how does the hypersonic shield suddenly get placed onto the Stage I engine pack?
The ACES and its in orbit refuelling maybe future of ULA. Two Vulcans (6x SRB) can deliver approx 35t to TLI. One Vulcan launches payload the other is tanker(40t).A fully fuelled(60t) ACES in LEO could deliver >50t to TLI, >35t to LLO and approx 40t TMI.Compare this to SLS 1B which can do 39t to TLI (3100ms) and 32t TMI.
A mixed fleet of Vulcans and Falcons makes SLS future even more shaky -- if that were possible.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/02/2015 04:22 amThe ACES and its in orbit refuelling maybe future of ULA. Two Vulcans (6x SRB) can deliver approx 35t to TLI. One Vulcan launches payload the other is tanker(40t).A fully fuelled(60t) ACES in LEO could deliver >50t to TLI, >35t to LLO and approx 40t TMI.Compare this to SLS 1B which can do 39t to TLI (3100ms) and 32t TMI.Just to clarify, I'm assuming 38t to LEO for dual launch 35t TLI. ACES dry 5t (guess), ISP460, 60t tank but only partially fuelled(40t) for departure. For 50t TLI etc, the 60t fuel and payload a delivered to orbit by multiple launches/LV. NB 2 x Vulcan 3 core Heavies (not currently planned) could do this.
"Multiple Planets Populated"? Past tense, even....
Quote from: Comga on 06/02/2015 06:04 am"Multiple Planets Populated"? Past tense, even....You can blame Musk for that line. Marketoids from ULA felt need to outhype SpaceX. Result is obvious and comical.
TLI is not that critical, unless you are doing EML1/2. If you actually go to the moon, you want LLO, or even a crasher stage. And that's where a dual Vulcan launch really shines. Imagine only having to develop a lander, and have just two Vulcan do the TLI+LLO+Crasher stage. And if your lander is small enough they might even be able to bring the ACES+ascent stage back.
A mixed fleet of Vulcans and Falcons makes SLS future even more shaky -- if that were possible.NASA has rejected the distributed launch model (with depots/refueling) for now, but how long can they resist the OBVIOUS potential and cost advantages?
Quote from: AncientU on 06/02/2015 02:34 pmA mixed fleet of Vulcans and Falcons makes SLS future even more shaky -- if that were possible.NASA has rejected the distributed launch model (with depots/refueling) for now, but how long can they resist the OBVIOUS potential and cost advantages?I wish NASA (and more importantly the congresspeople who hold NASA's purse-strings) were as susceptible to logic as you seem to hope...~Jon
Quote from: Mr. Scott on 06/02/2015 03:47 pmhow does the hypersonic shield suddenly get placed onto the Stage I engine pack?It's shown at 1:05-1:15 in the video...the green torus with purple support structure. Cutouts on either side of the purple support structure for propellant feed lines to pass through. After module separation the green torus inflates.
Mind that Vulcan/Falcon would be a "frequent flyer" unlike SLS. Huge ramifications.Where I object to "distributed launch" is with the pad flows to support successive launch irrespective of Centaur IVF lifetime on-orbit. Even with a 22 day cycle I'd be anxious over a stumble that went 40-60 days longer ...
Quote from: baldusi on 06/02/2015 06:14 pmTLI is not that critical, unless you are doing EML1/2. If you actually go to the moon, you want LLO, or even a crasher stage. And that's where a dual Vulcan launch really shines. Imagine only having to develop a lander, and have just two Vulcan do the TLI+LLO+Crasher stage. And if your lander is small enough they might even be able to bring the ACES+ascent stage back.A distributed lift mission with two Vulcans could put 20.5mt in Low Lunar Orbit from LEO 4.04km/s. The payload is limited by the amount of propellant that can fit in the ACES 41 stage. The tanker needs a less than maximum load to top off the ACES 41 stage. If the tanker can deliver 28mt there will be about 7mt of propellant left over. Might as well save some SRMs.
Quote from: jongoff on 06/02/2015 09:55 pmQuote from: AncientU on 06/02/2015 02:34 pmA mixed fleet of Vulcans and Falcons makes SLS future even more shaky -- if that were possible.NASA has rejected the distributed launch model (with depots/refueling) for now, but how long can they resist the OBVIOUS potential and cost advantages?I wish NASA (and more importantly the congresspeople who hold NASA's purse-strings) were as susceptible to logic as you seem to hope...~JonCall me crazy,
... but I believe that SLS will be the last NASA owned rocket. They have fixated so much on the LV pork, that they won't have a single payload before the commercial pressure makes it irrelevant in LEO and probably up to the Moon.
... Had they left the LV business alone and got the Govt money on payloads, their pork would have been very well guarded.
If a single crazy billionaire does a Zond type of mission either with Falcon Heavy/Dragon or Vulcan/CST-100, SLS will be the laughing stock and a very heavy political nightmare. I understand the differences between a Zond mission on Falcon Heavy vs an EML2 permanence with SLS/Orion. But it will be just too similar for the general public to grasp.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/02/2015 04:59 pmMind that Vulcan/Falcon would be a "frequent flyer" unlike SLS. Huge ramifications.Where I object to "distributed launch" is with the pad flows to support successive launch irrespective of Centaur IVF lifetime on-orbit. Even with a 22 day cycle I'd be anxious over a stumble that went 40-60 days longer ...The nice thing about distributed launch is that Vulcan doesn't have to get its prop from other Vulcan launches. Heck, if they were going after a mission SpaceX couldn't compete directly on, they could even get prop from a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy. Obviously they'd love to fly Vulcans more often, but there's nothing that says refueling has to be done with the same type of vehicle.~Jon
Been hearing this all my life.Never underestimate how they cling to pork.
Populated with bacteria? Don't bring in the planetary protection police Ed
Quote from: notsorandom on 06/02/2015 08:40 pmQuote from: baldusi on 06/02/2015 06:14 pmTLI is not that critical, unless you are doing EML1/2. If you actually go to the moon, you want LLO, or even a crasher stage. And that's where a dual Vulcan launch really shines. Imagine only having to develop a lander, and have just two Vulcan do the TLI+LLO+Crasher stage. And if your lander is small enough they might even be able to bring the ACES+ascent stage back.A distributed lift mission with two Vulcans could put 20.5mt in Low Lunar Orbit from LEO 4.04km/s. The payload is limited by the amount of propellant that can fit in the ACES 41 stage. The tanker needs a less than maximum load to top off the ACES 41 stage. If the tanker can deliver 28mt there will be about 7mt of propellant left over. Might as well save some SRMs.If you Google ULA Vulcan and look at images there is picture of ACES saying 3x propellant. That is where I get my 60mt from. The 41mt ACES was designed for the lower performance Atlas and Delta.