Stoke Space released a promo in the last week showcasing their planned reusable upper stage.
I already wrote about SUSIE which is ESA's concept of a reusable upper stage. I think SUSIE has a lot of potential as an interplanetary "space van". With its combination of heat shields and retropropulsive landing capabilities, SUSIE would be able to land on planetary bodies with or without atmosphere.
The nameless Stoke Space upper stage (which for now I will call "the Stoke") is quite similar to SUSIE, but importantly is not just a concept and is actually being built. If the Stoke is able to fly on existing boosters such as Falcon 9 then this would be a win-win by allowing Stoke to enter service earlier and reducing the wastage of upper stages that booster companies have currently have to expend. I have no clue what boosters the Stoke might be compatible with and whether it will be possible to develop adapters to increase compatibility. About the only stats I'm aware of for the Stoke prototype is it's 19 feet tall without fairing, 13 feet wide and is intended to be able to carry 1.65 metric tons to LEO.
The rocket is 100 feet tall (~30 metres), which would mean an 81 foot (~25 metre) tall first stage.
The interface between the first and upper stages is "non-trivial", implying it would only work with their own booster. This is understandable given the unique integration and layout of the engines and heat shield. If the Stoke upper stage becomes popular enough then it's conceivable rocket-makers will decide to build compatible boosters.
In September, Ariane Group announced the SUSIE spacecraft at the International Astronautical Conference in Paris. You can watch the whole presentation below.
Cue the usual incoherently negative hot-takes - if you believed everything you read on social media then the concept was dead a thousand different ways before the presenters had even left the stage.
I'm going to try and give a more considered view on SUSIE here.
What is SUSIE?
SUSIE stands for "Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration" and is a fully reusable spacecraft. The intention is to create an all-purpose "space truck". Initially SUSIE would carry cargo, but later variants would carry crew. Eventually Ariane wants it to be able to travel across the solar system to land on other planets and moons. Ariane indicated a first launch in 2031.
SUSIE is sitting on top of the rocket in this photo of a scale model.
SUSIE gets into space on top of a rocket. It has been designed to be compatible with Ariane 6 and future Ariane rockets. Once in orbit, SUSIE has its own engines and thrusters to travel and manoeuvre in space. To return to Earth, it points the black heat shield on one side of the nose into the atmosphere to protect itself from heating, and then uses its engines and thrusters to navigate toward its target landing pad and complete a powered landing on its tail.
It's not clear how much refurbishment SUSIE would need before flying again.
To travel further in space, SUSIE is attached to the front of another rocket which provides thrust, power and the other essentials needed for longer trips. Ariane calls this configuration a "space train".
Specifications provided so far
Length: 12m
Diameter at base: 5m
Payload capacity: 7 tonnes and 40 cu m
Future crew capacity: 5
Vehicle weight: 25 tonnes
The initial cargo version has two large doors to open up the entire payload bay and enable space release/capture.
What do I think of SUSIE?
Design
In some ways SUSIE reminds me of the Space Shuttle. The two-door bay. Gliding home on a belly of thermal protection tiles.
Another similarity is its size. SUSIE is only 20% the mass of the Shuttle, but is still much bigger than any other capsules and spaceplanes currently active or under development. However these vehicles are big for very different reasons. Shuttle was designed to deliver and retrieve large, sensitive military payloads in space with minimum scrutiny from rivals, and needed a huge payload bay to achieve this. I think SUSIE is large to make it more viable for longer duration interplanetary travel - crew will need more room to move, and will need to take more supplies and equipment with them.
Then there are the differences with Shuttle.
Firstly, the shape.
SUSIE is a cone that's been pinched into the shape of a four sided pyramid, with the flattened sides providing some lifting body characteristics for easier atmospheric re-entry. I expect the overall symmetry of the vehicle means that aerodynamically it behaves a lot like a pair of payload fairings during launch and atmospheric flight, with little need for special flight programming. This would mean SUSIE could launch on many heavy lift rockets. By contrast, the size and shape of the Shuttle meant there was only one specially designed launch system that could get it to space.
The upcoming Dream Chaser is asymmetric and highly optimised as a lifting body for Earth re-entry. A future crewed variant could not be enclosed in fairings at launch because this would prevent operation of a launch escape system, and therefore the rocket will experience aerodynamic challenges at launch due to the shape of the Dream Chaser. I'm not suggesting these challenges would be insurmountable since Shuttle and Buran have already demonstrated the viability of asymmetric launch systems, but this could increase costs and reduce the versatility of Dream Chaser.
Secondly, propulsive landing.
Instead of being optimised solely for Earth re-entry, SUSIE is also able to land on planets or moons with little to no atmosphere. It may even be able to launch by itself from bodies with sufficiently low gravity.
Summary and comparison to other reusable spacecraft
Overall I think the design is well considered given the stated objectives for the vehicle. The goal is not just to fly a single mission type or win a specific contract, but to create a versatile reusable spacecraft that can fulfil a wide range of purposes for a long time into the future. Rocket Lab claims their upcoming Neutron rocket is designed for 2050. SUSIE also appears to be designed for a similar timeframe.
SUSIE is quite different to other capsules and spaceplanes. Crew Dragon, Starliner, Dream Chaser and Space Rider are not designed to go beyond Earth orbit. Orion is designed to leave Earth orbit, but it won't be capable of landing on other planetary bodies.
To me Starship is the closest in concept, being capable of interplanetary travel and landing.
If successful, Starship is very likely going to occupy a dominant role of "space semi-trailer" or "space widebody aircraft". It's likely to be our apex vehicle until spacecraft start being manufactured in space, at which point we will start seeing "space container ships" and "space cruise liners".
However from our experience on Earth we know that such a large vehicle is not always the most appropriate for a particular trip or load. I can see SUSIE being successful as a "space van" for the many situations where Starship would be overkill.
Both Starship and SUSIE are all-terrain vehicles and will be effective in a solar system with little or no space infrastructure. Eventually we can expect space infrastructure such as space ports and fuel depots to be built out over time which will gradually shrink the role of ATVs and shift the advantage to vehicles that are optimised for (and only operate within) their specific regimes. But this may take a very long time - there's a lot of solar system out there!
Feasibility
A lot of the online critiques went straight to things like the weight of the vehicle being greater than what Ariane can currently lift. I'm not going to get too worked up about that. I expect some of these numbers are indicative and subject to change.
I'm more concerned about the following.
Funding. This is going to be expensive to develop. European space agency budgets are dwarfed by NASA and unlike their American counterparts, European companies and billionaires seem happy to sit on their hands instead of splurging cash on megaprojects like this.
Flight heritage. SUSIE would be ambitious for even the most adept and experienced in the field. For a space agency that has only reached the experimental stage for reusable spacecraft and has never performed a crewed launch, this is the stretch goal of a lifetime.
Track record of product development. ESA previously tried to develop their own version of the Dream Chaser called Hermes, and that project was ultimately cancelled after significant expenditure. Will SUSIE follow the same path of failure, or will it be successful like the Ariane rocket series? One potentially promising sign is Space Rider which is similar to SUSIE but much smaller. It is currently under development with a planned launch date of 2023, and would validate a lot of the theory applied in designing SUSIE.
Just weeks ago Sauron the Dark Lord of Mordor ordered the invasion of Gondor, ostensibly to demilitarise and "de-Numenorify" Gondor, and preserve the freedoms of ethnic Goblins in the Morgulian east.
Condemnation was swift from the nations of western Middle-Earth, but they had little appetite to engage Mordor directly. Rohan initially refused to send troops, and the Eagles were unwilling to risk escalation by entering the conflict zone.
After early territorial gains - particularly on the coast - the Mordorian advance slowed as the Gondorians held their ground and inflicted high casualties. Despite being heavily outnumbered, the defenders have the home advantage with strong popular support from the people of Gondor. The Gondorian armed forces are battle-hardened from years of fighting in the contested territories around the occupied city formerly known as Minas Ithil, and have benefited from significant military aid including large numbers of magically imbued anti-Oliphaunt and anti-Fellbeast arrows.
As the conflict has turned into a stalemate and Mordorian losses have mounted, the Mordor army has resorted to siege tactics. The city of Minas Tirith has been subjected to a heavy incendiary bombardment, creating a humanitarian (and possibly also halflingitarian and istaritarian) crisis.
Observers have been surprised at Sauron's lack of success in the war given his army's overwhelming numerical and resource advantage. In recent days, Gondorian counteroffensives have even succeeded in retaking territory around Belfalas and East Osgiliath. However the outcome on the ground is by no means certain. The Dark Lord still retains massive mobilisation potential, and Mordor possesses (and has already used) exotic capabilities such as hypersonic Nazgul screams and "Dawnless Day" aerial obscurement.
Gondor's best chance to win the war may actually be off the battlefield. Mordor's strength is inextricably linked to Ring power, and it has recently come to light that a historic multiparty agreement has been reached to deprive Sauron of this technology. Analysts believe this could be the key to crippling the Mordorian war machine and ending the conflict. However some western leaders have expressed reluctance at cutting themselves off from Ring power, so it remains to be seen whether the consensus will hold.
The Wellington
Phoenix Women's team management have expressed their disappointment at not
being able to secure a sponsor. However this difficulty is not unexpected for a
couple of reasons:
Short notice
The new team was
only announced at the start of September, only 2 months before the start of the
season. Sponsors tend to view sports sponsorships in terms of multi-year
relationships - one year would be the absolute minimum. Signing deals of this
duration isn't typically a quick process. Also, companies don't usually have a
lot of spare marketing budget sloshing around to spend on short-notice
opportunities like this.
Audience Appeal
A sports team has to
appeal to viewing audience, and WPW is a New Zealand team playing
in an Australian competition which immediately narrows their sponsorship
attractiveness. According to an extremely accurate and fully verifiable survey,
78% of Aussie A-League fans used the #NixOut hashtag at least once. This means
Australian companies won't be interested, and New Zealand companies doing
business in Australia won't want to draw attention to their Kiwiness.
Possibilities
Oppo as a global
consumer brand is a great sponsor for the WP Men since they just want to raise
their profile and aren't interested in parochialism. However it's unlikely a
similar brand like Xiaomi can sponsor the WPW without damaging the WP
relationship with Oppo. Maybe a global consumer brand from another category?
Amazon and Ikea are planning to expand into New Zealand...
By sponsoring the
WPM, Spark is both bolstering their Spark Sport brand and diluting the Sky NZ brand (I would love the Sky commentators to have to say "The Spark Wellington Phoenix"). But Spark is also signalling it
has no intention whatsoever of expanding into Australia and is only interested
in the New Zealand market. There may be other NZ-only businesses in a similar position
who want to associate themselves with football - maybe Stirling Sports?
KPMG was last year's
WPM sponsor. I'm not sold on B2B sponsorship in terms of actual marketing
value, but for the WPW it does open the door to being sponsored by a wealthy
but boring business that wants to be associated with something more exciting. In these Great Resignation times this type of sponsorship could help with recruitment and retention of young female staff.
Another possibility
is a local Wellington business that didn't have deep enough pockets to sponsor
the WPM and may be interested in a cheaper option. I don't know who that might be.
Personally what I
would like to see are sponsors that say "We're Kiwi and we're
awesome". A double bill of Rocket Lab and Weta Workshop would get it right up
'em.
I think club
competitions are important because of their ability to generate sustained
grassroots support. Sports associations that rely too heavily on national and
federational teams tend to be "hollowed out" and have difficulty
maintaining a lasting following.
In a covid-free
parallel universe, 2022 was set to be a big step in the right direction for football with an
expanded 24-team Club World Cup. Unfortunately it has been postponed to at
least 2023. In the meantime, the competition will follow the same format as in
previous years - a knockout of the six confederation champions.
I'm totally
supportive of an expanded competition. Why? Some reasons follow.
A true global club
champion
France is genuinely
considered the world champion based on its performances in the 2018 World Cup.
Don't we want to know which club is the world's greatest, too?
We do have a Club World Cup already, but unfortunately it's not a prestigious competition. The
2020 edition pitted Bayern Munich (the UEFA Champions League champion and
unofficial world #1) against the five other confederation champions, including
clubs such as Auckland City (#136) and Al-Duhail (#114). For Bayern the
competition was merely an exercise in bucket list completion and proved nothing
in terms of accomplishment.
A 24-team
competition would represent a far more serious challenge that would be
reflected in the prestige conferred on the winner.
Based on recent results the lineup for a 2022 Club World Cup
might have been:
Ulsan Hyundai,
Persepolis, Vissel Kobe, Al-Ahly, Kaizer Chiefs, Wydad AC, UANL, Los Angeles
FC, America, Palmeiras, Santos, River Plate, Boca Juniors, Racing, Gremio,
Chelsea, Manchester City, Borussia Dortmund, Porto, Bayern Munich, Paris
Saint-Germain, Real Madrid, Liverpool and a club from the host nation.
Opportunities for
talent from lowly ranked countries
Ryan Giggs had a
storied career with Manchester United, earning medals for every club
competition he participated in. However he never played in the World Cup. Why?
Because he's from Wales - a football minnow that only ever qualified for the
World Cup once, back in 1958. For players like Giggs who were unlucky enough to
be born in the wrong country to parents of the wrong nationality, there is no
path to global achievement and recognition. Frankly, there should be.
Giggs actually won a
Club World Cup medal with Manchester United in 2008, but it was almost
meaningless as an achievement. In the final they defeated LDU Quito (unofficial
world ranking of #163).
For the women too
please!
Women's club
competitions are still immature in many parts of the world. Currently there is
no women's Club World Cup at all. About the closest it gets is invitational
tournaments like the SheBelieves Cup which are little more than exhibitions.
But the pieces are starting to fall into place. In 2021 CAF joined UEFA,
CONMEBOL and AFC in holding women's Champions League competitions, and CONCACAF
intends starting their own tournament after the 2023 World Cup. Only the OFC
has not yet announced any plans.
Hypothetically if
everything had been in place this year, a 2022 Womens Club World Cup might
have featured:
Tokyo Verdy Beleza,
Jiangsu Suning, Incheon Red Angels, Mamelodi Sundowns, Hasaacas Ladies, Malabo
Kings, Washington Spirits, Chicago Red Stars, Tigres, Chivas, Corinthians,
Santa Fe, Ferroviara, Nacional, Kindermann, Eastern Suburbs, Barcelona,
Chelsea, Paris Saint-Germain, Bayern Munich, Lyon, Manchester City, Wolfsburg
and one club from the host nation.
To me the obvious
way to give womens sport a “hand up, not a hand out” is to host mixed gender
competitions – particularly at the highest level. It worked a treat in tennis
where women and men compete in parallel at the same Grand Slam tournaments. The
resultant organic growth in fan following for women’s tennis has been the
starting point for media attention, viable sporting career paths (not just for
players but also coaching, administration, fitness, media etc), large committed
player base and everything else needed for a sustainable professional sport
ecosystem. Sure, some young women may initially wilt under the sudden spotlight
of massive media attention, but others will seize their opportunity and take flight.
A mixed gender FIFA
World Cup would rapidly and dramatically raise the profile of women’s football.
Cost and logistics have been thrown up as obstacles, but how significant are
they really? FIFA is already planning sprawling, continent-wide World Cups for
the future (and seems intent on diluting the elite status of the competition in
the process by adding ever more men’s teams). The real obstacles are
conservatism and short-term greed.
Like many first
world males, my view on gender equality was that we aren’t quite there yet but
we’re generally going in the right direction apart from some occasional
backsliding. This view was utterly shattered when my daughter started showing
signs of enjoying and having an aptitude for sport. It didn’t take much
research to find that of the wide range of sports providing men with
financially self-sustaining careers, only tennis and golf were reliably viable
options for women. I’m embarrassed to admit that somehow this yawning gulf of
gender disparity eluded my notice until there was a possibility it would affect
a member of my family.
From there it didn’t
take long to become aware of online commentary to the effect that women’s sport
is a joke, they don’t have the physique to compete and nobody’s interested
because of the low level of performance and skill on display. Often online seems
to be a place where everyone’s trying to be a shock jock, but you have to
assume that at least some of that sentiment is genuine and worth responding to.
So here goes:
It’s true that most
of the records for physical feats are held by men (ultramarathon and freediving
among the few exceptions). For some, this is what sport is all about – running
the fastest, jumping the highest, throwing the furthest – and those people can
get everything they need from the Guinness Book of Records and track & field
(which ironically is a big promoter of women’s sport thanks to its joint
competitions). But for the rest of us, record breaking is of relatively
fleeting interest compared to oppositional sports where humans compete with all
the resources they can bring to bear – physicality, skill, instinct,
determination, adaptability, deception and brainpower. Two committed opponents
contesting a finely balanced game is one of the most reliably entertaining
forms of reality TV in existence. Doesn’t male domination of sport make this a
more one-dimensional experience for everyone?
Balance is crucial
to the drama of sport. In balanced sports we often see an entertaining “arms
race” where teams and players continually strive to find new and improved ways
to counter each other. Balance is also why elite level women and men don’t generally
participate together in highly physical sports – there is little entertainment
in lopsided competition. But there is no reason why women-only competitions
should be any less competitive and entertaining, and they can actually be more
interesting than men’s sport. Some male tennis players have excessively
powerful serves that cause an imbalance between attack and defence, with a
large percentage of points only involving one hit of the ball. Female tennis
players generally aren’t as able to dominate with the serve, resulting in a
more engrossing contest.
Sport can give us
many gifts – goals and direction, building of character, camaraderie, health,
and maybe even income. But the greatest gift of all is the chance to live life
with heightened meaning through high-stakes competition in front of large, passionate
audiences. Are there really any worthwhile reasons to deny women the
opportunity to share in these experiences?
Edit 26 Nov: well that theory was shot to sh** in super quick time. Lisa de Vanna just signed with Perth Glory.
I did a brute force search of all available forwards with ALW experience yet to re-sign and came up with 9 as follows:
Rosie Sutton, Sharn Freier, Nickoletta Flannery, Sasha Grove, Gabe Marzano, Evelyn Chronis, Marianna Tabain, Katarina Jukic, Leena Khamis
Khamis has the most impressive resume with 10+ professional seasons and 25 appearances for the Matildas including 5 goals.
Also with 10+ professional seasons but limited international experience are Sutton, Tabain and Jukic.
Marzano and Flannery have 5+ seasons each.
Freier, Grove and Chronis don't have the experience the WPW will be looking for
Sooo...probably Khamis then?
Edit 24 Nov: I am soooo suspicious.
Gemma Lewis is turning out to be a very sneaky coach. She's been extremely cautious about showing her hand in pre-season warmup games, and now she's waiting until the last moment to announce her final Aussie selection.
I'm now leaning toward Lisa de Vanna. Her Wikipedia entry says "In September 2021, De Vanna retired from football", which effectively meant she was not re-signing to Melbourne Victory. The new WPW team was also announced in September, so I find the timing of events extremely interesting.
De Vanna was dropped from the Matildas squad in June, meaning she missed out on the Olympics. This was a big call - despite being 36 at the time and theoretically in the twilight of her career, she was still in great form. The Victory took the W-League 2020-21 title with her help and she earned individual recognition for Goal of the Season and inclusion in Team of the Year. De Vanna has been pretty vocal about her disappointment at being dropped. She also went public with accusations of historic abuse in the W-League and has been unhappy with the lack of support from Football Australia.
So I'm really hoping she wants to send the national organisation a big f*** you by kicking some Aussie ass for the WPW in the ALW. A Phoenix-like rebirth indeed! It's exactly the kind of move you would expect from de Vanna who has a track record of relishing challenges, having played for over 20 different clubs in her career and taken leadership roles in young, unproven squads.
With 19 signings so far, the roster for the very first season of the Wellington Phoenix Women is almost complete. They need one more player to comply with the FFA eligibility requirements.
Who will it be? How close can I get
to the name with just guesswork and google? Without even watching anyone play?
WPW need a forward,
must choose an Aussie, want experience and don't have a hope of poaching
internationally or from the other ALW sides at this late hour. All that's left
are former ALW players, ideally recently demoted to the state leagues and not
yet totally out of touch with the big time. The pool is small - in the past 2
years, out of 21 players dropped there were only 5 forwards.
Meleri Mullan
already got herself back up by re-signing with Adelaide United.
Madelyn Whittall has
ghosted the football world for the past year, I'm guessing she's retired.
Liana Cook only got
on the field 4 times for the Glory - probably not the level of experience WPW
is looking for.
Adriana Jones has
played both ALW and overseas, was top scorer for her side this season and is
giving back to the game by participating in a global FIFPRO player mental
health initiative. Doesn't she sound like an awesome caring wise head for our
team of mostly debutantes? On the other hand...New Lambton also came dead last
in the Northern NSW Premier League, and Jones was quoted as saying pro football
is brutal and she doesn't want to uproot herself from her beloved Newcastle
community any more. What a head case...(joking, don't cancel me!!) Wollongong
is only just down the road if she changed her mind and wanted to give it
another crack.
But my virtual money
is on Abbey Lloyd who had two seasons with the Roar going back to
2017 and was also a lynchpin this season for the Western Pride in the Queensland state league.
