Quote from: GWH on 02/05/2019 09:48 pmQuote from: su27k on 02/05/2019 03:35 pmQuote from: GWH on 02/05/2019 02:00 pmThere have also been unsourced statements made to a space reporter that Boeing has ordered ULA to hold on the reusable aspects of ACES. That's interesting, do you have a link to this bit of information?Why? The cost is not that high, they've been putting it off for decades. What is the problem with Boeing? What are they thinking? Lobbying is cheaper than tech development?
Quote from: su27k on 02/05/2019 03:35 pmQuote from: GWH on 02/05/2019 02:00 pmThere have also been unsourced statements made to a space reporter that Boeing has ordered ULA to hold on the reusable aspects of ACES. That's interesting, do you have a link to this bit of information?
Quote from: GWH on 02/05/2019 02:00 pmThere have also been unsourced statements made to a space reporter that Boeing has ordered ULA to hold on the reusable aspects of ACES. That's interesting, do you have a link to this bit of information?
There have also been unsourced statements made to a space reporter that Boeing has ordered ULA to hold on the reusable aspects of ACES.
Wringing the last bit of profit out of what they probably see is a dead-end space company long-term.SpaceX is developing a very large track record and keeping prices low. Blue Origin is becoming formidable. There are several other smaller spacelaunch companies that may eventually move up-market. There's just not much point in ULA long-term, so Boeing can just pull as much profit as they can.
There have also been unsourced statements made to a space reporter that Boeing has ordered ULA to hold on the
It's a threat to SLS.
ACES is an entirely different technology from SLS. Yes, Vulcan-ACES with DL could replace SLS, but it could also be used to make SLS much more effective and thus less likely to be canceled. That upside seems to me to be worth throwing a relatively tiny bit of cash after. SLS without ACES-like capabilities is a dead program walking if Starship reaches orbit and returns. That's a huge threat to one of Boeing's high-revenue programs, and Boeing is (again) just sticking their head in the sand and hoping the threat will go away.And even if Vulcan-ACES replaces SLS, how does Boeing lose in this scenario compared to any of the alternatives?
{snip}I have no doubts that Boeing (as well as Lockheed) are both eager to take a swing at future lunar lander contracts, ones that would be significantly less profitable with ACES/XEUS providing the propulsion.
Vulcan-ACES has a lot of potential, particularly in a post-SLS human exploration architecture. Vulcan-Centaur much less so.
Quote from: envy887 on 02/06/2019 03:37 pmVulcan-ACES has a lot of potential, particularly in a post-SLS human exploration architecture. Vulcan-Centaur much less so.The difference is not so stark as you make it out. Centaur 5 Heavy with 4 RL-10s is basically ACES without propellant transfer and autogeneous pressurization. Yeah, it is not ACES, but moving closer.
maybe they think that Vulcan-Centaur is close enough to Vulcan-ACES that they can just add IVF and be up and running in just a year or two.
There is a huge issue with what Eric Berger's sources are saying and what it means to work already taking place.ULA is quite literally being paid by NASA to work on ACES tech:$10 million for Integrated Vehicle Fluids Flight Demonstration$2 million for Cryogenic Fluid Management Technology Demonstrationhttps://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-new-partnerships-to-develop-space-exploration-technologiesSo what does that mean? Take government money to develop the technology and then put it on a shelf? Build ACES for long duration flight and the simplicity of IVF but skip the propellant transfer?
WRT " ... the simplicity of IVF .."Have you ever seen even the mechanical (AKA plumbing) schematics for IVF? Not to mention all of the other aspects (controls/TFH*) that make it an Integrated System? I have. And it is very far from Simple.* Thermo/Fluids/Heat Transfer
Doesn't LM have a say in this? Not sure how it works to their advantage not to develop the tech.
It's worth noting that ULA is now contracted to provide 3 ICPSs for SLS. It was originally supposed to be a one-off. There's no guarantee that Boeing will ever actually build the EUS. In which case they'll drop the "I" from ICPS and it will become the default 2nd stage for SLS. It's human rated, found in two programs of record, MLT conformed, cheaper to produce and best of all keeps additional funds flowing into ULA, 50% of which goes back to Boeing anyways.It's not like ULA is lighting up the commercial market. And with NG stacking up commercial orders, SLS being delayed again, murmurs of using FH for Europa and SH/SS lurking on the edges, Boeing is being very cautious.