Oh, SUSIE... The "European Starship" Has Issues! (But works in KSP)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- Will Europe finally have independent human launch capability? ArianeGroup wants to help with SUSIE, the Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration. But would it work? I found out in Kerbal Space Program.
#susie #space #esa
0:00 New European crewed spacecraft!
0:45 What is it, really?
2:52 Many unknowns
4:38 KSP simulation
7:04 What can we really expect?
10:24 Don't get your hopes up…
🠴Join me to stay in the loop for more KSP stuff and general madness, Kerbal, space or otherwise!🠶
▶ Discord - / discord
▶ Twitter - / the_shadowzone
▶ Instagram - / the_shadowzone
▶ Facebook - / the-shadowzone-3045600...
▶ Patreon - / shadowzone
🠴Interested in the vehicles I make in Kerbal Space Program? Check out my KerbalX🠶
▶ kerbalx.com/The_ShadowZone/
▶ steamcommunity.com/id/the_sha...
🠴Music🠶
"Invictus Outro" (c) The ShadowZone
Get my Music here:
▶ Spotify:
open.spotify.com/artist/0F8ZM...
▶ Apple Music:
itunes.apple.com/ca/artist/sh...
▶ Google Play:
play.google.com/store/music/a...
▶ Deezer:
www.deezer.com/de/artist/5298...
▶ Tidal:
tidal.com/browse/artist/10500010
"Failing Defense", "Beauty Flow", "Rocket Power" and "Hypnothis" all (c) Kevin MacLeod ( incompetech.com/music )
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
🠴HELLO everybody and welcome to the ShadowZone🠶
Here you can find weird and funny videos about Kerbal Space Program and other video games. In general, if you like space, space ships, space stations or any space related video game, this channel is the right place to be!
I try to deliver you fascinating creations, tutorial and how-to videos about KSP and other video game content.
I also compose my own music from time to time.
Stay a while and join the shadowzone community by subscribing to my channel or following me on those social thingies up there. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Its definitely a long shot. Whats important is that they are working on reusability. Thats the take away with SUSIE
Yeah, they are working on reusable booster and capsule. So that's a good thing. But I'm afraid until this thing flies, a Starship will already have touched down on Mars.
@@ShadowZone it's the ESA, I bet they'd cancel it because of funding issues, like every other manned spacecraft they planned
@@ShadowZone Susie is still in very early development. I'm more excited for what it will turn into, than what it is now. Anyone can look at early concept art, like the SpaceX ITS in 2016, and complain about the unfinished nature of the design, but I think it's way more interesting to wait for the Starship it will become.
Susie represents the first time European astronauts will have independent access to space and it has the goal of being reusable and quite large. No matter what it will ultimately evolve into, I'm excited!
@@ShadowZone horribly uninformed hot take
@@kommandantgalileo No, the real problem with project for ESA, is politicial non realy funding issues,. Germany are jealous that France about Ariane rockets projects...
Main problem is financing but Europe (and France first and foremost) has the necessary talent to do it. Go ArianeGroup!
Ameritards cannot understand that, all they know is Elon Musk and lazy NASA
J'espère que ça finira pas comme Hermès 🥺
@@fridaycaliforniaa236 L'argent n'est même pas sur la table...
Let's go Franch, pump that budget upppppppp. More spaceships to space/
@@RandomnessCreates If only
Do not forget the ATV. It was a crewed vehicle when docked to the ISS. And it is the counter part for european astronautes to fly on ISS. Furthermore Orion space vehicle has pieces from esa thanks to the knowledge acquired on ATV. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle
Yes, and that's without mentioning the ARD (Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator) in 1998 and the IXV (Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle) 2015, with successful launch into space and return to earth.
I believe what we lack in Europe is an interest of the general public into space programmes. ESA and local agencies do an awful job at branding resulting in people in Europe hearing of NASA programmes more than ESA.
The one thing that looks interesting with Suzie is that it's size makes it possible for parachutes to be used, atleast to some extent.
it's a concept so I would thing a lot of things could change if it ever see the light of day
I guess they designed this based on the IXV which has also a lifting body and was designed to be flown on a Vega rocket and could return on its own. Steering during reentry was also realized with "pedals".
I think it's quite sensible to think this is a continuation on it as well. IXV stands for "Intermediate Experimental Vehicle". Space Rider should be the next one test vehicle from ESA.
So they have the lifting body part of the vehicle already tested in smaller scale vehicle. IXV landed with parachute tho and I'm not too hopeful for a propulsive landing of a crewed vehicle any time soon.
I have some thoughts.
Those petals don't really make sense like that. You can see in one of the renders that they aren't to land on as it has other legs. The paddles are at weird angles for rentry too. The top paddle is out of the airstream and the side ones are almost parallel. Only the bottom one will really effect anything. They also don't make sense on ascent, as it will be upstream.
The landing is also a weird one. The animation shows a Starship-style flip but doesn't seem to have a high-enough gimbal to make it work. The animation shows it lighting some engines first to start the flip.
A lot of Shuttle's issues came from it being a crew & cargo comanifest vehicle, so I doubt that'll truly happen. Can certainly be a common launch system though.
Docking ports are a certainty. There's no real market for free-flying crew vehicles at the moment, and with incoming commercial stations you'd be a fool not to access them.
Lifting body designs are a pain in the ass to design and build. I really am not convinced it'll go anywhere beyond powerpoint slides.
As for Hermes, 15 - 21 tons is an increase of about 29%. According to NASA crew vehicle payload designs usually increase by about 40% over development.
They already tested some vehicles with those petals. They work fine in hypersonic flows, like the one the IXV and ARV experimented a while ago while testing reentry dynamics.
Maybe differential thrust attitude control? Doesn't need any gimbals.
i think those petals are used to increase drag idk
I think it's good. As much as I love spacex the idea of a space monopoly doesn't sound fun.
Couldn't agree more. Monopolies are never good. But SpaceX are ahead of the curve compared to everyone else, that's undeniable.
@@ShadowZone Of course, o have faith that they can catch up however, especially with the agency's sudden drive for independent human launching and the recent funding increase from France.
(Thank you for the reply btw!)
Finally, someone who realises that SpaceX having a monopoly on the whole launch market isn’t a good thing.
1:32 surely this thing could carry like 20 passengers instead of just 5?
It's huge.
Excellent stuff bro
This reminds me of the McDonnell Douglas DC-X.
this specific idea might not be the greatest, but at least they are on the right track
Definitely a pipe dream at this point.
Even if you use stainless steel, 4mm, your hull will be less than 8 tons (I even calculate a 20m long version, 6m diameter, back-end-ejection of payload, as it makes more sense and is structurally lighter than cargo bay doors). 6m diameter leaves half a meter of space all around the hull for your toroidal tanks, engines, subassemblies, flaps if desired, etc. Optimizing the design, i.e. only using stainless on 3/4 of hull or no stainless at all), vehicle + fuel + pressure vessel + international docking standard port, can easily be had for under 10 metric tons. Don''t overdo pressurized section and assume heat shield is less than a ton.
The slightly oversized vehicle (6m diameter on a 5m diameter rocket allowing it to carry ~> 5m diameter payloads) will lead to some drag penalties but not to the extent of killing the possibility of carrying a ten ton payload to LEO.
You can do everything with this vehicle... in LEO... but not on the same flight. You have to chose between retropropulsively landing or parachuted descent depending on the given payload and mission.
Select a swappable-add on, detachable heat shield. Easy and quick to replace between flights, like a shoe is put over a foot. The weight penalty for attachment points is
This was created to sustain their budget spending. I'm calling it.
So it's more like dream chaser than starship.
Cool ig, but what about the second stage then? Since I believe they are working on a reusable first stage.
Who’s here after they built their little mockup? Honestly I didn’t think they’d get it off the blueprints at all, so it’s a nice surprise!
ngl susie's design is very cute
I LOVE the way you prononce CNES. I found it better then it's prononce in french ( like KNES in one syllable)
I would suggest that the petals would pinch together for reentry and create a heatshield for entering backwards.
We can all just be thankful you are a video maker and not an ESA aerospace engineer!
If the F9 fairing is 1,700 kg, it is one half, then two ~ 3,400 kg. In the 70s, the accuracy of the landing systems was a square of 17,000x17,000 m. The current control systems will land the orbiter on a trampoline/aerofinisher with a diameter of 200 m - No need for landing gear, no need for parachutes
It is only necessary to reduce the horizontal landing speed from 120m/s to 15-25m/s, vertical 6-7m/s
It is quite realistic to invest in an airframe with all the accompanying 10-15 tons
SUSIE is an interesting concept. Crew vehicle AND cargo system in one. Kind of like a space shuttle. What I'm not seeing though is the fuel. Every shot of the thing it's hollow in the middle, the bottom doesn't seem to have enough room for engines and fuel, and there's no telling on the top half since we don't know how much is crew area, life support, and other systems. I really hope it happens though, it's a neat concept. Getting it human rated and being propulsively landed will be a challenge, but it is the ESA and not NASA, so maybe.
If 25t vehicle mass includes 7t of cargo, if susie is launched with just crew it may fit under 21t Ariane 64 capacity
Direct descent landing on Earth with a crewed capsule.. oh boy.
The term is "backronym"
In addition to the concerns about SUSIE dry mass, that seems inconsistent with the overall dimensions, I would point out that, in the renderings, seems that the spacecraft lacks almost totally any space for the engines that are supposed to sustain the landing, and especially for their fuel tanks. All the central section of the fuselage is indeed occupied by the cargo bay, and the aft portion, if we don't count the "petals", is very very flat, with almost no usable volume other than the engines itself (and even those, just barely). I'm perplexed.
A Hermise type craft would be a lot easier. Europe should definitely have their own human capable spacecraft.
The shape reminds me of the abandoned Delta Clipper, single-stage to orbit design.
as far as I'm concerned, this SUSIE project will tackle the same exact landing method Starship is, but instead of using wings, uses the pedals similarly to how early mercury capsules utilized a "destabilizing flap" at the nose.
in essence, these tail flaps are control surfaces to control pitch and yaw. To pitch up, the flap on the upwards end extends while the one downwards retracts, and for yaw, vise-versa on the other flaps. And for braking, they all deploy to some extent. The actual flip-landing would have to be completely operated by the engines themselves because I don't think the glide velocity at the required time would be great enough. But the way the engines are positioned, I don't think that'd be much of a concern (if you can get them all to light at the right time, dependably).
I've done something similar to this in ksp with limited success but the concept of controlling the flight path in such a way is a solid plan if it's executed properly.
I want to add that, if I understand exactly where everything's supposed to go by looking on the outside, I don't see much space to actually put fuel unless it's on the nose. So I don't know if it would even have enough fuel capacity to actually make a propulsive landing.
I like the concept of SUSIE, and problems will have to be dealt with. Spacex had completely redesign their Dragon capaule to get it human rated. Whatever you do, keep on pushing...Do Not Give Up!
Is there a possibility that it could be designed for multiple launchers...say Vulcan, New Glenn, or another launcher that could handle the mass?
Realistically they're looking at a decade or more before that ship is actually test ready. The simplest and quickest solution for Europe is : *DREAM CHASER* in my opinion.
Crew up front, cargo in the middle, engine at the back... seems sound.. :)
Solar trucked inside the cargo bay seems sensible..
Not sure if it is really superior to using a capsule with a simple round heatshield and a light-weight parachute..
Unless the booster is re-useable, I'm not sure if I'd worry about making the cargo bay re-useable!
It does have the same strength the Shuttle had.. it can smuggle satellites back from space if that is needed.. :D
Could you maybe make a recap of everything we know about Ksp 2
Sure, I am just waiting for a good opportunity for that, maybe the next show and tell or something.
Fingers crossed the next one is about multiplayer!
@@aimossy6466 I think they'd save that for the last show and tell, I'm more excited about colony information too ;)
in concept the imagination has no limitations, in the real world the biggest problem besides all the technical challenges is the weight of propulsive fuel to be lugged around, this impacts greatly on the payload. Elon Musk is pedantic about this. He does not want to land a rocket that still has a few tons of wasted fuel on board.
SpaceX thanks the EU for their patronage!
Speaking as an American, it was absolutely suboptimal to have any reliance on Russia after the space shuttle program ended. It absolutely makes sense for the EU to ignore using other countries for their space capabilities, because stuff happens, and you don’t have enough control.
That being said, SUSIE seems to be attempting the insane thing the US space shuttle program tried to do, being all things for all uses. There are several very good reasons the US space shuttle program ended, and yet, SUSIE seems to be intended as a project to exceed it in generality, jack-of-all-trades and master of none. I seem to recall a particular UN fighter-jet-bomber (f-35?) that’s suffered from deaign-by-committee-does-everything objective, and how long that’s taken, how absurdly expensive, and I don’t recall it being superior to our older more-specialized aircraft for anything, except for keeping politicians making money by spreading it all over to buy votes and spend gobs of money designing and making them.
From what you point out near the end of the video, I agree: it’s an unknown duck-billed platypus that’s likely to never get out of animation stage, it makes no sense.
I am a US Space enthueist and I think it's a great idea for ESA to have it's own launch capabilities. You guys have all the engineering skills to do it from engine to rocket and I think it's just intelligent to do.
God speed in gettting it done looking forward to a launch
nice!
ive made ships that use aerobrakes as landing gear and return in much the same way as this one. only differenc? they had a cargo module with rover/miner/comverters/home base/engines inside, and easily return to kerbin the same way.
Yes, it also crossed my mind that SUSIE might come with so much (weight) overhead as to make launch even more costly.
Either way, SUSIE has a very limited utility ultimately.
Bizarre to not head towards full reusability.
I did watch the pitch presentation fron ariane group and they mentioned only landing capability of up to 7t of mass(payload), not as cargo capability. And the flaps on the back are for flight control like for the IXV or the upcoming Space Rider for Vega C. By the way that would be the nearest comparison not Starship.
This is a ArianeGroup CGI Project, not something planned by ESA. **And it isn't even an upper stage!**
SUSIE is as much an upper stage as is Dragon or the Sojus capsule.
my ksp veicle looks like that, wich is already a red flag xd
I don't really understand the utility of this concept. Space Shuttle could at least recover satellites from orbit and perform orbital maintenance but it sacrificed a lot in terms of economy and complexity. With a steep return trajectory unlike the shallow glide reentry of the SS I'm not sure this is suitable for deorbiting satellites.
Also I count a total of 3 expendable stages before the vehicle is in orbit, surely as far as expense is concerned, this is the area in need of attention? The Cart leading the Horse? And then you go and add a load of heavy and highly complex landing hardware to an upper stage that could easily be recovered by a parachute and a blunt heatshield - like adding a pallet of cash to the Dragon capsule cargo bay so you can recover the pallet of cash later...
This seems to have none of the benefits of a capable and versatile reusable upper stage, with all of the downsides of a complex and expensive vehicle like the Space Shuttle.
If the goal is just to be able to give Europe autonomous human access to space, I don't understand why you wouldn't just make a basic capsule ferry system. Susie just seems like putting the cart before the horse.
Europe has some geographic challenges. To the degree that ISS is still a human spaceflight destination, Kourou is fuel expensive due to very low inclination.
They're launching from Guyana which is, one might say, a low-inclination country. ;) The launch site may be less than 5 degrees north.
theses paddles will help steer the vehicle once back into the atmosphere . Something like space x grid fins do. my guess.
even if this doesn't see the light of day at least it makes a little more sense than starship. which I predict will either fail or take many more years to be ready (and thus won't be able to serve as a moon lander).
If this was funded and built, I wonder how long/how many fights it would take for them to be comfortable crew rating it?
I just want Europe to finally do something...
Why don't they just make a standard capsule type vehicle that can fit on an Ariane 6? Why does it have to be some fancy pseudo space shuttle? Just make something that works and can get our astronauts into space plz
You know, I just can't stop myself from thinking that we should go the other way. Entire world is focused on super high tech, reusable, powered landing spacecrafts? Great, let them develop it, and let's pick a simplest design of them all. Why go so big if we (EU) have no experience im manned flights? Lets build a simple, small capsule with docking port and 2 astronauts onboard capability, that returns to earth traditionally, by aerobraking and parachutes. If Europe really went into it, we should have a human spaceflight capability in 5 years, opposite to never ending SUSIE alteration and eventuall cancellation. I think it would be a great start.
Hmm I like it. Seems like what should’ve been the step before starship.
I see the same issue you had in KSP which is trying to get the nose back straight up to land. Guessing it will have to do a flip trick like Starship is supposed to.
If you watch the press material video closely, it appears to have nozzles on all four sides. It starts out with three, which generates asymmetrical thrust below the center of mass. The fourth side turns on to stabilize as soon as it is upright. I used just one engine with huge thrust vectoring.
ESA should talk to SNC about the "Dream Chaser and their Shooting Star Cargo Module". Would make their work easier, and SNC system is adaptable for other launch vehicles.
Oof! 30 years since Hermes.
looks derived off the IXV from ESA
I just wish ESA would focus on getting a manned spacecraft of their own into orbit even if it’s expendable, instead of making it reusable first
do you suggest crewing it with expendable astronauts as well?
@@petrolak yes 😈
Europe is falling behind in so many domains. We could do so much better with all the talent and resources we have, but the current way the EU works just doesn't make us enough of a unified economy. We have more people than The US in a smaller area than The US, and yet we're so far apart. I don't believe it's about the cultures, I believe it's about the laws. The US is a unification of 50 states which could each be a country of their own. In fact, if California were its own country, it would have the 5th highest GDP *in the world.* But it's not. It's part of The US and that's what makes them so powerful. It has a unified federal budget that allows for large projects and tight cooperation between states. The EU doesn't have that. And that's why it will keep falling behind. It's honestly sad.
Around 21t of "wet weight" - sure, you must have a very optimistic thinking in the beginning to sell the idea, but those figures are not casted in concret yet. I think the "basic" 64-version of Ariane 6 with 4 P120C SRB's will have it's problems pushing the definitive version of SUSIE into a LEO
6:35 is the reason why I never play without MechJeb. I leave the precise calculations and control executions to something that is well suited for that.
I'm much better at determining how to deal with badly timed launches and lack of dV.
8:54 I find it funny that you talk about national interests as being selfish while treating Europe and Europe's ESA as an independent national entity (while it has 22 member states). I do believe that the incorporation and reliance of and on Russia was by design, as it worked for the rest of Europe as well.
Don't forget Copenhagen Sub-Orbital, which looks like it won't be too much longer before they can launch a human on a sub-orbital hop! :-)
👍
I think they should ditch the propulsion landing system and only have a parachute landing system similar to the ixv. Since the capsule would only travel around earth orbit. Suicide burn is less reliable adds more mass and is more expensive. Better to have two different capsule designs for landing on earth and landing on other celestial bodies. I think they are just following trends then really think it through.
Space X rockets cant compete with other types of rocket systems that can be build with modern technology but the problem is people do not like fission technology even though its far more efficient then any chemical rocket. Ion drives has high isp but low T/W ratio not capable of landing on planets and escaping planets gravity well. Fission rockets will cut down time and mass for a interplanetary human mission. Space X chemical rockets can not compete with fission rockets.
We will not travel on a interplanetary scale until we use fission or fusion technology(fusion technology is far away while fission technology already exists) since it will otherwise be to expensive to do any real interplanetary human space travel. Mars travel will die down very fast like the mun landings since we refuse to use the vehicles that got the energy density to be capable of actual interplanetary space travel. The added mass with chemical rocket that you need for interplanetary human space travel is way to economically inefficient to be sustainable.
I would hope they shed the upper stage just short of orbit and use SUSIE to do the insertion. Then the stage even saves the fuel they‘d use for deorbit otherwise.
They may have to, it’s not 100% clear if Ariane 6 will be able to get it to orbit on it’s own, but if using it as a 4th stage then it will be capable.
ESA should've stuck with Hermes.
so basically, the took Starship, sliced it perfectly in half, and slapped it on top of a rocket booster 😂
i think i found a new dream job/project (should it work out)
Good luck! Please make it work and prove me wrong :)
Maybe Europe should focus on something like the Orion Capsule since parts are built in Europe already.
Why not develop something?
Airbus makes the European Service Module that's connected to Orion. The capsule itself is done by Lockheed Martin, a US company. But yes, there should have been at least some kind of know how transfer.
The European module is mostly german. Ariane is mostly french.
The answer to the capability gaps is this one, probably. Planned A64 upgrades in the making before SUSIE.
th-cam.com/video/95O3yfqhpZg/w-d-xo.html
This one is not ONE.
And definitely not a fast one
@@Krusesensei, true. Ariane Group is so far behind everything reasonable. It hurts...
Does "Oh Susie... (was hast du getan)" refer to the German Schlager Song or something else?
No, I just thought it was a fun way to begin the title.
it does look good though...
Make it and see
Also I think this is a play theat tells misters we already have it pland soud they diside for fund a europian human space craft
I believe that all space faring nations should get together and develop engines far better then chemical rockets. Something like Star Trek uses on its shuttles. thow enough money into it will get the job down. Bring out the "Black Projects".. so we humans can do it right..
I would like it to happen, but it seems like a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long shot
Considering how big a fail the name alone is, I'm not holding my breath. This has all the earmarks of vaporware.
It looks nice but I would simply go for a capsule. A capsule has been proven the most cost-effective and safe solution. I'm still not convinced that starship will make it in a cost-efficient way and all other space plane ideas have failed in terms of cost so far.
That's the one thing you don't say at NASA: "But it works in Kerbal Space Program!" 😆
*sigh*
It must be said.....
SUS
The question is will the misters fell European crew independence is worth the hundreds of millions that it is going to cost over a decades a t least.
Why not begin with a proven solution first to gain experience? (a capsule with parachute landing, 4 crews, no satellite capability and lower weight)
I feel like ArianeGroup has no interest in capabilities and just want to gulp any funding they can with nice visuals...
Idk man, this SUSie is a bit SUS
Europe don't need this. Just hire SpaceX.
I think that SUSIE could worke
I need to point out you keep saying "orbital class" as though that's actually a 'thing', but it's not. The US landed the DC-X dozens of times and everyone has deeply studied propulsive landing so it's vastly not as hard or as unique as you think. Don't get me wrong I doubt SUSIE will actually do this as rocket powered landing is not very efficient nor is it really all that good a landing method in general. SpaceX does it because the margins were there (eventually in later models of the Falcon 9 booster) but in order to do it they have to perform a very aggressive and difficult flight profile. (Hoverslam) Not really something you'd want to use for a crewed landing. SpaceX hasn't done an "orbital" landing because they can't, none of their "orbital class" (your words) vehicles have the performance to reach orbit and then land again propulsively. (Starship doesn't btw, specifically since we've yet to see them even try anything like an 'actual' Starship instead of a mostly empty tube)
Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy don't have the payload to loft a propulsive landing vehicle which is why SpaceX chose water landing for Dragon even though it "could" (in theory) use it's RCS/Abort thrusters to cushion a land landing. The 'perks' of a land landing are of course better turn around time and easier maintenance at least in theory but rocket landing is marginal at this. Really what you'd want to use is some sort of air-breathing propulsion as it would be more efficient but have a cost in complexity and mass. (Though an argument could be made for RCS powered "tip-turbine" fans to replace the Falcon 9 'grid-fins or some such :) )
As I understand it SUSIE is supposed to be a "hypersonic lifting body" like the Lockheed CEV "winner" and not a supersonic or subsonic lifting body like the US lifting bodies, Dreamchaser, and Klipper. Hermes was actually flawed from the start but this wasn't clear since actual use of small reentry spaceplanes was pretty thin. Modeling and experiments showed that smaller spaceplanes have heating issues actually due to their size.
Interesting info on smaller spaceplanes, but I must disagree on "orbital class". There's a huge difference between a good suborbital hop, even one which goes well over the Karman line, and getting into orbit. It takes a lot of fuel to raise periapsis. When lifting a propulsively-landing vehicle to orbit, you have to lift all of its landing fuel too.
hello, don't sell the bear's skin before killing it, take a look at the history of Ariane and Hermès, there have often been this same kind of comment, as for Spacex, know that the Hermès could fly without a crew and autonomously, now the problem is the budget, otherwise the ESA and the Ariane group are more competent than we think, so much so that NASA often helps them , scratches the surface a little more, as for the story of Hermès, these modifications correspond to the NASA accident, making the project impossible... We must lighten the shadows a little before
I mean it looks coole but it will not work as invasiond SUIE can almost fly the entire astronaut core in one mission.
Honestly I like the look I would love to see this succeed as being part European.
Yeah that propulsive landing isn't going to happen
idk what the europeans would wanna do with it tho
Paper rocket.
Europe should just buy Dreamchaser!
and then focus on developing a reusable ariane booster. they will never be competitive if they don't go reusable.
#Euronauts launched on European rockets from European soil!
I say it's more likely the Ariane 6 launching a crewed Sierra Space's Dream Chaser than a crewed SUSIE.
SUSIE more like SUSSY! Hahaha jk just punning
19
Susan real goal is to distributes jobs to various European countries.
I think you misspoke. You said educated guesses, but that a really stretching the truth, it's uneducated guesses.