ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2

[envy887]

ULA has jumped directly to Centaur 5 to allow Vulcan to do all of the specified EELV missions from the outset, so "custom" in the sense that the launch system is being tailored for that mission set. 

Of course.

So now they can retire Delta IV Heavy at the same time as the EoL Atlas V and Delta IV.

3 Mfg lines --> 1 Mfg line.

Now if only they could get IVF and end all that messing about with Hydrazine tanks and high pressure Helium.  <sigh>

Atlas V is flying through the mid-2020s per Jim.  Delta IV Heavy is booked until 2023 I believe.

Doesn't mean the mfg lines can't be retired...

[AncientU]

This is new.  L3 will build Vulcan Centaur avionics.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-selects-l3-technologies-to-design.aspx?title=United+Launch+Alliance+Selects+L3+Technologies+to+Design+Next-Generation+Avionics+Systems

 - Ed Kyle

Vulcan Centaur is shaping up to be a quite impressive vehicle.  New booster engines, new booster tankage, new fuel type, probably new upper stage engine(s), new Centaur V, new fairings, new avionics, new launch pads(?).  Certainly won't be just a new booster under Atlas V as some have attested.

Does anyone know which pads it will launch from?  Share Atlas V pads until that vehicle retires or what?

[zubenelgenubi]

A few items: 

Commander Adama would respectfully remind you that it's "Battlestar Galactica."

"One lunch every year or two does not close a business case."  It can if it's a 4-martini lunch, and the check is signed at the restaurant table.

Or as Mr. Humphries said:

You know what they say about vodka, Mrs. Slocombe:
One's alright/
Two's the most/
Three's under the table/
Four's under the host!

I'll see myself out now.

[Jim]

, probably new upper stage engine(s), new Centaur V, new fairings, new avionics, new launch pads(?). 

All those remain the same.

It is the common avionics.

[AncientU]

, probably new upper stage engine(s), new Centaur V, new fairings, new avionics, new launch pads(?). 

All those remain the same.

It is the existing avionics upgrade

Article cited just said new avionics by L3.
5.4m Centaur V with single RL-10 -- I don't think so.  Will they use a few RL-10s instead... quite pricey.  Bet they have to change to BE-3U to be price competitive.
Thought the Atlas V fairings were 5m, not 5.4m.
Will the 'same' launch pads handle the new booster diameter, new fuel type without extensive modification?

[Jim]

Article cited just said new avionics by L3.

The common avionics is "new".  That is just a new contract.

[envy887]

, probably new upper stage engine(s), new Centaur V, new fairings, new avionics, new launch pads(?). 

All those remain the same.

It is the common avionics.

How is the 5-meter Centaur not new?

[Jim]

Thought the Atlas V fairings were 5m, not 5.4m.
Will the 'same' launch pads handle the new booster diameter, new fuel type without extensive modification?

Thought the Atlas V fairings were 5m, not 5.4m.
Will the 'same' launch pads handle the new booster diameter, new fuel type without extensive modification?

no, they are the same fairing.  No fairing on the market by any provider is exactly 4m or 5m.  Those are just fairing size classes.

The 5m Atlas using the same infrastructure goes back more than 10 years.

[AncientU]

Thought the Atlas V fairings were 5m, not 5.4m.
Will the 'same' launch pads handle the new booster diameter, new fuel type without extensive modification?

Thought the Atlas V fairings were 5m, not 5.4m.
Will the 'same' launch pads handle the new booster diameter, new fuel type without extensive modification?

no, they are the same fairing.  No fairing on the market by any provider is exactly 4m or 5m.  Those are just fairing size classes.

The 5m Atlas using the same infrastructure goes back more than 10 years.

So, they are going to use the 'same' 20.7m, 23.4m, and 26.5m long fairings that currently enclose the 12.7m long Centaur as well as the payload?  Seems like new fairings are required for the standard payloads less the Centaur.

Edit: Added figure from Atlas Users Manual

[john smith 19]

Doesn't mean the mfg lines can't be retired...

Exactly.

ULA doesn't have a problem with putting a bunch of rockets in storage pending their use (when was the last Delta II launch prior to this one?)

It's those production lines that tie up massive resources. The faster, and more completely they can pivot over to Vulcan/Centaur 5 (Centaur V?) the better.

ULA has jumped directly to Centaur 5 to allow Vulcan to do all of the specified EELV missions from the outset, so "custom" in the sense that the launch system is being tailored for that mission set.  Small to Medium to Heavy. 

I don't think ULA should be under any illusion that SX is planning to compete all EELV mission profiles eventually.

Somewhere inside SX there is a file. It will list all the reference trajectories, along with how many payload have actually used that trajectory. All fairly common knowledge.

What it will also show is how far (or not) F9 and FH are from meeting each of those trajectories, and what needs to be done to raise their specs to do so. It's pretty clear that some of them are a lot closer than others. Exactly which one of those trajectories F9/FH performance is closest too (and what SX needs to do to bring them up to scratch) is likely to be much more closely held.

Logically SX will target the ones that are closest to their current capability that have had the most payloads launched to them.

Obviously the higher performance trajectories are likely to remain ULA's sole preserve for longer but that will not remain the case indefinitely.   

Logic says ULA should plan for the day when they are no longer automatically the first (or only) choice for an NSS payload.

[AncientU]

Don't you need to service all to bid in 2019?

[Chasm]

So, they are going to use the 'same' 20.7m, 23.4m, and 26.5m long fairings that currently enclose the 12.7m long Centaur as well as the payload?  Seems like new fairings are required for the standard payloads less the Centaur.

No fairing for Centaur V (classic foam) or ACES (very wind resistant MLI).
They had to increase the material gauge for other reasons.(*) Because of that the balloon can take launch loads anyway, no need to carry a fairing.

My guess is that it the new fairings will be more or less Ariane sized. Both rockets have the same nominal diameter, why reinvent the wheel. Different lengths, different extras.


* They "increased head pressure to prevent cavitation". -> That does not sound very RL-10 to me. At least it is an indication that it won't be a single or double RL-10 configuration.

[Sknowball]

This is new.  L3 will build Vulcan Centaur avionics.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-selects-l3-technologies-to-design.aspx?title=United+Launch+Alliance+Selects+L3+Technologies+to+Design+Next-Generation+Avionics+Systems

 - Ed Kyle

Vulcan Centaur is shaping up to be a quite impressive vehicle.  New booster engines, new booster tankage, new fuel type, probably new upper stage engine(s), new Centaur V, new fairings, new avionics, new launch pads(?).  Certainly won't be just a new booster under Atlas V as some have attested.

Does anyone know which pads it will launch from?  Share Atlas V pads until that vehicle retires or what?

Tory Bruno has mentioned a few times that Vulcan will use the existing Atlas pads, most recently in October:
"Cape pad will be backwards compatible.  VAFB may not need that"

There's something I don't understand: when you say 'custom designed from the outset for EELV' what do you mean? The outset for Vulcan coincides with the maturity of F9/H, and isn't it likely that those system will be able to cover all EELV missions by then? If that's the case what advantage should Vulcan gain from 'being designed from the outset for EELV', when mature systems with actual flight history sport the same capabilities, albeit implemented over time?

ULA has jumped directly to Centaur 5 to allow Vulcan to do all of the specified EELV missions from the outset, so "custom" in the sense that the launch system is being tailored for that mission set.  Small to Medium to Heavy.  LEO near-polar to GTO to MEO to GEO, all using the same two-stage single-core.  Vertical integration using existing launch facilities, etc..  SpaceX and Northrop will have to fly two different launch systems (Falcon 9/Heavy and NGL 500/500XL) to accomplish the same.  I don't think people appreciate the coup ULA has achieved here with its only-recently announced design change.

 - Ed Kyle

Again, the assumption that SpaceX would have to fly two systems is not grounded. List price on a recoverable FH ($90M) is cheaper than the estimated cheapest Vulcan (~$100M) but has more than 1.5x the performance to GTO (8,000 kg vs ~5,000). SpaceX could probably compete on both price and performance with Vulcan by bidding only FH, but they choose to bid both F9 and FH because they complement each other and are even cheaper than a single system.

Also, when did ULA drop the legacy Centaur? Are they actually going to switch completely to the bigger (presumably more expensive) Centaur 5?

The original op-ed seemed to imply that Vulcan only fly an enhanced Centaur (later identified as Centaur V), but you are correct I can not find a statement explicitly excluding Vulcan/Centaur III (though Atlas V/Centaur V has been ruled out.

[AncientU]

So, they are going to use the 'same' 20.7m, 23.4m, and 26.5m long fairings that currently enclose the 12.7m long Centaur as well as the payload?  Seems like new fairings are required for the standard payloads less the Centaur.

No fairing for Centaur V (classic foam) or ACES (very wind resistant MLI).
They had to increase the material gauge for other reasons.(*) Because of that the balloon can take launch loads anyway, no need to carry a fairing.

My guess is that it the new fairings will be more or less Ariane sized. Both rockets have the same nominal diameter, why reinvent the wheel. Different lengths, different extras.


* They "increased head pressure to prevent cavitation". -> That does not sound very RL-10 to me. At least it is an indication that it won't be a single or double RL-10 configuration.

Thought Jim said there were no new fairings?

The Centaur V mass should be 3-4 times that of classic Centaur, so three RL-10s?  Try to do that while halving the cost of the vehicle.  Jim claims that the RL-10 is mostly responsible for Atlas and Delta cost rises...

They have to either:
1) go to a new second stage engine like BE-3U for Centaur V
2) get an inside deal that they don't have to compete on cost (i.e., managed competition), and/or
3) get assurances from a certain Senator from Alabama named Shelby that they will be allowed to continue flying Atlas Vs for NSS launches after the 2022 'deadline'.

(My vote is for #4, all of the above.)

[Jim]

So, they are going to use the 'same' 20.7m, 23.4m, and 26.5m long fairings that currently enclose the 12.7m long Centaur as well as the payload?  Seems like new fairings are required for the standard payloads less the Centaur.

the 5m fairings are already two sections.  The base module which surrounds the Centaur.  And the payload module, which has varying lengths.  They will eliminate the base module with the 5m Centaur.  Also, changing the fairing length does not qualify as a new fairing

[Jim]

They have to either:
1) go to a new second stage engine like BE-3U for Centaur V
2) get an inside deal that they don't have to compete on cost (i.e., managed competition), and/or
3) get assurances from a certain Senator from Alabama named Shelby that they will be allowed to continue flying Atlas Vs for NSS launches after the 2022 'deadline'.

(My vote is for #4, all of the above.)

And so?  I don't see any problems with that. 
Anyways, Shelby won't be around

[woods170]

Requirements are changing.  DoD has recognized the vulnerability of its battleship Galactica approach to NSS.

Still not going to remove the need for them.  Physics drives the requirements.

Again, ignoring reality and skewing new/information to reflect a biased view.

DOD does not operate the "battleship Galactica" NSS.

Also, most DOD spacecraft are not invulnerable ASAT orbits.

You clearly haven't been reading up on latest anti-satellite technologies development.

[woods170]

Fairing reuse additions are part of the fairing. And since both companies outsource their ENTIRE fairings to RUAG...

RUAG is looking into fairing re-use.

Yes, I knew that. That is why I pointed out the fact that reuse additions are part of the fairing, and by extension, being developed by the same company. As such, if-and-when RUAG has reuse ready for use, it will be available for both companies (ULA and Arianespace).
But that doesn't change the fact that the fairing is pretty much the only thing Ariane and Vulcan are/will be sharing (which was the original question from Ed).

[woods170]

ULA has jumped directly to Centaur 5 to allow Vulcan to do all of the specified EELV missions from the outset, so "custom" in the sense that the launch system is being tailored for that mission set. 

Of course.

So now they can retire Delta IV Heavy at the same time as the EoL Atlas V and Delta IV.

3 Mfg lines --> 1 Mfg line.

Now if only they could get IVF and end all that messing about with Hydrazine tanks and high pressure Helium.  <sigh>

Atlas V is flying through the mid-2020s per Jim.  Delta IV Heavy is booked until 2023 I believe.

Doesn't mean the mfg lines can't be retired...

Correct. ULA can basically do a "Delta 2" style of phase-out: build a stockpile, shut down the mfg line and hope that the ENTIRE stockpile will be flown.

[clongton]

...  A multi-billion dollar satellite (taking up to ten years to design and build) that can be disabled by a multi-million dollar a-sat system is a no-win game for the US.  Build a perfect EELV launcher for the last war and you'll not be ready for the one we have to fight next.

This is similar to the position the US found itself in back at the start of the Cold War, namely that it simply took too long to respond to a nuclear attack using liquid fuel rockets based on the technology we had mastered at that time. The answer was a different launch technology; solid fueled rockets that could be stored indefinitely, armed and launched within minutes of an alert.

But the situation you have described does allow for a little more time for satellite replacement than minutes. Liquid fueled rockets can be used to launch replacement satellites. But - at this time - only SpaceX with its Falcon 9 is capable of building some extra launch vehicles for the Air Force and keeping a few of these "in the barn" for quick response. Vulcan may eventually be able to fill this need as well so the Air Force would need to pay for a few of them to be built and stored, same as for the F9. So the answer lies not in launch capability, because F9 and Vulcan are capable of addressing that, but in replacement satellite availability. Only the Air Force can address this one. Ultimately they will need to design their satellites for integration with these 2 vehicles and also keep one or two of them "in the barn" so to speak for quick integration and launch. Now we'd be talking in terms of a day or two to replace a satellite that had been taken out.

The only other approach would be a satellite capable of defending itself. Either that or a companion defense satellite station keeping with it to protect its charge, like fighter jets flying with the bombers. Either option would be prohibitively expensive.

It's a lot less expensive, when building a satellite, to build 2 or 3 of them at a time and store the replacements for quick access than to start from scratch and build them 1 at a time. So the answer is to build and store already built replacement satellites at the time of the initial build, as well as to build and store a few of their launch vehicles.

Expensive, yes I know. But not as expensive as losing a vital capability with no replacement possible in an acceptable timeframe.