Poll

Is the upcoming Vulcan LV a "new LV" or an upgraded Atlas V?

The Vulcan is an upgraded Atlas V--the USAF will say so and it's using the same Centaur stage after all!  
The Vulcan's a new LV no matter what the USAF or ULA says.  It's too different to be an upgraded Atlas V!  
I'm not sure.  
The Vulcan will only truly be a new LV when it ditches the Centaur stage for the ACES second stage.

Author Topic: ULA's new Vulcan Launch Vehicle  (Read 535013 times)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 1113
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #780 on: 04/18/2015 09:22 pm »
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.

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?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #781 on: 04/18/2015 09:38 pm »
I will make a cynical comment on reuse.

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.

It would do two things.

It would take pressure off of Microsoft, because they would still look hip and with the latest technology.
The other thing it would do, is immediately tank the interlopers stock price, and dry up all funding, because, well they are trying to build something that big well funded Microsoft already is perceived to have.

It worked with varying degrees of success. Look at the impact IE, Office, Outlook, Visual Studio, among several other things had.

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.
 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2727
  • Liked: 2646
  • Likes Given: 10873
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #782 on: 04/18/2015 11:44 pm »
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.

Wouldn't barge landing reuse be more like a 10% payload penalty?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 1113
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #783 on: 04/19/2015 12:27 am »
I will make a cynical comment on reuse.
...

I would say that is a realistic appraisal, not cynical.  IMHO the proposed recovery-reuse plan will never be put into practice.  ULA will continue to bet that DOD will ensure their viability--as they must--and buy enough time that they might be able to put something truly cost-effective and competitive in place.  However, I doubt that ULA has that time.

The rest is smoke, mirrors and playing to the crowd.  If not for NSS and assured access needs--and that ULA is the only likely viable player other than SpaceX for the near future--ULA would likely be dead meat in a few years on a purely competitive basis.

And if BO decides to enter the launch market and compete with SpaceX and ULA in a few years?  ULA will likely be relegated to a niche market of a few DOD and NASA missions (if they survive at all).  Or maybe they survive as a value-add launch service provider on top of other LV manufacturers catering to niche DOD and NASA needs.  If there is one thing ULA knows how to do very well, it is to cater to such customers.

Which might not be all bad.  If basic launch prices become much cheaper and more of a commodity--as SpaceX and BO have expressed as goals--then ULA moving up the food chain to provide value-add on top of that commodity may be appropriate and more profitable.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2015 12:40 am by joek »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #784 on: 04/19/2015 01:10 am »
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.

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.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 1113
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #785 on: 04/19/2015 01:44 am »
See post 1# on this thread.

Yes, thanks; saw that, but the assumptions are not clear.  Specifically, we now know some size constraints that we did not know then.  Given those constraints, what is the current best estimate?

If the numbers do not change significantly (~7.2t to GTO w/Centaur), then a no-SRB Vulcan looks like it may compete well for commercial at "well under $100M" and, should ULA's reuse plan come to fruition, may give SpaceX a run for the money.

@Hyperion5 -- Any updates based on recent information?  Thanks in advance.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #786 on: 04/19/2015 01:54 am »
Built up a basic Vulcan rocket body, with my "imagined" take on what the detail on the tank might look like.  Standard ol' Centaur on top of it all. 

Question, will the version with 2 SRBs still be the preferred variant to launch CST-100, or might it call for a different configuration?

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7547
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2350
  • Likes Given: 2175
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #787 on: 04/19/2015 02:09 am »
Question, will the version with 2 SRBs still be the preferred variant to launch CST-100[?]

Justin Ray thinks so:
The Vulcan-Centaur, like the Atlas 5, will require a 422 vehicle variant, with two strap-on solid rocket boosters and a dual-engine Centaur upper stage to put the CST-100 capsule into low-Earth orbit.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/18/ula-sees-clean-handover-of-boeing-crew-launches-to-vulcan-rocket/
« Last Edit: 04/19/2015 02:10 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #788 on: 04/19/2015 03:10 am »
Two more configurations; with 5m ACES and with CST-100.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2695
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1030
  • Likes Given: 3846
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #789 on: 04/19/2015 05:24 am »
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.

If that's what ULA is doing it'll be a lot less effective for ULA than it was for Microsoft. Microsoft announcing a future product was an effective strategy because someone who expects a software product to be obsolete in a few years won't buy it because of the huge effort required to learn new software. In contrast no one is going to cancel a SpaceX launch because ULA might have a better rocket years in the future. Customers don't really care whether or how SpaceX or ULA reuse their rockets as long as they're cheap and reliable. Announcing a fake reuse plan may have some benefits on the margin e.g. with attracting talented engineers, but it won't have the industry-changing effects that a fake Microsoft announcement had.

Offline falconeer

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #790 on: 04/19/2015 06:32 am »

...

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.

I agree with your general estimates, it really doesn't look too good for ULA IMO. They can save max $31M (30% of base price) per flight. This is assuming a very high reuse rate (~at least 7 to break even via Tory Bruno, 15 or more to make it worth while), and low SRB usage. I find this flight rate highly unlikely tbh, as well as the fact that ULA will have to spend a considerable amount on R&D. Considering Vulcan will be certified and flying by 2023, ACES 2024-2025, with reuse to come later, the time frame is so far into the future it is rather pointless to talk about ULA reuse pricing...

SpaceX is moving so fast in comparison that we really need to wait and see, at least until Tory reveals pricing in June.

More pressing is how ULA plans to compete with Falcon 9 and Heavy in the 2019-2023 time frame (after block buy and before Vulcan). I think ULA will get the 14 RD-180s they want for that period, but this gives them a hard limit to the number of launches they can do. At the same time, Falcon rockets are poised to get the majority of the DoD market, as well as the commercial market, giving SpaceX the upperhand in launch history compared to brand new Vulcan.

The only competitive chance ULA has for Vulcan is if lots of new missions from NASA or DoD that require the performance of ACES materialize soon. If not, then ULA will slim down, cancel ACES, and will be relegated to the 'backup' launcher for the Assured Access requirement. Right now, the most pressing concern is to get the RD-180 extension. Tory has explicitly stated that if the extension doesn't come by end of this year, ULA is shutting down for good.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2015 06:33 am by falconeer »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7547
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2350
  • Likes Given: 2175
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #791 on: 04/19/2015 07:02 am »
[...] 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.

Having now looked at it with the aid of a spreadsheet I see the point you are both making. ;)

Would another option be to tolerate a much lower lift-off thrust/weight ratio? I think the thrust of an Atlas V CCB is about 1.28 times its mass. With modern control techniques can that be reduced to e.g. 1.14? That might allow carrying full height tanks, without needing up-rated engine thrust.

By the way the overall propellant densities I'm using are 1031 kg/m^3 for kerolox and 828 kg/m^3 for methalox. Are those about right?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline tesla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Researcher
  • State College, PA, USA
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #792 on: 04/19/2015 07:15 am »
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. ;D
Go SLS and Orion! God bless America.

Offline falconeer

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #793 on: 04/19/2015 07:27 am »
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.

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.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #794 on: 04/19/2015 03:54 pm »
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. ;D
RUAG is a very competitive supplier in the international business. And their products are top notch. Orbital uses their adaptors, for Cygnus, and they could select suppliers from anywhere. RUAG is competitive.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14329
  • UK
  • Liked: 4102
  • Likes Given: 220
ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #795 on: 04/19/2015 04:43 pm »
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.

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.

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.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2015 04:47 pm by Star One »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37991
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22330
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #796 on: 04/19/2015 05:48 pm »

Most commercial missions will use electric propulsion to save money, the super high energy orbits are not really a concern for the commercial market.


Based on what data?  2 spacecraft procurements?  That is not a trend and it is wrong.  Electric propulsion still requires GTO, which by definition is a high energy orbit.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2015 05:50 pm by Jim »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 1113
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #797 on: 04/19/2015 05:53 pm »
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.

Agree that it is a positive development for ULA.  However, that ULA has involved DoD in the certification process means only that they will obtain certification sooner rather than later--it does not mean a priori that Vulcan will be competitive.  Given that all players are required to be certified, who gets the business will nominally be based on price.*


* More-or-less.  Even if Vulcan is not competitive, DoD will surely justify awarding launches to ULA in the interests of assured access and ensuring two healthy (*cough*) providers.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37991
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22330
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #798 on: 04/19/2015 06:01 pm »
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

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 1113
Re: ULA's new Launch Vehicle
« Reply #799 on: 04/19/2015 06:24 pm »
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

Jeepers, why so sensitive?  One man's evolution is another's revolution.  Vulcan--at least in the near term as described--is largely evolutionary.  SpaceX is attempting (if not yet succeeding) in a revolution with reuse.  They both deserve kudos for their efforts.  But by no means are they comparable.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1