Japanese launch vehicles, Split from Solar-B Options

[spdf]

it seems that Galaxy Express is being tapped to fill the mid-range niche. The list of companies involved is interesting, as is the launch vehicle. It looks like an Atlas lite (the PDF says the Atlas III is a basis for 1st stage development, and it's "lite" because the payload capacity seems much smaller), with an RD-180 as the first stage engine, and LNG used as the fuel for the second stage - though I suppose if that doesn't work out they could always press Centaur engines into service if necessary. There's a lack of recent news, even on the Japanese pages. I couldn't say if they're on schedule at this point or not.

There was a Jaxa report some days ago n jaxa.jp. IF i understood it correctly they run into some problems with the LNG engine. So not sure if first flight will happen in 2 years. According to MEXT the expected launch cost of the GX is 40-50 Million Dollar for 4,4 tons into LEO, 2,2 into SSO and 1,4 into GTO.

In related news, Astro-G is approved for launch in late FY 2011. Astro-G (VSOP-2) is the successor to the highly successfull Halca mission.

[MCS]

There was a Jaxa report some days ago n jaxa.jp. IF i understood it correctly they run into some problems with the LNG engine. So not sure if first flight will happen in 2 years. According to MEXT the expected launch cost of the GX is 40-50 Million Dollar for 4,4 tons into LEO, 2,2 into SSO and 1,4 into GTO.

I think I found what you're talking about here. There's a PDF status report on the LNG propulsion project that was presented at a committee meeting. Unfortunately, the PDF comes out as unintelligible characters on my computer. I haven't had a problem with Japanese PDFs before, so I guess there's a version incompatibility issue. I'll have to work something out later.

In case anyone is wondering, my Japanese language skills are pretty rudimentary, so my ability to dig information out of Japanese web pages is limited, but I can usually muddle through given enough time.

[spdf]

The problem is they need 3-4 launches for the GX each year. The same amount is needed for the H-2A/B.
To get 30 launches for the H-2A/B between 2010 and 2019 is achievable but 30 more for the GX? I am sceptical. Under worst scenario GX is taking some launches away from H-2A and they cannot support both rockets as a result.

But to give up the M-V was inevitable, since the next space science mission suitable for this rocket is in 2010. Also some of the next proposed space science missions are more heavy. There is the SPICA 3,5 m infrared astronomy mission for the L2. It is 2,4 ton heavy and will get mechanical cooled down to 3 kv.

Another one is the Jasmine mission. http://www.jasmine-galaxy.org/index.html

From the Hayabusa experience there is also discussion going on if a 540 kg bus is enough for an interplanetary mission. If you can get a little heavier than you can put more replacement systems on the satellite. But than you need a more powerful launcher.

[MCS]

I have to agree with spdf about the inevitability of the cancellation of the M-V program, especially with Lunar-A delayed until at least 2010. Selene is too heavy for it, and Planet-C isn't scheduled until 2010. With nothing for the M-V to launch for several years, this seems to be the best time to cancel it. As it was, it was too expensive given its limted payload capabilities. I don't really know enough to have an opinion as to whether efforts to lower the cost of the M-V or improve its performance would have been worthwhile.

Given budget limitations, focusing money and effort on the H-II series might be the best way to go. The list of companies involved with the GX suggests that it has some political winds behind it, though.

[spdf]

Last M-5 rocket launch leaves successor up in air
The Yomiuri Shimbun

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency on Saturday successfully launched the M-5 No. 7 rocket from the Uchinoura Space Center in Kagoshima Prefecture, sending the solar observation satellite Solar B into orbit as scheduled.

The M-5 rocket will now be retired from service. With its last successful launch, the M-5 leaves a record of six successes and one failure since the M-5 No. 1 launch in February 1997. For a new rocket, this record is quite acceptable.

Looking back, Japan's solid-fuel rockets date back to 1955's pencil rocket. Continuing the tradition, the M-5 is among the world's largest rockets of its kind, with one of the best performance levels in the world.

There are many who lament the retirement of the M-5 rocket. However, the decision is inevitable if we consider the problems associated with the rocket.


Costly launch


Its main disadvantage is that it is too expensive. One launch costs about \8 billion. If a U.S. liquid-fuel rocket were used as a launch vehicle for the same satellite, the cost would be halved. The per-payload cost is five times that of Japan's mainstay rocket, the H-2A, which also uses liquid fuel.

In terms of performance, it has been pointed out that the M-5 rocket has trouble with significant vibrations. There have been worries over possible adverse effects on precision devices mounted on satellites and probes carried by the rocket.

The M-5 was first developed by the former Education Ministry's Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), which focused on space exploration. Japan only had small solid-fuel rockets until 1990, when development of the M-5 started, and the government was unable to handle major programs, such as planetary exploration.

Around the same time, the National Space Development Agency (NASDA) of the former Science and Technology Agency, which focused on satellites for practical use, had been developing the H-2, the predecessor of the current H-2A rocket.

The hierarchical administrative system prevented ISAS from studying the use of the H-2 rocket.


No comprehensive policy


The situation changed, however, when the two organizations merged into JAXA. After opting to use the H-2A for planetary exploration, the government this summer decided to retire the M-5.

Yet, the government does not have a comprehensive policy for rocket development after the M-5.

It has a program to develop a rocket smaller than the M-5, but has not decided yet on its specific performance duties, launching method or even what kind of satellite it will launch.

ISAS and NASDA jointly developed the solid-fuel J-1 rocket 10 years ago, but the project was aborted due to its high costs.

As a project separate from JAXA, the liquid-fuel GX rocket for medium-sized satellites has been under joint development by the government and the private sector. But the rocket's capabilities overlap that of the M-5's replacement. What should the government do to balance the use of these two types of rockets?

In addition, the GX rocket's development has been mired in technological problems.

With the retirement of the M-5, the H-2A will be Japan's only rocket for a while. There is even a risk that the country's space development will stop entirely if the H-2A develops serious problems.

Solid-fuel technology, which has been cultured by past development projects up to the M-5, likely will be lost if no follow-up research is carried out. The government has no time for hesitation in deciding which way to go.


(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Sept. 24, 2006)

On the other joint state-private project, the QZSS (Quazi Zenith Satellite System) the private side pulled out, and Jaxa is moving alone now. Launch of the first satellite is in 2009 now. The second and third satellite is delayed. (Also they want to test the first one in orbit so ... ). (There was a report in the yomiuri some months ago)

I heard that the chances that the private sector moves out of the GX, too exists. This would mean that the state will finish it (aka pays the full development), and later if it is successfull the private side takes over again.

[MCS]

There was a Jaxa report some days ago n jaxa.jp. IF i understood it correctly they run into some problems with the LNG engine. So not sure if first flight will happen in 2 years. According to MEXT the expected launch cost of the GX is 40-50 Million Dollar for 4,4 tons into LEO, 2,2 into SSO and 1,4 into GTO.

I finally managed to work through the report. It doesn't look encouraging. The main problems seem to be poor engine performance, and difficulties with the composite propellant and helium tanks. If I read it right (someone who knows more Japanese than I do is welcome to correct me), it seems that the tanks had problems with separation of the inside liners. The engine had problems with lower than expected thrust, and pressure fluctuations in the combustion chamber. By the beginning of 2004, the problems were serious enough that they had to halt testing and redesign some components. Since then, some combustion tests have been done to get more insight into the problems. The report seems cautiously optimistic that progress is being made on the engine problems, but it seems like less or no progress has been made on the tank problems. I remember that the X-33 program had serious problems with composite tanks.

Intended performance is 96.7 kN thrust, Isp of 345 +/- 5 seconds, and a burn time of up to 353 seconds. Inert mass would be 2.1 tonnes, with 9.8 tonnes of propellants. It would use a pressurized gas propellant feed system.

I'm doubtful that this engine will fly in two years. It looks like the problems are still under investigation, and actual fixes have yet to be implemented and tested.

[MCS]

I heard that the chances that the private sector moves out of the GX, too exists. This would mean that the state will finish it (aka pays the full development), and later if it is successfull the private side takes over again.

This wouldn't be a surprise. Looking at the English PDF from Galaxy Express about the GX, on page 11 (the 12th PDF page), it says, "In principle, the government is responsible for major development and industries are mainly responsible for business." On page 9 (PDF page 10), it says that the 2nd stage "is developed under JAXA's responsibility and the fruit is transferred to GALEX for application to GX." On page 12 (PDF page 13), it looks like GALEX's responsibilities are limited to system integration, the first stage (a LockMart Atlas), the fairing (which might also come from Atlas, though the PDF doesn't say so), and "Development of GX unique facilities." So, it seems like it's pretty much been expected that the Japanese government would fund LNG development, then the Galaxy Express consortium would take over.

[spdf]

from spacedaily.com

Costs For Japan GX Engine Creeping Up

GX Launch Vehicle (pictured) is a mid-size rocket for commercial launches. The GX launch vehicle project is led by the private sector, a group of private companies, and NASDA participates in the development of LNG (liquid natural gas) engine (the first type in the world) and propellant tanks for the second stage. Credit: NASDA.
by Staff Writers
Tokyo (JIJI) Sep 28, 2006
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, or JAXA, reported to a science and technology ministry panel Tuesday that costs for developing an engine for the GX midsize rocket are expected to reach 34.7 billion yen, 3.5 times the initial estimate, due to a major change in its spec.
The engine, being developed jointly by such firms as Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., will be powered by liquefied natural gas. Such an engine has never been successfully developed for commercial use even in the United States and Russia.

The initial launch of the rocket has already been delayed to fiscal 2010 or later from the originally scheduled fiscal 2005.

The science and technology ministry is expected to allow JAXA to continue the development work. But criticism of the project may increase within the ministry panel because of the swelling costs and the launch delay.

The first stage of the two-stage rocket is slated to carry a U.S.-made engine and the second stage a newly developed LNG engine.

By using LNG, which is cheaper and easier to use than hydrogen fuel, JAXA is aiming to develop a high-performance, cost-efficient commercial satellite launch vehicle.

But the project has faced a number of problems. The project partners failed to develop a light fuel tank made of carbon fiber reinforced plastic and aluminum, and shifted to a stainless steel tank. They also gave up development of a combustion system using helium and instead adopted a system used in an existing rocket.

[MCS]

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, or JAXA, reported to a science and technology ministry panel Tuesday that costs for developing an engine for the GX midsize rocket are expected to reach 34.7 billion yen, 3.5 times the initial estimate, due to a major change in its spec.

The exchange rate has been fluctuating around 117 yen/dollar, so that puts the cost at close to $300 million. That doesn't seem so bad, though it is way beyond initial estimates, and is getting the point where it won't be considered low cost anymore.

The initial launch of the rocket has already been delayed to fiscal 2010 or later from the originally scheduled fiscal 2005.

No surprise there. So, it looks like there won't be an M-V replacement at least until the next M-V mission would have been available.

But the project has faced a number of problems. The project partners failed to develop a light fuel tank made of carbon fiber reinforced plastic and aluminum, and shifted to a stainless steel tank. They also gave up development of a combustion system using helium and instead adopted a system used in an existing rocket.

The nature of the changes wasn't clear from the report I read, perhaps in part because of my limited translation abilities. So, the composite tanks are gone. It's not totally clear what they mean by "a system used in an existing rocket," but I'm guessing that they're scrapping the pressurized gas feed system for a turbopump system, which should help with the performance problems, though they'd be sacrificing some of the simplicity they were hoping for. The large helium tanks can be ditched.

Since it seems like a major redesign is being done, even 2010 might turn out to be optimistic. The hopes that LNG will be cheaper than hydrogen seem to be fading too. While it's not as severely cryogenic as liquid hydrogen, the performance isn't that great either - not much better than kerosene. Fuel costs are generally not going to be a deciding factor in overall launch costs. It would be interesting to see LNG added to the list of operational fuels, but it seems that there are good reasons why it hasn't been developed yet. Japan already has liquid hydrogen technology and facilities anyway, making the case for developing LNG even weaker.

[spdf]

There was already one launch costumer for the GX, the USEF organization with Servis-2. But I don t think they will wait until after 2010. So Servis-2 will be launched by a diffrent launcher.

In related news in December is the first launch of the H2a 204 version with the heaviest payload so far the ETS-VIII.

However one of the main problems of Jaxa is that their data relay satellite DRTS will reach the end of its projected life term in 2009. So a successor is necessary. But the new missions included in FY2007 are Astro-G and GCOM-W. So if DRTS-2 is included in the FY2008 budget than it takes at least until 2011 to launch it. So if DRTS stops operating in 2009 than Jaxa is facing a big communication problem with ALOS, IGS and its part of the space station.

[spdf]

Jaxa seems to be in trouble again.

Selene-2 was supposed to be launched in 2012. But last reports say before 2015. SPICA was planned for 2012 too but than moved to 2015 and now to 2017. GCOM-W moved from 2010 to 2012. (http://directory.eoportal.org/pres_GCOMGlobalChangeObservationMission.html) Than there was the Hayabusa 2. A project thats not very expensive compared to others and does make loots of sense. However if I understood a japanese newspaper report from 2 weeks ago correct than there is no budget for a H-2A launch. This means JAXA must either search for a non japanese launch or the project is dead. (sorry can t find the article again)
So the situation is tense.
I mean since 2005 JAXA had lots of success with Akari, Hinode, Hayabusa, OICETS, etc. ETS-VIII has some problems but the only real downfall was the loss of the XRS but even that doesn t mean that Suzaku is a flop. So coming from this high points and than moving into such a situation must be painful.

[GravityWaves]

The problem is they need 3-4 launches for the GX each year.

This rocket was know as the J-2 back in the day of NASDA. It was to use a combination of Kerosene, L-O2 and natural gas but would only take payloads of 2,500 kg into orbit. LM became a shareholder but with fluctuations in Petro Dollar gas prices, this un-proven rocket is expected to become more costly in the future.

The Japanese public seem to be largely indifferent about their space program, they have some unfortunate failures and some great success but by large nobody in Japan cares about their programs until they hear the mention of $$ costs. H-2 is getting more reliable but if I recall correctly other missions like OICETS used a foreign Launch Vehicles.

[spdf]

About GX http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/scien...823TDY04303.htm