ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2

[edkyle99]

AJ doesn't build and operate its own rockets. BO however can theoretically take over ULA's business. Quite a one-sided affair if you ask me.

1.  Blue is a ULA subcontractor. 
2.  ULA is not for sale.

Everything else is over-the-top speculation not worth discussing.  By the same argument, ULA could take over Blue Origin's business, etc.

Does everyone realize how massive New Glenn will be?  It will expend nearly an Atlas 5-401's worth of upper stage hardware on every launch!

 - Ed Kyle

[Oli]

AJ doesn't build and operate its own rockets. BO however can theoretically take over ULA's business. Quite a one-sided affair if you ask me.

1.  Blue is a ULA subcontractor. 
2.  ULA is not for sale.

Everything else is over-the-top speculation not worth discussing.  By the same argument, ULA could take over Blue Origin's business, etc.

Does everyone realize how massive New Glenn will be?  It will expend nearly an Atlas 5-401's worth of upper stage hardware on every launch!

 - Ed Kyle

I'm just saying that BO has all the ingredients to build its own rockets, New Glenn or something else, while ULA relies on BO's engines.

[edkyle99]

I'm just saying that BO has all the ingredients to build its own rockets, New Glenn or something else, while ULA relies on BO's engines.

Ahhh.  So you are suggesting that the future only belongs to the vertically-integrated launch companies?  That is an interesting assertion.  If true, the survivors would be companies like Orbital-ATK, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic.  ULA would need a propulsion partner to survive according to this thinking.  I know a propulsion company that is looking for a partner ....

 - Ed Kyle

[meekGee]

I'm just saying that BO has all the ingredients to build its own rockets, New Glenn or something else, while ULA relies on BO's engines.

Ahhh.  So you are suggesting that the future only belongs to the vertically-integrated launch companies?  That is an interesting assertion.  If true, the survivors would be companies like Orbital-ATK, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic.  ULA would need a propulsion partner to survive according to this thinking.  I know a propulsion company that is looking for a partner ....

 - Ed Kyle

A fair statement would be that companies that are introducing far-looking innovation (SpaceX and Blue Origin) are vertically-integrated, suggesting it is a necessary condition, but by no means sufficient.

Orbital-ATK just happened, so didn't have a chance to really do anything that originates from the combined company. Also, VI is not a sufficient condition. I am not sure ATK's propulsion technology is applicable here.

VG is a red herring.  It just proves that if you keep following a dumb idea, it doesn't get smarter with time.

Vulcan is a far from ideal response to the threats ULA is facing. That BO is allowing them to use their engine is helpful, but it also means BO controls ULA's destiny. Not a situation you want to be in unless you have no choice.

[Brovane]

"My statement about ULA expecting fewer government launch contracts in the future under a competitive bidding environment was just repeating what Mr. Bruno has said during congressional testimony.  So unless ULA can win more private commercial launch contracts than they currently do we can expect a drop in the number of launches per year being conducted by ULA if we assume that what Mr. Bruno has said during his testimony come true.  Of course, things can change and the future is not set.  "

Are you done, arguing that ULA cannot expect fewer government launches in the future under a competitive environment?   

I expect both ULA and SpaceX to thrive in a competitive environment.  ULA will likely do more of what it does best (government launches) while SpaceX will handle a higher percentage of commercial launches than ULA (though the majority of SpaceX launches will also be for government customers).

As for your previous speculation about Blue Origin buying ULA I can only point out that United Launch Alliance is not for sale.  That was established a year or two ago when Aerojet Rocketdyne made a bid.

 - Ed Kyle

I will go with what the CEO of the Company has said, that ULA can expect fewer government launches in the future under a competitive environment.  Feel free to think you know more about ULA's business future than the CEO of the ULA. 

(though the majority of SpaceX launches will also be for government customers). 
SpaceX - 2016 - 3 Government launches and 5 private commercial launches. 

You might want to review SpaceX's manifest, about 60%+ of it's planned launches going forward are private commercial contracted launches.

As far as BO buying ULA.

[Dante80]

I also distinctively remember Mr. Bruno stating that ULA has to become competitive in the commercial market, and both legacy LVs they have are not going to achieve that. In essence, Vulcan is developed as a competitive product for the commercial market, with a focus on both partial re-usability and streamlining (both in manufacturing and operations).

The past reliance on government (and especially, DoD) launches is not going to suffice. Due to competition, and due to a shrinking market in the 20's (after this batch of DoD satellites goes up).

[Star One]

I also distinctively remember Mr. Bruno stating that ULA has to become competitive in the commercial market, and both legacy LVs they have are not going to achieve that. In essence, Vulcan is developed as a competitive product for the commercial market, with a focus on both partial re-usability and streamlining (both in manufacturing and operations).

The past reliance on government (and especially, DoD) launches is not going to suffice. Due to competition, and due to a shrinking market in the 20's (after this batch of DoD satellites goes up).

I am not sure how you can assert that in the 20s their will be shrinking market in government launches. Being as quite a number of these projects are going to be classified nothing can be said at this stage from the outside on their status in the launch market.

[edkyle99]

I will go with what the CEO of the Company has said, that ULA can expect fewer government launches in the future under a competitive environment.  Feel free to think you know more about ULA's business future than the CEO of the ULA. 

A company can thrive even if launch counts go down.  Some might not do as well as others under those conditions.  Still, I don't see launch counts dropping much.  Where once ULA was busy launching a new NRO constellation, now it will launch Starliners and Dream Chasers and the occasional X-37B, etc.  The Cygnus launches were unexpected, but there they are. 

You might want to review SpaceX's manifest, about 60%+ of it's planned launches going forward are private commercial contracted launches.

I did, and my count showed more than 50% government. 
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/falcon-9.htm
There are a couple dozen Dragons, a GPS, SWOT, TESS, SARah, SADcom, etc.  Even Eutelsat Quantum and the Inmarsats are government funded in part. 

 - Ed Kyle

[meekGee]

Vulcan is a far from ideal response to the threats ULA is facing.

Unsubstantiated and biased opinion.  Not based on facts or reality.

It is based on a projected commercial market of several launches per week, and the fact that Vulcan requires re-integrating a thrust structure to a newly-manufactured fuel tank each flight.

It is also based that F9's capabilities are increasing, and that BO is unlikely to not match them.

Beyond that, like any future looking statement about the viability of design concepts, it is an opinion, just like the many you have.

[edkyle99]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Mine is that Vulcan is being designed to be competitive.  Why would it not?

Consider that ULA is slimming down and shedding subcontractors while SpaceX and Blue are expanding and adding personnel and costs (SpaceX has more than 5,000 employees now!).  (Didn't SpaceX increase its bid by 50% on the second CRS round compared to the first, or somesuch?)  ULA is sharing the development cost of its booster engine with Blue Origin (a cost cutting move).  By using a higher energy upper stage than its competitors, ULA requires less thrust at liftoff.  (Two BE-4 engines cost less than seven.  Thrust costs money.)  ULA plans to recover engines during every flight, not just the LEO and lower energy GTO flights like SpaceX.  Etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

[Star One]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Mine is that Vulcan is being designed to be competitive.  Why would it not?

Consider that ULA is slimming down and shedding subcontractors while SpaceX and Blue are expanding and adding personnel and costs (SpaceX has more than 5,000 employees now!).  (Didn't SpaceX increased its bid by 50% on the second CRS round compared to the first, or somesuch?)  ULA is sharing the development cost of its booster engine with Blue Origin (a cost cutting move).  By using a higher energy upper stage than its competitors, ULA requires less thrust at liftoff.  (Two BE-4 engines cost less than seven.  Thrust costs money.)  ULA plans to recover engines during every flight, not just the LEO and lower energy GTO flights like SpaceX.  Etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

Precisely. It seems as if some believe that just because a company is so called old space that it is capable of changing as the market dictates.

[Jim]

The opinion of meekGee *is* based on facts (a.k.a. reality): both Vulcan and New Glenn, while not yet "existing" in a completed, ready to fly form, are described by both competitors with enough detail to meaningfully compare them. Falcon 9 exists and flying, and is clearly a threat to Vulcan (and everything else, except perhaps Soyuz).

Wrong again.  Cost reduction due to reuse is unproven and therefore stating that a design that doesn't incorporate it is a drawback fails logic.

[envy887]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Mine is that Vulcan is being designed to be competitive.  Why would it not?

Consider that ULA is slimming down and shedding subcontractors while SpaceX and Blue are expanding and adding personnel and costs (SpaceX has more than 5,000 employees now!).  (Didn't SpaceX increased its bid by 50% on the second CRS round compared to the first, or somesuch?)  ULA is sharing the development cost of its booster engine with Blue Origin (a cost cutting move).  By using a higher energy upper stage than its competitors, ULA requires less thrust at liftoff.  (Two BE-4 engines cost less than seven.  Thrust costs money.)  ULA plans to recover engines during every flight, not just the LEO and lower energy GTO flights like SpaceX.  Etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

Precisely. It seems as if some believe that just because a company is so called old space that it is capable of changing as the market dictates.

On the other hand, some believe that those companies are incapable of changing as the market dictates.

[gospacex]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Mine is that Vulcan is being designed to be competitive.  Why would it not?

Why Russians, in the face of the Falcon threat, are replacing Proton with a rocket which costs *more* than Proton while not exceeding F9/FH payloads?

Because old, ossified organizations sometimes lose ability to compete.

ULA is sharing the development cost of its booster engine with Blue Origin (a cost cutting move).

Excellent idea to source the booster engine from your competitor. NOT.

[envy887]

Excellent idea to source the booster engine from your competitor. NOT.

Wrong again.
They are not competitors.  BO is not going for gov't missions.

Vulcan is at least partly aimed at commsats though, is it not?

[meekGee]

The opinion of meekGee *is* based on facts (a.k.a. reality): both Vulcan and New Glenn, while not yet "existing" in a completed, ready to fly form, are described by both competitors with enough detail to meaningfully compare them. Falcon 9 exists and flying, and is clearly a threat to Vulcan (and everything else, except perhaps Soyuz).

Wrong again.  Cost reduction due to reuse is unproven and therefore stating that a design that doesn't incorporate it is a drawback fails logic.

Wait, and a grabbing the thrust structure with a helicopter is proven somehow?

This is not about proof anyway, it's about likely outcome.  It is very likely that a fully reusable rocket will have lower operating costs, compared with one that operates like Vulcan does.  The payload mass penalty is tiny in comparison to the cost of building an entire first stage structure, and is actually irrelevant as long as the rocket can fly its mission, which F9 seems to be sized to do.

Besides, was there a timeline given even for when this "partial reusability" for Vulcan will be implemented?

The helicopter scheme was an old idea (We've all seen it before) that was pulled together along with Vulcan to have ANY sort of response to SpaceX. There was no way that ULA could come up with a VTVL architecture because they don't have the engine, and they clearly weren't interested in building a NG-scale rocket.

To pretend that mid-air recovery of the thrust structure was chosen because they believe it will work out better than VTVL in not credible. ULA simply will not commit to something as radical as VTVL, and they're basically sitting on their market position, waiting to see how things play out.  If F9 and NG fail, then they have a good enough rocket. If F9 or NG work as their developers expect, ULA doesn't have an answer.

[rayleighscatter]

The opinion of meekGee *is* based on facts (a.k.a. reality): both Vulcan and New Glenn, while not yet "existing" in a completed, ready to fly form, are described by both competitors with enough detail to meaningfully compare them. Falcon 9 exists and flying, and is clearly a threat to Vulcan (and everything else, except perhaps Soyuz).

Wrong again.  Cost reduction due to reuse is unproven and therefore stating that a design that doesn't incorporate it is a drawback fails logic.

Wait, and a grabbing the thrust structure with a helicopter is proven somehow?

This is not about proof anyway, it's about likely outcome.  It is very likely that a fully reusable rocket will have lower operating costs, compared with one that operates like Vulcan does.  The payload mass penalty is tiny in comparison to the cost of building an entire first stage structure, and is actually irrelevant as long as the rocket can fly its mission, which F9 seems to be sized to do.

Besides, was there a timeline given even for when this "partial reusability" for Vulcan will be implemented?

The helicopter scheme was an old idea (We've all seen it before) that was pulled together along with Vulcan to have ANY sort of response to SpaceX. There was no way that ULA could come up with a VTVL architecture because they don't have the engine, and they clearly weren't interested in building a NG-scale rocket.

To pretend that mid-air recovery of the thrust structure was chosen because they believe it will work out better than VTVL in not credible. ULA simply will not commit to something as radical as VTVL, and they're basically sitting on their market position, waiting to see how things play out.  If F9 and NG fail, then they have a good enough rocket. If F9 or NG work as their developers expect, ULA doesn't have an answer.

So you're saying ULA should do VTVL with their two-engine rocket?

Or are you certain that refurbishing 9 engines will be cheaper than refurbishing 2 engines and making an aluminum cylinder?

[calapine]

Why Russians, in the face of the Falcon threat, are replacing Proton with a rocket which costs *more* than Proton while not exceeding F9/FH payloads?

I can assure you Angara is not reacton to a "Falcon threat". First plans for it where drawn up in 1992.

Motivation behind the project was to commonalize the mishmash of Soyuz, Denpr, Zenit, Zyklon, Proton - some of which were now depended on manufacturers outside the Russian territory - into a single rocket family based on common building blocks. Moving away from toxic hypergolic fuels and replacing engines that dated 50 years back were additional factors.

Because old, ossified organizations sometimes lose ability to compete.

Assuming the competition is both incompetent and unable to learn is good way to set yourself up for a nasty suprise.

[Rik ISS-fan]

What I find odd about ULA's Vulcan, as replaceent of Atlas V and delta IV ( and II), is that it can't serve the Delta II market. Only Antares and NGL can verve the 5mT to SSO market. Could it be a beter idea to use the Boeing - BlueOrigin XS-1 (streatched New Sheperd with a BE-4) in a Angara / Soyuz5 launcher  family? (As a RLV; follow on of EELV)
It's capability would fall in between Angara and Soyuz5.
A single XS-1 RLV core stage with Centaur upperstage could replace delta II. Heavier launchers could be made using 3; 4 or 5 RLV cores and a centaur or ACES (BE-3) upper-stages. With GEM63 (XL)solid boosters the gap between the single core and tripple core and the heavy variant and New Glenn can be served. Instead of the 4 or 5 core launcher, a titan configuration can be developed using two Castor 600's.
Just an alternate brain fart.

[meekGee]

The opinion of meekGee *is* based on facts (a.k.a. reality): both Vulcan and New Glenn, while not yet "existing" in a completed, ready to fly form, are described by both competitors with enough detail to meaningfully compare them. Falcon 9 exists and flying, and is clearly a threat to Vulcan (and everything else, except perhaps Soyuz).

Wrong again.  Cost reduction due to reuse is unproven and therefore stating that a design that doesn't incorporate it is a drawback fails logic.

Wait, and a grabbing the thrust structure with a helicopter is proven somehow?

This is not about proof anyway, it's about likely outcome.  It is very likely that a fully reusable rocket will have lower operating costs, compared with one that operates like Vulcan does.  The payload mass penalty is tiny in comparison to the cost of building an entire first stage structure, and is actually irrelevant as long as the rocket can fly its mission, which F9 seems to be sized to do.

Besides, was there a timeline given even for when this "partial reusability" for Vulcan will be implemented?

The helicopter scheme was an old idea (We've all seen it before) that was pulled together along with Vulcan to have ANY sort of response to SpaceX. There was no way that ULA could come up with a VTVL architecture because they don't have the engine, and they clearly weren't interested in building a NG-scale rocket.

To pretend that mid-air recovery of the thrust structure was chosen because they believe it will work out better than VTVL in not credible. ULA simply will not commit to something as radical as VTVL, and they're basically sitting on their market position, waiting to see how things play out.  If F9 and NG fail, then they have a good enough rocket. If F9 or NG work as their developers expect, ULA doesn't have an answer.

So you're saying ULA should do VTVL with their two-engine rocket?

Or are you certain that refurbishing 9 engines will be cheaper than refurbishing 2 engines and making an aluminum cylinder?

I didn't say any of these two things.

1.  No, I don't think they could have made a VTVL rocket from a two-engine rocket.  But not willing to break that mold was their choice.  Two engines, IMO, is the worst number of engines, since any single failure is fatal.  "1 or many".

2.  No, I am not certain. Just confident.   Given the "1-day" SpaceX comment, I'm confident that building new first stage tankage, and integrating them to the engine block, is more expensive.

ULA wasted several years ignoring the threat with Gass until they lost all the time cushion they COULD have had, and then under Bruno, decided on a minimal effort, since they don't have the ability to affordably doing something like F9 or NG.

It's a fair strategy for the position they're in.  SpaceX might certainly fail.  BO might turn out to be nothing but hot air.  Under these eventualities, ULA will fly happily ever after with Vulcan.  I'd just hate to think that in 202x, that's the best we'll have.