Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle (as announced/built) - General Discussion Thread 3  (Read 22527 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

New thread for Vulcan....

Thread 1:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35754.0

Thread 2:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37676.0

ULA Vulcan Rocket Q&A with ULA's Dr. George Sowers:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37295.0

---

For Vulcan's sake, please stay on topic! :)  Please use this thread to discuss the rocket hardware/facilites as actually being designed and built by ULA.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
CDR is "Underway and going well"
via Tory Bruno


No public word on engine(s) selection yet.

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1967
  • USA
  • Liked: 1213
  • Likes Given: 508
What configuration are they doing a CDR against? Very different designs depending upon the Engine selected.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Sknowball

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
What configuration are they doing a CDR against? Very different designs depending upon the Engine selected.

Unfortunately that information has not been released yet.  In addition we do not know if the Centaur V is included in this CDR or if it is undergoing a separate CDR.

Offline Ike17055

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 1
In other words, “keep your Vulcan comments focused on topic!”

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3891
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 803
  • Likes Given: 1511
In other words, “keep your Vulcan comments focused on topic!”
Indeed. If you make comments like ''Vulcan should replace the SLS" - there's a good chance your post will be deleted because a Sheldon Cooper type of person probably objected to it ;)
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2340
  • US
  • Liked: 1678
  • Likes Given: 1167
In other words, “keep your Vulcan comments focused on topic!”
Indeed. If you make comments like ''Vulcan should replace the SLS" - there's a good chance your post will be deleted because a Sheldon Cooper type of person probably objected to it ;)

I don't think it's unreasonable to have a thread for a new launch vehicle that actually focuses on that launch vehicle instead of being dominated by discussions about their competitors.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3891
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 803
  • Likes Given: 1511
That happens almost organically when a controversial program is discussed.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6413
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 873
  • Likes Given: 5519
What configuration are they doing a CDR against? Very different designs depending upon the Engine selected.
Good question. It will also have substantial inputs to the "Centaur V/5" CDR if that's separate.

The cautious option is to do both engine CDR's and the US CDR against both of those.

Note it's not just an engineering issue.

While both versions are in play ULA can tell each booster engine mfg that they could go with the other one and press for a better deal.

The question is wheather or not ULA is in too deep for such negotiating games and wheather it's time to fully commit to Blue or AJR.
I think that depends how well engine tests have been going. I'm betting ULA are much better informed about that than we are.
They really need the whole spec to be delivered before commitment. None of that "it's 90% there and we'll get the rest ready for you by the time the stage flies, honest." Ideally that means a full duration, full power test, a virtual flight to 1st stage MECO. 
Whoever delivers that first should be home and dry. 
Blue look like they are in pole position for this, but maybe AJR will surprise people, given the consequences for them...
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.
So you're going to Mars to seek a better life. What does that mean to you? Always spot a fanbois by how they react to their idols failures.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5213
  • Liked: 3121
  • Likes Given: 4442
What configuration are they doing a CDR against? Very different designs depending upon the Engine selected.
Good question. It will also have substantial inputs to the "Centaur V/5" CDR if that's separate.

The cautious option is to do both engine CDR's and the US CDR against both of those.


Note it's not just an engineering issue.

While both versions are in play ULA can tell each booster engine mfg that they could go with the other one and press for a better deal.

The question is wheather or not ULA is in too deep for such negotiating games and wheather it's time to fully commit to Blue or AJR.
I think that depends how well engine tests have been going. I'm betting ULA are much better informed about that than we are.
They really need the whole spec to be delivered before commitment. None of that "it's 90% there and we'll get the rest ready for you by the time the stage flies, honest." Ideally that means a full duration, full power test, a virtual flight to 1st stage MECO. 
Whoever delivers that first should be home and dry. 
Blue look like they are in pole position for this, but maybe AJR will surprise people, given the consequences for them...

Seems unlikely they would be doing a CDR unless they had narrowed the engine and configuration choices to single booster vendor and similar for second stage (assuming only a single configuration).  Construction cannot begin if major options/decisions remain.

PDR is usually where the trades on major components are presented and decided...
« Last Edit: 12/09/2017 12:31 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10325
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2147
  • Likes Given: 689
Seems unlikely they would be doing a CDR unless they had narrowed the engine and configuration choices to single booster vendor and similar for second stage (assuming only a single configuration).  Construction cannot begin if major options/decisions remain.

PDR is usually where the trades on major components are presented and decided...

Did they do a PDR?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12959
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3711
  • Likes Given: 634
That happens almost organically when a controversial program is discussed.
Vulcan is controversial?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Did they do a PDR?

Completed back in March 2016 for the BE-4 version. [ULA press release]

Maybe it's my reading comprehension again but I cant find a similar release for AR1.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6413
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 873
  • Likes Given: 5519
Did they do a PDR?

Completed back in March 2016 for the BE-4 version. [ULA press release]

Maybe it's my reading comprehension again but I cant find a similar release for AR1.
Seems unlikely they would be doing a CDR unless they had narrowed the engine and configuration choices to single booster vendor and similar for second stage (assuming only a single configuration).  Construction cannot begin if major options/decisions remain.

PDR is usually where the trades on major components are presented and decided...

If these views are correct then it looks like it's game over for the AR-1, unless AJR can find someone who needs a big, US designed and built LOX/RP1 engine in the near future. 

No one comes to mind for that and I think it's probably OT for this thread.

Blue for the Booster engines, ULA for the structures Orbital ATK for the SRB's and RUAG for the fairings?

So is AJR still guaranteed business for RL-10s for Centaur 5?

Or could Centaur 5 be like Atlas V? Like previous Atlases except.....
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.
So you're going to Mars to seek a better life. What does that mean to you? Always spot a fanbois by how they react to their idols failures.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3891
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 803
  • Likes Given: 1511
That happens almost organically when a controversial program is discussed.
Vulcan is controversial?

 - Ed Kyle
No Vulcan vs SLS is. Or virtually any mention of SLS that isn't in the form of 'cheerleading'.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5213
  • Liked: 3121
  • Likes Given: 4442
...

So is AJR still guaranteed business for RL-10s for Centaur 5?

...

IMO, that is the most loaded question in this CDR string.

Either Centaur V will have 3-4 RL-10s and be twice (?) as expensive as Classic Centaur -- which would make the goal of half-priced Vulcan impossible -- or a non-AJR engine is planned and AJR is out in the cold for future sales to ULA (assuming the existing stockpile can cover remaining D-H and maybe Atlas V flights).
« Last Edit: 12/10/2017 01:22 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
If these views are correct then it looks like it's game over for the AR-1, unless AJR can find someone who needs a big, US designed and built LOX/RP1 engine in the near future. 

My guess is still that the final, official & public decision comes with the BE-4 performing well in a full length full power run or two.
ULA can't afford to be slow in the Vulcan development or to spend lots of money on a shadow design. OTOH they really can't afford a repeat of the RS-68 performance problem either.

As long as AR1 is in the run there is leverage. ARJ gets money so they'll play along. Politicians have one more thing to spend money where they want to, no problem either.
Once there are BE4 test stand runs ULA has leverage against both ARJ and politics. Worst case Blue does not deliver and ULA can pivot the engine choice without eating crow.


Blue for the Booster engines, ULA for the structures Orbital ATK for the SRB's and RUAG for the fairings?

So is AJR still guaranteed business for RL-10s for Centaur 5?

Or could Centaur 5 be like Atlas V? Like previous Atlases except.....

L3 for avionics.

Looking at Bigelow and Ixion renderings it seems that RL-10 is alive and strong.
Still can't put my head around the need to increase head pressure for another 2 of them. Feels to me like they were designing the tank to meet the requirements of several engines at the same time. Go with RL-10 for heritage sensitive customers. Keep the option to swap "just" the engine including its thrust structure to cut cost. Another point to exert leverage. ARJ certainly knows if they need more head pressure to prevent cavitation or not.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5213
  • Liked: 3121
  • Likes Given: 4442
They have Atlas v for heritage sensitive customers.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline TrevorMonty

AJR have been doing lot work to modernise RL10 and reduce its build cost. They need to past those savings onto ULA if what a decent production rate of 20-40, otherwise it is only 4 a year for SLS.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5213
  • Liked: 3121
  • Likes Given: 4442
AJR have been doing lot work to modernise RL10 and reduce its build cost. They need to past those savings onto ULA if what a decent production rate of 20-40, otherwise it is only 4 a year for SLS.

Any published target for fractional reduction in price
50% reduction still yields doubled engine costs on Centaur V assuming 4 engines vs. one on Classic Centaur.
75% reduction yields same engine cost; 87.5% reduction yields half cost which is the goal.
50% is what I'm assuming they can achieve... at best; this probably requires volume production.

SLS will need nine RL-10 engines between now and 2025... one per year or so.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2017 03:56 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags: