Vulcan SMART Reuse

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1549094136342630400

Coming up next issue @AviationWeek: @ulalaunch modifies plan for Vulcan rocket BE-4 recovery--drops helicopter, will let engines, surrounded by inflatable aeroshell decelerator, splash down in ocean. "It turns out the decelerator makes an excellent raft,” says @torybruno.

Edit to add: decided to make a separate SMART reuse thread

[Comga]

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1549094136342630400

Coming up next issue @AviationWeek: @ulalaunch modifies plan for Vulcan rocket BE-4 recovery--drops helicopter, will let engines, surrounded by inflatable aeroshell decelerator, splash down in ocean. "It turns out the decelerator makes an excellent raft,” says @torybruno.

Wow
First Blue takes a page from SpaceX’s stationary ASDSs.
Now ULA may be learning from SpaceX’s floating fairing halves.



However, (edit) ULA is still a long way from even testing this.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Here’s ULA’s original animation for Vulcan reuse



Edit to add: attached ULA AIAA SMART reuse paper, also from 2015

[jstrotha0975]

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1549094136342630400

Coming up next issue @AviationWeek: @ulalaunch modifies plan for Vulcan rocket BE-4 recovery--drops helicopter, will let engines, surrounded by inflatable aeroshell decelerator, splash down in ocean. "It turns out the decelerator makes an excellent raft,” says @torybruno.

Wow


First Blue takes a page from SpaceX’s stationary ASDSs.
Now ULA may be learning from SpaceX’s floating fairing halves.



However, this is heading OT for ”as announced/built”.
ULA is still a long way from even testing this.

Would be nice if Rocket lab could drop the helicopter catch on Electron too.

[SoftwareDude]

Advantages of reuse:

1. Smart reuse - Reuse of rocket components lowers the cost of a launch
2. Higher launch cadence - manufacturing does not have to expand so much with cadence, overall smaller supply chain.
3. Evolution - clear understanding of future requirements for existing and new vehicles and ground equipment
4. Adaptive Business Model - better able to address changing business environment, take advantage of business opportunities
5. Hardware Reliability - can inspect used rockets and learn from them
6. Emergence - better able to take advantage of emergent opportunities
7. Very practiced operations - the operations staff does a lot of launches and has a lot of experience.
8. More resilience -  ULA has enough RD-180 engines that, if they were reusable, could support a hundred or more launches, but instead, they have to build a new rocket.

ULA is trying to address #1 only at this point.

[TrevorMonty]

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1549094136342630400

Coming up next issue @AviationWeek: @ulalaunch modifies plan for Vulcan rocket BE-4 recovery--drops helicopter, will let engines, surrounded by inflatable aeroshell decelerator, splash down in ocean. "It turns out the decelerator makes an excellent raft,” says @torybruno.

Wow
First Blue takes a page from SpaceX’s stationary ASDSs.
Now ULA may be learning from SpaceX’s floating fairing halves.



However, (edit) ULA is still a long way from even testing this.

Smaller HIAD will be tested later this year, secondary payload of NASA Atlas mission.

Once expendable version of Vulcan is flying reliably after few launches I'd expect them to start separating engine pods. As with all recovery programs most likely be incremental approach.

Big plus of of new recovery approach is they don't need helicopter or large ship to operate it off. Recovery ship can be lot smaller and cheaper. Same ship could in theory recover two engine pods eg side boosters from 3 core heavy within hoursxof each other. Add 2nd ship and middle booster engines can be recovered. Alternatively use 1st ship to recover all 3, middle engines may have to wait a day or two in water.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Once expendable version of Vulcan is flying reliably after few launches I'd expect them to start separating engine pods. As with all recovery programs most likely be incremental approach.

Big plus of of new recovery approach is they don't need helicopter or large ship to operate it off. Recovery ship can be lot smaller and cheaper. Same ship could in theory recover two engine pods eg side boosters from 3 core heavy within hoursxof each other. Add 2nd ship and middle booster engines can be recovered. Alternatively use 1st ship to recover all 3, middle engines may have to wait a day or two in water.
.....

AFAIK ULA isn't developing a tri-core Vulcan Heavy. The current Vulcan Centaur Heavy version got a beef up Centaur upper stage.

In theory ULA could just acquired the use of Doug or Bob to recover the propulsion section from each launch. Especially if the Falcon family is mostly replaced by Starship in the future.

The new inflatable aeroshell decelerator recovery concept is most likely cause by some beancounter vetoing the more expensive mid air recovery concept, IMO.

[Robert_the_Doll]

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1549094136342630400

Coming up next issue @AviationWeek: @ulalaunch modifies plan for Vulcan rocket BE-4 recovery--drops helicopter, will let engines, surrounded by inflatable aeroshell decelerator, splash down in ocean. "It turns out the decelerator makes an excellent raft,” says @torybruno.

Wow
First Blue takes a page from SpaceX’s stationary ASDSs.
Now ULA may be learning from SpaceX’s floating fairing halves.



However, (edit) ULA is still a long way from even testing this.

Not really. The concept of letting a recovered engine module parachute into the sea is one that goes a long way back. Boeing, being one of ULA's parent companies, had proposed for their original Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program a rocket that would recover two Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs)/RS-25s this way.

[Stan-1967]

The new inflatable aeroshell decelerator recovery concept is most likely cause by some beancounter vetoing the more expensive mid air recovery concept, IMO.

Nah..just heeding the advice of some rocket guy who said "the best part is no part".

[Comga]

jstrotha:  That's for Peter Beck to decide for a different rocket.  Not On-Topic here
Trevor: We all know about LOFTID.  So what? 
And they can't separate from Vulcan stuff that isn't in a "pod". 
That would be a major modification to Vulcan's first stage. 
Extremely difficult to implement an "incremental approach"
Zed:  Huh? 
Let them get their own ships!
And does Trevor's hallucinations of multiple recoveries from a multi-core version of a rocket yet to launch really need disputing?
Robert:  If Boeing has had this great concept all along, then why has SMART always baselined MAR, until now?
Stan: (What you said   )

[edzieba]

Trevor: We all know about LOFTID.  So what?

Proof-of-concept test for remaining low TRL item. 

And they can't separate from Vulcan stuff that isn't in a "pod". 
That would be a major modification to Vulcan's first stage.

Depends on how much of the required hardware the current Vulcan design implements. Could be anywhere from "none at all", to "upstream propellant shutoff valves and feedline slipjoints are already present, pushers are already installed, we've just riveted the engine section in place so it can't come off for the early launches", or anywhere in-between. Dropping engine sections is a technique with good flight heritage (all Atlas vehicles prior to Atlas II-AR/III), and doesn't even need to be done under active thrust for Vulcan.

Robert:  If Boeing has had this great concept all along, then why has SMART always baselined MAR, until now?

Because if you can not dunk your hardware in seawater, that's always preferable, and MAR is a tried and tested technique to not do that. SpaceX spent years on trying to not dunk the fairings via the net catchers before having to call it quits, and still need to strip out and replace (or omit) the sound insulation for 'wet' fairings as part of refurbishment due to inundation, and have lost fairing halves to chop.
I suspect that ULA may switch back to MAR after initial splashdown returns if the recovered engine sections require more cleanup work than expected, but they have the option to do that. Particularly for early returns where the engine section may not be slated for anything more than inspection anyway.

[deadman1204]

Advantages of reuse:

1. Smart reuse - Reuse of rocket components lowers the cost of a launch
2. Higher launch cadence - manufacturing does not have to expand so much with cadence, overall smaller supply chain.
3. Evolution - clear understanding of future requirements for existing and new vehicles and ground equipment
4. Adaptive Business Model - better able to address changing business environment, take advantage of business opportunities
5. Hardware Reliability - can inspect used rockets and learn from them
6. Emergence - better able to take advantage of emergent opportunities
7. Very practiced operations - the operations staff does a lot of launches and has a lot of experience.
8. More resilience -  ULA has enough RD-180 engines that, if they were reusable, could support a hundred or more launches, but instead, they have to build a new rocket.

ULA is trying to address #1 only at this point.

You might want to read the points again. Reusing your engines means you can launch more often cause you gotta manufacture less. Your hardware becomes more reliable cause you get to reuse them and examine them after use. Everything else is spaceX buzzwords and business practices which we could say ULA is looking at too.

Is ULA spaceX? No, but its disingenuous to pretend they aren't doing anything on that list.

[meekGee]

Advantages of reuse:

1. Smart reuse - Reuse of rocket components lowers the cost of a launch
2. Higher launch cadence - manufacturing does not have to expand so much with cadence, overall smaller supply chain.
3. Evolution - clear understanding of future requirements for existing and new vehicles and ground equipment
4. Adaptive Business Model - better able to address changing business environment, take advantage of business opportunities
5. Hardware Reliability - can inspect used rockets and learn from them
6. Emergence - better able to take advantage of emergent opportunities
7. Very practiced operations - the operations staff does a lot of launches and has a lot of experience.
8. More resilience -  ULA has enough RD-180 engines that, if they were reusable, could support a hundred or more launches, but instead, they have to build a new rocket.

ULA is trying to address #1 only at this point.

You might want to read the points again. Reusing your engines means you can launch more often cause you gotta manufacture less. Your hardware becomes more reliable cause you get to reuse them and examine them after use. Everything else is spaceX buzzwords and business practices which we could say ULA is looking at too.

Is ULA spaceX? No, but its disingenuous to pretend they aren't doing anything on that list.

I don't think you're right here.

It takes the same time to build a rocket whether the engines come from the fabrication line or the refurbishment line.

Reusing engines saves resources, but the process of building the rocket remains the same.

Reliability wise, the improvement is partial, since so much of the rocket is not the engines.  It's pretty easy to go back and look at rocket failures and see which are entirely engine faults and which are integration or structure.

SMART is better than nothing, but since it's going to compete against Starship rather than F9, it's very lacking.

EDIT:
Top of my head:
Antares was engine
F9 was structure (COPV coming loose)
Recent Soyuz was structure (valve on S0 booster)
A couple of fairing losses on Minotaur (?)
Proton was a reversed accelerometer but I don't know if that was part of engine avionics

Hmm I ran out

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Reliability wise, the improvement is partial, since so much of the rocket is not the engines.  It's pretty easy to go back and look at rocket failures and see which are entirely engine faults and which are integration or structure.
<snip>
Top of my head:
Antares was engine
F9 was structure (COPV coming loose)
Recent Soyuz was structure (valve on S0 booster)
A couple of fairing losses on Minotaur (?)
Proton was a reversed accelerometer but I don't know if that was part of engine avionics

Hmm I ran out

You are probably referring to the Taurus XL (re-branded later to Minotaur-C^rip ) launches with OCO and GLORY. Which have fairing separation failures due to subcontractor fraud.

[whitelancer64]

Advantages of reuse:

1. Smart reuse - Reuse of rocket components lowers the cost of a launch
2. Higher launch cadence - manufacturing does not have to expand so much with cadence, overall smaller supply chain.
3. Evolution - clear understanding of future requirements for existing and new vehicles and ground equipment
4. Adaptive Business Model - better able to address changing business environment, take advantage of business opportunities
5. Hardware Reliability - can inspect used rockets and learn from them
6. Emergence - better able to take advantage of emergent opportunities
7. Very practiced operations - the operations staff does a lot of launches and has a lot of experience.
8. More resilience -  ULA has enough RD-180 engines that, if they were reusable, could support a hundred or more launches, but instead, they have to build a new rocket.

ULA is trying to address #1 only at this point.

1 is not a given - e.g., Shuttle SRB recovery and reuse cost about as much as building new.

[edzieba]

It takes the same time to build a rocket whether the engines come from the fabrication line or the refurbishment line

Depends on the proportion of time and cost that is spent on the tanks vs. the engine section. We already know most of the costs are in the engines themselves, and the avionics are also located there, which leaves manufacturing the barrel sections and domes. The rapidly de-matable engine section also means re-mating is not a tortuous affair.

Reliability wise, the improvement is partial, since so much of the rocket is not the engines.

The expended portion is the tankage. There are few moving parts to fail there.

[SoftwareDude]

Advantages of reuse:

1. Smart reuse - Reuse of rocket components lowers the cost of a launch
2. Higher launch cadence - manufacturing does not have to expand so much with cadence, overall smaller supply chain.
3. Evolution - clear understanding of future requirements for existing and new vehicles and ground equipment
4. Adaptive Business Model - better able to address changing business environment, take advantage of business opportunities
5. Hardware Reliability - can inspect used rockets and learn from them
6. Emergence - better able to take advantage of emergent opportunities
7. Very practiced operations - the operations staff does a lot of launches and has a lot of experience.
8. More resilience -  ULA has enough RD-180 engines that, if they were reusable, could support a hundred or more launches, but instead, they have to build a new rocket.

ULA is trying to address #1 only at this point.

You might want to read the points again. Reusing your engines means you can launch more often cause you gotta manufacture less. Your hardware becomes more reliable cause you get to reuse them and examine them after use. Everything else is spaceX buzzwords and business practices which we could say ULA is looking at too.

Is ULA spaceX? No, but its disingenuous to pretend they aren't doing anything on that list.

I am not sure that reusing the engines means one can launch more often though I think it would make ULA more resilient against supply chain interruptions. ULA's supply chain is not serial, I doubt ULA would wait for an engine delivery before manufacturing a specific rocket body, so no to cadence.  ULA isn't prepared to ride the wave of new opportunity unless they are willing to expand their ground operations and staff, but then they have staff and facilities sitting around for a while doing nothing, of course, SpaceX's strategy is to launch a gigantic satellite constellation in the meantime. Regarding the engines, Blue Origin will reuse them so reliability is taken care of.

[whitelancer64]

I am not sure that reusing the engines means one can launch more often though I think it would make ULA more resilient against supply chain interruptions. ULA's supply chain is not serial, I doubt ULA would wait for an engine delivery before manufacturing a specific rocket body, so no to cadence.  ULA isn't prepared to ride the wave of new opportunity unless they are willing to expand their ground operations and staff, but then they have staff and facilities sitting around for a while doing nothing, of course, SpaceX's strategy is to launch a gigantic satellite constellation in the meantime. Regarding the engines, Blue Origin will reuse them so reliability is taken care of.

ULA is building a new mobile launch platform and a second vertical integration facility for Kuiper launches.

At a briefing during the 37th Space Symposium April 5 about Amazon’s contracts for up to 83 launches to place the bulk of its 3,236-satellite constellation into orbit, executives of launch providers said the size of the deal prompted changes in their vehicles and production facilities.

For ULA, that means major investments by itself and its suppliers to support a much higher rate of Vulcan launches, which he later estimated to be 20 to 25 per year. “We are essentially going to be doubling America’s launch industrial base,” said Tory Bruno, chief executive of ULA. “These additional launches will take us to about twice our flight rate, which means about twice our infrastructure.”

That includes building a new mobile launch platform and a second vertical integration facility where rockets are assembled before being transported to the launch pad. ULA will buy a second ship to transport Vulcan stages from its Alabama factory to the launch site.

https://spacenews.com/amazon-launch-contracts-drive-changes-to-launch-vehicle-production/

[Robotbeat]

SMART reuse’s main argument originally, IMO, was as an answer to the pretty obvious geopolitical problem of relying on a Russian engine to launch US national security payloads, which would probably be doing a lot of surveillance of Russia. This allowed them to argue they could be resilient to supply disruptions.

[dglow]

Amusing that the BE-4s they want to recover cost less than the RL-10s they'll always expend.