ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2

[envy887]

Not necessarily that hard though. It's probably a suboptimal *technical* concept, but possibly a decent business/technical concept.

Given ULA's complex relationship with it's parents that sounds like the right direction for them to go in.

What diameter booster would they need to fit 3 engines across? They would need 5-7 of those engines clustered on each LRB to replace the thrust of a single GEM. That would make VTVL recovery simple.

And with a single engine upper stage that would make a nice small sat launcher.

Wikipedia says the the GEM 60 motors are 60" in diam and 197.5 Klb thrust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite-Epoxy_Motor

That's 3-4 of the largest engines, assuming the Vulcan GEMS have no higher thrust. They have carried provision for TVC if needed.

Vulcan is using the GEM 63 XL. Can't find any thrust numbers on those, but with the naive assumption that thrust should scale with total mass(listed here),  it should be around 300klbf.

I was thinking 400 klbf for some reason, but 250 klbf would be a lot easier. If you want to VTVL a multi-engine booster on its main engines, the landing engine needs to be near the centerline. That means 3-across is pretty much a requirement, and any number from 3 to 7 requires the same booster diameter.

However, Vulcan has plenty of room around its perimeter for larger boosters, at least until it gets too close to the tower. So maybe 2 meter tanks, and 7x 35 klbf engines? Both Ursa Major and Masten seem to be targeting the 35 klbf range with a methalox engine.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Yes.  The 5.4 meter diameter is shared by Ariane 5 and 6, which will also share some or most aspects of the Vulcan payload fairing.  One wonders what other bits Vulcan and Ariane might end up sharing.

Other than the fairings being produced by RUAG the two vehicles will share nothing.

How about fairing reuse additions?  Or will that injure production volume so much to be a "no go"? This reuse thing is so pesky ...

[russianhalo117]

Not necessarily that hard though. It's probably a suboptimal *technical* concept, but possibly a decent business/technical concept.

Given ULA's complex relationship with it's parents that sounds like the right direction for them to go in.

What diameter booster would they need to fit 3 engines across? They would need 5-7 of those engines clustered on each LRB to replace the thrust of a single GEM. That would make VTVL recovery simple.

And with a single engine upper stage that would make a nice small sat launcher.

Wikipedia says the the GEM 60 motors are 60" in diam and 197.5 Klb thrust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite-Epoxy_Motor

That's 3-4 of the largest engines, assuming the Vulcan GEMS have no higher thrust. They have carried provision for TVC if needed.

Vulcan is using the GEM 63 XL. Can't find any thrust numbers on those, but with the naive assumption that thrust should scale with total mass(listed here),  it should be around 300klbf.

look at OATK's motor catalog and likely I posted it in one or more of these threads multiple times since last year. It is also in OATK NGL thread.

[PahTo]

After Centaur-3 SEC and DEC is retired from Vulcan Family. Centaur-5 will serve as the interim stage until ACES is ready and Centaur-5 may even co exist with ACES for a while before it gets the boot.

Not to drag this too far afield, but istr reading in one of these threads that Centaur 5 will incorporate some form of IVF--perhaps an ICE.  Is there a dedicated Centaur thread?
Also, what is the expected frequency of tests for the BE-4?  Given the "recent" 50% test, should we expect a "long duration"at 50%?  Short run at 100%?
(note questions are directed to the forum, not just rh117)

[john smith 19]

Not to drag this too far afield, but istr reading in one of these threads that Centaur 5 will incorporate some form of IVF--perhaps an ICE.  Is there a dedicated Centaur thread?
Also, what is the expected frequency of tests for the BE-4?  Given the "recent" 50% test, should we expect a "long duration"at 50%?  Short run at 100%?
(note questions are directed to the forum, not just rh117)

IVF is basically an ICE which serves several functions and the special (gimbaled) thrusters driven by tank boil off. Uncooled and relatively low pressure.

ULA have talked about IVF for a long time and I would not be surprised if they are doing a new US that it would not be incorporated. ULA have reckoned IVF on the existing Centaur stage would increase payload by 500Kg.

Equally important it would replace a bunch of existing tanks, with their highly pressurized or highly toxic contents, and all the separate boxes, with a a pair of basically inert panels that can be built off line and mounted late in the build. Only ULA know how much that could save them but it should be quite substantial. 

[russianhalo117]

After Centaur-3 SEC and DEC is retired from Vulcan Family. Centaur-5 will serve as the interim stage until ACES is ready and Centaur-5 may even co exist with ACES for a while before it gets the boot.

Not to drag this too far afield, but istr reading in one of these threads that Centaur 5 will incorporate some form of IVF--perhaps an ICE.  Is there a dedicated Centaur thread?
Also, what is the expected frequency of tests for the BE-4?  Given the "recent" 50% test, should we expect a "long duration"at 50%?  Short run at 100%?
(note questions are directed to the forum, not just rh117)

Centaur 5 was only recently announced and there are few public details at this time. Bruno has said recently that information will be made available soon (as in 2018).

[meekGee]

Hmm. Sounds like they are going to design a brand new rocket, and then design it all over again later. 

This suggests
a) They think stage reuse is a fad that will go away and the redesign will not be necessary or
b) They expect someone else will pick up the bill.

This does not seem quite the attitude you want to have approaching such a design, but time will tell how right they are.

I'll point out that SpaceX did the same - design a rocket and then later design a brand new rocket for reuse - and then upgrade the redesign to finally make reuse possible.  They're working on another significant iteration now, presumably an attempt to make reuse actually pay for itself. 

I would expect ULA to follow a similar path.  SMART reuse is a concept.  It may not be the final concept.  Maybe they'll really end up focusing on second stage reuse instead.  SpaceX also had an early concept.  Remember the parachutes?

 - Ed Kyle

Small difference.  SpaceX was trailblazing.  ULA is going to be 10 (count them) years behind the curve when they even start.

That, plus enough with the parachute thing. The plan was propulsive fly-back since the first F9.

[meekGee]

That, plus enough with the parachute thing. The plan was propulsive fly-back since the first F9.

Definitely not how I remember things.  Merlin 1C never restarted on v1.0 first stage, for example.  No legs, no margin, no mention of the concept by Musk until after the first one or two v1.0 flights, etc.

First doesn't always win in the end.  Plenty of examples out there.

 - Ed Kyle

For a follower to win, they need to exhibit an attitude different from what's revealed about Vulcan's design by the posts above.

I know from a senior insider source that a reasonable group within SpaceX new about the propulsive fly-back plan a bit after the first F9 flight. F91.0 was not capable of fly back of course, but at that point F91.1 was already planned. You have to realize that the very short lifetime of F9 1.0 is a dead giveaway that it was simply a learning vehicle for heavy-class rockets.

When we found out about F9 1.1, it was already in a pretty advanced state, right?

What we're hearing about Vulcan is that at this point, they are not even designing in SMART reuse.  That's just a major fail.

[meekGee]

What we're hearing about Vulcan is that at this point, they are not even designing in SMART reuse.  That's just a major fail.

For the projected Vulcan EELV flight rates, there may be no pay back for money spent developing reuse.  Wasting money would be the major fail, IMO.

 - Ed Kyle   

Chicken and egg.

F9 didn't have a high projected flight rate. The CEO, instead of complaining about market conditions, did something about them.

ULA has an easier task. The first comer already transformed the market for them. All they have to do now is put on their grown up pants and go after some of that business.  Then they'll have a "projected flight rate".

But for that, they need to step out of their comfort zone, which they are increasingly proving to be incapable of doing.

[jongoff]

That, plus enough with the parachute thing. The plan was propulsive fly-back since the first F9.

That's not true at all. They didn't announce propulsive recovery till well after their first Falcon 9 flight. I know exactly when they did the first work on seeing if they could even do boostback/propulsive landing on F9 and it wasn't until late 2010, well after their first Falcon 9 flight. When I interviewed there in December 2007 (well into the F9 development process), everyone was asking me why on earth Masten was screwing around with propulsive landing when parachute landing was so much easier. They didn't really change their tune until Armadillo and Masten both demonstrated VTVL and in-air relight with small teams.

I don't think anyone familiar with the process can honestly claim that Falcon 9 didn't originally plan for parachute recovery and that it wasn't until after it started flying that they decided to change to propulsive landing.

That's no knock on Elon. Nobody's perfect, but he learned from others and adopted their best ideas and then ran with them brilliantly. But acting like he hasn't had dumb ideas and false-starts that he had to change in the past is pure historical revisionism.  </rant>

Bringing this back to ULA though, I hope Tory can follow Elon's lead in learning from others and incorporating good ideas into Vulcan going forward. While there may be some missions where SMART recovery is better than full-stage recovery (think really high energy Vulcan missions), I wish they had a full-stage recovery option baselined for lower-performance missions. I don't think it would be entirely impossible to retrofit that into Vulcan later, but with their slower iteration cycles than SpaceX, I wish I could find a way to convince ULA to move on better reusability sooner.

~Jon

[jongoff]

I know from a senior insider source that a reasonable group within SpaceX new about the propulsive fly-back plan a bit after the first F9 flight. F91.0 was not capable of fly back of course, but at that point F91.1 was already planned. You have to realize that the very short lifetime of F9 1.0 is a dead giveaway that it was simply a learning vehicle for heavy-class rockets.

Yeah, Elon saw Armadillo and Masten pull off VTVL in-air relights in ~April 2010 (right before the F9 first flight), and apparently that's when he challenged his team to change course. To paraphrase a story I've heard from a few people who were there in the meeting "If those Masten guys, five freaking guys in a crappy shack in Mojave, can do this, we can do this!"

But that's not the same thing as boost-back powered landing being part of the plan from the start. They pivoted.

Elon's great at pivoting when he realizes there is a better approach. And then convincing his followers that that had always been his plan all along...

~Jon

[john smith 19]

For the projected Vulcan EELV flight rates, there may be no pay back for money spent developing reuse.  Wasting money would be the major fail, IMO.

Isn't that the same argument that could be made against IVF as well?

BAU is a known quantity with known costs and known benefits yet ULA seem quite keen to introduce this

If SX have taught people anything it's the very high cost of maintaining 2 versions of something.  Better to design in features you know will be needed later on now and let them accumulate flight experience than, so they minimize any changes that have to be made later.

It can (arguably) be said recovery is lower risk than IVF, as SX have already demonstrated a method that is known to work.  IVF has never been space tested, hence the ever present spectre of the "Unknown unknowns." ULA's long delay in getting something (anything) of IVF on an actual LV is not helping them.

ULA has an easier task. The first comer

SX as a "First comer" makes a great story.

Pity it's not true.

First to build a TSTO ELV?. Definitely not.
First to suggest stage recovery? No. Various retrofit proposals from the various stage mfg from the 1960's onward
First to suggest plan reuse  using air bags and parachutes? Kistler had that as well.
First to suggest upper stage reuse? No Kistler again.
First to demonstrate atmospheric relight? No. Masten, Armadillo and various "super performance" rocket engine retrofits to fighters in the 1950's and 60's.

But

They have been the first to successfully implement booster recovery, thereby raising the TRL level of their approach to 9.

already transformed the market for them.

It may look that way but from an insiders perspective (and ULA is an insider) I'm not so sure that's as clear as you think.

Pre SX. Medium launch costs 10s of $m and has a near 100% success rate.

Post SX. Medium launch costs 10s of $m and has a near 100% success rate (but not quite as near if you go with SX).

From ULA's PoV SX have done a good job of capturing existing market share and are starting to move into ULA's cherished NSS business.

But has the overall market gone up?
How many customers who didn't think their plans were viable have now moved into "active" mode and are actually building hardware  because of this "lower" launch price?

I suspect the answer is "not many."  ULA know price elasticity is not that great in the launch industry (they are "stiff")  SX was talking about $3-5m/ launch back when they thought they could do US recovery and reuse.  I'll bet ULA did a fair bit of panicking then, only to find it never happened (for whatever reason) 

 

All they have to do now is put on their grown up pants and go after some of that business.  Then they'll have a "projected flight rate".

An awful lot of that flight rate seems to be to orbit the Starlink constellation. It's unlikely they will be winning any of those launches. 

 

But for that, they need to step out of their comfort zone, which they are increasingly proving to be incapable of doing.

By your standards perhaps, but consider.

Bruno could have kept his head down, continue with BAU, not rock the boat and not ask the parents for funding for a new rocket.

He would have stayed with ULA as it gradually raised its prices as finished mfg the block buy and it gradually started to lose further launch contracts until SX's success rate approached their own and the parents shut them down due to lack of sales. ULA bites the dust and he retires to Florida with a good pension.

However he has chosen to fight for the business as a business, not little division of a multi $Bn defense corp.

Everything should be considered from the PoV that ULA is not a free agent.

In fact the nearest model would be a state owned company, Amtrack(?) or one of the European nationally owned airlines.

Here any profits (or "surpluses") go to the nations Treasury and the organization has to "bid" for money and justify it's usage, often on an annual basis, while any money they make is used by the Treasury to do whatever they want with it.

Sound familiar?

It's quite amusing to non Americans just how "socialist" the US Defense and Space industry actually is, wheather or not the actors are publicly or State owned. ULA has more in common with the French National Railway company than many people might realize. 

[clongton]

All this back and forth between SpaceX and ULA amazing peoples is foolish. Neither one is "better". They are both really good - and DIFFERENT.

They have completely different operating philosophies:
...ULA is profit motivated
...SpaceX is goal motivated

They have completely different organizational structures:
...ULA is run by 2 parent companies with BODs that answers to shareholders
...SpaceX is run by Elon Musk who answers to, well nobody

There are other differences as well but these 2 alone are enough to almost say you're comparing apples to oranges in terms of who is better.
They are both in this industry for completely different reasons. THAT is going to make them diverge at almost every point.
So please stop already.

[Patchouli]

I know from a senior insider source that a reasonable group within SpaceX new about the propulsive fly-back plan a bit after the first F9 flight. F91.0 was not capable of fly back of course, but at that point F91.1 was already planned. You have to realize that the very short lifetime of F9 1.0 is a dead giveaway that it was simply a learning vehicle for heavy-class rockets.

Yeah, Elon saw Armadillo and Masten pull off VTVL in-air relights in ~April 2010 (right before the F9 first flight), and apparently that's when he challenged his team to change course. To paraphrase a story I've heard from a few people who were there in the meeting "If those Masten guys, five freaking guys in a crappy shack in Mojave, can do this, we can do this!"

But that's not the same thing as boost-back powered landing being part of the plan from the start. They pivoted.

Elon's great at pivoting when he realizes there is a better approach. And then convincing his followers that that had always been his plan all along...

~Jon

I suspect Spacex might have hired someone who worked on DCX or the Kistler K1 around that time as boost back was a part of the K1's launch profile.

All this back and forth between SpaceX and ULA amazing peoples is foolish. Neither one is "better". They are both really good - and DIFFERENT.

They have completely different operating philosophies:
...ULA is profit motivated
...SpaceX is goal motivated

They have completely different organizational structures:
...ULA is run by 2 parent companies with BODs that answers to shareholders
...SpaceX is run by Elon Musk who answers to, well nobody

There are other differences as well but these 2 alone are enough to almost say you're comparing apples to oranges in terms of who is better.
They are both in this industry for completely different reasons. THAT is going to make them diverge at almost every point.
So please stop already.

One thing that can be said about ULA is their reliability.
But  a company tends to act a lot less daring when it has to answer to share holders.

[Space Ghost 1962]

But does that matter to the crowd that wants to launch auto's to high C3? 

[meekGee]

ULA has an easier task. The first comer already transformed the market for them. All they have to do now is put on their grown up pants and go after some of that business.  Then they'll have a "projected flight rate".

But for that, they need to step out of their comfort zone, which they are increasingly proving to be incapable of doing.

Their comfort zone is where they excel, to the great benefit of their U.S. government customer.  Now, other launch providers may ultimately find a way to make that customer equally happy, but at the present time only ULA is essentially fully committed to that customer, by contract obligations that require it to provide services on both coasts that it would not otherwise provide.  Vulcan, it appears to me, is being designed specifically for that customer, like no other rocket from any other company. 

 - Ed Kyle

Previously it was stated that their goal is profit, since they have shareholders. If that's the case, then they need to understand that this comfort zone is not going to last.

I'm well aware that they have some capabilities that nobody else has, but their strategy virtually guarantees that they will become obsolete and that their capabilities will become irrelevant.  They will not survive, and then there will be no more profit or comfort zone or anything.

This is not a slug fest...  This is an observation that in order to remain relevant, even for USG launches, they need to do a hell of a lot more than another EELV, even if it's better than Atlas.  And a lot more than maybe-IVF and someday-SMART.

The fact that they have two corporate parents, which are financially stable since they each have many other lines of business should be a plus, not a minus. When dealing with uncertain futures and risky moves, companies often band together as a risk-reduction strategy.  Here, it's already built in.

ULA should take advantage of the huge stability of Boeing/LMCO, and of the skills that they still have, and start moving. Right now, based on the information upthread, they absolutely are not.

[gongora]

Your opinion of what ULA should be doing is just that:  your opinion.  It is not fact.  ULA's shareholders will make the decisions they think are best for their situation.

[MATTBLAK]

Have any specs or performance figures been released about Vulcan/Centaur 5? How closely would a widened Centaur 5 end up resembling the notional 'Exploration Upper Stage' for SLS?

[meekGee]

This is not a slug fest...  This is an observation that in order to remain relevant, even for USG launches, they (ULA) need to do a hell of a lot more than another EELV, even if it's better than Atlas.  And a lot more than maybe-IVF and someday-SMART.

It already will do more.  Vulcan-Centaur 5 is being designed to meet all of the EELV reference mission requirements from the get-go.  Falcon 9 can't meet all of those requirements.  Its first stage will have to be expended, or a more expensive Falcon Heavy will have to perform the missions, and I'm not certain that recoverable Heavy can reach the highest payload requirements.  So, even SpaceX will have to expend rockets for many of the most-difficult missions, if it wins the work.

 - Ed Kyle

By the time Vulcan flies, it'll compete with BFR and NG, not F9.

And as flight rates drop, its price will increase, whereas the commercial-capable reusable rockets will have economics of scale and economics of reuse on their side.

That's not a good position to be at, not at the beginning of life of a product.

[Coastal Ron]

This is not a slug fest...  This is an observation that in order to remain relevant, even for USG launches, they (ULA) need to do a hell of a lot more than another EELV, even if it's better than Atlas.  And a lot more than maybe-IVF and someday-SMART.

It already will do more.  Vulcan-Centaur 5 is being designed to meet all of the EELV reference mission requirements from the get-go.  Falcon 9 can't meet all of those requirements.

As of today Falcon 9 doesn't meet those requirements, yet it has about 50% of the commercial launch market. Focusing ONLY on USG needs is missing the point, since Tory Bruno has stated that they also need commercial customers in order to have enough work for Vulcan.

Plus SpaceX may never be able to take care of all of the special need payloads for the USAF, but they are, little by little, becoming qualified for more and more of the lower requirements. And Blue Origin is planning to be certified for USAF launches too, which leaves even less for ULA to win on the bottom end. That leaves ULA with the top end of the market, which is not enough for them to survive on by itself.

Which is why Vulcan needs to be good enough to compete in the worldwide commercial market too. Today the top three launch providers are Ariane 5, Proton and Falcon 9, but by the time Vulcan comes online it's likely that Blue Origin will already be replacing Proton - so who will Vulcan replace?