News Vulcan: ULA's Next Generation Launcher

[Cosmic Penguin]

It's Vulcan! As guessed earlier they are going to return the first stage engines mid air and re-use them. :hmm:

 

[Kyle]

It's Vulcan! As guessed earlier they are going to return the first stage engines mid air and re-use them. :hmm:

Wait what? How does that work? :blink:

 

[Star Voyager]

Inflatable heat shield and parachutes.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Wait what? How does that work? :blink:

 

[Kyle]

Thanks, I'd be lost without graphics :lol:

 

[boogabooga]

It seems to me that ULA has a plan to be slightly less innovative a few years in the future than SpaceX is right now...literally today (well, literally tomorrow due to weather).

Well, actually detaching the engine from the booster is nothing new for Atlas, essentially they are going back to 1958 except this time with a ballute.

In other news, ULA plans to enter the commercial launch market, as it seems to no longer think it can survive as a government launch provider only. Except that they are still tight lipped about their business plan... but they have a plan to make a plan.

I am a little confused about their advanced upper stage concept..what exactly is distributed launch?

 

[Urwumpe]

I am a little confused about their advanced upper stage concept..what exactly is distributed launch?

Your satellite, distributed evenly in small parts over the Atlantic Ocean? :lol:

 

[Andy44]

I am a little confused about their advanced upper stage concept..what exactly is distributed launch?

LOL Urwumpe.

I'm guessing maybe it's multiple satellites delivered to different orbits from one restartable upper stage? Speculation on my part.

The idea of recovering engines is not new, some people have brought it up here on OF from time to time. I always wondered how you'd protect the delicate machinery from corrosive seawater, but I never thought of a mid-air recovery. Neat idea, will be interesting to see how it develops.

 

[fsci123]

It seems to me that ULA has a plan to be slightly less innovative a few years in the future than SpaceX is right now...literally today (well, literally tomorrow due to weather).

I disagree, this is at least pretty competitive, if not as innovative than spacex. Because they don't have to fly the whole booster back down they should have more space for fuel and cargo.

A+ in my opinion.

Does anyone have any PDFs on this announcement.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

Here's a picture for those interested

 

[RGClark]

Did they mention what its payload capability would be?

Bob Clark

The sorting hat is about to make a choice....

 

[Pipcard]

The sorting hat is about to make a choice....

So that's what the Zeus and GalaxyOne logos would have looked like.

 

[boogabooga]

They said it would be highly scalable depending on the solids from a Atlas V 401 equivalent all the way up to Delta Heavy range.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

I'm glad they kept the pointy bit at the top of the rocket, that's my favorite feature :rofl:

Seriously, this is an interesting concept. No fuel or performance penalty for flyback, no crazy hypersonic control gymnastics required. It's not very exotic or sexy, but it does look like it would get the job done, perhaps even more robustly than SpaceX fly-back. The only part I don't like is that you have engines that are designed to separate from the stage. It would obviously be bad for this to happen any time during the boost phase, but I imagine there are more difficult engineering problems to cope with and it does not seem like a potential show-stopper.

It all comes down to the cost to refurb the stages. If SpaceX can routinely land a completely reusable stage, basically getting it back in "gas and go" condition, they'll win out. However, if ULA can routinely get their engines back intact and SpaceX discovers that they tend to ding up their tanks (which seems possible, maybe probable), this becomes a very tight competition.

I'm a little worried about SpaceX trying to compete with an organization that is already tightly affixed to the U.S. government teat. Even if SpaceX is technologically on par or even slightly superior to ULA, ULA and the gubmint are tight, maybe too tight.

Anyway, it's cool to see these things being attempted vs. tossing out a perfectly good rocket after every launch. That's like me buying a Porsche daily and driving it to work and back and then having it crushed for scrap at the end of the day (I don't do this and don't recommend it).

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

I'm glad they kept the pointy bit at the top of the rocket, that's my favorite feature :rofl:

Seriously, this is an interesting concept. No fuel or performance penalty for flyback, no crazy hypersonic control gymnastics required. It's not very exotic or sexy, but it does look like it would get the job done, perhaps even more robustly than SpaceX fly-back. The only part I don't like is that you have engines that are designed to separate from the stage. It would obviously be bad for this to happen any time during the boost phase, but I imagine there are more difficult engineering problems to cope with and it does not seem like a potential show-stopper.

It all comes down to the cost to refurb the stages. If SpaceX can routinely land a completely reusable stage, basically getting it back in "gas and go" condition, they'll win out. However, if ULA can routinely get their engines back intact and SpaceX discovers that they tend to ding up their tanks (which seems possible, maybe probable), this becomes a very tight competition.

I'm a little worried about SpaceX trying to compete with an organization that is already tightly affixed to the U.S. government teat. Even if SpaceX is technologically on par or even slightly superior to ULA, ULA and the gubmint are tight, maybe too tight.

Anyway, it's cool to see these things being attempted vs. tossing out a perfectly good rocket after every launch. That's like me buying a Porsche daily and driving it to work and back and then having it crushed for scrap at the end of the day (I don't do this and don't recommend it).

You probably have forgotten the original "stage-and-a-half" Atlas? It sheds the booster engine in exactly the same way and I have never heard of an engine package separation failure in its 500+ flights spanning from 1957 to 2004. So I don't think that's a big issue....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emmeil-0u5k"]Vulcan: America's Next Generation Launch System - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Unstung]

What elements of Vulcan come from the Delta IV? The new rocket seems to be developed only from the Atlas family.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

What elements of Vulcan come from the Delta IV? The new rocket seems to be developed only from the Atlas family.

First stage tanks will be based on the Delta IV first stage using common tooling.

 

[boogabooga]

Well, if you don't like the name, there is probably going to be a lawsuit:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-satellite-launcher-gets-first-request-vulcan-rocket-023840078--finance.html

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Well, if you don't like the name, there is probably going to be a lawsuit:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-satellite-launcher-gets-first-request-vulcan-rocket-023840078--finance.html

Can't see Paul Allen winning this one - Vulcan Aerospace got its name because it's a subsidiary of his own investment/think tank company Vulcan Inc.. The two things have nothing in common and I can't see trademark problems with that either.

Here are the different variants of Vulcan "Block I" with 4 and 5 meter wide fairings:

 

[Andy44]

Well, somebody somewhere has already done the meshwork for ULA...would be nice to get our hands it.

 

[orbitingpluto]

Apparently the ULA is starting early to certify Vulcan for military payloads.