'Vulcan' - ULA's New Rocket

[AngelLestat]

Which is irrelevant if you have enough engine pods and launch rates are. Even if you have 24 launches per year, with a fleet of 6 vehicles you can take 3 months to refurbish/restack them, which is more than enough. If you need a higher flight rate, it's easier to simply grow your fleet than to redesign the system for faster turnaround.

Fast turnaround is only important if you reach insanely high launch rates and each vehicle is super expensive.

The amount of launches per year is proportional to your launch cost, and your launch cost is directly proportional to how much time (work hours) take you to build and test each rocket.

Time = Money

That is a lesson that your nasa friends needs to learn, or keep labeling all their designs and projects as "unique and mindblowing tech" (which are not, is just the same old **** than always) to just find an excuse to the decades of development.

And you always forget about the test times, that is included in the manufacture and is about the 1/3 or half of the total cost.

May I remind you that none of those other techs have yet been proven technically or economically. Sure, this is a stop-gap preventive study from ULA just in case they do need to start reusing hardware, but until the launch market sees a serious mutation in terms of payloads and launch rates, they are playing it safe, which is what their stockholders want them to do.

If after all the evidence and new plans you still think that the launch market will not increase, then... not sure why there is so many companies trying to reuse parts and so many new players in the space business.

[PakledHostage]

If after all the evidence and new plans you still think that the launch market will not increase, then... not sure why there is (1) so many companies trying to reuse parts and (2) so many new players in the space business.

(1)

Because re-using parts saves money which helps improve profit margins and/or allows those companies to remain competitive, even if there is no change in launch rates.

(2)

Because the space business is glamorous... The air travel business is glamorous too. There's already never a shortage of investors who are willing to put money into an airline but that doesn't mean it is smart. Consider Richard Branson's quip when he was asked how to become a millionaire. His answer (reportedly) was that it was simple: All you have to do, if you're starting out as a billionaire, is to buy an airline.

[Hcube]

Just wondering since this thread was brought up, when is Vulcan's first launch planned to happen ? like 2020 ? or sooner ?

[AngelLestat]

heh, that quote of Richard Branson is really funny.

But I believe that the space business is changing, all companies and countries know it, is a race to see how will dominate the big portion of that market, so few will become very rich, meanwhile others will terrible fail. Not sure you my friends, but I would not bet on the vulcan knowing how delayed are and how short is their step towards the future. I might be wrong.. If we keep touch these 3 or 5 years.. we will see.

[Kryten]

Just wondering since this thread was brought up, when is Vulcan's first launch planned to happen ? like 2020 ? or sooner ?

2019, although the full development plan isn't yet approved and funding is only being done a quarter at a time. ULA, their parent companies and Aerojet are still wrangling with Congress to either lift the RD-180 ban or get DoD funding for the AR-1, both of which would delay or replace Vulcan development.

heh, that quote of Richard Branson is really funny.

But I believe that the space business is changing, all companies and countries know it, is a race to see how will dominate the big portion of that market, so few will become very rich, meanwhile others will terrible fail. Not sure you my friends, but I would not bet on the vulcan knowing how delayed are and how short is their step towards the future. I might be wrong.. If we keep touch these 3 or 5 years.. we will see.

ULA aren't going anywhere as long as the DoD keep their assured access to space policy and nobody else credible shows up in the EELV class. If you have a reason to believe either of those will happen within the next five years, give it. If not, go away and try to read something about the space business that isn't a missive from and for SpaceX fanboys.

[AngelLestat]

sorry, but until now since I am in this forum, many of my predictions become true and the others are all in good path taking the last news.

I may sound presumptuous, but I always had a good eye for new tech and its potential.

So you should not said despective things like "try to read" just because we have different opinions, even with all the goverment support for ULA, it would not be enoght.

[Nibb31]

The amount of launches per year is proportional to your launch cost

No it isn't, and you keep on repeating this fallacy. The amount of launches per year depends on the demand for launches. Demand is only remotely related to launch cost. If you cut the cost of launches by two, you would not multiply the number of customers by the same amount. In fact, SpaceX has cut launch prices by nearly 50% yet we haven't seen demand for launches increase twofold.

The launch market is already saturated. There is a surplus of offer, with high competition and increasingly low margins. To increase the demand for launches, you are going to need to find new customers, and this is where the challenge lies.

and your launch cost is directly proportional to how much time (work hours) take you to build and test each rocket.

Again, your launch cost is proportional to how much time you spend on operating the entire launch service, not just building the rocket. You keep on repeating that the biggest factor in launching rockets is building the rocket hardware. Well, it isn't.

[Kryten]

None of that seems to be an actual response to my post, so I'll say it again; provide a good reason the DoD would drop the assured access policy in the timeframe you gave, or that they replace ULA's role in it.

[AngelLestat]

No it isn't, and you keep on repeating this fallacy. The amount of launches per year depends on the demand for launches. Demand is only remotely related to launch cost. If you cut the cost of launches by two, you would not multiply the number of customers by the same amount. In fact, SpaceX has cut launch prices by nearly 50% yet we haven't seen demand for launches increase twofold.

Fallacy? to said something is false you need to prove it, and the evidence points the other way around.

Or the new constellation google-spacex program would be in the way even with the old (before spacex) launch cost?

Also all the spacex schedule for the next 3 years is already taken, that means a lot part of that money is already in their pockets and helping in their development.

The launch market is already saturated. There is a surplus of offer, with high competition and increasingly low margins. To increase the demand for launches, you are going to need to find new customers, and this is where the challenge lies.

Saturated?? all launch companies even with higher cost than spacex has their hands full, how it will be that possible in a market already saturated?

When we started this discussion 1 or 2 years before, I could understand if you dint share my view. But now.. with all the evidence showing exactly that.. not sure what you want to prove.

Again, your launch cost is proportional to how much time you spend on operating the entire launch service, not just building the rocket. You keep on repeating that the biggest factor in launching rockets is building the rocket hardware. Well, it isn't.

I never said that , I need to search my old post answering this same question?

I give you total details and porcentages how the cost would drop in testing, building, operation, etc with each step in reusability and why, also I told you how the cost of sattelites would drop, I also did some predicitons about the new spacex move to provide general parts for custom satellites.

Also I give you details and numbers about the real cost for spacex in employes, and how much of all that was for development and how much for operation. I also show how the cost that I estimate had total coherence with the funds that spacex receive + profits.

But it seems that I still the one who dont understand the space business...

None of that seems to be an actual response to my post, so I'll say it again; provide a good reason the DoD would drop the assured access policy in the timeframe you gave, or that they replace ULA's role in it.

DoD? EELV? I can deal with english, but not with its millions of acronyms.

I imagine that DoD is departament of defence, but I dont want to google and waste time looking the others.

But I imagine that the question would be related to USA and its beloved militar companies.

Which is one of the points where I was agree with Nibb31, there is a lot of political aspects there, but it would not be enoght.

[Bill Phil]

No it isn't, and you keep on repeating this fallacy. The amount of launches per year depends on the demand for launches. Demand is only remotely related to launch cost. If you cut the cost of launches by two, you would not multiply the number of customers by the same amount. In fact, SpaceX has cut launch prices by nearly 50% yet we haven't seen demand for launches increase twofold.

The launch market is already saturated. There is a surplus of offer, with high competition and increasingly low margins. To increase the demand for launches, you are going to need to find new customers, and this is where the challenge lies.

The reason the demand will not increase when the cost is reduced by a factor of two is that it's still too expensive. If the cost could be lowered to a couple hundred USD per kilogram than more people would be capable of paying, allowing more people that actually want to buy a few kilograms worth of satellite to do so.

This probably won't happen anytime soon, though. If at all.

On a side note:

I wonder if satellites could be paid for in installments... Probably not, but it could happen...

[Kryten]

The commercial satellite market is irrelevant to ULA, because most of their demand comes from the DoD via the EELV program rather than commercially, and the DoD is strongly committed to having two providers in the EELV capability class to prevent them being grounded after a single failure. This is why both Delta IV and Atlas V are produced, despite having overlapping capabilities and now coming from the same company, and why ULA are going nowhere without somebody to replace them. The DoD simply would not allow it. It this is stuff you didn't know, then you genuinely don't have a clue about the launch industry.

[Kibble]

ULA, their parent companies and Aerojet are still wrangling with Congress to either lift the RD-180 ban or get DoD funding for the AR-1

I had never heard of AR-1! It looks like what appear to be the gimbal mechanisms are Stephen Canfield's trio-tristar carpal robotic wrist joints, do you know if they are?

[Kryten]

No idea, sorry, I've not seen anything on AR-1 that isn't about the engine itself. It's likely still notional.

[AngelLestat]

The commercial satellite market is irrelevant to ULA, because most of their demand comes from the DoD via the EELV program rather than commercially, and the DoD is strongly committed to having two providers in the EELV capability class to prevent them being grounded after a single failure. This is why both Delta IV and Atlas V are produced, despite having overlapping capabilities and now coming from the same company, and why ULA are going nowhere without somebody to replace them. The DoD simply would not allow it. It this is stuff you didn't know, then you genuinely don't have a clue about the launch industry.

I dint know what all those acronyms mean, but I imagine that was related to this crap, so my previous answer, is in fact my main answer to your question.

Also you said that the commercial satellite market is irrelevant to the new vulcan? lol why in their video they hope to become the main provider for the world? LOL.

Also the date for the first stage test is 2019, but the rocket second stage would not be complete until 2023! haha this people is delusional, no even the goverment will risk to keep them alive until the 2023, so they will need some comercial customers before that time.

Even if the goverment loves ULA, when people start to question why they paid 2 or 3 times higher prices with ULA instead launch with spacex, all politicians will save their own asses and will terminate the program.

Vulcan estimate cost for 29 tons to leo will be 160 millions, some said 120...

At that time, falcon heavy would be a super common rocket, and their current price is 130 millions 50 tons to leo, at 2023 we can expect full recovery of the core boosters, which may reduce the cost to 50 millions 29 tons to leo.

So yeah.. nobody will save Vulcan, and even if they keep doing lauches for the DoD, that would be nothing.. compared to the world space business. Keep cheering for ULA, it will be fun come back here once a while to laugh.

[Wingman703]

Even if the goverment loves ULA, when people start to question why they paid 2 or 3 times higher prices with ULA instead launch with spacex, all politicians will save their own asses and will terminate the program.

The general public doesn't really keep abreast of the happenings of spaceflight. I would be flabbergasted if it became a political issue in the next 20 years. The most that the general layman would know about it is when a rocket goes kaboom, because that's the only time its going to get mentioned in the mainstream media.

[Kibble]

Also the date for the first stage test is 2019, but the rocket second stage would not be complete until 2023! haha this people is delusional, no even the goverment will risk to keep them alive until the 2023, so they will need some comercial customers before that time.

Vulcan will fly with Centaur at first. And probably for a long time.

[SargeRho]

@AngelLestat: DoD: Department of Defense, EELV = Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

Most of ULA's launches are indeed for the DoD.

[AngelLestat]

ok, thanks for the tips. and sorry if I was too hard with the vulcan, but I cant stand see money spent in ways that are not efficient, and in my opinion, projects like vulcan, sls, orion, etc. They all can be faster developed, cheaper and with higher goals.

[Rakaydos]

ok, thanks for the tips. and sorry if I was too hard with the vulcan, but I cant stand see money spent in ways that are not efficient, and in my opinion, projects like vulcan, sls, orion, etc. They all can be faster developed, cheaper and with higher goals.

What could possibly be a higher goal than being reelected? :/

[Nibb31]

Better, cheaper, sooner. Pick two.

[Rakaydos]

Better, cheaper, sooner. Pick two.

2/3 Better, 2/3 cheaper, 2/3 sooner. Adds up to 2, right?

[Nibb31]

2/3 Better, 2/3 cheaper, 2/3 sooner. Adds up to 2, right?

Compromises!

[Delta_8930]

On April 13, 2015 at 5:37:57 PM, Bill Phil said:

Why are we already replacing Atlas V and Delta IV? We should be improving and upgrading them. Of course the Atkas V uses Russian engines, but maybe it could be replaced?

We could use AR-1, but that won't be ready until 2021.

Also does anyone know what happened to the AJ26-500, AJ-1E6, and if the AR-1 has any influences from NK-33?

[Kryten]

AJ26-500 and AJ-1E6 were basically earlier versions of the AR-1 project.

[Spaceception]

On 4/13/2015, 2:24:30, Reddragon said:

Today United Launch Alliance introduced it's new rocket design called 'Vulcan' also known the NGLS (Next Generation Launch System). Probably the most interesting part is it's reusable engines and the fact that they intend to recover it mid-air with a cargo helicopter, after it being detached from the first stage fuel tank (like the old Atlas booster engines did). According to the plan, it will also use an inflatable heat shield during re-entry. ULA expects to reduce launch costs by quite much:

What do you think of this technology? How reliable could this system be? Could it rival SpaceX's reusable boosters? Let me know about your thoughts!

It's cool, but SpaceX still wins because they're landing the ENTIRE 1st stage on water/dry land.