ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2

[Patchouli]

A. it would have to be 5 Merlin 1Ds to match the RD-180's thrust, B. more probably ULA wouldn't want to buy them, C. you're exactly right that it would be far too much plumbing rework to bother with, additionally D. the tank sizes would have to change to handle the different ratio of LOX to RP-1 (both densified) that the Merlins require. Also E. Atlas V doesn't have legs to land with.

Does the tooling to build the RS-27 still exist?
It would still take five of them but might be possible uprate the thrust enough to get away with using four.
The negative it's not designed to be reusable but it's direct predecessor the H-1 supposedly was over engineered enough it could be in theory.
The fastest BE-4 alternative though looks like it would be to move the AR-1 to a faster more Spacex style testing.

[Lars-J]

Merlin doesn't have to use densified lox.  It didn't to begin with, that is so SpaceX can put more lox in the same size tank for the full thrust version.  Anyway.  Just a thought.  Two AR-1's might be better like Ed Kyle said.  My question, if AR-1 was/is so good, why hasn't Aerojet spent more to develop it?  Also, why not adapt it to 3D printing like SpaceX did with Merlin?  The printers may be expensive, but the production costs are much lower. 

The problem is that AJRD cannot afford to spend its own money into an engine that does not have a proven market. They are not a vertically integrated LV company, they make engines.

The concept of reinvesting your profits into development does NOT require a fully vertically integrated company. You can do that with ANY product. And with the prices that AJRD are charging for their engines, there out to be plenty. (Assuming of course that they spent the last few decades optimizing and modernizing their production, which they apparently have not)

A new rocket engine takes 8-10 years to design, manufacture, test and integrate. It also costs up to a billion dollars, before it is ready for serial production.

A billion $? SpaceX and Blue Origin would find that amusing. If done the AJRD way, then sure.

[Newton_V]

A billion $? SpaceX and Blue Origin would find that amusing. If done the AJRD way, then sure.

I think Blue and SpaceX realize it's a very reasonable number.  Probably higher with AR.

[envy887]

A billion $? SpaceX and Blue Origin would find that amusing. If done the AJRD way, then sure.

I think Blue and SpaceX realize it's a very reasonable number.  Probably higher with AR.

The entire Falcon 9 development program cost under $400M. AJR shouldn't need $1000M just to make an underperforming copy of the RD-180.

[jongoff]

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.

Blue Origin just announced commercial customers though, and ULA has stated publicly that they will need commercial customers for Vulcan.  That would make Blue Origin a competitor.

If Boeing goes ahead with their internet constellation, that could give Vulcan some locked in commercial launches that BO cannot touch.

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure Boeing is going to competitively source most if not all of their launch needs for their constellation if it flies.

~Jon

[jongoff]

A billion $? SpaceX and Blue Origin would find that amusing. If done the AJRD way, then sure.

I think Blue and SpaceX realize it's a very reasonable number.  Probably higher with AR.

The entire Falcon 9 development program cost under $400M. AJR shouldn't need $1000M just to make an underperforming copy of the RD-180.

That was just the F9 development through first flight of the earliest version of F9 flying with Merlin-1Cs that put out ~100klbf. SpaceX has spent a considerable amount of money since then getting Merlin-1C upgraded through Merlin-1D, full thrust, etc, and growing Falcon 9 from v1.0 through Block 5. With the headcount they have now, I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX had spent >$2B on Falcon 9/Merlin development by this point (13k man-years over the past 8yrs doesn't seem too far fetched with the company now up to 5000ppl).

~Jon

[baldusi]

BTW, engines are more exponential than lineal in cost/thrust. Then you have to add a more complex cycle (at least 2X). Even if Merlin 1C cost 100M, and cost was lineal with thrust, you would expect an RD-180 like development to cost 1.6B (that's 8 times the thrust and 2 the complexity). BTW, I believe that the RS-68 development cost was not far from that. And the J-2X was what? 1.3B? I would expect an RD-180 match by AJR to cost somewhere between 2B~3B.

[envy887]

BTW, engines are more exponential than lineal in cost/thrust. Then you have to add a more complex cycle (at least 2X). Even if Merlin 1C cost 100M, and cost was lineal with thrust, you would expect an RD-180 like development to cost 1.6B (that's 8 times the thrust and 2 the complexity). BTW, I believe that the RS-68 development cost was not far from that. And the J-2X was what? 1.3B? I would expect an RD-180 match by AJR to cost somewhere between 2B~3B.

AR1 is really only 6.4x the thrust of M1C. AJR is cheating a little and calling 2x 500 klbf a single 1000 klbf engine. By the same logic F9 v1.0 had a 700 klbf engine.

And agreed that cost goes up with thrust, but SpaceX also got a 225 klbf FFSC engine to a all-up test fire for somewhere around $250M (Musk said 5% of resources, and they have spent somewhere around $5B so far). Getting it into production might cost $1B, but it's also far more advanced than RD-180, nevermind AR1.

I haven't seen any solid estimates for what BE-4 has cost so far, but I doubt that's close to $1B either. J-2X and RS-68 are great data points for what AJR needs to develop an engine. I'm just calling that inefficient.

[russianhalo117]

BTW, engines are more exponential than lineal in cost/thrust. Then you have to add a more complex cycle (at least 2X). Even if Merlin 1C cost 100M, and cost was lineal with thrust, you would expect an RD-180 like development to cost 1.6B (that's 8 times the thrust and 2 the complexity). BTW, I believe that the RS-68 development cost was not far from that. And the J-2X was what? 1.3B? I would expect an RD-180 match by AJR to cost somewhere between 2B~3B.

AR1 is really only 6.4x the thrust of M1C. AJR is cheating a little and calling 2x 500 klbf a single 1000 klbf engine. By the same logic F9 v1.0 had a 700 klbf engine.

And agreed that cost goes up with thrust, but SpaceX also got a 225 klbf FFSC engine to a all-up test fire for somewhere around $250M (Musk said 5% of resources, and they have spent somewhere around $5B so far). Getting it into production might cost $1B, but it's also far more advanced than RD-180, nevermind AR1.

I haven't seen any solid estimates for what BE-4 has cost so far, but I doubt that's close to $1B either. J-2X and RS-68 are great data points for what AJR needs to develop an engine. I'm just calling that inefficient.

To expand on a statement of yours:
The Raptor FFSC LRE is far more advanced than all LRE's flown to date albeit for different reasons and is Raptor is far more advanced than predecessor FFSC LRE's at this point partly because of the heavy use of additive manufacturing and other advancements.

[jongoff]

And agreed that cost goes up with thrust, but SpaceX also got a 225 klbf FFSC engine to a all-up test fire for somewhere around $250M (Musk said 5% of resources, and they have spent somewhere around $5B so far). Getting it into production might cost $1B, but it's also far more advanced than RD-180, nevermind AR1.

We actually don't know much about the stats of the Raptor engine fired (unless I missed something) or how close it really is to operationally ready. It's easy to extrapolate too much from deliberately vague statements. It could still easily be a long way from flight ready, even in a lower performance state.

~Jon

[edkyle99]

Like I said, feel free to think you know more about ULA's business future than the CEO of the ULA.  I will go with the CEO of the company. 

I don't think I'm saying what you think I''m saying. 

If the SpaceX launch services contract for the primary payload wasn't going to the USAF or NASA  and SpaceX needs to get a FAA license for launch, then it is a private Commercial payload.  I could care less if the payload was partially funded by a foreign government.  Over 60%+ of SpaceX's future payloads are Commercial. 

Be happy with your definition then. 

As for me, when a payload is entirely funded by taxpayers from any nation, it is not a commercial payload.  Gunter's site shows 24 Dragons (NASA contract), two GPS (USAF contract), two SAOCOM (CONAE contract, Argentine government), two SARah (Germany military forces), SWOT (NASA, CNES, ESA), TESS (NASA), NROL-76 (NRO), and Eutelsat Quantum (government-industry partnered experimental comsat).  That's 33 and a half government payloads, essentially, out of a 60-launch backlog.

 - Ed Kyle

[Ragmar]

Can someone please explain the plans and status of the ACES upper-stage engines?

From my understanding, XCOR, Aerojet Rocketdyne (RL-10), and Blue Origin (BE-3U) are all competing in a competition to supply ULA with the ACES engines.  As of writing, none has been selected.

Is this correct?

[jongoff]

Can someone please explain the plans and status of the ACES upper-stage engines?

From my understanding, XCOR, Aerojet Rocketdyne (RL-10), and Blue Origin (BE-3U) are all competing in a competition to supply ULA with the ACES engines.  As of writing, none has been selected.

Is this correct?

That's my understanding--I haven't heard any formal announcements from ULA, so I would assume they're all still being traded.

~Jon

[russianhalo117]

Can someone please explain the plans and status of the ACES upper-stage engines?

From my understanding, XCOR, Aerojet Rocketdyne (RL-10), and Blue Origin (BE-3U) are all competing in a competition to supply ULA with the ACES engines.  As of writing, none has been selected.

Is this correct?

That's my understanding--I haven't heard any formal announcements from ULA, so I would assume they're all still being traded.

~Jon

selection will be in mid 2018 to early 2019 timeframe last I read

[TrevorMonty]

XCOR are still working on theirs and Aerojet are working on lower cost RL10.

[IanThePineapple]

When will ULA announce their choice for first stage engine?

[russianhalo117]

When will ULA announce their choice for first stage engine?

next year.

[ethan829]

When will ULA announce their choice for first stage engine?

After BE-4 performs a hot-fire test, which should be soon. It was scheduled for late 2016, but slipped to early 2017.

[LouScheffer]

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.

At this point, saying "cost reduction due to reuse is unproven" is akin to saying, in December, that Trump had not won the election since the electoral college had not yet met.  It's technically a true statement but almost sure to be overturned in the next few months.  After all, SpaceX has recovered several boosters, had plenty of time to inspect them, has test fired them, run them through structural testing, and after all that stated they expect to refurbish them for a few (2-3) million dollars each.  It seems unlikely that their cost estimates are off by an order of magnitude, and they should verify, within weeks, that there are no technical flaws that prevent reuse.  So a rational person should guess that cost reduction from reuse is extremely likely, and expect that within a few months it will be proven.

The second part, saying "stating that a design that doesn't incorporate [reuse] is a drawback fails logic" is also true.  What it should say, IMO, is that a strategy that cannot compete in a world of $50M launches is a drawback.  After all, the customer does not care about reuse, only cost to them.  There are potentially many ways to compete is such a world.  Reuse is one.  A low cost launcher might be another.  A third is to concentrate on high-end, boutique launches, where customers will pay extra for extra service.  The concern is that if Vulcan does not incorporate reuse, it may be too expensive to compete for commodity launches, and there may not be enough high-end launches to sustain the program (plus others may evolve to compete for these).  These I think are legitimate worries.

[Space Ghost 1962]

When will ULA announce their choice for first stage engine?

next year.

Sensible.

Allows the histrionic, hoopla, and hype to settle down from other groups, against the likely backdrop of multiple full scale, full duration tests.

Then they'll announce that they have an engine, and a LV to fly it with. The other engine supplier will say theirs is better w/o proof (sound familiar?) and say they'll be ready in a year or two. Bruno will say we need it now and its ready to go.