tater Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 So that behaviour wasn't expected then. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 STP-3 was scheduled for June 23, BTW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 I think in that particular exchange there is a misunderstanding of language. As far as all of us outside ULA are concerned, SPT-3 is indeed "indefinitely delayed." If ULA pushed the launchdate from June 23 to NET July17th (made up), then we'd just say it was delayed. Until they get a new date published, it is definitionally "indefinite." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 5, 2021 Author Share Posted June 5, 2021 Regarding the delay and impact on OFT-2, they are still supposed to go the end of July. The trick will be getting SPT-3 out of the way so they can stack OFT-2 and start a launch campaign. The initial spacing was ~5 weeks. if SPT-3 is delayed even a week, the question is how fast can they get OFT-2 ready to use the same pad. OFT-2 is time constrained because of port issues at ISS, and their schedule must include chances for summer scrubs (weather). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 10, 2021 Author Share Posted June 10, 2021 Looks like they are going to swap the order of launches to keep OFT-2 on schedule. I wasn't aware that was an option with the way they stack. Cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FleshJeb Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 Slightly off-topic, but I'm deeply amused: https://twitter.com/torybrunosteeth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 14, 2021 Author Share Posted June 14, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 17, 2021 Author Share Posted June 17, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 21, 2021 Author Share Posted June 21, 2021 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-222.pdf First launch already delayed to 2022, and of course SpaceX already flew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 Well played, Tory. On the "serious" counterfactual side, 2 Raptors won't quite cut it for Vulcan, but of course they are smaller, and less expensive, so I guess they could use 3. (and Elon also said sure to the tour) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXBLOX Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 That's hilarious. It's kinda fun to watch the bigwigs talk to each other. It makes them feel more human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Pretty sure Raptor could do the job from a *performance* perspective. The *slightly*lower thrust can be compensated by SRBs on takeoff and the *much* higher ISP of the Raptor would then more than make up for it. <327s for BE-4 Vs 350s for Raptor at SL. But you can't just mix and match rocket engines, even with similar fuels and performance values. It'd take an extensive redesign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 30, 2021 Author Share Posted June 30, 2021 2 hours ago, RCgothic said: Pretty sure Raptor could do the job from a *performance* perspective. The *slightly*lower thrust can be compensated by SRBs on takeoff and the *much* higher ISP of the Raptor would then more than make up for it. <327s for BE-4 Vs 350s for Raptor at SL. But you can't just mix and match rocket engines, even with similar fuels and performance values. It'd take an extensive redesign. Raptor is physically smaller, you could put 3 and throttle them down a little. Vulcan pathfinder ^^^ Obviously would take a lot of redesign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Yes, with 3 the core stage might as well be stretched as well. But I believe 2 would work well enough, outside perhaps the very lightest and heaviest payloads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 30, 2021 Author Share Posted June 30, 2021 25 minutes ago, RCgothic said: Yes, with 3 the core stage might as well be stretched as well. But I believe 2 would work well enough, outside perhaps the very lightest and heaviest payloads. Actually, it's interesting. ULA is talking about SMART reuse, which requires that that whole engine segment on the bottom (white with red hatch) detaches via some quick release. The plumbing inside that segment could vary as long as the interface with the tank remains the same—so that engine segment could potentially be swapped—though of course the operating pressures, allowable rate of flow, etc might not be compatible with Raptor. Not that it's going to happen, because SpaceX is not selling engines. I do wonder if it's possible to design a LV that is engine agnostic within some range of engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Hmm, a stretched Vulcan with three Raptors and a full complement of SRBs, topped by a 5m Centaur V: "Where do you want to go today?" Superheavy: "Hold my LN2..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 3 hours ago, tater said: I do wonder if it's possible to design a LV that is engine agnostic within some range of engines. With enough money thrown at it, sure its possible, but I don't think anyone would be able to profit off of it, so as a practical idea, I don't see anyone putting money into R + D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 7, 2021 Author Share Posted July 7, 2021 https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/increasingly-the-ula-blue-origin-marriage-is-an-unhappy-one/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 9, 2021 Author Share Posted July 9, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FleshJeb Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 An almost hour-long interview with Tory Bruno. Between the Tortoise and the Hare, I'm putting my money on the Tortoise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 27, 2021 Author Share Posted July 27, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 They refer to it as "ULS" in the document. Anyway, besides the redacted bit, I learned that ULS's price was "substantially higher" than SpaceX's $178M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 27, 2021 Author Share Posted July 27, 2021 24 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: They refer to it as "ULS" in the document. Anyway, besides the redacted bit, I learned that ULS's price was "substantially higher" than SpaceX's $178M. Odd that knowing the cost of a FH launch at least roughly they would bid an unproven vehicle for substantially more money, and on top of that a variant or at least optimized version they don’t even have specced out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.