News Vulcan: ULA's Next Generation Launcher

[K_Jameson]

There's already a Phantom II;

This is what I meant talking about "the most successful aircraft in modern history"

 

[RGClark]

The reason I cast my 120 votes for GalaxyOne were because:
A. Anyone with a space program sized budget that can't make an online poll that only allows one vote deserves to have the cheesiest name win.
B. The company that seriously considers GalaxyOne enough to put it on a three option ballot should be required to use that name as retribution :lol:
also, no offense intended here, GalaxyOne is just a laughable option IMHO.
@Pipcard: Somehow, Galaxy I does seem quite a bit better.
My personal reason for disliking GalaxyOne: as you said... LauncherOne, SpaceshipOne, XboxOne

:thumbup:

Anyone have info on what it's actually supposed to look like?

Bob Clark

 

[fraxudemspas]

GalaxyOne sounds like a new cellphone from a Chinese knock-off company. "Eagle" and "Freedom" are both ridiculously US-nationalistic, "Freedom" maybe more so, so I voted for it, because I want to see the US launch Freedom in the form of a gigantic phallic metal rod penetrating the atmosphere.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

To steer the topic more towards the rocket design, here's a good guess of what the rocket will be: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/nglv.html

Full info is expected to be announced in mid-April.

 

[Pipcard]

Compare with this proposed Atlas V evolution plan:

It seems that the only difference is that the stages (except for the Centaur in the NGLS-M) have been widened to be the same width as the 5-meter fairing.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Compare with this proposed Atlas V evolution plan:

It seems that the only difference is that the core stage has been widened to be the same width as the 5-meter fairing.

...and of course with a new methane powered 1st stage engine from Blue Origin. :tiphat:

 

[MaverickSawyer]

...and of course with a new methane powered 1st stage engine from Blue Origin. :tiphat:

Good to see that the Aerojet solids are still a part of the program.

 

[orbitingpluto]

This is what I meant talking about "the most successful aircraft in modern history"

Urwumpe proposed naming the rocket after the the Thunderbolt II, incrementing the number after the name one higher(Thunderbolt III), and I assumed your doing something similar, but forgot about the Phantom I. My fault there, seeing what happens after assuming things.

 

[Pipcard]

I remember a post by Hyperion5 on the NASASpaceflight forum which was about naming a methane/LOX-based rocket "Neptune" (not to be confused with the fictional Italian rocket add-on)

 

[Andy44]

Since it looks like a fatter Atlas V at first glance, I propose the name "Fatlas".

Any questions? No? Good.

 

[statickid]

FatlasOne

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Since it looks like a fatter Atlas V at first glance, I propose the name "Fatlas".

Any questions? No? Good.

Since it's an Atlas V derivative, I propose Atlas VI. :shrug:

No need to be fancy. Just call it what it is.

 

[Urwumpe]

Since it looks like a fatter Atlas V at first glance, I propose the name "Fatlas".

Any questions? No? Good.

You can't say fat, that's not PC. So after the committee on hygienic language is done with your proposal, its:

ObeseLassOne.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

With SRBs on it should it be MorbidlyObeseLass?

Seriously though, those guys actually get paid to come up with names like that? There's tons of mythological and classic Greek/Roman names. This was the best 3 they could come up with?

All the more names available when you get into Native American (I include all the Americas in that category), Far Eastern, SE Asia, etc...

Windigo! Hey how about that? Windigo.

If they don't use it Phantom Mfg is claiming it.

 

[RGClark]

http://i.imgur.com/faiMxqM.jpg[/
Compare with this proposed Atlas V evolution plan:
[IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/2rzsao7.jpg
It seems that the only difference is that the stages (except for the Centaur in the NGLS-M) have been widened to be the same width as the 5-meter fairing.

Thanks for that. Looks like it would use two RD-180 engines on the first stage. What would be the payload capability?

Bob Clark

 

[Pipcard]

Thanks for that. Looks like it would use two RD-180 engines on the first stage. What would be the payload capability?

Bob Clark

Actually, that image is only a "potential configuration" (what it might likely look like), and as the article and Galactic Penguin SST said earlier, it's going to use methane or LNG engines instead of kerosene.

 

[K_Jameson]

So, kerosene is becoming an obsolete fuel?

 

[Pipcard]

Kerosene and liquid hydrogen were good for optimizing performance (kerosene provided high thrust and high density for the initial launch, while liquid hydrogen had the higher specific impulse for upper stages in vacuum), but using a common propellant in all stages is more economical. Methane is a fuel that is in-between kerosene and liquid hydrogen in terms of specific impulse, density, and cryogenicity (because liquid hydrogen is hard to handle).

Musk says that overhead starts with how the launch vehicle is designed. The workhorse Atlas V, for example, used for everything from planetary probes to spy satellites, employs up to three kinds of rockets, each tailored to a specific phase of flight. The Russian-built RD-180 first- stage engines burn a highly refined form of kerosene called RP1. Optional solid-fuel strap-on boosters can provide additional thrust at liftoff, and a liquid hydrogen upper stage takes over in the final phase of flight. Using three kinds of rockets in the same vehicle may optimize its performance, but at a price: “To a first-order approximation, you’ve just tripled your factory costs and all your operational costs,” says Musk.

Instead, from the very beginning, SpaceX designed its Falcon rockets with commonality in mind. Both of Falcon 9’s stages are powered by RP1 and liquid oxygen, so only one type of engine is required. Both are the same diameter and are constructed from the same aluminum-lithium alloy, reducing the amount of tooling and the number of processes and resulting in what Musk calls “huge cost savings.”

(This is why, when I make my fictional M-III rocket, it will be all-methane. The M-III will have a wider core stage, like the NGLS, which allows it to have even wider fairings)

edit: although, the liquid hydrogen Centaur stage is still there in that "potential configurations" image.

 

[K_Jameson]

(This is why, when I make my fictional M-III rocket, it will be all-methane. The M-III will have a wider core stage, like the NGLS, which allows it to have even wider fairings)

In fact, long time ago I worked on some all-metholox concepts for an hypotetical and never realized new generation FOI launcher, a replacement for the Jarvis family. It is an excellent compromise. Anyway, some FOI spacecraft as Antares Long Range and the Arcturus lander (currently on hold) are methane-fueled.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Thanks for that. Looks like it would use two RD-180 engines on the first stage. What would be the payload capability?

Bob Clark

Nope, ULA's trying to get away from using Soviet RUSSIAN engines. If Blue Origin can make the BE-4 work as advertised...