Given this is a new thread about Vulcan I success we keep the discussion of RD180s for Atlas DOD missions out of it.
Question- Is the first stage a delta-IV CCB modified for the new propellant type or is it a whole new booster that will be constructed using the Delta-IV tooling?
Follow -on: How much of the previous certification work for the DELT-IV CCB help move Vulcan along (if at all)
Quote from: MarkM on 05/27/2015 04:03 pmFollow -on: How much of the previous certification work for the DELT-IV CCB help move Vulcan along (if at all)Company and process certification will probably carry over. Everything else will not be Delta IV. Since it will use the Centaur and the Atlas V Common Avionics, and the HIF and probably the same integration process and some GSE, that will probably only need a delta certification. But that's the Atlas V legacy.From the Q&A thread, they are studying changing the materials, the bulkhead design, the downcomer structure, etc. When the dust settles I only expect it to use the welding, aluminum treatment and LOX tank insulation and applying machines of Delta IV.
Stainless steel skin (welding and aluminum changed)Balloon tank design (insulation may need to change -- not sure)
Quote from: AncientU on 05/27/2015 06:17 pmStainless steel skin (welding and aluminum changed)Balloon tank design (insulation may need to change -- not sure)Delta IV is not a balloon tank and is aluminum. There is no change in construction. Vulcan will just use different tank lengths
Quote from: Jim on 05/27/2015 06:24 pmQuote from: AncientU on 05/27/2015 06:17 pmStainless steel skin (welding and aluminum changed)Balloon tank design (insulation may need to change -- not sure)Delta IV is not a balloon tank and is aluminum. There is no change in construction. Vulcan will just use different tank lengthsI find that kind of hard to believe. Won't the loads be higher?
Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/18/2015 11:44 amDr. Sowers,Thanks for answering my earlier question on why Stainless for ACES tank. May I take a follow-up one step further? You indicated that Stainless Balloon tanks had the cost / mass fraction advantage for the upper stage. So what tips the balance towards conventional Al tanks for the first stage? Cost? Ease of handling? Tooling? or will we see a return of a Stainless Balloon tank on the first stage?Thanks again for taking the time. I really like the special anodize job in the Vulcan videos and images. Any chance we will see that on the real Vulcan? Or will be the same boring copper coat we see on current Atlas's?The trade of steel vs Al on the first stage was very close. Mass fraction is not as important on the booster as it is on the upper stage. a lot of passionate debate. But we are staying with Al for Vulcan step 1.
Dr. Sowers,Thanks for answering my earlier question on why Stainless for ACES tank. May I take a follow-up one step further? You indicated that Stainless Balloon tanks had the cost / mass fraction advantage for the upper stage. So what tips the balance towards conventional Al tanks for the first stage? Cost? Ease of handling? Tooling? or will we see a return of a Stainless Balloon tank on the first stage?Thanks again for taking the time. I really like the special anodize job in the Vulcan videos and images. Any chance we will see that on the real Vulcan? Or will be the same boring copper coat we see on current Atlas's?
This is just me, but I would encourage ULA to push to get Vulcan in its final all-5m form flying ASAP.
By all means, tell the government what Vulcan will cost them if they really want an all-US medium-heavy to compete with Falcon-9/-Heavy. However, I think that Boeing and Lockheed need to take a risk on this one and not wait for Uncle Sugar to complete the lengthy horse-trading process (which could take several Congressional cycles) to contribute funding.
They can't. Interferes with what they already told them in past years. Best they can do is "fear monger" about SX monopoly. Cause many in Congress have already bought in to the SX fear, having been sold that for many years.
While not SX advocates in the slightest, they don't wish to be caught off guard and vulnerable to a sly Putin comment or a irrational bellicose remark in the echo chamber.
I think the problem is that there are several ways that ULA's parents could extract cash from ULA.But I suspect Mr Bruno's strategy is the only one that leaves ULA as a USG (and hopefully other customers ) supplier for decades, not years to come.Unfortunately this probably also means the parents letting ULA keep more of revenue ULA generate for reinvestment and getting Congress to be more reasonable about RD180 purchases in the interim.These are difficult cases to put and all parties have to be convinced it will work (or at least has a high probability of working) for ULA to get their shot. Time will tell if he has succeeded (I hope he does).
Quote from: john smith 19 on 05/27/2015 11:46 amI think the problem is that there are several ways that ULA's parents could extract cash from ULA.But I suspect Mr Bruno's strategy is the only one that leaves ULA as a USG (and hopefully other customers ) supplier for decades, not years to come.Unfortunately this probably also means the parents letting ULA keep more of revenue ULA generate for reinvestment and getting Congress to be more reasonable about RD180 purchases in the interim.These are difficult cases to put and all parties have to be convinced it will work (or at least has a high probability of working) for ULA to get their shot. Time will tell if he has succeeded (I hope he does). If ULA fails to get funding for Vulcan development and Congress doesn't allow anymore RD-180 engines to be used would the US Govt allow ULA to go under?
Quote from: brovane on 05/28/2015 10:45 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 05/27/2015 11:46 amI think the problem is that there are several ways that ULA's parents could extract cash from ULA.But I suspect Mr Bruno's strategy is the only one that leaves ULA as a USG (and hopefully other customers ) supplier for decades, not years to come.Unfortunately this probably also means the parents letting ULA keep more of revenue ULA generate for reinvestment and getting Congress to be more reasonable about RD180 purchases in the interim.These are difficult cases to put and all parties have to be convinced it will work (or at least has a high probability of working) for ULA to get their shot. Time will tell if he has succeeded (I hope he does). If ULA fails to get funding for Vulcan development and Congress doesn't allow anymore RD-180 engines to be used would the US Govt allow ULA to go under? Yes, they would, as long as the parent companies would retain the rockets and keep them flying.
Well Lockheed Martin couldn't bid the Atlas-V and RD-180 on any national security payloads. For the Delta-IV Boeing would probably ask for subsidies from the US govt to keep the production line open. Would the DOD give into Boeing's demands?