Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle (as announced/built) - General Discussion Thread 3  (Read 50189 times)

Offline TrevorMonty

Doubt the demand will materialize. It would have to compete with Falcon Heavy and then with the BFR, which would be less expensive than the BFR.
There's scenarios where a commercial architecture for a space station or deep space mission could make good use of such a vehicle. The availability of two providers would be helpful in this case.

Only makes sense for initial mass to LEO as distributed launch would almost certainly be cheaper than a 3 core Vulcan to move that much mass to any other orbit.  Most recent distributed launch numbers below.

Some slides we had seen previously, gives some updated numbers for Vulcan/ACES lift both single launch and distributed launch.

Launch MethodEarth EscapeGSO/Lunar OrbitLunar Surface
Single Launch14mT10mT3.8mT
Distributed Launch30mT24mT12mT
DT is why ULA are not pushing Vulcan Heavy or see a need for one.  For situations where 2 Vulcans are not enough, still easier to launch 3 x Vulcan 564 than 1 x564 and Heavy.

Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 88
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/963118795303694336

Tory Bruno accepts Musk's challenge of Vulcan launching a NSS by 2023.

add:

I don't doubt ULA being able to do booster and US for that. I do doubt engine providers and ability to pull off the necessary qualifiable capabilities in that time (schedule pressure).

add:

He deleted the tweet! Perhaps he doesn't want to take the risk ... ouch, bad form!

Any idea how many consecutive successful flights are needed by Vulcan until it meets NSS certification?

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2674
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2665
  • Likes Given: 2100
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/963118795303694336

Tory Bruno accepts Musk's challenge of Vulcan launching a NSS by 2023.

add:

I don't doubt ULA being able to do booster and US for that. I do doubt engine providers and ability to pull off the necessary qualifiable capabilities in that time (schedule pressure).

add:

He deleted the tweet! Perhaps he doesn't want to take the risk ... ouch, bad form!

Any idea how many consecutive successful flights are needed by Vulcan until it meets NSS certification?
Estimate 2-3.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2132
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 681
Quote
Maybe that plan works out, but I will seriously eat my hat with a side of mustard if that rocket flies a national security spacecraft before 2023

When I red this I started laughing so hard, like an idiot, couldn't stop, lost my breath, started coughing, someone please call 9-1-1...

The reason ?

eating his hat ? reminded myself of something...

Scrooge McDuck rivals. They used to taunt Scrooge into insane challenges they hoped to win, usually adding "and if I lose this one, I'll eat my hat" and everytime it happened, to the point it become a running joke in the series, at some point the loser lost so hard and so badly, he ended eating a complete truckload of hats (ROTFLMAO)

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/nonciclopedia/images/5/5c/Rockerduck_si_mangia_la_bombetta.png/revision/latest?cb=20130704164559

Rockerduck_si_mangia_la_bombetta Ah, the beauty of italian language !!!

Quite inevitably it imediately become...

Elonduck_si_mangia_la_bombetta

Seriously, somebody should make a hashtag out of this...

« Last Edit: 02/13/2018 07:50 PM by Archibald »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5471
  • Liked: 3318
  • Likes Given: 4700
Since Vulcan won't be as far along in 2019 (when Phase 2 is to be awarded) as Falcon was when ULA was given a 36 core block Buy, shouldn't such a money-saving opportunity be taken again by the USAF?  Could save several times the purported $4.4B...

No.  ULA knows how to build and operate a certified vehicle.  Spacex had no such history.

Because their parents did it 20 years ago?
And Blue has vast experience in orbital ORSC methlox engines, or can seek help from ULA's vast trove of engine development expertise?
Or AJR will deliver its first ORSC kerlox engine by then?

The outcome is not solely in ULA's hands.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2018 08:26 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497

https://twitter.com/Astro_Zach/status/963107576857624581
Woo. @torybruno just confirmed to me the Vulcan Ultra/Super/Three Core Heavy is still a GO if there is demand.

Doubt the demand will materialize. It would have to compete with Falcon Heavy and then with the BFR, which would be less expensive than the Falcon Heavy.
The parent corporations have more or less required that the Vulcan Heavy configuration be designed into the standardized Vulcan core stage from the beginning of development just like the never flown Atlas-5 Heavy. As with the A5 core CCB, the attachment bracket and thrust take-out mounting locations would be machined but the unneeded hardware would not be installed. (VH would use an attachment system similar to that used by the DIVH CBC's).
« Last Edit: 02/13/2018 10:03 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline TrevorMonty


https://twitter.com/Astro_Zach/status/963107576857624581
Woo. @torybruno just confirmed to me the Vulcan Ultra/Super/Three Core Heavy is still a GO if there is demand.

Doubt the demand will materialize. It would have to compete with Falcon Heavy and then with the BFR, which would be less expensive than the Falcon Heavy.
The parent corporations have more or less required that the Vulcan Heavy configuration be designed into the standardized Vulcan core stage from the beginning of development just like the never flown Atlas-5 Heavy. As with the A5 core CCB, the attachment bracket and thrust take-out mounting locations would be machined but the unneeded hardware would not be installed. (VH would use an attachment system similar to that used by the DIVH CBC's).

Flight rate may not need to be much more than 1-2 flights a year to justify ground infrastructure. Pad could still be used for single stick Vulcan giving ULA two pads, ideal for distributed launch. Should be very little extra manufacturing infrastructure required as its just three Vulcan cores with few modifications.

There is no reason to believe 1st stages will be significantly more expensive than FH. Lot depends on how much 2xBE4s are compared to 9x Merlins.
« Last Edit: 02/13/2018 10:14 PM by TrevorMonty »

Hello everyone!

I just had a few questions about Vulcan.

1) What is the newest information available about the launch cost and capability of the most basic Vulcan configuration? (I believe that is currently Vulcan 501 + Centaur V)

2) Is there information about the launch cost and capability of the most advanced planned Vulcan configuration (Vulcan 564 + ACES)?

Thanks. :)

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Hello everyone!

I just had a few questions about Vulcan.

1) What is the newest information available about the launch cost and capability of the most basic Vulcan configuration? (I believe that is currently Vulcan 501 + Centaur V)

2) Is there information about the launch cost and capability of the most advanced planned Vulcan configuration (Vulcan 564 + ACES)?

Thanks. :)
Such information is not currently available to the public at this time, but per their website: ULA | Vulcan Centaur
Quote
For detailed information please email us. [email protected]
« Last Edit: 02/14/2018 12:32 AM by russianhalo117 »

Offline TrevorMonty

These come from 2 different ULA sheets, I don't think V561 is relative anymore so assume bit more for GTO.

Vulcan 564 ACES (Centuar V may not have same performance). GEO 20klbs

V561 ACES GEO 16klbs, GTO 33klbs


VH GEO 30klbs, GTO 50klbs.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31821
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10373
  • Likes Given: 316

1.  Because their parents did it 20 years ago?
2.  And Blue has vast experience in orbital ORSC methlox engines, or can seek help from ULA's vast trove of engine development expertise?

1,  it is the same people
2 yes and yes.

Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 88

1.  Because their parents did it 20 years ago?
2.  And Blue has vast experience in orbital ORSC methlox engines, or can seek help from ULA's vast trove of engine development expertise?

1,  it is the same people
2 yes and yes.

What "vast trove of engine development expertise" does ULA have?  AFAIK engine IP lies with other companies (namely AR and Energomash...perhaps also Pratt & Whitney?) and ULA has little engine development expertise as it's not done in-house.  ULA's expertise lies in launch vehicle development, manufacturing, and operation.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2018 01:33 PM by Rocket Jesus »

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2550
  • US
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 1287
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/963118795303694336

Tory Bruno accepts Musk's challenge of Vulcan launching a NSS by 2023.

add:

I don't doubt ULA being able to do booster and US for that. I do doubt engine providers and ability to pull off the necessary qualifiable capabilities in that time (schedule pressure).

add:

He deleted the tweet! Perhaps he doesn't want to take the risk ... ouch, bad form!

Before 2023 isn't such a safe bet even if Vulcan is delivered on time just due to the lag from the EELV contracting process, although I'm sure they could come up with a STP mission for the first government Vulcan flight.  If they're not flying until at least mid-2020, that's probably when they could start getting payloads assigned to Vulcan.  Typical 2+ year lag before flight and you're probably into 2023.

Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 88
Typical 2+ year lag before flight and you're probably into 2023.

2+ year lag should not hold true for ULA. 
Mr. Bruno mentioned on Reddit (sorry, no link) half the battle with EELV certification is getting the company itself certified, not just the launch vehicle.  ULA currently flies 2 EELV certified rockets.  In addition, ULA has given heavy insight into launch vehicle design for Vulcan, which SpaceX did not do for Falcon 9 since it was not conceived under the EELV program. 
Given the above, surely the Vulcan EELV certification time frame will be less than the typical/average?
« Last Edit: 02/14/2018 02:14 PM by Rocket Jesus »

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2550
  • US
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 1287
Typical 2+ year lag before flight and you're probably into 2023.

2+ year lag should not hold true for ULA. 
Mr. Bruno mentioned on Reddit (sorry, no link) half the battle with EELV certification is getting the company itself certified, not just the launch vehicle.  ULA currently flies 2 EELV certified rockets.  In addition, ULA has given heavy insight into launch vehicle design for Vulcan, which SpaceX did not do for Falcon 9 since it was not conceived under the EELV program. 
Given the above, surely the Vulcan EELV certification time frame will be less than the typical/average?

It's typically 2+ years from the time a contract is awarded for a launch until the launch takes place, that has nothing to do with certification.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497

1.  Because their parents did it 20 years ago?
2.  And Blue has vast experience in orbital ORSC methlox engines, or can seek help from ULA's vast trove of engine development expertise?

1,  it is the same people
2 yes and yes.

What "vast trove of engine development expertise" does ULA have?  AFAIK engine IP lies with other companies (namely AR and Energomash...perhaps also Pratt & Whitney?) and ULA has little engine development expertise as it's not done in-house.  ULA's expertise lies in launch vehicle development, manufacturing, and operation.
AR has nothing to do with RD-180: AMROSS is managed by UTC's PW and Energomash.

Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 88

1.  Because their parents did it 20 years ago?
2.  And Blue has vast experience in orbital ORSC methlox engines, or can seek help from ULA's vast trove of engine development expertise?

1,  it is the same people
2 yes and yes.

What "vast trove of engine development expertise" does ULA have?  AFAIK engine IP lies with other companies (namely AR and Energomash...perhaps also Pratt & Whitney?) and ULA has little engine development expertise as it's not done in-house.  ULA's expertise lies in launch vehicle development, manufacturing, and operation.
AR has nothing to do with RD-180: AMROSS is managed by UTC's PW and Energomash.

Cool! That's why I included PW in there as a perhaps.  Any RS-68/RS-68A effort is with AR and any RL-10 work is almost definitely with AR, so this answers the question.

Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 88
Typical 2+ year lag before flight and you're probably into 2023.

2+ year lag should not hold true for ULA. 
Mr. Bruno mentioned on Reddit (sorry, no link) half the battle with EELV certification is getting the company itself certified, not just the launch vehicle.  ULA currently flies 2 EELV certified rockets.  In addition, ULA has given heavy insight into launch vehicle design for Vulcan, which SpaceX did not do for Falcon 9 since it was not conceived under the EELV program. 
Given the above, surely the Vulcan EELV certification time frame will be less than the typical/average?

It's typically 2+ years from the time a contract is awarded for a launch until the launch takes place, that has nothing to do with certification.

AFAIK they can award a contract with the expectation (most likely a contract option with a "firm" deadline) that Vulcan will be certified by X months after contract signature date. 
I remember something similar being part of the conversation when SpaceX Falcon 9 was fighting to get certified.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31821
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10373
  • Likes Given: 316


What "vast trove of engine development expertise" does ULA have?  AFAIK engine IP lies with other companies (namely AR and Energomash...perhaps also Pratt & Whitney?) and ULA has little engine development expertise as it's not done in-house

they have people

Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 88


What "vast trove of engine development expertise" does ULA have?  AFAIK engine IP lies with other companies (namely AR and Energomash...perhaps also Pratt & Whitney?) and ULA has little engine development expertise as it's not done in-house

they have people

Where does the IP rest?

Tags: