescale. Starship will make building out the infrastructure and establishing toeholds possible. At points along that continuum of accomplishments, business cases will start to close. But it will take a while.
SpaceX will get to Mars. It will also get to the Moon. NASA will be along, in some capacity, for both rides, but seems far more likely to be waving prettily from the backseat of the convertible than to be driving.
Musk’s early investors all figured he’d get to Mars if anyone could and have had no occasion to change their minds since. Everything Musk has done in the interim has simply reinforced their early opinions.
Musk’s newer investors also seem to share this belief but are even more certain that he will first achieve dominance of the LEO broadband Internet market. That will clearly make them loads of money making a future payoff from Mars pretty much a nice-to-have rather than a necessity.