I don't think anyone on this forum should be convinced by this reasoning IMO. To me, it just sounds like a justification made after a decision has been already made: the decision being not using lots of small engines to enable soft landing.
The big plus of SMART over SpaceX booster recovery is lower payload penalty. Dr Sowers said 5% for booster compared to F9R for 30%. I'm guessing 10% penalty for ACES for LEO (2t of 20t). So 15% all up we are now talking about 17t to LEO for $60m.
I will make a cynical comment on reuse....
Quote from: falconeer on 04/18/2015 01:48 amI don't think anyone on this forum should be convinced by this reasoning IMO. To me, it just sounds like a justification made after a decision has been already made: the decision being not using lots of small engines to enable soft landing. Agree that the justification may be a bit of a stretch, but it is one born of necessity. ULA cannot afford a clean sheet design. Given SpaceX's efforts and the buzz around reusability, ULA cannot remain silent.Given the constraints imposed by an evolutionary approach, this is probably as good as it gets. Whether it is good enough remains to be seen--especially in the commercial market, which ULA will need to approach their goal of ~20 launches/year.The question in my mind is: What portion of the market can Vulcan serve and be competitive with no (or few) SRB's? Every SRB reduces recovery payload hit, but also reduces cost recovery, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of costs.Anyone have credible estimates on what a Vulcan with no solids could put into GTO or LEO?
See post 1# on this thread.
Question, will the version with 2 SRBs still be the preferred variant to launch CST-100[?]
Back in the 90's Microsoft was a big deal, but several others had products that Microsoft felt encroached on Microsoft's turf. So how do you handle that? They would often announce competing products, they wouldn't be real yet, may not be as good if they came out, or may not ever even see the light of day....Now the cynical side of me says ULA with reuse is leveraging that same sword. They have announced something they "might" do after they get the house in order with Vulcan and ACE. If the business case closes. We are talking 10 years down the road. They still look hip, still look like they have a reuse plan, and get all the good will benefits. To date, unlike Vulcan and ACES, it's all paper studies.
...EDIT: In the Dr. Sower's Q&A he quotes a 5% performance hit for adding SMART re-use. Applying that to listed payloads of an Atlas V that's the equivalent of half an SRB addition. Worst case for a given payload the savings as above come out to $22M instead of $31M do to drop in payload capacity requiring and additional SRB.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/18/2015 02:46 pm[...] given their desire to keep to Atlas 5 heights (a common bulkhead stage might end up too short!).if the tank ends up too short, you can [...] slightly enlarge the interstage [which provides] a reserve of performances since it would allow you to uprate the BE-4 +10%, enlarge the tanks, reduce the interstage and get extra performance with no GSE changes.
[...] given their desire to keep to Atlas 5 heights (a common bulkhead stage might end up too short!).
Quote from: falconeer on 04/18/2015 01:48 amI don't think anyone on this forum should be convinced by this reasoning IMO. To me, it just sounds like a justification made after a decision has been already made: the decision being not using lots of small engines to enable soft landing. Agree that the justification may be a bit of a stretch, but it is one born of necessity. ULA cannot afford a clean sheet design. Given SpaceX's efforts and the buzz around reusability, ULA cannot remain silent.Given the constraints imposed by an evolutionary approach, this is probably as good as it gets. Whether it is good enough remains to be seen--especially in the commercial market, which ULA will need to approach their goal of ~20 launches/year.The question in my mind is: What portion of the market can Vulcan serve and be competitive with no (or few) SRB's? Every SRB reduces recovery payload hit, but also reduces cost recovery, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of costs.
So the fairing will continue to be produced in Swizerland. Cost saving by producing rocket parts in the country with the highest wages in the world... the ULA way of doing business.
Quote from: joek on 04/18/2015 09:22 pmQuote from: falconeer on 04/18/2015 01:48 amI don't think anyone on this forum should be convinced by this reasoning IMO. To me, it just sounds like a justification made after a decision has been already made: the decision being not using lots of small engines to enable soft landing. Agree that the justification may be a bit of a stretch, but it is one born of necessity. ULA cannot afford a clean sheet design. Given SpaceX's efforts and the buzz around reusability, ULA cannot remain silent.Given the constraints imposed by an evolutionary approach, this is probably as good as it gets. Whether it is good enough remains to be seen--especially in the commercial market, which ULA will need to approach their goal of ~20 launches/year.The question in my mind is: What portion of the market can Vulcan serve and be competitive with no (or few) SRB's? Every SRB reduces recovery payload hit, but also reduces cost recovery, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of costs.I really think ULA's best long term competitive chance is in the high energy orbits for NASA and maybe DoD. As it stands, I think all missions that currently exist can be handled by Falcon Heavy (given upperstage GSO upgrade).But, unfortunately for ULA, these missions don't exist. It's arguable that 'if you build it they will come' but this approach is not one ULA can afford to take. I suspect this is why Sower's says ACES development go-ahead is awaiting 'business case close'.Most commercial missions will use electric propulsion to save money, the super high energy orbits are not really a concern for the commercial market.I agree that reusability for ULA is more of a talking point to counteract SpaceX buzz. It is in the distant future due to their conservative approach and timelines. This is not a criticism of ULA's strategy, I actually think the current plan is the best thing they can do to stay in the business. It's unfortunate that the Vulcan is 'meh' at best, but unavoidable IMO.
Most commercial missions will use electric propulsion to save money, the super high energy orbits are not really a concern for the commercial market.
The one thing I would call it is meh, it actually seems pretty interesting to me as a launcher and a positive development for ULA.Being as by the sounds of it that the USAF & NRO are onboard with Vulcan certification from the outset I very much doubt that Space X will be seeing as much of their business as some think they will.
It's unfortunate that the Vulcan is 'meh' at best, but unavoidable IMO.
Nonsense. Spacex has yet to demonstrate reusability. Stating Vulcan as 'meh" really shows a bias that has a better term used to describe extreme video game platform aficionados