'Vulcan' - ULA's New Rocket

[Bill Phil]

Except they haven't quite succeeded.

[Nibb31]

9 hours ago, Spaceception said:

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

SpaceX only wins if they make it profitable to reuse a landed stage.

[FishInferno]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

SpaceX only wins if they make it profitable to reuse a landed stage.

The same goes for ULA.  Time will tell which one wins (assuming Vulcan gets built)

All SpaceX launched from here on out will have a landing attempt, either on the barge or RTLS.  They should have figured out landings bu the end of 2016, and i would bet on stages reflying in 2017.  They have a HUGE head start on ULA.

And I personally think that SpaceX's method is better, because their goal is a "gas'n go" booster, which will have much lower refurbishment costs than adding used engines to a new tank.

[B787_300]

I mean the re-usability also depends on the refurbishment that HAS to happen between each flight.  

An airplanes fuel is nice and warm.  A Rockets fuel is both nice and warm (comparatively) and so cold you cant comprehend it (the LOX).  The extreme cold affects metals in weird ways.  But the most noticeable effect is that the metal becomes very brittle.  If the repeated cool down and warm up of the metal starts stressing it too much it might be too expensive on the refurb side to consider flying it again.

The shuttle had the same issue.  It was originally imagined that they could wheel the shuttle into a hangar swap out the payload bay and do some very light work (changing fluids and such) and be wheeled into the VAB within a week for its next flight. the original shuttle idea is below

  

But in actuality there was a LOT of work that needed to be done on the shuttle between each flight, shown below.

   

 

This will be an issue for both SpaceX and ULA and Ariane (if Adeline gets made). 

[Rakaydos]

15 hours ago, B787_300 said:

I mean the re-usability also depends on the refurbishment that HAS to happen between each flight.  

An airplanes fuel is nice and warm.  A Rockets fuel is both nice and warm (comparatively) and so cold you cant comprehend it (the LOX).  The extreme cold affects metals in weird ways.  But the most noticeable effect is that the metal becomes very brittle.  If the repeated cool down and warm up of the metal starts stressing it too much it might be too expensive on the refurb side to consider flying it again.

The shuttle had the same issue.  It was originally imagined that they could wheel the shuttle into a hangar swap out the payload bay and do some very light work (changing fluids and such) and be wheeled into the VAB within a week for its next flight. the original shuttle idea is below

 

This will be an issue for both SpaceX and ULA and Ariane (if Adeline gets made). 

But how much of that was the fuel, and how much of it was running the shuttle main engines at 105% of their rated maximum thrust every lanch?

 

Edited December 5, 2015 by Rakaydos

[Kryten]

48 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

But how much of that was the fuel, and how much of it was running the shuttle main engines at 105% of their rated maximum thrust every lanch?

 

That's relative to the first versions of the engine, they weren't literally running above specifications. By that same logic SpaceX are screwed, because they're running their engines at 216% compared to those on the first Falcon 1.

[sgt_flyer]

Mmmh, i'm beggining to wonder how much of a burden engines postflight verifications will be.

(Especially if they have to thoroughly check for any damage (including microfractures, cavitation damage, etc)

- even if Ariane's and vulcan's engines are bigger than the merlin's, they will still end up with a much larger amount of tubing, turbopumps & such to check. (Granted, their octaweb designed for ease of assembly will work for them in this case, but still - the same thing allowing them to lower costs (multiplying the number of engines) will end up be more thoroughly an hassle when doing postflight check.

(besides, they'll have to check & fuly purge each of the 9 engines from any remaining fuel)

 

[B787_300]

2 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

But how much of that was the fuel, and how much of it was running the shuttle main engines at 105% of their rated maximum thrust every lanch?

practically none of it was fuel...  fuel costs are very low on almost all missions when compared to the rest of the mission.  They had to scrub many lines on the craft and inspect for damages and they had to take the engines off and check them over, and they had to check the tiles.  there is a lot of work that had to be done.  granted both ULA and SpaceX's re-usability plans are much simpler than the shuttle

[Frozen_Heart]

2 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

But how much of that was the fuel, and how much of it was running the shuttle main engines at 105% of their rated maximum thrust every lanch?

 

For SpaceX it won't be the engine that are the problem. The engines have done a full run twice before they launch anyway.

The problem is the LOX will do bad things to the metal pretty quick and make it extremely brittle.

[fredinno]

On 4/13/2015, 4:32:51, Bill Phil said:

I wonder if they're designing it to use multiple cores, a la Delta IV and Angara?

They intend to make it use a new upper stage aka ACES.

[FishInferno]

On 12/4/2015, 8:35:12, B787_300 said:

I mean the re-usability also depends on the refurbishment that HAS to happen between each flight.  

An airplanes fuel is nice and warm.  A Rockets fuel is both nice and warm (comparatively) and so cold you cant comprehend it (the LOX).  The extreme cold affects metals in weird ways.  But the most noticeable effect is that the metal becomes very brittle.  If the repeated cool down and warm up of the metal starts stressing it too much it might be too expensive on the refurb side to consider flying it again.

The shuttle had the same issue.  It was originally imagined that they could wheel the shuttle into a hangar swap out the payload bay and do some very light work (changing fluids and such) and be wheeled into the VAB within a week for its next flight. the original shuttle idea is below

  

But in actuality there was a LOT of work that needed to be done on the shuttle between each flight, shown below.

This will be an issue for both SpaceX and ULA and Ariane (if Adeline gets made). 

I think that one could make a reasonable argument that both Vulcan and Falcon 9 are simpler machines that the Shuttle.  The Shutle had all those thermal tiles, it supported crew, etc. 

[B787_300]

4 hours ago, FishInferno said:

I think that one could make a reasonable argument that both Vulcan and Falcon 9 are simpler machines that the Shuttle.  The Shutle had all those thermal tiles, it supported crew, etc. 

Oh most certainly but there are still large issues such as Metal Embrittlement

[Bill Phil]

19 hours ago, fredinno said:

They intend to make it use a new upper stage aka ACES.

That's good, yes. But I'm asking if there's a plan for a "Vulcan Heavy" like Delta IV.

[Kryten]

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

That's good, yes. But I'm asking if there's a plan for a "Vulcan Heavy" like Delta IV.

They're making sure they can build it they need it, but it's not planned as such (similar to Atlas heavy). Vulcan with ACES can loft DIVH class payloads already, so there's no real demand for bigger.

[Bill Phil]

1 minute ago, Kryten said:

They're making sure they can build it they need it, but it's not planned as such (similar to Atlas heavy). Vulcan with ACES can loft DIVH class payloads already, so there's no real demand for bigger.

Really? How big is ACES?

[Kryten]

Quite a bit bigger, but you also have to remember the Vulcan booster is both more powerful in itself and able to mount six SRBs.

[Phineas Freak]

On 12/6/2015, 2:50:36, Bill Phil said:

Really? How big is ACES?

The Centaur V holds 20.83 metric tons of propellant and the smallest ACES (ACES 41) will hold 41 metric tons of propellant. Increasing the diameter from 3.05 m to 5 m makes a lot of difference in the tank volume. Length will be varied, depending in the ACES version.

Linky 1
Linky 2

[magnemoe]

On 5.12.2015, 00.13.20, Frozen_Heart said:

For SpaceX it won't be the engine that are the problem. The engines have done a full run twice before they launch anyway.

The problem is the LOX will do bad things to the metal pretty quick and make it extremely brittle.

However this is pretty easy to test, just pump LOX around in it for some days and see how it affect the metal.
Think time standing on pad waiting for launch is more of an issue than flight. 

[davidy12]

So this is what the Vulcan looks like. I like the design, but I'm kind of underwhelmed at vehicle payload. I wasn't expecting SLS Block 2/Saturn V payload, but sort of an intermediate between Falcon Heavy and SLS Block 1, but ≈80,000-100,000 lbs for the heavy version. 

[Bill Phil]

2 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

So this is what the Vulcan looks like. I like the design, but I'm kind of underwhelmed at vehicle payload. I wasn't expecting SLS Block 2/Saturn V payload, but sort of an intermediate between Falcon Heavy and SLS Block 1, but ≈80,000-100,000 lbs for the heavy version. 

That's actually pretty good payload.

[davidy12]

2 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

That's actually pretty good payload.

It's 50,000 lbs for LEO payload for the heavy version. Not much for manned interplanetary purposes. 

Edited December 7, 2015 by davidy12

[Bill Phil]

11 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

It's 50,000 lbs for LEO payload for the heavy version. Not much for manned interplanetary purposes. 

That's not the intent. 50,000 lbs is 25 imperial tons. That's a great payload capacity. It beats Atlas V's maximum of about 20.

[Kryten]

5 hours ago, davidy12 said:

So this is what the Vulcan looks like. I like the design, but I'm kind of underwhelmed at vehicle payload. I wasn't expecting SLS Block 2/Saturn V payload, but sort of an intermediate between Falcon Heavy and SLS Block 1, but ≈80,000-100,000 lbs for the heavy version. 

They don't have a customer that wants that kind of payload; the largest anyone is currently after is Delta-IVH equivalent.

[B787_300]

Plus the Vulcan with the 6 SRBs and ACES will have DIVH mass capability.  There is really no reason to even consider doing a Vulcan Heavy

[FishInferno]

4 hours ago, B787_300 said:

Plus the Vulcan with the 6 SRBs and ACES will have DIVH mass capability.  There is really no reason to even consider doing a Vulcan Heavy

That is, Until SpaceX gets the MCT/BFR online.  Sure, It would be way too overpowered for commercial sats, but it might be better to launch several sats together to save costs.