Quote from: jongoff on 02/08/2018 05:18 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 02/07/2018 06:45 amSome parts of IVF can be tested on Centuar V. Fit a ICE pod with thrusters and test it in parallel to exist systems. At every least power can be used to extend battery life of stage.I can't say with certainty (our role in IVF is fairly low on the totem pole), but I would be surprised if they didn't test IVF in this manner--starting out in parallel with the mains systems, probably demoing some operations after the main mission is over. I too can't see why ULA has not done this. Bolt it onto an existing Centaur, but don't even turn it on until after spacecraft separation and there is no further risk to the primary mission. Then keep the stage alive for a few days, keep it pressurized and attitude controlled, maybe do a re-entry burn after a few days to prove the endurance.I understand that ULA customers are risk averse, but they also have an interest in seeing technology improve and costs come down. So I'd think they would allow this as a chunk of inert mass during the primary mission. Other companies seem to get their customers to agree to similar arrangements.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 02/07/2018 06:45 amSome parts of IVF can be tested on Centuar V. Fit a ICE pod with thrusters and test it in parallel to exist systems. At every least power can be used to extend battery life of stage.I can't say with certainty (our role in IVF is fairly low on the totem pole), but I would be surprised if they didn't test IVF in this manner--starting out in parallel with the mains systems, probably demoing some operations after the main mission is over.
Some parts of IVF can be tested on Centuar V. Fit a ICE pod with thrusters and test it in parallel to exist systems. At every least power can be used to extend battery life of stage.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 02/08/2018 03:40 pmQuote from: jongoff on 02/08/2018 05:18 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 02/07/2018 06:45 amSome parts of IVF can be tested on Centuar V. Fit a ICE pod with thrusters and test it in parallel to exist systems. At every least power can be used to extend battery life of stage.I can't say with certainty (our role in IVF is fairly low on the totem pole), but I would be surprised if they didn't test IVF in this manner--starting out in parallel with the mains systems, probably demoing some operations after the main mission is over. I too can't see why ULA has not done this. Bolt it onto an existing Centaur, but don't even turn it on until after spacecraft separation and there is no further risk to the primary mission. Then keep the stage alive for a few days, keep it pressurized and attitude controlled, maybe do a re-entry burn after a few days to prove the endurance.I understand that ULA customers are risk averse, but they also have an interest in seeing technology improve and costs come down. So I'd think they would allow this as a chunk of inert mass during the primary mission. Other companies seem to get their customers to agree to similar arrangements.In the interest of fairness...If an IVF thruster can turn on a few days after flight, it can turn on during flight (hypothetically). ULA does not seem to have the courage to push their customers to sign such agreements.
Quote from: envy887 on 02/07/2018 08:41 pmQuote from: brickmack on 02/07/2018 07:03 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 02/07/2018 06:49 pmThat’s a very good point - is a Vulcan with a 4 engine Centaur *really* going to be cheaper than an Atlas V 401?It doesn't have to be. ULA has *already* announced a 2-engine-Centaur V mission, the B330 launch to LEO.The announcement doesn't specify a Centaur V, it says "Vulcan 562". It could still be assuming a dual-engine Centaur III, as Atlas V needed a 552 to launch a BA330. Vulcan 562 was at one point the Centaur III equivalent to Atlas V 552.https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2017/10/17/bigelow-aerospace-and-united-launch-alliance-announce-agreement-to-place-a-b330-habitat-in-low-lunar-orbitthe numbers in Centaur's case only apply to the engines. The link you list is based on old information and is no longer a valid configuration per an interview with T. Bruno that is linked a good ways back in this threads posts. Centaur-V seems to only employ a 4 RL-10C configuration and BA-330 would likely be either Vulcan Centaur 544 to VC-564. Centaur-III was confirmed by Bruno to stay on Atlas and only Centaur-V (simplified to just Centaur because they are now only flying a single centaur version) would fly on Vulcan.
Quote from: brickmack on 02/07/2018 07:03 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 02/07/2018 06:49 pmThat’s a very good point - is a Vulcan with a 4 engine Centaur *really* going to be cheaper than an Atlas V 401?It doesn't have to be. ULA has *already* announced a 2-engine-Centaur V mission, the B330 launch to LEO.The announcement doesn't specify a Centaur V, it says "Vulcan 562". It could still be assuming a dual-engine Centaur III, as Atlas V needed a 552 to launch a BA330. Vulcan 562 was at one point the Centaur III equivalent to Atlas V 552.https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2017/10/17/bigelow-aerospace-and-united-launch-alliance-announce-agreement-to-place-a-b330-habitat-in-low-lunar-orbit
Quote from: Lars-J on 02/07/2018 06:49 pmThat’s a very good point - is a Vulcan with a 4 engine Centaur *really* going to be cheaper than an Atlas V 401?It doesn't have to be. ULA has *already* announced a 2-engine-Centaur V mission, the B330 launch to LEO.
That’s a very good point - is a Vulcan with a 4 engine Centaur *really* going to be cheaper than an Atlas V 401?
Thrusters will be the last thing tested, as it's the riskiest because it involves an explosion.
People seem to forget, but there was some flight testing of IVF on the Future Heavy launch last summer.
Yes, I know that wasn't on orbit testing, but it does show a progression from ground testing, I just wish we a little more detail on what specifically was tested.
So is single or double engine Centaur still an option on Vulcan? Or was it confirmed that Centaur will always have 4 engines?
Quote from: envy887 on 02/08/2018 07:05 pmSo is single or double engine Centaur still an option on Vulcan? Or was it confirmed that Centaur will always have 4 engines?We don't know, but I think we can exclude the possibility of a single engine Centaur V. It would be too heavy for just one RL-10. And even two might not be enough.
while being interviewed yesterday by DasValdez of KerbalSpaceAcademy during a tour of SLC-41, John Gadarowski a Vulcan project manager, provided some insights into the pad modifications being done for Vulcan and specifically stated first Vulcan Launch as April 2020. Indexing for Vulcan and Centaur V specific information:Reinforcing pad for Vulcan launches 9m55sFor Vulcan flame trench water suppression system a second tank that holds 50,000 gallon will be installed 11m28sVulcan Maiden flight April 2020 11m:50sRe-purposing old pad infrastructure for Centaur V 17m:13sThere will be two MLP's one for Atlas and one for Vulcan 34m00sVIF Crane will be upgraded to 65 Tonnes for Vulcan 39m00sThere was a signal interruption so rest of interview and tour is on a different video, indexed points from that video:John Gadarowski talking about his role as a Project Manager on Vulcan, specifically on the new MLP 2m50sedited to add additional time indexes for new Vulcan and Centaur information.
In December, two new PaR “friction stir welding” machines the size of train tunnels were delivered to United Launch Alliance in Alabama. There the multimillion-dollar beasts will be used to fuse together the liquid fuel tanks for the new Vulcan rocket...In addition to ULA, which is a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, other PaR customers include Emerson, Toyota, Best Buy, Tesla, NASA, SpaceX, Blue Origin and a host of medical device firms.
Since Vulcan won't be as far along in 2019 (when Phase 2 is to be awarded) as Falcon was when ULA was given a 36 core block Buy, shouldn't such a money-saving opportunity be taken again by the USAF? Could save several times the purported $4.4B...
Quote from: AncientU on 02/12/2018 03:14 pmSince Vulcan won't be as far along in 2019 (when Phase 2 is to be awarded) as Falcon was when ULA was given a 36 core block Buy, shouldn't such a money-saving opportunity be taken again by the USAF? Could save several times the purported $4.4B...No. ULA knows how to build and operate a certified vehicle. Spacex had no such history.
Sasamj @AngryPackOMeese 9m9 minutes agoI think after 2020, the idea is to switch to Vulcan-centaur+ for heavy lift not stick with Delta
@elonmuskReplying to @AngryPackOMeese @dlxinorbit andMaybe that plan works out, but I will seriously eat my hat with a side of mustard if that rocket flies a national security spacecraft before 2023
Quote from: Jim on 02/12/2018 03:24 pmQuote from: AncientU on 02/12/2018 03:14 pmSince Vulcan won't be as far along in 2019 (when Phase 2 is to be awarded) as Falcon was when ULA was given a 36 core block Buy, shouldn't such a money-saving opportunity be taken again by the USAF? Could save several times the purported $4.4B...No. ULA knows how to build and operate a certified vehicle. Spacex had no such history.Not because ULA knows all, but because block buy is a terrible idea in a competitive market. Let the Air Force decide per mission based on available launchers.
Quote from: RonM on 02/12/2018 03:56 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/12/2018 03:24 pmQuote from: AncientU on 02/12/2018 03:14 pmSince Vulcan won't be as far along in 2019 (when Phase 2 is to be awarded) as Falcon was when ULA was given a 36 core block Buy, shouldn't such a money-saving opportunity be taken again by the USAF? Could save several times the purported $4.4B...No. ULA knows how to build and operate a certified vehicle. Spacex had no such history.Not because ULA knows all, but because block buy is a terrible idea in a competitive market. Let the Air Force decide per mission based on available launchers.Hindsight...no one would call out the block buy being a *poop* deal that long ago (also Blocky Buy's origin start around 2011 by my count).Block Buy most likely saved money when considering the time frame.
Quote from: Rocket Jesus on 02/12/2018 04:20 pmQuote from: RonM on 02/12/2018 03:56 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/12/2018 03:24 pmQuote from: AncientU on 02/12/2018 03:14 pmSince Vulcan won't be as far along in 2019 (when Phase 2 is to be awarded) as Falcon was when ULA was given a 36 core block Buy, shouldn't such a money-saving opportunity be taken again by the USAF? Could save several times the purported $4.4B...No. ULA knows how to build and operate a certified vehicle. Spacex had no such history.Not because ULA knows all, but because block buy is a terrible idea in a competitive market. Let the Air Force decide per mission based on available launchers.Hindsight...no one would call out the block buy being a *poop* deal that long ago (also Blocky Buy's origin start around 2011 by my count).Block Buy most likely saved money when considering the time frame.I'm not talking about previous block buys, I responding to the idea of a new block buy. Why give SpaceX a block buy for FH when they've done one test launch and Vulcan, NG, etc. are on the horizon? In a few short years there will be several launchers available. Block buy is no longer a viable concept.