Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle (as announced/built) - General Discussion Thread 3  (Read 972187 times)

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
There 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?

It's a threat to SLS.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
There 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?

EDIT: Oops, I confused SMART and ACES. Never mind.  ;D
« Last Edit: 02/06/2019 02:43 am by Lars-J »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
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.

That and they'd still like to avoid anything competing with sole-sourced contracts for things like EUS. But yeah, Boeing and LM have siphoned more money out of ULA over the past 3-4yrs than it would've taken to develop Vulcan, ACES, IVF, Distributed launch, SMART, Xeus, and pretty much every cool piece of tech ULA has ever proposed combined. They are pushing forward with Vulcan, but only out of IRAD money. All the money Tory saved by paring down the ULA team, consolidating vendors, phasing out Delta-IVM, etc haven't gone toward accelerating development, they've gone to stock buybacks at Boeing and LM.

I really have loved ULA and their ideas over the years, and it's been frustrating watching their parents run them into the ground.

~Jon

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
There have also been unsourced statements made to a space reporter that Boeing has ordered ULA to hold on the

Eric Berger is not just a space reporter, but a well-connected and generally reliable space reporter. That's an interesting statement.

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?

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
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?

The loss to Boeing if SLS is cancelled is quite clear financially. The original contract for Boeing was $2.8B for two cores, further to that is the 2018 OIG report:
"In October 2018, NASA's inspector general reported that the Boeing SLS stages contract portion (accounting "for over 40 percent of the $11.9 billion spent on the SLS Program" as of August 2018) is expected to cost a total of US$8.9 billion by 2021, which is twice the initial planned amount"

In the reality of the current Gateway based program ACES is a huge threat to Boeing, and far more tangible than Starship (granted Starship seems to be become more tangible by the day). Orion can easily be flown to NHRO with distributed lift, the modules co-manifested as cargo can easily be taken by ACES alone. The entirety of the current plan can be replaced by ULA services in one pen stroke by congress. With a far more ambitious plan than the current, yes an ACES enabled SLS upper stage could do some wondrous things, but that is far from the plans today.

ULA is NASA's most trusted launch provider, and one that still maintains ties to traditional industry suppliers situated in many states that aren't California.

Even acknowledging that Starship may become a reality, assurances on availability of launch have to be made. SLS can be justified as the alternative in the event that SS doesn't work. In a future where Vulcan ACES intends to transport a Bigelow B330 to LLO, that justification disappears completely. I feel it really opens up the flood gates as well: Blue Origin can easily field their own version of ACES on a 3rd stage; with in orbit propellant as a commodity any other launch provider can look to provide supply. The depth of options becomes so much greater, and the risk to NASA's program lessened.

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.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2019 02:53 pm by GWH »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Vulcan-ACES has a lot of potential, particularly in a post-SLS human exploration architecture. Vulcan-Centaur much less so.

Yes, the SLS contract is more juicy than launching Vulcan-ACES - particularly to Boeing, who gets all of the SLS core and EUS while having split Vulcan-ACES with LM. But there is a distinct possibility that SLS gets canned completely regardless of the existence of Vulcan-ACES. In fact, in my opinion it's a near certainty once both New Glenn and Starship are flying.

Stopping development on ACES then leaves Boeing in a worse position, since it will be reduced to having only Vulcan Centaur to compete against an increasing array of more and more reusable alternatives. ULA will be even more of a customized launch provider with a smaller and smaller market share and none of NASA's human exploration money.

Maybe Boeing is willing to cede market share in that eventuality, seeing launch as a non-core area while they focus on the more profitable side of buildign payloads. Or 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.

Online rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
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.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2019 04:06 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
{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.

The development of XEUS would have been paid for by ULA.  Boeing may think it can get a cost plus contract to design a human lunar lander. As part of NextSTEP-2 NASA will be seeking proposals for such a lander tomorrow (February 7, 2019).
https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Vulcan-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.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2019 04:30 pm by Lars-J »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
So Centaur 5 Heavy would be easier to convert to ACES?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Vulcan-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.

True, which is why I speculated:

Quote
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.

IVF and prop transfer are key to any exploration architecture usign Vulcan, though. They can't do much of anything interesting without ACES, because that limits Vulcan to only about 15 tonnes to TLI instead of 35+ tonnes.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
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 Demonstration
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-new-partnerships-to-develop-space-exploration-technologies

So 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?

Offline SBerger

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Denver CO
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 69
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

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
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 Demonstration
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-new-partnerships-to-develop-space-exploration-technologies

So 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?

This announcement was basically saying that ULA was selected to negotiate contracts with NASA to develop those technologies. Since these were for the Tipping Point Technologies solicitation, these contracts required ULA to commit to investing a sizeable amount of its own money alongside NASA (IIRC NASA asked Tipping Point winners to cover at least 25% of the cost of the research). That would require their parent companies allowing them to pony-up a decent amount of money to match the NASA funding. I don't know if these contracts are still in negotiations or if ULA's parents made them walk away from the awards.

~Jon

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
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

Interesting, the pitch I've heard about IVF once completed would be cheaper to build than the current independent systems of settling and attitude thrusters, batteries, and pressurant tanks.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • USA
  • Liked: 3273
  • Likes Given: 101
Tory Bruno told me on reddit several months ago that they expected no significant change in costs from IVF. Its consolidated to a single system, but overall complexity is about the same. Cost reductions in ACES/Centaur V are from aft-mounted avionics, printed chambers/injectors on RL10, inverted common bulkhead (central sump for the LH2 tank), fewer mount points on the bulkheads from moving to an equipment shelf design, more automated welding, LV-MLI, the single fairing diameter/eliminating upper stage encapsulation, and higher production rate.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2019 04:13 pm by brickmack »

Offline lesxiarxis

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Doesn't LM have a say in this? Not sure how it works to their advantage not to develop the tech.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
ACES enables more lift capacity, longer more complicated missions, and the reuse and refueling of the stage. The problem is that there are no customers who need any of that right now. So its a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

There is a downward trend in the number of new GEO satellites and that is expected to continue. The US government will also be reducing the number of heavy satellites to high energy orbits. LEO constellations look like they might take off but ACES doesn't really help all that much with those. The existing Centaur is capable of multi burn constellation deployment missions. Furthermore those missions tend to be volume limited not mass limited so the extra lift capacity doesn't help as much. NASA has SLS (as much as that is way over budget and behind schedule) and if the DOD needed ACES like capability they would have made it a requirement in the last EELV bidding.

ULA does have a responsibility to its shareholders to bring a return on their investments. If ULA is flying only a half dozen times a year ACES may not bring any significant value over just sticking with the Centaur. Disappointing to us space fans but it would be an understandable business decision.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Doesn't LM have a say in this? Not sure how it works to their advantage not to develop the tech.

LM has the same position that Boeing has. Why fund something ourselves when we can wait for a government contract to fund the whole thing?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4672
  • Likes Given: 768
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.
AFAIU, based on past NSF articles, posts and information from other sites:
Actually 2 of the options were exercised in the original contract for the second and third ICPS's. It was not originally a one off. In addition SM-1 (and
Provisional SM-2) originally planned using an EUS with an ICPS on top of that for both Europa missions (orbiter and lander respectively). EUS manifestation was accelerated then decelerated throughout the years resulting in the contract options being exercised to date.

 

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