The Development of ACES for numerous concepts

[Jim]

As far as who builds the DTAL or an ascender for it for the crew version can be another contractor. Take the basic ACES and add to it. They do it to cars, motor homes, planes, ect. Custumizing.

no, not feasible

[sdsds]

As far as who builds the DTAL or an ascender for it for the crew version can be another contractor. Take the basic ACES and add to it. They do it to cars, motor homes, planes, ect. Custumizing.

Customizing.  It works for cars, etc., because customers can purchase and own those items, and do with them what they wish.  No customer has ever yet purchased and owned a ULA-built rocket or rocket stage.  ULA provides launch services, not vehicles.

[RocketmanUS]

Ok so if we get ACES US then how can we get the ACES depot and DTAL through all the red tape and such?

It looks to good an idea to pass up as one of the possible future ways for humanity to explore and possible colonies our soloar system.

[Warren Platts]

ULA can not make a DTAL lander or a depot. 
They can only build the ACES for their EELV's. 

Don't tell us, tell the senior engineers at ULA to stop writing white papers on the subject...

They can write all the papers they want, nothing is preventing them from doing it.  Just Boeing and LM are not going to let ULA build the results.

What is the evidence for this? Why wouldn't they "let" ULA build a lander? ULA is doing some hard research into depots that is costing real $$$--not just guys writing some white papers in their off hours. A depot isn't a LV, yet they are the acknowledged leaders when it comes to depot technology. Perhaps Zegler, Kutter and Barr know something you don't?

Not saying you're wrong, Jim.

But if you're not wrong, then this is clearly an unacceptable result: in which case Congress should pass a special antitrust law that splits away ULA from Boeing and LM!

[Jim]

What is the evidence for this? Why wouldn't they "let" ULA build a lander? ULA is doing some hard research into depots that is costing real $$$--not just guys writing some white papers in their off hours. A depot isn't a LV, yet they are the acknowledged leaders when it comes to depot technology. Perhaps Zegler, Kutter and Barr know something you don't?

Not saying you're wrong, Jim.

But if you're not wrong, then this is clearly an unacceptable result: in which case Congress should pass a special antitrust law that splits away ULA from Boeing and LM!

Huh?  How is it not acceptable?  ULA only exists to produce and operate EELV's, no more.  It is part of the agreement that set up the joint venture. ULA can do a depot no more than it can provide cargo services to the ISS.

And it is common sense.  Why would a partner in a joint venture would want to compete against itself? 

No, Zegler, Kutter and Barr don't know something I don't, depots are a way for ULA to sell more launch services.

[Hernalt]

Warren, you should start a dialogue with Zegler, Kutter and Barr. Follow the "can't". If you really had time, see what happens if Tea Party Space and ULA brain trust bounce ideas.

[RocketmanUS]

New PDF by ULA dated April 14, 2012

A step towards ACES

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/Space_Access_Society_2012.pdf

Edit:
2011 PDF to go with the above PDF

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/Integrated%20Vehicle%20Propulsion%20and%20Power%20System%20for%20Long%20Duration%20Cyrogenic%20Spaceflight%202011.pdf

[neilh]

New PDF by ULA dated April 14, 2012

A step towards ACES

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/Space_Access_Society_2012.pdf

That's really awesome, thanks for posting.

[jongoff]

Yeah, that was a pretty neat presentation, and a very neat idea. The technologies here are important for making useful in-space transportation stages.

~Jon

[douglas100]

Nice to see how XCOR's piston pump technology is used in this.

[Ronsmytheiii]

New PDF by ULA dated April 14, 2012

A step towards ACES

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/Space_Access_Society_2012.pdf

While it is applicable to inspace refueling, the biggest outcome from that paper seems to be a push by ULA to invest in technologies to simplify and save money on Atlas V, which is great news.  Without the need to worry about using the hydrazine system and pressure tanks to control Atlas, lots of money canbe saved on infrastructure and labor time needed for the nasty hydrazine systems. It really is a revolutionary idea, and while not as glamorous as the flagship approach maybe just as important.

Now the question is whether ULA will pursue it on their own, or will they need independent funding....

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

New PDF by ULA dated April 14, 2012

A step towards ACES

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/Space_Access_Society_2012.pdf

While it is applicable to inspace refueling, the biggest outcome from that paper seems to be a push by ULA to invest in technologies to simplify and save money on Atlas V, which is great news.  Without the need to worry about using the hydrazine system and pressure tanks to control Atlas, lots of money canbe saved on infrastructure and labor time needed for the nasty hydrazine systems. It really is a revolutionary idea, and while not as glamorous as the flagship approach maybe just as important.

Now the question is whether ULA will pursue it on their own, or will they need independent funding....

ULA is a purchaser/partner of the technology being done by XCOR. They are sharing expertise and the possibility of being a customer to XCOR for theses systems even including a 20-30klbf RL-10 replacement main engine. Which is all based on piston pump/engine technology.

XCOR has demonstrated a working H2 piston engine with sufficient power output to drive a motorcycle.

So if XCOR is succesful in development of this nearly complete power system based on LH2/LOX (main engine, thrusters, power generator, pumps), then ULA will not have had to spend hardly anything for such a tremendous upgrade and reduction in unit costs.

[QuantumG]

XCOR has demonstrated a working H2 piston engine with sufficient power output to drive a motorcycle.

Facepalm.

They stress tested their seals by putting them in a conventional motorcycle engine and driving it cross-country. They didn't put their engine into a motorcycle.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

XCOR has demonstrated a working H2 piston engine with sufficient power output to drive a motorcycle.

Facepalm.

They stress tested their seals by putting them in a conventional motorcycle engine and driving it cross-country. They didn't put their engine into a motorcycle.

Your correct about the testing of pump parts on the motorcycle, but it was bearings and not seals.

I did some more in depth source for the technology involved with the IVF ACES. The technology is a combination of Boeing and XCOR. Small LH2/LOX thrusters and GH2/GO2 piston engine from Boeing and cryo pumps, a heat driven power takeoff to drive the pumps (exhaust from the GH2/GO2 engine) and a 20-30klbf LH2/LOX main engine from XCOR with unlimited restarts. I believe that XCOR would be the manufacturer for all of the piston devices even those based on Boeing technology since they would all share common parts.

Question is the GH2/GO2 piston engine public or private IP?

This would make an ACES stage an in-space tug reusable until something breaks and has to be repaired. Same tech could be incorporated into a reusable Lunar Lander.

Add a heat sheild for aero-braking for lunar return to LEO and it becomes a very atractive system for LEO to EML-1/2 cargo and crew transport. Just need a LEO cryo depot and possibly a EML-1/2 depot as well for the reusable Lunar Lander.

A stretched tank version of the reusable tug could easily transport prop from the LEO depot to the EML-1/2 depot. This would make the costs of transport of prop to the EML-1/2 depot basicly the cost of the propelant (at LEO prices) used in the tug + 20% ops and profit. If prop at LEO is valued at $3K per kg then the prop at EML-1/2 would be about $7K per kg. Transport costs to get cargo to the Lunar surface from LEO would be about $10-12K per kg. 50mt of cargo delivered to Lunar surface from Earth would be $125M (FH) + $500M (used propelant) or about $625M. The tug and lander operations and profit charges could add another $100M to the price or more realistically about $750M. It would take 2 - 130mt SLS to equal this capability at their cheapest unit price of $700M per launch (5 launches per year) or $1.4B total or at the low flight rate $1B per launch (2 launches per year) or $2B total. ($ values are for comparison and are accurate to about +/-20%).

[QuantumG]

Your correct about the testing of pump parts on the motorcycle, but it was bearings and not seals.

Close enough.. and I have the T-Shirt to prove it