ULA claim gap reducing solution via EELV exploration master plan

[Lars_J]

No one... I was merely suggesting it was a wiser investment than recreating the F-1A. (with the experience of the J-2X in mind, which shows how non-trivial it may be to "dust off" old engine designs)

[jongoff]

Here's a fun copy of a Space 2010 paper Jonathan Barr of ULA wrote on Phase 2 Atlas development, I figured it was a relevant topic.

[jongoff]

Here's a fun copy of a Space 2010 paper Jonathan Barr of ULA wrote on Phase 2 Atlas development, I figured it was a relevant topic.

If anyone would like, I can compress it into a .pdf file, which should knock the size down quite a bit.  I also got a few other papers, including on on CRYOTE, one on incremental development towards depots (which I haven't had a lot of time to read yet), one on their Emergency Detection System work for commercial crew launch, and one on progress on their idea of recovering the RD-180s for reuse.  I figure that since they were all presented at Space 2010, they're fair game. 

Chris you want me to stick these anywhere in particular?

~Jon

[alexw]

Here's a fun copy of a Space 2010 paper Jonathan Barr of ULA wrote on Phase 2 Atlas development, I figured it was a relevant topic.

     Wow!
    DDT&E of Atlas V Phase II was $2.3 billion --- in 2004, before production moved to Decatur with the existing 5m tooling and transport infrastructure!

"Although ULA has not yet undertaken a revised cost estimate, we believe that EELV Phase II should have a compelling cost advantage compared to other vehicle options in the same performance class." -- a rather large understatement

     This is incredible. The cost could be underestimated by 200%, and it's still the bargain of the decade.
              -Alex


edit: clarify "understatement"

[jongoff]

Here's a fun copy of a Space 2010 paper Jonathan Barr of ULA wrote on Phase 2 Atlas development, I figured it was a relevant topic.

     Wow!
    DDT&E of Atlas V Phase II was $2.3 billion --- in 2004, before production moved to Decatur with the existing 5m tooling and transport infrastructure!

"Although ULA has not yet undertaken a revised cost estimate, we believe that EELV Phase II should have a compelling cost advantage compared to other vehicle options in the same performance class."

     This is incredible. The cost could be underestimated by 200%, and it's the bargain of the decade.
              -Alex

Of course, that is based on doing things EELV-style.  Their EELV development cost ~$2.5B (with the government providing $500M of that total), and included developing a new first stage, a modified upper stage, new pads, etc.  So it isn't that unrealistic to think that with preexisting tooling, preexisting engines, and recent successful past experience to build on that they could do a bigger tank, a more complicated thrust structure, and an improved upper stage for prices in that ballpark. 

But once again, that's assuming they're allowed to use the EELV approach.  Once you tack on things like the closeout cost for the shuttle infrastructure, the added cost of NASA modifications (whether they actually add value or not), etc, it could easily double or triple that number.

~Jon

[Xplor]

If we have learned anything from Constellation and HEFT, NASA needs to stay out of rocket development.  Constellation required $20B for Ares I and another $20B for Ares V.  HEFT states that a 100 mT HLV (SRB’s + tank, no upper stage) is $24B.  HEFT allocates half of the total funding to developing and than operating the HLV.  HEFT and Constellation burden exploration with $3B/year worth of HLV infrastructure right from the get go even though there is no need for the HLV for 20 years.  It is no wonder that the first real mission beyond LEO is in 2031.

An exploration program that focuses on what we as a nation are doing beyond LEO may have a chance of success.  The infrastructure of the “smaller” rockets is shared with the military, NASA science and commercial missions. If exploration out grows EELV class rockets lets develop those rockets as they are needed. 

As a nation we are at a critical juncture.  As hard as it is to stomach the impending end of the Shuttle program is forcing KSC, MSFC, JSC, Michoud, ATK and USA to dramatically down size.  A lot of this down sizing will happen in the short run pretty much regardless of the direction the nation directs NASA to take.  We then have a choice, do we rebuild this incredibly expensive launch infrastructure and continue NASA as a jobs program with no exploration.  Or do we incorporate lessons learned and experience gained in the commercial launch sector over the past 30 years, to allow the limited budget to be spent on Exploration.  In the end this later option will result in more total American jobs, faster technical progress and a real exploration program.

[EE Scott]

Here's a fun copy of a Space 2010 paper Jonathan Barr of ULA wrote on Phase 2 Atlas development, I figured it was a relevant topic.

This is great, thanks for providing.  It gets my EELV-upgrade knowledge up to date.  Very exciting stuff - just think how much money this could save to spend on actual payloads compared to other HLV designs.  But why pick the low hanging fruit when there's a shiny apple waaaaaay up there at the top of the tree we could risk everything to try to get.  Maybe the story isn't over yet.

[kkattula]

The EELV upgrades do look good and affordable, but:

1)  NASA involvement would drive additional costs.

2)  You still need to pay for an Orion program, and other things covered in the SLS $3 b per year.

3)  The distinguished gentlemen from Utah, Loisianna and Florida would not be impressed.

[sdsds]

Has USAF made any comment on the idea of building hydrocarbon tanks for Atlas V Phase 2 using Delta IV manufacturing capability?  Specifically, wouldn't they have a concern that "cross contamination" of parts or training might lead to reduced Delta IV reliability?  Is the idea to sequester the Delta IV line?  Or would there no longer be a need for Delta IV at all?

[jongoff]

Has USAF made any comment on the idea of building hydrocarbon tanks for Atlas V Phase 2 using Delta IV manufacturing capability?  Specifically, wouldn't they have a concern that "cross contamination" of parts or training might lead to reduced Delta IV reliability?  Is the idea to sequester the Delta IV line?  Or would there no longer be a need for Delta IV at all?

I don't think you'd put hydrocarbons in the tanks at the factory.  My guess is that both propellant tanks would get similar industrial cleaning processes, and the LOX tanks would get oxygen service cleaning.  The LH2 tanks would need more external insulation, but once again that doesn't have much to do with the tank fabrication...I may be missing something (I've never worked with tanks that big before), but I think this is an unrealistic concern.

~Jon

[sdsds]

Has USAF made any comment on the idea of building hydrocarbon tanks for Atlas V Phase 2 using Delta IV manufacturing capability?  Specifically, wouldn't they have a concern that "cross contamination" of parts or training might lead to reduced Delta IV reliability?  Is the idea to sequester the Delta IV line?  Or would there no longer be a need for Delta IV at all?

I don't think you'd put hydrocarbons in the tanks at the factory.  My guess is that both propellant tanks would get similar industrial cleaning processes, and the LOX tanks would get oxygen service cleaning.  The LH2 tanks would need more external insulation, but once again that doesn't have much to do with the tank fabrication...I may be missing something (I've never worked with tanks that big before), but I think this is an unrealistic concern.

~Jon

Oops!  Not that kind of cross contamination!!  More metaphorical.

The concern is that parts which should be installed on a hydrolox tank might get installed by mistake on a kerolox tank.  Or that a technician might use a technique that was approved on the kerolox line when working on the hydrolox line.

Two "nearly the same" things can be hard to keep separate.

[jongoff]

Has USAF made any comment on the idea of building hydrocarbon tanks for Atlas V Phase 2 using Delta IV manufacturing capability?  Specifically, wouldn't they have a concern that "cross contamination" of parts or training might lead to reduced Delta IV reliability?  Is the idea to sequester the Delta IV line?  Or would there no longer be a need for Delta IV at all?

I don't think you'd put hydrocarbons in the tanks at the factory.  My guess is that both propellant tanks would get similar industrial cleaning processes, and the LOX tanks would get oxygen service cleaning.  The LH2 tanks would need more external insulation, but once again that doesn't have much to do with the tank fabrication...I may be missing something (I've never worked with tanks that big before), but I think this is an unrealistic concern.

~Jon

Oops!  Not that kind of cross contamination!!  More metaphorical.

The concern is that parts which should be installed on a hydrolox tank might get installed by mistake on a kerolox tank.  Or that a technician might use a technique that was approved on the kerolox line when working on the hydrolox line.

Two "nearly the same" things can be hard to keep separate.

They already use the tooling to build LOX and LH2 tanks for the first stage, and the 5m LH2 tanks for the upper stage...I really don't think it's a big deal. 

~Jon

[alexw]

The EELV upgrades do look good and affordable, but:
1)  NASA involvement would drive additional costs.
2)  You still need to pay for an Orion program, and other things covered in the SLS $3 b per year.
3)  The distinguished gentlemen from Utah, Loisianna and Florida would not be impressed.

1) The development costs could quadruple, and still be less than SLS.
2) SLS does not pay for Orion. Orion is a separate $6-$10 billion development program. ??
3) The distinguished gentlemen of which you speak are going to bring us a very big, very nice rocket that will hardly ever launch, for which we cannot afford payloads, and hence cannot afford exploration. If we do not disappoint these gentlemen now, we are likely to be disappointed for the next twenty years. Choose your risk.
    -Alex

[Ben the Space Brit]

I'm on the record as thinking that an EELV-derived M/HLV, either the Atlas-V Phase-2 or the 7m-diameter Super Delta, would probably the ideal explroation launch vehicle for the next NASA era.  You scale from a 20-30t IMLEO CLV up to a 100t+ IMLEO CaLV.  They also pretty clearly can fly with large-volume PLFs too, another major selling point of the SDLV.  The ACES upper stage system provides a ready-made EDS and depot archetecture and ULA are on the record that their engineers believe that multi-role vacuum landers can be made out of the basic tooling.

However, kkatula is correct - it is politically unacceptable right now and won't be until the shuttle infrastructure is gone beyond any hope of restoration, maybe not even then.  The thing that you have to remember, Alex, is that we're dealing with a fairly typical mid/upper-management mindset: "I set the direction as the Leader.  It is the job of my Drones to make it work."  And work it must lest you be marked down at the next performance review for 'pessimism'.  I don't know if the Senate really thinks this is achievable in the set budget but I strongly believe that they think this is NASA's problem, not theirs.

This is a pity in a way because these machines really could do the job if ULA's numbers are correct.  Even more money can be saved if, instead of phasing pad upgrades, NASA were just to earmark LC-39 for the entire family and make the Phase-3A pads backward compatible.

The only changes I would make would be to see if performance upgrades can be acheived using a higher-power kerolox engine like RS-84 and an advaced upper stage hydrolox engine like the RL-60.


[edit]
An additional thought; The study talks about potentially re-using the core.  IIRC, the RS-84 was designed to be reusable as part of the old SLI.  Recovering the cores and recycling the engines is a genuine possibility, although there are still several hurdles to cross as SpaceX is learning.

[Xplor]

Oops!  Not that kind of cross contamination!!  More metaphorical.

The concern is that parts which should be installed on a hydrolox tank might get installed by mistake on a kerolox tank.  Or that a technician might use a technique that was approved on the kerolox line when working on the hydrolox line.

Two "nearly the same" things can be hard to keep separate.

The second Atlas and Centaur production were moved to Decatur this became a potential issue.  The Air Force obviously already accepted this.

[Xplor]

The EELV upgrades do look good and affordable, but:
1)  NASA involvement would drive additional costs.
2)  You still need to pay for an Orion program, and other things covered in the SLS $3 b per year.
3)  The distinguished gentlemen from Utah, Loisianna and Florida would not be impressed.

1) The development costs could quadruple, and still be less than SLS.
2) SLS does not pay for Orion. Orion is a separate $6-$10 billion development program. ??
3) The distinguished gentlemen of which you speak are going to bring us a very big, very nice rocket that will hardly ever launch, for which we cannot afford payloads, and hence cannot afford exploration. If we do not disappoint these gentlemen now, we are likely to be disappointed for the next twenty years. Choose your risk.
    -Alex

Florida wants jobs launching rockets, HEFT includes a total of 9 HLV launches from 2018 to 2031.  I don't believe anyone would call that job security.

Alabama wants to have jobs managing development and lots of the actual engineering of a new rocket.  With NASA involvement of EELV they get that plus the actual building of the rocket.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Just another few points gleaned from the Barr paper.

It mentions a new upper stage engine, the RL-10C (essentially a hybrid of the B-2 and A-4), as being part of the ACES system with a thrust target of 25klbf/engine.  Previously, I had understood that the ACES would use either stock B-2s or the new A-4-3 crew-rated engine.  Is the RL-10C something new or had I just missed it?

I also noticed that the five-core HLV version uses a stretched ACES with six engines.  Is this a reference to the ACES-71 or is this something else new?

[jongoff]

The EELV upgrades do look good and affordable, but:
1)  NASA involvement would drive additional costs.
2)  You still need to pay for an Orion program, and other things covered in the SLS $3 b per year.
3)  The distinguished gentlemen from Utah, Loisianna and Florida would not be impressed.

1) The development costs could quadruple, and still be less than SLS.
2) SLS does not pay for Orion. Orion is a separate $6-$10 billion development program. ??
3) The distinguished gentlemen of which you speak are going to bring us a very big, very nice rocket that will hardly ever launch, for which we cannot afford payloads, and hence cannot afford exploration. If we do not disappoint these gentlemen now, we are likely to be disappointed for the next twenty years. Choose your risk.
    -Alex

Florida wants jobs launching rockets, HEFT includes a total of 9 HLV launches from 2018 to 2031.  I don't believe anyone would call that job security.

Alabama wants to have jobs managing development and lots of the actual engineering of a new rocket.  With NASA involvement of EELV they get that plus the actual building of the rocket.

Yeah, but would it really look anything EELV Phase 2 by the time they were done "helping"?

~Jon

[Ben the Space Brit]

Florida wants jobs launching rockets, HEFT includes a total of 9 HLV launches from 2018 to 2031.  I don't believe anyone would call that job security.

Alabama wants to have jobs managing development and lots of the actual engineering of a new rocket.  With NASA involvement of EELV they get that plus the actual building of the rocket.

Yeah, but would it really look anything EELV Phase 2 by the time they were done "helping"?

By the looks of the Barr paper, ULA are trying to buy off MSFC by creating a vaporware project of using the AIUS as an alternate upper stage for the Atlas-V P2.  Something to keep the teams working, even if it never generates hardware.

[Archibald]

A couple of Phase 1 EELV give you an IMLEO of 70 - 80 tons, enough to throw a decent payload to Earth Moon L2.
Once a small man-tended outpost (doubled with a prop depot) have been set up there, the doors of the solar system are open to mankind... justify /  bolster the L1 / L2 outpost usefulness through SEL-1/ SEL-2 telescopes servicing