Author Topic: ULA paper HLVs  (Read 19539 times)

Offline TrevorMonty

ULA paper HLVs
« on: 09/06/2022 11:05 am »
Found this tweet of possible D4H and Atlas5H upgrades.

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1566928917012815875?t=_p4-Ia3Wpw2tkEvA85l6Jg&s=19

I 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.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2022 11:09 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 2129
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #1 on: 09/06/2022 04:53 pm »
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.

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #2 on: 09/06/2022 04:59 pm »
Evolve the Vulcan stage to be reusable and use the BE-3U instead of the horrifically expensive J-2X, and then they'd have something...

Offline whitelancer64

Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #3 on: 09/06/2022 05:21 pm »
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.

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
"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 spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #4 on: 09/06/2022 05:33 pm »
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. 

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #5 on: 09/06/2022 05:49 pm »
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.
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?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #6 on: 09/06/2022 06:09 pm »
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.
Probably lot more than that if D4H with J2X  + 12xgem is anything to go by.  There maybe crossfeed in these heavy vehicles.


Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #7 on: 09/06/2022 06:11 pm »
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.

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

There 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.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #8 on: 09/06/2022 06:20 pm »
This paper never showed HLVs with additional  GEM SRMs. Yet ULA had them in Tweet graphic. http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/63178f10b6d68/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf
« Last Edit: 09/06/2022 06:21 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #9 on: 09/06/2022 06:28 pm »
Found this tweet of possible D4H and Atlas5H upgrades.

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1566928917012815875?t=_p4-Ia3Wpw2tkEvA85l6Jg&s=19

I 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.
D4H with 12 GEMs, maybe with 2-4 RL-10s (maybe borrowing a bit from Atlas V dual centaur?) would be a nice choice. May be able to shoot Orion through TLI without new engine development or much new tooling.

All kind of alt-history at this point. Vulcan is the future of ULA. Although a Vulcan Heavy (that means tri-core) plus some extra SRMs would be pretty formidable!

If ACES could be revived and used for distributed lift, placed in high Earth Orbit and fully refueled, that’d be a freaking awesome capability for deep space probes. ACES with zero boiloff tech doing a deep Oberth burn at Jupiter would be pretty awesome for an interstellar medium probe to follow up on the Voyagers.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2022 06:32 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #10 on: 09/06/2022 06:30 pm »
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.

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

There 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.
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.


Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #11 on: 09/06/2022 06:54 pm »
With fuel depots the existing ULA fleet was capable of supporting lunar landings.
Higher performing D4H would definitely make things a bit easier.

Google this paper it's on ULA webpage.
AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

Supplying these depots would been great market for SpaceX and other new LV companies to go after. With LOX making up bulk of fuel mass they could've left more tricky LH to ULA.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2022 06:58 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Liked: 986
  • Likes Given: 1836
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #12 on: 09/06/2022 07:29 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2022 07:29 pm by JayWee »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #13 on: 09/06/2022 07:43 pm »
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.
Not cheap but lot less than SLS program and lot quicker.

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #14 on: 09/06/2022 07:53 pm »
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.
ESAS and RAC both argued that NASA developing their own Shuttle-derived launch vehicles would actually be cheaper than leveraging EELVs, because Delta and Atlas were seen as so uncompetitive in the sleepy commercial market of the 2000s and so over-capacity for the DoD/NRO market that NASA would be forced to cover most of the fixed costs of the EELV program. It seems obvious to most everybody else that an EELV-based approach would have had a lower fixed cost structure than the Shuttle-derived standing army, but NASA disagreed repeatedly. Commercial launch was folly, it would bankrupt all the customers who depended on its promises of lower costs, it would never be a profitable business, and NASA should steer clear of subsidizing a failed industry. That was the view.

I'm not even sure ULA would have disagreed in the late 2000s. Launching Orion would have helped ULA with their demand problem, and a depot-based exploration architecture would have certainly helped amortize their fixed costs. They would have wanted to extract as much money from NASA as they could under sole-source launch contracts. It's still preposterous to project that it would have been bad enough to rival the cost of the SLS. But that was the argument, and they got away with it. Somehow passed the smell test.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #15 on: 09/06/2022 09:05 pm »
Delta IV Heavy nominally costs like $400m, but I think NASA got a launch for like $300-350m for EFT-1.

Given a $20B dev cost for SLS, that buys you 50 D4Hs.

Need a few billion for crew rating and possibly for increasing payload, but you’d still be far ahead.

SRMs aren’t too bad as far as cost. I’ve heard like $1-2m, but I think for Vulcan it’s like $5m apiece. So for 12, that adds $60m. $60m to roughly double D4H’s payload to LEO (and maybe TLI?), seems like a good deal. Could be enough for Orion to TLI. And you can afford several missions per year.

Water under the bridge, now.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #16 on: 09/06/2022 09:26 pm »
On June 17, 2009 then ULA CEO Michael Gass gave a presentation called:

Briefing to the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee

In addition to advocating that Delta IV Heavy could launch Orion with 20% performance margin, and only cost $1.3B to human-rate, the ULA deck also showed the evolution plans for Atlas V and Delta IV.

So that chart at the beginning of the thread is at least 13 years old.

All of those options are gone now, so time to imagine what the future looks like with Vulcan...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #17 on: 09/06/2022 09:30 pm »
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.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #18 on: 09/06/2022 10:01 pm »
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.
I mean, a lot of what you said is just tautological (“it didn’t have the political support to happen therefore it couldn’t have enough political support to happen”).

Political support happens because of people changing their minds or not, based on arguments and plans and facts on the ground.

If Ares I had survived and Orion used to service ISS, you might’ve claimed that commercial crew was impossible because of lack of political support. All of that is just a sort of circular argument.

It’s actually important to bring all this up again, because I STILL see a ton of people repeating false arguments that there were super strong TECHNICAL reasons why the path chosen by politicians was the only possible TECHNICAL solution.

I still see misinfo repeated, like the supposed black zones, or the false claim D4H doesn’t have enough lift to put Orion into orbit, etc, etc.

The technical misinfo is actually partly why the political constraints were what they were. People often act both in self-interest AND based on what they think is technically true. If the facts had actually been well understood by all the stakeholders, it’s quite likely a better solution could’ve been politically feasible. So no, I don’t accept “political reality” as some unalterable fact of the universe. People can be and are persuaded.

BUT I’m not sure we could hope for an outcome much better than commercial cargo, commercial crew, and commercial lander. That was a huge stroke of both luck and daring.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4672
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: ULA paper HLVs
« Reply #19 on: 09/07/2022 01:12 am »
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.
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?
The latest RL10C-X development programme will replace the predecessors as the current batch order RL10C-1-1's is previously and presently stated to be interim engine with which the presently named 'RL10C-X' will be the next in line. The next version of RL10C-X after the current one will implement an additively manufactured 3D printed nozzle along with some other changes. The RL10 thread goes into the RL10C subfamily of version series.

Now as for Centaur-V, the following versions are available upon request: short (for VC0S configuration and select mission dependent configurations), medium (reserved option), Standard (initial version), long (allows replacement of DIVH).

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1