Quote from: RonM on 02/12/2018 04:30 pmQuote 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.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)
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.
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: 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: 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.
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...
https://twitter.com/Astro_Zach/status/963107576857624581Woo. @torybruno just confirmed to me the Vulcan Ultra/Super/Three Core Heavy is still a GO if there is demandThey have D4H pads and experience of operating a triple core so it should be easier to develop than SpaceX had with FH. Price should be on par with FH in expendable form. Just need flight rate to justify it.
https://twitter.com/Astro_Zach/status/963107576857624581Woo. @torybruno just confirmed to me the Vulcan Ultra/Super/Three Core Heavy is still a GO if there is demandThey have D4H pads and experience of operating a triple core so it should be easier to develop than SpaceX had with FH. Price should be on par with FH in expendable form . Just need flight rate to justify it.
https://twitter.com/Astro_Zach/status/963107576857624581Woo. @torybruno just confirmed to me the Vulcan Ultra/Super/Three Core Heavy is still a GO if there is demand.
Doubt the demand will materialize. It would have to compete with Falcon Heavy and then with the BFR, which would be less expensive than the BFR.
Quote from: clongton on 02/12/2018 06:03 pmDoubt the demand will materialize. It would have to compete with Falcon Heavy and then with the BFR, which would be less expensive than the BFR.There's scenarios where a commercial architecture for a space station or deep space mission could make good use of such a vehicle. The availability of two providers would be helpful in this case.
Some slides we had seen previously, gives some updated numbers for Vulcan/ACES lift both single launch and distributed launch. Launch MethodEarth EscapeGSO/Lunar OrbitLunar SurfaceSingle Launch14mT10mT3.8mTDistributed Launch30mT24mT12mT
Quote from: ArbitraryConstant on 02/12/2018 08:45 pmQuote from: clongton on 02/12/2018 06:03 pmDoubt the demand will materialize. It would have to compete with Falcon Heavy and then with the BFR, which would be less expensive than the BFR.There's scenarios where a commercial architecture for a space station or deep space mission could make good use of such a vehicle. The availability of two providers would be helpful in this case.Only makes sense for initial mass to LEO as distributed launch would almost certainly be cheaper than a 3 core Vulcan to move that much mass to any other orbit. Most recent distributed launch numbers below. Quote from: Sknowball on 01/19/2018 06:46 pmSome slides we had seen previously, gives some updated numbers for Vulcan/ACES lift both single launch and distributed launch. Launch MethodEarth EscapeGSO/Lunar OrbitLunar SurfaceSingle Launch14mT10mT3.8mTDistributed Launch30mT24mT12mT
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/963118795303694336Tory Bruno accepts Musk's challenge of Vulcan launching a NSS by 2023.add:I don't doubt ULA being able to do booster and US for that. I do doubt engine providers and ability to pull off the necessary qualifiable capabilities in that time (schedule pressure).add:He deleted the tweet! Perhaps he doesn't want to take the risk ... ouch, bad form!
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/12/2018 08:21 pmhttps://twitter.com/torybruno/status/963118795303694336Tory Bruno accepts Musk's challenge of Vulcan launching a NSS by 2023.add:I don't doubt ULA being able to do booster and US for that. I do doubt engine providers and ability to pull off the necessary qualifiable capabilities in that time (schedule pressure).add:He deleted the tweet! Perhaps he doesn't want to take the risk ... ouch, bad form!Any idea how many consecutive successful flights are needed by Vulcan until it meets NSS certification?
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
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 02/12/2018 05:37 pmhttps://twitter.com/Astro_Zach/status/963107576857624581Woo. @torybruno just confirmed to me the Vulcan Ultra/Super/Three Core Heavy is still a GO if there is demand. Doubt the demand will materialize. It would have to compete with Falcon Heavy and then with the BFR, which would be less expensive than the Falcon Heavy.
Quote from: clongton on 02/12/2018 06:03 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 02/12/2018 05:37 pmhttps://twitter.com/Astro_Zach/status/963107576857624581Woo. @torybruno just confirmed to me the Vulcan Ultra/Super/Three Core Heavy is still a GO if there is demand. Doubt the demand will materialize. It would have to compete with Falcon Heavy and then with the BFR, which would be less expensive than the Falcon Heavy.The parent corporations have more or less required that the Vulcan Heavy configuration be designed into the standardized Vulcan core stage from the beginning of development just like the never flown Atlas-5 Heavy. As with the A5 core CCB, the attachment bracket and thrust take-out mounting locations would be machined but the unneeded hardware would not be installed. (VH would use an attachment system similar to that used by the DIVH CBC's).
Hello everyone!I just had a few questions about Vulcan.1) What is the newest information available about the launch cost and capability of the most basic Vulcan configuration? (I believe that is currently Vulcan 501 + Centaur V)2) Is there information about the launch cost and capability of the most advanced planned Vulcan configuration (Vulcan 564 + ACES)?Thanks.
For detailed information please email us. [email protected]
1. Because their parents did it 20 years ago?2. And Blue has vast experience in orbital ORSC methlox engines, or can seek help from ULA's vast trove of engine development expertise?
Quote from: AncientU on 02/13/2018 09:28 pm1. Because their parents did it 20 years ago?2. And Blue has vast experience in orbital ORSC methlox engines, or can seek help from ULA's vast trove of engine development expertise?1, it is the same people2 yes and yes.