ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2

[Lars-J]

Once put in place, "in-space refueling" will change the business cases for launch and deployment. The key is that whatever your LV can get into LEO it can then by refueling get it anywhere else needed to send it. For Vulcan with an ~40mt max LEO capability that also means that they could send that payload to the Moon, Mars and even Pluto. The other needed item that makes in-space refueling usable is long duration cryo on orbit storage (1 month or longer) with an eventual depot capability of storage duration in the amount of years.

But again the elephant in the room is this question - how did the propellant get there? And who did it?

I love the direction that ULA is moving toward and it could eventually prove to be more fundamental in the expansion into space than just low cost to LEO.

More fundamental? Hardly. Without low cost LEO access there won't be any propellant in LEO to fill up. Step 2 cannot really exist without step 1, no frontiers will open up without affordable propellant. This is like building a gas station in the middle of nowhere, without considering how to effectively transport gas to it.

If ULA is actually going ahead with ACES and perfect cryo propellant storage and transfer, that is indeed wonderful. But it cannot bring down cost until the cost to fill it up has been lowered.

[GWH]

But again the elephant in the room is this question - how did the propellant get there? And who did it?

OK the whole ACES thing is really intriguing to me so I looked into it more.

First comparison to Atlas V:
Atlas V 401 payload to GTO: 4,750 kg
Atlas V 431/531 payload to GTO: 7,715/7,475 kg  GEO: ~3,000 kg - Delta IV medium+ 4,2/5,2 are roughly in this class as well
Atlas V 551 payload to GTO: 8,900 kg

Vulcan ACES (payload from +/- 500kg) 'x' is for unknown # of ACES engines
Vulcan ACES 50x payload to GTO: 8600 kg GEO ~3,100 kg
Vulcan ACES 52x payload to GTO: 9750 kg GEO ~3,500 kg
ACES stage 5440 kg dry, 68,000 kg prop

If a Vulcan ACES flies an Atlas V class payload, rendezvouses in LEO with a waiting stage it can then offload 3000 kg of prop to a previously used stage acting as a depot (getting the depot there is another matter) then burn to GTO and deliver payload.

I took a 6 year (2012-2017) list of ULA launches to GTO & GEO, on average 1.3 AV401 & 1.7 AV531 class launches are made by ULA, then 0.8 AV551 class.

So whats that mean?  Essentially 4 Vulcan ACES 50x launches per year to meet current demand, no strap on boosters. The heavier payloads can be made by topping up prop from the AV401 class missions.  That extra 3000kg of prop is more than enough.  Savings on those 4 flights however is only the cost of 2 boosters: $12M, to be passed down to the lower payload missions.
Comparatively though total cost at Atlas V prices is $542M.  At $90M target price of Vulcan-ACES total cost is $360. If SMART (hate that acronym) is 10% savings then $324M.
I don't think this scenario is really where the Vulcan ACES shines, I think distributed lift would really come out when comparing to super-heavy lift vehicles (ahem SLS).  Especially if higher market share of AV401 class payloads can result in more prop accumulated in orbit, and therefore higher profitability on deltaV hungry missions like going to lunar orbits.

For the above payload scenarios SpaceX would need 1 F9, 3 FHs. At todays cost $330M, if 30% reuse savings then $230M.

Still leaves ULA at a disadvantage,  but maybe in a very good place compared to Arianespace.

So there are my thoughts on it, please give me feedback and criticisms.
Sources:
1. Vulcan payload source: https://assets.cdn.spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/03183300/CLHVbxdUcAA0kMr.jpg-large.jpeg
2. ACES stage prop and mass fraction: http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Upper_Stages/ACES-Stage_Concept-AIAASpace_2015.pdf

[GWH]

To switch up the scenario though, since adding solids can double payload while only increasing launch costs by 50% (6*$6M =$36M) what could 2 Vulcan ACES do for a basic GTO mission combined with a LLO delivery?
1st mission Vulcan ACES 56x to LEO: Estimated payload 43,800 kg.  4750kg for satellite, plus 8000kg prop to get said satellite to GTO. Remainder of prop to depot:32,000kg.

2nd Flight Vulcan ACES 56x to LEO, 27,000 kg payload, 16,800 kg remaining prop. Refuel at depot for total of 49,000 kg which would provide 4.04 km/s dV to Lunar orbit.

Total cost= 2*$90M base Vulcan + 12*$6M SRB strap on motors = $252M.  Say the sat launch sells for $80M that leaves a total cost to put 27,000 kg in Low Lunar Orbit of $172M. 

[GWH]

Thinking more on the above 2 launch scenario, I don't thin LLO is a very good reference orbit for payloads.

Instead consider payloads for the following two scenarios:
Trans Lunar Injection (3.15 km/s dV): 34,000 kg
Lunar Surface (5.93 km/s dV): 15,500 kg -> call it 14,500 to allow for mass of Xeus landing kit.

The 2 flight costing I listed above would also be a pretty poor business model, who would want to pay $20M more than a F9 for the same payload to support lunar missions?  Vulcan ACES lunar payloads are a unique capability and should be priced as such. If instead the GTO flights were operated as a loss leader, what could they do?

To look at comparable values: SLS block 1B is 39,100 kg to TLI for anywhere from $1B to $2B depending on actual flight rate (yeah they say $0.5B but we all know that isn't true.
 Falcon Heavy, fully expendable at the latest numbers people are estimating at 22,200 kg.  So 1.5 Falcon Heavy expendables, call that $135M x 1.5 = $202M as a cost comparison.

Using SpaceX as a comparison: 1 F9 for a 4750kg GTO flight $60M, 1.5 FH: $202 Total: $262M
Total Vulcan costs: $252M
Lunar mission priced at "market value": $202M
Vulcan ACES to 4750kg payload to GTO: $50M (loss leader pricing)

Since the VulcanACES places a single payload to TLI one could increase the pricing in all sorts of ways, but I think this model demonstrates a couple things:
1. Why ULA is pushing the cis-lunar1000 so hard
2. Trying to extract every kg to orbit instead of reuse CAN be worth it if the market is there (see above)
3. Polar orbit launches would probably see no benefit from the above, SpaceX's strategy would be much agile here
4. In case there was any doubt, SLS really, really isn't needed if the private industry can provide solutions like this

[ChrisWilson68]

Aces can make sense for payloads that are otherwise too big for existing launch vehicles, or as a space tug in conjunction with a fully-reusable launch vehicle such as New Glenn.

But I don't think it makes sense for payloads that are of a size another launch vehicle could deliver in a single launch without a full-reusable launch vehicle to work with it.  And if there is a fully-reusable launch vehicle to work with it, the Vulcan part of "Vulcan-ACES" doesn't make sense.  So I really think if there's a future for ACES it's purely as a reusable in-space tug in conjunction with New Glenn or some other fully-reusable launch vehicle.

As an upper stage for launching satellites of typical sizes, I don't think it makes sense given the competitive landscape.  Falcon 9's cheap upper stage is a better approach for that.

[ChrisWilson68]

I think Blue Origin has really changed the calculations for ULA.

Bezos has not just announced New Glenn and said it will serve the satellite launch market, but he has also said he will sell $1 billion a year of Amazon stock to fund it.

By the time Vulcan can come on-line, or shortly after, it will be facing both New Glenn and Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy as competitors.  When it looked like they would just be facing SpaceX, there was a reasonable argument that by being a not-too-far-off second to SpaceX they could receive about half the government market just because the U.S. government wants multiple competitors and perhaps because they'd be willing to jump through hoops that SpaceX would not be willing to jump through.  And they could conceivably get some commercial business too for similar reasons.

But that only works for being number 2 in the market, not for being number 3.

With the current situation, I think ULA needs to cancel Vulcan.  They need to either decide to invest a huge amount in an entirely reusable design for a first stage or just give up on the future and milk their current Atlas and Delta for as long as they can.  At least with Atlas and Delta they can claim a reliability track record that they can't claim with Vulcan.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Vulcan's role is simple. To replace Atlas/Delta so the missions flown can continue. That's it.

ACES role is simple. To allow Delta Heavy growth payloads to be flown. That's it.

There are ambitions beyond these above. But the above is all that necessary to continue.

None of SX/BO/OA fly those missions, supplant those needs (yet). They have ambitions to. SX also has missions that are needed to be flown that are not Atlas/Delta missions.

All that needs to be said on the matter.

[ChrisWilson68]

Vulcan's role is simple. To replace Atlas/Delta so the missions flown can continue. That's it.

ACES role is simple. To allow Delta Heavy growth payloads to be flown. That's it.

There are ambitions beyond these above. But the above is all that necessary to continue.

None of SX/BO/OA fly those missions, supplant those needs (yet). They have ambitions to. SX also has missions that are needed to be flown that are not Atlas/Delta missions.

Yes, SpaceX and Blue Origin do not fly those missions today.  But neither does Vulcan.  Vulcan flying those missions is no more or less an ambition than Falcon Heavy and New Glenn.

Vulcan has no advantage over Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy or New Glenn just because it comes from the same company that currently flies Atlas V and Delta IV.  It will be a new launch vehicle in 2020, competing against two competitors that have a fundamental advantage in terms of reusability.  And against Falcon Heavy they are likely to have a disadvantage in terms of track record, with Falcon Heavy being the one with a track record of successful launches.

[woods170]

Vulcan's role is simple. To replace Atlas/Delta so the missions flown can continue. That's it.

ACES role is simple. To allow Delta Heavy growth payloads to be flown. That's it.

There are ambitions beyond these above. But the above is all that necessary to continue.

None of SX/BO/OA fly those missions, supplant those needs (yet). They have ambitions to. SX also has missions that are needed to be flown that are not Atlas/Delta missions.

Yes, SpaceX and Blue Origin do not fly those missions today.  But neither does Vulcan.  Vulcan flying those missions is no more or less an ambition than Falcon Heavy and New Glenn.

Vulcan has no advantage over Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy or New Glenn just because it comes from the same company that currently flies Atlas V and Delta IV.  It will be a new launch vehicle in 2020, competing against two competitors that have a fundamental advantage in terms of reusability.  And against Falcon Heavy they are likely to have a disadvantage in terms of track record, with Falcon Heavy being the one with a track record of successful launches.

Remember what Delta IV and Atlas V are flying mostly these days. SpaceX might also be doing that in the 2020's, but Blue Origin likely not. My hunch is that by the time Vulcan comes on-line, it still will have just one serious competitor, and it's not Bezos' company.

[ChrisWilson68]

Remember what Delta IV and Atlas V are flying mostly these days. SpaceX might also be doing that in the 2020's, but Blue Origin likely not. My hunch is that by the time Vulcan comes on-line, it still will have just one serious competitor, and it's not Bezos' company.

That's certainly possible.  As a taxpayer I'd like to hope that Blue Origin would enter the market for government launches, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Very speculative:
Could this be a good alternative for Vulcan?
Boeing-BlueOrigin XS-1 first stage, as a reusable, single BE-4 engine, NG configuration Reusable common core/booster.
Add with this RCCB the upper-stages:
- ? (BE-2 or other storable propellant small stage);
- Centaur (RL-10C); or
- ACES (BE-3).
And the GEM-63(XL) solid rocket boosters.

The smallest rocket (XS-1) is a RCCB + ? BE-2 upper-stage. (3 & 4m (10/14 ft fairing)
The Delta 2 and Atlas V 401-521 /  replacement could be RCCB+Centaur (+ 0-4 GEM63) (4 & 5m fairing)
The heavy configurations (Atlas V >2 boosters & Delta IV) replacement could be: (4 & 5m fairing)
0) 2x RTLS RCCB + Expendable RCCB (+ 0-2 GEM-63)
A) 2x RTLS RCCB + RCCB (Expendable or RTDS) + ? BE-2 (in orbit stage) (+ 0-2 GEM-63)
B) 2x RTLS RCCB + RCCB (Expendable or RTDS) + Centaur (+ 0-2 GEM-63)
C) 2x RTLS RCCB + RCCB (Expendable or RTDS) + ACES (+ 0-2 GEM-63)

Path RCCB instead of a new CBC.

[ChrisWilson68]

Remember what Delta IV and Atlas V are flying mostly these days. SpaceX might also be doing that in the 2020's, but Blue Origin likely not. My hunch is that by the time Vulcan comes on-line, it still will have just one serious competitor, and it's not Bezos' company.

That's certainly possible.  As a taxpayer I'd like to hope that Blue Origin would enter the market for government launches, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

It's not obligation free. Lots of hidden costs too.

Yeah, but also consider that this is Bezos.  He likes to ruthlessly drive competitors out of business.  If he leaves national security launches to ULA and SpaceX, it gives both more business and resources to compete with him in other launch markets.  If he can go into the national security launch market to wipe ULA out and potentially reduce SpaceX's profits, it seems like something he would be likely to do.

[RotoSequence]

Remember what Delta IV and Atlas V are flying mostly these days. SpaceX might also be doing that in the 2020's, but Blue Origin likely not. My hunch is that by the time Vulcan comes on-line, it still will have just one serious competitor, and it's not Bezos' company.

That's certainly possible.  As a taxpayer I'd like to hope that Blue Origin would enter the market for government launches, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

It's not obligation free. Lots of hidden costs too.

Yeah, but also consider that this is Bezos.  He likes to ruthlessly drive competitors out of business.  If he leaves national security launches to ULA and SpaceX, it gives both more business and resources to compete with him in other launch markets.  If he can go into the national security launch market to wipe ULA out and potentially reduce SpaceX's profits, it seems like something he would be likely to do.

There's no faster route to an anti-trust lawsuit than getting the attention of governments like that.

[ChrisWilson68]

Remember what Delta IV and Atlas V are flying mostly these days. SpaceX might also be doing that in the 2020's, but Blue Origin likely not. My hunch is that by the time Vulcan comes on-line, it still will have just one serious competitor, and it's not Bezos' company.

That's certainly possible.  As a taxpayer I'd like to hope that Blue Origin would enter the market for government launches, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

It's not obligation free. Lots of hidden costs too.

Yeah, but also consider that this is Bezos.  He likes to ruthlessly drive competitors out of business.  If he leaves national security launches to ULA and SpaceX, it gives both more business and resources to compete with him in other launch markets.  If he can go into the national security launch market to wipe ULA out and potentially reduce SpaceX's profits, it seems like something he would be likely to do.

There's no faster route to an anti-trust lawsuit than getting the attention of governments like that.

Anti-trust law is very specific about what kinds of competition are allowed and what are not allowed.  Blue Origin entering the government launch market does not come close in any way to any anti-trust violation, even if the intent is to drive ULA out of business.

If they sold launches to the government below cost, that would be a violation of anti-trust law.  Entering the market with a product optimized to have a lower cost would not.

Bezos has managed to drive many competitors of Amazon out of business without running afoul of anti-trust laws.

[Jim]

If he can go into the national security launch market to wipe ULA out

That is something he would not do.  It is not worth his time.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Super advanced, automated welding gear showing up in our factory to support Vulcan.  Thanks @PaRSystemsInc

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/852900634210713601

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Article about RUAG Space having a payload fairing manufacturing facility within ULA for Atlas V & Vulcan fairings:

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/ula/ruag-joins-ula-in-decatur-as-development-of-vulcan-continues/

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Making good progress for installation of our new Universal Friction Stir Welder

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/853950160837025792

[john smith 19]

Doing a search for stuff on IVF I came across this roundup of stuff from ULA.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Evolution/Innovation_at_ULA_AIAA_Space_2016.pdf

and also this on the "cis-lunar economy."

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Commercial_Space/2016_Cislunar.pdf

The first is generally interesting (I didn't know they 3d printed the ECS ducting for example) but the second starts getting interesting on slide 13. It states BE-4 for the Vulcan 1st stage has gone through CDR and Vulcan itself has gone through PDR.

This suggests Blue's BE-4 engine is practically guaranteed barring either major screwups in development or the factory burning down.

At slide 15 it shows ACES as still having 3 engine options under consideration, RL10C+, XCOR 8H21 and BO BE3U. Obviously whoevers making the RL10 has the incumbent advantage while going BO would mean one engine mfg for the whole main engine package to deal with. I think XCOR would get the most benefit winning this contract and ULA could expect to have their practically undivided attention.

Slide 17 shows the benefits of "distributed lift." I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before but it increases Earth escape, GSO or LLO payloads by > 2x and landed lunar payloads by > 3x.

Other interesting tidbits are page 13, which still shows SMART recovery commencing from 2024. I can only assume ULA have no desire to acquire, convert and operate a sea going barge.

Given that SX have now demonstrated complete first stage reuse this must be now viewed as the "low risk" strategy [EDIT as in it has already been shown to work, rather than "Can probably be made to work"] for developing such a capability. Like designing the first stage engine as a detachable module how difficult it is will very much depend on what's "enabling" features are designed into Vulcan to help you do this.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Tech needed to do SMART.

- reusable engine (many times) -> the BE-4 is this engine. Not sure about the re-usability of the AR-1.
- detachable engine assembly -> this has been around since the Atlas very early days in 1956-57.
- reentry heat protection -> being at much less than orbital velocity this is still needed but it is not a significant weight penalty to add it.
- guided parrafoil and air capture

The only item that will be the most challenging is the guided parafoil and air capture of such a heavy object.

The other considerations is that all the 1st stage avionics is in this package as well. Which includes an IMU, computer, the comm, and telemetry systems. This would be such that the expended portion is not much more than the tank cables, pipes, and the flight destruct systems. In other words about 80% of the cost is recovered in just this package.

But here is the real interesting point and that is that the 1st stage could be completely recovered at some point in the future since the major item is basically the engines being fully reusable with little refurbishment needed.