Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle (as announced/built) - General Discussion Thread 3  (Read 972409 times)

Offline ar1978

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Have there been any studies done as of late on using the Vulcan rocket as an alternative to the SLS Core Booster to launch the Orion capsule in a distributed launch profile?

In short one Vulcan launches Orion and it’s European Service Module, and then another launches with an ACES or Centaur upper stage and docks with Orion and then gives it the push for a lunar injection. That’s probably oversimplified but from looking at the numbers on Wikipedia the Vulcan can loft about 60,000 pounds to LEO which would cover Orion and its service module. It would not cover the launch abort system though so another launch would have to be done on Crew Dragon or Starliner. It’s a much more complicated mission profile but from everything I’m seeing Orion is performing very well and it just seems a shame that it’s only going to launch every year or two.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
No, nothing.

Even ULA's official paper on distributed launch (years old now) only list capabilities of a dual launch Vulcan with only 4 boosters which is less than the performance needed. A 6 booster Vulcan could do it but that capability isn't shown anywhere.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 33
No, nothing.

Even ULA's official paper on distributed launch (years old now) only list capabilities of a dual launch Vulcan with only 4 boosters which is less than the performance needed. A 6 booster Vulcan could do it but that capability isn't shown anywhere.

Er, aren't the OneWeb launches going to be on 6 booster Vulcan? That would retire some risk for that path...

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
No, nothing.

Even ULA's official paper on distributed launch (years old now) only list capabilities of a dual launch Vulcan with only 4 boosters which is less than the performance needed. A 6 booster Vulcan could do it but that capability isn't shown anywhere.

Er, aren't the OneWeb launches going to be on 6 booster Vulcan? That would retire some risk for that path...

I didn't mean 6 booster Vulcan performance has never been published,  it has, but not in the context of distributed lift.  The distributed lift paper shows two 4 booster Vulcan's being able to deliver a 24 tonne payload to escape velocity. Orion is roughly 27 tonnes.

Why they don't state what two 6 booster Vulcan's could do (27 tonnes to LEO each) seems like an odd omission .

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9330
  • Likes Given: 39
No, nothing.

Even ULA's official paper on distributed launch (years old now) only list capabilities of a dual launch Vulcan with only 4 boosters which is less than the performance needed. A 6 booster Vulcan could do it but that capability isn't shown anywhere.

Er, aren't the OneWeb launches going to be on 6 booster Vulcan? That would retire some risk for that path...

I didn't mean 6 booster Vulcan performance has never been published,  it has, but not in the context of distributed lift.  The distributed lift paper shows two 4 booster Vulcan's being able to deliver a 24 tonne payload to escape velocity. Orion is roughly 27 tonnes.

Why they don't state what two 6 booster Vulcan's could do (27 tonnes to LEO each) seems like an odd omission .
Probably because it's gated by the upper stage performance and propellant capacity, not the booster (that's rather the point of distributed launch). If you're already at the maximum volumetric propellant capacity that can be lifted by using only 4 SRBs, adding an extra 2 does not gain you anything (tanks are already full, they can't get full-er) other than a lighter wallet.

Offline TrevorMonty

If they use NG as tanker then Centuar should have enough fuel for TLI. I can see them using  an insulated Centuar minus RL10 as tanker. Would still have avionics and maneuvering thrusters, orbit injection done by NG.
I would add extra LH capacity to allow for boiloff , needs to survive 2-3 months waiting for crew launch.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2022 01:38 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Probably because it's gated by the upper stage performance and propellant capacity, not the booster (that's rather the point of distributed launch). If you're already at the maximum volumetric propellant capacity that can be lifted by using only 4 SRBs, adding an extra 2 does not gain you anything (tanks are already full, they can't get full-er) other than a lighter wallet.

Centaur V has 54 tonnes of propellant fully fueled.

It would take TWO full Vulcan 6 flights to fill up an empty one (27 tonnes to LEO), which is far far more than capable to put Orion thru TLI. Plenty of room in that extended fairing too. It's not remotely close to full with a single Vulcan 4.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2022 04:57 pm by GWH »

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2138
Have there been any studies done as of late on using the Vulcan rocket as an alternative to the SLS Core Booster to launch the Orion capsule in a distributed launch profile?

Boeing (which co-owns ULA with Lockheed Martin) periodically orders ULA not to do or say anything that could threaten SLS (which Boeing has a big contract to develop), e.g. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/rocket-scientist-says-that-boeing-squelched-work-on-propellant-depots/. That's probably why ULA isn't proposing SLS replacements any more.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48178
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81685
  • Likes Given: 36941
twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1621122749489098752

Quote
@ulalaunch has submitted permits for upgrading the SMARF (Solid Motor Assembly and Readiness/Receiving Facility) to the Kuiper SPOC (Spaceflight Processing Operations Center), including the addition of an ECS Shelter. @torybruno

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1621163667898384384

Quote
Yes, there will be 2 VIFs

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4321
  • Likes Given: 1759

Quote
@ulalaunch has submitted permits for upgrading the SMARF (Solid Motor Assembly and Readiness/Receiving Facility) to the Kuiper SPOC (Spaceflight Processing Operations Center), including the addition of an ECS Shelter. @torybruno

Quote
Yes, there will be 2 VIFs

For those of us that have never been to the site and are having difficulty following this, is this the existing Atlas VIF plus a new Vulcan VIF, or is this the existing Atlas VIF plus two Vulcan VIFs?

Will the Atlas VIF also accomodate Vulcan? Currently, or in the future, or never? The last Atlas flight is probably going to be Starliner 6, probably in 2029. (Assumptions: all six Starliners flights fly, one per year starting in 2024, no shift to Vulcan).

Offline whitelancer64


Quote
@ulalaunch has submitted permits for upgrading the SMARF (Solid Motor Assembly and Readiness/Receiving Facility) to the Kuiper SPOC (Spaceflight Processing Operations Center), including the addition of an ECS Shelter. @torybruno

Quote
Yes, there will be 2 VIFs

For those of us that have never been to the site and are having difficulty following this, is this the existing Atlas VIF plus a new Vulcan VIF, or is this the existing Atlas VIF plus two Vulcan VIFs?

Will the Atlas VIF also accomodate Vulcan? Currently, or in the future, or never? The last Atlas flight is probably going to be Starliner 6, probably in 2029. (Assumptions: all six Starliners flights fly, one per year starting in 2024, no shift to Vulcan).

There may be some confusion due to use of the name SMARF in the original tweet.  The SMARF (Solid Motor Assembly Receiving / Readiness Facility) was renamed to SPOC (Spaceflight Processing Operations Center) in 2019. My understanding is that the SPOC is being modified into the Vulcan VIF.

Presumably, the Atlas VIF will remain in use until it is retired, then the Atlas VIF will be made into a 2nd Vulcan VIF.

Note: It's hard to tell because most of the photos posted on twitter are close shots of the rocket, rather than the facility, but I think the Vulcan is currently being processed in the Atlas VIF facility. So it's possible that the Atlas VIF may already be dual-use.

Picture attached, where I've circled is the SMARF / SPOC / Vulcan VIF.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2023 07:53 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4673
  • Likes Given: 768

Quote
@ulalaunch has submitted permits for upgrading the SMARF (Solid Motor Assembly and Readiness/Receiving Facility) to the Kuiper SPOC (Spaceflight Processing Operations Center), including the addition of an ECS Shelter. @torybruno

Quote
Yes, there will be 2 VIFs

For those of us that have never been to the site and are having difficulty following this, is this the existing Atlas VIF plus a new Vulcan VIF, or is this the existing Atlas VIF plus two Vulcan VIFs?

Will the Atlas VIF also accomodate Vulcan? Currently, or in the future, or never? The last Atlas flight is probably going to be Starliner 6, probably in 2029. (Assumptions: all six Starliners flights fly, one per year starting in 2024, no shift to Vulcan).

There may be some confusion due to use of the name SMARF in the original tweet.  The SMARF (Solid Motor Assembly Receiving / Readiness Facility) was renamed to SPOC (Spaceflight Processing Operations Center) in 2019. My understanding is that the SPOC is being - or already has been - modified into the Vulcan VIF.

Presumably, the Atlas VIF will remain in use until it is retired, then the Atlas VIF will be made into a 2nd Vulcan VIF.

Picture attached, where I've circled is the SMARF / SPOC / Vulcan VIF.
Inital low flight rate cadence Vulcan flights will use the shared Atlas/Vulcan VIF for the entire integration process. SPOC is in the early stages of modifications to the SLC-41 facing side of SPOC to add a new door, integration platforms etal to add a second Vulcan High Bay. Note that the Atlas MLP is inside SPOC HB1 and can perform mission integration work there as well for ITL's upcoming high cadence flight rates. Note that the ITL once all SPOC mods are complete can accommodate a maximum of four MLP's total without the reconnection of the remaining disconnected part of the ITL railway system network (four MLP's can be at the all of the following locations at once one at SLC-41, two at SPOC and one at VIF (passing can take place at several locations or an MLP leaving the pad can be parked for a short time on the ITL connections to SLC-40 and SMAB)). SPOC is intended for MLP assembly, refurbishment, and offline integration and stacking (select payloads such as Crew capusule based systems per legacy documentation can also be stacked inside SPOC though door mods might be required.). AFAIU: all other payloads require the VIF due to their height in a S/L/XL PLF. In ideal cases all payloads would be mated in the VIF ahead of rollout.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2023 09:00 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline whitelancer64

I am just now understanding that the SPOC is currently not tall enough to fully integrate a Vulcan Centaur rocket. It was used to build the Vulcan MLP and later to integrate the Vulcan Pathfinder with the Vulcan MLP, but as it currently is it cannot do much more than that.

I had to read through this CollectSpace thread (with multiple helpful pictures of the Vulcan Pathfinder rollout) to really understand that.

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum35/HTML/000715.html

Most helpful picture of the SPOC and Vulcan Pathfinder attached.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4673
  • Likes Given: 768
I am just now understanding that the SPOC is currently not tall enough to fully integrate a Vulcan Centaur rocket. It was used to build the Vulcan MLP and later to integrate the Vulcan Pathfinder with the Vulcan MLP, but as it currently is it cannot do much more than that.

I had to read through this CollectSpace thread (with multiple helpful pictures of the Vulcan Pathfinder rollout) to really understand that.

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum35/HTML/000715.html

Most helpful picture of the SPOC and Vulcan Pathfinder attached.
It can integrate the entire VC rocket (AFAIU: Short LEO optimized DEC-V, Standard DEC-V Centaur-V versions only) minus the payload section. It is constrained by the legacy Titan ITL system process.

SPOC is performing the same function as the Titan-III/IV ITL's Vertical Integration Building (VIB). AFAIU the SMAB currently functions as a paylalods pocessing and storage facility for SpaceX i.e. Starlink, Starshield etal and can in the future function for ULA as a huricane safe haven and temporary parking for empty MLP's returning from the pad once the MLP fleet is at maximum capacity.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2023 12:41 am by russianhalo117 »

Offline whitelancer64

I asked Tory Bruno on Twitter, he replied

"Yes, the SPOC (formerly known as the SMARF) will become VIF2. The current Atlas VIF has been modified to accommodate both Atlas and Vulcan and will be renamed VIF1. I’m only planning on 2 VIFs right now."

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1621268076405587969
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4673
  • Likes Given: 768
I asked Tory Bruno on Twitter, he replied

"Yes, the SPOC (formerly known as the SMARF) will become VIF2. The current Atlas VIF has been modified to accommodate both Atlas and Vulcan and will be renamed VIF1. I’m only planning on 2 VIFs right now."

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1621268076405587969
That contradicts earlier official information regarding SPOC getting a second highbay just after the AWS Kuiper launch contract award period. VIF1 still has to be used for payloads which extend taller than the height of the LUT mounted onboard the Vulcan MLP (VLP-#). However plans can change.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2023 06:10 am by russianhalo117 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
I asked Tory Bruno on Twitter, he replied

"Yes, the SPOC (formerly known as the SMARF) will become VIF2. The current Atlas VIF has been modified to accommodate both Atlas and Vulcan and will be renamed VIF1. I’m only planning on 2 VIFs right now."

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1621268076405587969
That contradicts earlier official information regarding SPOC getting a second highbay just after the AWS Kuiper launch contract award period. VIF1 still has to be used for payloads which extend taller than the height of the LUT mounted onboard the Vulcan MLP (VLP-#). However plans can change.

The plans have changed since the Kuiper announcement. The current SPOC will undergo substantial modifications, to become a full VIF with identical capabilities as VIF 1 (the current Atlas V/Vulcan VIF). Meaning, amongst others, that the roof will go up substantially, to accomodate the full height of a full Vulcan stack (including payload fairing).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

Presumably, the Atlas VIF will remain in use until it is retired, then the Atlas VIF will be made into a 2nd Vulcan VIF.


Already been done.  That is where the current vehicle is

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
The plans have changed since the Kuiper announcement. The current SPOC will undergo substantial modifications, to become a full VIF with identical capabilities as VIF 1 (the current Atlas V/Vulcan VIF). Meaning, amongst others, that the roof will go up substantially, to accomodate the full height of a full Vulcan stack (including payload fairing).
No mention of "raising the roof" in the permits upthread.  Maybe those don't cover this work?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
The plans have changed since the Kuiper announcement. The current SPOC will undergo substantial modifications, to become a full VIF with identical capabilities as VIF 1 (the current Atlas V/Vulcan VIF). Meaning, amongst others, that the roof will go up substantially, to accomodate the full height of a full Vulcan stack (including payload fairing).
No mention of "raising the roof" in the permits upthread.  Maybe those don't cover this work?

 - Ed Kyle

That is because the environmental permit request only lists those improvements and site alterations that influence stormwater management. Raising the roof of an existing building doesn't affect that: the same amount of water still comes off the roof and is piped down to the retention pond via an existing drainage system.
But things like adding concrete loop roadways and driveway aprons DO affect stormwater management. Because those water-impenetrable surfaces come in the place of where previously was water-penetrable surfaces such as barren ground, grass or shrubs. Same for constructing an ECS shelter. That's a new structure, covering previously barren ground or grass or shrubs. That also alters stormwater management because the water coming off that new roof needs to be routed to the retention pond. Same for the new tracks. Even new gullies, to route stormwater to the retention ponds, affects the overall stormwater management.
That is why all these things are listed in the permit request, but raising the roof of the existing building is not. Because that latter action has no effect on stormwater management.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2023 06:17 pm by woods170 »

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0