Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 303891 times)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3610
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1620 on: 12/07/2017 08:37 PM »
If a hundred or thousand VLEO sats at 400km with 1m phased arrays are collecting that sigint with highly focused beams,

Not viable.  They are in view too short of time and can't cover all the frequencies.  Also, can't have hundred or thousand VLEO sats constellations for each type of mission (sigint, imint, missile warning, tac comm and strat comm)

So, we have a choice... believe you or believe General Hyten:

Quote
“I’ve made a call at U.S. Strategic Command that we’ll embrace that as a vision of the future because I think it’s the correct one,” he added. STRATCOM will “drive requirements,” Hyten noted, “And, as a combatant commander, I won’t support the development any further of large, big, fat, juicy targets. I won’t support that,” he insisted. “We are going to go down a different path. And we have to go down that path quickly.”

http://spacenews.com/stratcom-chief-hyten-i-will-not-support-buying-big-satellites-that-make-juicy-targets/
It's not an either-or.  The General said he wants more smaller satellites.  He did not say LEO-only.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3610
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1621 on: 12/07/2017 08:40 PM »
So its a stupid, silly, assumption that the competitive response to this need will all launch on a large LV to GEO.
It would help if you didn't call people "stupid".

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2380
  • Likes Given: 1743
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1622 on: 12/07/2017 08:53 PM »
So its a stupid, silly, assumption that the competitive response to this need will all launch on a large LV to GEO.
It would help if you didn't call people "stupid".

 - Ed Kyle
Sorry if it appeared to call you "stupid". That wasn't my intent. You're not, and I'd never be that unprofessional.

(Am used to helping smart people from making and furthering "stupid" mistakes. By making assumptions that they later regret that they had made. The faster I slam on the brakes, the quicker the repair, the less face lost by the smart person.)

People are people. They project agenda too fast and dig in hard when it goes wrong.

So why are you resistant to the change described? Do I need to clarify anything on the subject mentioned?

add:
As I think old_atlas_e_guy has the right idea about staying on topic, I don't want to do another post to reply to Ed.

Ed, please be sincere in looking at what I wrote and not dismissing it as you have been doing, as it becomes frustrating communicating with you.

My meaning in this post of "change described" was that of the earlier posts I wrote, regarding Hyten's remarks on constellations, which DON'T launch on a singular vehicle as I clearly described.

Since we all know your "not stupid", it should be easy enough to understand what I am saying, and what you are appearing to dodge. Congrats on making me look stupid, that worked well BTW.

(This kind of thing leads to a lot of crap posts on this board, and generally works down everyone. I know I find it tiresome.)

Thus, no more posts on the subject that appears to be purposely ignored.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 11:02 PM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3610
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1623 on: 12/07/2017 09:02 PM »
Quote
So why are you resistant to the change described? Do I need to clarify anything on the subject mentioned?
I'm not resistant to change.  I'm pointing out that constellations tend to be launched in multiples.  All one has to do is look at Iridium, Globalstar, Orbcomm, etc.  I would expect DoD sats to be heavier, or more numerous, or both, and it only makes sense to launch them in clusters, the more the merrier.

 - Ed Kyle 
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 09:02 PM by edkyle99 »

Online launchwatcher

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 237
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1624 on: 12/07/2017 09:19 PM »
That makes no sense.  If you are collecting sigint with a 100m dish at GEO(40,000km), a 1m dish at VLEO(400km) has the equivalent collecting area.  Same with optical (ground) resolution... lower orbits have inverse square advantage.
So that may be the case for sigint, but aren't the big optical satellites in LEO/SSO?

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3192
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1576
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1625 on: 12/07/2017 10:45 PM »
We have wandered away from Vulcan. My point was that Vulcan is an optimized vehicle for GEO/BEO and in that role is competitive but not in the role of LEO.

The future is that GEO and BEO is not going to change much in the next 5 to 10 years. But LEO could change significantly. This is true for commercial and US NSS.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2380
  • Likes Given: 1743
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1626 on: 12/07/2017 11:08 PM »
We have wandered away from Vulcan. My point was that Vulcan is an optimized vehicle for GEO/BEO and in that role is competitive but not in the role of LEO.

The future is that GEO and BEO is not going to change much in the next 5 to 10 years. But LEO could change significantly. This is true for commercial and US NSS.
For those playing "post lawyer" LEO here includes substantial variation on VLEO.

Also, we're talking smallish things in the 400kg size. And they are not in traditional orbits.

Yes, I agree that a Vulcan launch of a single 400KG VLEO sat will not be economic. Duh.

As follow on, I'll predict that Ariane 6 and Vulcan will duke it out for remaining geosats that miss the F9/FH bandwagon.

Not enough for either to crow about. They've got to do better if they expect to fly 6-10 a year. Could be 2-4 a year.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1627 on: 12/08/2017 12:02 AM »
Could we may be start a new thread to move discussion about orbits and constellations off this thread so this thread can be Vulcan system only.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7759
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4052
  • Likes Given: 830
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1628 on: 12/08/2017 02:09 AM »
If a hundred or thousand VLEO sats at 400km with 1m phased arrays are collecting that sigint with highly focused beams,

Not viable.  They are in view too short of time and can't cover all the frequencies.  Also, can't have hundred or thousand VLEO sats constellations for each type of mission (sigint, imint, missile warning, tac comm and strat comm)

So, we have a choice... believe you or believe General Hyten:

Quote
“I’ve made a call at U.S. Strategic Command that we’ll embrace that as a vision of the future because I think it’s the correct one,” he added. STRATCOM will “drive requirements,” Hyten noted, “And, as a combatant commander, I won’t support the development any further of large, big, fat, juicy targets. I won’t support that,” he insisted. “We are going to go down a different path. And we have to go down that path quickly.”

http://spacenews.com/stratcom-chief-hyten-i-will-not-support-buying-big-satellites-that-make-juicy-targets/

2 years ago, the same argument raged over telecom constellations.  Just give it another 2 years.  Maybe a bit more since the pipeline is deeper, but if the capability is there, DOD will take advantage of it.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2017 02:10 AM by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7358
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 904
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1629 on: 12/08/2017 06:35 AM »
If a hundred or thousand VLEO sats at 400km with 1m phased arrays are collecting that sigint with highly focused beams,

Not viable.  They are in view too short of time and can't cover all the frequencies.  Also, can't have hundred or thousand VLEO sats constellations for each type of mission (sigint, imint, missile warning, tac comm and strat comm)




That makes no sense.  If you are collecting sigint with a 100m dish at GEO(40,000km), a 1m dish at VLEO(400km) has the equivalent collecting area.

It doesn't matter, 1m dish at VLEO(400km) is only in sight for a couple of minutes.   Also, it will miss many directional signals.


Someone here is acting like a Struthio camelus and IMO it is not AncientU.
Again Jim I advice you to read up on latest technology developments. The no-go's you list here are either silly (you assuming that it is impossible for constellation-type sats to support more than one type of mission) or overtaken by technological developments.
Also, "constellation" does not automatically translate in hundreds (or thousands) of satellites and is not restricted to (V)LEO only.
Additionally: disaggregation of on-orbit assets can be done by other means than just having multiple dedicated "large" constellations.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 5146
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1630 on: 12/08/2017 12:41 PM »
For those playing "post lawyer" LEO here includes substantial variation on VLEO.

Also, we're talking smallish things in the 400kg size. And they are not in traditional orbits.

Yes, I agree that a Vulcan launch of a single 400KG VLEO sat will not be economic. Duh.

As follow on, I'll predict that Ariane 6 and Vulcan will duke it out for remaining geosats that miss the F9/FH bandwagon.

Not enough for either to crow about. They've got to do better if they expect to fly 6-10 a year. Could be 2-4 a year.
Good points. Very on topic for the future of Vulcan.

While not optimized for LEO (I'd suggest that means anywhere below the inner Van Allan belt) Vulcan has substantial payload capability. If it could deploy a full ring of satellites in one launch at a necessary inclination that would be a significant capability.

Likewise the massive growth of software defined radio means that sigint payloads could be highly flexible. The question becomes "What bands do we need to cover world wide" but "What bands do we need to cover at what times at this inclination" ?

But I would suggest the joker in the pack is the Kessler effect.

More high value military targets in low(ish) Earth orbit --> more likely hood of anti satellite activity --> more risk of debris cascade.  :(

However that would not be an issue for Vulcan.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4969
  • Liked: 2965
  • Likes Given: 4190
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1631 on: 12/08/2017 01:44 PM »
For those playing "post lawyer" LEO here includes substantial variation on VLEO.

Also, we're talking smallish things in the 400kg size. And they are not in traditional orbits.

Yes, I agree that a Vulcan launch of a single 400KG VLEO sat will not be economic. Duh.

As follow on, I'll predict that Ariane 6 and Vulcan will duke it out for remaining geosats that miss the F9/FH bandwagon.

Not enough for either to crow about. They've got to do better if they expect to fly 6-10 a year. Could be 2-4 a year.
Good points. Very on topic for the future of Vulcan.

While not optimized for LEO (I'd suggest that means anywhere below the inner Van Allan belt) Vulcan has substantial payload capability. If it could deploy a full ring of satellites in one launch at a necessary inclination that would be a significant capability.

Likewise the massive growth of software defined radio means that sigint payloads could be highly flexible. The question becomes "What bands do we need to cover world wide" but "What bands do we need to cover at what times at this inclination" ?

But I would suggest the joker in the pack is the Kessler effect.

More high value military targets in low(ish) Earth orbit --> more likely hood of anti satellite activity --> more risk of debris cascade.  :(

However that would not be an issue for Vulcan.

On topic, indeed. 
Vulcan needs to serve the market it is entering, not the one some want to remain unchanged forever.

Kessler syndrome is a very real threat, just not sure which approach* is most likely to set it off:
1) send thousands of small-ish sats to do constellation duty, or
2) wave around a very small number of quite juicy targets that are begging to be destroyed by kinematic weapons.

Either way, the risk will be increased.
Hopefully, in the small sat constellation bag of tricks there will be one for debris removal.  Certainly will never be done by a giant orbiting device.

* I reject your premise that having more 'high value' military targets in low orbit invites more a-sat activity.  First of all, the constellation is high value, not any satellite itself.  Second, if you have a thousand platforms collectively doing SBIRS job, for instance, there is zero chance that a-sat removal could be successful.  Not the case where the task is being done by a handful of 'juicy targets'.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2017 03:25 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline MaxTeranous

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1632 on: 12/08/2017 02:05 PM »
An important point that's not been mentioned yet with regards to launching clusters of satellites is volume issues. Saying that a LV capable of 100 mT to LEO can then launch 100 x 1 mT satellites in one go is over simplifying, if the volume (and shape) of those satellites plus any dispenser is such that only 20 of them fit into the LV's fairing. As fairings are a critical part of a LV's aerodynamic shape, you can't just randomly double their length or width, that sort of thing needs designing at the beginning.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6419
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1613
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1633 on: 12/08/2017 02:13 PM »
If someone wants to launch that many satellites I would assume that they design them in a way that they can be densely packed.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4969
  • Liked: 2965
  • Likes Given: 4190
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1634 on: 12/08/2017 03:16 PM »
New Glenn, a Vulcan competitor, is launching 80 OneWeb sats at a go (400 sats, five launches).
At 150 kg or so per satellite, this is only 12tonnes (plus dispenser) while NG is rated at 45t -- so volume limited will be the constraint for everyone it seems.  Soyuz is launching 32-36 each batch IIRC.

No one yet knows exactly what that NG launch will cost, but low $100k range is likely. 
This is typical of the market Vulcan will face.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2017 03:21 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Chris Bergin

Long tired thread. Locking so we can go to Thread 3 :)


Here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44390.0

Tags: