ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2

[john smith 19]

Have any specs or performance figures been released about Vulcan/Centaur 5? How closely would a widened Centaur 5 end up resembling the notional 'Exploration Upper Stage' for SLS?

Good question.

So it looks like ULA's "Centaur 5" will have ACES grade performance, which suggests they are (in their own way) moving quite fast. 

A 4 headed Centaur perhaps?

Plus SpaceX may never be able to take care of all of the special need payloads for the USAF, but they are, little by little, becoming qualified for more and more of the lower requirements. And Blue Origin is planning to be certified for USAF launches too, which leaves even less for ULA to win on the bottom end. That leaves ULA with the top end of the market, which is not enough for them to survive on by itself.

Which is why Vulcan needs to be good enough to compete in the worldwide commercial market too. Today the top three launch providers are Ariane 5, Proton and Falcon 9, but by the time Vulcan comes online it's likely that Blue Origin will already be replacing Proton - so who will Vulcan replace?

Thinking about it the situation reminds me of the Rolls Royce car company.

Also owned by a very big parent and having to compete on a world market.

Except Rolls Royce can compete on a global scale. There is (AFAIK) no country where importing (or owning) a Rolls Royce is actually prohibited, so RR can access the car market of the whole planet. Indeed I'm sure there are RR owners in countries with no significant car production of any kind.

IIRC being able to compete for launches on the world market was a significant part of both EELV proposals. In practice it seems only Atlas V has really managed to do this on a continuing basis.

[john smith 19]

Here's a way to satisfy that (of many): a venture funded start-up does reusable LRE strapons optionally used by Vulcan, they land independently. Eventually they carry enough propulsion and coordinate after booster burnout to land the Vulcan booster with excess propellant. After it works, the parents buy it out for ULA. No booms or out of pocket.

Neat, but tricky to raise funding for I think.

Something I think people forget following the SX "Show reel" of great booster crashes was they all happened after they had finished their actual boosting.
Looked spectacular (and probably were if you watching from nearby) but never stopped the payload getting to orbit.

This concept looks incremental enough to be relatively low risk if you can engineer an adequately low cost (and adequate) performance engine of some kind, along with a recovery process that can accommodate up to, what 6 engines at once?

[woods170]

Yes.  The 5.4 meter diameter is shared by Ariane 5 and 6, which will also share some or most aspects of the Vulcan payload fairing.  One wonders what other bits Vulcan and Ariane might end up sharing.

Other than the fairings being produced by RUAG the two vehicles will share nothing.

How about fairing reuse additions?  Or will that injure production volume so much to be a "no go"? This reuse thing is so pesky ...

Fairing reuse additions are part of the fairing. And since both companies outsource their ENTIRE fairings to RUAG...

[Chasm]

Have any specs or performance figures been released about Vulcan/Centaur 5? How closely would a widened Centaur 5 end up resembling the notional 'Exploration Upper Stage' for SLS?

Not yet, Bruno said a month ago that they'll release more once the bid is underway.

Assuming pad restrictions still apply they need to keep the length identical to current Centaur. Bruno said diameter has been increased to 5.4m overall. (Same tank as ACES, foam instead of MLI, no refueling. No word on IVF or endurance.)

Using very round numbers Centaur III is 12.5x3m, Centaur V will be 12.5x5.4m while EUS is "up to 18"x8.4m.
Centaur V has ~2.6 the fuel of Centaur III, call it 54 tons. EUS fits twice the fuel of Centaur V by diameter, more with the added length.
EUS is most likely not a balloon like Centaur. Wiki specs say not to exceed 18m length and max 129tons of fuel. 129tons seems to be low, EUS is of similar length as S-IVB. 60% more volume for just 24% more fuel, either they used heaver Hydrogen back then or J-2 must have been a very short engine...
 

Propulsion may or may not be the same for EUS and Centaur V. The Bigelow animation had 4 engines but no official announcement has been made. They like their suspense.

[TrevorMonty]

If Centuar V has IVF and  endurance built in to do GEO missions without expensive upgrade kits, ULA would have whole new market to themselves. Being able to deliver satellites direct to GEO reduces build cost of satellite and helps increase mission reliablility. There have been a few satellites that have had problems delivering themselves from GTO-GEO.

Would open up GEO market to smallsats and cubesat plus make delivery of hosted pay loads to persistent platforms (PP) cheaper. PP are still a while away but they are coming. These may not be primary payloads but rideshares still are an important extra revenue stream.

[rockets4life97]

Thanks for the analysis Ed.

SpaceX has its hand in all three markets (ISS, EELV, Commercial) and that leads folks to think they are in the best market position and that ULA and others should follow their lead.

I think what people are missing is that ULA will remain the preferred customer for EELV (or at least this is their strategy). They will also likely take a chunk out of the ISS market flying Starliner and Dreamchaser. So, while the cost of Vulcan/Centaur will likely be more expensive than re-used F9/FH, ULA will continue to have a solid market.

[gongora]

Falcon will continue to pick up EELV work for which it is capable, with Heavy perhaps intended to cover the "C" categories.  But neither Falcon has been custom designed from the outset for EELV.

FH is probably needed for more than just the Class C payloads.  Any orbits that require > F9 performance are going to be much more competitive and will favor ULA for a while (maybe for a long time depending on how FH performs and how long it takes to qualify reusable FH).  There are probably some missions where ULA could be close to SpaceX on price now, and that should only improve with Vulcan.

[Sknowball]

If Centuar V has IVF and  endurance built in to do GEO missions without expensive upgrade kits, ULA would have whole new market to themselves. Being able to deliver satellites direct to GEO reduces build cost of satellite and helps increase mission reliablility. There have been a few satellites that have had problems delivering themselves from GTO-GEO.

Would open up GEO market to smallsats and cubesat plus make delivery of hosted pay loads to persistent platforms (PP) cheaper. PP are still a while away but they are coming. These may not be primary payloads but rideshares still are an important extra revenue stream.

Very little has been revealed about the timeline for ACES or IVF since Centaur V was announced on October 10.   The only events I have seen ULA present at since that time were LEAG (which started the day Bruno announced Centaur V in his op-ed and ran through October 13th), Vern Thorp's participation in The Von Braun Symposium October 24-26, and The Washington Space Business Roundtable that Tory Bruno participated in on November 9th.   Of those, so far as I can tell (though I have seen limited write up for the roundtable), only Vern Thorp discussed IVF.   As part of that presentation he described IVF as being deployed on ACES after ACES is introduced ().   This coupled with the announcement that the NASA STMD eCryo project had completed it's evaluation of crew rating IVF and incorporating it into EUS during the July NAC TI&E meeting (slide 15), but no corresponding announcement by ULA of continued NASA investment in IVF makes me think that ULA is deferring IVF introduction.

[AbuSimbel]

Which is why Vulcan needs to be good enough to compete in the worldwide commercial market too. Today the top three launch providers are Ariane 5, Proton and Falcon 9, but by the time Vulcan comes online it's likely that Blue Origin will already be replacing Proton - so who will Vulcan replace?

Of those three, only Ariane 5 was designed from the outset for commercial GTO, a category it still leads even this year.  Proton was originally designed for the Cold War.  Falcon 9's first big job was ISS cargo, and, sure enough, Falcon 9 leads in LEO mass so far this year, though R7 may catch it by year's end. 

Vulcan is being designed for EELV requirements specifically.  Those capabilities may allow it to also compete for some commercial work, but the track record for achieving that goal is spotty.  Government requirements typically exceed the needs of the commercial markets.  It needs more mass sent to a variety of orbit types.  This forces development of larger, more expensive rockets.

Ariane 5/6 will continue to excel at GTO.  It is impossible to beat the physics of Kourou, but Ariane can't compete for EELV.  Neither can Proton.  Falcon will continue to pick up EELV work for which it is capable, with Heavy perhaps intended to cover the "C" categories.  But neither Falcon has been custom designed from the outset for EELV.  Northrop Grumman's NGL will be the wild-card, maybe.  Blue is out there, but a ways off from certification.  Same for BFR, which appears to be crazy overkill for this payload category regardless. 

Plans call for two EELV providers in the end.  Another one or two may pick up NASA work.

 - Ed Kyle       

There's something I don't understand: when you say 'custom designed from the outset for EELV' what do you mean? The outset for Vulcan coincides with the maturity of F9/H, and isn't it likely that those system will be able to cover all EELV missions by then? If that's the case what advantage should Vulcan gain from 'being designed from the outset for EELV', when mature systems with actual flight history sport the same capabilities, albeit implemented over time?

[AncientU]

Which is why Vulcan needs to be good enough to compete in the worldwide commercial market too. Today the top three launch providers are Ariane 5, Proton and Falcon 9, but by the time Vulcan comes online it's likely that Blue Origin will already be replacing Proton - so who will Vulcan replace?

Of those three, only Ariane 5 was designed from the outset for commercial GTO, a category it still leads even this year.  Proton was originally designed for the Cold War.  Falcon 9's first big job was ISS cargo, and, sure enough, Falcon 9 leads in LEO mass so far this year, though R7 may catch it by year's end. 

Vulcan is being designed for EELV requirements specifically.  Those capabilities may allow it to also compete for some commercial work, but the track record for achieving that goal is spotty.  Government requirements typically exceed the needs of the commercial markets.  It needs more mass sent to a variety of orbit types.  This forces development of larger, more expensive rockets.

Ariane 5/6 will continue to excel at GTO.  It is impossible to beat the physics of Kourou, but Ariane can't compete for EELV.  Neither can Proton.  Falcon will continue to pick up EELV work for which it is capable, with Heavy perhaps intended to cover the "C" categories.  But neither Falcon has been custom designed from the outset for EELV.  Northrop Grumman's NGL will be the wild-card, maybe.  Blue is out there, but a ways off from certification.  Same for BFR, which appears to be crazy overkill for this payload category regardless. 

Plans call for two EELV providers in the end.  Another one or two may pick up NASA work.

 - Ed Kyle     

Requirements are changing.  DoD has recognized the vulnerability of its battleship Galactica approach to NSS.  A multi-billion dollar satellite (taking up to ten years to design and build) that can be disabled by a multi-million dollar a-sat system is a no-win game for the US.  Build a perfect EELV launcher for the last war and you'll not be ready for the one we have to fight next.  How versatile is Vulcan?  That single quality may well determine its viability and longevity; at best, it seems that it will be a niche launcher for those straggler NSS platforms that were ordered a decade or so ago.

Ariane 5/6 suffer a similar problem in that they are already a niche launcher for pairs of GTO sats -- which as you've pointed out repeatedly, they do very well.  The next generation of comm sats is not going to GTO, though.

An article today illustrates:

DoD space policy chief: ‘It’s imperative that we innovate’

As competition ratchets up for space dominance, adversaries are poised to challenge the United States, causing real concern among policy makers at the Pentagon.

“The threats are moving fast and we need to stay ahead of it,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy Stephen Kitay.

As U.S. dominance of space is challenged by other nations, the Pentagon has to rethink strategies and investment priorities, Kitay said. It’s not just about buying the latest and greatest technology but also about making sure U.S. systems can be defended from attacks.

The Air Force’s missile-warning satellites are one example of a critical space system that military officials worry may be targeted in the future. With global tensions rising over North Korea’s nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile program, the Air Force has come under pressure to start designing a new system to replace the current missile-warning constellation.

SBIRS, I believe

Another area that the space industry is closely watching is how the Pentagon buys satellite communications. A study is under way to determine whether the military should buy more wideband communications services from the private sector. “DoD is in the process of analyzing alternatives,” said Kitay. “We are analyzing a full range of architectures — from fully commercial to fully DoD purpose-built, and combinations in between.”

MUOS and others

http://spacenews.com/dod-space-policy-chief-its-imperative-that-we-innovate/?sthash.0DGn6PX5.mjjo

[Jim]

Requirements are changing.  DoD has recognized the vulnerability of its battleship Galactica approach to NSS.

Still not going to remove the need for them.  Physics drives the requirements.

Again, ignoring reality and skewing new/information to reflect a biased view.

DOD does not operate the "battleship Galactica" NSS.

Also, most DOD spacecraft are not invulnerable ASAT orbits.

[envy887]

This is not a slug fest...  This is an observation that in order to remain relevant, even for USG launches, they (ULA) need to do a hell of a lot more than another EELV, even if it's better than Atlas.  And a lot more than maybe-IVF and someday-SMART.

It already will do more.  Vulcan-Centaur 5 is being designed to meet all of the EELV reference mission requirements from the get-go.  Falcon 9 can't meet all of those requirements.  Its first stage will have to be expended, or a more expensive Falcon Heavy will have to perform the missions, and I'm not certain that recoverable Heavy can reach the highest payload requirements.  So, even SpaceX will have to expend rockets for many of the most-difficult missions, if it wins the work.

 - Ed Kyle

Vulcan will obviously remain relevant for NSS until both FH and another vehicle (New Glenn 3 stage or NGL 500XL) are able to satisfy all the NSS requirements at a lower price - reliability, mass to orbit, integration requirements, and fairing size. That could take quite some time.

However, I'm not sure that expending rockets is any sort of detriment for SpaceX. A fully expendable Falcon Heavy will quite possibly be cheaper than a maxed-out Vulcan with 6 big SRBs and a multi-engine LH2 upper stage.

[AncientU]

Requirements are changing.  DoD has recognized the vulnerability of its battleship Galactica approach to NSS.

Still not going to remove the need for them.  Physics drives the requirements.

Again, ignoring reality and skewing new/information to reflect a biased view.

DOD does not operate the "battleship Galactica" NSS.

Also, most DOD spacecraft are not invulnerable ASAT orbits.

Physics does not drive all requirements (e.g., communications using LEO sat and phased array vs HEO/GEO sat with large reflector) and many NSS satellites can be dis-aggregated.

China has sent an a-sat system to GEO... lasers can blind satellites at any orbit. 
There are no longer invulnerable a-sat orbits.

[Jim]

Requirements are changing.  DoD has recognized the vulnerability of its battleship Galactica approach to NSS.

Still not going to remove the need for them.  Physics drives the requirements.

Again, ignoring reality and skewing new/information to reflect a biased view.

DOD does not operate the "battleship Galactica" NSS.

Also, most DOD spacecraft are not invulnerable ASAT orbits.

Physics does not drive all requirements (e.g., communications using LEO sat and phased array vs HEO/GEO sat with large reflector) and many NSS satellites can be dis-aggregated.

Not the "battleship Galactica" ones

[AncientU]

One launch every year or two does not close as a business case.

Edit; oops

[calapine]

Fairing reuse additions are part of the fairing. And since both companies outsource their ENTIRE fairings to RUAG...

RUAG is looking into fairing re-use.

Swiss manufacturer Ruag Space is developing reusable fairings, which Bonguet said are of interest to ArianeGroup.

“We are discussing with Ruag,” he said. “They have presented to us their concept. If it is working, and if it is bringing cost savings, we will be happy to accommodate it.”

[AncientU]

There's something I don't understand: when you say 'custom designed from the outset for EELV' what do you mean? The outset for Vulcan coincides with the maturity of F9/H, and isn't it likely that those system will be able to cover all EELV missions by then? If that's the case what advantage should Vulcan gain from 'being designed from the outset for EELV', when mature systems with actual flight history sport the same capabilities, albeit implemented over time?

ULA has jumped directly to Centaur 5 to allow Vulcan to do all of the specified EELV missions from the outset, so "custom" in the sense that the launch system is being tailored for that mission set.  Small to Medium to Heavy.  LEO near-polar to GTO to MEO to GEO, all using the same two-stage single-core.  Vertical integration.  SpaceX and Northrop will have to fly two different launch systems (Falcon 9/Heavy and NGL 500/500XL) to accomplish the same.  I don't think people appreciate the coup ULA has achieved here with its only-recently announced design change.

 - Ed Kyle

Falcon 9/Heavy and NGL 500/500XL are no more two different launch systems than Vulcan with or without solids.  ULA will compete for the Phase 2 offering in 2019 with Vulcan/Centaur, Atlas V, and Delta IV Heavy...

The coup is sweeping Phase 2, not throwing out a PowerPoint of a rocket that will not have flown when the award is decided*.


* Assuming that the USAF doesn't postpone the competition until the incumbent is ready to compete.

[john smith 19]

ULA has jumped directly to Centaur 5 to allow Vulcan to do all of the specified EELV missions from the outset, so "custom" in the sense that the launch system is being tailored for that mission set. 

Of course.

So now they can retire Delta IV Heavy at the same time as the EoL Atlas V and Delta IV.

3 Mfg lines --> 1 Mfg line.

Now if only they could get IVF and end all that messing about with Hydrazine tanks and high pressure Helium.  <sigh>

[AncientU]

ULA has jumped directly to Centaur 5 to allow Vulcan to do all of the specified EELV missions from the outset, so "custom" in the sense that the launch system is being tailored for that mission set. 

Of course.

So now they can retire Delta IV Heavy at the same time as the EoL Atlas V and Delta IV.

3 Mfg lines --> 1 Mfg line.

Now if only they could get IVF and end all that messing about with Hydrazine tanks and high pressure Helium.  <sigh>

Atlas V is flying through the mid-2020s per Jim.  Delta IV Heavy is booked until 2023 I believe.

[envy887]

There's something I don't understand: when you say 'custom designed from the outset for EELV' what do you mean? The outset for Vulcan coincides with the maturity of F9/H, and isn't it likely that those system will be able to cover all EELV missions by then? If that's the case what advantage should Vulcan gain from 'being designed from the outset for EELV', when mature systems with actual flight history sport the same capabilities, albeit implemented over time?

ULA has jumped directly to Centaur 5 to allow Vulcan to do all of the specified EELV missions from the outset, so "custom" in the sense that the launch system is being tailored for that mission set.  Small to Medium to Heavy.  LEO near-polar to GTO to MEO to GEO, all using the same two-stage single-core.  Vertical integration using existing launch facilities, etc..  SpaceX and Northrop will have to fly two different launch systems (Falcon 9/Heavy and NGL 500/500XL) to accomplish the same.  I don't think people appreciate the coup ULA has achieved here with its only-recently announced design change.

 - Ed Kyle

Again, the assumption that SpaceX would have to fly two systems is not grounded. List price on a recoverable FH ($90M) is cheaper than the estimated cheapest Vulcan (~$100M) but has more than 1.5x the performance to GTO (8,000 kg vs ~5,000). SpaceX could probably compete on both price and performance with Vulcan by bidding only FH, but they choose to bid both F9 and FH because they complement each other and are even cheaper than a single system.

Also, when did ULA drop the legacy Centaur? Are they actually going to switch completely to the bigger (presumably more expensive) Centaur 5?