Discussion
In common with other launch vehicles, I thought that as this one is nearing the hardware stage, perhaps a new thread for it was needed...
Intended to replace both Delta IV and Atlas V in ULA's lineup, Vulcan will use a pair of Blue Origin BE-4 methane fuelled engines in its first stage, while the second stage is initially the tried & tested Centaur
Development path
Performance - note 'single core' ( albeit with solid boosters ) performance of the 'Heavy' version exceeds that of the triple core Delta IV Heavy
ULA CEO says that he sees no market for a triple core version at present, but is keeping it in mind
Intended to replace both Delta IV and Atlas V in ULA's lineup, Vulcan will use a pair of Blue Origin BE-4 methane fuelled engines in its first stage, while the second stage is initially the tried & tested Centaur
Development path
Performance - note 'single core' ( albeit with solid boosters ) performance of the 'Heavy' version exceeds that of the triple core Delta IV Heavy
ULA CEO says that he sees no market for a triple core version at present, but is keeping it in mind
It's been announced that the SNC Dreamchaser will launch on the Vulcan
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-081419a-drea...
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-081419a-drea...
It seems there may be an issue with the new version of the RL-10 intended for the Vulcan's second stage - the new engine was flown on the Atlas 5 recently and the nozzle extension was observed to be vibrating
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjOjR1e6GC4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjOjR1e6GC4
Beati Dogu said:
Now the first launch is officially no earlier than the 4th quarter of 2023 due to the problems with the Centaur upper stage. The tank design needs to be strengthened to avoid it bursting apart. Something they have had years to work on while waiting for the main engines.
A stage which is a slightly updated version of something which has been flying since the 1960s - hoe did they manage to mess it up so badly 
Beati Dogu said:
The company is basically up for sale, so presentation certainly matters.
I recently read an editorial ( sorry, can't remember where ) which made an interesting point. The 'traditional' launch vehicle manufacturers ( Boeing, LM, etc. ) , which grew on a steady diet of 'cost plus' contracts, primarily exist to make a profit for their shareholders.
In order for them to compete with the likes of SpaceX and RocketLab they would need to invest heavily in reusable vehicles, which would be very difficult to do with the way their businesses are structured, using subcontractors spread around many constituencies to gain political leverage. They simply aren't built in a way to encourage the rapid low cost development processes the newer companies use.
As a business it may simply make more sense for them to shut up shop rather than sink $billions into development of vehicles which would then still have to compete for contracts.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff