Author Topic: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap  (Read 90866 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #60 on: 12/28/2016 10:28 pm »
A discussion on ACES and other ULA projects:


Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #61 on: 12/28/2016 11:21 pm »
So is Michael Holguin a new spokesperson for ULA? Or has he made presentations like this one previously?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #62 on: 12/28/2016 11:28 pm »
So is Michael Holguin a new spokesperson for ULA? Or has he made presentations like this one previously?

He was replacing someone else that couldn't make it.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #63 on: 12/28/2016 11:41 pm »
He was replacing someone else that couldn't make it.

Yes I did listen to his talk where he mentions this. (Thanks for posting the link, BTW.)

I did also hear him describe Wayne Hale as his mentor. Lucky guy!
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #64 on: 12/29/2016 04:32 am »
Vulcan IOC end of 2019.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #65 on: 12/30/2016 12:24 am »
Autonomous engine recovery and reuse:

Looks like they have two side boosters (which look like squat little first stage) on a core stage which doesn't look like it has engines itself. So, feeding propellant to the side boosters which then stage off and probably do some sort of boost-back and landing.

...which sort of seems like they're bending over backwards to not validate VTVL first stage reuse.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #66 on: 12/30/2016 12:28 am »
Autonomous engine recovery and reuse:

Looks like they have two side boosters (which look like squat little first stage) on a core stage which doesn't look like it has engines itself. So, feeding propellant to the side boosters which then stage off and probably do some sort of boost-back and landing.

...which sort of seems like they're bending over backwards to not validate VTVL first stage reuse.

Hopefully they'll come around. As I've mentioned before, Ursa Major (located about 90min north of ULA HQ in Berthoud, CO) is working on 25klbf LOX/Methane staged combustion engines which should have ridiculously good T/W ratio. Would be perfect for landing engines if the BE-4s can't throttle deep enough. Masten is also working on a 25klbf LOX/Methane dual-expander engine which would be designed for VTVL applications from the start. They've got plenty of options for full-stage VTVL if I can ever talk them into it...

Me personally I'd love to see a Vulcan stage come in DTAL style... Muwahaha.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 12/30/2016 12:54 am by jongoff »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #67 on: 12/30/2016 01:15 am »
I like fly back engine pod (adeline concept) idea. Integration should just be case of bolting the recovered pods to new fuel tank. Not a lot different from shuttle, except engine pods shouldn't need a major overhaul between flights.

Compared to booster recovery they are trading an expendable fuel tank for more performance and no need for downrange recovery barge. Downrange recovery is also weather dependent. Good chance of making it work first time, while VTVL is likely to result in few failed attempts, all of which add to development costs. Option to add SRBs to fuel tank, I'm not sure if this is possible with reusable booster due to higher DV at staging.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #68 on: 12/30/2016 02:27 pm »
But new tanks aren't cheap at all, and the extra integration is like having another stage.

I'm not a big fan. It's an inefficient half-measure.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #69 on: 12/30/2016 04:05 pm »
What I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #70 on: 12/30/2016 05:31 pm »
What I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.
ULA only have limited financial resources, new booster is most critical thing at this stage. The ACES is also waiting on US engine developments, I think XCOR is ULA preferred choice.

There was talk of fitting IVF to Centuar and flying it around 2018, just need willing customer.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • USA
  • Liked: 3273
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #71 on: 12/30/2016 11:52 pm »
Autonomous engine recovery and reuse:

Looks like they have two side boosters (which look like squat little first stage) on a core stage which doesn't look like it has engines itself. So, feeding propellant to the side boosters which then stage off and probably do some sort of boost-back and landing.

...which sort of seems like they're bending over backwards to not validate VTVL first stage reuse.

Even if they didn't believe in full reuse of the first stage, I don't see how this design is optimal. SMART should take less mass and cost less to build and refurbish. Or if they were really going to insist on a winged return vehicle (building up to full on flyback boosters?), why not just have a single in-line one? Compared to an in-line winged design, this probably just about doubles the mass and production cost, doubles the complexity of recovery, doubles the complexity of plumbing and structures for the tank, increases aerodynamic losses on ascent, and reduces scalability via strapon boosters. Whats the gain?

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #72 on: 12/31/2016 03:58 am »
What I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.
ULA only have limited financial resources, new booster is most critical thing at this stage.

I think most at ULA would've preferred to do ACES first, as that would've allowed them to get rid of the whole Delta line, including DIVH right away, and then work on a follow-on first stage. But international events in Crimea, and congress's reaction to such forced them to focus initially on Vulcan.

~Jon

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #73 on: 12/31/2016 05:02 am »
Vulcan IOC end of 2019.

I've always liked the ACES lunar lander that is depicted in slide #10.  In fact all the ACES derivatives appeal to my sense of efficiency and utility.

I just wish there was a funding stream/mission to support building and flying them...
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 jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #74 on: 12/31/2016 06:59 am »
Vulcan IOC end of 2019.

I've always liked the ACES lunar lander that is depicted in slide #10.  In fact all the ACES derivatives appeal to my sense of efficiency and utility.

I just wish there was a funding stream/mission to support building and flying them...

AFAIK, Xeus is mostly being funded on a shoe-string at Masten at the moment, but IVF and ACES are being actively funded by ULA, as evinced by publicly released information such as a certain Thruster Gimbal hotfire test video George Sowers linked-to earlier this month.

I agree with you in hoping Masten/ULA can find a pot of money for Xeus development at some point though--It's a really clever approach that I wish had more resources behind it.

~Jon

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #75 on: 12/31/2016 11:33 am »
Is it just me or does it seem like ULA has less money for R&D than SpaceX? Maybe that is because Commercial Crew and Cargo are development oriented. On the other hand, maybe SpaceX is plowing its profit into R&D while ULA's parent companies are taking a good chunk of the profit.

Seems to me that somebody at ULA should figure out how to get the money to do ACES and Vulcan development simultaneously.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #76 on: 12/31/2016 12:16 pm »
Vulcan IOC end of 2019.

I've always liked the ACES lunar lander that is depicted in slide #10.  In fact all the ACES derivatives appeal to my sense of efficiency and utility.

I just wish there was a funding stream/mission to support building and flying them...

Well it might interest President Trump if he wants to go back to the Moon but take the private enterprise route. Though SLS & Orion would no doubt pay the cost of this kind of choice.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2016 12:17 pm by Star One »

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #77 on: 12/31/2016 12:51 pm »
Is it just me or does it seem like ULA has less money for R&D than SpaceX? Maybe that is because Commercial Crew and Cargo are development oriented. On the other hand, maybe SpaceX is plowing its profit into R&D while ULA's parent companies are taking a good chunk of the profit.

Seems to me that somebody at ULA should figure out how to get the money to do ACES and Vulcan development simultaneously.

It seems ULA's R&D money largely comes from existing funds while SpaceX's largely comes from future funds.

It's a calculated trade-off for both parties. One risks losing business to a lack of innovation and the other risks getting behind the curve on debt financing.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #78 on: 12/31/2016 01:15 pm »
There are companies that only do R&D. They get money from investors because they're building up technological capability.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #79 on: 12/31/2016 03:20 pm »
Is it just me or does it seem like ULA has less money for R&D than SpaceX? Maybe that is because Commercial Crew and Cargo are development oriented. On the other hand, maybe SpaceX is plowing its profit into R&D while ULA's parent companies are taking a good chunk of the profit.

Seems to me that somebody at ULA should figure out how to get the money to do ACES and Vulcan development simultaneously.
ULA makes enough profit to fund large R&D projects, the problem is convincing Boeing & LM to keep all that profit for R&D. To be fair to Boeing and LM, they have to account to their share holders who want dividend payouts.


As for XEUS, there is no urgency on this project. It still needs flight proven ACES and more importantly a market.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2016 03:26 pm by TrevorMonty »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0