ULA long term plans

[Asteroza]

I'm starting to agree with you that SMART-Vulcan can be the middle stage, albeit with a reduced fuel load (shortened tanks),

Yes the propellant load would likely need to be adjusted.

Inefficient rocket-equation-wise,

What do you mean?

but would still replicate (SMART-)VC-6 performance, limit new R&D cost, even keep re-using legacy pods.

Yep.

---

To get costs down ULA probably also needs to replace the Centaur V upper stage with something reusable. ULA appears to have tested inflatable heat shields from orbital velocity (https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/loftid-demonstrating-technology-for-large-inflatable-heat-shields) so maybe something like SMART would work well for Centaur V, i.e. recovering only the expensive components such as the engines and avionics using an inflatable heat shield. Or maybe ceramic tiles like Starship's upper stage or hydrogen cooling like Nova's upper stage would work better.

In summary if ULA doesn't want to do a clean-sheet rocket (and their possible new owners don't already have a reusable rocket) I think they should do the following. First stage using ~7 BE-4 with propulsive-landing reuse, or just use New Glenn's or Terran R's first stage with adjusted propellant load. Second stage using the Vulcan core plus SMART, vacuum nozzles, and adjusted propellant load. Third stage Centaur V with SMART-like reuse and adjusted propellant load. This vehicle should compete well against partially reusable vehicles and may do OK even against fully reusable vehicles. My hunch is they'll eventually need to go beyond SMART reuse and reuse all of the second and third stages but this isn't clear (e.g. Blue Origin is still considering if mass produced expendable upper stages are best) and SMART reuse will buy them time at least.

Hrm, from a dev effort perspective, would it be better to "overbuild" a first stage SMART with LOFID style EDL capability (or at least parts), and LOFID style upper stage SMART, or would it be cheaper to build a first stage SMART using a lower spec set of HIAD style parts that are not EDL capable? In other words, is attempting to unify the hardware (shield, inflator, controller/GNC, etc) as much as feasible more attractive versus customizing to the different regimes/interfaces, assuming a baseline of inflatable SMART systems?

[sdsds]

Looking at the Cert-2 rollout photos, the GEM-63XL solids look pretty skinny. Is there an official version of a drawing like the one attached?

[Newton_V]

Looking at the Cert-2 rollout photos, the GEM-63XL solids look pretty skinny. Is there an official version of a drawing like the one attached?

Move the SRB at 2 o'clock to 11, and the one at 8 o'clock to 5.

[sdsds]

Move the SRB at 2 o'clock to 11, and the one at 8 o'clock to 5.

Like this?

[Newton_V]

Yes, with a few inches between the SRBs.

[deltaV]

Hrm, from a dev effort perspective, would it be better to "overbuild" a first stage SMART with LOFID style EDL capability (or at least parts), and LOFID style upper stage SMART, or would it be cheaper to build a first stage SMART using a lower spec set of HIAD style parts that are not EDL capable? In other words, is attempting to unify the hardware (shield, inflator, controller/GNC, etc) as much as feasible more attractive versus customizing to the different regimes/interfaces, assuming a baseline of inflatable SMART systems?

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

[Brigantine]

Inefficient rocket-equation-wise,

What do you mean?

I mean the mass fraction won't be as good. You burn so much fuel to get the weight of 2 BE-4's up to stage sep, but they don't contribute as much deltaV, it's not very optimized.

To get costs down ULA probably also needs to replace the Centaur V upper stage with something reusable

Hard to re-use something that doesn't come back to Earth. e.g. in heliocentric or GEO after the mission.

True though, some centaurs will re-enter. But are there even any other (competing) launch vehicles in a similar class that will be doing upper stage re-use? or just super-heavy LVs?

[DanClemmensen]

True though, some centaurs will re-enter. But are there even any other (competing) launch vehicles in a similar class that will be doing upper stage re-use? or just super-heavy LVs?

There may be a minimum size for a profitable reusable upper stage, but after you build it, it becomes cheaper to use this behemoth than it is to use an LV with a smaller non-reusable upper stage.

[ethan829]

Move the SRB at 2 o'clock to 11, and the one at 8 o'clock to 5.

Like this?

Yep, that's right.

[deltaV]

But are there even any other (competing) launch vehicles in a similar class that will be doing upper stage re-use? or just super-heavy LVs?

Starship and Nova may eat much of Vulcan's potential LEO business despite them being different sizes, especially for very large constellations where one can adapt to different sized launchers by adjusting the number of satellites per launch. Blue Origin is working on making New Glenn's second stage reusable, so New Glenn is also a problem for Vulcan's LEO market.

For high energy missions there's less competition - Starship and Nova are different sizes and will require propellant transfer and multiple launches, and New Glenn will need a third stage that likely won't be reusable since it won't be used that much. So if ULA wants to give up on commercial LEO and just do high energy and military missions they may not need full reuse to compete.

[dglow]

Move the SRB at 2 o'clock to 11, and the one at 8 o'clock to 5.

Like this?

Yep, that's right.

Updated diagram:

[c4fusion]

Looks like Vulcan was unable to win any launches in the first round of awards for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 - this definitely hurts but hopefully they will do better next round. Unfortunately we have no information of why they may have lost since this is military.

Ars article: link
PDF annoucement: link

[ZachF]

Looks like Vulcan was unable to win any launches in the first round of awards for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 - this definitely hurts but hopefully they will do better next round. Unfortunately we have no information of why they may have lost since this is military.

Ars article: link
PDF annoucement: link

Because expendables can’t compete with reusables. I know some want to pretend that’s not the case but it is.

SpaceX is not only undercutting them but probably getting nVidia-esque margins on top of it.

[abaddon]

Ars missed a stitch here, rhe NRO “mission set” must be at least two launches, not one, as the “set” will be launched in two separate quarters.  The wording is admittedly confusing.

[catdlr]

Looks like Vulcan was unable to win any launches in the first round of awards for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 - this definitely hurts but hopefully they will do better next round. Unfortunately we have no information of why they may have lost since this is military.

Ars article: link
PDF annoucement: link

Because expendables can’t compete with reusables. I know some want to pretend that’s not the case but it is.

SpaceX is not only undercutting them but probably getting nVidia-esque margins on top of it.

Right on, ZachF. If people would just look at this chart and fully understand it, reusable LV will have to be a "Must" if you survive in this industry. However, reusability is not a solution; reusability must also be cost-effective. Look at the high cost of the Space Shuttle, which was also reusable.

Also, China will be SpaceX's main competitor (soon), not the US or other international vendors.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

Looks like Vulcan was unable to win any launches in the first round of awards for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 - this definitely hurts but hopefully they will do better next round. Unfortunately we have no information of why they may have lost since this is military.

Ars article: link
PDF annoucement: link

Because expendables can’t compete with reusables. I know some want to pretend that’s not the case but it is.

SpaceX is not only undercutting them but probably getting nVidia-esque margins on top of it.

I don’t disagree in the long term, but this isn’t about price, it’s about inability to execute in the short term.

ULA will struggle to meet its current NNSL and Kuiper manifest over the next few years. Adding new flights to the manifest is going to be problematic for a while, and it’s probably in the interest of ULA and DoD that new missions are from Lane 2.

[ZachF]

Looks like Vulcan was unable to win any launches in the first round of awards for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 - this definitely hurts but hopefully they will do better next round. Unfortunately we have no information of why they may have lost since this is military.

Ars article: link
PDF annoucement: link

Because expendables can’t compete with reusables. I know some want to pretend that’s not the case but it is.

SpaceX is not only undercutting them but probably getting nVidia-esque margins on top of it.

I don’t disagree in the long term, but this isn’t about price, it’s about inability to execute in the short term.

ULA will struggle to meet its current NNSL and Kuiper manifest over the next few years. Adding new flights to the manifest is going to be problematic for a while, and it’s probably in the interest of ULA and DoD that new missions are from Lane 2.

Reuse has not only lead to lower prices, but higher reliability and schedule flexibility through increased cadence. The price and cost is not only lower but the product and services are superior on top of that.