Jump to content

ULA launch and discussion thread


tater

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
51 minutes ago, Racescort666 said:

I'm really excited for IVF to fly.

Are they still working on that? ACES is an awesome idea, and an area where ULA could leapfrog booster reuse, and lead the way with in-space reuse. Currently they are planning on working towards larger Centaur, but I have not heard anything clear about ACES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A friend and I were discussing this over the weekend. The oft-quoted prices for RL-10 on the net have to be wrong, indeed, wrong by probably an order of magnitude. There is no possible way that each RL-10 costs 25-35 M$ (that's a common range to see quoted). It's probably still expensive, but closer to 10X lower than that. Tory Bruno has said, for example that Vulcan will be a sub-100M$ rocket (unsure if that's cost to customer or not). Regardless, with 5m Centaur on top (super excited to see this, Centaur is arguably the best rocket stage ever), and 2XRL-10, that stage cost has got to be a decently small fraction of total cost. Same is true of Atlas V (with 1 RL-10).

Blue just recently said they were unsure if Be-4 would fly first on NG, or Vulcan. I've seen bending metal for Vulcan, not any word on NG...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tater said:

A friend and I were discussing this over the weekend. The oft-quoted prices for RL-10 on the net have to be wrong, indeed, wrong by probably an order of magnitude. There is no possible way that each RL-10 costs 25-35 M$ (that's a common range to see quoted). It's probably still expensive, but closer to 10X lower than that. Tory Bruno has said, for example that Vulcan will be a sub-100M$ rocket (unsure if that's cost to customer or not). Regardless, with 5m Centaur on top (super excited to see this, Centaur is arguably the best rocket stage ever), and 2XRL-10, that stage cost has got to be a decently small fraction of total cost. Same is true of Atlas V (with 1 RL-10).

Blue just recently said they were unsure if Be-4 would fly first on NG, or Vulcan. I've seen bending metal for Vulcan, not any word on NG...

There's a chance too that the 25-35 M$ is what they cost at one time and incremental improvements to manufacturing have reduced cost. The more you make something, the better you get at it and things like scrap rate start to go down saving on cost.

Also, +1 for Centaur being awesome. The 5m Centaur is going to be awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do remember that the RL-10 as it flies today is hands-down one of the most manual labor intensive engines made? I mean, it's brazed tube construction for the chamber and nozzle. Parts may be cheap, but the skilled labor to actually do the construction isn't. I'm not entirely sure you can do a furnace braze on that or not. I'll have to ask a contact of mine with some experience in such matters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

You do remember that the RL-10 as it flies today is hands-down one of the most manual labor intensive engines made? I mean, it's brazed tube construction for the chamber and nozzle. Parts may be cheap, but the skilled labor to actually do the construction isn't. I'm not entirely sure you can do a furnace braze on that or not. I'll have to ask a contact of mine with some experience in such matters...

Yeah, I know it's labor intensive, but the number often quoted is 38 million per engine. That's absurd. RL-10 is small, you can't even have every many people doing the hand work on the engine at the same time, they won't fit around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tater said:

And it's an incremental road to ACES.

That's the important bit, TBH. ACES is not only way underappreciated for what it is, but IMHO fairly competitive with the whole new space scene that's popping up. Even in the wake of Starship, (Vulcan w/ SMART?) + ACES seems like a pretty good business plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

That's the important bit, TBH. ACES is not only way underappreciated for what it is, but IMHO fairly competitive with the whole new space scene that's popping up. Even in the wake of Starship, (Vulcan w/ SMART?) + ACES seems like a pretty good business plan.

Yeah, reuse in space is a non-trivial aspect of making space accessible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

What I don't get with ACES is, if you need to refuel it to reuse it, and if you need another ACES to refuel it, how is that better than just launching a new ACES?

This is a really good question.

The basic idea is that ACES gets to LEO less than full (because it uses itself to achieve orbit as a second stage). Next ACES (a few?) refill the first one, then you have a large stage in LEO with 100% props.

The refilling stages could be "passive," with minimal control and lifetime, such that the active stage being refilled does the work, increasing the prop mass of the passive tank (assuming that RCS props are also refilled). It can be left with just enough in it so that when it is undocked, ACES moves away, then it deorbits itself.

Still, it's a wasteful system at some level, unlike landing the refilling stage, and reusing it (Starship concept).

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tater said:

Why?

Seems automated, and scalable.

I think what rubs me the wrong way is how much this one piece must cost and part of me is wondering if there's a better way of manufacturing it to get the cost down. 

Part of the cost is definitely the scrap/waste from the process, you have a big slab of aluminum and 75%(ish) gets machined away. Yeah, you can recycle the chips but you don't recover 75% of the raw material cost after it's been turned into chips. That's usually only a small part though. 

The other part is literally how much time it takes; machine time is expensive and I guess it's just been hammered into me enough to try and eliminate machining operations as much as possible. Obviously they're necessary in a lot of cases but we've been asked to move attachment points and heights of attachment points to save on machine time to save cost. Granted, I come from a world where saving $1 per part is a big deal and vehicles come off the assembly line on the order of 1/minute so parts have to be made much faster than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in that video, they reiterate that Vulcan flies in Spring 2021. The heavy version not until 2023, however.

Literally everything except the BE-4s will fly on Atlas between now and 2021. New fairing will check out on Atlas/Delta IV. Even 5m Centaur. Nice (particularly the Centaur).

 

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...