Author Topic: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts  (Read 37909 times)

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« on: 06/08/2015 08:56 pm »
Common core-

Core and boosters are the same, so can be used as core or booster. One core to be made, saves money and helps with flight on demand.

Booster used once and returned. Then used as core.

With one booster possible reuse of core also. With two boosters core would be disposed ( splash in ocean ).

Core made with attachments on both side. When used as a booster the reuse pack could be attached to the side opposite of the core for booster return. When just one booster is used core might be able to have a reuse pack added to the side were booster (2) would be depending on needed performance of the vehicle.

Possible vehicle configurations-

1 ) Core only
2 ) Core with one booster
3 ) Core with two boosters

Each option with or without reuse packets(s) depending on needed performance.

4A ) Core with two booster with solid boosters added ( If supplier had a business case to keep solids in production as would probably have a low flight rate )

Would need a new common core with solid booster attach points and core heavier to handle greater mass of upper stage and payload. Reuse packets might still be used on liquid boosters.

4B) Super heavy with four boosters ( Core not common, needs two added connection points and heavier to handle heavier upper stage and payload, new launch pad also )

4 A and or B only if there were a single piece payload ( not able to launch in pieces ) or if it is cheaper to us than multiple launches.

All configurations assume using the ACES upper stage.

Reuse packets-

Reuse packets to attach to top and bottom attach points on the common booster opposite of the core used to attach cores together. Packet to house the paraglide, landing airbags or wheels, and possible boost back engine(s). Core would lands horizontal.

Cost issue, is a liquid booster that is reused cheaper than just using disposable solid boosters?
Even if most flights just needed one solid booster?

Weather issue, can boosters be brought back? Even if the weather is good for launch would it also

 always be good for core return to launch area?

As cores are used as boosters also, the booster(s) would be heavier than if they were just boosters. This will reduce the payload mass same, but should be more than offset by the cost savings of just having one core.

( Note: Thread is not about heavy lift but about possible evolution and reuse of Vulcan launch vehicle )


Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #1 on: 06/09/2015 01:50 am »
Is there any indication that ULA is interested in fly-back boosters?
They are pressing the argument that engine pod reuse is SMART reuse (and that fly back booster is not-SMART).

Is there an engine for fly back boosters?  Seems finding one for Vulcan is already problematic.

Fly-back is much more research intensive than SMART reuse, which is after re-engine the vehicle, which is on life support...
Anything beyond can be assumed DOA.
"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: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #2 on: 06/09/2015 01:46 pm »
I know fly-back boosters would deliver lower payloads, but, big but, they could be built as large as a large airliner, robust, and could land back at almost any airport with a small jet engine or two attached for minimum speed.  I think in the long run it would drastically reduce the cost of launching no mater who develops it.  It depends on if it is worth land back boosters or parachute back boosters eventually win out.     

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #3 on: 06/09/2015 03:31 pm »
The tough technical problem isn't really the atmosphere phase of booster return, it is hypersonic reentry.  What engine(s) is(are)available to restart and slow a nearly empty booster?  Not sure you would want to do that with dual BE-4s or an AR-1.  Are you anticipating simply reentering at hypersonic speed on a ballistic trajectory with extensive heat shielding?

Flying back with jet engine implies wings... and jet fuel tanks, landing gear, etc... plus different structural loading, more shielding, etc.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #4 on: 06/09/2015 03:55 pm »

Fly-back is much more research intensive than SMART reuse, which is after re-engine the vehicle, which is on life support...


Great post. You provide an interesting point.

(Edited by JimMustLearnHowToSpeakToPeople 3000 v2.5)
« Last Edit: 06/09/2015 09:42 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline SLC17A5

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • United States
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #5 on: 06/09/2015 06:03 pm »
The thread appears to be about possible evolution and reuse of Vulcan.

Tricore is a possible heavy lift evolution after ACES.  My simple estimate is ~17 mT to GTO and ~45 mT to LEO.  Another idea is an 8.4m "fat Vulcan" (5-6x BE-4?) with otherwise similar dimensions.  This gets ~20 mT to GTO and ~60 mT to LEO before SRBs.

However, the distributed launch concept represents new ULA thinking about cost-effective services for customers interested in more mission than one Vulcan 561 can provide.  The idea of Vulcan is to consolidate ULA business on one rocket that covers the market, gaining many efficiencies.  Distributed launch supports that consolidation.  Fat rockets and tricores weaken that consolidation and go off the upper edge of the market, resulting in low return on a large investment. 

I expect that ULA will focus on standing up distributed launch and making incremental improvements to the Vulcan/ACES platform, rather than further adding to their stable of rockets.  Examples of incremental improvements include developing a "Block II" ACES with prop transfer, integrating updated SRBs, shaving overall weight, and using a revised "BE-4+" first stage engine design.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #6 on: 06/09/2015 07:09 pm »
The thread appears to be about possible evolution and reuse of Vulcan.

Tricore is a possible heavy lift evolution after ACES.  My simple estimate is ~17 mT to GTO and ~45 mT to LEO.  Another idea is an 8.4m "fat Vulcan" (5-6x BE-4?) with otherwise similar dimensions.  This gets ~20 mT to GTO and ~60 mT to LEO before SRBs.

However, the distributed launch concept represents new ULA thinking about cost-effective services for customers interested in more mission than one Vulcan 561 can provide.  The idea of Vulcan is to consolidate ULA business on one rocket that covers the market, gaining many efficiencies.  Distributed launch supports that consolidation.  Fat rockets and tricores weaken that consolidation and go off the upper edge of the market, resulting in low return on a large investment. 

I expect that ULA will focus on standing up distributed launch and making incremental improvements to the Vulcan/ACES platform, rather than further adding to their stable of rockets.  Examples of incremental improvements include developing a "Block II" ACES with prop transfer, integrating updated SRBs, shaving overall weight, and using a revised "BE-4+" first stage engine design.
Agree they should stick with the ~5m diameter core and not go with like 8.4m cores.

Tri-core for their business case, my concept is to have the core and boosters the same. Having the common core replace the solid boosters. The liqiud booster being able to reuse as a booster or as the core. So that might need a block II B4-E, with deep enough throttle for the possible boost back. Still might land on it's side like the Kistler K-1 concept. So this evolution might be able to replace the expendable block I Vulcan, so still just one type of vehicle launch.

Low flight rates it is hard for reusable vehicle for the business case. So if the boosters and core are the same and the booster can be reused as a booster or a core that might work?

I agree they should keep it to just one basic vehicle, but with add ons for greater lift such as reusable boosters that are the same as the core and also the ACES with one ore more engines. ACES as I understand is being developed for it's length to be streched as needed for greater propelant load and to handle one or more engines.

Some numbers for GTO for Vulcan posted here-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35754.msg1376785#msg1376785

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #7 on: 06/10/2015 02:12 am »
The thread appears to be about possible evolution and reuse of Vulcan.

Tricore is a possible heavy lift evolution after ACES.  My simple estimate is ~17 mT to GTO and ~45 mT to LEO.  Another idea is an 8.4m "fat Vulcan" (5-6x BE-4?) with otherwise similar dimensions.  This gets ~20 mT to GTO and ~60 mT to LEO before SRBs.

However, the distributed launch concept represents new ULA thinking about cost-effective services for customers interested in more mission than one Vulcan 561 can provide.  The idea of Vulcan is to consolidate ULA business on one rocket that covers the market, gaining many efficiencies.  Distributed launch supports that consolidation.  Fat rockets and tricores weaken that consolidation and go off the upper edge of the market, resulting in low return on a large investment. 

I expect that ULA will focus on standing up distributed launch and making incremental improvements to the Vulcan/ACES platform, rather than further adding to their stable of rockets.  Examples of incremental improvements include developing a "Block II" ACES with prop transfer, integrating updated SRBs, shaving overall weight, and using a revised "BE-4+" first stage engine design.

I agree with your assessment, that they'd be better off flying one vehicle a lot of times than having a lot of vehicles to deal with. One thing I'd be interested in is testing if Magnetoshell Plasmadynamic Decelerators could be used to recover the upper stage. It's light enough for mid-air recovery under a parafoil if you could get it decelerated without too much mass. And if the ACES stage was fully recoverable, it would save a lot of money when combined with SMART reuse for the first stage. I think it's theoretically possible, but there's definitely a lot of work between here and there. But if Elon sticks with his decision not to reuse F9R upper stage, and ULA finds a way to reuse their upper stage, they might be able to stay cost competitive with SpaceX in the long run...

The other thing I'd be interested in are upgrades that make it easier to reuse ACES multiple times on orbit, such as: 1) refueling capability as you suggest, 2) a solar power kit that would enable longer duration flights without using IVF for power, 3) a Magnetoshell Aerocapture/Aerobraking system for getting back to LEO after GTO or other missions.

~Jon

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #8 on: 06/10/2015 09:32 am »
I guess the thing that I liked about the early Atlas was a consequence of its origin as a ballistic missile: The booster core itself was a distinct and unique vehicle. Its' various upper stages like Able and Centaur were more piggyback payloads than true upper stages. To a certain extent, this mentality survived all the way to Atlas-V.

I'm wondering if the two U/S options already revealed (stockpiled SECs and the new ACES) represents that Vulcan will be approached in a similar manner - the CCB being a distinct and unique spacecraft and the U/S being treated as a separate vehicle in its own right.

A question: Could the 'clean' (no SRMs) Vulcan CCB lift a LEO-rigged CST-100 to the ISS's orbit without an upper stage? If so, then, combined with some manner of whole-vehicle recovery for the CCB, it could easily take an inside curve and overtake Falcon-9 as the most reusable crew launch vehicle ever.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #9 on: 06/10/2015 01:29 pm »
I guess the thing that I liked about the early Atlas was a consequence of its origin as a ballistic missile: The booster core itself was a distinct and unique vehicle. Its' various upper stages like Able and Centaur were more piggyback payloads than true upper stages. To a certain extent, this mentality survived all the way to Atlas-V.


No, that mentality ended with Atlas Centaur D-1 in the early 1970's when the Centaur took over control of the whole stack (especially after the last Agena in 1978).   The distinction between Centaur and Atlas was gone decades ago.  It is just booster and upper stage.

I'm wondering if the two U/S options already revealed (stockpiled SECs and the new ACES) represents that Vulcan will be approached in a similar manner - the CCB being a distinct and unique spacecraft and the U/S being treated as a separate vehicle in its own right.


No, the upper stage controls the stack.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2015 01:32 pm by Jim »

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #10 on: 06/10/2015 05:05 pm »
Is there any indication that ULA is interested in fly-back boosters?
They are pressing the argument that engine pod reuse is SMART reuse (and that fly back booster is not-SMART).
{snip}
1 ) If it is economical.

2 ) Slow flight rate = no reuse
     Mideum flight rate = engine pod return/reuse
     High flight rate = first stage reuse for fast turn around and lower cost

{snip}
I expect that ULA will focus on standing up distributed launch and making incremental improvements to the Vulcan/ACES platform, rather than further adding to their stable of rockets.  Examples of incremental improvements include developing a "Block II" ACES with prop transfer, integrating updated SRBs, shaving overall weight, and using a revised "BE-4+" first stage engine design.

Phase 1
New engine, stage, and SRB's with existing Centaur US.

Phase 1.5
New US , expected to be ACES.

Phase 2
Upgeade BE-4 engine for better performance and air restart ( not enough time and money before 2019 ).
Possible upgrades to the solid booster and lightier 1st stage.

Phase 3 ( depending on flight rate )
Engine pod recover and reuse.

Or

Full stage recover. Replace solids with common core as booster ( reusable ).

Once ACES in use upgrades such as propelant transfer to take place by market demand.

Opinions and comments?

Offline nadreck

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #11 on: 06/10/2015 05:49 pm »

Opinions and comments?

Yes!


...


and to share them:

I am curious as to what numbers you see for  thresholds of medium and high flight rates.

I doubt that there will be as many options available in where the Vulcan design can be taken once Phase 2 starts as there are now. There may have been compromises that make some or all of the currently possible re-use evolutionary steps impossible.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #12 on: 06/10/2015 08:35 pm »

Opinions and comments?

Yes!


...


and to share them:

I am curious as to what numbers you see for  thresholds of medium and high flight rates.

I doubt that there will be as many options available in where the Vulcan design can be taken once Phase 2 starts as there are now. There may have been compromises that make some or all of the currently possible re-use evolutionary steps impossible.
Medium and high flight rates?
6 flights is low. That would have 12 engines made per year. 12 is more than is made for Atlas V per year so I assume at least 12 BE-4 a year produce would be a good business case. So 12 or more flights would be needed for medium flight rate. That assumes making no less than 12 engines per year and flight above the first six flights would use engines already flown if they were returned. 24 or more flights a year would be high flight rate. Some cores might only see 1 or 2 flight while others may see more. That depends on the needed performance and if the stage is recovered in reusable condition. I assume at least 6 new cores would still be made per year.

I think ULA in all phases will be considering what they might need in future upgrades. So I don't think they would compromise in a upgrade phase that would get in the way of possible future upgrades.

Edit:
I assume there would be no less than six flight per year. So I assume they would make at least six new cores per year ( keep the standing army working and infrastructure in place ). Price per flight based on that and when stages are reused more profit for the comany and more savings for repeat customers.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2015 08:46 pm by RocketmanUS »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #13 on: 06/10/2015 09:19 pm »
If Vulcan is doing 6launches a year ULA will most likely be wound up. Tory said they need 10 minimum to be viable business.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #14 on: 06/11/2015 12:21 am »
Do all missions absolutely need a hydrogen upper stage?

If not a possible evolution for the lower end might be to use a methane upper stage and an engine such as the Chase-10 or an Xcor engine methane engine for a lower cost upper stage.

Vulcan with a 2X Chase-10 upper stage might make a good Atlas V 401  replacement.

I read somewhere the Chase-10 is only 1 million each so it's cheap enough to compete favorably with the F9 upper stage.
Xcor probably could make a similar engine for about the same price.
This would not be a replacement for ACES or Centaur but instead an option for missions where the hydrogen upper stage would be overkill or poorly suited.

Another option though undersized performance wise would be an AJ-10 stage for Delta II class payloads.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2015 12:36 am by Patchouli »

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #15 on: 06/11/2015 04:21 pm »
Do all missions absolutely need a hydrogen upper stage?

If not a possible evolution for the lower end might be to use a methane upper stage and an engine such as the Chase-10 or an Xcor engine methane engine for a lower cost upper stage.

Vulcan with a 2X Chase-10 upper stage might make a good Atlas V 401  replacement.

I read somewhere the Chase-10 is only 1 million each so it's cheap enough to compete favorably with the F9 upper stage.
Xcor probably could make a similar engine for about the same price.
This would not be a replacement for ACES or Centaur but instead an option for missions where the hydrogen upper stage would be overkill or poorly suited.

Another option though undersized performance wise would be an AJ-10 stage for Delta II class payloads.
If an ACES with methan/LOX US would be much cheaper then I would expect them to use it except for planetary missions and the heaviest GTO.

ULA wants to have just one type of vehicle. Having two types of propellant for ACES type US I don't know just how much that would add to their yearly fixed budget. But if the methan version could handle uo to DIVH LEO/GTO payloads then it could fit their launch on demand. That keeping the option open for the LH2/LOX version as a order in advance. As I understand the ACES tanks are being designed to be stretched as needed in length so they could be sized for either type of propellant.

When ACES is first used I expect it to be with a new much lower cost engine than the RL-10.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #16 on: 07/06/2015 06:48 pm »
Could it be possible for Blue Origin to develop a fully reusable 1st stage ( equal to having several solid boosters of the Vulcan vehicle, but not 6 of them )? Have ACES as it's upper stage and ULA to manage it's launches?

For heavy payloads continue using the Vulcan 1st stage. If both use the same B4-E then after a flight or two on the reusable 1st stage then the Vulcan could use the two of the engines for it's flight ( engines used at least twice lowering cost for Vulcan launches ).

Same US, same 1st stage engine, adding in new full reuse 1st stage for possible lower cost and higher flight rates without needed of manufacturing a new 1st stage.

Edit: spelling

« Last Edit: 07/06/2015 11:13 pm by RocketmanUS »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #17 on: 07/06/2015 09:08 pm »
Could it be possible for Blue Orgin to develop a fully reusable 1st stage ( equal to having several solid boosters of the Vulcan vehicle, but not 6 of them )? Have ACES as it's upper stage and ULA to manage it's launches?

For heavy payloads continue using the Vulcan 1st stage. If both use the same B4-E then after a flight or two on the reusable 1st stage then the Vulcan could use the two of the engines for it's flight ( engines used at least twice lowering cost for Vulcan launches ).

Same US, same 1st stage engine, adding in new full reuse 1st stage for possible lower cost and higher flight rates without needed of manufacturing a new 1st stage.

Ahem, paraphasing Jim. "Rockets are not Legos."  ::)
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 02:30 am by Zed_Noir »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #18 on: 07/06/2015 10:11 pm »
Could it be possible for Blue Orgin to develop a fully reusable 1st stage ( equal to having several solid boosters of the Vulcan vehicle, but not 6 of them )? Have ACES as it's upper stage and ULA to manage it's launches?

For heavy payloads continue using the Vulcan 1st stage. If both use the same B4-E then after a flight or two on the reusable 1st stage then the Vulcan could use the two of the engines for it's flight ( engines used at least twice lowering cost for Vulcan launches ).

Same US, same 1st stage engine, adding in new full reuse 1st stage for possible lower cost and higher flight rates without needed of manufacturing a new 1st stage.



I don't see the two companies overlapping their operations that much.

A more realistic question might be, if BlueO were operating their own reusable system, would they sell used engines?

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #19 on: 07/06/2015 11:12 pm »
Could it be possible for Blue Orgin to develop a fully reusable 1st stage ( equal to having several solid boosters of the Vulcan vehicle, but not 6 of them )? Have ACES as it's upper stage and ULA to manage it's launches?

For heavy payloads continue using the Vulcan 1st stage. If both use the same B4-E then after a flight or two on the reusable 1st stage then the Vulcan could use the two of the engines for it's flight ( engines used at least twice lowering cost for Vulcan launches ).

Same US, same 1st stage engine, adding in new full reuse 1st stage for possible lower cost and higher flight rates without needed of manufacturing a new 1st stage.



I don't see the two companies overlapping their operations that much.

A more realistic question might be, if BlueO were operating their own reusable system, would they sell used engines?
That could possible work too. Looks like Vulcan would be able to lift much grater payload mass than Blue Origin's orbital launch vehicle. So from a business case for ULA it might be cheaper to buy used engines than to try and recover just the engines on their own flights with Vulcan.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #20 on: 07/07/2015 01:18 am »
The SMART system can be applied to ACES, I asked Dr Sower this question when Tory talked about other applications for SMART. His cryptic reply hinted at a YES.  For the 2nd stage a SMART system makes a lot of sense, differently for LEO missions. Maybe marginal for GTO missions, where they could be adding extra SRBs to allow for payload penalty.

Blue Origin are targeting HSF with RLVs whether they go after GTO and DOD market remains to be seen. Their RLV may actually benefit ULA if it can offer lower cost in orbit fuel for the ACES.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #21 on: 07/07/2015 03:06 am »
Do all missions absolutely need a hydrogen upper stage?
How about a solid motor stage in place of Centaur?  An Atlas with a Castor 30XL second stage might lift 6.5 tonnes to LEO x 51.6 deg or 6.0 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit.  That's enough for almost every sun sync mission flown by Atlas 5 to date.  It is enough for Cygnus.  It might even be enough for X-37B.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 01:55 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #22 on: 07/07/2015 02:43 pm »
Do all missions absolutely need a hydrogen upper stage?
How about a solid motor stage in place of Centaur?  An Atlas with a Castor 30XL second stage might lift 6.5 tonnes to LEO x 51.6 deg or 6.0 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit.  That's enough for almost every sun sync mission flown by Atlas 5 to date.  It is enough for Cygnus.  It might even be enough for X-37B.

 - Ed Kyle
You'd probably then need a trim stage to get the required precision. Or you would require to increase the navigation and delta-v capabilities of the payload to make up the difference. BTW, Antares is really close now to an Atlas V booster with a Castor 30XL on top. Why would you want another one of those?

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #23 on: 07/07/2015 04:26 pm »
Do all missions absolutely need a hydrogen upper stage?
How about a solid motor stage in place of Centaur?  An Atlas with a Castor 30XL second stage might lift 6.5 tonnes to LEO x 51.6 deg or 6.0 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit.  That's enough for almost every sun sync mission flown by Atlas 5 to date.  It is enough for Cygnus.  It might even be enough for X-37B.

 - Ed Kyle
You'd probably then need a trim stage to get the required precision. Or you would require to increase the navigation and delta-v capabilities of the payload to make up the difference. BTW, Antares is really close now to an Atlas V booster with a Castor 30XL on top. Why would you want another one of those?
You are most likely right that the payload would then need to do the final orbital insertion burn. Not all small payloads might not have that ability.

Atlas Phase II had the mini short 1st stage with just one main engine for lighter payloads. ULA could do the same with Vulcan, but I don't think they are going for the smaller payloads. At least not as a single payload.

Recovery of the 2nd stage may be a better way for cost savings with lighter payloads not needing the full performance of a base Vulcan ( no SRB's ). I would expect helicopter recovery for the US.

ACES is expected to be able to have one to four engines depending on mission needs. I expect if the go with something other than RL-10 then that new engine with be throttable.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #24 on: 07/07/2015 04:37 pm »
Do all missions absolutely need a hydrogen upper stage?
How about a solid motor stage in place of Centaur?  An Atlas with a Castor 30XL second stage might lift 6.5 tonnes to LEO x 51.6 deg or 6.0 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit.  That's enough for almost every sun sync mission flown by Atlas 5 to date.  It is enough for Cygnus.  It might even be enough for X-37B.

 - Ed Kyle
You'd probably then need a trim stage to get the required precision. Or you would require to increase the navigation and delta-v capabilities of the payload to make up the difference. BTW, Antares is really close now to an Atlas V booster with a Castor 30XL on top. Why would you want another one of those?
Yes, a small RCS plus trim capability (perhaps cold gas, perhaps monoprop) would need to be added (except on Cygnus flights).  It could be added to a structure on or attached to the motor itself, as has so often been done in the past (see MSD, Burner-2, Minotaur GCA, and so on).

One reason for a solid second stage Atlas might be because Antares can't as yet do sun synchronous orbits.  Of course the only valid reason to do such a thing would be to cut launch costs, assuming that costs were actually cut.

The question in this thread is really whether a lower cost upper stage could be used with Vulcan.  It could, and it could have more performance than Antares thanks to the higher BE-4 liftoff thrust, which would allow use of either a heavier second stage motor or of more than one motor.  Some guesstimating might be in order.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 05:22 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #25 on: 07/07/2015 04:46 pm »
Do all missions absolutely need a hydrogen upper stage?
How about a solid motor stage in place of Centaur?  An Atlas with a Castor 30XL second stage might lift 6.5 tonnes to LEO x 51.6 deg or 6.0 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit.  That's enough for almost every sun sync mission flown by Atlas 5 to date.  It is enough for Cygnus.  It might even be enough for X-37B.

 - Ed Kyle
You'd probably then need a trim stage to get the required precision. Or you would require to increase the navigation and delta-v capabilities of the payload to make up the difference. BTW, Antares is really close now to an Atlas V booster with a Castor 30XL on top. Why would you want another one of those?
Yes, a small RCS plus trim capability (perhaps cold gas, perhaps monoprop) would need to be added (except on Cygnus flights).  It could be added to a structure on or attached to the motor itself, as has so often been done in the past (see MSD, Burner-2, Minotaur GCA/HAPS, and so on).

One reason for a solid second stage Atlas might be because Antares can't as yet do sun synchronous orbits.  Of course the only valid reason to do such a thing would be to cut launch costs, assuming that costs were actually cut.

The question in this thread is really whether a lower cost upper stage could be used with Vulcan.  It could, and it could have much more performance than Antares thanks to the higher BE-4 liftoff thrust, which would allow use of either a heavier second stage motor or of more than one motor.  Some guesstimating might be in order.

 - Ed Kyle
Avionics are in the US on the Atlas V? So they would also be on the Vulcan?

So it probably would not be that easy to put someone elses solid US on Vulcan?

What about a short version of ACES or Centaur with just one engine for lighter payloads or the recovery idea?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #26 on: 07/07/2015 04:46 pm »

The question in this thread is really whether a lower cost upper stage could be used with Vulcan.  It could, and it could have much more performance than Antares thanks to the higher BE-4 liftoff thrust, which would allow use of either a heavier second stage motor or of more than one motor.  Some guesstimating might be in order.


Likely just cheaper in the long run to use the existing  upper stage.  Don't have additional cost for the development, design and sustaining engineering for another stage.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #27 on: 07/07/2015 06:21 pm »

The question in this thread is really whether a lower cost upper stage could be used with Vulcan.  It could, and it could have much more performance than Antares thanks to the higher BE-4 liftoff thrust, which would allow use of either a heavier second stage motor or of more than one motor.  Some guesstimating might be in order.


Likely just cheaper in the long run to use the existing  upper stage.  Don't have additional cost for the development, design and sustaining engineering for another stage.

Unless OrbitalATK would sell straight Castor 30XL stages to ULA. I'm not saying that it is ever going to happen, nor that it would be cheaper. But there is such a stage designed and Vulcan is not designed, so it could be taken into the design considerations. Big issue is avionics, of course. It seems pretty far off, to be honest.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #28 on: 07/08/2015 02:53 am »
Unless OrbitalATK would sell straight Castor 30XL stages to ULA. I'm not saying that it is ever going to happen, nor that it would be cheaper. But there is such a stage designed and Vulcan is not designed, so it could be taken into the design considerations. Big issue is avionics, of course. It seems pretty far off, to be honest.
Of course Orbital ATK currently does sell solid motors (GEM-60s) to ULA for Delta 4, but that is soon to end. 

Avionics are mounted to a Forward Adapter above Centaur itself.  They would have to be re-purposed for a different stage, and some engineering effort would be needed, but such things are possible.  For Vulcan, a heavier-than-Castor 30XL stage would be optimum - even something as heavy as a Castor 120 could be lifted.  Though more than twice as heavy as Centaur, Castor 120 is about the same size!

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #29 on: 07/08/2015 03:08 am »
How about a solid motor stage in place of Centaur?  An Atlas with a Castor 30XL second stage might lift 6.5 tonnes to LEO x 51.6 deg or 6.0 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit.  That's enough for almost every sun sync mission flown by Atlas 5 to date.  It is enough for Cygnus.  It might even be enough for X-37B.

 - Ed Kyle

That might work for a couple of missions, but many require 2 or 3 burns, and waivers for disposal on government missions are becoming scarce, so that additional burn will be required.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #30 on: 07/08/2015 06:30 am »

The question in this thread is really whether a lower cost upper stage could be used with Vulcan.  It could, and it could have much more performance than Antares thanks to the higher BE-4 liftoff thrust, which would allow use of either a heavier second stage motor or of more than one motor.  Some guesstimating might be in order.


Likely just cheaper in the long run to use the existing  upper stage.  Don't have additional cost for the development, design and sustaining engineering for another stage.
OK, stick with Centaur.

But what about lowering cost?

New metheds of manufacturing for Centaur for lower cost? And the RL-10?

What would be the better US, ACES or Centaur better for missions to LEO,GTO, escape, crew missions BLEO?

What about RL-10 verses RL-60 or BE-3?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #31 on: 07/08/2015 09:11 am »
The IVF version Centuar is meant to be lighter have more endurance and lower build costs, by removing the Helium for pressurization and Hydrazine for maneuvering thrusters. This should fly 2018 customers willing.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #32 on: 07/08/2015 11:24 pm »
How about a solid motor stage in place of Centaur?  An Atlas with a Castor 30XL second stage might lift 6.5 tonnes to LEO x 51.6 deg or 6.0 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit.  That's enough for almost every sun sync mission flown by Atlas 5 to date.  It is enough for Cygnus.  It might even be enough for X-37B.

 - Ed Kyle

That might work for a couple of missions, but many require 2 or 3 burns, and waivers for disposal on government missions are becoming scarce, so that additional burn will be required.
It would work for Cygnus type missions.  It could be made to work for sun sync missions as well, but only if a liquid trim stage did the final insertion and then either stayed with the payload or performed a "deorbit" burn (allowing the solid motor to decay naturally from an elliptical transfer orbit with a low perigee).   

This makes me wonder: what would the claimed payload masses for launch vehicles look like if the now-required post-separation upper stage deorbiting or safing delta-v were included in the calculations?  It takes maybe 170-190 m/s delta-v to drop from a 780 km sun sync type orbit to a, say, 100 x 780 km decay orbit.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #33 on: 07/09/2015 12:31 am »
It takes maybe 170-190 m/s delta-v to drop from a 780 km sun sync type orbit to a, say, 100 x 780 km decay orbit.

 - Ed Kyle

A waiver would still be required for an uncontrolled reentry, as it will most likely never meet the Ec requirement. Either a disposal orbit needs to be reached, or controlled de-orbit burn where the impact ellipse is known.  It's probably a good 800 to 1000 lb performance hit across the board.  Obviously the higher/slower the burn can be done, the cheaper it is, but then you're looking at more complexity/time to the overall mission timeline.  Disposal waivers are becoming difficult to get for NRO missions (you would think the opposite, right?), DoD, and NASA missions.  The debris mitigation policy is supposed to be met for commercial missions, but a lot of companies appear to "not give it much attention".  The policy also seems to be interpreted differently between DoD and NASA. 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #34 on: 07/09/2015 02:28 am »
It takes maybe 170-190 m/s delta-v to drop from a 780 km sun sync type orbit to a, say, 100 x 780 km decay orbit.

 - Ed Kyle

A waiver would still be required for an uncontrolled reentry, as it will most likely never meet the Ec requirement. Either a disposal orbit needs to be reached, or controlled de-orbit burn where the impact ellipse is known.  It's probably a good 800 to 1000 lb performance hit across the board.  Obviously the higher/slower the burn can be done, the cheaper it is, but then you're looking at more complexity/time to the overall mission timeline.  Disposal waivers are becoming difficult to get for NRO missions (you would think the opposite, right?), DoD, and NASA missions.  The debris mitigation policy is supposed to be met for commercial missions, but a lot of companies appear to "not give it much attention".  The policy also seems to be interpreted differently between DoD and NASA. 
My understanding was that a stage had to either fall from orbit within 25 years (with less than a one in-whatever chance of a piece hitting someone) or move to a non-interfering orbit.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/09/2015 06:20 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #35 on: 07/10/2015 11:19 am »
Here is one future concept for Vulcan. Given ULA launch costs in 2009 I wouldn't have used "affordable" in the title. The future for the ACES and fuel depots is looking better especially if RLVs are supplying LEO depots. I do like concept of using ACES as Orion service module.

http://pt.tapatalk.com/redirect.php?app_id=4&fid=73232&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ulalaunch.com%2Fuploads%2Fdocs%2FPublished_Papers%2FExploration%2FAffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #36 on: 07/10/2015 08:31 pm »
Here is one future concept for Vulcan. Given ULA launch costs in 2009 I wouldn't have used "affordable" in the title. The future for the ACES and fuel depots is looking better especially if RLVs are supplying LEO depots. I do like concept of using ACES as Orion service module.

http://pt.tapatalk.com/redirect.php?app_id=4&fid=73232&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ulalaunch.com%2Fuploads%2Fdocs%2FPublished_Papers%2FExploration%2FAffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

Compared to the Billions NASA is going to spend before SLS is usable for real missions, even with ULA's existing prices it's quite affordable.

~Jon

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #37 on: 07/10/2015 09:01 pm »
It is looking better for this architectue. Use a BE3U powered ACES upper stage with SMART reuse system. Launched by a Blue Origin 6xBE4 reusable booster and delivering 30-40t of fuel for under $2000/kg is achievable.
The expendable ACES tanker that does LEO-L2 run may not be new. The engine section could of done multiple LEO flights first. Very 30t to L2 would use 1xACES engine section,  3x ACES tanks, 2xACES SMART use and 3 x launches of a RLV booster.

Jon
Was that your name on bottom of paper?.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 09:18 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #38 on: 07/10/2015 09:17 pm »
It is looking better for this architectue. Use a BE3U powered ACES upper stage with SMART reuse system. Launched by a Blue Origin 6xBE4 reusable booster and delivering 30-40t of fuel for under $2000/kg is achievable.

Jon
Was that your name on bottom of paper?.

Yeah. We did a depot paper together in 2009, back when Boeing wasn't threatening to get ULA people fired for using the "D-word". It's still up on the ULA website:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Extended_Duration/PropellantDepots2009.pdf

~Jon

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #39 on: 07/17/2015 09:19 am »
This video from Newspace2015 conference features Les Kovacs from ULA , one of his slides (0:19min) showed Vulcan with ACES upper stage capable of 40t to LEO as single core with 6 boosters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbUkQ3Oy_vM&feature=youtu.be&list=PLwPHIn0fGYHsE3KQoUMh96FiK3Vv6PDJm

Later he talked about Atlas price coming down to $100-110m (commercial launches?) over the next few years. At this price they should be able to pick up a few commercial launches, especially with ULA record 97 successful launches.

Surprisingly a bit of praise by both ULA and Airbus for SpaceX, which has forced both companies to innovate. Dennis Stone of NASA observation of ULA engineers he deals with, is it that they are a lot more upbeat as ULA is more receptive of innovation. He ask one of the engineers why and the answer was SpaceX.


Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #40 on: 07/17/2015 09:02 pm »
This video from Newspace2015 conference features Les Kovacs from ULA , one of his slides (0:19min) showed Vulcan with ACES upper stage capable of 40t to LEO as single core with 6 boosters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbUkQ3Oy_vM&feature=youtu.be&list=PLwPHIn0fGYHsE3KQoUMh96FiK3Vv6PDJm

Later he talked about Atlas price coming down to $100-110m (commercial launches?) over the next few years. At this price they should be able to pick up a few commercial launches, especially with ULA record 97 successful launches.

Surprisingly a bit of praise by both ULA and Airbus for SpaceX, which has forced both companies to innovate. Dennis Stone of NASA observation of ULA engineers he deals with, is it that they are a lot more upbeat as ULA is more receptive of innovation. He ask one of the engineers why and the answer was SpaceX.

When Jeff Greason on the Augustine committee said that even he thought HLVs were necessary, he had stated that he meant ~30-50mT to LEO as the size needed--that plus a high performance upper stage. It's cool to think that within a few years we may have two affordable commercial launch vehicles with performance in that class.

I also like how ULA goes out of its way to share the spotlight with smaller commercial companies (XCOR, Roush, and Masten). They've got a heck of a lot of work to stay competitive with SpaceX, but I wish them all the luck in the world. It would be great to have two healthy, affordable, and innovative launch companies in the US, even if it means the rest of the world has to settle for scraps... :-)

~Jon
« Last Edit: 07/17/2015 09:02 pm by jongoff »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #41 on: 07/17/2015 09:28 pm »
Here's the quote I referenced (from pg 65 of the A-com report):
Quote
If there were the capability to fuel propulsion stages in space, the single-largest mass launched would be considerably less than in the absence of in-space refueling. The mass that must be launched to low-Earth orbit in
the current NASA plan, without its fuel on board, is in the range of 25 to 40 mt, setting a notional lower limit on the size of the super heavy-lift launch vehicle if refueling is available.

~Jon

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #42 on: 07/18/2015 04:18 pm »
Would a Vulcan tri-core heavy be more expensive than 6 solids?  The tri-core should give a little better performance and the engines could be saved. 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #43 on: 07/18/2015 04:23 pm »
Would a Vulcan tri-core heavy be more expensive than 6 solids?  The tri-core should give a little better performance and the engines could be saved. 
I suspect that part of the expense for a tri-core would be the need for modified, or new, launch complexes.

Also, I can't imagine that six solid motors cost more than two of those big liquid cores with their 2.2 million pounds thrust worth of staged combustion engines.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #44 on: 07/18/2015 04:37 pm »

I suspect that part of the expense for a tri-core would be the need for modified, or new, launch complexes.

Also, I can't imagine that six solid motors cost more than two of those big liquid cores with their 2.2 million pounds thrust worth of staged combustion engines.

 - Ed Kyle

Six solids will cost less than the cost of 1 booster.  Probably closer to 2/3 rds the cost.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #45 on: 07/18/2015 04:51 pm »

I suspect that part of the expense for a tri-core would be the need for modified, or new, launch complexes.

Also, I can't imagine that six solid motors cost more than two of those big liquid cores with their 2.2 million pounds thrust worth of staged combustion engines.

 - Ed Kyle

Six solids will cost less than the cost of 1 booster.  Probably closer to 2/3 rds the cost.

And more to the point--what on Earth would any sane customer need a tri-core Vulcan for? Once you're past being able to lift the "biggest smallest piece" for space exploration, and know how to do prop transfer, cost, reliability, and launch frequency matter far more than size.

~Jon

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #46 on: 07/18/2015 11:30 pm »

I suspect that part of the expense for a tri-core would be the need for modified, or new, launch complexes.

Also, I can't imagine that six solid motors cost more than two of those big liquid cores with their 2.2 million pounds thrust worth of staged combustion engines.

 - Ed Kyle

Six solids will cost less than the cost of 1 booster.  Probably closer to 2/3 rds the cost.
I remember that NWO 2007 pricing was 10M per solid, final cost. ULA expects 20% cost reduction. A Vulcan core should cost something like 65 to 75M cost. So 8M sound about right.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #47 on: 07/19/2015 12:02 am »
Dimitry's modelling of Vulcan had it at 20t without SRBs, adding 6 takes it to 40t. At $8m for each SRB that is $2,400/Kg for the extra performance the SRBs add.

The first 20t is likely to cost $4-5000/Kg ($80-100m). SMART reuse should reduce this by another 10-15%, giving a range of $3400-$4500/kg (best-worst).  For 6xSRB (40T) the range is $2900-$3450/kg.

 

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #48 on: 07/19/2015 01:52 am »
So 8M sound about right.

8M is too high.

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: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #49 on: 07/19/2015 03:13 am »
At the risk of indulging in 'Rocket Lego', a version of Vulcan with 8x SRBs and an uprated ACES upper stage could reach towards 50 tons to LEO. This wouldn't require major launchpad modifications, would it?
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #50 on: 07/19/2015 04:08 am »
At the risk of indulging in 'Rocket Lego', a version of Vulcan with 8x SRBs and an uprated ACES upper stage could reach towards 50 tons to LEO. This wouldn't require major launchpad modifications, would it?

Why? Who knows if SpaceX will even be able to hit 50mT with Falcon Heavy. More importantly, with Vulcan's higher performance upper stage, a Vulcan will have more GTO capability with just 6 SRBs than a Falcon Heavy will with three cores. Adding more cores and a different ACES seems to be pushing performance without thinking about the cost.

But yeah, I'm sure there's not technical reason they couldn't do that, I just doubt it makes economic sense.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 07/19/2015 04:09 am by jongoff »

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: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #51 on: 07/19/2015 04:22 am »
If SLS goes away (:'() you may find that Vulcan and Falcon Heavy upgrade packages could be in the offering! Pretty much the way Delta IV-H upgrade studies and papers were flying around a few years ago. Also, on a recent Q & A session with George Sowers on this website recently, I asked the question about adding up to 8x SRBs and he certainly didn't rule out the concept or possibility! A Vulcan with 8 solids and higher thrust engines in the ACES upper stage could give excellent capability. Launching Falcon Heavies and Vulcans in salvos would put a lot of hardware into orbit in a relatively short time.

Incidentally, even without propellant crossfeed the Falcon Heavy - especially with the touted Merlin upgrades planned - should still get about 40 tons into orbit.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #52 on: 07/19/2015 04:25 am »
With adding solids the T/W at liftoff is increased. So the vehicle should be able to handle a larger US with more enignes on it ( core struchture beefed up to handle greater mass )?

If so, then a Vulcan with 6 solids could get greater performance to LEO/GTO with a bigger US ( stretched ACES with more engines or higher thrust engines than the RL-10 such as the RL-60 )?

If so then would it be cheaper to increase the US compared to adding solids or common cores?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #53 on: 07/19/2015 11:33 am »
At the risk of indulging in 'Rocket Lego', a version of Vulcan with 8x SRBs and an uprated ACES upper stage could reach towards 50 tons to LEO. This wouldn't require major launchpad modifications, would it?

Why? Who knows if SpaceX will even be able to hit 50mT with Falcon Heavy. More importantly, with Vulcan's higher performance upper stage, a Vulcan will have more GTO capability with just 6 SRBs than a Falcon Heavy will with three cores. Adding more cores and a different ACES seems to be pushing performance without thinking about the cost.

But yeah, I'm sure there's not technical reason they couldn't do that, I just doubt it makes economic sense.

~Jon

ULA solution to a heavy LV (>50t LEO) is distributed launch (in orbit refuel). With a stretched ACES (70T) the Vulcan can deliver 40T to lunar orbit, that is equivalent of 115t in LEO for cost of 3 launches ($400-$500m). With one LV design they can deliver anywhere from 6-40T to lunar orbit. So there is not a lot of reason to develop a large LV unless they are launching >40T (LEO) on a regular basis. 


Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #54 on: 07/19/2015 03:54 pm »
So 8M sound about right.

8M is too high.
I meant as customer's final cost. I would think that an SRB ex-works would be 6.5M and then handling, analysis, acceptance, transport, integration and margin would end up at 8M. Am I over estimating?

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #55 on: 07/19/2015 06:21 pm »
Tory Bruno Twitter
Vulcan GTO/GSO specs
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/595628488410963970

At the risk of indulging in 'Rocket Lego', a version of Vulcan with 8x SRBs and an uprated ACES upper stage could reach towards 50 tons to LEO. This wouldn't require major launchpad modifications, would it?

Why? Who knows if SpaceX will even be able to hit 50mT with Falcon Heavy. More importantly, with Vulcan's higher performance upper stage, a Vulcan will have more GTO capability with just 6 SRBs than a Falcon Heavy will with three cores. Adding more cores and a different ACES seems to be pushing performance without thinking about the cost.

But yeah, I'm sure there's not technical reason they couldn't do that, I just doubt it makes economic sense.

~Jon

ULA solution to a heavy LV (>50t LEO) is distributed launch (in orbit refuel). With a stretched ACES (70T) the Vulcan can deliver 40T to lunar orbit, that is equivalent of 115t in LEO for cost of 3 launches ($400-$500m). With one LV design they can deliver anywhere from 6-40T to lunar orbit. So there is not a lot of reason to develop a large LV unless they are launching >40T (LEO) on a regular basis. 

How did you get your performance numbers and pricing?
« Last Edit: 07/19/2015 06:23 pm by RocketmanUS »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #56 on: 07/19/2015 07:33 pm »
ACES 70T fuel +5t dry mass(estimate) +40t payload =115t, at  460ISP DV is 4232m/s.

Price $100m + 6x $8m =$150m per launch. Maybe discount for 2 fuel launches without payloads.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #57 on: 07/19/2015 08:52 pm »
ACES 70T fuel +5t dry mass(estimate) +40t payload =115t, at  460ISP DV is 4232m/s.

Price $100m + 6x $8m =$150m per launch. Maybe discount for 2 fuel launches without payloads.
Unless the dry masses have changed from the 2009 ULA paper the ACES 41 has a dry mass of 5t and the ACES 71 ( tanker ) has a dry mass of 5.5t ( no payload adapter ).

Have to include residual propellant mass, boiloff ,  and RCS usage of propellant.

RL-10A has an ISP around 448 and the RL-10B is around 465.
What engine were you considering for an ISP of 460?

Price I think you need to include installing of solids too. So price could be $150-$200m.

It would probable take three tanker launches and one with payload, total of four launches.

So four launches $150-$200m each would be $600-$800m total. So distributed launch still not bad compared to other options.

If the solids are around $8m each is the 1st stage around $70m making the US around $30m?

So looking at tri-core compared to single core plus 6 solids and ACES with (4)RL-10A's or next generation engine ( for lower price per engine ). I think it was said the Vulcan with ACES would be around 30% increase to LEO compared to DIVH.

« Last Edit: 07/19/2015 10:13 pm by RocketmanUS »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #58 on: 07/19/2015 11:29 pm »


ACES 70T fuel +5t dry mass(estimate) +40t payload =115t, at  460ISP DV is 4232m/s.

Price $100m + 6x $8m =$150m per launch. Maybe discount for 2 fuel launches without payloads.
Unless the dry masses have changed from the 2009 ULA paper the ACES 41 has a dry mass of 5t and the ACES 71 ( tanker ) has a dry mass of 5.5t ( no payload adapter ).

Have to include residual propellant mass, boiloff ,  and RCS usage of propellant.

RL-10A has an ISP around 448 and the RL-10B is around 465.
What engine were you considering for an ISP of 460?

Price I think you need to include installing of solids too. So price could be $150-$200m.

It would probable take three tanker launches and one with payload, total of four launches.

So four launches $150-$200m each would be $600-$800m total. So distributed launch still not bad compared to other options.

If the solids are around $8m each is the 1st stage around $70m making the US around $30m?

So looking at tri-core compared to single core plus 6 solids and ACES with (4)RL-10A's or next generation engine ( for lower price per engine ). I think it was said the Vulcan with ACES would be around 30% increase to LEO compared to DIVH.

The 41t ACES was designed for Atlas and Delta. One Vulcan brochure showed 3x fuel in ACES compared to Centuar hence 60t.

For fuel deliveries there is no reason they can't make a larger tank eg 100t (60t burnt 40t delivered), that is one of benefits of ACES design, flexible tank sizes.
The $150m is based on $8M for SRBs which came from another forum member. Fuel launches should be cheaper and better performing as there is no payload integration or payload fairing required.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #59 on: 07/20/2015 12:05 am »


ACES 70T fuel +5t dry mass(estimate) +40t payload =115t, at  460ISP DV is 4232m/s.

Price $100m + 6x $8m =$150m per launch. Maybe discount for 2 fuel launches without payloads.
Unless the dry masses have changed from the 2009 ULA paper the ACES 41 has a dry mass of 5t and the ACES 71 ( tanker ) has a dry mass of 5.5t ( no payload adapter ).

Have to include residual propellant mass, boiloff ,  and RCS usage of propellant.

RL-10A has an ISP around 448 and the RL-10B is around 465.
What engine were you considering for an ISP of 460?

Price I think you need to include installing of solids too. So price could be $150-$200m.

It would probable take three tanker launches and one with payload, total of four launches.

So four launches $150-$200m each would be $600-$800m total. So distributed launch still not bad compared to other options.

If the solids are around $8m each is the 1st stage around $70m making the US around $30m?

So looking at tri-core compared to single core plus 6 solids and ACES with (4)RL-10A's or next generation engine ( for lower price per engine ). I think it was said the Vulcan with ACES would be around 30% increase to LEO compared to DIVH.

The 41t ACES was designed for Atlas and Delta. One Vulcan brochure showed 3x fuel in ACES compared to Centuar hence 60t.

For fuel deliveries there is no reason they can't make a larger tank eg 100t (60t burnt 40t delivered), that is one of benefits of ACES design, flexible tank sizes.
The $150m is based on $8M for SRBs which came from another forum member. Fuel launches should be cheaper and better performing as there is no payload integration or payload fairing required.
1 ) Did see that, but not sure if they were using that for the basic model or with all six solids or tri-core version. I would think they would need RL-60 or more than one RL-10. Anyway the dry mass should be greater with ~60t compared to the 41t version.

2 ) That is one of the things I like abaut ACES, the stretching of the tank.

3 ) Centaur is inside of the fairing. I thought ACES was also to be inside the fairing?

Hopefully ULA will soon post estimates for LEO for Centaur and ACES US from zero to six solids and also for the tri-core with ACES.

From something I read it looks like they maybe making the core to handle solids and at the same time be a common core for a tri-core heavy. The core just might have attachments on top too. If so then they would if on order were for a tri-core make a new MLP for it. Not sure if the pad could hadle it or need modifications.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #60 on: 07/20/2015 03:16 pm »
Couldn't the tri-core heavy version be handled by the Delta IV equipment, since they are the same diameter?

Anyway, this is what I like about the Falcon Heavy and the Vulcan either with solids, or a tri-core heavy.  Combined, they can get more tonnage to LEO than the SLS and at a lower cost.  This is where a fuel depot makes more sense than SLS.  With fuel depots, SEP tugs, and the Falcon Heavy and Vulcan, deep space travel is possible and seems to be cheaper than SLS.  Also, with more launches, the price would come down further for both providers.  It just seems to me SLS is a money pit. 

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #61 on: 07/20/2015 03:35 pm »
Here's the quote I referenced (from pg 65 of the A-com report):
Quote
If there were the capability to fuel propulsion stages in space, the single-largest mass launched would be considerably less than in the absence of in-space refueling. The mass that must be launched to low-Earth orbit in
the current NASA plan, without its fuel on board, is in the range of 25 to 40 mt, setting a notional lower limit on the size of the super heavy-lift launch vehicle if refueling is available.

~Jon
The Augustine committee also received testimony from more than one person or group highlighting the need for payload volume. If I remember right it was John Shannon who said that payloads typically have the density of balsa wood. Going by that statement one could fit about 40 mt of balsa wood inside a Delta IV 5 meter fairing. The EELV's could support a bit wider fairings. The implication are likely worse for the Falcon Heavy which is supposed to be able to launch more mass than that. It is already a long and skinny rocket and I'm not sure how much more of a hammer head it could take.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #62 on: 07/20/2015 04:22 pm »
The diameter is one of the weaknesses of the Falcon Heavy.  It does use a 5m fairing.  If Vulcan gets a 5m upper stage, then it should be able to handle a 7-8m fairing.  However the FH could launch more dense foldable equipment, or fuel for a fuel depot while the Vulcan could launch lighter larger equipment.   

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #63 on: 07/20/2015 05:06 pm »
Fairing diameter-


Thanks for taking the time again, Dr. Sowers (and Chris).
What is the largest PLF under consideration, even for 2023+ ACES?
(btw, a good name for said stage would be "Centaur Prime")
:)

Once we go to ACES, we will likely retire the 4m PLF.  Firm plans are for 5m only, but we have studied up to 8m.  Implementing something larger than 5m will be driven by customer requirements.

Atlas phase II was looking at a 8.4 meter fairing. If vulcan could use this wide a diameter fairing I believe this would require additional changes to the vehicle and it's surounding infrastructure.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #64 on: 07/20/2015 05:37 pm »
The diameter is one of the weaknesses of the Falcon Heavy.  It does use a 5m fairing.  If Vulcan gets a 5m upper stage, then it should be able to handle a 7-8m fairing.  However the FH could launch more dense foldable equipment, or fuel for a fuel depot while the Vulcan could launch lighter larger equipment.
When I tried to figure out the mass of balsa wood which could fit in the faring I used a figure of 170kg per cubic meter. For reference LH2/LOX is about 280kg per cubic meter and straight LH2 is 70.85kg. So its fair to say that propellant is denser. The Bigelow inflatables are habitats which are pretty volume efficient at launch. The BA330 takes up most of the Falcon or Delta IV fairing yet has a mass of ~20 mt.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #65 on: 07/20/2015 06:23 pm »
The Augustine committee also received testimony from more than one person or group highlighting the need for payload volume. If I remember right it was John Shannon who said that payloads typically have the density of balsa wood. Going by that statement one could fit about 40 mt of balsa wood inside a Delta IV 5 meter fairing. The EELV's could support a bit wider fairings. The implication are likely worse for the Falcon Heavy which is supposed to be able to launch more mass than that. It is already a long and skinny rocket and I'm not sure how much more of a hammer head it could take.

Agreed that PLF diameters matter, though Vulcan with ACES would have no hammerhead with the current 5.4m diameter EELV fairings, so they could definitely go wider. That said, it's important to note that two of the drivers for the "we need more fairing diameter" arguments are lunar landers and mars entry vehicles. In both cases there are credible alternative approaches (DTAL and inflatable or magnetoshell aerocapture/aeroentry) systems that could do the job with existing PLF diameters. Getting up into the 7-8m diameter PLF wouldn't hurt, but it's a nice to have, not an absolute necessity.

~Jon

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #66 on: 07/31/2015 12:21 am »
Chart showing evolution of Atlas to Vulcan.
The change from Centaur to ACES gives a huge boost to Vulcan performance, ACES = Centaur + 4 SRBs.

http://spacenews.com/from-atlas-to-vulcan-34-years-of-rocket-evolution-in-1-image/

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #67 on: 07/31/2015 01:20 am »
Chart showing evolution of Atlas to Vulcan.
The change from Centaur to ACES gives a huge boost to Vulcan performance, ACES = Centaur + 4 SRBs.

http://spacenews.com/from-atlas-to-vulcan-34-years-of-rocket-evolution-in-1-image/
"3.8 meter stretch"?  Is this suggesting that an AR-1 Vulcan would use a stretched Atlas 5 first stage?  Note also that a "501" type Vulcan offers slightly less performance than a "501" Altas.  In fact, it is only the use of a 6th SRB that seems to provide any performance increase.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/31/2015 01:25 am by edkyle99 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #68 on: 07/31/2015 12:43 pm »
Chart showing evolution of Atlas to Vulcan.
The change from Centaur to ACES gives a huge boost to Vulcan performance, ACES = Centaur + 4 SRBs.

http://spacenews.com/from-atlas-to-vulcan-34-years-of-rocket-evolution-in-1-image/
"3.8 meter stretch"?  Is this suggesting that an AR-1 Vulcan would use a stretched Atlas 5 first stage?  Note also that a "501" type Vulcan offers slightly less performance than a "501" Altas.  In fact, it is only the use of a 6th SRB that seems to provide any performance increase.

 - Ed Kyle
The Atlas is 3.8m diameter core while Vulcan is 5.4m. The Centuar upper stage is far to small for Vulcan booster hence low payload gain. ACES (60t?) will be optimised for booster.

Actually Centuar is to small for Atlas, the 41t ACES ULA had planned for Atlas would have given it a considerable performance boost.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2015 12:48 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #69 on: 07/31/2015 01:55 pm »
Chart showing evolution of Atlas to Vulcan.
The change from Centaur to ACES gives a huge boost to Vulcan performance, ACES = Centaur + 4 SRBs.

http://spacenews.com/from-atlas-to-vulcan-34-years-of-rocket-evolution-in-1-image/
"3.8 meter stretch"?  Is this suggesting that an AR-1 Vulcan would use a stretched Atlas 5 first stage?  Note also that a "501" type Vulcan offers slightly less performance than a "501" Altas.  In fact, it is only the use of a 6th SRB that seems to provide any performance increase.

 - Ed Kyle
The Atlas is 3.8m diameter core while Vulcan is 5.4m.
Yes, but the graphic says "3.8 m Str", which I take to mean that the 3.8 meter diameter Atlas stage would be stretched.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/31/2015 01:56 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #70 on: 07/31/2015 02:26 pm »

Actually Centuar is to small for Atlas, the 41t ACES ULA had planned for Atlas would have given it a considerable performance boost.

Well, yes and no.  During EELV development, when there was only the 401 and HLV, it was sized perfectly.  Anything heavier, and neither vehicle would have the T/W to get off the ground.  Now with SRBs, that can be overcome.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #71 on: 07/31/2015 03:36 pm »

Do they actually need ACES?

Frankly I'm a bit at loss here why ULA aims for such high performance. So far there's only been ~1 Delta Heavy launch per year, something the Falcon Heavy can cover.

I doubt it makes economic sense the develop a new, far bigger upper stage for that.

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #72 on: 07/31/2015 03:49 pm »

So far there's only been ~1 Delta Heavy launch per year, something the Falcon Heavy can cover.

I doubt it makes economic sense the develop a new, far bigger upper stage for that.

The Falcon Heavy does not have the GSO capability.  For LEO yes, but not GSO. 
I could be wrong, but I'm 99% sure that is the case.

It makes economic sense to replace 2 upper stages with one, shut down 2 launch pads (a lot of $$), and not fly Delta IV heavy.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2015 03:50 pm by Newton_V »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #73 on: 07/31/2015 03:56 pm »
The Falcon Heavy does not have the GSO capability.

Ok.

There's another reason I forgot. If ULA expects to lose the smaller payloads to the Falcon 9 anyway, it makes sense to focus on the bigger payloads and develop the ability to launch them without additional boosters.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2015 03:57 pm by Oli »

Offline sublimemarsupial

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #74 on: 07/31/2015 04:00 pm »

So far there's only been ~1 Delta Heavy launch per year, something the Falcon Heavy can cover.

I doubt it makes economic sense the develop a new, far bigger upper stage for that.

The Falcon Heavy does not have the GSO capability.  For LEO yes, but not GSO. 
I could be wrong, but I'm 99% sure that is the case.


You are wrong. Every launch DIVH has done so far FH can also cover.

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #75 on: 07/31/2015 04:17 pm »

You are wrong. Every launch DIVH has done so far FH can also cover.

Thanks.  I'm going to bookmark this and come back to it at a later time. 
Care to make it interesting?  A bet perhaps? (obviously the bet won't get resolved soon)
Eventually, SpaceX will bid on one of these GSO missions, and then we'll know what the capability is.   Or will they..... hmmm

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #76 on: 07/31/2015 04:28 pm »

So far there's only been ~1 Delta Heavy launch per year, something the Falcon Heavy can cover.

I doubt it makes economic sense the develop a new, far bigger upper stage for that.

The Falcon Heavy does not have the GSO capability.  For LEO yes, but not GSO. 
I could be wrong, but I'm 99% sure that is the case.


You are wrong. Every launch DIVH has done so far FH can also cover.

Because FH has flown enough that we know what it's real performance is?

More seriously though, ACES also includes IVF, which adds a ton of additional capabilities, and gets rid of a lot of cost-drivers on Centaur.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 07/31/2015 04:30 pm by jongoff »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #77 on: 07/31/2015 04:32 pm »
GSO is an additional 1.8km/s of delta-v. I'd say the FH without crossfeed cannot match D4H, maybe the crossfeed version can. Haven't done any calculations though. Kerosene is just a really crappy upper stage fuel.

If I understand correctly direct GSO insertion is interesting for sats with electric prop., since that way there's no chemical prop. on the sat required.

It should also make the sats a lot lighter, so I'm not sure whether GSO insertion increases the launch vehicle performance required for a sat with equal capability.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2015 04:34 pm by Oli »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #78 on: 07/31/2015 07:20 pm »
Chart showing evolution of Atlas to Vulcan.
The change from Centaur to ACES gives a huge boost to Vulcan performance, ACES = Centaur + 4 SRBs.

http://spacenews.com/from-atlas-to-vulcan-34-years-of-rocket-evolution-in-1-image/
I spent some time with this chart, trying to peel back the payload numbers associated with the fat chart lines.  I came up with the following (assuming that the top of the line is associated with the GTO payload - this has to be GEO - 1800ish m/s).  Note that there are only six steps for Atlas 5 and Vulcan/Centaur (0-5 SRBs, perhaps) but eight steps for Vulcan/Aces (0-6 SRBs plus maybe a Vulcan 401 reference point?).  If my interpretation is correct, then I have to backtrack on my original assessment that Vulcan/Centaur underperforms Atlas 5.  It seems comparable at least and likely slightly better

From the Chart: (+/- 200 kg maybe)

Atlas 5  GTO Payload Steps in Klb and metric tons
11.0 Klb / 4.99 tonnes (Comparable Catalog Atlas 401 4.75 tonnes)
13.0 Klb / 5.89 tonnes (Comparable Catalog Atlas 411 5.95 tonnes)
14.5 Klb / 6.58 tonnes (Comparable Catalog Atlas 521 6.48 tonnes)
16.5 Klb / 7.48 tonnes (Comparable Catalog Atlas 531 7.45 tonnes)
18.2 Klb / 8.28 tonnes (Comparable Catalog Atlas 541 8.29 tonnes)
19.5 Klb / 8.85 tonnes (Comparable Catalog Atlas 551 8.90 tonnes)

Vulcan/Centaur GTO Payload Steps in Klb and metric tons
11.8 Klb / 5.35 tonnes
13.8 Klb / 6.26 tonnes
15.7 Klb / 7.12 tonnes
17.8 Klb / 8.07 tonnes
18.9 Klb / 8.57 tonnes
21.0 Klb / 9.52 tonnes

Vulcan/ACES GTO Payload Steps in Klb and metric tons
11.8 Klb / 5.35 tonnes
19.0 Klb / 8.62 tonnes
21.9 Klb / 9.93 tonnes
24.0 Klb / 10.89 tonnes
26.4 Klb / 11.97 tonnes
28.4 Klb / 12.88 tonnes
30.7 Klb / 13.93 tonnes
33.0 Klb / 14.97 tonnes

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/31/2015 07:42 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #79 on: 07/31/2015 11:43 pm »
The ACES GTO starts at 8.62t with 6steps/SRBs though to 14.97.

With no SRBs the ACES version matches Atlas V551. For a lot of  missions it will have surplus capacity, offering direct insertion to GSO is one way to make use of that capacity. With direct GSO most satellites can be considerably lighter and cheaper as they only need propulsion/fuel for station keeping.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2015 11:51 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #80 on: 09/03/2015 02:30 am »
At AAIA Space2015.
George Sowers presented some ideas about CisLunar transport infrastructure and how reusable ACES and Xeus lander can address it. He mentioned a reuse cost of $2M (plus fuel of course) and unlimited reuse. I doubt the unlimited part but dozens wouldn't be unrealistic.

"Turning Launch into Dollars" video
http://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/SPACE2015

Bit cheeky using Masten's Xeus name for lander then showing an old ULA lander design. Admittedly Xeus was based on that design concept.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #81 on: 09/03/2015 11:02 am »
Dan Collins of ULA while discussion space debris issue (AAIA video The Business of Space) mention another possibly use for the ACES and that was "cleaning up the neighbourhood". The idea as I understood it was to use the ACES surplus performance after delivering its payload to help remove debris.
Of course the issue is to find somebody to pay for this extra mission, although ULA probably have an obligation to clean up some of their old spent upper stages for free.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #82 on: 09/03/2015 01:50 pm »
Dan Collins of ULA while discussion space debris issue (AAIA video The Business of Space) mention another possibly use for the ACES and that was "cleaning up the neighbourhood". The idea as I understood it was to use the ACES surplus performance after delivering its payload to help remove debris.
Of course the issue is to find somebody to pay for this extra mission, although ULA probably have an obligation to clean up some of their old spent upper stages for free.

No, it was more likely using excess performance to deorbit the stage

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #83 on: 09/03/2015 02:39 pm »
Dan Collins of ULA while discussion space debris issue (AAIA video The Business of Space) mention another possibly use for the ACES and that was "cleaning up the neighbourhood". The idea as I understood it was to use the ACES surplus performance after delivering its payload to help remove debris.
Of course the issue is to find somebody to pay for this extra mission, although ULA probably have an obligation to clean up some of their old spent upper stages for free.

No, it was more likely using excess performance to deorbit the stage

Yeah. Using on-board chemical propulsion to deorbit yourself is a lot easier than going to a new object, grappling it, detumbling it and deorbiting it. Plus chemical propulsion is a super inefficient way to deorbit things, though I guess if it's waste propellant that would've gone away anyway... Still think Jim's read on this is the right one.

~Jon

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #84 on: 09/03/2015 03:26 pm »
My wording of quote may not be accurate but it was along those lines. This was over and above disposal of ACES, that had already been discussed. It was in last 10-15min of video.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #85 on: 09/03/2015 09:03 pm »
This article about about LH losses during SLS prelaunch brings up a interesting question regarding methane boil off during prelaunch of Vulcan.

Venting of harmless hydrogen and oxygen is not an issue but what to do with methane, a known greenhouse gas. Does anybody know how this us being addressed.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/ksc-shopping-lh2-ahead-sls-launch/

Offline nadreck

Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #86 on: 09/03/2015 09:31 pm »
This article about about LH losses during SLS prelaunch brings up a interesting question regarding methane boil off during prelaunch of Vulcan.

Venting of harmless hydrogen and oxygen is not an issue but what to do with methane, a known greenhouse gas. Does anybody know how this us being addressed.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/ksc-shopping-lh2-ahead-sls-launch/

They should probably treat it like associated natural gas from oil wells where there is no transportation/processing infrastructure for the gas: flare it. Exhaust CH4 could be piped away to a flare stack through an exhaust umbilical, alternately, it could be go to a liquifaction facility and be recycled.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline LastStarFighter

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Europa
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #87 on: 09/03/2015 10:39 pm »
This article about about LH losses during SLS prelaunch brings up a interesting question regarding methane boil off during prelaunch of Vulcan.

Venting of harmless hydrogen and oxygen is not an issue but what to do with methane, a known greenhouse gas. Does anybody know how this us being addressed.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/ksc-shopping-lh2-ahead-sls-launch/

Hydrogen boiloff is piped away from the pad and burned currently. You can usually see it for night launches in the pre launch live broadcasts. I'm guessing Vulcan will do the same.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Vulcan Evolution and Reuse Concepts
« Reply #88 on: 09/07/2015 04:03 am »

Tags:
 

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