ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2

[meekGee]

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.

Currently ULA absolutely needs BO.   BO, OTOH, is playing with ULA because why not.  Certainly not harming BO, and helping them needle SpaceX.  If BO is successful, maybe they'll end up poaching some of the ops talent, maybe buy them outright.

[Newton_V]

BO, OTOH, is playing with ULA because why not.

Your insight into the partnership with Blue Origin is remarkable. 

[Coastal Ron]

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.

There is the possibility though that ULA and Blue Origin anticipated this situation when they entered into their partnership, and we in the public don't yet understand how they are divvying up the potential markets for Vulcan and New Glenn...

[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.

Jim,

I'm a big ULA fan, and I don't think that going with the BE-4 is a bad idea like gospacex claims, but I have to disagree with your assessment on ULA and Blue not being at least partially competitors. ULA isn't long-term viable unless it lands at least a modest amount of commercial work--if they only launch gov't payloads, they won't fly often enough to be affordable or reliable in the long-run. Could the gov't keep them on life-support to keep a second competitor? Maybe, but that's death-spiral territory for a commercial company. I think they really do need to be at least commercially competitive enough to win a few commercial flights per year. And now Blue is competing with them in that market. I'd be concerned if I was ULA.

Now, does that mean they should ditch BE-4? Heck no. That would likely be even more suicidal. They should try to make sure that they have a production agreement with Blue that makes it so Blue doesn't have them over the barrel on engines, but there are several ways to make that happen.

But long-term they now have to find a way to be competitive with both Blue and SpaceX somehow. If they had full control over their own destiny (ie weren't a Boeing/LM JV) they'd have a better chance of doing so--they have a lot of talent, and a lot of good technology especially on the upper stage side.

Just my $.02

~Jon

[jongoff]

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?

There are in theory other ways of doing VTVL powered landing for a vehicle like Vulcan. My preference would be using some smaller, high performance engines for a sideways vertical landing. Ursa Major isn't proven yet, but they are planning a 25klbf LOX/Methane staged combustion engine as their next design after the current 5klbf LOX/Kero engine they have on the stand. Masten is also developing a deep throttleable 25klbf LOX/Methane engine using a variant on expander cycle. They're both shooting for T/W ratios and Isps that should be in the same class, or potentially even better than the current Merlins SpaceX is using. Bring the stage down sideways, with a thermal shield flap to protect the main engines, and I would think you could make a stage that put a lot less wear and tear on the various engines than a vertically oriented vertical landing.

Aerodynamics is trickier since the stage probably wants to come in mostly tail first, but assuming you could make a sideways entry work, you'd also have a lower ballistic coefficient/terminal velocity due to having more drag area per unit mass. Ultimately the question is could you get a high enough flight rate to justify the performance hit in lost propellant for boostback/landing? Not sure, but my hunch says yes.

That said, ULA needs to get Vulcan and ACES flying at all first. By the time they are ready to start serious work on first stage booster engine recovery, there'll be more data from SpaceX and Blue, and hopefully both Ursa and Masten will be further along with their engines. I'd like to think ULA would be willing to change their mind if the facts change and there are new ways to move forward.

~Jon

[su27k]

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.

[sdsds]

Would someone kindly explain why it would be difficult to vertically land a two-engine Vulcan booster? Wouldn't it "just" be a matter of nailing the hoverslam maneuver and then cutting thrust?

Of course there's the penalty of legs. And the uncertainty of the hypersonic re-entry propulsion burn. But couldn't ULA swallow their pride and repeat the steps SpaceX went through?

[2552]

A reentry burn isn't strictly necessary. It might be possible to use New Glenn's design of using strakes to generate lift in the upper atmosphere and stay higher for longer to reduce the reentry heating.

[Oli]

Would someone kindly explain why it would be difficult to vertically land a two-engine Vulcan booster? Wouldn't it "just" be a matter of nailing the hoverslam maneuver and then cutting thrust?

I'd say the control problem gets more and more difficult with a higher T/W ratio. You'd probably end up crashing most of your stages and landing only a few lucky ones. Or none at all.

[hkultala]

Would someone kindly explain why it would be difficult to vertically land a two-engine Vulcan booster? Wouldn't it "just" be a matter of nailing the hoverslam maneuver and then cutting thrust?

You never hit anything at perfect accuracy. There are always variables you don't know at 100% accuracy affecting the landing, not matter how well your control algorithm is. The landing gear has to have some suspension to cope with that. But with higher T/W ratio, you have to approach with much higher speed and start decelerating much later. Even a very small inaccuracy on some reading or control then means much higher difference in final landing velocity, and then you would need very good suspension to take that hit. Also the engines might simply not be able to thrust up/down fast enough, and with higher T/W ratios everything is happening in shorter time.



Of course there's the penalty of legs. And the uncertainty of the hypersonic re-entry propulsion burn. But couldn't ULA swallow their pride and repeat the steps SpaceX went through?
[/quote]

[spacenut]

Maybe I have asked this before.  SpaceX has a proven engine in Merlin.  Would several of these (4-5) be a good replacement for the RD-180 on Atlas?  SpaceX may not want to sell?  Too much plumbing change from one to 4 or 5 engines?  They could still use the solids.  Atlas is about the same diameter as Falcon.  It would be like a Falcon 5.  Solids would increase it's payload capacity.  I know rockets aren't legos, but at least it is an American made engine. 

It seems like politics might kill Vulcan with BE-4's.  The AR-1 maybe several years away.  However I do like Ed Kyles AR-1 powered SLS delivering 160 tons to LEO.  I know it is too late to change SLS, but politics can be weird. 

Just some thoughts on what ULA might be able to do.  Even with 5 Merlins, Atlas might be able to land or still save the engines like the proposed Vulcan. 

[envy887]

...
It seems like politics might kill Vulcan with BE-4's.  The AR-1 maybe several years away.  However I do like Ed Kyles AR-1 powered SLS delivering 160 tons to LEO.  I know it is too late to change SLS, but politics can be weird. 
...

If you're referring to this: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34944.msg1653557#msg1653557 the drawing on the right side is just me mangling Ed's sketch (the left one).

[calapine]

It seems like politics might kill Vulcan with BE-4's.  The AR-1 maybe several years away.  However I do like Ed Kyles AR-1 powered SLS delivering 160 tons to LEO.  I know it is too late to change SLS, but politics can be weird. 

The issue some congressmen have with BE-4 is that it's not built Alabama. But neither is Merlin, so it it wouldn't be a fix for this "problem".

That aside, I doubt their intervention will succeed: It's too obviously motivated by the desire for pork.

[whitelancer64]

Maybe I have asked this before.  SpaceX has a proven engine in Merlin.  Would several of these (4-5) be a good replacement for the RD-180 on Atlas?  SpaceX may not want to sell?  Too much plumbing change from one to 4 or 5 engines?  They could still use the solids.  Atlas is about the same diameter as Falcon.  It would be like a Falcon 5.  Solids would increase it's payload capacity.  I know rockets aren't legos, but at least it is an American made engine. 

It seems like politics might kill Vulcan with BE-4's.  The AR-1 maybe several years away.  However I do like Ed Kyles AR-1 powered SLS delivering 160 tons to LEO.  I know it is too late to change SLS, but politics can be weird. 

Just some thoughts on what ULA might be able to do.  Even with 5 Merlins, Atlas might be able to land or still save the engines like the proposed Vulcan.

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.

[edkyle99]

Maybe I have asked this before.  SpaceX has a proven engine in Merlin.  Would several of these (4-5) be a good replacement for the RD-180 on Atlas? 

I pulled this sketch from an earlier discussion.  Atlas 5 CCB would have to stretch or get fatter with Merlins, to make up for the lower specific impulse.  Since more propellant would be needed, more thrust would also be needed, thus the 6th Merlin in this drawing.

AR-1 would be a much better, though still not precisely equivalent, RD-180 replacement for Atlas 5.

 - Ed Kyle

[ZachS09]

Compared to the RD-180's liftoff thrust of 860,321 pounds, using 6 Merlin 1D+ engines on the CCB will produce a liftoff thrust of 1,140,141 pounds.

That nearly equals the Delta IV Medium+ (4,2) with the baseline RS-68, which produces 1,169,722 pounds of thrust.

[spacenut]

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. 

[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).

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.

I did not assert that though. Tory Bruno did, under oath. In 2015.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37873.0

[Dante80]

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. 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.

Yes, other players chose to pay this development cost (SpaceX-Merlin, Blue-BE-3/4), but those companies already have rockets to utilize said engines. AJRD at best had a limited partnership with ULA, forced by the RD-180 shenanigans.

[Brovane]

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. 

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. 

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

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.