The Story of Vulcan

[@atptourfan]

ULA has since said the helicopter won't be needed. The engine pod will instead parachute all the way down to the ocean and float until ship recovery. Great video though!

[@EagerSpace]

Thanks. I hadn't seen that.

[@bwjclego]

@@EagerSpace I think it was quite recent, based on data from the LOFTID flight that showed it to be a particularly good boat.

[@pseudotasuki]

Yeah, they even did a sea test of a mass simulator.

[@FalconApollo]

Great video, presented fairly. Only miss was a complete omission of Tory “Where’s my engines Jeff?” memes. 😂

[@EagerSpace]

I thought about it but I didn't think that it added anything to the discussion...

[@drewbeans]

22:30 Funny how 3 days after this video, Amazon bought 3 Falcon 9 launches for kuiper

[@Jaker788]

So far out though. They could have gotten much earlier launches but they're choosing far from now to launch

[@reagank.2268]

one correction: the Vulcan engine section isn't planned for air recovery anymore, I believe they will just use the heatshield as a buoy and fish it out of the water

[@NoNameAtAll2]

ouch sea salt will be awful

[@15Redstones]

@@NoNameAtAll2 with the engines a couple meters away from the water it's not too different from SpaceX droneship landings. Since BO also planned for on-ship landings for New Glenn, the engines should be able to handle a little water.

[@veedrac]

Excellent overview. One thing you missed in the Vulcan vs. Falcon Heavy comparisons is fairing size. Falcon Heavy is hamstrung from being a bit of a noodle, whereas Vulcan has a pretty sensible aspect ratio.

[@WWeronko]

The AF/SF funded the development of a larger Falcon fairing. It supposed to be ready for use, customer dependent. It will be used by the SF and NASA. It will probably not be reusable. The dimensions of their extended fairing is shown in Figure 12-10 of their users guide.

[@veedrac]

@@WWeronko I did remember the extended fairing but I had misremembered it as smaller than it is.

[@jackofclubs8791]

I love how spacex is so prolific that there is an “anything but spacex” market

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

I mean the orbital launch market isn't really that big, lots of money not so many players

[@ianschilermillek3956]

Well it’s not because of how much SpaceX launches it’s because the “Starlink competitor market” wants to launch on anything but SpaceX.

[@ASTRONAUTICO]

I LOVE large and complete videos like this ‼️ thank you for your time, every minute of video is at least 10 minutes of work!

[@EagerSpace]

Thanks for your comments. I haven't tracked how much time I spend per minute, but my guess is that 30 minutes is closer.

[@Bot1735]

Good video, too bad you missed the new water recovery, Bruno even posted the video of a mockup floating in the ocean

[@EagerSpace]

Thanks for the update. Weird that I missed it as I follow Bruno on TwiX

[@spacehaxx2225]

Kickass work. Thank you.

[@donjones4719]

A great guide to ULA and how we got to where we are with Vulcan, equally useful for veterans and people new to the field. The point about the AR-1 cannot be repeated often enough. Aerojet Rocketdyne didn't have any more large rocket engine engineers than Walmart at that point, they were all retired or dead. Afaik they had a few around to keep tweaking the RL-10, designed on the 1960s. OK, if they had people working on refurbishing the Shuttle engines at that time I'm partially wrong, but none of them had actually designed a large engine. 7:50 Could you also give the thrust in metric tonnes, that's being used by SpaceX and in more and more forums for other rockets. Also, is that tonne/foot or a tonne/meter or just a tonne at any given instant? That's be a nice little discussion. (Tonne/foot would be an odd combo but I'm pretty sure I've seen it.)

[@EagerSpace]

The base unit would be kg-f, or kilogram of force, so the unit you speak of would be t-f. I will admit to liking kg-f as you can compute thrust/weight (or thrust/mass....) very easily, but if you are dealing with specific impulse and mass flow rate, newtons is a lot more convenient. I *do* think it's really weird that the most common measurements are to give Newtons and lb-f, which is honestly just wrong.

[@donjones4719]

@@EagerSpace Ah, the f is for force, not foot. Now kg-f makes more a lot sense. :) I believe I've seen tf, with the f as subscript.

[@regolith1350]

13:20 This table shows total flights, so shouldn't the Falcon 9 side be showing 1 booster airframe instead of 0.1? It would be (approximately) 0.1 airframe per flight, but 1 total, unless I'm completely missing something. Also, I've never been sold on the Smart Reuse concept. A quick-detachable engine pod is just begging the God of Fuel Leaks to smite thee. It'll need a magical seal made of a superalloy of unobtanium and doesntexistium.

[@EagerSpace]

Darn. You are correct on the booster count... WRT the disconnects, I don't think it's horrible - there are already quick disconnects between the pad and and the rocket and those tend to be fairly reliable. Shuttle had some issues with hydrogen leaks between the tank and orbiter, but hydrogen is a lot more of a pain to deal with than methane.

[@thermusaquaticusPCR]

@@EagerSpace Pad connections don't have to be on an actively launching and shaking rocket though.

[@kennethferland5579]

No, they will just use an explosive seperator on a removable flange, similar to how payload fairings are seperated. The fact that your discarding ones side of the connection and then returning the other to Earth for refurbishment means this is not remotely as hard a reusable connector. Their won't be any leakae issues.

[@akwakatsaka1826]

Eager space uploads , I jump right at it

[@notapplicable7292]

Falcon heavy is absolutely not 90M per launch, last I checked they previously charged 300M for one expended falcon heavy launch. That means cost is around 3x vulkan while payload is around 2x. For high energy launches it seems obvious that vulkan is a better option unless you are desperate for that mass.

[@EagerSpace]

$300 million is for a government launch with a lot of extra services. $90 some million is the price for a dual rtls booster launch. Psyche and Europe clipper require extra services and are contracted at $131m and $178 million.

[@priteshpatil5363]

$260 million per mission for three manned Commercial Crew launches to the International Space Station (ISS) for NASA. $145 million per flight for three Commercial Resupply launches -- also to ISS, and also for NASA. $150 million per flight for three U.S. government Falcon Heavy launches. $130 million per flight for two Falcon Heavy launches for commercial customers. $100 million per flight for six government Falcon 9 missions. $67 million per flight for each of a dozen commercial Falcon 9 flights. $45 million per Falcon 9 flight that SpaceX advertises as a "Transporter" mission (bundling large numbers of small satellites, for multiple customers, on individual rocket launches). And... $0 per flight across 63 separate launches of Starlink satellites that SpaceX flew for itself.

[@Lukdzwo]

13:18 If each falcon booster can fly 10 times then for 9 flight we need 0.9 booster, not 0.1. SpaceX is already close to 20, so maybe it should be 0.45 booster for 9 flights.

[@EagerSpace]

Yes.

[@thesquirrel914]

FH does beat Vulcan for Mars missions but unfortunately in fully expendable mode FH is about $100 million more expensive than Delta IV Heavy

[@EagerSpace]

Delta IV Heavy launches for EELV/NSSL were in the $350-$450 million range each. NASA paid SpaceX $131 million for the Psyche launch with two reused boosters, thought it's generally true that NASA missions cost more than pure commercial ones. The difference for a fully-expendable flight - like ViaSat-3 - is going to be similar to the premium that space charges for a F9 expendable launch. Seems really unlikely that would be more than $50 million total.

[@SirDeadPuppy]

great video!!!

[@donjones4719]

19:00 Is ULA still getting the $1 billion per year readiness payment. If so, that's basically be for keeping the Delta IV Heavy line in existence, which isn't needed once the last one is launched this year - or maybe it'll be kept in mothballs until the maximum-payload Vulcan has flown? Many thought that ULA got 60% of the NSSL-2 contract because the company would have trouble staying in business with only 40% - that this was a version of the subsidy policy to maintain two rockets. What I'm trying to say is I hope ULA isn't receiving the $1 billion on top of the 60%, and for an indefinite period. Dammit, I have a Vulcan S Cafe in the garage, I'd have been glad to give it to you - but, I don't have the other one. Ah, well.

[@EagerSpace]

I couldn't find the exact date, but my recollection is that the payments were phased out around 2020.

[@acarrillo8277]

Considering that ULA does not build their own engines it would be very difficult to build a reusable rocket. None of the available engines are sized well for reuse at this point, let alone with the limitations of their high energy flight profile.

[@EagerSpace]

Exactly. And they have the problem that you probably need at least 5 engines to land a first stage, and 5 small engines probably costs much more than 1 or 2 engines.

[@danmosenzon1477]

The "150 tons to LEO" graphic really begs to compare with Starship.

[@kittyyuki1537]

Starship would sweep the floor, with fully reused First and Second stages, it would be hilarious. Edit: and all of that mass in just one launch!

[@EagerSpace]

The problem with Starship comparisons is that we don't really know what the payload will be. But yes, starship should perform quite well for leo.

[@kennethferland5579]

@@EagerSpace And now we know that StarShip can't even match New Gleen in it's present form and is in the terminal stage of rocket design as stage lengthening and tenous thrust upgrades on engines that are still unreliable are rolled out to try to claw back the original performance goal.

[@doorhanger9317]

One small advantage Vulcan does get is that, if Smart Recovery does work, the engine is *always* recovered. So they can go "full tilt" more easily than when SpaceX runs an expendable mission and has to dump a booster.

[@EagerSpace]

Comparing Vulcan to Falcon 9, yes, though they will pay a small payload penalty (

[@doorhanger9317]

@@EagerSpace yeah, dumping boosters at the end of their usable life can help reduce the costs for spacex. Do we know what kind of lifetime Vulcan expects from the engine pods, or is that still being worked out?

[@jamskinner]

I will be surprised if Vulcan ever has reusable engines

[@joshnopueto8205]

Now i wanna see how Vulcan compares to starship 😂

[@MimeHTF5]

They also had the Delta 2

[@EagerSpace]

They did, though it was being phased out during the time period discussed.

[@firefly4f4]

Although not quite as important to the story, you left out the Delta II, so initially they had 3 rockets (counting the Delta IV variants as one rocket).

[@EagerSpace]

And Atlas II, which flew until 2004. But the design of Vulcan isn't driven by Atlas II and Delta II, so I left them out.

[@kittyyuki1537]

Would it be possible to also factor in the turnaround times for the "150 tons to LEO challenge?" how quickly could ULA refurbish their engine pods and integrate them into new Booster airframes vs SpaceX just having the refurb their whole booster? For Falcon 9 from first glance, their turn around times averages to about 2-3 months, the record however was 3 weeks with a few close seconds and thirds. There are times of upwards of 7 months usually when each booster is going through recertification before their 10th and after their 15th flights And just for the giggles, adding Starship to the mix as well.

[@EagerSpace]

You could do that. I think it would be hard to come up with numbers that are meaningful for Vulcan. I would not be surprised if the Vulcan turnaround time is 3-6 months.

[@pretentiousjackal]

Oh my God. I thought that picture of Tory Bruno looked AI generated. So I checked to make sure this wasn't an AI content farm. And it's real. I'd hate to be guy with the face that looks AI generated. 😄

[@EagerSpace]

So far I haven't done any AI generated imagery.

[@mathewferstl7042]

The rs-68 is the last high performance that AJR made not the rs-25

[@EagerSpace]

It does depend on what you mean by high performance... The RS-68 is a gas generator that runs at about half the chamber pressure of the RS-25, and the thrust to weight ratio is considerably worse.

[@mathewferstl7042]

@EagerSpace 412 ISP would still be considered high performance, and the work done on that engine along with the engineering for the aj-26 could've provided valuable experience. Not to mention the rs-84/rs-83 efforts back in the SLI program

[@WWeronko]

The 300 lb gorilla in the room Star Ship. As fully reusable and if it lives up to expectations, it will make all other launch systems obsolete. Vulcan has a role to play. How long is the real question.

[@perfectman3077]

Just like how the space shuttle made all other launch systems obsolete. Lol

[@drewbeans]

yes!!!!

[@theOrionsarms]

Isn't better Vulcan than falcon heavy for interplanetary probes because smaller engines on the upper stage alow more precise orbital insertion? Also a expandable falcon heavy is more expensive than Vulcan I think.

[@EagerSpace]

Whether insertion accuracy matters depends a lot on the mission. Probes all have on-board thrusters because they need to do course corrections along the way, and you could save a *little* fuel if your initial insertion is more accurate, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that this is a major advantage. You would design the probe based on the accuracy you expect to get. Expendable FH is likely more expensive than the 6-solid Vulcan though it's not clear how much. But expendable FH is far more capable than Vulcan. Partially reusable Falcon Heavy is *probably* cheaper than Vulcan.

[@theOrionsarms]

@@EagerSpace well you can save a lot of fuel in some cases,10 m/s to much or to little on the upper stage can requires 200 m/s correction later for interplanetary probe, that is the way that things work, it's all about Oberth effect, and also the probes uses lower specific impulse propellant, about the cost versus payload pretty much agree, but interplanetary probes aren't usually designed with large marges of propellant,at least until now.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

@@theOrionsarms You'll need to run me through that math. How does 10 m/s to much or to little at launch require a 200 m/s correction?

[@theOrionsarms]

@@TheEvilmooseofdoom you don't know how Oberth effect work? The terminal velocity (when you escape from gravity well) isn't linear, you need to subtract the square of escape velocity from the point in space where you stop your engine from the square of maximum velocity achieved in that point,to find the square of actual velocity when you escape from gravity well, it's like a Pythagorean theorem of orbital velocities. Well actually the Oberth effect adds only 15 to 50 m/s for each 10 m/s more than perfect velocity, but it's another source of inaccuracy the angle of the trajectory relative to the earth orbital path,if the exit is at 4° angle you lose more than 150 m/s for a Mars injection velocity of 3,6 km/s that is required even for the minimal transfer orbit.

[@SkyDomeVIZE]

Nice video explaining the main differences. Falcon 9 is definitely spending more than what they make, maybe just started to turn profit. ULA is profit driven, so doesn't have the luxury to do what SpaceX does. ULA is definitely more expensive than Falcon 9, they just know how to distribute their expenses to other areas ( eg. Delta 4 heavy cost). ULA is going to keep going or bought by other company ( 4 patents & technology) and supported by the military. -Now, I believe the solids rocket for ULA design is going to be a double edged sword ( more configurable, but more expensive and slower processing). -Also I believe the Amazon Kuiper missions is also going to be launch on Falcon 9 due to the law suits. - Vulcan rocket if it works will be going for many years due to government needs.

[@EagerSpace]

Falcon 9 has been profitable from their first launch - the early Falcon 9 years have been mostly funded through their contracts with NASA and their commercial launch contracts. They did have a huge advantage because they started flying when the geosync launch options were Ariane 5 (great rocket, fairly pricey) and Proton (crappy reliability, but cheap) and there was an industry backlog. They came in as cheap or cheaper than Proton with great reliability and the ability to fly payloads quickly. Starship and Starlink has required a lot of outside investment, and when they started on those seriously SpaceX was not profitable as a company.

[@David-wc5zl]

LOL. The amateurs are now copying the Pressure Fed Astronaut's "Know Your Rocket" series

[@EagerSpace]

Never seen any of Pressure Fed Astronaut's work and I don't watch much space video at all since I created my channel.