Fly-back is much more research intensive than SMART reuse, which is after re-engine the vehicle, which is on life support...
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 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.
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}
{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.
Opinions and comments?
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 06/10/2015 05:05 pmOpinions 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 07/06/2015 06:48 pmCould 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?
Do all missions absolutely need a hydrogen upper stage?
Quote from: Patchouli on 06/11/2015 12:21 amDo 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
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/07/2015 03:06 amQuote from: Patchouli on 06/11/2015 12:21 amDo 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 KyleYou'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?
Quote from: baldusi on 07/07/2015 02:43 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 07/07/2015 03:06 amQuote from: Patchouli on 06/11/2015 12:21 amDo 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 KyleYou'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
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.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/07/2015 04:37 pmThe 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.
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
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/07/2015 03:06 amHow 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 KyleThat 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 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
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/08/2015 11:24 pmIt 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 KyleA 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.
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
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. JonWas that your name on bottom of paper?.
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=PLwPHIn0fGYHsE3KQoUMh96FiK3Vv6PDJmLater 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.
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 inthe 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.
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
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/18/2015 04:23 pmI 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 KyleSix solids will cost less than the cost of 1 booster. Probably closer to 2/3 rds the cost.
So 8M sound about right.
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?
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 07/19/2015 03:13 amAt 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
Quote from: baldusi on 07/18/2015 11:30 pmSo 8M sound about right.8M is too high.
Quote from: jongoff on 07/19/2015 04:08 amQuote from: MATTBLAK on 07/19/2015 03:13 amAt 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.~JonULA 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.
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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/19/2015 07:33 pmACES 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.
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 07/19/2015 08:52 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 07/19/2015 07:33 pmACES 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.
Here's the quote I referenced (from pg 65 of the A-com report):QuoteIf 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 inthe 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
Quote from: PahTo on 04/14/2015 12:00 amThanks 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.
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")
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.
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.
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/
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/31/2015 12:21 amChart 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
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/31/2015 01:20 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 07/31/2015 12:21 amChart 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 KyleThe Atlas is 3.8m diameter core while Vulcan is 5.4m.
Actually Centuar is to small for Atlas, the 41t ACES ULA had planned for Atlas would have given it a considerable performance boost.
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.
Quote from: Oli on 07/31/2015 03:36 pmSo 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.
Quote from: Newton_V on 07/31/2015 03:49 pmQuote from: Oli on 07/31/2015 03:36 pmSo 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.
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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 09/03/2015 11:02 amDan 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
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/