big fan of the delta iv, especially the triple core version, very sad that it's going but still happy about the progress in vulcan and amazed by the incredible amount of mass it can bring to orbit despite being much smaller
The engineering on those booster tanks is a wonder to behold. So why are you tossing them in the ocean? You know that you could actually recover them, right?
@CuckFinn well, as a private citizen with a non-aerospace background, that is not going to be possible, is it? But it is certainly possible for ULA. I am merely expressing an opinion as a tax-payer (shared by many others, BTW), that the design of SLS is not only obsolescent, but also particularly wasteful, given that the engines are reusable. BTW, your screen name is very funny, and almost certainly true.
Vulcan/Centaur looks to be an impressive new-generation launch vehicle that will no doubt be crucial to the coming New Space revolution. I have a couple of questions: 1: Is Centaur meant to replace the now-discontinued ACES upper stage, or no? 2: Are there plans for ULA to develop an in-orbit / in-space refueling mechanism for Centaur, so it can act as a re-usable space tug? 3: Can Centaur suppliment, or compliment, NASA's Exploration Upper Stage in delivering payloads to destinations beyond low-Earth orbit? 4: Could Vulcan handle the launch of NASA's Exploration Upper Stage?
I can answer! 1-2. ACES was more of a notional concept to develop ideas for Centaur V. Most of those ideas - including on orbit refuelling/reuse and long duration missions - will be added on to future block upgrades for Centaur V. 3. There have been studies exploring launching Centaur III on top of the SLS-EUS stack for deep space probes and they have turned out favorable. I'd assume the same would go for using Centaur V. 4. Vulcan has neither the upmass capacity nor the infrastructure to launch an EUS to orbit. It just doesn't make much sense when the SLS core stage exists can get an entire EUS and payload to LEO without needing to light the second stage.
@@luther0013 Falcon Heavy definitely could not do that. In a fully expendable config FH can just barely get ICPS and Orion into orbit, and this is ignoring the fact that you would be putting an 8 meter stage on top of a 3.7 meter rocket. New Glenn might be able to do it. They have similar diameters and the performance is probably there. It would likely hamper the overall performance of EUS from the need to use more dV to get into orbit in the first place.
@@abbyfluoroethane sorry my mistake. But you can do ICPS missions with FH and Gateway/NRHO missions with NG. Also if NG gets its 3 stage configuration then the EUS should be not loose any performance.
Almost certainly freshwater, seawater will corrode and damage the sensitive components (mainly the engines) during testing and can damage the pad structure itself.
@seasickrhino8926 I suspected that. Seems like something they should be using desalination for, but given where they are located it probably isn't happening.
The FRF went off without a hitch. Everything now depends on the new Centaur V with modified dome passing qualification and then the delivery next month of the flight CV.
I like rockets but in this day and age it seems so incredibly wasteful to have single use rockets. There really is no excuse at this point. And while it does look pretty I wonder why companies still waste mass on a paint job.
The paint is only for this first mission as a commemorative piece. All remaining missions are reported to not sport the flashy paint job. While this rocket isn’t fully reusable, it does support engine section recovery and reuse. It is claimed this will make Vulcan competitive with F9, but only time will tell.
Even SpaceX has to resort to single use rockets to complete certain missions, this will never change until advanced propulsion systems are developed...
The tank is disposed of, however, the engine segment containing the BE4 engines is recovered via an inflatable heat shield and parachute assembly where it will land engines up in the ocean for recovery. It is said that they have reduced costs enough to be competitive with F9 when their reuse method (SMART) is operational. No upper-stage recovery plan is in place, and given the fact that it is a Centaur, it makes sense that they wouldn’t. Vulcan will likely shine as a heavy payload to GEO and HEO locations where the F9’s RP1 first stage will not offer the best performance. It is unclear how this will work in conjunction with Starship’s goals, but they likely have a bit of time before that becomes a serious concern.
I love how they refurbish these rockets for the next flight. great tech. 8 minutes of flight use and then reflown. fantastic I love ULAs forward thinking
Interesting - does that imply that one design limitation/characteristic on the Vulcan's size is the maximum size availability of single Aluminium sheets.
Now that is how to do a water deluge system! Two separate levels of water deluge that don’t spray the water up into the engines and a proper flame trench to correctly remove the energy from the rocket’s exhaust plume area. Seems to have a sense of sanity about it. I don’t understand how another company can have such a disconnect from proper industrial practices that are based on 60 plus years of experience. The concept of the best part is no part only works when the path to determining that a part / system is not needed doesn’t first require you to relearn a lesson that was made clear so long ago! Suggest suboptimal decision matrix. If you totally mess up on the obvious, what does that say about doing the actual hard things correctly? Go Vulcan!
@@gandazgul Rocket Boring Company!! Great innovation, no extra parts needed!! ULA will get to engine reusably by the time the chopsticks are 100% reliable.
If that somehow magically happens we all win. More space innovation is a good thing and not a zero sum game. You make it seem like ULA is the only one that knows how things are done. Everyone thought the "boring space company" as you called them, would never land an orbital rocket and so far they are the only ones who have done it. You should be excited for all space innovation and not throw shade at one company or another.
@@gandazgul Funny how the SpaceX fanboys, never practice what they preach. How come I never see fellow SpaceX fans, chastising their own for trolling these comment sections?
@@odynith9356 Yeah I figured. Just realized that since Atlas V is retired Starliner will fly on Vulcan, and the crewed version of Dream Chaser will as well.
1) Unfortunately, it won't be able to compete with SpaceX's Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Heavy, or Starship unless they can re-land and re-use them. That should have been baked in from the beginning. 2) What an incredibly wasteful way to make a ribbed panel. Or at least it seems so to me. Is it really THAT much stronger than one made of Ribs and panels?
What's the point? Can it beat the Falcon 9 or Heavy in price or payload capacity? Can Blue Origin be able to make enough of their BE-4 engines to keep up with the launch cadence Space X has? Are we still spending our tax dollars on this? If so, why?
Centaur is a uniquely capable upper stage. But ULA really fucked up the whole project like how you gonna be this far into development and still have it fail catastrophically
Impressive engineering but you have to make it reusable the whole thing spending all that time and money in the end the cost will go up and up and will not be viable.
this seems like the wrong way to make a rocket. hey, maybe when you don't want the rocket to ever land again, and when you're planning to make like one per year, or you need to use russian engines because you don't know how to make engines, then perhaps this IS the way to do it.
@@Comet-2011-W3-Lovejoy I don’t see the math there given the F9 data, and success record surpassing the Atlas 5 (previous record) last year. But OK. In actuality, Vulcan will be better at HEO and GEO orbits because of the RL10 powered second stage. It is supposed to be competitive with F9, and it may well be; but they will have to recover and reuse the engine segment for that to be a possibility, and that may be enough time for the F9 to drop costs to an uncompetitive standpoint again. Time will tell if this is true and I hope that Vulcan and ULA maintain competition, if only for the sake of dissimilar redundancy.
@@gmarie701 Absolutely agree, seeing that bonkers expensive aluminum sheets machining for the hole rocket body.. That would be much acceptable if it was a reusable rocket, which it is NOT.
I have been eagerly waiting for the Vulcan Centaur to be ready even if it's a few years later than expected. It's great not have to use Russian designed engines anymore with the BE-4 a great replacement. The BE-4 uses very similar fuels and combustion to the Raptor engine and is an extremely modern and efficient design well suited to it's intended use. The very large and spacious upper stage allows payloads of all sizes to be carried with the overall fairing length and width changeable which allows extremely large and multiple small payloads to be carried. The launch system showcases the practical use of multipurpose modularity rather than reusability. The very large diameter of the rocket with the ability to vary the amount of Solid Rocket Boosters fitted bodes well for the varying types of missions foreseen for the launch system. I wish the project all the luck in the world and will be watching the launch and the progress of the peregrine lunar lander avidly. All up an excellent future proofed design with proven and reliable components used throughout. 😎🇦🇺👍
but tory..not seen Be-4 do swat yet.pretty tubes your making..that i known your expert at..the sad fact is space not easy and BE-4 is weakness yet seen solved..we hope ..
Babe wake up, ULA posted about Vulcan
Accurate
I can't wait for this to fly, I've been waiting since Smarter Everyday posted his interviews with Tory, and i am soooooo excited!!!
Good luck Tory and the rest of the ULA Team! You guys and gals have got this!
it's just so dang beautiful, I'm so excited for Vulcan! Let's Fly ULA!
future home, the bottom of the ocean. nice!
big fan of the delta iv, especially the triple core version, very sad that it's going but still happy about the progress in vulcan and amazed by the incredible amount of mass it can bring to orbit despite being much smaller
So much work and then throw it into the ocean:-) Is there any plan for reusability for the future use of this vehicle?
Yes, in the future ULA plans to reuse the be4 engines, but not the rest of the rocket.
@ 1:48 I like how they blur that dome section....got some proprietary stuff right there.
ITAR
DUUUUUDE this is gonna be so awesome! SUCH a dope looking rocket design... Oh man, I can't wait!
good luck. it will be nice to see these newer rockets soaring high.
The engineering on those booster tanks is a wonder to behold. So why are you tossing them in the ocean? You know that you could actually recover them, right?
Then you should go do it yourself! Start your own business.
@@bunkwagon OK legacy fan boy...
You do it then
@CuckFinn well, as a private citizen with a non-aerospace background, that is not going to be possible, is it? But it is certainly possible for ULA. I am merely expressing an opinion as a tax-payer (shared by many others, BTW), that the design of SLS is not only obsolescent, but also particularly wasteful, given that the engines are reusable. BTW, your screen name is very funny, and almost certainly true.
@@thePronto Thanks for the thesis fam
BURNING MONEY 💰🔥
I love water suppression systems :)
Go Vulcan!!! Go Centaur!!! 🚀🚀🚀🚀
0:05 Seems like Vulcan Tank production is done in the most expensive way possible for a Disposable Part? Why?
Gotta remove those extra kilos. Any mass that can be stripped from a rocket’s structure is potential cash recouped from each launch.
Cool...😎
Vulcan/Centaur looks to be an impressive new-generation launch vehicle that will no doubt be crucial to the coming New Space revolution. I have a couple of questions:
1: Is Centaur meant to replace the now-discontinued ACES upper stage, or no?
2: Are there plans for ULA to develop an in-orbit / in-space refueling mechanism for Centaur, so it can act as a re-usable space tug?
3: Can Centaur suppliment, or compliment, NASA's Exploration Upper Stage in delivering payloads to destinations beyond low-Earth orbit?
4: Could Vulcan handle the launch of NASA's Exploration Upper Stage?
I can answer!
1-2. ACES was more of a notional concept to develop ideas for Centaur V. Most of those ideas - including on orbit refuelling/reuse and long duration missions - will be added on to future block upgrades for Centaur V.
3. There have been studies exploring launching Centaur III on top of the SLS-EUS stack for deep space probes and they have turned out favorable. I'd assume the same would go for using Centaur V.
4. Vulcan has neither the upmass capacity nor the infrastructure to launch an EUS to orbit. It just doesn't make much sense when the SLS core stage exists can get an entire EUS and payload to LEO without needing to light the second stage.
@@abbyfluoroethane I think only New Glenn or Falcon Heavy could lift the EUS to orbit when used in an expendable configuration.
@@luther0013 Falcon Heavy definitely could not do that. In a fully expendable config FH can just barely get ICPS and Orion into orbit, and this is ignoring the fact that you would be putting an 8 meter stage on top of a 3.7 meter rocket. New Glenn might be able to do it. They have similar diameters and the performance is probably there. It would likely hamper the overall performance of EUS from the need to use more dV to get into orbit in the first place.
@@abbyfluoroethane sorry my mistake. But you can do ICPS missions with FH and Gateway/NRHO missions with NG. Also if NG gets its 3 stage configuration then the EUS should be not loose any performance.
@@luther0013 Lol imagine a Falcon Heavy with an EUS. That would be in Scott Manley's list with the Thor-Able and Ariane 4.
🇺🇸 love to see it. Lets get back to space.
We ARE back to space. Didn’t need Vulcan…
soo autonoumous for the production
I hope the BE4 engines work without issue.
also, I have wondered, does the water deluge system use saltwater or fresh water?
Almost certainly freshwater, seawater will corrode and damage the sensitive components (mainly the engines) during testing and can damage the pad structure itself.
@seasickrhino8926 I suspected that. Seems like something they should be using desalination for, but given where they are located it probably isn't happening.
theyre doing a 10 second test fire today at 6:45pm EST
The FRF went off without a hitch. Everything now depends on the new Centaur V with modified dome passing qualification and then the delivery next month of the flight CV.
I like rockets but in this day and age it seems so incredibly wasteful to have single use rockets. There really is no excuse at this point.
And while it does look pretty I wonder why companies still waste mass on a paint job.
The paint is only for this first mission as a commemorative piece. All remaining missions are reported to not sport the flashy paint job.
While this rocket isn’t fully reusable, it does support engine section recovery and reuse. It is claimed this will make Vulcan competitive with F9, but only time will tell.
Even SpaceX has to resort to single use rockets to complete certain missions, this will never change until advanced propulsion systems are developed...
"Hey, Jeff, we thought you might need some engines. If you want, we can send you some of them."
~Tory Bruno
It doesn't say how these rockets land? How do they land?
The tank is disposed of, however, the engine segment containing the BE4 engines is recovered via an inflatable heat shield and parachute assembly where it will land engines up in the ocean for recovery.
It is said that they have reduced costs enough to be competitive with F9 when their reuse method (SMART) is operational. No upper-stage recovery plan is in place, and given the fact that it is a Centaur, it makes sense that they wouldn’t.
Vulcan will likely shine as a heavy payload to GEO and HEO locations where the F9’s RP1 first stage will not offer the best performance. It is unclear how this will work in conjunction with Starship’s goals, but they likely have a bit of time before that becomes a serious concern.
ULAAAAAA
Wow, simply awesome
I love how they refurbish these rockets for the next flight. great tech. 8 minutes of flight use and then reflown. fantastic I love ULAs forward thinking
no efficiency?
Huh?
🚀
Interesting - does that imply that one design limitation/characteristic on the Vulcan's size is the maximum size availability of single Aluminium sheets.
❤
Now that is how to do a water deluge system! Two separate levels of water deluge that don’t spray the water up into the engines and a proper flame trench to correctly remove the energy from the rocket’s exhaust plume area. Seems to have a sense of sanity about it.
I don’t understand how another company can have such a disconnect from proper industrial practices that are based on 60 plus years of experience. The concept of the best part is no part only works when the path to determining that a part / system is not needed doesn’t first require you to relearn a lesson that was made clear so long ago! Suggest suboptimal decision matrix. If you totally mess up on the obvious, what does that say about doing the actual hard things correctly?
Go Vulcan!
This guy innovates! 😂
@@gandazgul
Rocket Boring Company!! Great innovation, no extra parts needed!! ULA will get to engine reusably by the time the chopsticks are 100% reliable.
If that somehow magically happens we all win. More space innovation is a good thing and not a zero sum game.
You make it seem like ULA is the only one that knows how things are done. Everyone thought the "boring space company" as you called them, would never land an orbital rocket and so far they are the only ones who have done it. You should be excited for all space innovation and not throw shade at one company or another.
@@gandazgul Funny how the SpaceX fanboys, never practice what they preach. How come I never see fellow SpaceX fans, chastising their own for trolling these comment sections?
Here after successful launch, congrats ULA!
Does Vulcan have a propellant utilization system to ensure the correct engine mixture ratio and simultaneous depletion of fuel and oxidizer? 🍃
FINALLY!
Any thoughts on USN China Lake CL2 series solid fuel propellants with 320 isp?
Are there plans to ever launch people on Vulcan? Would be a pretty sweet ride
Yes Vulcan will be rated for human space flight too
@@odynith9356 Yeah I figured. Just realized that since Atlas V is retired Starliner will fly on Vulcan, and the crewed version of Dream Chaser will as well.
1) Unfortunately, it won't be able to compete with SpaceX's Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Heavy, or Starship unless they can re-land and re-use them. That should have been baked in from the beginning.
2) What an incredibly wasteful way to make a ribbed panel. Or at least it seems so to me. Is it really THAT much stronger than one made of Ribs and panels?
Falcon second stage doesn't have the precision of a Centaur.
its not a competition..
@@Garlander
Muskrats can't help it
@@Garlanderit literally is
@@CuckFinn Pretty sure NASA wants multiple options for LEO operations, lunar ops...
Making the same thing better really isn't better
What's the point?
Can it beat the Falcon 9 or Heavy in price or payload capacity? Can Blue Origin be able to make enough of their BE-4 engines to keep up with the launch cadence Space X has?
Are we still spending our tax dollars on this?
If so, why?
Centaur is a uniquely capable upper stage. But ULA really fucked up the whole project like how you gonna be this far into development and still have it fail catastrophically
Impressive engineering but you have to make it reusable the whole thing spending all that time and money in the end the cost will go up and up and will not be viable.
Call me when they can reuse the booster 20 times like SpaceX can.
Sure is too bad all this rocket goes in the ocean, except the payload. Surely you could land the first back on earth.
🗽🇺🇲⚙️🚀🟠☄️🔵
this seems like the wrong way to make a rocket. hey, maybe when you don't want the rocket to ever land again, and when you're planning to make like one per year, or you need to use russian engines because you don't know how to make engines, then perhaps this IS the way to do it.
Falcon 9 better
oh shut up
In some ways, yes. But in others, no.
No, expandable rockets are more reliable
@@Comet-2011-W3-Lovejoy I don’t see the math there given the F9 data, and success record surpassing the Atlas 5 (previous record) last year. But OK.
In actuality, Vulcan will be better at HEO and GEO orbits because of the RL10 powered second stage. It is supposed to be competitive with F9, and it may well be; but they will have to recover and reuse the engine segment for that to be a possibility, and that may be enough time for the F9 to drop costs to an uncompetitive standpoint again. Time will tell if this is true and I hope that Vulcan and ULA maintain competition, if only for the sake of dissimilar redundancy.
Ita a beautiful rocket but so sad all that work burns up and is lost to the Atlantic.
You guys really fumbled this rocket 🥴
Go Vulcan Centaur! Go ULA!
I love ULA. Unfortunately is so underrated today by the general public.
The general public has seen Falcon 9 and now recognizes the immense and inexcusable waste of ULA's approach to just about everything.
@@gmarie701 Absolutely agree, seeing that bonkers expensive aluminum sheets machining for the hole rocket body.. That would be much acceptable if it was a reusable rocket, which it is NOT.
All this just to drop in the ocean after one use!
Most of it will burn up in the atmosphere. Only a few small parts might impact the ocean.
I have been eagerly waiting for the Vulcan Centaur to be ready even if it's a few years later than expected. It's great not have to use Russian designed engines anymore with the BE-4 a great replacement. The BE-4 uses very similar fuels and combustion to the Raptor engine and is an extremely modern and efficient design well suited to it's intended use.
The very large and spacious upper stage allows payloads of all sizes to be carried with the overall fairing length and width changeable which allows extremely large and multiple small payloads to be carried. The launch system showcases the practical use of multipurpose modularity rather than reusability.
The very large diameter of the rocket with the ability to vary the amount of Solid Rocket Boosters fitted bodes well for the varying types of missions foreseen for the launch system.
I wish the project all the luck in the world and will be watching the launch and the progress of the peregrine lunar lander avidly.
All up an excellent future proofed design with proven and reliable components used throughout.
😎🇦🇺👍
❤
Wow, he used the word "comprise" correctly at 1:15. Good job!
but tory..not seen Be-4 do swat yet.pretty tubes your making..that i known your expert at..the sad fact is space not easy and BE-4 is weakness yet seen solved..we hope ..
they hot fired both engines already and theyre doing a hot fire again today.
only on stand not on rocket..lol..
@@garthbews4863 well today's your lucky day, they're firing off both on the rocket right now
yes sir ..i do have faith in tory..be4 just need to be proven..space will put Vulcan into the real books