Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 552775 times)

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1519
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1280 on: 10/08/2017 10:06 am »
I'll rest my case.

Given the state of BE-4 and AR-1 engine developments, is a maiden launch in 2019 still feasible?
I think that when BE-4 is proven before year end it is possible (~2year for Vulcan development).
When BE-4 is chosen but it's testing phase last well into 2018, I think 2019 will be a very ambitious timeline.
If AR-1 is chosen, I think 2019 is totally unrealistic, because AR-1 will still have to be qualified in 2018.

When are the GEM-63's planned to be introduced on Atlas V? (Google_spaceflightinsider)
Has OATK already performed ground tests of GEM-63 and the XL version? (not that I expect to be a problem).
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 10:11 am by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1281 on: 10/08/2017 12:00 pm »
I'll rest my case.

Given the state of BE-4 and AR-1 engine developments, is a maiden launch in 2019 still feasible?
I think that when BE-4 is proven before year end it is possible (~2year for Vulcan development).
When BE-4 is chosen but it's testing phase last well into 2018, I think 2019 will be a very ambitious timeline.
If AR-1 is chosen, I think 2019 is totally unrealistic, because AR-1 will still have to be qualified in 2018.

When are the GEM-63's planned to be introduced on Atlas V? (Google_spaceflightinsider)
Has OATK already performed ground tests of GEM-63 and the XL version? (not that I expect to be a problem).

Since both engines are ORSC from vendors who have never succeeded in producing a single ORSC engine, the potential for both engines to still be in development in 2019 is very real.  Having a maiden flight that year is, as you say, a very ambitious timeline.

That places USAF in a particularly interesting position... they are scheduled to compete Phase 2 of NSS contracts (less the heavy launches) in 2019.  Without a flown vehicle, if the replace-RD-180 development programs break against them, what will ULA bid?  NG certainly won't be available in this scenario.  Will NGL get a launch in before then?

Will Phase 2 be placed on the back-burner?
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 12:04 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1282 on: 10/08/2017 01:34 pm »
I too see ULA in deep trouble without a rocket or engines for said rocket because SpaceX will have block 5 of F9 and FH going and will be the only game in town, unless ULA still buys Russian engines and launches Atlas V.   Hopefully John McCain will be out of office by then.  I predict Atlas will continue to fly beyond 2018.  Seems as if Raptor is ahead of BE-4 and AR-1.   

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1283 on: 10/08/2017 01:54 pm »

With reusability, SpaceX can also charge less, and will do so to optimize for their goals - as they see fit.

They don't have all this fiscal flexibility you think they do. It's publicly known their liabilities exceed their (own) revenue projections (per GAO) and their payroll already exceeds half a billion a year. SpaceX needs cash as much as any other company.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1284 on: 10/08/2017 02:05 pm »
Yes, but they spend a lot of money on development and innovation, like Raptor, BFR/BFS.  Once their rockets are being reused, they will begin to make more money, especially when they start putting up the Constellation.  The GAO is and has been known to not be accurate.  I don't trust any government agency for accuracy anymore. 

Offline whatever11235

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1285 on: 10/08/2017 02:08 pm »
They don't have all this fiscal flexibility you think they do. It's publicly known their liabilities exceed their (own) revenue projections (per GAO) and their payroll already exceeds half a billion a year. SpaceX needs cash as much as any other company.

With brand that is Musk and achievements to date, they can easly raise all the money they will ever need.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1286 on: 10/08/2017 02:17 pm »
They don't have all this fiscal flexibility you think they do. It's publicly known their liabilities exceed their (own) revenue projections (per GAO) and their payroll already exceeds half a billion a year. SpaceX needs cash as much as any other company.

With brand that is Musk and achievements to date, they can easly raise all the money they will ever need.

And therein lies the Catch-22 of cults of personality. People would like to buy SpaceX stock because Musk is in charge. But as soon as the public sales start he will no longer be in charge, the stock holders will.

Yes, but they spend a lot of money on development and innovation, like Raptor, BFR/BFS.  Once their rockets are being reused, they will begin to make more money, especially when they start putting up the Constellation.  The GAO is and has been known to not be accurate.  I don't trust any government agency for accuracy anymore.
Musk has been known not to be accurate. Quite often.
I suppose SpaceX being wrong should be a profound hope as well. Because those financials are self-reported.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 02:27 pm by rayleighscatter »

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1287 on: 10/08/2017 02:20 pm »
They don't have all this fiscal flexibility you think they do. It's publicly known their liabilities exceed their (own) revenue projections (per GAO) and their payroll already exceeds half a billion a year. SpaceX needs cash as much as any other company.

With brand that is Musk and achievements to date, they can easly raise all the money they will ever need.
Not while maintaining control of the company. The value of the company has to grow in order to keep the value held by others below 50% and the SEC limits how many share holders they can have without going public. Now they have a couple of very good things in the works that add a lot of value to the company (Starlink, BFR, regular reuse of Falcon) so they will likely have room to run, but the challenge is that none of those is set in stone and could go wrong.

Offline whatever11235

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1288 on: 10/08/2017 03:02 pm »
They don't have all this fiscal flexibility you think they do. It's publicly known their liabilities exceed their (own) revenue projections (per GAO) and their payroll already exceeds half a billion a year. SpaceX needs cash as much as any other company.

With brand that is Musk and achievements to date, they can easly raise all the money they will ever need.
Not while maintaining control of the company. The value of the company has to grow in order to keep the value held by others below 50% and the SEC limits how many share holders they can have without going public. Now they have a couple of very good things in the works that add a lot of value to the company (Starlink, BFR, regular reuse of Falcon) so they will likely have room to run, but the challenge is that none of those is set in stone and could go wrong.

We can look at Tesla where he has ~20% shareholding and yet he runs Tesla pretty much the way he likes.

At Spacex, all he needs to maintain is >50% voting rights and he can run SpaceX as he likes. According to wikipedia he has 78% to date so he can dilute himself quite a lot. Remember last funding round was at $21B, next one will be much higher.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1289 on: 10/08/2017 03:07 pm »
Musk and SpaceX fund raising is OT.

Atlas will certainly fly beyond 2018. Don’t they already have contracts for flights on Atlas beyond 2018? The better speculation is whether ULA be in a position to compete for future NSS launches if engine restrictions remain in place and Vulcan is still without a working engine in 2019, which seems like a very real possibility.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1290 on: 10/08/2017 03:39 pm »
ULA tells us its goal for the base Vulcan Centaur is $99 million.  My guess for Vulcan Centaur with 6 GEM63XL boosters is $152 million.  New Glenn will expend a 270 tonne second stage (about 68% of the Vulcan first stage mass) and one BE-4 engine during each flight, and the 54 x 7 meter first stage and its seven staged-combustion BE-4 engines will have recovery/refurbishment costs. 

SpaceX is recovering first stages with simpler gas generator engines but is still apparently charging $62 million, for a less capable (about half the GTO payload) of Vulcan Centaur and New Glenn 2-Stage.  Vulcan versus New Glenn seems like it might be close on costs to me.

 - Ed Kyle

So, you're saying it's bad that SpaceX is charging less than half of the Vulcan 561 price and delivering (slightly more than?) half the performance (with first stage recovery of a new booster)?

edit:  The SpaceX comparison for Vulcan 561 would be FH, not F9, and that could become a very interesting comparison for different types of missions.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 04:31 pm by gongora »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1291 on: 10/08/2017 04:33 pm »
Shotwell was talking about $5-7m per launch 4 years ago. We're at $62m for a reusable Falcon. Granted, it looks like the core can only be reused once, but that is not unexpected. Hence Block 5 is needed, which I suppose can be reused a few more times, but no doubt it will also increase complexity and production cost (as well as reduce economies of scale). What savings will be left is anyone's guess.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1292 on: 10/08/2017 04:37 pm »
Shotwell was talking about $5-7m per launch 4 years ago. We're at $62m for a reusable Falcon. Granted, it looks like the core can only be reused once, but that is not unexpected. Hence Block 5 is needed, which I suppose can be reused a few more times, but no doubt it will also increase complexity and production cost (as well as reduce economies of scale). What savings will be left is anyone's guess.
"Granted"?  To whom?  Nobody made that claim, since it doesn't look like that.  Only 3 rockets have reflown, and the price point has nothing to do with internal cost.

Even if the rocket takes a month to process, but still uses the same major components, you're looking at single digit cost at most.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1293 on: 10/08/2017 05:39 pm »
Only 3 rockets have reflown, and the price point has nothing to do with internal cost.
Only two first stages have reflown to date, B1021 and B1029.  But this is a thread about Vulcan.

 - Ed Kyle

ok, though this makes my point even more salient.

At what point do you think ULA will have flown two Vulcan thrust structures? (Assuming SMART)

Until that happens, ULA is not exerting price pressure on anyone.

Which means competition can continue to be cheaper by "just enough" to steal customers.

ULA has a serious problem here, and it won't go away by pointing out that the competition is just at the beginning of their reuse economics.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1294 on: 10/08/2017 05:47 pm »

ULA has a serious problem here, and it won't go away by pointing out that the competition is just at the beginning of their reuse economics.

unsubstantiated statement

Offline TrevorMonty

Just a reminder this ULA Vulcan thread not another SpaceX thread.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1296 on: 10/08/2017 08:45 pm »
Just a reminder this ULA Vulcan thread not another SpaceX thread.

Fair enough.

So ULA-only:

Vulcan, as currently being developed, is not even partially reusable.

Why isn't ULA committing to even a partial reuse plan, from the get go, at a bare minimum?

Either they believe that the future is in expendable rockets, or they are simply unable to make one.  Neither casts them in a favorable light.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 08:45 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1519
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1297 on: 10/08/2017 08:50 pm »

Vulcan, as currently being developed, is not even partially reusable.

Why isn't ULA committing to even a partial reuse plan, from the get go, at a bare minimum?


ULA is planning to introduce partial reuse, if I'm not mistaken.
ULA's current plan for Vulcan is to introduce SMART reuse (engine module recovery with parachute captured by a helicopter) by 2024.

image link

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1298 on: 10/08/2017 08:58 pm »

Vulcan, as currently being developed, is not even partially reusable.

Why isn't ULA committing to even a partial reuse plan, from the get go, at a bare minimum?


ULA is planning to introduce partial reuse, if I'm not mistaken.
ULA's current plan for Vulcan is to introduce SMART reuse (engine module recovery with parachute captured by a helicopter) by 2024.

image link

That was an "aspirational estimate" IIUC.  The plan of record is merely Vulcan, with SMART being a maybe add on sometime in the future.

The ULA page for Vulcan doesn't mention SMART or any other form of reuse.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/products_vulcan.aspx

The Wiki page offers some hints on ULA's commitment to the Vulcan project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(rocket)

--

So other than being a non RD-180 rocket, what exactly is ULA's direction?
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1299 on: 10/08/2017 09:13 pm »
I think the Vulcan launcher is the bees-knees! ULA knows what it's doing and I think it could be a very, very useful tool for future missions of all types. I also look upon it as a 'Dark Horse' contender to replace a famous Shuttle derived launcher that we all know and not necessarily love ;)

ACES is an idea whose time has come. The distributed launch scenarios will be a wonderful companion to the famous Commercial company and their plans for cryogenic propellant transfer. A fully-featured Vulcan/ACES will be an exciting enabler for manned exploration plans, modest or grandiose. I hope it achieves a flight rate that would allow big tonnage to be placed into low Earth orbit to assemble interplanetary missions. It even has upgrade potential - discussed both lightly and seriously in these pages over the last couple of years. Myself and others have asked ULA folk if Vulcan/ACES could one day incorporate more than six strap on solid boosters, larger payload fairings and upgraded corestage and upper stage engines. There are no plans for now to have 8x GEM-63XL solids strapped to the beast; but it is a possibility. Distributed launch using such a heavy lifter could throw a lot of payload to the Moon or Mars.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Tags:
 

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