Author Topic: Vulcan SMART Reuse  (Read 69072 times)

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 786
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1291
  • Likes Given: 443
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #20 on: 07/19/2022 06:04 pm »
Robert:  If Boeing has had this great concept all along, then why has SMART always baselined MAR, until now?

I merely put out that the concept was there in the early and mid-1990s, and provided some evidence. But even further back then EELV, there were various ocean-splashdown and recovered LRB and Shuttle derived vehicle, boat tail recovery methods of a similar nature:


Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #21 on: 07/19/2022 06:34 pm »
It takes the same time to build a rocket whether the engines come from the fabrication line or the refurbishment line
Depends on the proportion of time and cost that is spent on the tanks vs. the engine section. We already know most of the costs are in the engines themselves, and the avionics are also located there, which leaves manufacturing the barrel sections and domes. The rapidly de-matable engine section also means re-mating is not a tortuous affair.
Quote
Reliability wise, the improvement is partial, since so much of the rocket is not the engines.
The expended portion is the tankage. There are few moving parts to fail there.

I listed some recent failures...  The list is partial, but certainly the non-engine side fails often.
I can add the two STS failures, one was engines, one was structure.  (And I don't consider those (solid) engines to have been reused)

---

As for manufacturing rate - it's a good assumption that engines are manufactured independently of the tankage, and often by a different vendor.  So "time to build a rocket", in the way it pertains to launch rate, is talking about the main production line, the one that fabricates the tanks and structures, but takes in engines as components to be integrated.

To that fabrication line, it doesn't matter if the engines were made from scratch or were refurbished. The engine vendor is assumed to be able to keep up with the production need.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #22 on: 07/19/2022 06:38 pm »
Trevor: We all know about LOFTID.  So what?
Proof-of-concept test for remaining low TRL item. 
And? 
This test was being run when the plan was MAR.
Given how manual the construction of the IAD is, it is doubtful it is being modified for better floatation, which was LOFTID's endpoint in any case.

Quote
And they can't separate from Vulcan stuff that isn't in a "pod". 
That would be a major modification to Vulcan's first stage.
Quote
Depends on how much of the required hardware the current Vulcan design implements. Could be anywhere from "none at all", to "upstream propellant shutoff valves and feedline slipjoints are already present, pushers are already installed, we've just riveted the engine section in place so it can't come off for the early launches", or anywhere in-between. Dropping engine sections is a technique with good flight heritage (all Atlas vehicles prior to Atlas II-AR/III), and doesn't even need to be done under active thrust for Vulcan.

Check out the Vulcan cross section from ULA's website, and my slightly cleaned up excerpt.
There seems to be room for a HIAD, but there are no visible features to support it.

There are certainly no pushers, obvious breaks in the thrust structure, or other features not part of the basic rocket.
There are no connectors on a plane.
In fact, some of the plumbing seems to stick way out to the sides, which would require relocation so the HIAD doesn't have to be so far "forward" that it wouldn't float upright and stably. 
And if ULA does a bit of a stretch to introduce a separation plane they are going to modify the MLP, and/or build the new MLP with some additional room.


If all they show is LOFTID, a NASA funded program in which they are "participating", they haven't shown any commitment, any "skin in the game". 
It remains aspirational.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline skater

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 541
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #23 on: 07/20/2022 08:27 pm »
Amusing that the BE-4s they want to recover cost less than the RL-10s they'll always expend.

That's why the RL10C-X is being implemented - to reduce cost considerably by removing the intricate manual labor in constructing the injector and chamber.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48176
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81677
  • Likes Given: 36941
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #24 on: 07/21/2022 06:40 am »
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/ula-refines-plan-reuse-vulcan-rocket-engines

Quote
ULA Refines Plan To Reuse Vulcan Rocket Engines

July 20, 2022

SECOND IN A SERIES The term “operational reusability” means different things to different space companies. For SpaceX and Blue Origin, rockets that land themselves and quickly return to the launchpad are key to goals to cut costs and develop technologies for human settlements beyond Earth. United...

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48176
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81677
  • Likes Given: 36941
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #25 on: 07/21/2022 06:43 am »
twitter.com/free_space/status/1549936843361325059

Quote
Excerpts: With the award of 38 Vulcan launches for Amazon’s Project Kuiper, ULA took the BE-4  engine reuse program off the back burner & refined its concept of operations. The initial plan was to have a giant helicopter snare the returning engine pod midair as it descended 1/6

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1549936845009698817

Quote
lunder parachute. The helicopter would then fly the engines to a recovery ship. ULA still plans to jettison the spent BE-4 engines (along with some still-to-be-determined amount of the engines’ aluminum attachment ring), deploy an inflatable aeroshell to bleed off speed  2/6

twitter.com/free_space/status/1549936846200680448

Quote
and then deploy parachutes. However, after additional tests and analysis, ULA  determined that the aeroshell, known as a hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerator, can effectively double as a splashdown pad, eliminating the need for a helicopter. 3/6

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1549936847501025280

Quote
“It turns out the decelerator makes an excellent raft,” says @torybruno. With the simplified recovery plan, ULA figures it needs to refly an engine three times on average to begin saving money. With the helicopter operations, ULA would have needed six. 4/6

twitter.com/free_space/status/1549936848511942658

Quote
Because Vulcan optimized for DoD high-energy missions, propulsive flyback is not a viable option. "We have a big, high-performance booster to get our upper stage almost orbital so that it has as much propellant as possible to do the complicated orbital stuff,” Bruno says. 5/6

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1549936849698816000

Quote
As a result, Vulcan 1st stage flies about twice as fast & twice as high as @SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and is much farther downrange than a Falcon 9 when it separates from the upper stage.BE-4 engine splashdown will take place some 1,300 mi. from launch site, depending on trajectory.
 6/6
« Last Edit: 07/21/2022 06:55 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #26 on: 07/21/2022 06:58 am »
Quote
"We have a big, high-performance booster to get our upper stage almost orbital so that it has as much propellant as possible to do the complicated orbital stuff,” Bruno says.

Or maybe Vulcan takes its upper stage so far because it has an under-sized upper stage?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #27 on: 07/21/2022 10:32 am »

Quote
"We have a big, high-performance booster to get our upper stage almost orbital so that it has as much propellant as possible to do the complicated orbital stuff,” Bruno says.

Or maybe Vulcan takes its upper stage so far because it has an under-sized upper stage?

Vulcan Centuar is optimized for high performance missions not max payload to LEO.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2022 03:23 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #28 on: 07/21/2022 12:10 pm »
Quote
"We have a big, high-performance booster to get our upper stage almost orbital so that it has as much propellant as possible to do the complicated orbital stuff,” Bruno says.

Or maybe Vulcan takes its upper stage so far because it has an under-sized upper stage?

Underpowered.   See EELV lofted trajectories on many other thread. 
« Last Edit: 07/21/2022 12:11 pm by Jim »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #29 on: 07/21/2022 01:08 pm »
Quote
"We have a big, high-performance booster to get our upper stage almost orbital so that it has as much propellant as possible to do the complicated orbital stuff,” Bruno says.

Or maybe Vulcan takes its upper stage so far because it has an under-sized upper stage?

Underpowered.   See EELV lofted trajectories on many other thread.
Yup. A consequence of using RL-10, and since RL-10 is expensive, they can’t affordably cluster a lot of them, so it’s more cost optimal to do more work with the first stage.

Of course you don’t HAVE to do propulsive fly back. Landing on a ship is an option, if they had the flightrate to support it.
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 edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9329
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #30 on: 07/21/2022 02:57 pm »
Quote
"We have a big, high-performance booster to get our upper stage almost orbital so that it has as much propellant as possible to do the complicated orbital stuff,” Bruno says.

Or maybe Vulcan takes its upper stage so far because it has an under-sized upper stage?

Underpowered.   See EELV lofted trajectories on many other thread.
Yup. A consequence of using RL-10, and since RL-10 is expensive, they can’t affordably cluster a lot of them, so it’s more cost optimal to do more work with the first stage.

Of course you don’t HAVE to do propulsive fly back. Landing on a ship is an option, if they had the flightrate to support it.
It's not the downrange distance, it's the entry velocity. You need to expend significantly more propellant to reduce the velocity down to that survivable without a heatshield, and once you add a dedicated heatshield you might as well skip the propulsive entry entirely. Then you're down to adding a landing engine or adding some other method (big airbag, helicopter catch, etc) and ULA seem to think the big airbag of their heatshield can acceptably double as a big airbag for ground contact.
And before there's a chorus of "wouldn't have to add a landing engine if you went for a cluster of more smaller engines!": what engines? BE-4 and AR-1 are both too big, so those would be ruled out. J-2, RS-25, RS-27, RS-28, also also all too high thrust. Try and push RL-10 into service as a first-stage engine (it's run on pretty much any propellant combination you can think of and probably one some you wouldn't) a'la LE-9? Develop yet another new engine from scratch? With that funds? Companies like Ursa Major just plain didn't exist when Vulcan was being designed, so you'd be looking at something  more expensive and slower to develop than AR-1.

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #31 on: 07/21/2022 04:39 pm »
Amusing that the BE-4s they want to recover cost less than the RL-10s they'll always expend.

That's why the RL10C-X is being implemented - to reduce cost considerably by removing the intricate manual labor in constructing the injector and chamber.

The BE-4 reportedly costs ULA one third the going price of an RL-10 at $25M.

Will the C-X reduce costs? Sure. Will the Kuiper-induced bulk buy? Yes, and possibly more than any additive manufacturing.
ULA will still end up paying at least twice as much for a small, expander-cycle engine as they do a new staged-combustion monster.

RL-10 is a cash cow AJR has milked for sixty years.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #32 on: 07/21/2022 04:48 pm »
Yup. A consequence of using RL-10, and since RL-10 is expensive, they can’t affordably cluster a lot of them, so it’s more cost optimal to do more work with the first stage.

No, it is not expense of the engines individually, but developing a new engine


Of course you don’t HAVE to do propulsive fly back. Landing on a ship is an option, if they had the flightrate to support it.

No, it is not.  Still too high of velocity.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #33 on: 07/21/2022 04:50 pm »
Yup. A consequence of using RL-10, and since RL-10 is expensive, they can’t affordably cluster a lot of them, so it’s more cost optimal to do more work with the first stage.

No, it is not expense of the engines individually, but developing a new engine
Agreed, but doesn’t help that the unit cost is so high you couldn’t put like 6 of them on there even if you wanted to.
Quote

Of course you don’t HAVE to do propulsive fly back. Landing on a ship is an option, if they had the flightrate to support it.

No, it is not.  Still too high of velocity.
There are ways to do it.
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 StormtrooperJoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #34 on: 07/21/2022 04:54 pm »
I think one of ULA's biggest barriers to reuse is that they do not develop their own engines in house. Developing your engines is difficult, but to make vertical landing to work you need properly sized engines. BE4's, even with deep throttle capabillity seem like they are to powerful to be used by a near empty first stage unencumbered by a full upper stage. The closest sized methane engine that I can think of is Archimedes, which has not been development long, probably too small, and not all that efficient. I think if it weren't for this issue, ULA might have tried to develop a reusable version of Vulcan. And if ULA decided to try and develop a new engine it might take as long as a decade given their lack of experience.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #35 on: 07/21/2022 05:28 pm »

There are ways to do it.

Not really.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2022 05:28 pm by Jim »

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #36 on: 07/21/2022 05:29 pm »
I think one of ULA's biggest barriers to reuse is that they do not develop their own engines in house. Developing your engines is difficult, but to make vertical landing to work you need properly sized engines. BE4's, even with deep throttle capabillity seem like they are to powerful to be used by a near empty first stage unencumbered by a full upper stage. The closest sized methane engine that I can think of is Archimedes, which has not been development long, probably too small, and not all that efficient. I think if it weren't for this issue, ULA might have tried to develop a reusable version of Vulcan. And if ULA decided to try and develop a new engine it might take as long as a decade given their lack of experience.

It's the tight leash from ULA's parents that keep it from pursuing greater reuse. Boeing and LockMart won't approve the R&D expenditure required.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #37 on: 07/21/2022 05:29 pm »
Agreed, but doesn’t help that the unit cost is so high you couldn’t put like 6 of them on there even if you wanted to.


Mass is more an issue for that
« Last Edit: 07/21/2022 05:30 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #38 on: 07/21/2022 05:32 pm »
I think one of ULA's biggest barriers to reuse is that they do not develop their own engines in house.

Wrong


. Developing your engines is difficult, but to make vertical landing to work you need properly sized engines.

And so, what is preventing one from buying properly sized engines instead of making them?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Vulcan SMART Reuse
« Reply #39 on: 07/21/2022 05:33 pm »
I think if it weren't for this issue, ULA might have tried to develop a reusable version of Vulcan.

Not true, the vehicle architecture is wrong for reuse.

Vulcan is based on EELVs, whose mantra was minimize the number of engines and use existing efficient upperstage engines.   This mean one engine per stage and with large booster stages because of the low thrust upperstages.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2022 05:36 pm by Jim »

Tags:
 

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