Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 158426 times)

Online john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5163
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 636
  • Likes Given: 3402
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #900 on: 04/19/2017 11:02 AM »
Doing a search for stuff on IVF I came across this roundup of stuff from ULA.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Evolution/Innovation_at_ULA_AIAA_Space_2016.pdf

and also this on the "cis-lunar economy."

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Commercial_Space/2016_Cislunar.pdf

The first is generally interesting (I didn't know they 3d printed the ECS ducting for example) but the second starts getting interesting on slide 13. It states BE-4 for the Vulcan 1st stage has gone through CDR and Vulcan itself has gone through PDR.

This suggests Blue's BE-4 engine is practically guaranteed barring either major screwups in development or the factory burning down.

At slide 15 it shows ACES as still having 3 engine options under consideration, RL10C+, XCOR 8H21 and BO BE3U. Obviously whoevers making the RL10 has the incumbent advantage while going BO would mean one engine mfg for the whole main engine package to deal with. I think XCOR would get the most benefit winning this contract and ULA could expect to have their practically undivided attention.

Slide 17 shows the benefits of "distributed lift." I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before but it increases Earth escape, GSO or LLO payloads by > 2x and landed lunar payloads by > 3x.

Other interesting tidbits are page 13, which still shows SMART recovery commencing from 2024. I can only assume ULA have no desire to acquire, convert and operate a sea going barge.

Given that SX have now demonstrated complete first stage reuse this must be now viewed as the "low risk" strategy [EDIT as in it has already been shown to work, rather than "Can probably be made to work"] for developing such a capability. Like designing the first stage engine as a detachable module how difficult it is will very much depend on what's "enabling" features are designed into Vulcan to help you do this.

« Last Edit: 04/19/2017 03:36 PM by john smith 19 »
"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.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
  • Florida
  • Liked: 961
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #901 on: 04/19/2017 08:11 PM »
Tech needed to do SMART.

- reusable engine (many times) -> the BE-4 is this engine. Not sure about the re-usability of the AR-1.
- detachable engine assembly -> this has been around since the Atlas very early days in 1956-57.
- reentry heat protection -> being at much less than orbital velocity this is still needed but it is not a significant weight penalty to add it.
- guided parrafoil and air capture

The only item that will be the most challenging is the guided parafoil and air capture of such a heavy object.

The other considerations is that all the 1st stage avionics is in this package as well. Which includes an IMU, computer, the comm, and telemetry systems. This would be such that the expended portion is not much more than the tank cables, pipes, and the flight destruct systems. In other words about 80% of the cost is recovered in just this package.

But here is the real interesting point and that is that the 1st stage could be completely recovered at some point in the future since the major item is basically the engines being fully reusable with little refurbishment needed.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 1362
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #902 on: 04/20/2017 12:22 PM »
Great to see some hardware:

Quote
Tory Bruno‏ Verified account @torybruno 5m5 minutes ago

Orthogrid trial panel for Vulcan Rocket propellant tank.  (Bigger than it looks...)

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855031915270635522

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
  • Florida
  • Liked: 961
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #903 on: 04/20/2017 01:32 PM »
Great to see some hardware:

Quote
Tory Bruno‏ Verified account @torybruno 5m5 minutes ago

Orthogrid trial panel for Vulcan Rocket propellant tank.  (Bigger than it looks...)

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855031915270635522
Fortunately for ULA they already have most of the tooling (DIV) to do 5.1m tanks. The tanks will be different being liquid CH4 instead of LH2. So some reprogramming of the automated machinery is still needed. That is why the test panel.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 1362
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #904 on: 04/20/2017 01:33 PM »
Some interesting follow-ups on twitter:

Quote
Though I miss the old days when your first stage had stainless steel balloon tanks too...
https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/855044671512379392

Quote
Yup. Considered that pretty seriously for V. Highest possible performance. Same mfg tech as Centaur/ACES, But logistics are complicated
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855045312234217475

Quote
Yeah, having to keep it pressurized or stretched at all times has to be a bit of a drag.
https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/855048024363552774

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 1362
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #905 on: 04/20/2017 01:39 PM »
More follow-ups:

Quote
hopefully you can find ways to lower manufacturing costs...
https://twitter.com/jabe8/status/855034493102678016

Quote
Have made big reductions so far. More to come. Time also matters. Can now build a rocket at Decatur in half the time
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855039449427722241

Quote
awesome..friction stir welding help?
https://twitter.com/jabe8/status/855040815294545921

Quote
Absolutely
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855041606797348864

Quote
abe to replace alot of current parts with "3-d printed" parts? quicker..cheaper i guess if you do?
https://twitter.com/jabe8/status/855044090072883201

Quote
Already flying additive mfg on Atlas. Continuing to phase in there while designing AM into Vulcan
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855044640717680640

Online Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 706
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #906 on: 04/20/2017 01:49 PM »
Vulcan still scheduled to fly by end of 2019 according to Spaceflight Now article on BE-4.
Despite a delay of several months in the start of full-scale BE-4 testing, Bruno said the Vulcan rocket is still on track for a maiden flight by the end of 2019 if Blue Origin ends up the winner in ULA’s engine test-off.

“Assuming we can make this decision in a reasonable span of time, yes,” Bruno told reporters on the sidelines of the Space Symposium. “If we’re on the BE-4, it’s a pretty clear schedule. If the BE-4 is not going to work out and we select AR1, they’re further behind, so that puts a little more pressure on that schedule … If we had to select the AR1, I cannot fly it by 2019.”

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 1362
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #907 on: 04/20/2017 01:50 PM »
Yet more follow-ups:

Quote
5m core stage, so 3-5 of those to make a core segment?
https://twitter.com/delta_iv_heavy/status/855033981087223811

Quote
4
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855039560773812225
___________________

Quote
Why the change? Ease of manufacture?
https://twitter.com/rokkerboyy/status/855039995199066113

Quote
Yes, and a more efficient structure. Analytical tools today make the switch easy.  My fav is a new topo structure we've designed and built
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855041519379562496

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 1362
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #908 on: 04/20/2017 01:53 PM »
And a final follow-up on (lack of) reusability:

Quote
Its ashame to throw all of that work away after a single launch. You need a winged reusable vehicle to carry payloads to LEO. Just saying :)
https://twitter.com/blkwooly/status/855050438797819904

Quote
To everything, there is a season
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855051951578390528

Make of that what you will  :)

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4085
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 180
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #909 on: 04/20/2017 03:07 PM »
I'm surprised ULA has not looked at incorporating aspects of Aldrin's Starbooster concept into Vulcan in light of Spacex's success at reuse.

Though engine recovery should have less cost in mass than both boost back and fly back recovery.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2017 03:10 PM by Patchouli »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12130
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2851
  • Likes Given: 496
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #910 on: 04/20/2017 03:41 PM »
Great to see some hardware:

Quote
Tory Bruno‏ Verified account @torybruno 5m5 minutes ago

Orthogrid trial panel for Vulcan Rocket propellant tank.  (Bigger than it looks...)

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855031915270635522
Fortunately for ULA they already have most of the tooling (DIV) to do 5.1m tanks. The tanks will be different being liquid CH4 instead of LH2. So some reprogramming of the automated machinery is still needed. That is why the test panel.
Bruno has tweeted about ULA getting new welding tooling for Vulcan, so it isn't clear to me that the company plans to use the Delta 4 CBC infrastructure for Vulcan.  The panel shown, for example, is orthogrid rather than isogrid.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/20/2017 03:43 PM by edkyle99 »

Online envy887

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1500
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 351
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #911 on: 04/20/2017 04:27 PM »
Great to see some hardware:

Quote
Tory Bruno‏ Verified account @torybruno 5m5 minutes ago

Orthogrid trial panel for Vulcan Rocket propellant tank.  (Bigger than it looks...)

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855031915270635522
Fortunately for ULA they already have most of the tooling (DIV) to do 5.1m tanks. The tanks will be different being liquid CH4 instead of LH2. So some reprogramming of the automated machinery is still needed. That is why the test panel.
Bruno has tweeted about ULA getting new welding tooling for Vulcan, so it isn't clear to me that the company plans to use the Delta 4 CBC infrastructure for Vulcan.  The panel shown, for example, is orthogrid rather than isogrid.

 - Ed Kyle

Bruno has said they plan to use Delta IV tooling for Vulcan. Iso vs Ortho grid is just a change in the CNC program - the tooling should be the same as long as the panel size and diameter are the same.

It still astounds me that stir welding stringers into place isn't much faster and cheaper than rolling that thick slab and cutting out all those pockets.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1352
  • Liked: 1367
  • Likes Given: 174
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #912 on: 04/20/2017 05:21 PM »
As to RocketBuilder, I put in a configuration for LEO with a 5m short fairing, and this is how they priced it:

Unmatched Reliability = $12M
Schedule Certainty = $23M
Orbit Optimization = $30M
Cost after added value = $55M

Total = $120M
It's not clear to me how you get a $30M better LEO orbit.   For GTO or GEO, this potentially makes sense - a better GTO orbit can require less delta-V to the final orbit, allowing for increased satellite life.  (Though in practice you would need to know the competitor's delta-V to make an estimate of these savings, if any.  It's not a fixed $30M.)

But for LEO, all vendors can give you a more-or-less identical orbit, so I don't see where the savings comes from. 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12130
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2851
  • Likes Given: 496
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #913 on: 04/20/2017 05:44 PM »
Great to see some hardware:

Quote
Tory Bruno‏ Verified account @torybruno 5m5 minutes ago

Orthogrid trial panel for Vulcan Rocket propellant tank.  (Bigger than it looks...)

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855031915270635522
Fortunately for ULA they already have most of the tooling (DIV) to do 5.1m tanks. The tanks will be different being liquid CH4 instead of LH2. So some reprogramming of the automated machinery is still needed. That is why the test panel.
Bruno has tweeted about ULA getting new welding tooling for Vulcan, so it isn't clear to me that the company plans to use the Delta 4 CBC infrastructure for Vulcan.  The panel shown, for example, is orthogrid rather than isogrid.

 - Ed Kyle

Bruno has said they plan to use Delta IV tooling for Vulcan. Iso vs Ortho grid is just a change in the CNC program - the tooling should be the same as long as the panel size and diameter are the same.
The panel size is not the same.  Bruno said that they are going to four panels, from the current five used to make a Delta 4 CBC.  I remain to be convinced that the diameter is the same.  There was talk at one point about making the tanks match the fairing diameter (5.2 meters I believe).  The fairing is presumably metric (European-made) while CBC is Imperial units (200 inches).  Will Vulcan be metric?

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/20/2017 05:49 PM by edkyle99 »

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • California
  • Liked: 2115
  • Likes Given: 1209
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #914 on: 04/20/2017 06:07 PM »
Great to see some hardware:

Quote
Tory Bruno‏ Verified account @torybruno 5m5 minutes ago

Orthogrid trial panel for Vulcan Rocket propellant tank.  (Bigger than it looks...)

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855031915270635522
Fortunately for ULA they already have most of the tooling (DIV) to do 5.1m tanks. The tanks will be different being liquid CH4 instead of LH2. So some reprogramming of the automated machinery is still needed. That is why the test panel.
Bruno has tweeted about ULA getting new welding tooling for Vulcan, so it isn't clear to me that the company plans to use the Delta 4 CBC infrastructure for Vulcan.  The panel shown, for example, is orthogrid rather than isogrid.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, and isn't the diameter of Vulcan larger than Delta IV? I seem to recall reading 5.4m vs 5.0m. Am I wrong? Anyway, it seems like all new tooling is being put in place for Vulcan.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3290
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 1908
  • Likes Given: 2147
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #915 on: 04/20/2017 06:36 PM »
Anyway, it seems like all new tooling is being put in place for Vulcan.

I take it as a good sign that they are investing in new tooling for Vulcan.  It means that they are willing to invest now to try to make the ongoing costs of Vulcan lower, rather than sticking with legacy tooling because it reduces initial costs.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6691
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2142
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #916 on: 04/21/2017 06:40 AM »
The panel size is not the same.  Bruno said that they are going to four panels, from the current five used to make a Delta 4 CBC.  I remain to be convinced that the diameter is the same.  There was talk at one point about making the tanks match the fairing diameter (5.2 meters I believe).  The fairing is presumably metric (European-made) while CBC is Imperial units (200 inches).  Will Vulcan be metric?

Yes please. Them folks in the USA have been stuck with that silly US Customary System for far too long.  ;)
« Last Edit: 04/21/2017 06:40 AM by woods170 »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3290
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 1908
  • Likes Given: 2147
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #917 on: 04/21/2017 07:12 AM »
The panel size is not the same.  Bruno said that they are going to four panels, from the current five used to make a Delta 4 CBC.  I remain to be convinced that the diameter is the same.  There was talk at one point about making the tanks match the fairing diameter (5.2 meters I believe).  The fairing is presumably metric (European-made) while CBC is Imperial units (200 inches).  Will Vulcan be metric?

Yes please. Them folks in the USA have been stuck with that silly US Customary System for far too long.  ;)

We're just preserving the cultural heritage of our ancestors.

Online envy887

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1500
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 351
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #918 on: 04/21/2017 01:34 PM »
Great to see some hardware:

Quote
Tory Bruno‏ Verified account @torybruno 5m5 minutes ago

Orthogrid trial panel for Vulcan Rocket propellant tank.  (Bigger than it looks...)

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855031915270635522
Fortunately for ULA they already have most of the tooling (DIV) to do 5.1m tanks. The tanks will be different being liquid CH4 instead of LH2. So some reprogramming of the automated machinery is still needed. That is why the test panel.
Bruno has tweeted about ULA getting new welding tooling for Vulcan, so it isn't clear to me that the company plans to use the Delta 4 CBC infrastructure for Vulcan.  The panel shown, for example, is orthogrid rather than isogrid.

 - Ed Kyle

Bruno has said they plan to use Delta IV tooling for Vulcan. Iso vs Ortho grid is just a change in the CNC program - the tooling should be the same as long as the panel size and diameter are the same.
The panel size is not the same.  Bruno said that they are going to four panels, from the current five used to make a Delta 4 CBC.  I remain to be convinced that the diameter is the same.  There was talk at one point about making the tanks match the fairing diameter (5.2 meters I believe).  The fairing is presumably metric (European-made) while CBC is Imperial units (200 inches).  Will Vulcan be metric?

 - Ed Kyle

I don't know the exact tank or fairing sizes, but it is certainly possible for the diameter to be specified in inches and built in meters. But from the posts below it appears the fairings will be built on-site anyway.

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #919 on: 04/21/2017 09:14 PM »
Not sure about the re-usability of the AR-1.

AR-1 was previously planned for use on a reusable flyback booster for the military, its reusable. Probably not as reusable as BE-4 because of coking and such, but still.

And a final follow-up on (lack of) reusability:

Quote
Its ashame to throw all of that work away after a single launch. You need a winged reusable vehicle to carry payloads to LEO. Just saying :)
https://twitter.com/blkwooly/status/855050438797819904

Quote
To everything, there is a season
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/855051951578390528

Make of that what you will  :)

Perhaps referring to those winged engine pods we've seen in a couple ULA presentations? Bruno confirmed a while ago on reddit that this was being considered as an upgrade option, though I'm not really sure how its supposed to be better than SMART (still throwing away the tank, but the pod is heavier and more expensive, and as depicted not very aerodynamic and requires twice as many pods)

Tags: