Talk:Vulcan Centaur

What is the empty mass of the Vulcan first stage

What is the empty mass of the Vulcan first stage ? and the propellant mass ? It would be notable if ULA haven't released this data. - Rod57 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

They haven't released any info (related to your cmt) on their website yet - hopefully we will get more details and maybe a payload user's guide as we get closer to launch. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

[ref from comment section below:] Vulcan: Pathfinder fueling tests planned Aug 2021 says

"A liquid oxygen tanking test to load 808,000 pounds (366,500 kg) of liquid oxygen, chilled to -297 degrees F (-183 deg C), into the [first] stage."

"A liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanking test to load 254,000 pounds (115,200 kg) of LNG, chilled to -260 degrees F (-162 deg C), into the [first] stage." so total liquid propellant [for first/core stage] : 481,700 kg. - Rod57 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Need more details on Centaur V

Have ULA stated, or reliable commentators estimated, empty and full mass of Centaur V ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

For first stage; 115,200kg of LOX and 366,500kg of LNG. For second stage; 54,000kg of propellant; could probably find breakdown by looking at the mixture ratio of the RL10C-1-1A/RL10CX https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1244993184557563905/photo/1 https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/vulcan-centaur-pathfinder-fueling-tests-planned Barry Jenekuns (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

More than twice the 20,830 kg of propellant in the Centaur III ! - Rod57 (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Future launches - could mention the huge April 2022 Amazon order for Kuiper satellite launches.

Some where, eg in the Future launches section - could mention the 38 Vulcan launches Amazon ordered April 2022 for Project Kuiper satellite launches. - Rod57 (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Can we say when first flight core stage was built ready for engines ?

Under First flight hardware can we say when the first core stage was complete and fitted with pathfinder BE-4 engines ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Vulcan Centaur Heavy?

The ULA website no longer uses the term "Vulcan Centaur Heavy". They do list "Vulcan Centaur Upgrade" after the smaller configurations, but it is vague and basically adds little or nothing to the understanding of the product. I think we should simply remove "Vulcan Centaur Heavy" from the infobox and probably from most of the article, leaving at most a sentence in the historical section, and use the numbers from the VC6 config in the infobox. They are mostly the same anyway.

(Non-RS blog entries speculate that the change was made because "heavy" has come to mean a rocket with three cores, like Falcon Heavy and Delta IV heavy. Delta IV Heavy is a ULA product that will be replaced by Vulcan Centaur, so "heavy" might cause confusion. We cannot put this speculation in the article, though.) -Arch dude (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought: see [1]. Therefore, I went ahead and scrubbed the article now instead of waiting for comments. -Arch dude (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Development timeline slips of Vulcan Centaur: compared

Someone has put together a lovely and informative chart comparing the development time and slips in planned launch dates for a number of recent new launch vehicles. Very relevant comparative info, in my view. Shows New Glenn in context with Ariane 6 Starship, New Glenn, SLS, and others.
CHART of launch vehicle announce/planned_launch/first_launch dates, by Ken Kirtland

Perhaps Kirtland might be interested in releasing that chart under CC license, or someone might make up a new one (as long as it has good sources). — N2e (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means

(NSSL) program for use by the United States Space Force and U.S. mind scool for national security satellite launches. 2601:5CF:8000:A870:E0CF:FE78:6FA2:FCA2 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That mess was left from test edit or vandalism by IP user 176.59.52.9 from a few hours ago. I just undid that edit. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

First stage information

The burn time is missing from the first stage's section in the table on the right, ULA's broadcast says it's 4 minutes 59 seconds. I just doubt that's a good enough source for wikipedia, so I think someone could try to find a good source and add it. Sp epic (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The broadcast is a WP:RS. So, feel free to include it! Redacted II (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to do the edit but it's weird because it's in one of those boxes, but if someone could tell me how or do it themselves I have the source: https://www.youtube.com/live/wZ6KTFMHenA?si=CBV7nNRLQxzesqdr&t=3431. Sp epic (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"fully expendable"

This passage, added by @Thue, needs citations: "The current (as of 2024) version of the Vulcan rocket is fully expendable, unlike competitors like Falcon 9 which use booster reuse to drastically lower launch costs. ULA is considering making a future version of the rocket which ejects the expensive engine module from the booster during flight, which then parachutes back to earth and reused." I've moved it here, rather than adding cn tags, because it makes uncited claims not just about Vulcan but about Falcon 9. Happy to see it restored with proper citation. PRRfan (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Partial reuse of Vulcan components is mentioned in the Announcement and SMART reuse sections now. But full reuse is big step forward and the wording seems over the top ("drastically"). Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Falcon 9 is said to cost $20 million to launch, in internal costs to SpaceX. The Vulcan Centaur costs $200 million on the market. The difference is mainly reuse [2]. Surely that justified the word "drastic"? Thue (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Understood, but this is comparing a brand new launch vehicle to a fully mature one. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The reuse thing is already mentioned in the SMART reuse section, and referenced there. I thought it was generally acceptable to write claims in a lede without references, when the lede was just a summation of referenced claims in the article itself? And surely we need to mention in the lede whether this rocket is expendable - the degree of reusability is central differentiator of modern rocket designs. Thue (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but the SMART section does not make comparisons to other launch vehicles. The comparison part needs a reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Heavy-lift launch vehicle

Why is it a heavy-lift launch vehicle? Falcon 9 is medium-lift launch vehicle with a higher payload than Vulcan, see here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 2001:9E8:CAC7:7300:D144:C9A5:F609:3C66 (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Vulcan is listed as a heavy-lift launch vehicle because it can lift 27,200 kg to LEO. Heavy-lift is anything over 20,000 kg. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

With 4 or 6 SRBs it meets the 20,000 kg payload capacity. I added a footnote to clarify that. It is describe as a "heavy-lift launch vehicle" on ULA's website which plays a part as well (Falcon 9 could be called heavy-lift when it's expendable, but it is generally referred to as medium lift). WP:COMMONNAME focuses on article titles but seems relevant. Alpacaaviator (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Source for Cert-2 payload mass

I'm looking to update the table for Heavy-lift launch vehicle, with Cert-2 this would be 1,500 kg to heliocentric orbit. I've looked through the sources on this page but I'm not seeing a source for the payload mass. Alpacaaviator (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/7595 RickyCourtney (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Centaur V pronunciation

Is it Centaur "vee" for Vulcan, or Centaur "five" as a roman numeral? I heard "vee" in one youtube video but it wasn't an offical source or news agency. Alpacaaviator (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s supposed to be “five” — it’s in reference to its diameter. The Centaur III was roughly 3 meters in diameter, the Centaur V is roughly 5. It’s also a nice homage to its Atlas V heritage (which was pronounced “five”). RickyCourtney (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• And possibly a follow on from Delta IV. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary graphic of the two Vulcan launches

A nice summary graphic of the two Vulcan launches in 2024, in the context of the five total ULA launches in 2024: ULA's launches of 2024 (source RYKLLAN of WAI media). Well illustrates the end of an era.

The end of flying the 1990s launch vehicle designs by Boeing (Delta IV) and Lockheed-Martin (Atlas V) and the first flight of the 2010s design (Vulcan & Centaur V) following the 2006 company merger of Boeing & LmCo launch service divisions in 2006 to form United Launch Alliance. Would be good if we had a Wikimedia-licensable image like that. N2e (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)