Falcon Heavy vs Vulcan

[Spaceception]

Which Heavy lift rocket is Better/Cooler in your opinion, and why?

Now lets have a healthy discussion about heavy lift rockets .

By the way, The reason SLS, Delta Heavy, (Or other heavy lift vehicle) Isn't here, is because I wanted to just talk about two really cool rockets that are launching in the near future .

[fredinno]

Vulcan is more practical with a bigger payload fairing and reuability that is at least assured to make ULA break even.

 

Also, this will not end well.

[Scotius]

Paper is a very elastic medium - it can take everything, as the saying goes in Poland. Let's wait until we see both rockets in flight, before we start dividing into fanboying tribes - shall we?

[Frozen_Heart]

To be honest we'll have to wait and see. One or both may not even enter production.

If both rockets work out perfectly I'd say the Falcon Heavy. Much more of the rocket can be reused and it is just the upper stage and fairings that are thrown away.

[Kryten]

Assuming SpaceX actually get reusability running economically, which is a pretty big assumption at this point.

[Delta_8930]

Theoretically, Vulcan with 6 srbs and an ACES will be able to lift more than Delta IV heavy. I kind of like the idea of using LNG/LOX engines for a 5m diameter rocked and having the part where the engines reenter the atmosphere and parachute down to the ocean would be pretty cool. 

[Spaceception]

I personally prefer Falcon Heavy to Vulcan, because they'll be landing the entire first stage and boosters on landing platforms as opposed to Vulcan where they'll only be recovering the Engine block.

[AngelLestat]

Falcon Heavy all the way..  vulcan will be a waste of money, it will have only a few commercial missions before realize that they need to go back to the design table.

[Frozen_Heart]

3 hours ago, Delta_8930 said:

Theoretically, Vulcan with 6 srbs and an ACES will be able to lift more than Delta IV heavy. I kind of like the idea of using LNG/LOX engines for a 5m diameter rocked and having the part where the engines reenter the atmosphere and parachute down to the ocean would be pretty cool. 

Why do you think that? Vulcan looks like it will be a much better design than Atlas or Delta IV. It has a decent payload capacity that can be increase with SRBs and the most expensive part can be reused. That seems like a sound design to me.

(Unless the engines are like the shuttle engines and need months to refurbish and cost more than an entire new launch vehicle to do so)

[Delta_8930]

2 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Why do you think that? Vulcan looks like it will be a much better design than Atlas or Delta IV. It has a decent payload capacity that can be increase with SRBs and the most expensive part can be reused. That seems like a sound design to me.

(Unless the engines are like the shuttle engines and need months to refurbish and cost more than an entire new launch vehicle to do so)

I actually do think Vulcan's reusability design is much more easier to accomplish than FH. All you have to do is catch the engines falling in mid-air, as opposed to FH, where you have to land THREE rocket cores.

[FishInferno]

1 hour ago, Delta_8930 said:

I actually do think Vulcan's reusability design is much more easier to accomplish than FH. All you have to do is catch the engines falling in mid-air, as opposed to FH, where you have to land THREE rocket cores.

Easier? Yes.  More cost-effective? That remains to be seen.

 

I would argue that FH is better, because the refurbishment costs will me much less because SpaceX will have a complete rocket stage ready to go whereas ULA has to build a new rocket using the old engines.

Edited December 6, 2015 by FishInferno

[Delta_8930]

However, I think FH might be more "reliable" than Vulcan since it offers engine-out capability, with 27 Merlin 1D engines firing. If an engine fails on a rocket like Vulcan, it'll definitely be a failure.

Example: Falcon 9 v1.0 had 9 Merlin 1C engines on its first stage. On the CRS-1 flight, an engine exploded, but the rocket was still able to deliver its primary payload to orbit. The Antares rocket had two NK-33 engines on its first stage, and when one of them exploded, the vehicle fell back onto the launch pad.

[Nibb31]

Define "better"

[problemecium]

I didn't even know about the Vulcan until just now, but now that I've looked it up I'm going to vote for Falcon Heavy because I'm not big on disposable boosters. Yes I know that makes me a kerblasphemer. Krucify me ;P

[Spaceception]

1 hour ago, parameciumkid said:

I didn't even know about the Vulcan until just now, but now that I've looked it up I'm going to vote for Falcon Heavy because I'm not big on disposable boosters. Yes I know that makes me a kerblasphemer. Krucify me ;P

Krucify. XD

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, Delta_8930 said:

However, I think FH might be more "reliable" than Vulcan since it offers engine-out capability, with 27 Merlin 1D engines firing. If an engine fails on a rocket like Vulcan, it'll definitely be a failure.

Example: Falcon 9 v1.0 had 9 Merlin 1C engines on its first stage. On the CRS-1 flight, an engine exploded, but the rocket was still able to deliver its primary payload to orbit. The Antares rocket had two NK-33 engines on its first stage, and when one of them exploded, the vehicle fell back onto the launch pad.

ULA has a better track record and higher safety standards.

[FishInferno]

19 hours ago, fredinno said:

ULA has a better track record and higher safety standards.

Look at the Proton: Not very reliable but dirt cheap, and the customers keep coming.  SpaceX could use the same philosophy to their advantage.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, FishInferno said:

Look at the Proton: Not very reliable but dirt cheap, and the customers keep coming.  SpaceX could use the same philosophy to their advantage.

Source?

Most of Russia's launches work out pretty well, historically. Heavily engineered. Proton is probably just outdated. Or some other stuff.

Also, Proton is a pretty cheap (relatively) rocket.

[cantab]

Comparing Falcon Heavy and Vulcan is like comparing apples with drawings of apples. FH is based on the proven Falcon 9 design including its Merlin engines - and with ten Merlins per flight SpaceX gain the advantage of learning a lot about how they operate, faults will show themselves sooner and as mentioned be less serious when they do. While the Falcon Heavy maiden flight has been repeatedly delayed, it's expected early next year.

Vulcan on the other hand is in early development. It's a new first stage. ULA haven't even decided what engine they're going to use yet, there are two candidates. Falcon Heavy is expected to fly before Vulcan's engines even get a full-scale ground test. 2019 at the earliest for a Vulcan launch. And to cap it off Vulcan is being funded quarter-to-quarter - ULA could well cancel it at any time.

True, the Vulcan design may have its advantages. But frankly it better have advantages considering it'll be lucky to fly five years after Falcon Heavy. SLS will probably fly before Vulcan as well.

[Bill Phil]

Falcon heavy is more than just three stages slapped together though... Other problems, previously unknown, may finally show themselves.

[davidy12]

I'd say Falcon Heavy. 117,000lbs vs. ≈55,000 pounds for the Heavy version of Vulcan, there's no contest. 

Also, Falcon Heavy looks way cooler and has many more applications for missions to interplanetary areas.

[Bill Phil]

16 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

I'd say Falcon Heavy. 117,000lbs vs. ≈55,000 pounds for the Heavy version of Vulcan, there's no contest. 

Also, Falcon Heavy looks way cooler and has many more applications for missions to interplanetary areas.

Payload is not the only measurement. It's possible for Vulcan to have a multicore arrangement as well.

And I am still a bit doubtful of that payload estimate. I'm no ULA fanboy, okay. I'm just being realistic. Maybe with crossfeed it's possible.

[FishInferno]

Heck, after Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy are both online, we'll have the capability to send humans around the Moon.  So by 2017 SpaceX could officially surpass NASA in manned spaceflight capability.  If that doesn't make you choose Falcon Heavy I don;t know what will.

 

Granted, there are no official plans for a Dragon/FH lunar mission, but just sayin...

[Bill Phil]

13 minutes ago, FishInferno said:

Heck, after Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy are both online, we'll have the capability to send humans around the Moon.  So by 2017 SpaceX could officially surpass NASA in manned spaceflight capability.  If that doesn't make you choose Falcon Heavy I don;t know what will.

 

Granted, there are no official plans for a Dragon/FH lunar mission, but just sayin...

Any data on Dragon 2 having enough qualifications for lunar flight?

[FishInferno]

29 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Any data on Dragon 2 having enough qualifications for lunar flight?

I know the heatshield is strong enough, not sure about radiation shielding.