That ULA graphic is presumably 5+ years old since it mentions Atlas and Delta instead of Vulcan. I haven't seen any 50+ tonne to LEO proposals from ULA recently but they'd presumably build an upgraded Vulcan if given enough money.
ULA president mentioned one time that they could make a Vulcan Heavy. A 3 core heavy with a few strap on solids and a BE-3U upper stage could very well get 50 tons to LEO or more.
Quote from: deltaV on 09/06/2022 04:53 pmThat ULA graphic is presumably 5+ years old since it mentions Atlas and Delta instead of Vulcan. I haven't seen any 50+ tonne to LEO proposals from ULA recently but they'd presumably build an upgraded Vulcan if given enough money.They are much older than that. These are sets of proposed EELV upgrade paths from c. 2009. Please read this 2010 thread for reference. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19972.0
Found this tweet of possible D4H and Atlas5H upgrades. https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1566928917012815875?t=_p4-Ia3Wpw2tkEvA85l6Jg&s=19I really like the 46-81t D4H with J2X US as they use existing D4H boosters and no need to develop new engines. Atlas ones needed new RP1 engine as replacement for RD180.Cost SLS program would've paid for quite a few of these D4Hs. Might even of been able to deliver Orion to TLI on single launch, failing that a 2xD4Hs with in orbit topup of 2nd stage. For distributed launch 2x38t or 33t versions would be cheaper option and easier to develop.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 09/06/2022 05:21 pmQuote from: deltaV on 09/06/2022 04:53 pmThat ULA graphic is presumably 5+ years old since it mentions Atlas and Delta instead of Vulcan. I haven't seen any 50+ tonne to LEO proposals from ULA recently but they'd presumably build an upgraded Vulcan if given enough money.They are much older than that. These are sets of proposed EELV upgrade paths from c. 2009. Please read this 2010 thread for reference. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19972.0There is a persistent but false meme justifying SLS on the grounds that in 2010 the newspace companies like SpaceX were too immature to be trusted with heavy lift. I heard it repeated just the other day on the Economist magazine's Babbage podcast.This nice graphic is a good reminder that even if SpaceX had not earned NASA's trust at the time, perfectly good commercial alternatives were available from ULA, then the most credible rocket builder of all.
I have to ask - what would be the launch price of these Delta/Atlas rockets back then? The D4H ended up very expensive and I believe Atlas wasn't that cheap either before Bruno's reforms in light of F9.
ULA could've build HLV capable of delivering Orion to TLI. With lower launch and development cost than SLS. If they could make it work with existing D4H boosters and GEM SRMs then most of R&D would've only been needed for US and launch pad.1-2 launches a year would also of helped lower D4 costs due to higher production volumes of boosters and SRMs.
It wasn't going to happen because it didn't meet the needs of the powerful stakeholders. Readers likely know the list of "The Usual Suspects" in this.The ACES-derived concepts (depots; landers) were going to remain as paper proposals because ULA didn't have a charter to fly spacecraft; only launch vehicles.Congress wasn't going to accept a plan for NASA that didn't include launch vehicle work for MSFC; Congress wasn't going to accept a plan that didn't award production and operations contracts to LM, Boeing, Thiokol (NG), AJR, Jacobs, etc.Hate on that view all you want. But spending much time imaging alternate histories that deny political and business realities won't help you understand possible futures.
Quote from: spacenut on 09/06/2022 05:33 pmULA president mentioned one time that they could make a Vulcan Heavy. A 3 core heavy with a few strap on solids and a BE-3U upper stage could very well get 50 tons to LEO or more. The ULA Web site originally used the term "Vulcan Heavy", but has now removed it and uses the term "Vulcan Upgrade". "Upgrade" refers to a slightly improved upper-stage motor and not to multiple cores. It is unclear from the web site whether or not both motor types will be available, or if instead all Vulcans will use the upgraded motor. The motor appears to have a longer nozzle and require a longer interstage.Maybe they did all this to reserve the term "heavy" for the multi-core version?