Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 552870 times)

Online GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1360 on: 10/22/2017 03:30 am »
Speculation confirmed in that thread, Centaur V is 5.4m and same tooling as ACES.
OK, so what differentiates Centaur 5 from ACES?

 - Ed Kyle
IVF and propellant transfer. Maybe engine choice
« Last Edit: 10/22/2017 03:55 am by GWH »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1361 on: 10/22/2017 06:38 am »
Speculation confirmed in that thread, Centaur V is 5.4m and same tooling as ACES.
OK, so what differentiates Centaur 5 from ACES?

 - Ed Kyle
IVF and propellant transfer. Maybe engine choice

It really sounds more like a marketing, to allow them to claim more flight history for a brand new Centaur variant. ACES would have been unlikely to introduce all features in one go anyway, but it really does sound like Centaur V is ACES in disguise, with some features deferred to later.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1362 on: 10/22/2017 02:55 pm »
It won't be IDS, if the notional graphics have some technical accuracy. It looks like a much wider ring.

Makes sense, should have watched the video again.

The adapter is roughly 3-3.3m diameter on B330 side, or ~1.6 CBM outer diameter (which I can't find for some reason).
The other B330 end has IDS.

The drop tanks are ~4.3m diameter, the cylindrical section is similar. Overall length with domes ~6.6m.
The tank adapter is also ~4.3m diameter.

That is where some handwaveium appears in the video. The B330 ACES suddenly grows the step down adapter to 3.3m after tank separation. :)

Also interesting that the ACES stays connected to B330 affter reaching the moon. Hm.


Wouldn't be surprising if no 4m fairing would be available on Vulcan, and being shorter should be less pricing than 5m fairing on Atlas V.

Sounds right. Less length options too.
Apropos fairing. The Vulcan and Ariane 6 fairings seem to be quite close. Differences in length and what else? Not counting specialized mission gear inside, that is always custom.


Online GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1363 on: 10/22/2017 03:44 pm »
Yes agreed that at least a 2nd RL-10 would be needed to keep a reasonable TWR.

This should have the Vulcan debuting at close to the lift capacity shown for Vulcan ACES: 8.5 to 17 tonnes to GTO depending on # of SRBs.

Cost may be more than ULA has originally estimated due to that 2nd RL-10. Somewhere between the original $99M and $115M? Will be close between Vulcan and Ariane 6 to see who can go after 2nd place for pricing.  I'd expect dual manifested payloads with ULA's 5 meter adapter to be a big part of their strategy in going after the commercial market.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1364 on: 10/22/2017 04:05 pm »
According to the reddit post they had to increase tank pressure to prevent engine cavitation.
Do you need more pressure to feed multiple RL-10? I would think that just more flow is required, and that can be done by more or larger diameter plumbing.

Online TrevorMonty

I'm picking IVF will be included, they were considering fitting it to existing Centuar in 2018 -2019. Main difference is tank size and engines, 70t with 4xRL10 or 1xBE3 for ACES and 30t with 2xRL10 for Centuar.

New Centuar could work out cheaper than current version. There are considerable cost savings to be had with IVF plus extra performance means less SRBs for some missions. 

AJR have been trying to reduce RL10 build cost by reengineering parts of it to take advantage of modern manufacturing methods. A lower cost RL10 plus extra price reduction because ULA are using twice as many engines, the cost of going to 2xRL10 may not be that significant compared to current version of engine.

Even when ACES is flying, for smaller payloads they may still use this new Centuar.


https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/aerojet-rocketdyne-successfully-tests-3d-printed-thrust-chamber-rl10-rocket-engine-109981/
« Last Edit: 10/22/2017 06:48 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1366 on: 10/22/2017 07:02 pm »
I'm wondering if Vulcan will fly only with Centaur V? (which would presumably have a 5.4 m fairing only) - Or would they offer regular Centaur with a 4m fairing?

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1367 on: 10/22/2017 09:07 pm »
That boils down to a cost question.

More variants are more expensive. Esp. if they have to qualify them for Vulcan. Then they have to support them (toolink, expertise, ...) for years to come.
No Centraur III on Vulcan (and vice versa no Centaur V on Atlas) also means that they have the chance to change all the interfaces.

What does the rocket equation say? Could they do a Centaur V with 1 RL10, perhaps not fully fueled, and get close enough performance? The engine is the expensive part, the rest of the stage stays more or less the same no matter what. That way they "just" have change the thrust structure, plumbing and software.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1368 on: 10/24/2017 09:41 pm »
Semi serious: Sounds like Vinci would be a good fit for Vulcan: 180 kN  and slightly higher ISP.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1369 on: 10/25/2017 12:35 am »
One last time:
Tweet from Tony Bruno with Atlas Booster tanks.
Shorten the tanks for a LOxLNG 1x BE-4 first stage and LO2-LH2 1x RC-10/BE-3U second stage. And ULA has the perfect replacement for Delta II.
Though making it thinner (Centaur diameter) would be better.
If you were to take this hint seriously ... (all together, that is).

What could the benefits be?

By assembling and launching a "mini Atlas V" from NG designs, BO would only need to acquire existing Centaur from ULA while only doing a 4M single BE4 booster. It might leverage common avionics, might even be integrate with VIF/MLP using commonality with Vulcan/Atlas. Could address Delta II class missions with even less cost than Atlas V, possibly beating Vulcan to the launchpad.

Also, it might be possible to adapt Centaur to BE-3U as a next step, as a configuration flown by Blue.

In short, a faster, more certain path to becoming a launch provider than risking it all on the grand vision of NG.

What would ULA gain? More cost absorption by BO, a faster path to Vulcan (due to commonalities), more flown BE-4s (and possibly BE-3's), and less low end market share given over to SX.

Can't think of a negative. Call it "New Atlas?"? NA?

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1370 on: 10/25/2017 12:45 am »
The BE-3U is a bit oversized for Centaur and since it's a heavier engine the added mass would eat directly into the GTO payload.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2017 12:47 am by Patchouli »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1371 on: 10/25/2017 01:35 am »
One last time:
Tweet from Tony Bruno with Atlas Booster tanks.
Shorten the tanks for a LOxLNG 1x BE-4 first stage and LO2-LH2 1x RC-10/BE-3U second stage. And ULA has the perfect replacement for Delta II.
Though making it thinner (Centaur diameter) would be better.
If you were to take this hint seriously ... (all together, that is).

What could the benefits be?

By assembling and launching a "mini Atlas V" from NG designs, BO would only need to acquire existing Centaur from ULA while only doing a 4M single BE4 booster. It might leverage common avionics, might even be integrate with VIF/MLP using commonality with Vulcan/Atlas. Could address Delta II class missions with even less cost than Atlas V, possibly beating Vulcan to the launchpad.

Also, it might be possible to adapt Centaur to BE-3U as a next step, as a configuration flown by Blue.

In short, a faster, more certain path to becoming a launch provider than risking it all on the grand vision of NG.

What would ULA gain? More cost absorption by BO, a faster path to Vulcan (due to commonalities), more flown BE-4s (and possibly BE-3's), and less low end market share given over to SX.

Can't think of a negative. Call it "New Atlas?"? NA?

Tory's tweet doesn't mention a mini Atlas. I think Rik's post is rather misleading.

The market for Delta II launch (at Delta II prices) isn't very good. Such a vehicle would have to compete in the sub-$40M range to capture any real commercial market. I can't see ULA hitting those prices, or Blue being interested in something with no path to reuse.

If Blue wanted a smaller orbital rocket, they could mimic New Glenn at a smaller scale with 7x BE-3 booster and 1x BE-3U upper, and fly the same profile as New Glenn. This would compete with Atlas V 401 and Delta IV Medium, probably for Falcon prices - assuming reuse.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1372 on: 10/25/2017 02:43 am »
Reminder - just a "thought exercise". (Also, everything Tory brings up has a reason if you look for it ... something I admire about him.)
One last time:
Tweet from Tony Bruno with Atlas Booster tanks.
Shorten the tanks for a LOxLNG 1x BE-4 first stage and LO2-LH2 1x RC-10/BE-3U second stage. And ULA has the perfect replacement for Delta II.
Though making it thinner (Centaur diameter) would be better.
If you were to take this hint seriously ... (all together, that is).

What could the benefits be?

By assembling and launching a "mini Atlas V" from NG designs, BO would only need to acquire existing Centaur from ULA while only doing a 4M single BE4 booster. It might leverage common avionics, might even be integrate with VIF/MLP using commonality with Vulcan/Atlas. Could address Delta II class missions with even less cost than Atlas V, possibly beating Vulcan to the launchpad.

Also, it might be possible to adapt Centaur to BE-3U as a next step, as a configuration flown by Blue.

In short, a faster, more certain path to becoming a launch provider than risking it all on the grand vision of NG.

What would ULA gain? More cost absorption by BO, a faster path to Vulcan (due to commonalities), more flown BE-4s (and possibly BE-3's), and less low end market share given over to SX.

Can't think of a negative. Call it "New Atlas?"? NA?

Tory's tweet doesn't mention a mini Atlas. I think Rik's post is rather misleading.
My choice of words. Meant to refer to an earlier attempt to use a smaller US to offer a Delta II replacement out of Atlas V - the so called "Light" configuration.

Quote
The market for Delta II launch (at Delta II prices) isn't very good. Such a vehicle would have to compete in the sub-$40M range to capture any real commercial market. I can't see ULA hitting those prices, or Blue being interested in something with no path to reuse.
Agree.

Especially with RL-10 pricing. But this would be Blue doing the vehicle leveraging Atlas/Vulcan collateral, where Vulcan would advance due to the commonality, so basically a trade. Since BO/ULA work by systems engineering approach, there is more here than meets the eye.

Quote
If Blue wanted a smaller orbital rocket, they could mimic New Glenn at a smaller scale with 7x BE-3 booster and 1x BE-3U upper, and fly the same profile as New Glenn. This would compete with Atlas V 401 and Delta IV Medium, probably for Falcon prices - assuming reuse.
Takes too long, doesn't leverage commonality with Vulcan.

Crawl, walk, run.

add:
They're doing NS to establish a reusable LV operations history/experience. Not to gain experience in launching payloads to orbit. It could be that the NG step to HLV orbit is a "doozie". Perhaps like F9 1.0, an ELV Delta II ... means a shorter net path to NG instead?
« Last Edit: 10/25/2017 08:48 pm by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1373 on: 10/25/2017 07:56 pm »
Quote
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Thorp: decided to make some enhancements to Centaur stage that Vulcan will initially use; could delay first launch by few months. #vonbraun

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923275516060323840
« Last Edit: 10/25/2017 07:56 pm by Star One »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1374 on: 10/25/2017 08:52 pm »
Quote
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Thorp: decided to make some enhancements to Centaur stage that Vulcan will initially use; could delay first launch by few months. #vonbraun

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923275516060323840
Centaur V.

Makes a lot of sense. Then you can bid one LV that covers the range of payloads, rather than depending on ACES to be funded. In a sense, we're back to WBC, sort of a Very Wide Body Centaur  :D

And ... less configuration management, more ride out of Vulcan ELV dev costs.

add:

Hmm. The excess props also means you could make up certain losses you might have if you shifted from RL10 to BE-3U. Meaning that there are more options that ULA could employ to insure its survival with Vulcan. Even perhaps a stretch.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2017 08:56 pm by Space Ghost 1962 »

Online GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1375 on: 10/25/2017 11:51 pm »
If Blue wanted a smaller orbital rocket, they could mimic New Glenn at a smaller scale with 7x BE-3 booster and 1x BE-3U upper, and fly the same profile as New Glenn. This would compete with Atlas V 401 and Delta IV Medium, probably for Falcon prices - assuming reuse.

Isn't that more or less where they started with their old designs?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Blue_Origin_Incremental_Development_(Spacecraft).jpg

EDIT: Yes the original Reusable Booster System was all hydrolox and BE-3 (pages 2-1 & 3-1): https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCDev2_BlueOrigin_508.pdf
Sorry this is really off topic!
« Last Edit: 10/25/2017 11:59 pm by GWH »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1376 on: 10/25/2017 11:55 pm »

Tory's tweet doesn't mention a mini Atlas. I think Rik's post is rather misleading.

The market for Delta II launch (at Delta II prices) isn't very good. Such a vehicle would have to compete in the sub-$40M range to capture any real commercial market. I can't see ULA hitting those prices, or Blue being interested in something with no path to reuse.

They might be able to since ARJ says two AR-1s would cost 25 million I assume the BE-4 will be similar or cheaper in cost so the main engine would be 9 to 12.5 million.
The tanks are probably fairly cheap maybe 5 to 10 million at the most so that leaves an upper stage the RL-10 is too costly unless ARJ is successful in reducing it's price.
Too bad Xcor is not still around as one of their larger engines would be perfect for an upper stage.
Other options include the AJ-10 which is supposed to be fairly cheap ,the RD-0146 ,and the Chase-10.
A single BE-3 might work if the upper stage oversized to compensate for the heavier engine as it can throttle down to 20,000lbs.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2017 11:57 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1377 on: 10/26/2017 04:03 pm »
Semi serious: Sounds like Vinci would be a good fit for Vulcan: 180 kN  and slightly higher ISP.

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne also developed the RL60.
Here is the NSF topic: What happened to the RL-60?
Possibly the CECE engine could be enlarged into a ~200kN (~50k lbf) version.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1378 on: 10/26/2017 04:09 pm »
Tory's tweet doesn't mention a mini Atlas Atlas M  8). I think Rik's post is rather misleading.

The market for Delta II launch (at Delta II prices) isn't very good. Such a vehicle would have to compete in the sub-$40M range to capture any real commercial market. I can't see ULA hitting those prices, or Blue being interested in something with no path to reuse.

If Blue wanted a smaller orbital rocket, they could mimic New Glenn at a smaller scale with 7x BE-3 booster and 1x BE-3U upper, and fly the same profile as New Glenn. This would compete with Atlas V 401 and Delta IV Medium, probably for Falcon prices - assuming reuse.

Sorry if I've confused people, I've modified the post.

I agree with the smaller engine and the Falcon 9 / New Glenn architecture. Possibly Virgin Orbital's Newton 3 engines are nice for this. (could that rocket be named Launcher Two?)

Sorry, back on topic.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 04:13 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1379 on: 10/26/2017 04:17 pm »
Isn't that more or less where they started with their old designs?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Blue_Origin_Incremental_Development_(Spacecraft).jpg

EDIT: Yes the original Reusable Booster System was all hydrolox and BE-3 (pages 2-1 & 3-1): https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCDev2_BlueOrigin_508.pdf
Sorry this is really off topic!
I think the original plan was BE-2 engines; HTP-RP1. I stand corrected. The proposal was BE-3's.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2017 12:25 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1