ULA's New Rocket - Vulcan Centaur

[TunaBug]

Vulcan rolled out; successful LRR earlier this week.



BS.

An honest evaluation will find that ULA and its owners are 'unwilling to innovate' their launch business simply because they know they can't close the ROI. A company--especially a public company--not spending money on something they know they can't achieve isn't selfish, it's good business practice.

I agree with your overall premise that a publicly traded business has a responsibility to not waste shareholder money. However...

In Boeing's case, their track record over the past several years (737-Max, SLS, Starliner) shows not an unwillingness to innovate, but an actual inability to deliver.

I ULA's case, I think it is natural for them to not innovate because they are a joint venture, and those have a way of being constrained into exactly what they were founded to achieve. Vulcan is more of the same that they were founded to do: launchers. But the quoted article used refueling depots and lunar landers as examples of ULA internal ideas that were shot down, and those are way outside a partnership for launchers. I always found it surprising that ULA is even doing Vulcan: my understanding is that they exist in order to share manufacturing and operational costs between Atlas and Delta, launchers that were "innovated" at Lockheed and Boeing and then gifted to ULA.

That last bit is a long-winded way of saying that ULA could innovate better if it is unshackled from its parents, whether by spinning it off or by selling it.

 

[bxr140]

I always found it surprising that ULA is even doing Vulcan: my understanding is that they exist in order to share manufacturing and operational costs between Atlas and Delta, launchers that were "innovated" at Lockheed and Boeing and then gifted to ULA.

Fair; recall that Vulcan made sense at the time for ULA/B/LMT. Vulcan was absolutely an innovative step to streamline the very similar AV and D4 product lines...one of was so cost prohibitive that only the US government can afford it. Vulcan has just been overcome by events (= the runaway success of F9), for reasons not the least of which are the chasmatic difference in the pace of a large-cap conglomerate with well established (and, like it or not, well proven) corporate policies/practices--not to mention entities whose quarterly/annual priorities are far from rocketry--vs the pace of an unknown private, scrappy, agile, startup, led by a global singularity of motivation, and whose [more or less] singular company priority was building the worlds most cost efficient rocket.

That last bit is a long-winded way of saying that ULA could innovate better if it is unshackled from its parents, whether by spinning it off or by selling it.

Yep, agree on that for sure. From a revenue/keeping the lights on perspective (let alone a profit perspective) the rocket segment is nothing compared to the sum of all the other business units of B and LMT. B & LMT know they can't possibly compete with F9 without fundamentally changing their entire corporate cultures (that have grown them both into $100B+ companies...); the responsible (= the opposite of selfish) thing to do is not try.

An entity whose priority is a cost efficient rocket could really accelerate their product development by acquiring the assets of ULA. Unfortunately most signs point toward Blue being the entity acquiring the assets of ULA, and Blue's motivation doesn't appear to be one of evolution. Their asset set is more forward leaning than ULA's already (the meritt island factory, BE4, reusability, etc) and the salable products (NG and Vulcan) are far too similar. Blue is basically walking into the same problem ULA created Vulcan to get out of...

 

[scaesare]

As is the obsession with the obsession with the karman line…

Fortunately, one doesn't have to be obsessed with something to get a chuckle out of it...

 

[scaesare]

I agree with your overall premise that a publicly traded business has a responsibility to not waste shareholder money. However...

In Boeing's case, their track record over the past several years (737-Max, SLS, Starliner) shows not an unwillingness to innovate, but an actual inability to deliver.

I ULA's case, I think it is natural for them to not innovate because they are a joint venture, and those have a way of being constrained into exactly what they were founded to achieve. Vulcan is more of the same that they were founded to do: launchers. But the quoted article used refueling depots and lunar landers as examples of ULA internal ideas that were shot down, and those are way outside a partnership for launchers. I always found it surprising that ULA is even doing Vulcan: my understanding is that they exist in order to share manufacturing and operational costs between Atlas and Delta, launchers that were "innovated" at Lockheed and Boeing and then gifted to ULA.

That last bit is a long-winded way of saying that ULA could innovate better if it is unshackled from its parents, whether by spinning it off or by selling it.

It seems they tried:

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2014/10/exclusive-ula-plans-a-new-rocket-restructuring-to.html

 

[scaesare]

Fair; recall that Vulcan made sense at the time for ULA/B/LMT. Vulcan was absolutely an innovative step to streamline the very similar AV and D4 product lines...one of was so cost prohibitive that only the US government can afford it. Vulcan has just been overcome by events (= the runaway success of F9), for reasons not the least of which are the chasmatic difference in the pace of a large-cap conglomerate with well established (and, like it or not, well proven) corporate policies/practices--not to mention entities whose quarterly/annual priorities are far from rocketry--vs the pace of an unknown private, scrappy, agile, startup, led by a global singularity of motivation, and whose [more or less] singular company priority was building the worlds most cost efficient rocket.

I wonder how much technology from the previous programs actually was used. I know some tank and stage diameters were originally the same.

But how was Vulcan "overcome" by the F9?

Yep, agree on that for sure. From a revenue/keeping the lights on perspective (let alone a profit perspective) the rocket segment is nothing compared to the sum of all the other business units of B and LMT. B & LMT know they can't possibly compete with F9 without fundamentally changing their entire corporate cultures (that have grown them both into $100B+ companies...); the responsible (= the opposite of selfish) thing to do is not try.

An entity whose priority is a cost efficient rocket could really accelerate their product development by acquiring the assets of ULA. Unfortunately most signs point toward Blue being the entity acquiring the assets of ULA, and Blue's motivation doesn't appear to be one of evolution. Their asset set is more forward leaning than ULA's already (the meritt island factory, BE4, reusability, etc) and the salable products (NG and Vulcan) are far too similar. Blue is basically walking into the same problem ULA created Vulcan to get out of...

Agree it would seem that BO + ULA would not likely result in a more agile organization...

 

[bxr140]

I wonder how much technology from the previous programs actually was used.

Most of V is a port-over or evolution of AV/D4 tech. There’s really very little that’s clean sheetp new beside the first stage motors. That’s why it was such a useful idea—it was theoretically low lift on development, capex, and timeline. (Though, the logic hand waved past the fact that engines are always the long pole in rocket development…)

But how was Vulcan "overcome" by the F9?

Vulcan was publicly announced well before falcon was at full capacity or landing (let alone reflying). While anyone could have taxed years on whatever aspirational timeline ULA set at that point into something more realistic, there was nothing to indicate just how frequent, reliable, and low cost (per mass) falcon was going to be by the time Vulcan was flying.

That’s not to say anyone thought ULA would direct compete on those metrics—general consensus was always that ULA would be satisfied filling the role of a more expensive but gub’ment preferred lifter. Even then it was accepted that a cheaper-than-AV rocket was enough, as it checked the boxes of 1) removing reliance on Russian motors 2) removing the absurdly astronomical D4 price tag and 3) providing American capacity for human lift. There was always going to be the need for more than one DOD launcher, and so even though it was possible SX could become the commercial go-to, someone else was always going to get paid to huck black programs and people into space.

Since then SX has obviously turned the tide on how state/dod missions procure launch service, is the only American launcher that can fly belly buttons, and can (more or less) fly whenever you want to wherever you want with zero concerns on success…and can do so massively cheaper than any existing (and most in-dev) vehicle on an apples-to-apples service comparison.

Hence, “overcome”.

Agree it would seem that BO + ULA would not likely result in a more agile organization...

Blue’s primary motivation in ULA seems to be ensuring the massive revenue steam from BE4s doesn’t evaporate, with likely a heavy dose of a piece of the human rated pie. But…any future agility/innovation from Blue is going to be focused on Blue.

 

[scaesare]

Most of V is a port-over or evolution of AV/D4 tech. There’s really very little that’s clean sheetp new beside the first stage motors. That’s why it was such a useful idea—it was theoretically low lift on development, capex, and timeline. (Though, the logic hand waved past the fact that engines are always the long pole in rocket development…)



Vulcan was publicly announced well before falcon was at full capacity or landing (let alone reflying). While anyone could have taxed years on whatever aspirational timeline ULA set at that point into something more realistic, there was nothing to indicate just how frequent, reliable, and low cost (per mass) falcon was going to be by the time Vulcan was flying.

That’s not to say anyone thought ULA would direct compete on those metrics—general consensus was always that ULA would be satisfied filling the role of a more expensive but gub’ment preferred lifter. Even then it was accepted that a cheaper-than-AV rocket was enough, as it checked the boxes of 1) removing reliance on Russian motors 2) removing the absurdly astronomical D4 price tag and 3) providing American capacity for human lift. There was always going to be the need for more than one DOD launcher, and so even though it was possible SX could become the commercial go-to, someone else was always going to get paid to huck black programs and people into space.

Since then SX has obviously turned the tide on how state/dod missions procure launch service, is the only American launcher that can fly belly buttons, and can (more or less) fly whenever you want to wherever you want with zero concerns on success…and can do so massively cheaper than any existing (and most in-dev) vehicle on an apples-to-apples service comparison.

Hence, “overcome”.



Blue’s primary motivation in ULA seems to be ensuring the massive revenue steam from BE4s doesn’t evaporate, with likely a heavy dose of a piece of the human rated pie. But…any future agility/innovation from Blue is going to be focused on Blue.

Sounds like SLS trying to re-use a bunch of shuttle stuff to trim development time/$$$ only to do neither.

Gotcha, I had thought you meant Vulcan was "overcome" in the sense that it's development was negatively impacted by F9, but I see what you mean... moreso in the sense of being overtaken schedule-wise.

If Jeffrey is buying ULA so he has a use for his engines... wow. Given that they are already the primary engine, and as you say, engines are big effort items, it would seem unlikely they'd switch away from the BE-4... unless they just don't work (well).

(and I definitely chuckled at "flying belly buttons")

 

[Grendal]

 

[Mike1080i]

Here's the ULA stream link... wonder if they'll toss in a Kármán line reference?

 

[ecarfan]

I’m glad that the first Vulcan launch was a success. But I found the viewing experience to be boring; low quality video from the first stage, no video from the second stage, and of course no booster landing. There really was very little to see.

Regardless, congratulations to ULA for a successful mission.

 

[scaesare]

Congrats to both ULA on Vulcan and B.O. for the BE-4 for what looked to be a flawless launch...

I know we often look at things through a SpaceX-centric lens here and often criticize (hopefully reasonably objectively), but it's honestly good to have additional launch capability in the marketplace.

Even if @Mike1080i and I may have lost this round of Kármán bingo...


ON EDIT: Oh and I forgot to mention I found this ULA Article by Berger interesting from a historical perspective... for instance I wasn't aware that:

To ensure it had redundant access to space on two different rocket families, the military stepped in and arranged a shotgun marriage. The Department of Defense brokered a deal in which Lockheed and Boeing would merge their rocket-building ventures into one company, United Launch Alliance, in 2005.

 

[JB47394]

Even if @Mike1080i and I may have lost this round of Kármán bingo...

You bet against them mentioning the Karman line?

The BE-4s ran like troopers, so it looks like they've got a good engine design. Congratulations to Blue Origin and ULA. Brutal launch timing for the launch team, and it's a shame that solid rocket boosters are involved because they completely dominate the launch video. Seeing those animations of the launch when the video dropped out certainly brought back memories of old Gemini and Apollo media coverage.

 

[scaesare]

You bet against them mentioning the Karman line?

The BE-4s ran like troopers, so it looks like they've got a good engine design. Congratulations to Blue Origin and ULA. Brutal launch timing for the launch team, and it's a shame that solid rocket boosters are involved because they completely dominate the launch video. Seeing those animations of the launch when the video dropped out certainly brought back memories of old Gemini and Apollo media coverage.

Lol... no I was trying to say that I lost when they didn't say it (implying I had bet they would...) at least I didn't hear it... which thought I would have because, you know, I'm obsessed with them saying it...

When the SRB's cut off, it took a moment for the camera exposure to adjust. it's exposure so you could actually see the BE-4's still burning... although admittedly methane in the upper atmosphere is rather dim....

 

[Grendal]

Congrats to both ULA on Vulcan and B.O. for the BE-4 for what looked to be a flawless launch...

Even if @Mike1080i and I may have lost this round of Kármán bingo...

They did mention the Karman line during the launch at 4:15 into the launch.

 

[scaesare]

They did mention the Karman line during the launch at 4:15 into the launch.

 

[JB47394]

although admittedly methane in the upper atmosphere is rather dim....

I'm sure the back end of a Vulcan is bright as a star while those engines are running, and they just didn't have the right exposure. They'll tune the presentation as they get more experience.

 

[Electroman]

They did mention the Karman line during the launch at 4:15 into the launch.

Here you go...

 

[Electroman]

Absolutely zero telemetry shown in the telecast.

Was surprised to see it only reached 17 miles in altitude after 2:15 into flight? Whereas with F9 you are close to 70 to 80 miles at altitude at T+2:30 at MECO.

 

[JB47394]

Was surprised to see it only reached 17 miles in altitude after 2:15 into flight?

Falcon 9 and Vulcan (with 2 SRBs) have similar thrust:weight ratios (TWR), so I'm guessing that they flew a flatter trajectory. It may have to do with the SRBs, but I'm just guessing.

Does anyone know if Delta or Atlas were as aggressive in moving away from the launch tower as Vulcan was? Vulcan canted over right out of the gate, and was well off-center in the lightning protection ring as it passed. I wonder if they got a slight timing error on starting the two SRBs.

Edit: Given the light weight of the payload, I suspect that the BE-4s were throttled back so as to keep the correct flight profile. Certainly through max-Q. Perhaps for the entire first stage flight.

 

[JB47394]

Not Vulcan news, but I didn't want to start a new thread just to report that the Peregrine lander, the Vulcan's first mission, looks likely to be a write-off. They had some issues right out of the gate and are now doubtful that they'll be able to land on the moon. They'll still do science and robotics stuff with Peregrine, but landing is unlikely.