Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 552762 times)

Offline tp1024

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #80 on: 06/13/2015 12:32 pm »
If Proton cannot be returned to reliability in five years, then maybe this is an opportunity for Vulcan to enter the mix.  If Ses and Eutelsat are successful at restoring Proton, then the hurdles get tougher for Vulcan because they'll never beat Proton's price.  This one is a two-edged sword.

Given that the most recent failure uncovered the cause of 3 or 4 failures Proton had in the past, this should be a good sign. Proton has a 89-90% record so far and eliminating that one cause alone should improve it to about 93%. That's still a roughly 50% chance of at least one failure in the next 10 launches. So you better do have insurance.

Reliability is the price you pay for the low launch price.

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #81 on: 06/13/2015 01:16 pm »
If Proton cannot be returned to reliability in five years, then maybe this is an opportunity for Vulcan to enter the mix.  If Ses and Eutelsat are successful at restoring Proton, then the hurdles get tougher for Vulcan because they'll never beat Proton's price.  This one is a two-edged sword.

Given that the most recent failure uncovered the cause of 3 or 4 failures Proton had in the past, this should be a good sign. Proton has a 89-90% record so far and eliminating that one cause alone should improve it to about 93%. That's still a roughly 50% chance of at least one failure in the next 10 launches. So you better do have insurance.

Reliability is the price you pay for the low launch price.
Vulcan doesn't have to compete with Proton, is has to compete with Angara. With current planning, it'll barely be operational when Proton is phased out.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #83 on: 06/24/2015 08:42 pm »

Reliability is the price you pay for the low launch price.

How are you defining reliability? 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #84 on: 06/26/2015 08:39 pm »
So Vulcan is expected to be able to launch payloads from small to large ( mass )?
That is with zero to 6 solids and later replacing the US with ACES?

So for launch assurance it could handle todays payloads ( Atlas V and DIVH ) and tommorrow's Mars crew missions?

One launch vehicle instead of two or three?

For the long haul B4-E would be ( greater mass to orbit for less per launch cost ) better but needs more up front investment than the AR-1?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #85 on: 06/28/2015 06:56 am »
Given that the most recent failure uncovered the cause of 3 or 4 failures Proton had in the past, this should be a good sign. Proton has a 89-90% record so far and eliminating that one cause alone should improve it to about 93%. That's still a roughly 50% chance of at least one failure in the next 10 launches. So you better do have insurance.
So about the same as every other LV then?
Quote
Reliability is the price you pay for the low launch price.
That's an assumption.

Rather like the idea that because 1 big engine has fewer parts than say 9 smaller engines it's 9x as reliable.

But from a system perspective if that engine fails the it's an LOM and probable LOV.

Likewise "space qualified" parts must be better than less rigorously design parts.

Excepts some of those "less rigorously"   designed parts are built by the tens of thousands and their mfg apply statistical process control techniques to make sure their quality is consistent, while the "space qualified" stuff is built to order by someone every few months and tested by someone else who only gets to practice testing such parts every few months.

I've lost count of the number of project reports where basically "part was not up to needed quality standard" was the main reason why the project did not meet it's goals in the time expected.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline TrevorMonty

Another InfoG from Tory, ULA seem to produce a few of these InfoG.
I hope they are not turning into another PowerPoint rocket company.

 This is second InfoG showing the Vulcan Heavy (3 core) which wasn't part of the original Vulcan announcements.

10t and 15t to GSO is impressive.

Tory Bruno (@torybruno) tweeted at 3:23 AM on Fri, Aug 28, 2015:
Interesting InfoG on capability to Geosynchronous orbit. #VulcanRocket #MUOS http://t.co/ItHTX1jVDu
(https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/636922026209361921)

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #87 on: 08/27/2015 05:39 pm »
Another InfoG from Tory, ULA seem to produce a few of these InfoG.
I hope they are not turning into another PowerPoint rocket company.

 This is second InfoG showing the Vulcan Heavy (3 core) which wasn't part of the original Vulcan announcements.

10t and 15t to GSO is impressive.

Tory Bruno (@torybruno) tweeted at 3:23 AM on Fri, Aug 28, 2015:
Interesting InfoG on capability to Geosynchronous orbit. #VulcanRocket #MUOS http://t.co/ItHTX1jVDu
(https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/636922026209361921)

Hah, that is rich. This graph is a textbook case of to abuse and mislead data: Bars on the outside are very exaggerated, FH is missing, F9 has no data, I'm not sure why ULA feels the need to be so misleading. I guess they are feeling desperate? (or?)

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #88 on: 08/27/2015 06:04 pm »

Hah, that is rich. This graph is a textbook case of to abuse and mislead data: Bars on the outside are very exaggerated, FH is missing, F9 has no data, I'm not sure why ULA feels the need to be so misleading. I guess they are feeling desperate? (or?)

What's misleading?  How can he show FH and F9 data to GSO if he (or anybody else) doesn't know what it is?

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #89 on: 08/27/2015 06:12 pm »
Another InfoG from Tory, ULA seem to produce a few of these InfoG.
I hope they are not turning into another PowerPoint rocket company.

 This is second InfoG showing the Vulcan Heavy (3 core) which wasn't part of the original Vulcan announcements.

10t and 15t to GSO is impressive.

Tory Bruno (@torybruno) tweeted at 3:23 AM on Fri, Aug 28, 2015:
Interesting InfoG on capability to Geosynchronous orbit. #VulcanRocket #MUOS http://t.co/ItHTX1jVDu
(https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/636922026209361921)

Hah, that is rich. This graph is a textbook case of to abuse and mislead data: Bars on the outside are very exaggerated, FH is missing, F9 has no data, I'm not sure why ULA feels the need to be so misleading. I guess they are feeling desperate? (or?)
Not misleading to point out that your company offers a capability that your competitors don't even if it is not a commonly used capability. That is just advertising and advertizing is not in of itself a desperate action. Ariane 5 can't do a direct injection with out the ME upgrades. Falcon may be able to but SpaceX doesn't offer this capability. Were they to start it would likely be in the range between Proton and Soyuz.  Falcon Heavy's ability to do so is unknown.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #90 on: 08/27/2015 06:18 pm »
Another InfoG from Tory, ULA seem to produce a few of these InfoG.
I hope they are not turning into another PowerPoint rocket company.

 This is second InfoG showing the Vulcan Heavy (3 core) which wasn't part of the original Vulcan announcements.

10t and 15t to GSO is impressive.

Tory Bruno (@torybruno) tweeted at 3:23 AM on Fri, Aug 28, 2015:
Interesting InfoG on capability to Geosynchronous orbit. #VulcanRocket #MUOS http://t.co/ItHTX1jVDu
(https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/636922026209361921)

Hah, that is rich. This graph is a textbook case of to abuse and mislead data: Bars on the outside are very exaggerated, FH is missing, F9 has no data, I'm not sure why ULA feels the need to be so misleading. I guess they are feeling desperate? (or?)
Not misleading to point out that your company offers a capability that your competitors don't even if it is not a commonly used capability. That is just advertising and advertizing is not in of itself a desperate action. Ariane 5 can't do a direct injection with out the ME upgrades. Falcon may be able to but SpaceX doesn't offer this capability. Were they to start it would likely be in the range between Proton and Soyuz.  Falcon Heavy's ability to do so is unknown.

But the circular graph is certainly misleading. And one could make a reasonable bet that FH could make a direct GSO insertion mission before Vulcan does, which is what is misleading. Vulcan isn't close to flying, yet already is projected (in this graph) capability in far excess of competitors closer to flying. (or already flying)
« Last Edit: 08/27/2015 06:19 pm by Lars-J »

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2892
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #91 on: 08/27/2015 06:25 pm »
A Vulcan Heavy is not even announced. ACES upper stage is something they propose to develop once Vulcan is flying. So at least 10 years away.

Tory Bruno has twice said in Congress hearings that Falcon Heavy will not be able to fly to GSO. Both times he was corrected by SpaceX witness that Falcon Heavy can and will. So it is not like they don't know it.

Offline ISP

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #92 on: 08/27/2015 06:49 pm »
I thought originally "Vulcan Heavy" was referring to the full vehicle with six SRBs & ACES, not some unfunded (and at the moment unneeded) triple-core configuration?

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #93 on: 08/27/2015 06:55 pm »

Tory Bruno has twice said in Congress hearings that Falcon Heavy will not be able to fly to GSO. Both times he was corrected by SpaceX witness that Falcon Heavy can and will. So it is not like they don't know it.

I believe he said they can't fly a specific GSO (can't meet that mission's requirements) with the current proposed FH.  The question is:  What is the payload capability to a standard 0 inclination GSO?
When you say "it's not like they don't know it",  who is "they"?

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #94 on: 08/27/2015 06:57 pm »
I thought originally "Vulcan Heavy" was referring to the full vehicle with six SRBs & ACES, not some unfunded (and at the moment unneeded) triple-core configuration?

You thought wrong.   Although you're correct about the unfunded/unneeded comment.

Offline TrevorMonty

Another InfoG from Tory, ULA seem to produce a few of these InfoG.
I hope they are not turning into another PowerPoint rocket company.

 This is second InfoG showing the Vulcan Heavy (3 core) which wasn't part of the original Vulcan announcements.

10t and 15t to GSO is impressive.

Tory Bruno (@torybruno) tweeted at 3:23 AM on Fri, Aug 28, 2015:
Interesting InfoG on capability to Geosynchronous orbit. #VulcanRocket #MUOS http://t.co/ItHTX1jVDu
(https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/636922026209361921)
The DV for GSO is not stated but I'm assuming 4.3km/s as Vulcan would be launching from Florida.

The FH TLI (3.1km/s) is 15t, probably more with V1.2.

Add a few SRBs to VH and it is starting to knock on SLS 1A door for CisLunar missions.

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #96 on: 08/27/2015 06:59 pm »
I thought originally "Vulcan Heavy" was referring to the full vehicle with six SRBs & ACES, not some unfunded (and at the moment unneeded) triple-core configuration?
It's triple core, at least for the purposes of these infographics. See this one from a prior tweet;

Offline LastStarFighter

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Europa
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #97 on: 08/27/2015 07:08 pm »
But the circular graph is certainly misleading. And one could make a reasonable bet that FH could make a direct GSO insertion mission before Vulcan does, which is what is misleading. Vulcan isn't close to flying, yet already is projected (in this graph) capability in far excess of competitors closer to flying. (or already flying)

The circular graph is misleading I agree. However if I remember correctly SpaceX began talking in 2011 about a Falcon Heavy debut in early 2013 and it's still yet to fly. But that didn't stop them from claiming the FH with crossfeed could launch 53mT to LEO. Plus they never hesitate to talk about how that rocket is the most powerful in the world and can launch double what a Delta 4 Heavy can launch. Seems like ULA is just finally playing at the same level SpaceX set the bar at years ago.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2892
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #98 on: 08/27/2015 08:17 pm »

I believe he said they can't fly a specific GSO (can't meet that mission's requirements) with the current proposed FH.  The question is:  What is the payload capability to a standard 0 inclination GSO?

There is only one GSO. Unlike GTO where different orbits are possible. GSO means the ability to restart the engines after a long coast up to GSO altitude to circularize.

When you say "it's not like they don't know it",  who is "they"?

ULA. They know that SpaceX says they can fly GSO and still pretend they cannot.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #99 on: 08/27/2015 08:20 pm »
Seems like ULA is just finally playing at the same level SpaceX set the bar at years ago.

Yes. And they are configuring themselves around SX as a competitor to eventually meet head to head, while the one to steal additional missions from is Ariane with its over committed manifest.

Good and bad in this. Good in evolving ULA out of current/past niche. Bad in opening up ULA to SX competition it cannot address with current product that a SX could field. Its tough either way.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0