🔴FULL REPLAY: ULA Vulcan Experiences Anomaly on CERT-2 Mission

[@PorkchopXpress]

Glad to see our BE-4 engines performed nominally even after that booster nozzle failure! Kinda crazy witnessing it live 6 miles away from the pad too.

[@jonny3003]

That was extraordinary camera work catching the burn through, the nozzle falling off (ring of fire!) and the whole Vulcan rocket changing attitude! Thank you very much for that awesome live feed!

[@AstroSandee]

Such phenomenal work everyone. I can't wait to see more footage. I was enraptured. Thank you for all of your hard work.

[@StevenS.-up2pp]

I can't hardly believe the whole thing didn't go kaboom after losing the nozzle then burning for a long time more. Incredibly good margin on the booster structures, seriously hats off to the team that builds that booster (but also might want to fix that problem lol).

[@DougVanDorn]

I'm pretty certain that the SRB anomaly damaged the booster. In addition to its being underspeed at stage separation, I am absolutely certain I saw the booster explode almost immediately after staging, before Centaur ignition. That could be ascribed to damage to the engine compartment suffered during the initial SRB anomaly, and/or from the abnormal flame pattern impinging on the engines in unplanned ways.

[@SirStouk]

@@DougVanDorn Do you think they may have detonated it intentionally?

[@DougVanDorn]

@@SirStouk Right at stage separation? Highly doubtful. The rocket itself could have activated the FTS at that point, but I strongly suspect damage from the abnormal SRB exhaust causing a leak in the engine plumbing, which resulted in a fire and explosion that began when the BE-4 engines shut down.

[@DewiAlfaris]

That was incredible camera work capturing the burn-through, the nozzle falling off (ring of fire!), and the entire Vulcan rocket changing its attitude! Thank you so much for that amazing live feed!

[@CoffeeMonster12]

The rocket did quite the powerslide, amazing work on part of the software team that it still made orbit

[@brandonmusic9712]

Thanks!

[@NASASpaceflight]

Appreciate it Brandon! - Das

[@zapfanzapfan]

Wow, amazing that Vulcan could handle an SRB anomaly. And lucky the burn through was not on the booster side of the SRB...

[@UncleKennysPlace]

In this case, the SRBs are a smaller part of the total thrust than other launch vehicles. If this was something like the shuttle, they'd have to abort.

[@enginerd1985]

​@UncleKennysPlace We saw what happens with an SRB failure on a shuttle mission. It killed 7 people aboard Challenger. There was no opportunity for abort.

[@Papershields001]

That woulda popped it for sure

[@Papershields001]

@@enginerd1985I think there’s a very good chance tho that had the o ring failure happened simply happened on the other side of the SRB things would’ve shaken out differently. There’s no way to know but my guess would be Zaragoza.

[@Papershields001]

@@homeplanet365 if they built a rocket motor so weak that it’s compromised by a front of low pressure…at sea level….Than we’ve got some bigger problems with the competence of our engineers. It’s a rocket motor after all. Going up is it’s whole thing

[@AerospaceHorizon]

Ignition at 2:53:55

[@jull1234]

Maybe it’s good that Dreamchaser missed this one.

[@raptorwhite6468]

That would basically be Challenger 2, a shuttle mission failing because of an SRB malfunction

[@DougVanDorn]

I'm pretty sure Dreamchaser would have failed to make orbit. Just putting a small mass simulator into orbit required a 20-second overburn from the Centaur, due to the underspeed of the stack at MECO. With a significantly more massive payload, I gotta say my gut feeling is that it would've failed to achieve orbit. Pretty sure that, no matter what actually goes down in back rooms between people exchanging vast sums of money to gloss over "anomalies," this was a certification failure.

[@someidiot4311]

Does dream chaser have an abort system?

[@leonbarnes1402]

@@someidiot4311 dream chaser is currently only for cargo so unlikely they have one at this stage

[@raptorwhite6468]

@@someidiot4311 The current version doesn't, but the crewed one will have one

[@WWeronko]

The flight computer programmers at ULA deserve a bonus for the Vulcan able to recover from such a catastrophic loss of thrust at a critical moment. That came oh so close to a total mission failure. I bet the folks at Sierra Space are happy their Dream Chaser was a wee bit delayed.

[@trinitywhiteX]

Oopsie, best call the FAA to investigate that loss of nozzle

[@steveaustin2686]

The FAA only has a say if NASA or the DOD are not regulating the launch. The reason Crew Dragon is under the FAA, is because Fmr NASA Admin Bridenstein said that they were turning over SpaceX Commercial Crew missions to be commercial, so the FAA would regulate them.

[@trinitywhiteX]

@@steveaustin2686 oh interesting!

[@steveaustin2686]

@@trinitywhiteX NSF covered this about Starliner a few weeks ago.

[@patrickowens9352]

I would bet that the FAA will not ground Vulcan rocket from future launch because of a nozzle blowing off of a side booster. Course I'm not sure if there is another Vulcan rocket to launch anyway! We'll see...

[@steveaustin2686]

@@patrickowens9352 There are going to be more Vulcan Centaur launches. The FAA is not grounding the Vulcan Centaur, apparently because it didn't deviate far enough from its planned trajectory. The CRS-1 flight lost a Merlin engine on a Falcon 9 and the FAA didn't ground that booster. This is a similar issue.

[@corrinastanley125]

Great commentary ,footage and pic's thanks NSF team. The Astra launch that did a powerslide and left through the gate was pretty different.

[@cameroncooke5145]

Excellent commentary. Video review allowed positive confirmation of the “Observation”. The compensation delivered by the BE-4 engines to maintain mission continuity and final delivery is testament to ULA’s Engineering Staff and Production Technicians. #ULA#GOVULCAN#GOCENTAUR

[@tdenton1138]

Amazing footage and great commentary as always! Impressive the vehicle fought through the anomaly, but yikes!

[@dataplatter]

ULA Definitely needs to pay you guys for capturing the issue so well!

[@wheelie98]

Thanks! nntr

[@pamelaspelbring6297]

great camera work and great processing to get it to our screens! thanks NSF! that was awesome !!!!!

[@brandonmusic9712]

Thanks for bringing us such beautiful shots and views!

[@chrishvs]

Excitement guaranteed. I love y’all’s coverage

[@Catmarine-t5n]

Here for the replay, thank you all so much for the coverage

[@marcatteberry1361]

watching the ignition. The right bell housing, "barfed chunks" as you said.

[@TJ-xk2ty]

Good luck with the future launches ULA...

[@jamesdubben3687]

Just incredible camera work, Team NSF!

[@Voidhawk9]

Great coverage team, second to none!

[@IanHollis84]

Seconding the thanks to Max on the tracking, amazing job.

[@matthewkaiser7803]

at 3:24:03 - just left of center - behind the trees - what was that explosion? Looks like the pad suffered damage.

[@ale131296]

That's the flare stack

[@matthewkaiser7803]

@@ale131296 To burn off excess steadily, okay. But it really goes nuts and seems to explode. Is that normal?

[@MKJ8888]

Lol this looks like a total kerbal incident 😂 You forgot about 1 engine but managed to wobble and stabilize

[@SirStouk]

I'd love to know what extra stresses went through the structure during the 'powerslide' and how close the stack came to failing.

[@enginerd1985]

While I agree that Vulcan is a new rocket with room for growing pains, as I understand, those GEM tickets are off-the-shelf and have a robust history. If one of them failed, it is an indication of a manufacturing fault or mixture abnormality in the solid fuel.

[@ale131296]

This was the second flight of the GEM-63XL

[@JackABeyer]

Could have also been a process or handling failure before or after it was delivered to ULA. Will be interesting to see what we learn in the coming days

[@robhoward7041]

Well done with this NSF. So thankful for your dedication. 🔥♥🙏

[@DougVanDorn]

Another question that will be asked VERY soon -- how long has it been since a GEM SRM failed? And has a GEM (not just the 63XL used on Vulcan, but also its design heritage) ever blown off its nozzle segment while firing, even in a ground test? Seems to me the GEM line has been pretty reliable, up to now. At least lately. The last GEM failure I can recall, anyway, happened a LONG time ago, and resulted in the case splitting. That was an overall Bad Day, the entire Delta II became the biggest firework you ever saw. At least this one kept burning fairly normally, if with reduced thrust and NO vector control.

[@steveaustin2686]

I believe that the GEM63XL has only flown on two flights, 2 on Cert-1 and 2 on Cert-2. So a 25% failure rate from flights. I have no idea what they have been like in tests. Surely will be a lot of data crunching from ULA, Northrop Grumman, and the USSF.

[@TheGhungFu]

Somewhere I can hear Ripley saying; "...lucky, lucky, lucky ...."

[@carlettoburacco9235]

From what we see it can be defined as a RUD (I prefer the SpaceX definition) of the entire nozzle of one of the SRBs from the seal down. More diplomatic definitions do not change the substance of the fact. Let's hope it did not interfere "too much" with the mission.

[@SirStouk]

I wouldn't be surprised if Centaur gets certified but Vulcan may need another launch.

[@stoytchostoev6751]

great shots from the cameras

[@awesomegilly]

2:50:00 lift off 🎉

[@moodmusicytc]

4 minuets early

[@SirStouk]

I'd love to know what would've happened if Dream Chaser had been ready for this launch. Would the extra weight have lead to a launch fail? I guess we'll never know. I think Dream Chaser might have had a lucky escape!

[@cynvision]

That SRB contrail in the sunlight really pulled at my memory of Shuttle launch footage.

[@paulbork7647]

Awesome coverage and commentary. You guys rock. 3:36:56 flight was not nominal. Burn times were off. 3:36:56 Perhaps UKA is redefining “nominal,” or I am unaware of what “nominal means.”

[@waynelevett3632]

Unbelievable thanks for that 🙏

[@ComputerGeeks-R-Us]

You could see the nozzle burn through area as the light was filtered through the clouds. 3:32:58 is a great example. Amazing that the launch system was able to compensate.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

ULA should refer to this launch as... "VULCAN CERT-2: _OOPSIE"_ 😉

[@RickyD1968]

Awesome Launch !!!

[@Stratos_]

I was on Playalinda beach watching the launch and you could see huge chunks of metal flying off the SRB’s (I think twice?). Very lucky it wasn’t worse! I wonder if FAA will investigate with the past few months history with SpaceX 😂

[@felmagfer-notalt]

They got that ksp RSS rp-1 running at max graphics 🔥🔥🔥🗣🔥🔥

[@matthewkantar]

"That really looks like the nozzle flying off, that's what that is, that's a nozzle that is a nozzle." @ 3:25:40 lol.

[@andyrechenberg]

3:00:48 that is a headset Push To Talk control for the headset used to talk on the audio loops.

[@ousley421]

outstanding camera work, will charge your batteries anytime Max

[@Benzo-UK-Official]

IGP? Sounds so similar. Watching launch like it's a cosmic horror adventure LOL

[@RyeOnHam]

I know you guys were reporting on it, but I'm enough of a geek that I stayed home from school to watch the Challenger Launch. I remember seeing the 'plume' from the SRB's and thinking, "that's weird". I thought the same thing the whole way up with this one. I thought about ice, but ice doesn't blow out the side and glow like SRB chunks do.

[@Veptis]

This means we get a video forensics video from Das by Monday?

[@bradstewart7007]

Hearing the reports yesterday I thought this was an RUD. Glad to see it made it to orbit.

[@RefatFerdousi]

Thats amazing 😊😊😊😊

[@simondodd918]

My question is, does this hurt certification (because there was a problem) or help (because the stack made it to orbit despite the problem)?

[@_mikolaj_]

Most likely ULA will need to perform investigation to show they understand the cause of the issue and implement corrective actions

[@steveaustin2686]

That likely depends entirely on the detailed nature of the nozzle failure and the telemetry to orbit. With only 2 certification missions, the USSF/NRO gets ALL the details on Vulcan Centaur and they will likely double check before making any decisions. I would not be surprised if a Cert-3 is needed or if it isn't. After all, the F9 is rated to launch to orbit with an engine out at launch.

[@paulmoffat9306]

The right side SRB was showing an abnormal flame pattern as the fragments were exiting.

[@frrapp2366]

be interesting to see what the booster looks like on that side , i think ULA needs to pay you guys for your footage to do their investigation

[@gaudywidget]

3:36 They sound like two sleazy car salesman trying to sell us a car after seeing parts of the said car fall off.

[@rupertaitken3114]

I still think the into music and video is one of the best ver - you guys should do an extended and club remix!!!

[@bobholland9924]

Nice work y'all.

[@mikus4242]

3:40:36 phenomenal coverage!

[@adybarker4733]

Why do companies still use SRBs? They seem like old technology now.

[@rawexploiterp6951]

Cheap maybe

[@steveaustin2686]

Dial-a-power for the payload launch. The VC0 with no SRBs is 8.8t to the ISS. The VC2 is 16.3t, VC4 is 21.6t, and VC6 is 25.6t. So depending on how much payload is needed to orbit, you just add on SRBs for more payload on the same booster.

[@Aceb_k]

Cheap, easy Delta V. They are still very useful.

[@Dr_Mario2007]

Cheaper fuel for their crazy burn rate, so it doesn't surprise me that some rocket companies like easy peasy solutions so of course they would use the old favorites of NASA; SRBs.

[@Booster-13I]

How did the anomaly occur?

[@Eddy525_violin]

Srb nozzle fell off, entire vehicle lurched itself to the right by about 5 degrees. Managed to stabilize but centaur had to burn for 20s more

[@Booster-13I]

@@Eddy525_violin yeah I just saw that in the replays. Thanks*

[@sockeatinggolden8316]

One of the SRBs had a nozzle RUD. Mission continued with a Centaur upper stage extended burn by about 20 seconds. 3:13:45 for a good replay

[@UncleKennysPlace]

@@Eddy525_violin I think it more or less disintegrated, rather than became detached. I don't know how transparent ULA will be, but they seem to have accomplished the goal.

[@Eddy525_violin]

@@UncleKennysPlace the complete nozzle piece was visible after it came off

[@properfunny]

So do they need another launch to pass the military requirements?

[@steveaustin2686]

Probably depends on the telemetry. I would not be surprised either way.

[@captaindaedalus1]

The flame going through the side of the nozzle could be seen pretty well when it was darkened by that fortuitous cloud.

[@CaptPike787]

I bet they are really happy Boeing wasn’t involved.

[@scottjorgensen5233]

In fact it is because ULA is an alliance between Boeing and Lockheed. So you don't make sense.

[@MarkHorton-n3t]

Boeing is a major part of the United Launch ALLIANCE. If you mean that Boeing is not responsible for the part that failed, correct.

[@MarkHorton-n3t]

@scottjorgensen5233 Apparently, the software that adjusted the flight plan to correct for the loss of first stage thrust was not from Boeing. Boeing's software engineers killed people with the 737Max. Their errors with the Starliner were at an amateur level of incompetence. Or amateur programming, professional incompetence.

[@jackdonaghyjr]

Small suggestion to put a little water mark for each camera view. By shooter or by location.

[@MrKellymcilrath]

Thanks for the coveerage NSF!

[@tortysoft]

We need your camera coverage ! Oh yes.

[@jdevans4]

Those solid rocket boosters are a kick in the pants

[@Nehpets1701G]

Tough little ship 😮

[@TheMightyAtomNL]

Jeez, you guys had no idea. My gut feeling was right when I though that SRB exhaust looked off. Jack: Sparks? Nah, that's normal. Of course we did not see the SRB nozzle blown off in this stream and that's why you all thought it was going well.

[@lyleshoostine1683]

I'm sorry to say, but Tenacity will be a Dream "Chaser" if it will still be part of a much now delayed Vulcan launch vehicle. Tenacity would be renamed a Dream "Reality" if it becomes part of the Space X launch system.

[@steveaustin2686]

Dream Chaser is launcher agnostic, so it can launch on an Atlas-V, Vulcan Centaur, or Falcon 9. Dream Chaser has a 6 mission contract to deliver cargo to the ISS under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program. Per that program, NASA prefers the cargo spacecraft launch on separate boosters for redundancy. That is why Cygnus launched on the Antares or Atlas-V until they both became unavailable. Cygnus is launching on the Falcon 9 until the Antares 330 is ready. Dream Chaser being on Vulcan Centaur, means that it is on a separate booster than the other two CRS spacecraft.

[@garthbews4863]

grounded i expect till srb's can be studied..FAA time to be safe

[@steveaustin2686]

The FAA only has a say if NASA or the DOD are not regulating the launch. The reason Crew Dragon is under the FAA, is because Fmr NASA Admin Bridenstein said that they were turning over SpaceX Commercial Crew missions to be commercial, so the FAA would regulate them.

[@Papershields001]

Regardless of the GEM issue, I’m starting to feel pretty good about the BE-4s. They seem to be doing exactly what they are supposed to.

[@iamaduckquack]

Maybe flight 3 will be without issue.

[@philippostiglione2011]

The centaur 2nd stage looks fine.

[@Anon_Ymous]

ULA dropped a nozzle in the wrong spot. We better see a 2-3 month delay from the faa. /sarcasm

[@steveaustin2686]

IF the DOD or NASA are regulating the launch, then the FAA has no say. NSF covered this in another video about the FAA and Starliner.

[@Anon_Ymous]

@@steveaustin2686 apparently you missed the /sarcasm

[@steveaustin2686]

@@Anon_Ymous No, I saw the /sarcasm, just tired of the ignorant FAA bashing. I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic about the FAA or sarcastic about the fanbois whining about the FAA.

[@cynvision]

I think they're learning from SpaceX's gaffs with the FAA to have the software hold the release of the SRB like it did. Unless the software always did this and we only now get to see it demonstrated. The mantra I always heard was that dead weight on a launch was shed ASAP.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@cynvision From the video one of the SRBs was still venting after BECO, so they held it until it stopped venting. Then they jettisoned both. No conspiracy theories needed.

[@JamieSteam]

@Nasaspaceflight Jack, no that was not normal, as you said.

[@TheeKaseyy]

just love watching 90's animation while spacex live streams 4 angles, hacks

[@DummyFace123]

2:53:46 Is the launch

[@BenConeglan]

Flight 4 of starship had way more anomalies, so that’s a good way to look at it.

[@mahbriggs]

But flight 4 of Starship was not a certification flight! It was a test flight! They were pretty sure some things might go wrong! That was the purpose of the flight! To find and fix them! The Vulcan 2 flight was suppose to be the certification flight! I would say it failed! The solid rocket booster failed early on flight, and the Vulcan booster itself appeared to expload after separation That it may have been due to damage from the sub, is irrelevant. Vulcan is not ready for certification.

[@Ship_30w]

2:53:53 LIFTOFF!

[@MommyMoments855]

1:18:30 "A few extra minutes" ..."as long as it's not like an hour or two" ...oh boi

[@joaohenriqueneuhaus2023]

35:36 Yep...He did it. Thank you Alex... 🤣🤣🤣

[@sunside79334]

they were lucky the SRB flame was on the far side of the BE-4 engines, would've been a catastrophic loss otherwise. still: awesome perfomance by the vulcan to counter the thrust differential and still make it to orbit. 💪

[@tonyhaslam186]

Great job y’all

[@lyleshoostine1683]

Thanks to NSF for capturing the problem with the SRB.

[@geraint8989]

Never thought I’d hear Meg Griffin commentate on a rocket launch.

[@wheelie98]

intro and outro audio is always too loud; I'm always grabbing the volume control then

[@philippostiglione2011]

Solid rocket boosters can be dangerous.

[@followyourbliss101]

Nice camera work

[@lazm3518]

As I understand, ULA is not under FAA's jurisdiction, but time will tell.

[@philippostiglione2011]

Solid rocket booster is big problem. Lucky it didn't destroy the whole vehicle.

[@DougVanDorn]

If this was a SpaceX certification flight of some kind, Musk & Co. would just pop another rocket on the pad and do it again next week, lol. But for ULA, to re-fly this certification mission could cost them, what, a billion or more dollars, out of pocket? That's why I expect them to push VERY hard (including the liberal greasing of many palms) to get the DoD and the FAA to "overlook" this set of anomalies and certify a vehicle that would have failed to orbit an actual payload.

[@SirStouk]

I will be very interesting to see what happens.

[@leeswecho]

per the post-launch interview, given Tory was planning to launch two more payloads before the end of the year, that would imply the hardware for those two launches is already there and waiting. If the end result of the investigation is just "do a Cert-3", they could probably do the shuffle with the payloads and launch one of those.

[@SirStouk]

@@leeswecho that sounds reasonable... Not being an engineer 'fixing' the booster sounds like it should be easy. Especially as 3 out of 4 had no issues launching with the Vulcan to date.

[@pamelaspelbring6297]

Camera crew needs a bonus

[@nicosixtyfour]

I wonder if the FAA will crawl inside them as hard as what they have done to SpaceX

[@steveaustin2686]

The FAA only has a say if NASA or the DOD are not regulating the launch. The reason Crew Dragon is under the FAA, is because Fmr NASA Admin Bridenstein said that they were turning over SpaceX Commercial Crew missions to be commercial, so the FAA would regulate them.

[@frostyab7579]

loss of a nozzle on the SRB means it lost 90% of it's thrust

[@arthurhamilton5222]

Vulcan barely missed being blown to smithereens. Investigation time.

[@steveaustin2686]

The FAA said that they are not requiring an investigation. Probably because the Vulcan Centaur didn't leave the flight corridor and made it safely to orbit. This is no different than the CRS-1 mission on the Falcon 9 that lost an engine on assent.

[@alanhart9992]

Will the FAA Ground ULA Vulcan? No. Vulcan Good. Starship Bad.

[@steveaustin2686]

🙄 The FAA only has a say if NASA or the DOD are not regulating the launch. The reason Crew Dragon is under the FAA, is because Fmr NASA Admin Bridenstein said that they were turning over SpaceX Commercial Crew missions to be commercial, so the FAA would regulate them. The 'rah, rah, rah SpaceX rulz' fanbois are as bad as the SpaceX haters. The FAA is not out to get SpaceX. That is conspiracy BS, since the FAA defended SpaceX in front of Congress in Jun 2021 over the unauthorized SN8 flight. The FAA assigned someone to Boca Chica permanently to head off any other misunderstandings. The FAA changed their procedures in 2021 to be better able to match SpaceX's cadence, but the FAA should NOT be a rubber stamp for SpaceX. We saw how the airline industry self-regulating worked with Boeing. The IFT-1 was delayed in part because SpaceX built the vertical LCH4 tanks without making them conform to Texas regulations. So SpaceX had to install new horizontal tanks. Right now, SpaceX can launch under the IFT-4 license if they wish. They changed the plan for IFT-5, so that has to be reviewed. Then SpaceX gave more new info in Aug, further pushing back the review. Lately Musk has become a whiner after falling with the RWNJ authoritarian America haters.

[@wkrpaz5620]

We're is stage one landing. No drone ship.

[@steveaustin2686]

Booster reusability is great, but has drawbacks. First, if you don't have a fast enough launch cadence, you can spend more on recovery equipment and personnel than you save by reusing the booster. SLS doesn't have a fast launch cadence, but the Vulcan Centaur is planned for partial reuse in the future. Remember, SpaceX didn't land a booster until their 20th flight and didn't reuse a booster until their 32nd flight. Second, you take a payload hit for the recovery system on the booster. The Falcon 9 B5 can lift up to 22.8 tons to LEO when expended (SX), but only up to 17.4 tons when landed on a drone ship (B1067.9). Doing a Return to Launch Site (RTLS) landing, costs even more payload as you have to add a boost back burn to cancel the lateral velocity and return back to the launch site. SLS can't take that kind of payload hit on lunar missions. Vulcan Centaur is planned to have partial reuse in the future. Third, the higher and faster you go, the harder reusability is to perform. The heavier the dry-mass of your booster, the harder reusability is to perform. SLS is over 2x as high, 3x as fast, and 3x as heavy as a F9 at MECO. So SLS reuse is very problematic. The Vulcan Centaur does its booster separation higher and faster than the Falcon boosters, making the Vulcan Centaur harder to land. The Vulcan Centaur is 5.4m in diameter compared to the 3.7m Falcon booster, so almost certainly has more dry-mass as well as a more energetic flight profile to make a booster landing like the Falcon 9 problematic. Fourth, you now have to have the weather be acceptable at the launch site and the landing site, if it is down range of the launch. No, I'm not saying that SpaceX should not recover boosters. I'm using how reusability affects the Falcon 9 to discuss other expendable and partially reusable boosters. ULA is planning on what they call Sensible Modular Autonomous Return Technology (SMART) reuse. The engine section will detach and an inflatable heat shield will expand to protect the section during re-entry. The inflatable heat shield and engine section will parachute into the water to be picked up. They tested the inflatable heat shield in Nov 2022 and it worked very well. ULA says that the tanks are cheap to make, so they are only recovering the more expensive engine section. ULA plans to get Vulcan Centaur flying, before trying the SMART recovery.

[@zachchamblee4094]

2:56:53 seconds is launch Your welcome