In an ideal world, ULA would have loved to focus on ACES first instead of Vulcan..
Quote from: jongoff on 04/05/2017 05:50 amIn an ideal world, ULA would have loved to focus on ACES first instead of Vulcan..ACES-like concepts have been around for about as long as ULA itself. Way before RD-180 seriously became an issue. They certainly haven't been in a hurry.
Quote from: spacenut on 04/01/2017 02:52 pmSeems like they would need a minimum of 5 engines on the core to use the middle engine for throttling down to land a booster. 5 engines is close to New Glenn. 5 are not needed. You can have a center engine in a 3 or 4 engine layout. In this case a linear 3-engine setup like old-school Atlas would make the most sense. But I don't see it happening.
Seems like they would need a minimum of 5 engines on the core to use the middle engine for throttling down to land a booster. 5 engines is close to New Glenn.
Quote from: Lars-J on 04/01/2017 10:42 pmQuote from: spacenut on 04/01/2017 02:52 pmSeems like they would need a minimum of 5 engines on the core to use the middle engine for throttling down to land a booster. 5 engines is close to New Glenn. 5 are not needed. You can have a center engine in a 3 or 4 engine layout. In this case a linear 3-engine setup like old-school Atlas would make the most sense. But I don't see it happening.BE-4 can throttle a lot lower than M9D. I wonder if Vulcan could manage a hoverslam if it had three engines - the TWR at landing should be around 1.4, which is comparable to Falcon. That could eliminate all SRBs as well.
Quote from: envy887 on 04/05/2017 04:06 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 04/01/2017 10:42 pmQuote from: spacenut on 04/01/2017 02:52 pmSeems like they would need a minimum of 5 engines on the core to use the middle engine for throttling down to land a booster. 5 engines is close to New Glenn. 5 are not needed. You can have a center engine in a 3 or 4 engine layout. In this case a linear 3-engine setup like old-school Atlas would make the most sense. But I don't see it happening.BE-4 can throttle a lot lower than M9D. I wonder if Vulcan could manage a hoverslam if it had three engines - the TWR at landing should be around 1.4, which is comparable to Falcon. That could eliminate all SRBs as well.More than 2 engines in line would need a larger core diameter. They are planning to use the Delta 4 tooling. This in itself can not drive the final design decision, can it?
Do we actually know that the BE-4 can throttle that deep?The old Atlas one and a half stage designs had an engine diameter of ~1.5 times the core. Jamming 3 BE-4 into Vulcan would look similar.
...Believe it (Vulcan) 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?
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.
... They are already keeping the Atlas V/RD-180s around until mid 2020s 'for continuity'... The stretched ACES stages could easily be used when needed. New Atlas could be quite a rocket....
Quote from: AncientU on 04/06/2017 01:44 pm... They are already keeping the Atlas V/RD-180s around until mid 2020s 'for continuity'... The stretched ACES stages could easily be used when needed. New Atlas could be quite a rocket....What is a New Atlas?
Quote from: envy887 on 04/06/2017 01:56 pmQuote from: AncientU on 04/06/2017 01:44 pm... They are already keeping the Atlas V/RD-180s around until mid 2020s 'for continuity'... The stretched ACES stages could easily be used when needed. New Atlas could be quite a rocket....What is a New Atlas?New Glenn reusable first stage + Atlas Upper stage... like I posted.
Quote from: AncientU on 04/06/2017 02:01 pmQuote from: envy887 on 04/06/2017 01:56 pmQuote from: AncientU on 04/06/2017 01:44 pm... They are already keeping the Atlas V/RD-180s around until mid 2020s 'for continuity'... The stretched ACES stages could easily be used when needed. New Atlas could be quite a rocket....What is a New Atlas?New Glenn reusable first stage + Atlas Upper stage... like I posted.Meaning New Glenn + ACES?
NASA wasn't asked to "launch to ISS". It was asked to send astronauts to the lunar surface. An EELV could not, and still cannot, orbit a full-mission Orion.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/06/2017 02:24 pmNASA wasn't asked to "launch to ISS". It was asked to send astronauts to the lunar surface. An EELV could not, and still cannot, orbit a full-mission Orion.Atlas V HLV would lift 29,400 kg into LEO. Total Orion mass is 25,848 kg.
Quote from: gospacex on 04/06/2017 08:56 amThere was absolutely no financial and engineering reason to build Ares I/V nee SLS. EELVs were available and could launch to ISS with little changes. They could be evolved to have more capability.NASA wasn't asked to "launch to ISS". It was asked to send astronauts to the lunar surface. An EELV could not, and still cannot, orbit a full-mission Orion.
There was absolutely no financial and engineering reason to build Ares I/V nee SLS. EELVs were available and could launch to ISS with little changes. They could be evolved to have more capability.
