Quote from: GWH on 10/22/2017 12:29 amSpeculation confirmed in that thread, Centaur V is 5.4m and same tooling as ACES.OK, so what differentiates Centaur 5 from ACES? - Ed Kyle
Speculation confirmed in that thread, Centaur V is 5.4m and same tooling as ACES.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/22/2017 03:26 amQuote from: GWH on 10/22/2017 12:29 amSpeculation confirmed in that thread, Centaur V is 5.4m and same tooling as ACES.OK, so what differentiates Centaur 5 from ACES? - Ed KyleIVF and propellant transfer. Maybe engine choice
It won't be IDS, if the notional graphics have some technical accuracy. It looks like a much wider ring.
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.
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.
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 10/20/2017 11:06 amOne 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?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/25/2017 12:35 amQuote from: Rik ISS-fan on 10/20/2017 11:06 amOne 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.
Jeff Foust@jeff_foustThorp: decided to make some enhancements to Centaur stage that Vulcan will initially use; could delay first launch by few months. #vonbraun
QuoteJeff Foust@jeff_foustThorp: decided to make some enhancements to Centaur stage that Vulcan will initially use; could delay first launch by few months. #vonbraunhttps://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923275516060323840
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.
Semi serious: Sounds like Vinci would be a good fit for Vulcan: 180 kN and slightly higher ISP.
Tory's tweet doesn't mention a mini Atlas Atlas M . 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.
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).jpgEDIT: 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.pdfSorry this is really off topic!