Firstly, congratulations. Exciting time ahead.I'm curious as to what specifically was meant by "pad innovations"? What new designs and methodologies will be developed?Thanks and the very best of luck.
Thanks Dr.Sowers for taking the time to answer our questions. We're all very excited about the preliminary details revealed in today's announcement.My question is: What key factors set the architecture in favor of multiple solid boosters instead of a multiple common core configuration as seen on other heavy lifters such as the Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy, Angara V?
Dr. Sowers, very exciting presentation today. Thanks for taking our questions. I have the following question: Isn't there a risk for ULA to team up with a competitor such as Blue Origin given that Blue's objective is to eventually make their own LV?Thanks,YG
Could you please elaborate on the distributed launch option?I would really like to know the kind of mass you could put in GTO or GEO if the first launch is a fuel tanker. How would it compare to the Delta-IV heavy?Thank you.
Hello Dr. Sowers,Will the design be scarred such that a tri-core vehicle is possible should future demand require one?
Dr. Sowers, thank you for taking the time to answer questions!My question is, how will the vehicle be delivered and processed at the pad? First transportation; will the stages be transported by barge or by air from the factory? For launch site integration; will it be like Atlas V (vertical rocket integration and a mobile transporter to the pad), Delta IV (horizontal rocket integration, erected at the pad and vertical payload integration with a mobile service tower) or like Falcon 9 (horizontal integration and erected at the pad)?Thanks again! I am excited to see Vulcan fly!
Dr. Sowers,why will Vulcan start out with an upper stage based on RL-10 instead of a BE-3?There is certainly more experience with the BE-3 engine already, than with the BE-4 engine you plan to use in the 1st stage. BE-3 has already gone through acceptance testing while BE-4 has yet to be build, not to say test-fired. You could start developing an upper stage with a BE-3 engine right away and demonstrate it on either an Atlas or Delta rocket.Same question in other words: If you are preprared to use an engine in development like the BE-4 in 2019, why is it important to first gather flight experience with the BE-3 before using it with the new rocket some time in 2023?
George,I'm excited to see the progress on this new rocket, and glad you guys are able to talk more openly about orbital refueling and such! Hopefully I get a chance to say hi when we're down at the symposium tomorrow.My question is sort of boring, but do you have any numbers you can publish about expected performance for Vulcan, both with various numbers of strapons and the existing Centaur stage, and then with various numbers of strapons and the new ACES stage?~Jon
Thank you for offering to answer our questions, Dr. Sowers.Are you planning to recover and reuse the solid rocket boosters, either initially or eventually?
Quote from: Bubbinski on 04/14/2015 03:21 amThank you for offering to answer our questions, Dr. Sowers.Are you planning to recover and reuse the solid rocket boosters, either initially or eventually?Nope. Got to run again, but I'm committed to answer every question.
ULA is not its own company. Is this development being done on ULA funds or have the parent companies okayed it?
I'd like to know more about any plans for depots and the extremely long-lived side of ACES. You mentioned months. Does this include some sort of sunshield? Can I sneak one in on second stage recovery?
Dr Sowers,Thank you for taking our questions. With the addition of more powerful solid rocket motors, I would like to know how the acceleration profile during flight will compare to that of the Atlas V / Delta IV now. Will the acceleration be higher? Or has this been offset by other factors?
Quote from: Antares on 04/14/2015 04:14 amULA is not its own company. Is this development being done on ULA funds or have the parent companies okayed it?I believe this was already answered at yesterday's webcast: "Funding for development is completely out of ULA's profits."--Thank you for doing this Dr. Sowers. I have a simple question: Will the stars and stripes paint scheme go on production vehicles or is it just artistic license for the renders? I think it looks gorgeous. Thanks, and I look forward to the first Vulcan launch!
ULA's press release says "In step two, the Centaur second stage will be replaced by the more powerful, innovative Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage (ACES), making the NGLS capability that of today’s Delta IV Heavy rocket.". Qualitatively will Vulcan with ACES match or exceed DIVH to all destinations from LEO to Saturn or will it be better for some orbits but not others? Quantitatively what's Vulcan with ACES's expected payload mass to LEO, 1500 m/s GTO, TLI, Mars, and Saturn? (Or better yet a plot of mass vs C3.)
Dr Sowers - are there any concepts discussed on how the 1st stage engine booster inflatable heat shield will be made of and tested for use?
Dr Sowers; thank you for all your attention and time here. Question: might any ACES derivative be put forward as a possible 'Exploration Upper Stage' for the SLS?
Dr. Sowers,My first question is the fuel choice for the first stage: methane. What prompted the use of methane as opposed to the more traditional kerosene?My second question is how much payload could the first configuration of Vulcan (with Centaur as upper stage) put into orbit or even to Mars? The later part of the question relates to ULA's history with sending space probes out such as MAVEN and even Pluto-bound New Horizons. The size of such spacecraft ultimately depend on the capabilities of the rockets that launch them.
SpaceX has said their goal is to fly first stages back to the landing site and reuse them quickly -- gas and go. If SpaceX is successful in that, and continues an unbroken string of Falcon 9 launch successes, can Vulcan compete with that? Or is ULA betting the company that SpaceX will fail?