'Vulcan' - ULA's New Rocket

[prophet_01]

It's not the final part of the maneuver that might require some form of control, it's the high altitude part that might be problematic here. I'm certainly not an expert, but a purely balistic approach might lack the necessary precision. Afterall, the recovery aircraft has to be quite close in order to perform such a maneuver within a limited window of opportunity. If the stage leaves it's flight path due to wind or if the forecast isn't exact they might miss the targeted area by a couple of km. Probably another pro for the c130 over the ch47 due to it's higher speed, but it still seems risky to rely on an unguided descent

edit: @nibb: THAT would have been one big helicopter O.o But I doubt that this would be even remotely realistic, even with todays technologies

Edited April 14, 2015 by prophet_01

[jwenting]

I agree, mid-air retrieval on this scale has never been done, although there was a crazy plan in the 60's to build a giant helicopter to recover Saturn V first stages.

I think a C-130 might be more capable. It's also easier to operate for civilian operations than a CH-47.

helicopter is easier, more agile, for covering a small well-defined area. And the CH-47 isn't unknown in civilian operation, even if it were it wouldn't be hard to get crews for them from RIF'fed military personel.

[FishInferno]

ULA trying to reuse the engines is proof IMO that SpaceX set the bar and ULA considers them a real threat to their business. And SpaceX has a head start:)

[Nibb31]

helicopter is easier, more agile, for covering a small well-defined area. And the CH-47 isn't unknown in civilian operation, even if it were it wouldn't be hard to get crews for them from RIF'fed military personel.

A CH-47 might be a bit small for grabbing a 10 ton object from the sky. Also, it lacks range and would need to be operated from a ship, which adds to the cost. Plane recovery was routine in the days of Corona capsules, so the agility and responsiveness must be adequate. The other option is to design a drone helicopter purpose-built for the task, but that wouldn't be cheap either.

Still, as spectactular as it is, I'm willing to bet that the "SMART recovery" concept is going to gradually vanish away over time, like flyback boosters and SpaceX's upper stage recovery did. It's a cool concept on paper, but a bit too impractical and probably not worth it when you start doing the real engineering.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Nibb31

[sgt_flyer]

On the mid-air retrieval. Has anyone got an estimated mass of the stage that they want to recover? Guessing with numbers of engines of similar sizes in mind, I'd expect that stage to be at least 10t. I don't know any helicopters apart from ch47 that are capable of lifting such a weight and even with this one they have a set limit regarding theire recovery capabilities.

Maybe I've missed something here or my mass guesstimation is way off, but that whole mid-air retrieval does look like it's going to be seriously difficult to achieve on that scale. SpaceX first stage recovery looks a lot more realistic compared to this approach :/

Well, there's always the MI-26 Halo if you need both range and carry load that thing has a range of 1920km - and can carry 20 tons of cargo... And there's even some civilian companies operating the thing already. That helicopter is a true monster

[SeaDog]

ULA trying to reuse the engines is proof IMO that SpaceX set the bar and ULA considers them a real threat to their business. And SpaceX has a head start:)

And the reaction from an old player who used reject the new ideas is of course "well, maybe they do have a point, but they're taking it too far". Still though, Ariane 6 is not reusable at all and will be used in a similar time frame. I think it's good that we're seeing a multitude of very different systems. Not because I think Ariane 6 or Vulcan will really be able to compete, but because it will further underline which general design is the way to go.

It will be interesting to see what China will do in the coming years. On one hand, they can possibly cut costs in other ways that are not available to western manufacturers so that they don't need reusability to be competitive. On the other hand, demonstrations of technological proficiency might be important for them, even if it isn't really cost effective.

[Nibb31]

Well, there's always the MI-26 Halo if you need both range and carry load that thing has a range of 1920km - and can carry 20 tons of cargo... And there's even some civilian companies operating the thing already. That helicopter is a true monster

Max range and max load on a helicopter are mutually exclusive. You have to pick one or the other.

Oh, and the whole point of Vulcan was to stop using Russian engines (and to paint stars and stripes on the mockups). If they have to use a Russian helicopter to pick up their new American engines, they'll be kinda missing the point

Edited April 14, 2015 by Nibb31

[SemiaCloud]

The boosters on it look like energiya's.

[Nibb31]

The boosters on it look like energiya's.

Not a bit. They look exactly the same as the Atlas V boosters, and they probably are.

In fact, it is pretty much an upgraded Atlas V. It uses the same boosters and upper stage as Atlas, and it probably has a lot of commonality in the core design and avionics.

Atlas V

Vulcan

Edited April 14, 2015 by Nibb31

[Kryten]

The boosters are to be larger than the current Atlas V ones, and are still in the RFP stage.

[Kibble]

The boosters are to be larger than the current Atlas V ones, and are still in the RFP stage.

Just stretched SRMs, or entirely new hardware?

[Bill Phil]

Probably getting rid of the reliance on Soviet/Russian engines is a big part of it. And trying to get launch cost down, which likely isn't easy with the old designs (and yes, both Atlas and Delta are old designs, even if upgraded through the decades they're at heart 1960s and 1970s technology).

Atlas' only heritage hardware is the Centaur. That and the RD-180s, which have roots in the RD-170.

Delta was completely redesigned. Like the Ariane series of rockets with Ariane 5.

It's good to use old systems, so long as you improve them. The gap of how much better anything is per year is getting smaller. This holds true for most things people build.

[Kibble]

Delta was completely redesigned.

Delta II's core is still the Thor missile, even if the entire launch vehicle is named after its upper stage.

[Kryten]

Just stretched SRMs, or entirely new hardware?

Either, potentially.

[Bill Phil]

Delta II's core is still the Thor missile, even if the entire launch vehicle is named after its upper stage.

Delta ii isn't an EELV. I was speaking of DIV.

[Beduino]

ULAs recoverable engines looks much better than landing in a barge from SpaceX

[Dkmdlb]

Ha ha. ULA has had fewer recovery failures! That's the kind of attitude we like.

[FishInferno]

ULA has said that the Vulcan can carry more payload into LEO than SpaceX can, which is true... if ULA had the Vulcan right now. They seem to assume that the Falcon Heavy will not be successful. the FH will likely fly in 2015, and Vulcan is expected to fly in 2019. By then, I assume SpaceX will be flying reused stages regularly, and ULA will only just be starting on their reusability program.

TL;DR: ULA is betting the success of the Vulcan on the failure of the Falcon Heavy. I guess you have engineers write your business plans when your company launches rockets:P

[rpayne88]

Didn't they think of doing this with the first stage of Saturn Vs?

[Nibb31]

Didn't they think of doing this with the first stage of Saturn Vs?

Yes they did. See post #48

[Reddragon]

ULA has said that the Vulcan can carry more payload into LEO than SpaceX can, which is true... if ULA had the Vulcan right now. They seem to assume that the Falcon Heavy will not be successful. the FH will likely fly in 2015, and Vulcan is expected to fly in 2019. By then, I assume SpaceX will be flying reused stages regularly, and ULA will only just be starting on their reusability program.

TL;DR: ULA is betting the success of the Vulcan on the failure of the Falcon Heavy. I guess you have engineers write your business plans when your company launches rockets:P

Which failure do you mean? Falcon Heavy's as a failure itself, or its reusability?

[FishInferno]

Which failure do you mean? Falcon Heavy's as a failure itself, or its reusability?

a little of both, i guess

[Kryten]

Vulcan doesn't require FH to fail, not by a long shot. SpaceX's commonaltity strategy has left a massive gap in capability and price between FH and F9, and Vulcan fits into it just fine; FH price is somewhere between $120 million and $160 million, whereas base Vulcan is less than $100 million. Full capability Vulcan (ACES, 6XSRB) has superior performance to direct GSO than FH for less than $200 million, and direct GSO insertion is the only area at that end of the market with any actual demand.

[FishInferno]

Vulcan doesn't require FH to fail, not by a long shot. SpaceX's commonaltity strategy has left a massive gap in capability and price between FH and F9, and Vulcan fits into it just fine; FH price is somewhere between $120 million and $160 million, whereas base Vulcan is less than $100 million. Full capability Vulcan (ACES, 6XSRB) has superior performance to direct GSO than FH for less than $200 million, and direct GSO insertion is the only area at that end of the market with any actual demand.

is this counting reusability or not? A company may very well choose to fly their payload on the overpowered Falcon Heavy if it is cheaper than the Vulcan with reusability

[Kryten]

AFAIK that range includes reusable, expendable and partially expendable versions.