Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 592720 times)

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2679
  • Likes Given: 3089
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #820 on: 04/03/2017 08:02 pm »
Since Boeing is building the 8.4m SLS core.  What if they allowed ULA to build an 8.4m 5 or 7 BE-4 engine reusable booster rocket and use the 5m tooling to make an ACES upper stage?  I know this might be direct competition to the New Glenn, but would that work if they had to go that route?

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #821 on: 04/03/2017 08:38 pm »
A lot of debate here about if reusing or expending the first stage is better. However ULA with ACES has a pretty unique capability that the others won't. ACES will be a highly capable reusable and refillable upper stage with practically unlimited endurance. SpaceX is able to reuse the hardware associated with the beginning of the flight. Its easy to see how much of a game changer that could be. ULA may be able to reuse the hardware associated with the final part of the flight. That could be pretty big too.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9262
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10728
  • Likes Given: 12334
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #822 on: 04/03/2017 09:21 pm »
Priorities here. ULA first needs to be ULA with a current ULA product that has a future.

When Vulcan is finally operational their customer landscape, and competitive landscape, will be different from what it is today.

For customers, the USAF has been projecting a need for far fewer launches, and because SpaceX is increasing their capabilities, ULA will be lucky to win a majority of those launches, but both of those factors could mean that ULA's share of USAF launches could decrease from 10-12 per year to 5-6 per year.

Tory Bruno recognizes this, which is why he has said they need commercial launch customers too, but by the time Vulcan is operational there could be TWO reusable launch service companies that ULA will have to compete against.

Quote
There are still customers for that, just like there are customers for Ariane. They are not going away.

Arianespace is in the same pickle as ULA, just with different modifiers.

Quote
What you are talking about is addressing the longer term competitive landscape, where SX hasn't yet made economics work. That is a business yet to happen.

Not sure why you think SpaceX hasn't "made the economics work".  Their pricing hasn't really change in over 5 years, and they have stated that their pricing will be going down with reusability - THAT is what ULA is competing against, the pricing their competitors offer, not the profit levels of their competitors.

Quote
Everyone likes to get ahead, because that's exciting. But SX is not in the same position as ULA. ULA is a mature provider, SX is a rival with a compelling story in the future, with exciting things happening in the present.

ULA is like a caterpillar that is getting ready to transform into something different.  It is shedding it's existing launchers, which are mature and proven, and it will replace both of them with something new.  Hopefully something better, but still it will be something new, unproven, and not mature.  The company stays the same, sort of, but it's a major transformation that they will be going through.

So ironically when this change is happening SpaceX will become the "mature provider", and ULA will be the new entrant.  Which is why it's so important that they have something the market not only wants, but needs.

Quote
Don't get the cart before the horse. Also, don't count ULA out. It is wise to have concerns for the future.

Flight proven rockets don't appear out of thin air, they take many years to bring to life.  Which is why early design choices are so critical to the future success of a launch services company.  Build the wrong product and you may not survive against your competition - or at least not attain the profit margins you were hoping to get.

ULA is at an inflection point in time where they have to make decisions that will ultimately determine how much business, and what type, they will be able to attract in the future.  And though no one has a perfect view into the future, there are trends that they can see today, such as reusability, that they can assume will affect their future prospects.

Vulcan was announced in 2014 (prior to SpaceX successfully landing a stage), and they have not yet committed to a specific design.  I just hope that they take current events about reusability into account before they lock themselves into a future they won't be able to change...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
  • United States
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #823 on: 04/03/2017 09:52 pm »
This question is for Coastal Ron,

In one form or another, on multiple threads, you state over and over how Vulcan won't work, ULA is dead, ULA can't compete in the future, the future is reusable boosters, it's just a matter of time, etc, etc, etc.

I'm curious why you need to constantly post this over and over and over.

Who are you trying to convince?  Are you posting on behalf of somebody?  I honestly want to know.  You seem to have an axe to grind (maybe that's not the correct phrase).

SpaceX's accomplishment was impressive, but jeez, I've never seen so much gloating, boasting, and cockiness after a launch.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #824 on: 04/03/2017 10:18 pm »
Never confuse the market(projection) for a service with its earnings from actual customers(immediate). The former leads the latter by an indefinite time, usually many years.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9262
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10728
  • Likes Given: 12334
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #825 on: 04/03/2017 11:38 pm »
This question is for Coastal Ron,

You could have DM'd me, so apparently this is a conversation you want out in public.  Which is fine with me.

Quote
In one form or another, on multiple threads, you state over and over how Vulcan won't work, ULA is dead, ULA can't compete in the future, the future is reusable boosters, it's just a matter of time, etc, etc, etc.

I'm curious why you need to constantly post this over and over and over.

I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space.  It's in my tag line, so I'm serious about it.  And the only way to lower the cost to access space is to have competition - not just two companies, but the entire industry working towards lowering the cost to access space.

As to Vulcan, I have the same concerns about Ariane 6, so my concern is not ULA-specific, but as an American I focus on U.S. issues (hard enough to understand just our government).

And you may not believe this, but I want ULA to succeed.  But to do that they need a product that matches the best that is out there today.

Quote
Who are you trying to convince?  Are you posting on behalf of somebody?  I honestly want to know.  You seem to have an axe to grind (maybe that's not the correct phrase).

Who do you try to convince?

When I post in reply to someone I'm always keeping in mind that there is a wider audience that could be listening in, so I am advocating to as wide an audience as possible.  So while I may not convince you (or whoever I'm responding to), maybe I can convince others that are reading my missives.  And you never know who may be reading what we write...

Quote
SpaceX's accomplishment was impressive, but jeez, I've never seen so much gloating, boasting, and cockiness after a launch.

Not only was their accomplishment vindication for SpaceX, but also for those that have defended SpaceX and their efforts on reusability for years on forums like NSF.

But regardless who proved reusability was possible, I believe this accomplishment signals a change in the business model for space transportation, and there is no going back.  Which is why I advocate that ULA should accept that reusability is here to stay, and that they should not commit to being the LAST organization to build a new expendable rocket, but to being the NEXT organization to build a reusable rocket.

I don't see how that can be interpreted as anything but wanting ULA to do well in the future...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • United States
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 1854
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #826 on: 04/04/2017 02:48 am »

Not only was their accomplishment vindication for SpaceX, but also for those that have defended SpaceX and their efforts on reusability for years on forums like NSF.

But regardless who proved reusability was possible, I believe this accomplishment signals a change in the business model for space transportation, and there is no going back.  Which is why I advocate that ULA should accept that reusability is here to stay, and that they should not commit to being the LAST organization to build a new expendable rocket, but to being the NEXT organization to build a reusable rocket.

I don't see how that can be interpreted as anything but wanting ULA to do well in the future...

I think for ULA the die has already been cast that ULA will be building the Vulcan as currently designed and that design will be doing engine only recovery for reusability.  ULA is under a lot of pressure to move away from the Atlas-V and the RD-180 ASAP and they cannot afford to take the risk by delaying that to incorporate more reusability into the design. 

I don't think that Boeing and LM want the launch market badly enough to commit the Billion(s) necessary to build a new rocket that incorporates reusability beyond engine recovery.  I see the US launch market being dominated by BO and SpaceX in a decade.  For the accountants, at Boeing and LM there isn't enough money in the launch market to justify the risk of going up against two dueling Billionaires who don't have a primary driver of satisfying shareholders.  It is less risky for them to focus on other areas of Aerospace. 

I hope I am wrong but both Boeing and LM haven't been too thrilled about investing money in ULA.  The next couple of years will show how serious they are but I don't think either one can see the potential money in space.  (Beyond Milking the US Govt)  They probably have the viewpoint that the bubble will burst and all this excess launch capacity will be competing in a small market.  They don't have the vision that Musk, Bezos and Bruno have about the future space market.  Musk and Bezos control their purse strings and have a controlling interest in their respective companies, Bruno doesn't.   
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #827 on: 04/04/2017 03:23 am »
Boeing and Lockheed see ULA as a means to insure their sats arrive. Vulcan does that. Compactly.

If either were to bid against another vendor a low-end constellation, might fly another way.

Also, there are other sources of sats ... who need the same kind of insurance.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12413
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 19471
  • Likes Given: 13592
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #828 on: 04/04/2017 08:14 am »
Boeing and Lockheed see ULA as a means to insure their sats arrive. Vulcan does that. Compactly.
Please elaborate on "their sats". Who's sats are those? Not quite understanding what you meant here.


Also, there are other sources of sats ... who need the same kind of insurance.
It's not just ULA that's positioned to do that. There's more LSP's than just ULA and a certain company from Hawthorne.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #829 on: 04/04/2017 02:02 pm »
Can they?  And if so, how?


Here is an easy one:

ARJ gets Congress to do its thing and ULA does cost plus for years to come. LM and Boeing protest a bit so that down the road it is easy to point fingers at congress when questions get too loud to ignore. "They made us use that engine, again" and all of that. Meanwhile they are using the government funded engine and as an unique sales point support the solids program. Should be good for a decade or so as long as there is not satellite confetti.


The other ways are harder and start with:
LM und Boeing decide to stop sleeping and do something.

Here is what I would look at.
For now it has to be Vulcan BE-4. The design should be mostly ready, same for the engine. The RD-180 ban leaves no time for changes.

SMART gets accelerated, a lot. Do the required drop and catch tests with increasingly heavier stuff up to full boilerplate test articles. Find out what the actual feasibility and cost of recovery is. If this doesn't even work in testing it's time for plan B. No reason not have the answer till fall.

ACES gets accelerated. Create a flight opportunity for the IVF part asap. More capability for the same price, easy choice. Getting rid of an SRB, even better. How feasible are the different engine options? If at all possible go with with two of them. RL10 for the heritage crowd, something else for price shoppers. Even if it is just a paper tiger to scare ARJ some more. ;) Also, two can play the two bids game.

Dust of the double launch adapter for more bid shenanigans. If at all possible submit not 1 or 2 but 4 bids. 1 GPS sat with 2 different upper stage engine options. 2 GPS sats to independent planes again with 2 engine options. (Got that great upper stage, might as well use it show it off.)


Say SMART is working for the most part.
How expensive are the SRB and how locked down is the contract.
How expensive would be Vulcan heavy. If feasible hang a bit longer onto the Delta IV launch pads. Find out if it is possible to go Kerbal and use a double instead of a triple stack. Since the continued production of solids seems to be important to the military continue bid both versions.
SMART should scale linear, just add a helicopters and another ship for the center core. Vulcan is Delta IV based so the heavy is not a totally new problem.


Say SMART fails in testing .
That would be bad. Find out who of the vertical landing crowd can be bought, buy (into) at least one to get some knowledge.
Bodge a small landing engine or two onto Vulcan. Before first flight so that there is the least amount of complaints about changes.
Is there a need for accelerated testing? Has the landing engine enough power to launch the first stage high enough? If so perhaps go to the west coast for range availability. Since it is just one stage can the Delta II pad be modded for cheap in case there is an oops?


Longer term thinking. VTVL is still the thing.
Still buy (into) one of the smaller companies with relevant knowledge. Just less of a panic buy.

What capabilities are needed? As today, F9 reuseable or NG sized? Time to have a frank talk with the NRO and the military satellite builders. I suppose that is where most of the contacts are and that ULA won't be allowed leave that market segment any time soon.

All VTVL stages seem to be sized by the minimum throttle of the landing engine. Does it make sense to go with a smaller dedicated landing engine? Is the big picture efficiency in a massive stage or a heavy configuration. Can you build an Ariane like sustainer core for the heavy. VTVL for the sides, SMART for the core.

Thinking outside the box. It looks like SpaceX wants to play their own game. No distractions, tank you very much. Can you lease a NG first stage from Blue? As service or to launch with an existing pad and integration building. Recovery and refurbishment always by Blue. The idea is that Blue is still not interested in the national launch game with all its additional requirements. If all the vertical integration gear is on the ULA side there is not too much sense for Blue to duplicate it just to launch the same rocket. They can can continue to keep out of it a bit longer. (As always until congress makes them enter it.)




More questions than answers, more stupid ideas than good ones. Good thing that this is not my job.  ;D

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38143
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22613
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #830 on: 04/04/2017 04:25 pm »

On NSF maybe.  The same discussions and debates were happening on Space Politics where I used to hang out,.

That site was no where informed on topics as elsewhere and was biased and full of trolls. 
The fact that you frequented it put you at a disadvantage.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38143
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22613
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #831 on: 04/04/2017 04:32 pm »

Not only was their accomplishment vindication for SpaceX, but also for those that have defended SpaceX and their efforts on reusability for years on forums like NSF.

But regardless who proved reusability was possible, I believe this accomplishment signals a change in the business model for space transportation, and there is no going back.  Which is why I advocate that ULA should accept that reusability is here to stay, and that they should not commit to being the LAST organization to build a new expendable rocket, but to being the NEXT organization to build a reusable rocket.


Wrong.  See shuttle and reusability.  Reusability =! cost reduction

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6817
  • California
  • Liked: 8522
  • Likes Given: 5415
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #832 on: 04/04/2017 05:15 pm »
I think for ULA the die has already been cast that ULA will be building the Vulcan as currently designed and that design will be doing engine only recovery for reusability.

You're an optimist. Because the current design of Vulcan does *NOT* include engine recovery. This is merely a "future enhancement" that ULA has thrown out there to assure people that they too can do re-usability. I doubt there is much serious intent behind it.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #833 on: 04/04/2017 05:41 pm »
Boeing and Lockheed see ULA as a means to insure their sats arrive. Vulcan does that. Compactly.
Please elaborate on "their sats". Who's sats are those? Not quite understanding what you meant here.
Boeing and Lockheed. E.g. going back to the pre-consent decree days ... that do it for you?

Quote
Also, there are other sources of sats ... who need the same kind of insurance.
It's not just ULA that's positioned to do that. There's more LSP's than just ULA and a certain company from Hawthorne.
This is the ULA Vulcan thread. Clearly it is not understood how ULA differs from a rival. In the fewest words.

Am speaking here about product/market requirements for sat missions/vendors satisfied by ULA LSP, and why Vulcan is as it its.

I think for ULA the die has already been cast that ULA will be building the Vulcan as currently designed and that design will be doing engine only recovery for reusability.
I doubt there is much serious intent behind it.
Believe it will vanish soon.

Not because ULA lacks the skill or ambition. But because a) its a distraction, b) time consumer when they need to move fast, and c) its too insignificant to establish market control. So its pointless.

Also, with ITS/NA, what is the long term game plan for Boeing/LM/ULA? Shouldn't that be where you consider the "big picture" of LSP? Instead of Vulcan?


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38143
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22613
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #834 on: 04/04/2017 06:10 pm »

ARJ gets Congress to do its thing and ULA does cost plus for years to come.

ULA has been fixed price during its whole life.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • United States
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 1854
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #835 on: 04/04/2017 10:11 pm »
I think for ULA the die has already been cast that ULA will be building the Vulcan as currently designed and that design will be doing engine only recovery for reusability.

You're an optimist. Because the current design of Vulcan does *NOT* include engine recovery. This is merely a "future enhancement" that ULA has thrown out there to assure people that they too can do re-usability. I doubt there is much serious intent behind it.

No, you are just a ULA pessimist.  I am too tired to split hairs with you about "design" and "enhancement" and engine recovery. 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15670
  • N. California
  • Liked: 15825
  • Likes Given: 1443
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #836 on: 04/05/2017 12:43 am »
I think for ULA the die has already been cast that ULA will be building the Vulcan as currently designed and that design will be doing engine only recovery for reusability.

You're an optimist. Because the current design of Vulcan does *NOT* include engine recovery. This is merely a "future enhancement" that ULA has thrown out there to assure people that they too can do re-usability. I doubt there is much serious intent behind it.

No, you are just a ULA pessimist.  I am too tired to split hairs with you about "design" and "enhancement" and engine recovery.

At least in theory, Vulcan is a development program with a target date and some partial level of corporate financial commitment.

So far, SMART reuse is not included in that, there are not beginning or target dates, and AFAIK, no real money.

Other than that, they're in the same status.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline FishInferno

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #837 on: 04/05/2017 03:57 am »
Would it be a feasible/logical move for ULA to ditch the Vulcan booster entirely and focus on developing ACES/Cislunar 1000?  They could form a partnership with Blue Origin to refuel ACES using reusable NG upper stages, or invest money in an orbital fuel depot since they wouldn't be funding the booster anymore.  It would allow them to be ahead of the curve for the Cislunar economy, the same way SpaceX is with reusability.

Hearing Tory on the TMRO interview... He mentioned ACES every chance he got, but didn't start talking about SMART reuse until explicitly asked about reusability.
Comparing SpaceX and SLS is like comparing paying people to plant fruit trees with merely digging holes and filling them.  - Robotbeat

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6919
  • Erie, CO
  • Liked: 4209
  • Likes Given: 1946
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #838 on: 04/05/2017 05:34 am »
Wrong.  See shuttle and reusability.  Reusability =! cost reduction

Reusability doesn't guarantee a cost reduction, sure. But you're committing the fallacy of hasty generalization--ie you're extrapolating a single data point (Shuttle) a little too aggressively. I think Elon's blowing smoke when he talks about 100x reductions in price as happening within the next 25yrs with RLVs, but I wouldn't be surprised if he could make reusability at least allow modest price savings compared to a purely expendable F9.

Bringing this back to ULA, I'm a pretty bona fide ULA optimist, but even I think that SMART is either too little or too late, or both. It'll likely take SpaceX a while to get to the point where reuse is a net savings, but they'll get there, and probably long before the currently planned debut of SMART. You don't have to be a ULA hater to want to find ways to help them stay competitive. If I didn't care about ULA, I wouldn't try to convince them to improve their architecture.

~Jon

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6919
  • Erie, CO
  • Liked: 4209
  • Likes Given: 1946
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #839 on: 04/05/2017 05:50 am »
Would it be a feasible/logical move for ULA to ditch the Vulcan booster entirely and focus on developing ACES/Cislunar 1000?  They could form a partnership with Blue Origin to refuel ACES using reusable NG upper stages, or invest money in an orbital fuel depot since they wouldn't be funding the booster anymore.  It would allow them to be ahead of the curve for the Cislunar economy, the same way SpaceX is with reusability.

Hearing Tory on the TMRO interview... He mentioned ACES every chance he got, but didn't start talking about SMART reuse until explicitly asked about reusability.

In an ideal world, ULA would have loved to focus on ACES first instead of Vulcan. But they're in a situation where they have to have a launcher, and SpaceX and AJR have made sure that ULA is required by Congress to get rid of RD-180, hence ULA is stuck with focusing on Vulcan first, and then ACES second. But an option where they just become an upper stage operator isn't likely in the cards--the DoD and NASA both still want two EELV-class providers. Though with Blue on the satellite launch scene now, that is going to make things harder for Tory.

~Jon

Tags:
 

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