Dear Dr. Sowers,Is ULA considering the use of propellant densification via subcooling of the Vulcan first stage propellants as a way of increasing the performance of the vehicle?All the best, Steven.
Dr. Sowers, congratulations on the Vulcan reveal!Of the components and technologies announced and/or discussed today, which one most excites you personally, and why?
Dr Sowers, thank you for taking the time and trouble to answer questions.How long have you been working on the Vulcan concept and what approximate stage in development have ULA reached? (eg PDR, CDR etc)
Another vote of thanks for agreeing to take questions, Dr. Sowers!ULA surely did trades on full first stage recovery versus engine compartment midair... why is midair recovery so compelling, compared to the path SpaceX is on, which seems to offer the promise of far greater cost reductions?
Dr. SowersAFAIK the current ULA launchers were only used to launch NASA or USAF payloads.Does ULA plan to (re-)enter the market of commercial comsat launches with Vulcan?Spacediver
Dr. Sowers, If ULA is planning to attempt either full stage or Engine and Avionincs package recovery, whatis the particular method that you have in mind for such recovery? Powered descent to land, Parachute to sea, or a combination of these strategies?
Quote from: Lar on 04/14/2015 12:57 pmAnother vote of thanks for agreeing to take questions, Dr. Sowers!ULA surely did trades on full first stage recovery versus engine compartment midair... why is midair recovery so compelling, compared to the path SpaceX is on, which seems to offer the promise of far greater cost reductions?I've promised to post a simple spreadsheet that will give some insight into the economics (probably next week). But the gist goes like this: We are recovering >60% of the cost of the booster for 1/6th of the performance loss (5% vs 30%) in a manner that completely shields the hardware from the harsh reentry environment.
Dr. Sowers - What drove the decision to select an as-yet unbuilt and untested engine from a new player in the aerospace world (BE-4 from B.O.)? If ULA were selecting an existing engine with flight heritage (RS-68 for example) it would provide an obvious schedule acceleration benefit. But when considering a new American built engine, especially in the non traditional methalox category, for vertical integration reasons it would seem to make sense for ULA to develop its own. Removing my second question per request from mods.Did ULA consider using SpaceX engines on its rockets? Raptor will be methalox, and in the right thrust regime for a 2-engine Vulcan first stage. Is this even a feasible business move?
Dr. Sowers,I would like to ask question related to solid boosters:Shall Vulcan be human rated in configuration with multiple solid boosters, i.e. capable of capable of launching orion?Edit: reduced to one question.Thank you in advance!
Hi Dr. Sowers,ULA has a long history of successful missions, SpaceX is an emerging business, and Blue Origin an enigma. Overall, it seems that everyone is losing the PR war with the general public -most people just don't care. A number of space enthusiasts are excited for SpaceX's entry into the market, simply because of their grander stated ambitions (realistic or not).How can/will ULA help reinvigorate the public's appetite for spaceflight?Thanks!VulcanCafe(excellent rocket name choice!)
There was a mention of selecting the AR1 engine in 18 months if the Blue Origin engine isn't coming along as expected. What impact would that have on first stage design? Thanks!