Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle (as announced/built) - General Discussion Thread 3  (Read 972071 times)

Offline Sknowball

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 13
Tory Bruno stated today that ACES first launch is now targeted for 2023-2024.
Question: So how’s ACES looking? What year might it fly, and with what engines?
Tory Bruno: Good. IVF, which makes it an ACES, is going through a minor upgrade. Looking at 2023-4. No decisions yet on engines

This is a change to the statement from a year ago which was First flight in 2022-23.

Curious what the "minor upgrades" to IVF he mentioned are.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2018 10:17 pm by Sknowball »

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Curious what the "minor upgrades" to IVF he mentioned are.

I wonder if adding a little hybrid in, and some batteries might be interesting optimisation, to optimise for an efficient power point on the engine. Lithium batteries have come a moderate way since the inception of ACES.

I suppose a tiny electric turbopumped engine doesn't make sense?
« Last Edit: 02/27/2018 10:37 pm by speedevil »

Online Prettz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • O'Neillian
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 30
Curious what the "minor upgrades" to IVF he mentioned are.

I wonder if adding a little hybrid in, and some batteries might be interesting optimisation, to optimise for an efficient power point on the engine. Lithium batteries have come a moderate way since the inception of ACES.

I suppose a tiny electric turbopumped engine doesn't make sense?
A very strange suggestion. The RL10 already has a turbopump, powered by expanding LH2. Where would the electric power even come from?

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
A very strange suggestion. The RL10 already has a turbopump, powered by expanding LH2. Where would the electric power even come from?

I was idly wondering about the addition of a very, very low thrust engine, compared to the RL10, powered from the IVF ICE.
On reflection, I can't see a good reason for this.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Tory Bruno stated today that ACES first launch is now targeted for 2023-2024.
Question: So how’s ACES looking? What year might it fly, and with what engines?
Tory Bruno: Good. IVF, which makes it an ACES, is going through a minor upgrade. Looking at 2023-4. No decisions yet on engines

This is a change to the statement from a year ago which was First flight in 2022-23.

Curious what the "minor upgrades" to IVF he mentioned are.
Interesting use of language.
So it's a "Centaur V" with the 5m tanks and  no IVF. But does it need RL10s to be a Centaur V as well?

It's ACES if it's got IVF?

This ongoing delay over IVF baffles me.  :( 
It's not just the projected 1/2 tonne improvement in payload (a lot of LV's would quite like that).
It's the shedload of time, staff and money spent fitting all those separate boxes and  tanks (and the wiring and pipes to connect them) Vs a minimum of connections to two pre assembled units (potentially built in much cleaner environments than being assembled on the factory floor).

These scream  "massive cost savings to ULA" yet 2023 will be about 9 years since ULA's first IVF paper.
It almost seems by the time IVF flies the whole idea will be out of patent. I'd be very surprised if other companies were not paying close attention to the concept, if not actively developing their own versions, albeit at a low level of investment.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2018 11:40 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
There is a simple answer to the slow walk to IVF. ULA does not have enough budget to implement IVF from the parents in one go. So is doing it piecemeal fashion.

@john smith 19  is properly worry about the pace of IVF implementation by ULA. It might just be a niche player or less by then.

Offline TrevorMonty

Easier to get DOD certification with Centuar V if using flight proven systems from existing Centuar. They need performance of Centuar V to retire D4H.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Trace-ability. Need to keep changes isolated to prove Centaur V retains Centaur 3 qualities/capabilities unalloyed (change management)

Part of how "Atlas Centaur" is refined into "Vulcan Centaur". As opposed to being just different and potentially more flawed.

Issue with IVF all along has been "too different". Contradiction of risking "more better" and getting unacceptable "worse" like AMOS 6 pad failure. By accident.

Benefit of Centaur V for doing IVF is greater scope/capability of improvement, ability to fit improvement into use given need.

Best part of "Vulcan Centaur" for IVF/ACES: that having one launcher, one US, to cover all immediate needs ... means its the unavoidable next step in capability/economics.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Trace-ability. Need to keep changes isolated to prove Centaur V retains Centaur 3 qualities/capabilities unalloyed (change management)

Part of how "Atlas Centaur" is refined into "Vulcan Centaur". As opposed to being just different and potentially more flawed.

Issue with IVF all along has been "too different". Contradiction of risking "more better" and getting unacceptable "worse" like AMOS 6 pad failure. By accident.

Benefit of Centaur V for doing IVF is greater scope/capability of improvement, ability to fit improvement into use given need.

Best part of "Vulcan Centaur" for IVF/ACES: that having one launcher, one US, to cover all immediate needs ... means its the unavoidable next step in capability/economics.
All of what you've said makes perfect sense. First a (more or less) straight transition to RL10 powered (but bigger) stage, then the last step to full ACES.

What I cannot get my head around is the complete lack of on orbit testing any of the IVF components by now.  I find it very hard to believe it's impossible to test any of the parts of the system in a way that's a)Affordable to ULA and b) Satisfies the safety concerns of at least some of it's payload customers.  Surely this is the way to bring about "risk reduction."  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Easier to get DOD certification with Centuar V if using flight proven systems from existing Centuar. They need performance of Centuar V to retire D4H.
Fair point. As long as DIVH stays they will always be running 2 production lines. The sooner DIV H goes away for good the better. 
There is a simple answer to the slow walk to IVF. ULA does not have enough budget to implement IVF from the parents in one go. So is doing it piecemeal fashion.
It seems very hard to believe that the parents would pinch the pennies like this. But it seems they resent any $ going to ULA, rather than the other way round.  :(

Quote from: Zed_Noir
@john smith 19  is properly worry about the pace of IVF implementation by ULA. It might just be a niche player or less by then.
Outside of some Atlas V launches it already is a niche player.
It's simply (and Shotwell admitted as much) that it's such a very big "niche"
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Online LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
  • Liked: 6109
  • Likes Given: 837

This ongoing delay over IVF baffles me.  :( 
It's not just the projected 1/2 tonne improvement in payload (a lot of LV's would quite like that).
It's the shedload of time, staff and money spent fitting all those separate boxes and  tanks (and the wiring and pipes to connect them) Vs a minimum of connections to two pre assembled units (potentially built in much cleaner environments than being assembled on the factory floor).

These scream  "massive cost savings to ULA" yet 2023 will be about 9 years since ULA's first IVF paper.
It almost seems by the time IVF flies the whole idea will be out of patent. I'd be very surprised if other companies were not paying close attention to the concept, if not actively developing their own versions, albeit at a low level of investment.
Here's a 2009 paper describing IVF and referencing it as "in development", the first paper from ULA I could find that mentions this.   So at least 14 years of development for an idea that is not all that complex, by space standards.

I agree that the delay seems really counter-productive.   I understand the parents are penny-pinchers, but spending a (smaller) amount to reduce the on-going costs seems like a winning idea, and they could certainly afford it.  Right now seems like the worst of all possible development paths, spending the money and engineering time to make prototypes and then never even trying them.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
What I cannot get my head around is the complete lack of on orbit testing any of the IVF components by now.  I find it very hard to believe it's impossible to test any of the parts of the system in a way that's a)Affordable to ULA and b) Satisfies the safety concerns of at least some of it's payload customers.  Surely this is the way to bring about "risk reduction."  :(
Short answer - they don't want to wreck a perfect streak of missions.

Longer - the parents and other stakeholders think of ULA as an idealized service to get payloads to orbits, without any overage/fuss/risk. In that environment, anything that sticks out gets filed off fast. Because it sticks out. They are too obsessive with that.

They are doing Vulcan just to "undo" parts of Atlas that they'd wished were different, done in the present. Part of the past/present.

ACES/IVF has nothing to do with past/present. Just future. When they exhaust past/present, it's back to future.

The only way ACES/IVF happens is if future becomes needed because of if the present presses on them. Could easily "backwater".

JV's don't cope with the future very well. The financial horizon is always "now".

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681

This ongoing delay over IVF baffles me.  :( 
It's not just the projected 1/2 tonne improvement in payload (a lot of LV's would quite like that).
It's the shedload of time, staff and money spent fitting all those separate boxes and  tanks (and the wiring and pipes to connect them) Vs a minimum of connections to two pre assembled units (potentially built in much cleaner environments than being assembled on the factory floor).

These scream  "massive cost savings to ULA" yet 2023 will be about 9 years since ULA's first IVF paper.
It almost seems by the time IVF flies the whole idea will be out of patent. I'd be very surprised if other companies were not paying close attention to the concept, if not actively developing their own versions, albeit at a low level of investment.
Here's a 2009 paper describing IVF and referencing it as "in development", the first paper from ULA I could find that mentions this.   So at least 14 years of development for an idea that is not all that complex, by space standards.

I agree that the delay seems really counter-productive.   I understand the parents are penny-pinchers, but spending a (smaller) amount to reduce the on-going costs seems like a winning idea, and they could certainly afford it.  Right now seems like the worst of all possible development paths, spending the money and engineering time to make prototypes and then never even trying them.

I think the problem has been that IVF has always had to be developed on a shoestring IRAD budget. Before Tory's time it was playing second fiddle to Common Avionics, which ULA had to develop to deal with hardware obsolescence issues. Then it was having to take second priority to Vulcan development, and now Vulcan/Centaur V development. Anyone who's ever worked on a project that was funded via IRAD but wasn't the top priority can imagine how slow and frustrating this can be. I think ULA is doing the best it can with the hand its parent companies keep dealing it.

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
JV's don't cope with the future very well. The financial horizon is always "now".

Yeah, that's the fundamental problem. ULA's best odds for survival are if it can find a way to move beyond the Boeing/LM JV governance model. I just wish I knew how to do that. I've got a few ideas, but they're all long-shots.

~Jon

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
JV's don't cope with the future very well. The financial horizon is always "now".

Yeah, that's the fundamental problem. ULA's best odds for survival are if it can find a way to move beyond the Boeing/LM JV governance model. I just wish I knew how to do that. I've got a few ideas, but they're all long-shots.

~Jon
IPO with each parent getting a place on the board but retaining less than 25% percent?  Wrong thread, no idea if the USG would allow it but until it's not a JV it will be super conservative. But maybe that's OK. Is it really horrible to have an expensive but impressively reliable option?
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
JV's don't cope with the future very well. The financial horizon is always "now".

Yeah, that's the fundamental problem. ULA's best odds for survival are if it can find a way to move beyond the Boeing/LM JV governance model. I just wish I knew how to do that. I've got a few ideas, but they're all long-shots.

~Jon
Sold to Blue. That solves it.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
JV's don't cope with the future very well. The financial horizon is always "now".

Yeah, that's the fundamental problem. ULA's best odds for survival are if it can find a way to move beyond the Boeing/LM JV governance model.
Heard it as "started as a JV, ends as a JV". FWIW. (Once misspoke as "live by the JV, die by the JV".) Somewhat ... fatalistic. Not me.

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194

IVF may assume RL10s (plural).  The vacuum-optimized BE-3 may obviate IVF, at least to fullest extent...

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Here's a 2009 paper describing IVF and referencing it as "in development", the first paper from ULA I could find that mentions this.   So at least 14 years of development for an idea that is not all that complex, by space standards.
I stand corrected. 14 years indeed. OK internal combustion engines and low pressure GO2/GH2 thrusters are a bit outside ULA's comfort zone but it does seem a very long time.
Quote from: LouScheffer
I agree that the delay seems really counter-productive.   I understand the parents are penny-pinchers, but spending a (smaller) amount to reduce the on-going costs seems like a winning idea, and they could certainly afford it.  Right now seems like the worst of all possible development paths, spending the money and engineering time to make prototypes and then never even trying them.
They do keep saying the engine is not "flight weight," but as a flight test it would seem a good idea to find out where to reduce weight.

But unfortunately once again the Golden Rule applies.
Yeah, that's the fundamental problem. ULA's best odds for survival are if it can find a way to move beyond the Boeing/LM JV governance model. I just wish I knew how to do that. I've got a few ideas, but they're all long-shots.

~Jon
That's the problem. I can't shake the feeling that (mostly) the parents don't even want to own ULA.  :( But they do, and they don't want to give it up, unless they can shut it down, so no one else gets it.

I know. That sounds childish, petty and spiteful. Surely no global, multi $Bn multinational corporations, run by MBA's from the finest business schools on the planet, could behave in such a manner? And yet from the outside....

It seems Bruno is the only one who wants to run it as a viable, separate business.

With a smaller company I'd say turn it into a management buy out. But given the size of the business I think that's fantasy. OTOH let's not forget ULS still has some of the value from that USAF 36 core block buy, which was a big part of ATK's attraction to them. That should be an asset that can leveraged in some way.
Short answer - they don't want to wreck a perfect streak of missions.

Longer - the parents and other stakeholders think of ULA as an idealized service to get payloads to orbits, without any overage/fuss/risk. In that environment, anything that sticks out gets filed off fast. Because it sticks out. They are too obsessive with that.
Definitely. It's not like ULA have never done on orbit experiments on Centaur, after the payload has been delivered. They know how to keep a secondary payload inert and isolated.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
They are doing Vulcan just to "undo" parts of Atlas that they'd wished were different, done in the present. Part of the past/present.

ACES/IVF has nothing to do with past/present. Just future. When they exhaust past/present, it's back to future.
I'd say "If there's any future left," but the unwritten expectation is the USG will always want an NSS launch provider.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
The only way ACES/IVF happens is if future becomes needed because of if the present presses on them. Could easily "backwater".

JV's don't cope with the future very well. The financial horizon is always "now".
A very cogent description of the parents thinking.

It's also just very depressing.  :(
« Last Edit: 03/04/2018 09:10 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

What I cannot get my head around is the complete lack of on orbit testing any of the IVF components by now.  I find it very hard to believe it's impossible to test any of the parts of the system in a way that's a)Affordable to ULA and b) Satisfies the safety concerns of at least some of it's payload customers.  Surely this is the way to bring about "risk reduction."  :(

Not thrusters, not ICE, not pumps,etc.  Name IVF component that does not cut into the vehicle's plumbing.That is the problem.

 

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