Will be the Vulcan the more reliable rocket of ULA in her history?

[Tywin]

What do you think?

[DreamyPickle]

I don't think it will be launched enough to match the record of Atlas V.

[SweetWater]

I voted no, but only because Atlas V will be a *very* tough act to follow. 93 total launches to date, 92 of which were successful with 1 partial failure that left the payloads a bit low but which, IIRC, the NRO still considered a successful mission. A launch history like that is a remarkable achievement.

[Eric Hedman]

I voted maybe.  At this stage there is no way of telling.  One complete failure of Vulcan would make it impossible to match the Atlas V record.  They have a new engine from a new supplier.  If they get past the first few launches okay, the chances go up.

[Kaputnik]

Delta IV has had a 100% success rate as a ULA vehicle.
So I voted no, because at best Vulcan could equal that.

[Jim]

Delta IV has had a 100% success rate as a ULA vehicle.
So I voted no, because at best Vulcan could equal that.

See Heavy Demo

[DanClemmensen]

Computing rocket reliability is a complex issue and is subject to interpretation. Which is more reliable, a rocket that has one launch that was a success, or a rocket that has launched 100 times with only one failure?  This was discussed extensively at:
   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39928.20
Which includes links to academic papers.

Atlas V has 93 launches so far. All of them were successes, but one had a minor problem that one of its two payloads was unable to recover from. How do you account for that? In any event that's a hard number to beat. Unless something unexpected happens, Atlas V will finally retire after 116 launches. It is unclear that Vulcan will ever fly 116 times.

[spacenut]

I voted no because of the unknowns of an unflown rocket.  BE-4 may be a problem until bugs are figured out. 

[deltaV]

My guess is that getting ULA's costs down to the same ballpark as SpaceX will come at the expense of reliability coming down to the same ballpark as SpaceX. I therefore expect Vulcan's reliability to be adequate but not as good as ULA's previous launchers.

[sdsds]

No. Complexity.

[DanClemmensen]

My guess is that getting ULA's costs down to the same ballpark as SpaceX will come at the expense of reliability coming down to the same ballpark as SpaceX. I therefore expect Vulcan's reliability to be adequate but not as good as ULA's previous launchers.

Falcon 9 Block 5 has had 101 successful launches and no failures.
Atlas V has had 93 successful launches and no complete failures.

[high road]

I voted no because 'in the history of ULA', both Atlas and Delta have had 100% success rate, so Vulcan can only be as reliable, at best.

[Robert_the_Doll]

I voted no, but only because Atlas V will be a *very* tough act to follow. 93 total launches to date, 92 of which were successful with 1 partial failure that left the payloads a bit low but which, IIRC, the NRO still considered a successful mission. A launch history like that is a remarkable achievement.

Technically, two partial failures. The 15 June 2007 NROL-30 launch that you mention and then the 23 March 2016 Cygnus OA-6 mission that saw the RD-180 on the first stage shut down 5 seconds early, but fortunately the Centaur III 2nd stage was able to compensate. But the OA-6 mission was right on the edge of failure had the RD-180 shut down just a few seconds sooner.

[butters]

Kuiper will push ULA to sustain higher flight rates than they've handled to date. If it was just the spectacular, ever-slipping, never-ready payloads of NSSL, then they'd have much more time on their hands to make sure every i is beautifully dotted.

[russianhalo117]

Kuiper will push ULA to sustain higher flight rates than they've handled to date. If it was just the spectacular, ever-slipping, never-ready payloads of NSSL, then they'd have much more time on their hands to make sure every i is beautifully dotted.

The biggest problem with the DIV family was the actual annual flight rate numbers which resulted in continual GSE issues due to lack of use that the higher flight rate of Atlas V rarely suffered from. Vulcan will have a higher flight rate because of the legacy DII/DIII/DIV and AV families flight rates and payload classes merging into the unified singular VC product family (the upper end of the DII/DIII payload class configurations transfer to the bottom end of the VC payload class configurations).

[AmigaClone]

For a while I can see the Vulcan-Centaur being the most reliable rocket ULA has developed.

Two comments:
At best, the VC can match the reliability of the retired Delta II and single stick Delta IV, neither of which had a failed launch when launched by ULA.

How well VC does compared to the Delta Heavy and the Atlas V will depend not only on it's own reliability, but also on the future reliability of those two retiring rockets.

[lightleviathan]

Vulcan has the potential to be, but to do that, it has to survive it's first flight, which I'm not sure will happen.

[Proponent]

Though I expect Vulcan to become operational, I would hazard a guess that, because if its high cost, it will never fly enough to statistically demonstrate a reliability higher than the best its predecessors.

[FishInferno]

My guess is that getting ULA's costs down to the same ballpark as SpaceX will come at the expense of reliability coming down to the same ballpark as SpaceX. I therefore expect Vulcan's reliability to be adequate but not as good as ULA's previous launchers.

Emphasis mine.

What do you mean by this? If my info is correct, SpaceX has succesfully launched over 150 times since the AMOS-6 failure, far more than the Atlas V has launched in its lifetime.

[edkyle99]

My guess is that getting ULA's costs down to the same ballpark as SpaceX will come at the expense of reliability coming down to the same ballpark as SpaceX. I therefore expect Vulcan's reliability to be adequate but not as good as ULA's previous launchers.

Emphasis mine.

What do you mean by this? If my info is correct, SpaceX has succesfully launched over 150 times since the AMOS-6 failure, far more than the Atlas V has launched in its lifetime.

Falcon 9 v1.2 has logged 175 successful orbital flights as of January 15, 2023, not including the ground test failure and not including the suborbital abort test flight.

As for Vulcan, what it has going for it is ULA's proven processes, which have supported the company's very successful launch results.  The human factor is vital to steady success.  So is contractor configuration control.  Vulcan's question marks at first will be, in my mind, the use of so many all-new systems.  Atlas 5, for example, used Centaur little-changed from before and RD-180 was based on proven propulsion.  Vulcan will start with new staged-combustion BE-4, a new propellant combination, big new unproven solid motors, and a brand-new upper stage.  Only the Centaur 5 engines have a long lineage. 

On paper, Falcon 9 should beat Vulcan in reliability over the long run because it has fewer separation events, because it uses gas generator engines, and because it uses common propellants on both stages.  On paper.

 - Ed Kyle

[whitelancer64]

*snip*
Unless something unexpected happens, Atlas V will finally retire after 116 launches. It is unclear that Vulcan will ever fly 116 times.

Vulcan does currently have 70 launch contracts on the books.

[DanClemmensen]

*snip*
Unless something unexpected happens, Atlas V will finally retire after 116 launches. It is unclear that Vulcan will ever fly 116 times.

Vulcan does currently have 70 launch contracts on the books.

I hope Vulcan is both technically and financially successful. I was not trying to cast aspersions, just to understand. That's why I said "unclear".

I know about the 38 Kuipers, and we can speculate about 60% of up to 34 NSSL launches (i.e., up to 21), plus the two certification flights(peregrine and Dream Chaser), and apparently six more Dream Chasers. What are the other three?

To reach 116 launches, Vulcan will need ongoing flights, but the bulk of the booked flights are Kuiper, and Kuiper is supposed to migrate to New Glenn after those 38 flights. That's a big hole to fill. The NSSL cadence for ULA is historically about 4/year, and the Dream chasers will be maybe 1/yr, so Vulcan will need a big new customer. ULA's current total launch rate is about 8/yr. If we subtract out the Kuipers, we need an additional 78 launches. at 8/yr.this is less than a decade, so we will perhaps know the answer to this poll before 2032 

[whitelancer64]

*snip*
Unless something unexpected happens, Atlas V will finally retire after 116 launches. It is unclear that Vulcan will ever fly 116 times.

Vulcan does currently have 70 launch contracts on the books.

I hope Vulcan is both technically and financially successful. I was not trying to cast aspersions, just to understand. That's why I said "unclear".

I know about the 38 Kuipers, and we can speculate about 60% of up to 34 NSSL launches (i.e., up to 21), plus the two certification flights(peregrine and Dream Chaser), and apparently six more Dream Chasers. What are the other three?

To reach 116 launches, Vulcan will need ongoing flights, but the bulk of the booked flights are Kuiper, and Kuiper is supposed to migrate to New Glenn after those 38 flights. That's a big hole to fill. The NSSL cadence for ULA is historically about 4/year, and the Dream chasers will be maybe 1/yr, so Vulcan will need a big new customer. ULA's current total launch rate is about 8/yr. If we subtract out the Kuipers, we need an additional 78 launches. at 8/yr.this is less than a decade, so we will perhaps know the answer to this poll before 2032 

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1539714940897984514

[c4fusion]

*snip*
Unless something unexpected happens, Atlas V will finally retire after 116 launches. It is unclear that Vulcan will ever fly 116 times.

Vulcan does currently have 70 launch contracts on the books.

I hope Vulcan is both technically and financially successful. I was not trying to cast aspersions, just to understand. That's why I said "unclear".

I know about the 38 Kuipers, and we can speculate about 60% of up to 34 NSSL launches (i.e., up to 21), plus the two certification flights(peregrine and Dream Chaser), and apparently six more Dream Chasers. What are the other three?

To reach 116 launches, Vulcan will need ongoing flights, but the bulk of the booked flights are Kuiper, and Kuiper is supposed to migrate to New Glenn after those 38 flights. That's a big hole to fill. The NSSL cadence for ULA is historically about 4/year, and the Dream chasers will be maybe 1/yr, so Vulcan will need a big new customer. ULA's current total launch rate is about 8/yr. If we subtract out the Kuipers, we need an additional 78 launches. at 8/yr.this is less than a decade, so we will perhaps know the answer to this poll before 2032 

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1539714940897984514

I think the question is what is the breakdown of of those 70 flights, which is a valid question that I want to know too.

The other question to ask is will Relativity, Firefly, and/or Rocketlab be viable enough with their next launcher in the next five years to pose enough of a threat to make getting the next 40 or so launches a near impossibility as low of a chance that is.

[Jim]

The other question to ask is will Relativity, Firefly, and/or Rocketlab be viable enough with their next launcher in the next five years to pose enough of a threat to make getting the next 40 or so launches a near impossibility as low of a chance that is.

they are not in the same market

[TrevorMonty]

The other question to ask is will Relativity, Firefly, and/or Rocketlab be viable enough with their next launcher in the next five years to pose enough of a threat to make getting the next 40 or so launches a near impossibility as low of a chance that is.

they are not in the same market

They will compete for high volume constellation launches plus large part of government missions which both Vulcan and  F9R are over sized for.

[c4fusion]

The other question to ask is will Relativity, Firefly, and/or Rocketlab be viable enough with their next launcher in the next five years to pose enough of a threat to make getting the next 40 or so launches a near impossibility as low of a chance that is.

they are not in the same market

They will compete for high volume constellation launches plus large part of government missions which both Vulcan and  F9R are over sized for.

And Terran R seems to be large enough to compete in mostly the same market since it has a higher throw weight than Falcon 9 in reuse mode.

[Jim]

The other question to ask is will Relativity, Firefly, and/or Rocketlab be viable enough with their next launcher in the next five years to pose enough of a threat to make getting the next 40 or so launches a near impossibility as low of a chance that is.

they are not in the same market

They will compete for high volume constellation launches plus large part of government missions which both Vulcan and  F9R are over sized for.

The other question to ask is will Relativity, Firefly, and/or Rocketlab be viable enough with their next launcher in the next five years to pose enough of a threat to make getting the next 40 or so launches a near impossibility as low of a chance that is.

they are not in the same market

They will compete for high volume constellation launches plus large part of government missions which both Vulcan and  F9R are over sized for.

And Terran R seems to be large enough to compete in mostly the same market since it has a higher throw weight than Falcon 9 in reuse mode.

They still are not in the same market

[Vahe231991]

Since seven Vulcan launches have been contracted for launch of the Dream Chaser spaceplane, the Vulcan could potentially become as reliable a ULA-built rocket as the Atlas V when it comes to launching miniature spaceplanes into orbit, since five of the six X-37B missions have been lofted into orbit by the Atlas V.

[Jim]

Since seven Vulcan launches have been contracted for launch of the Dream Chaser spaceplane, the Vulcan could potentially become as reliable a ULA-built rocket as the Atlas V when it comes to launching miniature spaceplanes into orbit, since five of the six X-37B missions have been lofted into orbit by the Atlas V.

That makes no sense.
A.  They are spaceplanes.   By what standard are they miniature?
b.  The fact that they are spaceplanes is irrelevant since they are inside fairings and are no different than other spacecraft
c.  Launching spaceplanes successfully doesn't mean a rocket is more reliable.

[bad_astra]

We have no baseline to go off of, in regards to 1st stage so I really can't answer the poll. But if it can't match the flight rate of Falcon 9 and New Glenn I think it will be a ULA's shortest lived booster.

[TrevorMonty]

We have no baseline to go off of, in regards to 1st stage so I really can't answer the poll. But if it can't match the flight rate of Falcon 9 and New Glenn I think it will be a ULA's shortest lived booster.

Never going match F9 flightrate as most of its missions are Starlink. Good chance it will better NG.

[AmigaClone]

We have no baseline to go off of, in regards to 1st stage so I really can't answer the poll. But if it can't match the flight rate of Falcon 9 and New Glenn I think it will be a ULA's shortest lived booster.

The poll is comparing Vulcan with other ULA rockets - not those of other providers.

Among the rockets ULA has launched (in other words not including any Delta II, Delta IV, or Atlas V launched before 1 December 2006), there has been one single case of a partial launch failure where the payload was left in a lower than intended orbit.

Technically, a rocket might be considered more reliable than another if it has the same number of partial and complete failures over more launch attempts. By that definition, Vulcan-Centaur would be considered more reliable than a single stick Delta IV with 26 successful launches, and more successful than the Delta II if it has more 30 successful launches.

On the other hand, unless (until?) ULA develops another orbital launch vehicle, the Vulcan would retain the record of most successful ULA developed even if it has a RUD before clearing the launch tower.

As for the source of any failures, I suspect that the most likely cause would be something going wrong on the first stage.

[trimeta]

They still are not in the same market

Again, why not? They'll be competing for constellation launches, they'll be competing for monolithic commercial launches, they'll even be competing for government launches (recall Peter Beck's recent comments about hoping that NSSL Phase 3 allows for companies which can't hit all nine reference orbits, plus expendable Terran R may be able to hit all nine anyway).

Sure, there will be a handful of launches which use the full power of Vulcan and can't be flown on (for example) Neutron, but that's not the entirety of Vulcan's market, if it's only winning those launches it won't hit 100.