Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 552836 times)

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1100 on: 05/09/2017 01:08 pm »
As an outsider it still baffles me how it was possible for Boeing to spend a long period of time divesting itself of its rocket building expertise into ULA and then for ULA not to be allowed to compete for SLS, for which it was the logical candidate by a very large margin.

Why would Boeing want to share the SLS contract with LM via ULA?

Offline skater

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 541
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1101 on: 05/09/2017 04:55 pm »
IIRC a post on another thread  mentioned Rolls Royce demonstrated furnace vacuum brazing, rather than individually welding the tubes, in the RZ20 of the late 1960's. This used a thin walled metal balloon to apply uniform pressure to the tubes to press them into a former.

So the method of mfg for RL10's chambers has only been obsolete for the last 5 decades.  :(
Are you implying that the RL10 has a hand brazed combustion chamber/nozzle?  It was furnace brazed around a mandrel when I worked on them around 1990.  I do agree with all your other comments about how it has way too much "handcrafting," especially the highly manual process by which all the tubes are formed.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2017 04:57 pm by skater »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1102 on: 05/09/2017 06:40 pm »
As an outsider it still baffles me how it was possible for Boeing to spend a long period of time divesting itself of its rocket building expertise into ULA and then for ULA not to be allowed to compete for SLS, for which it was the logical candidate by a very large margin.

Why would Boeing want to share the SLS contract with LM via ULA?

Yeah. I don't think Boeing wanted the unnecessary risk when they could just get Congress to sole-source SLS to them.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 05/09/2017 06:41 pm by jongoff »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1103 on: 05/09/2017 09:30 pm »
Why would Boeing want to share the SLS contract with LM via ULA?
Because they don't actually have any in house staff who can do the work, on account of them being transferred over to ULA?
Are you implying that the RL10 has a hand brazed combustion chamber/nozzle?  It was furnace brazed around a mandrel when I worked on them around 1990.  I do agree with all your other comments about how it has way too much "handcrafting," especially the highly manual process by which all the tubes are formed.
It was my understanding things hadn't changed much from the original mfg in the early 1960's. That's an improvement but I was astonished they hadn't gone to CNC pipe benders. Seeing one of those things in action on youtube was just amazing. If you were going to make a tube wall combustion chamber it seemed the obvious way to go.

 [EDIT one of the things machines excel at is consistency, provided of course you know the correct parameters are to begin with. Bending several 100 tubes to make a combustion chamber sounds like making a car radiator by hand, a task which I think was automated ASAP.
Sadly what I though was an obvious improvement does not seem to be so to AJR management ]
« Last Edit: 05/10/2017 04:08 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1104 on: 05/11/2017 09:04 pm »
I'm not exactly sure where to put this. I decided to put it in the VULCAN thread for lack of a better thread.

With SpX regularly landing boosters like clockwork and launching National Security Payloads, Vulcan's whole business case is starting to look shaky; since SpX indirectly validated Blue Origin's own aspirations for New Glenn (the whole VTVL bit).

Perhaps it's time for ULA to shift paradigms for the future from being a complete provider (boosters/upper stages/integration/launch services/initial orbital operations) to just being a standalone upper stage provider selling ACES to anyone who asks?

If ULA has ACES ready in a couple years when Falcon Heavy is proven and New Glenn is just starting it's first flights; then they can corner the orbital propellant depot concept they've been touting with ACES.




Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1105 on: 05/12/2017 04:54 am »
I'm not exactly sure where to put this. I decided to put it in the VULCAN thread for lack of a better thread.

With SpX regularly landing boosters like clockwork and launching National Security Payloads, Vulcan's whole business case is starting to look shaky; since SpX indirectly validated Blue Origin's own aspirations for New Glenn (the whole VTVL bit).

Perhaps it's time for ULA to shift paradigms for the future from being a complete provider (boosters/upper stages/integration/launch services/initial orbital operations) to just being a standalone upper stage provider selling ACES to anyone who asks?

If ULA has ACES ready in a couple years when Falcon Heavy is proven and New Glenn is just starting it's first flights; then they can corner the orbital propellant depot concept they've been touting with ACES.

That seems to be what they are pushing towards, the best business case for ACES is replacing SLS which just so happens to be a vested interest of one of ULA's owners.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1106 on: 05/12/2017 05:28 am »
Perhaps it's time for ULA to shift paradigms for the future from being a complete provider (boosters/upper stages/integration/launch services/initial orbital operations) to just being a standalone upper stage provider selling ACES to anyone who asks?

Not enough of a market for a company the size of ULA, even if ULA shrinks a lot.  And I would think that in-space services (which is what ACES is) will likely be packaged by launch services companies, so being an independent provider of in-space services will be a hard to defend market.

For now they need launch services to pay the bills, but if SpaceX and Blue Origin do perfect reusable rockets, then that puts ULA in a tough spot with regards to their positioning in the commercial marketplace (which Bruno has said they need to survive with Vulcan).
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1107 on: 05/13/2017 01:56 am »
I'm not exactly sure where to put this. I decided to put it in the VULCAN thread for lack of a better thread.

With SpX regularly landing boosters like clockwork and launching National Security Payloads, Vulcan's whole business case is starting to look shaky; since SpX indirectly validated Blue Origin's own aspirations for New Glenn (the whole VTVL bit).

Perhaps it's time for ULA to shift paradigms for the future from being a complete provider (boosters/upper stages/integration/launch services/initial orbital operations) to just being a standalone upper stage provider selling ACES to anyone who asks?

If ULA has ACES ready in a couple years when Falcon Heavy is proven and New Glenn is just starting it's first flights; then they can corner the orbital propellant depot concept they've been touting with ACES.

Upper stages are not Lego blocks. 

"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1108 on: 05/13/2017 02:52 am »
Upper stages are not Lego blocks.

Shhhh, don't tell SLS that. ;-)

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1109 on: 05/13/2017 03:31 am »
Perhaps it's time for ULA to shift paradigms for the future from being a complete provider (boosters/upper stages/integration/launch services/initial orbital operations) to just being a standalone upper stage provider selling ACES to anyone who asks?

A lot of the business case for ACES has to do with provision of in-space services after initial launch, including services involving multiple ACES spacecraft (the "distributed lift" stuff). It's hard to see how these services get sold if ULA is just a parts provider selling ACES to multiple vendors.

It's not impossible for the same upper stage to ride different boosters (Centaur has certainly done that), but if you're looking to simplify ULA's development costs, it might make sense to turn this proposition around, and ask who might be interested in selling complete boosters to ULA. SpaceX doesn't seem really inclined, at the moment; Blue might be (they're already trying to sell engines to ULA), but the New Glenn booster will be way oversized for what ULA's planning, and given the more-Gradatim-than-Ferociter pace of their engineering, they might not want the distraction of building a cut-down version. (The engines they plan to sell are the same ones they'd have been building anyway.)

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1110 on: 05/13/2017 04:05 am »
Perhaps it's time for ULA to shift paradigms for the future from being a complete provider (boosters/upper stages/integration/launch services/initial orbital operations) to just being a standalone upper stage provider selling ACES to anyone who asks?

A lot of the business case for ACES has to do with provision of in-space services after initial launch, including services involving multiple ACES spacecraft (the "distributed lift" stuff). It's hard to see how these services get sold if ULA is just a parts provider selling ACES to multiple vendors.

It's not impossible for the same upper stage to ride different boosters (Centaur has certainly done that), but if you're looking to simplify ULA's development costs, it might make sense to turn this proposition around, and ask who might be interested in selling complete boosters to ULA. SpaceX doesn't seem really inclined, at the moment; Blue might be (they're already trying to sell engines to ULA), but the New Glenn booster will be way oversized for what ULA's planning, and given the more-Gradatim-than-Ferociter pace of their engineering, they might not want the distraction of building a cut-down version. (The engines they plan to sell are the same ones they'd have been building anyway.)

ULA's boxed in because of demands from Congress and the USAF to produce a replacement launch vehicle by 2019 for the Atlas-V.  That deadline can only be meet by ULA by developing the Vulcan.  Congress and the USAF are going to insist that ULA stay in business if only to provide an alternative to SpaceX for National Security Payloads.  Not to mention specific payload requirements from NASA, like nuclear. 

If another provider comes along that can compete for National Security payloads and nuclear payloads then ULA will be allowed to fail.  If this situation comes about, I expect that BO will buy out the remaining IP and physical assets from ULA and what remains of ULA will become part of BO.   ULA's experience in high energy upper stages and it's IP around ACES would be a good fit for BO's ambitions around Cislunar space and for the right price Bezo's wouldn't pass up the opportunity to acquire that technology. 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Liked: 346
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1111 on: 05/13/2017 04:25 am »
...I expect that BO will buy out the remaining IP and physical assets from ULA and what remains of ULA will become part of BO.   ULA's experience in high energy upper stages and it's IP around ACES would be a good fit for BO's ambitions around Cislunar space and for the right price Bezo's wouldn't pass up the opportunity to acquire that technology.

From the very first announcement of the Blue/ULA partnership I've suspected that's what the Chessplayer's intention has always been, and that certain folks at ULA would welcome it.  Moving ULA under the Blue umbrella would unleash ULA's employees in a way that's been proscribed under their current parents.

Offline Confusador

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 381
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1112 on: 05/13/2017 01:09 pm »
Unless something has changed ULA is/was banned by the government from selling any parts or components not in a full vehicle.  This is why they've always relied upon the parents to do their bidding for cargo, etc.  The one exception on this is when it benefits the government and then they can sell things (i.e.  ICPS for SLS).

Something has changed.  I can't say exactly how much that matters here, but it seems relevant that this is expired:

Quote
1.
ULA shall provide Launch Services on a non-discriminatory basis, which shall include,
without limitation, the following:
a.
not entering into any exclusive Collaborative Agreement with any Space Vehicle Prime Contractor for Launch Services; 
b.
not Discriminating in supporting the proposal of any Space Vehicle Prime Contractor;
c.
not Discriminating in providing Launch Services Information to all Space Vehicle Prime Contractors;
d.
not Discriminating regarding staffing decisions, resource allocation, or design decisions in connection with Launch Services to be offered or provided to any Space Vehicle Prime Contractor;
e.
not Discriminating in entering into Collaborative Agreements or other arrangements and not Discriminating as to any Space Vehicle Prime Contractors in the negotiations of such agreements and other arrangements.  Such Collaborative Agreements shall not Discriminate in favor of Space Vehicle Business against any other Space Vehicle Prime Contractor on any basis, including, but not limited to, price, schedule, quality, data, personnel, investment (including, but not limited to, independent research and development), technology, innovations, design, and risk;
f.
not Discriminating among Space Vehicle Prime Contractors in making available for use in Launch Services any technologies developed by ULA under independent research and development funding, government-funded prime contract research and development activities or other funds expended by ULA but not provided by third parties, including LM and Boeing, or resulting from joint investment with a third party;

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1113 on: 05/14/2017 05:33 pm »
A lot of the business case for ACES has to do with provision of in-space services after initial launch, including services involving multiple ACES spacecraft (the "distributed lift" stuff). It's hard to see how these services get sold if ULA is just a parts provider selling ACES to multiple vendors.

I was thinking, what if ACES ends up being a 40-45 tonne "wooden round" payload that's placed into a parking orbit by a variety of launch vehicle vendors?

With the IVF system and associated chillers intended for ACES, it seems possible (at least to me) to create a LH2 system that can be loaded a few days beforehand, and then kept cold with minimal boiloff via external electrical power to run chillers.

Then once in orbit, use ACES to perform whatever missions you want.

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2116
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1114 on: 05/14/2017 07:02 pm »
A lot of the business case for ACES has to do with provision of in-space services after initial launch, including services involving multiple ACES spacecraft (the "distributed lift" stuff). It's hard to see how these services get sold if ULA is just a parts provider selling ACES to multiple vendors.

I was thinking, what if ACES ends up being a 40-45 tonne "wooden round" payload that's placed into a parking orbit by a variety of launch vehicle vendors?

With the IVF system and associated chillers intended for ACES, it seems possible (at least to me) to create a LH2 system that can be loaded a few days beforehand, and then kept cold with minimal boiloff via external electrical power to run chillers.

Then once in orbit, use ACES to perform whatever missions you want.

Yes, a long-endurance hydrolox stage does not need to be a second stage, it could just be an Earth departure stage for big payloads. That limits the mass to around 20t though, but means it needs a less powerful engine.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1115 on: 05/14/2017 08:20 pm »
I'm going to look there again, but fuel cells also are subject to Carnot inefficiency, and have a lot of heat rejection.
As for boil off, it really depends on how much power you need. An ICE uses a lot of gas volume  and so if you're using more than the natural boil-off, you're only increasing the amount of boil off, and so your fuel is no longer free.

If you only use so little fuel that you're below the boil off rate, maybe a small solar panel would be a better bet than a genset.

Not to mention complexity...  An internal combustion engine mechanism, and generator, and heat transfer - that's not simple nor cheap.
Your comments suggest you have not read any of the IVF papers at all.

Again, here are some of the IVF papers.  ULA estimates that IVF will be one-third the combined weight of the legacy systems (power, pressurization, and attitude control) it replaces.  With regards to mass flow rates, the second paper has the following quote:
Quote
Accustomed as we are to atmospheric IC engines which pump nearly 80% inert gas, the mass flow rates of hydrogen and oxygen for the IVF ICE are surprisingly low. Approximately 2 kg/hr of hydrogen and half that amount of oxygen will be consumed at low power settings ranging up to 12.5 kg/hr at peak power.

Integrated Vehicle Propulsion and Power System 2011
Development Status of an Integrated Propulsion and Power System for Long Duration Cryogenic Spaceflight 2012
Enabling Long Duration Spaceflight via an Integrated Vehicle Fluid System (AIAA Space 2016)

I've read these papers, and they are remarkably qualitative - almost no hard numbers.

They are also self-contradictory - you can't argue that with insulation you've reduced boil-off to almost nothing, and then say you're going to generate 20 kWatts from the boil off.

A pressurized stage has a steady state comprised of heat input, boil-off, and venting.  As the pressure rises, boil-off slows down.  If the structure of the stage cannot withstand the vapor pressure at the ambient temperature and temperature, you have to vent, but otherwise the pressure slows down the boil-off.

Therefore, to the extent that you use more power than available through the venting, you're encouraging more boil off.

The comments above about "perceived volume of gas used by the engine" are strawman argument.

I was looking at the insane specific power of thin film PV arrays in space, at the insane advancements in battery power storage, and at the overwhelming simplicity of a PV-battery system when compared with an internal combustion and heat transfer system - and sorry - the ICE component of IVF is dated.  It only made sense in comparison with PV and battery technologies of the 1990s.

I understand IVF has other components, but the whole venture depended on a win-win-win scenario to justify the complexity, and I'm saying the ICE component is not on that list.

Compare this to Tom's Muller description of how they are simplifying things to get some contrast.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Prettz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • O'Neillian
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1116 on: 05/15/2017 01:48 am »
I've read these papers, and they are remarkably qualitative - almost no hard numbers.

They are also self-contradictory - you can't argue that with insulation you've reduced boil-off to almost nothing, and then say you're going to generate 20 kWatts from the boil off.

A pressurized stage has a steady state comprised of heat input, boil-off, and venting.  As the pressure rises, boil-off slows down.  If the structure of the stage cannot withstand the vapor pressure at the ambient temperature and temperature, you have to vent, but otherwise the pressure slows down the boil-off.

Therefore, to the extent that you use more power than available through the venting, you're encouraging more boil off.

The comments above about "perceived volume of gas used by the engine" are strawman argument.

I was looking at the insane specific power of thin film PV arrays in space, at the insane advancements in battery power storage, and at the overwhelming simplicity of a PV-battery system when compared with an internal combustion and heat transfer system - and sorry - the ICE component of IVF is dated.  It only made sense in comparison with PV and battery technologies of the 1990s.

I understand IVF has other components, but the whole venture depended on a win-win-win scenario to justify the complexity, and I'm saying the ICE component is not on that list.

Compare this to Tom's Muller description of how they are simplifying things to get some contrast.
So with your PV-battery powered ACES, what will you do with the boil-off gases, what will you use to pressurize the tanks, and what will you use for RCS thrusters? Do you still get unlimited restarts? Does this stage have a system to provide constant ullage thrust?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1117 on: 05/15/2017 02:41 am »
I've read these papers, and they are remarkably qualitative - almost no hard numbers.

They are also self-contradictory - you can't argue that with insulation you've reduced boil-off to almost nothing, and then say you're going to generate 20 kWatts from the boil off.

A pressurized stage has a steady state comprised of heat input, boil-off, and venting.  As the pressure rises, boil-off slows down.  If the structure of the stage cannot withstand the vapor pressure at the ambient temperature and temperature, you have to vent, but otherwise the pressure slows down the boil-off.

Therefore, to the extent that you use more power than available through the venting, you're encouraging more boil off.

The comments above about "perceived volume of gas used by the engine" are strawman argument.

I was looking at the insane specific power of thin film PV arrays in space, at the insane advancements in battery power storage, and at the overwhelming simplicity of a PV-battery system when compared with an internal combustion and heat transfer system - and sorry - the ICE component of IVF is dated.  It only made sense in comparison with PV and battery technologies of the 1990s.

I understand IVF has other components, but the whole venture depended on a win-win-win scenario to justify the complexity, and I'm saying the ICE component is not on that list.

Compare this to Tom's Muller description of how they are simplifying things to get some contrast.
So with your PV-battery powered ACES, what will you do with the boil-off gases, what will you use to pressurize the tanks, and what will you use for RCS thrusters? Do you still get unlimited restarts? Does this stage have a system to provide constant ullage thrust?

What part of ICE COMPONENT of IVF am I unclear on?

Long duration missions are a complex issue, and of course you need to take care of boil-off, pressurization, etc.

But some of these are contradictory...  If you have to vent boil-off, you clearly do NOT have a pressurization issue, right?  It boils down (pardon the pun) to thermal management...

And RCS thrusters, they can operate on Methalox without requiring the entirety of IVF.

But ICE (look at the pictures in the papers) is hugely complex, and what's shown does not even include the extra plumbing.

You're adding a ton of moving parts, engine and generator, which for long duration missions are easily beat by solar.

Actually, using propellant to generate electricity is not the best strategy, since propellant is not replaceable, and electricity is.

The selling line of "boil-off is free" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  With proper insulation (or small inner tank, as is shown in the SpaceX models) it's not an issue, and is much simpler than the ICE.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline TrevorMonty

Boil off is always going to be issue with hydrolox stage no matter how good insulation. With Methalox zero boil off maybe possible BLEO with good insulation and is probably right path for Mars. ULA strengths are in hydrolox which gives far superior performance for same mass. Boil off measured in days or weeks is not issue in cislunar where missions typically last days or hours.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1119 on: 05/15/2017 07:25 am »
Boil off is always going to be issue with hydrolox stage no matter how good insulation.

Using some solar power and an electric compressor for cooling the boiloff again could potentially fix this. ACES and IVF can only work in cislunar space.

BTW IVF is annoying to me. I keep thinking of in vitro fertilization and have to make an adjustment in my head to integrated vehicle fluids every single time.

Tags:
 

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