ESA's Airbus Reusable Rocket: The Adeline

Introducing Adeline - A Revolutionary Leap in Reusable Rocketry
Imagine a rocket that not only soars into the sky with a thunderous roar but elegantly glides back to Earth, ready for another thrilling journey among the stars. Enter Adeline (Advanced Expendable Launcher with Innovative engine Economy), a groundbreaking concept brought to life by the brilliant minds at Airbus Defence and Space. This audacious vision aims to redefine the boundaries of space travel by harnessing the power of drone technology to achieve horizontal runway landings - an awe-inspiring spectacle that is sure to leave space enthusiasts in absolute awe!
At the core of this visionary concept lies a rocket booster like no other. Equipped with propeller engines and cutting-edge avionics, it promises to be more than just a disposable first-stage component. Adeline's true genius lies in its ability to gracefully touch down on a runway, post-launch, only to be lovingly refurbished and sent off on yet another exhilarating adventure.
As the fiery launch propels the stage forward, the engine module knows its fate and bravely bids farewell, preparing for the daring descent. Here's where Adeline unleashes its wings - tiny, yet potent winglets that nimbly guide the booster towards its coveted runway destination. Thrilling, isn't it?
As the runway looms closer, the tension builds; this is the moment when the landing gear springs into action, providing the stability needed for a picture-perfect horizontal landing. To add a touch of ingenuity, two small pusher configuration propellers join the ensemble, lending that extra oomph to the landing. Talk about elegance and power wrapped into one!
Now, let's talk economics. Adeline has an ace up its sleeve. By reusing a whopping 80% of the stage's economic value - encompassing the engine, avionics, and propulsion bay - it stands as a beacon of sustainability and cost-effectiveness. SpaceX, though impressive with its vertical landing feats, does not escape the taxing stresses their booster engines endure during deceleration. Adeline, on the other hand, gracefully glides and only requires a modest 2,000 kg of fuel for a geostationary flight back to the ground. Compare that to the estimated 35,000 kg needed for a SpaceX booster's return to the launch site. Mind-blowing, right?
Now, fuel might be a mere fraction of the overall launch cost, but it's a game-changer for Adeline. The beauty lies in the reduction of launch costs, ranging from 21-40%. However, the catch lies in the payload capacity, which could diminish from 8,300 kg to 5,500 kg with this approach. But fret not, as the true cost advantage emerges when ferrying payloads much lower than the rocket's lift potential. Unleash the unused lift capacity, and voila! Extra fuel to recycle the rocket and unlock new realms of possibilities.
You might wonder where this marvel will find its niche. Fear not, for the future is ripe with potential. Adeline could seamlessly integrate into the evolution of Ariane 6 or any liquid-fueled rocket. Talk about versatility!
Embarking on this interstellar journey was no easy feat. Airbus commenced this ambitious program in 2010, investing a staggering €15 million by May 2015 to refine the art of reusability. Scale models took flight, fueling the dream of a reusable rocket future. As Ariane 6 takes center stage in Airbus's development priorities, Adeline awaits her turn to shine.
Of course, with every bold venture, there are skeptics lurking in the shadows. In 2018, an official from the CNES launcher directorate expressed doubts about the concept's financial viability. But remember, history has shown that audacious visions often take time to win over skeptics and blaze new trails.

[@timbermicka]

This was quietly cancelled around 5 or 6 years ago and now Arianespace are aiming for Falcon 9-style reusability after Ariane 6

[@aq_ua]

They'll catch up eventually, go ESA!

[@andrewdoesyt7787]

That’s dumb that they would pursue ariane 6 when they could just go straight to reusability.

[@timbermicka]

@@andrewdoesyt7787 They don't have any experience in reusability yet, so in the mean time it's better to use Ariane 6.

[@seantaggart7382]

I kinda hope for Vulcan's SMART reuse

[@andrewdoesyt7787]

@@timbermicka well you’re going to have the same inexperience with reusability after Ariane 6 as you would now. I just don’t understand why would you start development on a non-reusable rocket when you have the resources and proof that it would be smarter to go the reusable route…

[@johnbuchman4854]

How about doing a video about the first, fully reusable, single stage to orbit rocket, Thunderbird 3?

[@niraj_dave]

wondered what this was going to look like..back then-they never bothered with a good animation but this one is really good. thanks for doing it.

[@ptonpc]

I would love to see this fly. I remember when this was being actively discussed a few years ago, the idea being it could be stuck on the bottom of A6 and its variants while other reusable options were being explored.

[@paulschlusser1085]

But why? I mean, you could just, I dunno, land the entire booster intact? Must be possible in 2023, surely?

[@ptonpc]

@@paulschlusser1085 It's a balance between mass, cost and the fuel needed to bring back the important bits. Falcon 9 needs to keep a certain amount of fuel in its tanks in order to land successfully. That limits the mass of what it can launch. and which orbits it can reach. Why you get Falcon 9 launched in expendable mode. The idea behind Adeline was, since you only need to bring back the really expensive bits, you don't need to account for the mass of the fuel tanks so you don't need as much fuel to get back as F9. Since it can fly and land on a standard runway by itself, it doesn't need to do a suicide burn, such as F9. This also gives it a much greater choice of landing sites, giving you more flexibility. There had been the idea that it could act as an extra stage for Ariane 6 and 7 with the ability to be scaled up or down, essentially being 'bolted on' to existing designs. The last I heard (So double check, the thinking seems to change over time) Adelne had been put back while ESA openly admits it's looking at other launchers for ideas it can be 'inspired by'. A7 may look more like F9 on steroids, or Starship, some combination with flyback stages or something else entirely.

[@stevevernon1978]

@@paulschlusser1085 yeah, but. this brings back the expensive part (the engine), and throws away the cheap part (the tankage). I thought, "that's a neat idea for 20-30 years ago" but i see here that its not that old.

[@paulschlusser1085]

@@stevevernon1978 exactly. This idea debuted when grasshopper was already test flying or even possibly after the first f9 booster recovery. It was a half hearted response just in case reusability turned out to be a thing. Which unlike SpaceX, they didnt really believe. Disruption of entrenched industry in action.

[@modelermark172]

This is fascinating, but not without precedent. In 1959, Revell made a model kit called the "HELIOS Nuclear Powered Lunar Landing Craft" based on a design proposed by Krafft Ehricke of CONVAIR's Astronautics Division. (HELIOS stood for "Heteropowered Earth-Launched Inter-Orbital Spacecraft.") Though the main focal point of HELIOS was the main nuclear engine that towed its crew module behind 1000 foot long cables; this ship was initially taken to 170,000 feet by a conventional, chemical-fueled stage that, after separation, would glide back to land on a runway with retractable landing gear for refurbishment and reuse. Though the HELIOS's first stage was crewed, and lacked the prop engines, the flight profile was VERY similar to what is shown here for Adeline. I know I asked before, but would you please consider making a video showing the flight of HELIOS, and for the Revell XSL-01 Moon Rocket designed by Ellwyn Angle in 1957? You already made a fine video depicting the Disney TWA Moonliner that was kitted by Strombecker, and is still available from Glencoe Models. The HELIOS and XSL-01 would make fine additions to this line.

[@notasgood459]

Really nice, thought the landing sequence looked a bit more realistic on 2x speed but that’s just me. Excellent work, as usual!!

[@tabascoraremaster1]

2x speed to not notice how the cgi Bird flies the exact same route 3 times ?

[@apsdev]

@@tabascoraremaster1 Also the big white truck passes 3 times after vanishing in air 2 times. I think its footage of a real airport shown 3 times with a real bird.

[@davidvaughn7752]

This is really some beautiful work! If you zoom in during first stage separation and while the payload shroud is being jettisoned it looks about as real as you can get. At that altitude you can even see atmosphere between the launch vehicle and the ground just as you would with terrestrial based optics! Yes, the exhaust plume needs some work - that must really be difficult considering you didn't absolutely nail that - but given time I'm sure you'll figure it out. Thank you keep them coming they're very enjoyable. 👍

[@clevergirl4457]

Another great rocket concept video! Certainly an intriguing design.

[@iliketrains0pwned]

Only Airbus could come up with a reusable launch system and _STILL_ somehow turn that into designing another plane lol

[@SkywalkerWroc]

Not really. Ideas for a fly-back reuse were floating for decades. See: Russian Baikal or DLR's FLBB.

[@margaretbutler4545]

Airbus know planes, play to your strengths.😊

[@paulschlusser1085]

@@SkywalkerWroc Technically, this is fly back engines. I mean recovering the WHOLE booster - way too hard.

[@SkywalkerWroc]

@paulschlusser1085 it's not just engines, but also avionics and other components. Cost-wise everything important is reused. They just discard a metal tube.

[@paulschlusser1085]

@@SkywalkerWroc Sure, some avionics worth a few 10's of thousands. But "just a metal tube"? There is a huge difference between refuelling a complete landed booster, vs building a new "tube", mating it (and all the sensor wiring, gas tight connections for fuel and such) to reused engines. We've moved on, as a world from "reusing rockets", to regularly re-flying "flight proven" boosters. Ask yourself, would you prefer to fly on a 747 that's just landed from a 14 hours flight from Sydney Australia a few hours ago, or a 747 that's just had it's fuselage and wings attached, but not yet been test flown? That's what we are talking about here. Any system that relies on parts getting disassembled violently in flight, then recovered and reintegrated is always going to be way, way more costly and risky than just re-flying the same integrated system over and over.

[@terencewong-lane4309]

Marvellous!

[@SlesinowyMikol]

Nice vid as always

[@jimcabezola3051]

So imaginative! Excellent!

[@SkywalkerWroc]

Beautiful design. Such a shame that it never made it to production!

[@lukamarko1037]

I think it’s still in development

[@SkywalkerWroc]

@@lukamarko1037 It's not. Airbus built a scale model, applied for funding, but didn't the money asked and abandonned the project.

[@lukamarko1037]

@@SkywalkerWroc My bad then.

[@adr1uno638]

I like the rudders, never seen this concept before 🧐

[@holliday69]

Amazing work !!!!

[@francescoperinelli9976]

Great animation, as always! Nice concept but, as a pilot, not sure those tiny rudders could give such a large fuselage the directional control to keep it on the runway centerline with some crosswind component present during landing. Propellers though, are innovative and could possibly scavenge some energy during descent to recharge the rocket first stage batteries, helping with drag as well along the way.

[@pontuswendt2486]

AMAZINGNES!!!

[@elmobrandao9849]

What caught my attention was those spatula-like control surfaces. Wonder how it should have worked, exatly

[@longtsun8286]

Well done.

[@hellascommentor]

Go ESA!

[@LexieAssassin]

Whoah! That's some Kerbal-level engine recovery.

[@iO-Sci]

It is would be unique and serene to see this again in my eyes. 이것은 평온할 것입니다.

[@HalNordmann]

Wasn't the ADELINE-modified Ariane 6 still supposed to have those solid-fuel boosters?

[@confuseatronica]

I love this design cause the glider engine unit thing is SO STUBBY. It makes the space shuttle look like a Concorde

[@MichaeltheCrank]

Excellent work. However, this design appears to be overly complex.

[@vojtechstekl8908]

Can you please make something about soviet crewed mars landing please

[@ajds]

That landing sequence looked so real... it was real, wasn't it? I believe it is time for you to make movies. At least a television show with puppets!

[@mathiaslist6705]

An airplane like reuseable first stage. I could not see any faults the first time watching it --- so in other words it is quite good.

[@elizandrosantos5750]

Se isso for real MDS....

[@pseudotasuki]

Airbus: So imagine a reusable flyback booster… Arianespace: Hmm, idunno. Airbus: …except we half-ass it. Arianespace: Now you have my attention.

[@seanavery7265]

I like where your at but who says the rocket has to break apart?

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

*I ❤️ TURBOPROPS*

[@angelarce832]

Could you do a #HyperionSSTO Video ?

[@Hazegrayart]

Hyperion: The Fully Reusable SSTO! kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHTRdomBqpeid5o

[@MrCrystalcranium]

Nice pusher prop audio...sounds just like a B-36 on runup.

[@pricelessppp]

Would this have reduced launch costs?

[@SkywalkerWroc]

Yep. By a lot, as everything that's expensive in the first stage would be reused. To simply: they discard an empty metal tube and reuse engines, computer, gimbals, etc. But the final decision was to go for the #ArianeNEXT instead - one where even the empty metal tube would be reused.

[@kamxam1384]

That's the reason all these Space companies are going for re-usability. SpaceX showed it could be done and at significantly lower costs, so now everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Before SpaceX, some companies were making 300+ million on launches, and now that their cash cow has dried up, they have to adapt or go under.

[@SkywalkerWroc]

@@kamxam1384 This was designed before SpaceX reused even a single rocket, yet alone proved any cost-decrease.

[@rwboa22]

When an unmanned drone "rollz in zee hay" with NASA's Supper Guppy cargo plane.

[@Laughlin_ONeill2010]

Wowie

[@nemopoint1254]

This is CG, right? I don't think even Airbus design would be able to land with such a figure and wing to wing ratio.

[@jamessmith4229]

Great animation as usual. Now I wonder: Now that Spacex is closing in n StarShip operations, wonder what the actual operation sequence will look. The stack launches, the StarShip does its thing while the Super Heavy is caught in mid-air. While it is back on the OLM being refilled, another StarShip rolls out on a transport roller to be hoisted by the chopsticks ontop of the booster... Is that accurate? Will the StarShip be caught by a different tower when it returns? Will it land on some other apparatus for offloading passengers/cargo? Will someone (Musk) sprinkle pixie-dust on the Cape and make it all happen by magic? Inquiring minds want to know.

[@CausticLemons7]

Last time I heard, Starship was going to land like the Falcon 9 on its own legs. SpaceX had also purchased 2 oil rigs that were to be converted to launch/landing platforms but that plan was scrapped and the rigs sold. Also, they seem to be planning on maintaining Cape Canaveral as the primary operations site.

[@NoWastedCalories]

On landing, shouldn’t you design the wheels to match air speed so when they land it’s not so traumatic to the rubber ?

[@JebHoge]

When that idea had been trialled, it was discovered that the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels made it difficult to control the aircraft, which is a Bad Situation when attempting to land. Tires are cheap in comparison.

[@oljimeagle6779]

This really helps appreciate SpaceX and what they've done with reuseability. They are like 20 years ahead of anyone else at this point.

[@clevergirl4457]

Blue Origin's New Glenn is the only rocket on the horizon that could take on the empire in rocketry that is the falcon family. That rocket will debut next year, maybe 2025, and it'll be another couple of years before Blue get's it fully up and running. But then you remember, SpaceX is making Starship...🥴

[@SkywalkerWroc]

^ mandatory SpaceX post under very video about anything-spaceflight. Now that we're done with that BS, can we get back on topic?

[@clevergirl4457]

@@SkywalkerWroc OP's comment isn't really off topic though... but i get what you mean.

[@ArcXDZ]

Can we stop mentioning SpaceX

[@caav56]

​@@ArcXDZWhy?

[@alrightydave]

Or just do SMART

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@Hazegrayart → Great video...👍 *EDIT:* Those wingtip control services look...interesting.

[@piotrp280]

Realny funny concept. Why land a full first stage when you can ditch the tank and just land a stubby engine with wings instead. Props are weird too, I thought that everyone was ok with gliding spaceships and rocket parts to landing, must have something to do with silly EU regulations.

[@MrHws5mp]

Depends how far downrange the stage separation happens and where the lading field is. There've been plenty of reusable winged rocket proposals that have "get you home" engines, but they've usually been turbojets or turbofans.

[@NoWastedCalories]

Isn’t this basically the space shuttle?

[@sebharz]

Complex design for a reusable engine, not reusable rocket

[@aaroncarbajal8767]

I’ll bet they (Airbus) get theirs off the ground before Boeing ever will…

[@JameBlack]

Never gonna happen😭

[@clevergirl4457]

you never know...

[@SkywalkerWroc]

@@clevergirl4457 It was already cancelled.

[@clevergirl4457]

@@SkywalkerWroc oh.

[@drab2000]

This concept has been abandoned decade ago.

[@soothingunboxing7129]

The creators of that design at airbus seem to be living under a rock, like they have not seen the economics of falcon booster landings or its successor, starship super heavy.

[@clevergirl4457]

the themis concept looks a lot more feasible than this.

[@Imbeachedwhale]

This concept began in 2010, five years before the first Falcon 9 landing and long before that proved itself extremely reliable.

[@luigeribeiro]

"they have not seen the economics of falcon booster landings" Only SpaceX knows how economic it is.

[@MrFranklitalien]

thats the goofiest design ive ever seen

[@mathiaslist6705]

Too bad the concept was declared dead and waits for an American start-up to be revived.

[@-K-Depbluhole]

But... Why propellers? Why not just use some anti-gravity devices? Like the one used on those Black flying triangles

[@SkywalkerWroc]

The Kourou Airport, where Adeline was planned to land, is too far to just glide the booster back. They also provided additional degree of control and allowed for a safe return even if the atmospheric conditions would change. also: lol @ anti-gravity devices.

[@enisra_bowman]

@@SkywalkerWroc i mean, if you learn one thing from the Space Shuttle Program: it's nice to have some Engines

[@g.f.martianshipyards9328]

Because anti-gravity devices don't exist.

[@tamtamich4]

Black Flying triangles or TR-3b have never been built

[@MattMcIrvin]

Propellers actually exist

[@pierredemontigny8154]

A lot of added complexity for a primitive idea

[@robertalexander8086]

Elon Musk vs NASA

[@hawk0485]

this seems dumb, so much extra weight and complexity

[@clevergirl4457]

look up Themis, seems so much more feasible.

[@ArcXDZ]

It looks cool though

[@JimmyBlether]

Not really the worst in terms of extra mass. It's basically just a flyback version of ULA's vulcan SMART reuse and flyback boosters with jet engines (yes this is propellers I know) have been concepts since the 1960s. Adding mass to stage 1 is much less detrimental than adding it to stage 2 for instance

[@SkywalkerWroc]

This actually adds far less weight than powered VTVL back to the launch site does.

[@memespeech]

not really, wings at the bottom help with stability of the rocket too, a couple of propellers and their engines probably don't weight that much, and it achieves the main goal of saving expensive rocket engine.

[@sparkles78]

Really ? IS this what Europeans space agency think of reusable rocket LOL