Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle (as announced/built) - General Discussion Thread 3  (Read 972087 times)

Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 97
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2018 03:58 pm by Rocket Jesus »

Offline A_M_Swallow

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

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.

If ULA does not want to push customers to sign contracts permitting equipment tests then ULA will have to pay for its own flights.

I wonder if Ford or General Motors will pay for a publicity stunt in which a car is sent to orbit the Moon?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4672
  • Likes Given: 768
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.

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.



That was planned a long time ago but was shelved indefinitely.

Offline TrevorMonty

The IVF pod is totally safe until it is supplied with fuel. Just a case of opening fuel valves after Centuar has delivered its payloads.

Tank pressurisation test requires a bit more plumbing so maybe last test done.

A successful series of pod tests could allow for removal Hydrazine and its thrusters, reduce battery size and increase stage life to hours if not days. Big savings to be had without having to eliminate flight proven He pressurisation systems.

NB The pods 300lb Hydrogen/Oxygen gas thrusts allow for multiple small orbit changes, great for constellation placements.

Offline Sknowball

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 13
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 9m55s
For Vulcan flame trench water suppression system a second tank that holds 50,000 gallon will be installed 11m28s
Vulcan Maiden flight April 2020 11m:50s
Re-purposing old pad infrastructure for Centaur V 17m:13s
There will be two MLP's one for Atlas and one for Vulcan 34m00s
VIF Crane will be upgraded to 65 Tonnes for Vulcan 39m00s

There 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 2m50s

edited to add additional time indexes for new Vulcan and Centaur information.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2018 08:26 pm by Sknowball »

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
ULA has to design the tank structure, I still think that it is possible to put things not shared between Hydrazine/Helium and IVF in different spots.
This time most boxes including avionics are on the aft bulkhead. Good that with 5.4m there is a lot of real estate.

As far as the ACES papers go IVF and the gaseous thrusters are as self contained as it gets. All in a single pod. 2 pods on the stage for redundancy. Electrical connections are simple, plumbing less so. (The Hydrazine thruster system is all over the stage.)
If there are no IVF pods I'd put the cube sat deployers in their place, on ACES put them on the helium tank mounts.

IVF can pressurize the tank but can IIRC not supply enough volume while RL10 runs, so some mods to RL10 are required. Tank pressurization might be the most difficult thing to test. (The whole thing will go through ground tests. We are talking here about on orbit testing.)

I don't see the huge deal in additional valves to activate IVF after payload delivery. They are already used on Centaur. If they would fail the mission is an instant fail. Unlikely to be cheap but very well known. The pod itself and the lines to it can be launched purged, say with nitrogen. Skip pressurization tests and there should be only 2 valves required.
Problem is more likely in the low effort spend on ACES previously and the long contract lead times. Easier to sell minor risk early than to change the deal later.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
That’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
the 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.

So is single or double engine Centaur still an option on Vulcan? Or was it confirmed that Centaur will always have 4 engines?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Thrusters will be the last thing tested, as it's the riskiest because it involves an explosion.

There are no explosions in a rocket engine.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
People seem to forget, but there was some flight testing of IVF on the Future Heavy launch last summer. 
I certainly had.
Quote from: Sknowball

 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.
Yes, it's not much to go on, but it's a bit closer to a flight test.

Given how long ULA has been planning this I'd guess if they really aren't planning to with IVF for first launch they would at least structure things so the various boxes have different mountings to the individual IVF "panels," allowing both to be installed, and for the existing boxes to be gradually removed as the full functionality of IVF is verified. I'd suggest starting with the systems ability to generate electricity.

I can understand concerns about premature activation but I think there is a limit when  you have to start planning and preparing for the future.  What will allay peoples fears? Pyro valves giving complete fluid isolation (until activated) with a time switch on power lines connections to the ignitors so even if the software goes haywire it still won't start up prematurely.
« Last Edit: 02/09/2018 07:11 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
So 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.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
So 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.
Suggest a different rationale.

ULA's focus is on minimizing its much larger economic footprint than its single engined gas generator kerolox rival.

So they want to minimize change management (and everything behind that), so ... one two stage rocket with fairing that covers majority of payloads (volume of same components/etc), highest launch frequency, responsive to market need on short notice.

(If they wanted to, they could have a short US/tanks with same diameter and single engine/thrust structure, if engine costs were to dominate. Many ways to deal with height difference. Perhaps after phase over from Atlas V no longer flying, they find its worthwhile given manifest and biddable launches.)

Key thing is taking in the economics that they live with, in the scope of the market they compete in.

Offline Sknowball

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 13
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 9m55s
For Vulcan flame trench water suppression system a second tank that holds 50,000 gallon will be installed 11m28s
Vulcan Maiden flight April 2020 11m:50s
Re-purposing old pad infrastructure for Centaur V 17m:13s
There will be two MLP's one for Atlas and one for Vulcan 34m00s
VIF Crane will be upgraded to 65 Tonnes for Vulcan 39m00s

There 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 2m50s

edited to add additional time indexes for new Vulcan and Centaur information.

John Gadarowski, the Vulcan project manager who provided the tour and interview, jumped on Reddit to provide some clarifications and answer questions regarding the pad modifications to SLC-41.   I would encourage anyone interested in this work to jump in themselves and ask questions.

Some answers he has given so far:
  • A clarification on the 2020 date--April is when our ground infrastructure projects need to be ready to support arrival of first flight hardware (and that date is burned into my brain, sorry for the error). From there we'll have to perform integrated ground systems testing, cryogenic exposure/wet dress rehearsal, and static fire testing. We are targeting a summertime initial launch capability.
  • Multiple VIF modifications have been made to support Vulcan. Access platforms have been modified to support the larger bodied booster and new configuration of six SRMs. We will use articulating platforms and inserts to switch between Atlas/Vulcan configurations and these VIF mods are mostly complete.
  • GEM-63 has required some additional concrete at the base of VIF and some increased road surface areas around the SRM storage areas to accommodate a larger turn radius--nothing major.
  • As far as Centaur V is concerned. We'll need larger cryo tanks to support the larger-bodied second stage. These will be placed alongside existing Centaur tanks to increase capacity.
  • Regarding CAT and Vulcan compatibility. Actually, requirements are the other way around--Vulcan was designed to fit within existing pad infrastructure. For example, the new Vulcan MLP will need the same dimensions as Atlas in order to properly fit piers, autocouplers, and pad equipment building.
  • Not sure about OVI as the Vulcan design is simpler. If it makes sense to assemble the interstage adapter w/Centaur V offsite then that would remain a possibility. Studies are being conducted in many areas to determine the best methods for carrying out operations.

  • Offline gongora

    • Global Moderator
    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10205
    • US
    • Liked: 13885
    • Likes Given: 5933
    [StarTribune] From rockets to nuclear plants, PaR Systems a maverick in robotics field
    Quote
    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.

    Offline AncientU

    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6257
    • Liked: 4164
    • Likes Given: 6078
    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...
    "If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
    -- SpaceX friend of mlindner

    Offline Jim

    • Night Gator
    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 37440
    • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
    • Liked: 21450
    • Likes Given: 428
    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...

    No.  ULA knows how to build and operate a certified vehicle.  Spacex had no such history.

    Offline speedevil

    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4406
    • Fife
    • Liked: 2762
    • Likes Given: 3369
    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...

    No.  ULA knows how to build and operate a certified vehicle.  Spacex had no such history.

    Musk seems to disagree. (though of course he would).

    On twitter, on a thread around FH pricing compared to Delta,

    Quote
    Sasamj‏ @AngryPackOMeese 9m9 minutes ago

    I think after 2020, the idea is to switch to Vulcan-centaur+ for heavy lift not stick with Delta

    Quote
    @elonmusk
    Replying to @AngryPackOMeese @dlxinorbit and

    Maybe 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

    Offline RonM

    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 3340
    • Atlanta, Georgia USA
    • Liked: 2231
    • Likes Given: 1584
    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...

    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.

    Offline Rocket Jesus

    • Member
    • Posts: 70
    • Liked: 26
    • Likes Given: 97
    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...

    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.

    Offline RonM

    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 3340
    • Atlanta, Georgia USA
    • Liked: 2231
    • Likes Given: 1584
    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...

    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.

    Offline Rocket Jesus

    • Member
    • Posts: 70
    • Liked: 26
    • Likes Given: 97
    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...

    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.

    Do you have a source on a new Block Buy?  That's news to me...and quite shocking to be honest.

    I've heard ELC for both SpaceX and ULA, but not a Block Buy. I'd like more info (if you can share publicly)

     

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