-
#100
by
Lar
on 23 Sep, 2014 16:11
-
We should probably keep the name suggestions on a separate thread, so as not to muck up this excellent Q&A thread
(mod hat)
Yes please.
(amazing people hat) and what an awesome thread.... I wish ULA and Blue all the best in this... it's exactly the sort of thing that I had hoped might happen.
-
#101
by
HIP2BSQRE
on 23 Sep, 2014 19:35
-
The USAF recently issued a RFI looking for a replacement engine for the RD-180. The RFI calls for "a replacement engine with similar performance characteristics to currently used engines, alternative configurations that would provide similar performance (such as a multiple engine configuration) to existing EELV-class systems, and use of alternative launch vehicles for EELV-class systems." What do you see as the potential impact of this RFI and possibly RFP for ULA and your recent announcement with Blue Origin? The AF may be looking at a national engine/rocket competition that includes Blue Origin but also SpaceX and wants the new engine to be available commercial to any of the US rocket builders.
ULA submitted a response to the AF RFI and will participate in the industry day and one-on-one sessions this week. The response by the AF to our partnership with Blue has been extremely favorable so far.
Follow up, what would happen if the AF/Congress picked another engine to replace the RD-180 that belong to say SpaceX. Would ULA have to use the alternative engine selected by the govt?
-
#102
by
georgesowers
on 23 Sep, 2014 22:12
-
So where will the production line of the new launch vehicle be located if it's been decided?
Blue and ULA are looking at a number of options.
I'm a little surprised the answer to this one wasn't simply "Decatur." What else is an option, MAF?
You're right. The vehicle will be built in Decatur. I was thinking engine when I answered.
-
#103
by
georgesowers
on 23 Sep, 2014 22:15
-
So the transition to the new vehicle might be similar to Atlas II to Atlas V (without the Atlas III step)?
Not really. I think of it as being pretty similar to AII to AIII. Actually somewhat more modest since we're probably not going to alter Centaur in the firt step.
The Common Centaur for current Atlas V & Delta IV is still on track in the in term, or no? Centaur has such historical value in Rocket History. Even today many of its manufacturing techniques are still unknown in the contest of building one from start to finish. May we look forward to video documentation (volunteers 
) before changes are made to ACES etc. ?
The common Centaur idea has transitioned to ACES. The secret sauce manufacturing techniques used for Centaur are common to ACES which contribute to its outstanding mass fraction.
-
#104
by
georgesowers
on 23 Sep, 2014 22:21
-
Dr. Sowers,
What is the level of purity of the LNG, does H2S have to be removed?
Commercial grade LNG is >95% methane. The fuel is being used as is.
-
#105
by
georgesowers
on 23 Sep, 2014 22:22
-
I want to assume I know the answer to this, but you know what they say about assuming.
So, would you expect a future upper stage replacement to remain LH2/LOX (a "high energy" stage) or would you consider an LNG upper stage? I understand why an RP1/LOX upper stage isn't the best for GEO/Earth departure missions, but with LNG being in the middle between RP1 and LH2, I'm wondering if such a thing is back on the table or not.
We're not looking at LNG upper stages at this time.
-
#106
by
georgesowers
on 23 Sep, 2014 22:26
-
Is the new vehicle planned to have its own new pad or will an existing ULA pad be modified for it?
We will modify existing pads.
First I should say thanks a lot for coming and answering all of these!
As a follow up, does this mean ULA intends for a pad to support multiple vehicles? And if I may... which pad(s)?
That is a possibility.
-
#107
by
georgesowers
on 23 Sep, 2014 22:28
-
Since we're on the topic of names, could I ask how the Atlas V became the Atlas V without there ever having been and Atlas IV?
Lockheed Martin had Atlas III and Titan IV. The next rocket became "V", and some consideration might have been given to naming it "Titan V", but "Atlas" won out, allowing the name to symbolize a merger of the two product lines, which is really what Atlas V represents.
- Ed Kyle
Ed's answer is pretty close. But Ed's story is more logical than I remember.
-
#108
by
georgesowers
on 23 Sep, 2014 22:31
-
The USAF recently issued a RFI looking for a replacement engine for the RD-180. The RFI calls for "a replacement engine with similar performance characteristics to currently used engines, alternative configurations that would provide similar performance (such as a multiple engine configuration) to existing EELV-class systems, and use of alternative launch vehicles for EELV-class systems." What do you see as the potential impact of this RFI and possibly RFP for ULA and your recent announcement with Blue Origin? The AF may be looking at a national engine/rocket competition that includes Blue Origin but also SpaceX and wants the new engine to be available commercial to any of the US rocket builders.
ULA submitted a response to the AF RFI and will participate in the industry day and one-on-one sessions this week. The response by the AF to our partnership with Blue has been extremely favorable so far.
Follow up, what would happen if the AF/Congress picked another engine to replace the RD-180 that belong to say SpaceX. Would ULA have to use the alternative engine selected by the govt?
Unlikely. The USG can't really dictate HW choices to private companies.
-
#109
by
Lar
on 23 Sep, 2014 23:09
-
Reminder, one question per post, one post per member. People have been doing followups, and you're trading on Dr. Sowers' great kindness in choosing to answer those. Let's not overstay our welcome. Thanks.
-
#110
by
Damon Hill
on 23 Sep, 2014 23:32
-
Will natural gas be delivered to the launch site via pipeline and tested/purified/liquified locally, or delivered as LNG via tank truck as LH2 is delivered to KSC/Vandenberg?
I know that LOX is manufactured semi-locally at KSC (my sister lives about two miles from the dedicated plant). Raw ingredients are electricity and air--what could be simpler? Nitrogen and other gases (except helium, of course) would be obtained simultaneously via cryogenic fractional distillation. There are turnkey systems, even powered by diesel engines, to do this sort of thing.
I could see a methane launch facility taking pipeline natural gas and running a complete propellant/pressurant operation of their own, including facility electrical power, powered entirely by the gas. It might be a cheaper overall option given the abundance and lower price of natural gas these days. SpaceX seems to like being tightly integrated, and it might work well for their Boca Chica facility if it goes methane in the next decade or so.
-
#111
by
baldusi
on 24 Sep, 2014 00:25
-
I have already posted a question. I just want to say how amazing is this opportunity. I want to express my deepest thanks to Dr. Sowers.
-
#112
by
deltaV
on 25 Sep, 2014 05:18
-
Do ULA's agreements with Boeing, Lockheed, FTC and/or the Air Force limit its options in new launch vehicle development? For example I've heard that ULA cannot develop reusable vehicles; is that right?
-
#113
by
dror
on 25 Sep, 2014 20:34
-
Atlas has it's perfect record and timelines.
The new vehicle will be more capable and more affordable than the Atlas 5 but will have no record other than ULA's reputation.
Do you expact it to be able to compete in the free market, as it is expected to be 4 years from now?
) before changes are made to ACES etc. ?