tater Posted January 4 Author Share Posted January 4 So forum works from phone at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 5 Author Share Posted January 5 (edited) NET January 8 Vulcan Centaur • Peregrine Launch time: 2:18 a.m. EST (0718 UTC) Launch site: SLC-41, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida Edited January 5 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 11:18pm Sunday night, Pacific time. Deep in the slumber zone for me… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Lots of pictures coming out, also an article from Ars ahead of the launch was written https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/with-vulcans-liftoff-imminent-united-launch-alliance-flies-into-uncertain-future/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 5 Author Share Posted January 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 8 Author Share Posted January 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 8 Author Share Posted January 8 Coverage live. Planned hold at T-7 min, launch at 18 after the hour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 8 Author Share Posted January 8 Go for launch, counting down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 If this goes right, a small wafer with my name engraved onto it (and an SD card with a picture I made on it) will be going to the Moon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlamoVampire Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Go Vulcan! 012001082024 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 8 Author Share Posted January 8 Welcome to space, Vulcan MECO coming up Stage sep fairing Centaur runs for ~10 min, I'm gonna hit the sack. Great job, ULA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBase Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Congrats to ULA for successful launch After hundreds of SpaceX launches it is strange not to see any telemetry, see animations instead of live feed. Except for liftoff you could follow it on the radio Oh and is ULA really all imperial or just translating it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Man, we've had so much Falcon 9 saturation for the past several years that I forgot just how much of a sporty vehicle Falcon 9 is. Vulcan has like a 5 minute first stage burn, a 20-25 second stage separation sequence from cutoff to startup, and a 10 minute second stage burn. Not that it's bad, there are advantages to a sustainer architecture, but I just kind of haven't seen a sustainer rocket go up in a while (and had kind of assumed Vulcan was a tad sportier than it is). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 I'm just glad to see the US have two domestic produced orbital class rocket engine manufacturers. Not a fan of monopolies. Competition is gud! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FleshJeb Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 I like rocket companies that can get it up on the first try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 6 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said: If this goes right, a small wafer with my name engraved onto it (and an SD card with a picture I made on it) will be going to the Moon. It's got a photo of me and my kids, too. 2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: I'm just glad to see the US have two domestic produced orbital class rocket engine manufacturers. Not a fan of monopolies. Competition is gud! All Hail Sherman 6 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said: Man, we've had so much Falcon 9 saturation for the past several years that I forgot just how much of a sporty vehicle Falcon 9 is. Vulcan has like a 5 minute first stage burn, a 20-25 second stage separation sequence from cutoff to startup, and a 10 minute second stage burn. Not that it's bad, there are advantages to a sustainer architecture, but I just kind of haven't seen a sustainer rocket go up in a while (and had kind of assumed Vulcan was a tad sportier than it is). Vulcan Centaur 0 (the one with no SRBs) can't quite get off the ground on its own. The BE-4s are underpowered for launching it single-stick, so they have to launch it partially detanked. With two SRBs (like in this launch), they can fully load the first-stage tanks but it's still rather slow getting up. Sustainer architectures are weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 8 Author Share Posted January 8 (wonder if BO buys them?) Glad to see it worked perfectly. WTG, ULA! 3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: Competition is gud! At this point a second provider, anyway. Competition would require cost competition, and I don't think that's a thing with Vulcan. The claimed mass to LEO is 27.2t. Hmmm. If they can wring more performance out of BE-4 over time, I wonder if they could put Orion on top and get it crew rated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Congrats to ULA for a successful debut of Vulcan! Now, how long until S.M.A.R.T. (better than nothing) reuse becomes a thing? And how long after that will they decide S.M.A.R.T. is as economical as STS SRB re-use (as in, not really)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 12 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: Congrats to ULA for a successful debut of Vulcan! Now, how long until S.M.A.R.T. (better than nothing) reuse becomes a thing? And how long after that will they decide S.M.A.R.T. is as economical as STS SRB re-use (as in, not really)? One of the primary reasons to pursue SMART is to increase launch cadence, not decrease launch costs. Blue Origin is not exactly flush with engines and their factory isn't moving very fast, so if ULA (or its successor) wants to get a reasonably high launch cadence for launching the Kuiper satellite constellation, they might need to recover the engines simply to avoid schedule delays. If they can recover and refurbish the engines faster than Blue Origin can build and ship them, then SMART makes a lot of sense for that reason alone, even if the cost savings are marginal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 4 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: One of the primary reasons to pursue SMART is to increase launch cadence, not decrease launch costs. Blue Origin is not exactly flush with engines and their factory isn't moving very fast, so if ULA (or its successor) wants to get a reasonably high launch cadence for launching the Kuiper satellite constellation, they might need to recover the engines simply to avoid schedule delays. If they can recover and refurbish the engines faster than Blue Origin can build and ship them, then SMART makes a lot of sense for that reason alone, even if the cost savings are marginal. Hmm, good point, that's the main reason Rocketlab is pursuing re-use Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 13 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: One of the primary reasons to pursue SMART is to increase launch cadence, not decrease launch costs. Blue Origin is not exactly flush with engines and their factory isn't moving very fast, so if ULA (or its successor) wants to get a reasonably high launch cadence for launching the Kuiper satellite constellation, they might need to recover the engines simply to avoid schedule delays. If they can recover and refurbish the engines faster than Blue Origin can build and ship them, then SMART makes a lot of sense for that reason alone, even if the cost savings are marginal. In part this is why Rocketlab want to reuse electron but here it might be more about the composite stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 1 hour ago, magnemoe said: In part this is why Rocketlab want to reuse electron but here it might be more about the composite stage. I think you're correct. If I remember accurately, Rocketlab is fairly flush with engines but not so flush with stages, the opposite of ULA (which can churn out stages rather quickly but is depending on BO for the engines). Might explain why Rocketlab is less worried about saltwater incursion in its engines, because it can just replace them if they don't perform well in test fires. The Rutherford engines are probably more accepting of harsh conditions because they lack combustion-based turbopumps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 3 hours ago, tater said: Competition would require cost competition, and I don't think that's a thing with Vulcan On the one hand, I agree totally - on the other I recognize a new but nascent capability, which may also provide if not yet competition, alternative transport / increased capacity. In fact I'm hoping all the leaders (RocketLab, Stoke, etc) succeed. Let everything shake out later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Following a successful mission by Vulcan, the peregrine lander has suffered a propulsion anomaly that nearly resulted in its battery depleting and solar arrays not pointing towards the sun. The team conducted an improvised manoeuvre to get the spacecraft oriented correctly, but the propulsion failure may be a serious issue. Peregrine Mission 1: Lunar spacecraft back in contact and battery being recharged after 'propulsion anomaly' | Science & Tech News | Sky News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 8 Author Share Posted January 8 33 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: On the one hand, I agree totally - on the other I recognize a new but nascent capability, which may also provide if not yet competition, alternative transport / increased capacity. In fact I'm hoping all the leaders (RocketLab, Stoke, etc) succeed. Let everything shake out later I absolutely want all to fly, don't get me wrong, and since ULA already has 60% of the Space Force launches assigned to Vulcan they need to be flying. We'll not see a cost change per kg until someone can compete on price, however. Assuming NG works out of the gate there could be a small movement at the margins (BO might borrow from Bezos' Amazon playbook and sell below cost for a while), but it's still a small change I bet. Will be interesting to see who writes the check for ULA, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.