United Launch Alliance (ULA) Vulcan Next Generation Launch System (NGLS)

Josh_TN said:
Reusable does not matter; cost does. Vulcan is actually quite cost effective for high altitude, heavy payloads. It isn’t the way forward for exploring the solar system but it fills an important niche for DoD.
Click to expand...
As our space capabilities expand, Vulcan’s viable niches will shrink - partial reuse presently offers an order of magnitude more flights, and it’s reasonable to expect full reuse will add another order of magnitude on top of that. Paired with space tugs and orbital refueling (from Eta Space, Blue, SpaceX, Orbit Fab, Stoke, and more), payloads needing high-energy trajectories will have a plethora of cheap options. The companies reusing hardware can amortize costs to a degree ULA won’t be able to match unless they also pursue reuse.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
As our space capabilities expand, Vulcan’s viable niches will shrink - partial reuse presently offers an order of magnitude more flights, and it’s reasonable to expect full reuse will add another order of magnitude on top of that. Paired with space tugs and orbital refueling (from Eta Space, Blue, SpaceX, Orbit Fab, Stoke, and more), payloads needing high-energy trajectories will have a plethora of cheap options. The companies reusing hardware can amortize costs to a degree ULA won’t be able to match unless they also pursue reuse.
Click to expand...
Throw in Relativity and Rocket Labs as well. Both are going for reuse.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
As our space capabilities expand, Vulcan’s viable niches will shrink - partial reuse presently offers an order of magnitude more flights, and it’s reasonable to expect full reuse will add another order of magnitude on top of that. Paired with space tugs and orbital refueling (from Eta Space, Blue, SpaceX, Orbit Fab, Stoke, and more), payloads needing high-energy trajectories will have a plethora of cheap options. The companies reusing hardware can amortize costs to a degree ULA won’t be able to match unless they also pursue reuse.
Click to expand...

Currently Falcon 9 does not have Vulcans lift without being expended, and Falcon Heavy is in another cost range than Falcon 9…and to date they have never recovered the central core anyway and seemed to have given up trying to. So for anything heavy/high enough to be outside the range of F9s recoverable weight, Vulcan is probably fairly cost competitive. That is mostly a DoD niche, which is exactly what it was designed for, but it has a reasonable price for those missions and a lot of flexibility in its thrust output given the strap on booster options. Other options may manifest, but they are not here now.

That said I think it’s fair to say Vulcan is a technological dead end, though it hardly is unique in that regard - see Ankara, Ariane 5, CZ-5, etc. the big difference as I see it is the U.S. defense market is big enough to keep Vulcan very busy for at least a decade, where as the other types likely see little use.
 
The range of missions where F9 is not capable enough, and FH is not cheaper, comparable in price, or simply more available, but Vulcan is all of these things, is not large. ULA got the Amazon order because they were one of the few existing launch providers, and just as with DoD missions, by 2030 they’ll be facing six or seven competitors, not one. It’s not the present they need to worry about, as they have a sizable order book. It’s future launches such as NSSL-4, Amazon’s next tranches, the SDA proliferated constellation, the small but growing fields of asteroid mining and orbital manufacturing, where their focus should be. In LEO they aren’t competitive on cost, just presently experience and (somewhat) availability, and for cheap deep space missions like what AstroForge is trying, they’re even less competitive (AstroForge first bought rideshares on CLPS missions, and now has three upcoming flights on Stoke’s Nova - something that on a purely technical basis could be a good fit for Vulcan).

Re: NSSL-3, SpaceX got the plurality of orders, and Blue took a large chunk of Lane 2, whereas once ULA got the majority, and before that, all of them. The long-term (orders starting 10-15 years from now) trendline for the company is, in my opinion, downward. I agree, Vulcan, A6, etc. are the last gasp of prominent expendable vehicles. The mindsets that built them were shaped by a different era where cost took second or third place at best, and to me it’s an open question if their creators can transition to a reusable age effectively.
 
Not for some years, no. But they’ll become increasingly niche, just as no one buys an expendable bus, car, or plane unless they have extremely specific needs.
 
Upper stages for probes look to always be expendable...unless you want a nuclear deal to swing past Jupiter and back home if trajectories permit.
 
Something to consider with regards to cost. For Project Kuiper, Falcon 9 carries 24 sats while Vulcan Centaur carries 45. As a result, the cost per sat is pretty similar for both launch vehicles. With a Falcon 9 costing about $70 million total per flight, Vulcan VC6 just needs to come it at about $131 million to match Falcon 9. And as far as I can tell it does, at least for commercial launchs.
 
Last edited:
BlueAbyssal said:
Not for some years, no. But they’ll become increasingly niche, just as no one buys an expendable bus, car, or plane unless they have extremely specific needs.
Click to expand...

Vulcan was built for that niche; it’s a DoD focused platform. They will have orders for over a decade just doing that. And they are relatively cost effective in that niche: again, compare it to a fully expended F9 or FH, and the gap closes a fair amount. I think we all agree it is a dead end in the long run, but it seems perfectly likely it could reach a hundred launches, which is pretty respectable. I suspect compared to any other expendable that entered service in the last decade it will see more service.

We are probably over a decade from general reusable rockets being mainstream. Reusable rockets are basically F9 now, with a half dozen Chinese and American companies hot their heels, and I believe one Japanese company just succeeded once. The PRC still runs most every series of rocket it ever made, with CZ-2/3/4 still having higher cadences then newer government designs which are already hopelessly obsolescent. The Russians and Europeans are a decade away from reusing anything; both just got their flagship rocket working only to see it even more expensive than Vulcan, let alone F9.

It’s worth noting new expendables are still coming to market, like Antares 300. At the end of the day cost matters more than reusability. And for China, catching up in cadence matters more than cost - I suspect they will be running every currently active rocket line for a decade, even the hypergolics, trying to meet US launch rates as ever more competitive systems come online. And Vulcan will play a modest role in jacking up that cadence rate, even if it’s a dead end technology.
 
NCQ said:
Something to consider with regards to cost. For Project Kuiper, Falcon 9 carries 24 sats while Vulcan Centaur carries 45. As a result, the cost per sat is pretty similar for both launch vehicles. With a Falcon 9 costing about $70 million total per flight, Vulcan VC6 just needs to come it at about $131 million to match Falcon 9. And as far as I can tell it does, at least for commercial launchs.
Click to expand...
Cost isn’t price. As SpaceX doesn’t yet have real pricing pressure, we don’t know how low their external prices to customers can go, but their internal cost for an F9 launch is estimated at around $15 million, so a bit more than a fifth the figure you list. Were Amazon inclined to buy many launches from SpaceX, they could likely get a bulk discount too.
 
Josh_TN said:
Vulcan was built for that niche; it’s a DoD focused platform. They will have orders for over a decade just doing that. And they are relatively cost effective in that niche: again, compare it to a fully expended F9 or FH, and the gap closes a fair amount. I think we all agree it is a dead end in the long run, but it seems perfectly likely it could reach a hundred launches, which is pretty respectable. I suspect compared to any other expendable that entered service in the last decade it will see more service.
Click to expand...
Sure, and that’s a decreasing fraction of the market. As I said, current Kuiper demand and NSSL-3 isn’t where they’ll have issues - it’s when bids for their successors start that ULA will have more to worry about. They’re already facing four competitors for NSSL-3 Lane One. They’re also unable to compete in the way Rocket Lab and SpaceX can at offering both launch and satellites.
Josh_TN said:
We are probably over a decade from general reusable rockets being mainstream. Reusable rockets are basically F9 now, with a half dozen Chinese and American companies hot their heels, and I believe one Japanese company just succeeded once. The PRC still runs most every series of rocket it ever made, with CZ-2/3/4 still having higher cadences then newer government designs which are already hopelessly obsolescent. The Russians and Europeans are a decade away from reusing anything; both just got their flagship rocket working only to see it even more expensive than Vulcan, let alone F9.
Click to expand...
In turn, I’d argue that partial reuse is already an industry norm from the standpoint of flight rate - a single rocket type flew more than all others combined last year. Honda flew a test hopper - whether they turn it into a real rocket, who knows? But yes, I think expendables have a good ten or so years of life left of prominence - I said something similar in my previous comment. That’s why I will again note that I’m speaking of what comes after the present series of launches. What happens in 2035 when a Vulcan that maybe has SMART reuse, if that, is facing Nova, Terran R, Eclipse, Neutron, F9, FH, Starship, a plethora of tugs, and multiple refueling options on orbit? How does ULA differentiate themselves in tangible ways?
Josh_TN said:
It’s worth noting new expendables are still coming to market, like Antares 300. At the end of the day cost matters more than reusability. And for China, catching up in cadence matters more than cost - I suspect they will be running every currently active rocket line for a decade, even the hypergolics, trying to meet US launch rates as ever more competitive systems come online. And Vulcan will play a modest role in jacking up that cadence rate, even if it’s a dead end technology.
Click to expand...
Yes, the traditional primes and their overseas competitors are still operating in a much more constrained environment when it comes to rocket design. My prediction is that Vulcan will manage perhaps half the to-date lifetime flight rate of F9 before it ends, as ULA will be under enormous pressure on pricing, performance, accuracy, payload, and with much less room to respond than companies with reusable vehicles, end-to-end services, etc.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
My prediction is that Vulcan will manage perhaps half the to-date lifetime flight rate of F9 before it ends, as ULA will be under enormous pressure on pricing, performance, accuracy, payload, and with much less room to respond than companies with reusable vehicles, end-to-end services, etc.
Click to expand...
ULA does better in these areas.
 
They do currently, but I am not writing about the present; rather, about the post-2035 timeframe. ULA doesn’t offer both launch services and payloads together, which is what I am referring to by end-to-end. Rocket Lab, for example, can sell a customer a launch, a satellite, a hosted payload, or some combination of the above.
 
ULA can bid on contracts and tell Lockheed and Boeing to build a satellite to suit?
 
From what I understand, a lot of former USAF men joined The Aerospace Corporation…not exactly EELV critics.

Vulcan is made in the Delta IV plant.

While SLS, Britt and Tubby are the most visible targets New Spacers go after— ULA has a lot more friends…just of the more silent types who know how to close ranks.

Spooks love them hydrolox upper stages.
Stoke and SpaceX working together is their only real threat.
 
Josh_TN said:
Is there some reason both could not be contracted if anyone felt a need for that service?
Click to expand...
Starshield is an excellent example of something like this happening - SpaceX doesn’t sell just one or the other, it’s a package deal. Rocket Lab has launched payloads they’ve designed and built for other customers (for example, CAPSTONE), and it’s clear from their acquisitions that they intend to expand that capability. Yes, a customer could contract a Lockheed-built satellite launched by ULA, but my point is that ULA cannot offer that service the way Rocket Lab and SpaceX can. ULA’s business is carried solely by its rocket(s). RL and SX have a bigger available market.
 
Last edited:
Rocket Lab looks to have less problems with politics, certainly. Folks in uniform are often quite staid. Relationships have been built up—all very cozy.

They look at New Space the way some coaches look at a running back with a 4.4 40…but has never really been hit. Things often look better on paper. One of the toughest things a coach can do is to change a school’s identity.

Take Mississippi State…a school that seems content in not being in National contention. They’d rather be known as the school that puts half the other guys players on the DL.

Despite ULA being in Decatur—they are Mississippi State…except they have a much better won/loss ratio. Ew space? Sun belt.

Nozzle blows out? No biggie—Centaur will git’er dun.

Centaur V is Johnny Unitas.

You give a golden arm to an SEC three-inches-and-a-cloud-of-dust TRADITION—that’s ULA.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
From what I understand, a lot of former USAF men joined The Aerospace Corporation…not exactly EELV critics.

Vulcan is made in the Delta IV plant.

While SLS, Britt and Tubby are the most visible targets New Spacers go after— ULA has a lot more friends…just of the more silent types who know how to close ranks.

Spooks love them hydrolox upper stages.
Stoke and SpaceX working together is their only real threat.
Click to expand...
That is what you think, but it isn't what reality is. All unsubstantiated. You really reaching for straws. You have no connections and industry knowledge to base this on.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Starshield is an excellent example of something like this happening - SpaceX doesn’t sell just one or the other, it’s a package deal.
Click to expand...
not true. DOD keeps satellite and launch service procurement separate. they don't buy "Starshield".
 
publiusr said:
Rocket Lab looks to have less problems with politics, certainly. Folks in uniform are often quite staid. Relationships have been built up—all very cozy.

They look at New Space the way some coaches look at a running back with a 4.4 40…but has never really been hit. Things often look better on paper. One of the toughest things a coach can do is to change a school’s identity.
Click to expand...
Again, that is not reality, only what you think.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Not what I’m getting at. I’m talking from the seller’s perspective, not the buyer’s.
Click to expand...
ULA was prevented from satellite business in its formation. Also, even before the creation of ULA, Boeing, OSC and LM had to put firewalls up between their satellite groups and launch vehicle groups. Also, buyers still can do turnkey and buy a satellite and have the satellite manufacturer buy the launch service.
 
Sure. My original point remains: Rocket Lab and SpaceX have larger addressable markets than ULA. I think it’s a shame the latter has so often been unable to expand its offerings, thanks to the company’s owners, but that is what Bruno has to deal with.
 
Outside of Musk and Bezos—most space advocates operate under the thumbs of dullards in suits—be they dress blues with brass or Armani labels.
 
publiusr said:
Outside of Musk and Bezos—most space advocates operate under the thumbs of dullards in suits—be they dress blues with brass or Armani labels.
Click to expand...
Again, unsubstantiated and incorrect.
a. Space industry worker does not equate to space "advocates". Most industry workers are there for just the paycheck.
b. Most space "advocates" are just keyboard jockeys and are not in the industry and have no experience or real knowledge of the industry
c. posting to forums and doing nothing else does not make one a space "advocates".
d. you haven't worked in the industry so you wouldn't know who if anyone is under any thumbs. But then again since Huntsville is the center of your universe, that's what working at Marshall must be like.
 
Last edited:
BlueAbyssal said:
Sure. My original point remains: Rocket Lab and SpaceX have larger addressable markets than ULA. I think it’s a shame the latter has so often been unable to expand its offerings, thanks to the company’s owners, but that is what Bruno has to deal with.
Click to expand...
not really, since LM and Boeing are in those larger markets and ULA is part of them.
 
But ULA doesn’t profit directly from satellite sales and can’t use them to buttress its financials. Your argument is sensible if argued from LM’s or Boeing’s perspective, as they do reap the profit of ULA’s labor.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
But ULA doesn’t profit directly from satellite sales and can’t use them to buttress its financials. Your argument is sensible if argued from LM’s or Boeing’s perspective, as they do reap the profit of ULA’s labor.
Click to expand...
ULA is just a "wholly owned" subsidiary of Boeing and LM. LM with its ownership of Astrotech can provide cradle to grave services. Boeing can do the same with Starliner or X-37 processing facilities.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Yes, Lockheed and Boeing have far more flexibility than ULA does.
Click to expand...
You are comparing apples and oranges. You keep thinking ULA as a standalone entity. But it is just a part of two large aerospace companies. No different than before when there was Boeing Commercial Launch Services and LM Commercial Launch Services/ILS. And they didn't build satellites or integrate instruments onto satellite buses. ULA is just like the Falcon 9 program but without Dragon or Starlink.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1971182908011332057
View: https://twitter.com/LMSpace/status/1971182908011332057


Positioning, Navigation & Timing: GPS III/IIIF Satellites [Sep 25]

GPS III SV09, the ninth GPS III space vehicle, designed and built by Lockheed Martin shipped from Colorado to Florida

Guided every mile by the very system it will soon strengthen, GPS III SV09 trekked from Denver, CO to the Space Coast in Florida and is another step toward advancing the constellation that over 6 billion users rely on every day. Every satellite added to the constellation increases resilience, accuracy and sucure access for both the warfighter and civilian users worldwide. Engineered to endure everything from space weather and radiation to cyber and kinetic threats to nuclear effects, these satellites continue to outperform expectations.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom