ArianeGroup - SUSIE, Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration

Discover SUSIE - Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration
Versatile for human spaceflight and cargo missions
- Fully reusable and integrated stage
- Advanced safety by design
- Launched on Ariane 64 evolutions, and future European launchers
Human spaceflight to Low Earth Orbit
- Up to five crew members
- Free flight for short duration missions
- Access to space stations
A key element for Space Logistics
- Satellite deployment
- Pressurized cargo and fuel supplies to space stations
Enabling In-Orbit services
- Payload assembly
- Refueling depots
- Manufacturing in space
- Returning goods from space
Comfortable and smooth re-entry, approach and landing
- Advanced end to end safety in manned flight

[@janepsch2314]

I really hope this actually happens Europe needs crew capabilities really badly

[@omarflores3150]

i really hope this gets off the ground. I really don't want to see another program get canceled like this from AraineGroup and ESA.

[@sebpatu]

As always it will be a cost issue from european states. But after ukraine war and states decisions against russia i dont see how they could not finance it. The recent news seems to be good in this way. Cross fingers.

[@popelgruner595]

FINALLY! Our own capabillity to bring humans into LEO without begging the US or Russia for a seat on their capsules.

[@sebpatu]

With russia it was partnership not begging. It was exchange of services. Soyouz was even fully part of the ariane espace commercial offer of kourou launches. The ukraine war changee everything.

[@MarsChroniken]

Impressive! Beautiful! Elegant! Can't wait to see and hear more about SUSIE! Ad Astra!❤🚀

[@Tim76543]

that would be a big step up for European Space Flight, make it true please and give us continues updates on development!!! :D

[@kaelju]

I swear it, if the European countries cannot agree on this project, if they refuse to put the budget for such a fundamental project, so basic, for the sovereignty and the future of the European continent among the superpowers, then the European Union must be put to an end because it will never come to anything if we cannot develop even such projects. I still prefer to shorten the agony.

[@Inertia22]

ESA is not an EU agency (although maybe it should be). But I agree this project is sorely needed. France has recently increased by 25% its space budget so maybe they'll push hard for SUSIE at the ESA Council meeting this November.

[@cillianmurphy9738]

@@Inertia22 I much prefer ESA being independent from the EU, and the EU have established EUSPA for their own purposes anyway. I do agree that Europe is sorely in need of human rated launch capabilities though so I hope to see this project come to fruition.

[@cillianmurphy9738]

While I agree that this is important technology for Europe to develop it has nothing to do with the EU. Ariane Group/Arianespace are an private company and their main customer is ESA, not the EU. Aside from that they can take contracts from anyone, anywhere in the world, much like SpaceX can and does.

[@Inertia22]

@@cillianmurphy9738 Having ESA and EUSPA as two separate agencies only seems to increase duplication for duplication's sake IMO. The large majority of ESA's budget already comes from EU member states and the EU itself, making it a proper EU agency would increase democratic oversight on how the money are spent. Third countries would still be free to collaborate with it, of course.

[@cillianmurphy9738]

@@Inertia22 Agreed that the duplication is not really of much benefit, however I think ESA is generally far more transparent (if your one of the few who are aware it even exists) and better run than the EU has been by and large. The formation of EUSPA as I see it boils down to a disatisfaction of the EU with not being able to dictate to ESA like it could to a subsidiary agency, and perhaps most importantly that ESA does not conduct military activities and the EU is certainly interested in conducting such activities, though most member states already conduct them through their national agencies and have no need of ESA to perform them. In my opinion it is EUSPA which is superfluous as ESA has successfully managed the EU space activities for some time now. While I am pro-EU on the whole, I much prefer that ESA remain independent. There is no lack of oversight on how ESA manages its finances as it very regularly meets ministers of the members states and holds ministerial councils to detail its expenditure and to confirm budget commitments for the future, if ESA were not financially responsible (as much as anyone else in the space sector at least) then it would quickly lose support and cease to exist. It's also nice to say that an EU integrated ESA would still work with third parties and non-EU states, but that cannot be guaranteed. Notably, the UK remains a full member of ESA but their membership would come into question and become another stick held over the British heads were ESA an agency of the EU. Let's not mix our politics and science any more than absolutely necessary.

[@WenhopOfficial]

This is beautiful and honestly really needs to be approved. Go ESA!

[@annando]

A really promising concept! I deeply hope that the politicians will won't kill it, like they did with other good concepts.

[@efraim6960]

SUSSY definitely looks nice

[@kenetickups6146]

hope it flies, Europe needs a manned ship

[@arnaudj.974]

Proud to be an european ! Great response to the world, go states members !

[@Luckyamor]

Go ahead ESA ❤️

[@noahblackford8914]

It's like Hermes 2.0! Well, hopefully without the cancellation and whatnot.

[@sebpatu]

Except its not a shuttle. It is more like the space rider.

[@noahblackford8914]

@@sebpatu I was more making a point that it's a crewed lifting-body from ESA

[@sebpatu]

@@noahblackford8914 yeah. And in fact i eared that space rider is based on hermes work so anyway space rider was lile hermes 1.25 without humans so susie can be hermes 2.0 after all :p Susie is like hermes without wings.

[@nickandersson4165]

Please let this become true!

[@DC2022]

It's nice to see this. Cooperation is nice, but in a world where it is seen as a weakness and induce leverage, it's a prime objective to have preserved sovereignity. Keep up the good work ArianeGroup! Hope ESA will catch that ride and partners finally open their purses to fund this important program!

[@arkadiuszm.j.wernicki7345]

Starship landing vibes at the end. Touching.❤️

[@ladydustin7811]

Why is it not landing like a shuttle. Would that not be easier, and safer?

[@anthoines1864]

very interesting project. It seems affordable in the few years. This makes it a project to follow closely! Hope to get further news soon.

[@pogainielv7218]

Good luck! Hermes project was wery progressive!:)

[@nisenobody8273]

No jokes if this becomes real, great potential in this project, with orbital refueling this probably could be even a Lunar Lander of high crew capacity, although maybe the Ariane 6 is not the best launch system for this ship.

[@thimoclesse]

Which rocket is better for this project? Ariane makes this project while knowing especially what are the capacities of Ariane 6. Are you thinking of a space X rocket ?

[@nisenobody8273]

@@thimoclesse I am referring specifically to Ariane 6, which is what has been shown in the renders. If this is ever built it will surely be operational well into the 2030s, and by then Ariane Space should also have its next launch system (Ariane Next) in operation. I think a three core version of this vehicle (as has been proposed) could get SUSIE to TLI in a single launch, or with minimal refueling in LEO. Also, the 7 t payload capacity of SUSIE should be increased imo.

[@CausticLemons7]

We're gonna need more rockets!

[@WetaMantis]

I wanted to see this for a long time!

[@74Cosmo74]

UE needs this to make people dream. UE can't only be a mess of bureaucraty. Hoping it won't end like Hermes, my heart still hurts!

[@cillianmurphy9738]

Not strictly an EU matter as ESA is independent of the EU. I would imagine that EUSPA would also be a customer to Arianespace and could use SUSIE for missions that require it.

[@jaaj158]

I Hope it will not finish like hermess.

[@arkadiuszm.j.wernicki7345]

Future is Reusable.

[@javant6993]

Hmm... A crew and cargo vehicle. It looks like it could carry a decent amount of cargo compared to the Crew Dragon. Much more practical than the Space Shuttle for the simple reason of having a separate launcher and spacecraft, this way you can just launch a Ariane 64 for some deep space mission, instead of fitting the cargo into a cargo bay of limited size, you can have a much larger fairing, and if you need people, you launch the special spacecraft.

[@robertwalhout8982]

As always, it's great to see your announcements. Looking forward to next year's excitement.

[@bullebidouille8123]

Do it , faite le !!!!!!

[@alexanderkenway]

Nice concept. _If_ this ever happens, don't expect to see it before 2030

[@sebpatu]

@@jaunt3603 ariane6 was a full entire new launcher and new launch base. In 7 years (covid years dont count). Next innovations will incremental on top of ariane6 that was made for. With enough finacing it can ve done quickly as they alreary have all the neccesarry technical knowledges (not sire.for the toss back propulsion thats seems quite new, but it is not mandatory to get a forst version). It really looks like a upgrade of space rider for humans.

[@benoitodille5617]

We don't care how much it costs, the essential thing is that Arianegroup learned from its mistake. Now we have Themis program and Susie, that can work out perfectly !

[@PMMeCuteBugPhotos]

Was hoping for a manned Space Rider. I wonder how much more viable powered landing's gonna be.

[@ptonpc]

Is there any serious chance of this becoming reality?

[@pyriedog]

So much space for cargo... but where would they store the fuel for decent?

[@markuskoivisto]

seems like the plan is to mostly brake in the atmosphere so there won't be much fuel needed for the landing burn.

[@spacecube8561]

this would be able to land anywhere in the EU.....right?

[@DC2022]

Considering landing mode it could land anywhere but the main problem would be to take it back to Kourou for refit and relaunch.

[@francemiaou]

@@DC2022 Yes, so it would probably land in Kourou (still in the EU)

[@spacecube8561]

@@DC2022 yes.... but, having this land let's say, once in a year/two/three in .... let's say - warsaw main airport, porto main airport, vilnius airport etc ..... would most certainly give us more incentive to invest proper money in ESA, + it'd be like ''y'see, THIS is why we do it....THIS is why ESA is thing, all y'all nay-sayers''' i might be a hustle to do it..... but, i think, certain positives in public perception might be worth it......

[@DC2022]

@@spacecube8561 what would be the capital gain to land this spacecraft anywhere in the world considering you'll have then to retrieve it and transfer it back to Kourou for refil and relaunch? Frankly? There is close to none. It would be good to have emergency landing zone here and there but more than that... More than this for public perception would be to have: *Good PR not only from company, but mainly from the Space Agencies (ESA and national ones) and governments (and for fuck sake if they could work together without trying to doublecross partners, yes Germany, I'm talking about YOU!) *Good launch and spaceflight records and streams *Having more money put in space by ESA members and partners.

[@spacecube8561]

@@DC2022 publicity and propaganda win. and sometimes, those two things bring more buck than just money. after all, with that kind of publicity stunt, it'd be easier to get more money from european countries - with citizens really seeing where their money is going, and not just those working in airbus/leonardo/dassault etc. i don't think NASA's ''popularity'' in USA comes just from technological achievements, but also the fact that they're launching from Cape Canaveral, Florida. meaning, you can literally drive from any part of the USA, and see NASA's rocket burn millions of your $ and launch stuff into space. can we do that, that easily, with Kourou, French Guiana? nnnoo, not really. could we do it easily with SISUE landing in Munich, Madrid, Prague, Strassbourg, Warsaw or Zagreb? well....yes. after all, everything ESA builds is already built in EU, and shipped to French Guiana, EU..... so, logistics are already there and not a problem.

[@Mr_Lexy]

I think, Lussi - miniature version of SpaseX's Starship

[@yuzeyselkonular4457]

This is like a compact version of starship

[@sebpatu]

Or this an adaptation of the space rider for human flights plus toss back landing from themis demonstrator.

[@RTSRafnex2]

This is like a *realistic * version of starship

[@roelvaneyken211]

Isn't this basically a (advanced form of a) European space shuttle?

[@onceuponatimeandspace]

More analogous to a Crew Dragon. No wings, and it's still an upper stage! Not to mention propulsive landing.

[@roelvaneyken211]

@@onceuponatimeandspace or this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

[@eyal.herlin]

Will it have a launch escape system?

[@samcarpenter_]

Integrated abort motors like dragon I think. Radially mounted.

[@soleenzo893]

Basically it's 12? landing engines it uses for retropropulsive landing are the abort motors during launch, like crew Dragon

[@francemiaou]

Yes, it could abort at any time of the mission

[@cyberia55]

Only the uppermost stage is reusable? Isn’t that a “spacecraft”?

[@cillianmurphy9738]

No, because most spacecraft cannot be landed and reused. While there is a lot of cost in the main stage, the upper stages or payloads are often orders of magnitude more complex and expensive than the rocket carrying them. It would be better if the entire vehicle could be recovered and reused but just having a European crew vehicle would already be enough to make the project worthwhile.

[@cyberia55]

@@cillianmurphy9738 Your first sentence’s veracity hinges on your definition of “landed”. Some modern spacecraft (Dragon, Orion, Starliner) are arguably “landed” and definitely reused. The X-37 is, and Starship will be “landable and reusable” by anyone’s definition. Also, modern reusable first stages are not so simple anymore.

[@cillianmurphy9738]

@@cyberia55 Indeed, you list several vehicles which can return to ground and be reused, and yet they remain a small fraction of the 'spacecraft' that we launch to space. I concede that reusable first stages are far from simple but they too remain a minority at least for now. The lower launch cost of reusable rockets is offset by the investment in development, but after SpaceX's success in this area I am sure it is only a matter of time before most rockets become reusable in part or in their entirety. Based on your examples perhaps it is you who is limiting the definition of 'spacecraft' exclusively to those which are human rated?

[@cyberia55]

@@cillianmurphy9738 What?! My list was based on YOUR criteria of “landed and reused”. Also, you do know the X-37 is unmanned?

[@cyberia55]

@@cillianmurphy9738 Starship will also not be manned - at least not initially.

[@marco8696]

This spacecraft will be build right?😅

[@yevgenakkerman7369]

yes. in VR

[@maidenless6805]

It has peppa pig feet

[@rainewoox]

明年就得给我造出来 不然我不给钱

[@loboraposa6466]

はい、あなたは上司です

[@Epifiloma]

Can this land on the Moon and Mars?🤔🤔🤔🤔

[@Melissandrel]

No but it's made to reach the lunar orbit as a cargo for the Lunar gateway :)

[@nisenobody8273]

@@Melissandrel I think this actually could land on the moon if is capable of doing orbital refueling in LEO, and I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, especially if they use metalox as propellant (maybe Prometheus engines?)

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

On Moon and on Mars you do not have any prepared surfaces. Landing vehicles need to be wider, at least as wide as high, in order to prevent a landing vehicle from toppling over. In order to restart you will need a different engine and different fuel tanks. And you would want to leave the landing gear behind as it becomes useless weight. The Appollo program got this part quite right.

[@BPJJohn]

@@karstenschuhmann8334 "Landing vehicles need to be wider, at least as wide as high, in order to prevent a landing vehicle from toppling over. " That rules out Starship HLS then.

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

@@BPJJohn The very different demands rule out pretty much every vehicle designed to start from earth or to land on earth.

[@HaharuRecords]

So this is just a smaller version of starship...!

[@hydroxide809]

susie more like sussy

[@ryancg6439]

S u s

[@damianousley8833]

The ESA space plane got cancelled after being redesigned to less capacity than intended. The Europeans appear to be very late on the starting line. SpaceX has the Dragon capsule that currently takes 4 crew but can configure to take 7 crew into low Earth orbit. Susie only takes 5 crew to LEO. SpaceX most likely will have starship up and running before this concept reusable spacecraft even gets off the drawing board.

[@valdir7426]

at least they don't pretend they're gonna go to the moon with it. But let's see which one of those work first if ever; even if it's in ten years.

[@joaquimbarbosa896]

To be fair SpaceX is ahead of everyone

[@ryan_n05]

nice concept, but i’m not sure about a propulsive landing with crew onboard. that’s just a recipe for unnecessary deaths.

[@GypsyTinker2012]

Falcon 9 has landed over 100 times in a row now. Orders of magnitude safer than any manned rocket's first launch.

[@ryan_n05]

@@GypsyTinker2012 okay? it’s still far more risky than a parachute and a splashdown in the ocean. imo it needs to fly and successfully perform propulsive landings at least a thousand times consecutively before humans should be allowed to board it. there’s a reason nasa rejected the idea of using propulsive landings on crew dragon.

[@GypsyTinker2012]

@@ryan_n05 you are only demonstrating that you don't understand how human rating and aircraft safety work.

[@SP95]

The dragon capsule gave up ok propulsive landing so this is indeed a technical bet

[@efraim6960]

@@ryan_n05 iirc spacex gave up propulsive landing since the development and human rating would take too long compared to just using parachutes

[@DavidFGuajardo]

Not even BLUE ORGIN has the capability to land without parachutes and they have ONE BILLION USD invested EVERY Year. I love this concept but I don't think it will ever land like this in the next 10 years.

[@sebpatu]

It looks like a fingernail poiting to space 🙄

[@claudiogagliardi]

ma è ridicolo, questo è l'unico veicolo riutilizzabile che arianegroup ha ideato con le nostre tasse? povera Europa in mano a questi burocrati

[@WalterWhite-pd8nl]

French starship 💀💀💀

[@QuboBeG]

European !!!

[@sebpatu]

And starship was the us version of tintin lunar ship? There is not hundreds of way to make those things.

[@maxencedesdouits4240]

Why skulls ? Hater ?

[@DC2022]

@@maxencedesdouits4240 no it's meant to say he made deadly blow to ArianeGroup. The paramount of modesty. Basically a musky that lack not only of imagination but also brain.

[@YaItxSmoothy]

Average elon stans when they see space company other than SpaceX:

[@AdelaeR]

It's going to cost a lot of tax payer money (that is it's purpose after all) and by the time it's done, it'll already be surpassed by Spacex's Starship and be essentially obsolete. Europe would be better off to simply lease Falcon 9 and Starship.

[@Swordcrusher]

You don't want Elon to have a monopoly on space flight. And you don't need a starship flying up everytime you need to get 4 people to the ISS

[@markuskoivisto]

It's a question of independence. If a future US administration decides that Europe is cut off, the show's over. Europe has to have something of their own, even if it's somehow worse.

[@AdelaeR]

@@markuskoivisto You look at it from a nationalist perspective, I see it from a free market mind. SpaceX is a private company. Why couldn't Europe invite SpaceX to come and develop and fly their rockets here? I see no reason why that couldn't be. Because they are "American"? I call that blind nationalism. Why should we reinvent the wheel, while spending extreme amounts of taxpayer money, of course? We could just as well be outsourcing the getting-to-orbit to a world leading private company and be much more efficient.

[@KatharineOsborne]

It’s important to have a diversity of designs. If a crew dragon or starship gets grounded for a design flaw that could reduce capacity or or eliminate capacity. And/or everyone might be reliant on Soyuz which given the current political climate is a bad idea (China isn’t sharing right now so that’s also off the table).

[@PMMeCuteBugPhotos]

Oh yea I'm sure the Starship is totally gonna be better than a much smaller vehicle, especially with all the dumb shit elon wants