ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle (as announced/built) - General Discussion Thread 3

[StraumliBlight]

My 2 cents - Tory is clearly stretching the truth of what it means to have a Vulcan "in production". But still worth noting.

From the party thread (twitter post)

[sstli2]

My 2 cents - Tory is clearly stretching the truth of what it means to have a Vulcan "in production". But still worth noting.

From the party thread

Right this illustrates what I am referring to - calling a milled panel a "Vulcan in production" is a stretch. If you say have a surplus of gore panels for the next 20 LOX tank domes, or wire harnesses for the next 20 avionics installs, 20 "Vulcans in production" is misleading. It's actually even worse than that because it seems like he's just mixing and matching different parts of the vehicle, so who knows if they even have 20 wire harnesses.

[DanClemmensen]

My 2 cents - Tory is clearly stretching the truth of what it means to have a Vulcan "in production". But still worth noting.

From the party thread

Right this illustrates what I am referring to - calling a milled panel a "Vulcan in production" is a stretch. If you say have a surplus of gore panels for the next 20 LOX tank domes, or wire harnesses for the next 20 avionics installs, 20 "Vulcans in production" is misleading. It's actually even worse than that because it seems like he's just mixing and matching different parts of the vehicle, so who knows if they even have 20 wire harnesses.

I'm willing to believe that ULA's Vulcan production rate is 20/year, or a least that it will ramp up to 20/year before it becomes the limiting factor. As of right now, they appear to be launch-limited, not production-limited. I (with no data) do not think they will launch 20 times this year, and that includes five Atlas V (LA-05 through LA-09 plus Starliner-1). I will be pleasantly surprised if they do better.

[clongton]

... Right this illustrates what I am referring to - calling a milled panel a "Vulcan in production" is a stretch.

I have been involved in many, many different vehicle production jobs (Boeing aircraft and EB nuclear submarines) over my career. Once any "major" component is completed, QA accepted  AND assigned to a specific S/N vehicle, it is legitimate industry standard practice to say that specific S/N "vehicle" is actually "in production". Mr. Bruno did not "stretch" in this statement. THAT Vulcan is actually "in production".

[Jim]

Right this illustrates what I am referring to - calling a milled panel a "Vulcan in production" is a stretch. If you say have a surplus of gore panels for the next 20 LOX tank domes, or wire harnesses for the next 20 avionics installs, 20 "Vulcans in production" is misleading. It's actually even worse than that because it seems like he's just mixing and matching different parts of the vehicle, so who knows if they even have 20 wire harnesses.

No, it isn't.  it is standard industry practice.  it is not misleading.

[Lee Jay]

My 2 cents - Tory is clearly stretching the truth of what it means to have a Vulcan "in production". But still worth noting.

From the party thread

Right this illustrates what I am referring to - calling a milled panel a "Vulcan in production" is a stretch. If you say have a surplus of gore panels for the next 20 LOX tank domes, or wire harnesses for the next 20 avionics installs, 20 "Vulcans in production" is misleading. It's actually even worse than that because it seems like he's just mixing and matching different parts of the vehicle, so who knows if they even have 20 wire harnesses.

I'm willing to believe that ULA's Vulcan production rate is 20/year, or a least that it will ramp up to 20/year before it becomes the limiting factor. As of right now, they appear to be launch-limited, not production-limited. I (with no data) do not think they will launch 20 times this year, and that includes five Atlas V (LA-05 through LA-09 plus Starliner-1). I will be pleasantly surprised if they do better.

Where did it say 20 per year?

[DanClemmensen]

My 2 cents - Tory is clearly stretching the truth of what it means to have a Vulcan "in production". But still worth noting.

From the party thread

Right this illustrates what I am referring to - calling a milled panel a "Vulcan in production" is a stretch. If you say have a surplus of gore panels for the next 20 LOX tank domes, or wire harnesses for the next 20 avionics installs, 20 "Vulcans in production" is misleading. It's actually even worse than that because it seems like he's just mixing and matching different parts of the vehicle, so who knows if they even have 20 wire harnesses.

I'm willing to believe that ULA's Vulcan production rate is 20/year, or a least that it will ramp up to 20/year before it becomes the limiting factor. As of right now, they appear to be launch-limited, not production-limited. I (with no data) do not think they will launch 20 times this year, and that includes five Atlas V (LA-05 through LA-09 plus Starliner-1). I will be pleasantly surprised if they do better.

Where did it say 20 per year?

Sorry, I miss-remembered. In August 2025, Tory said two a month for Atlas+Vulcan:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/08/ula-bruno-vulcan-and-beyond/

ULA anticipates a robust schedule, aiming for about two launches per month across its Atlas and Vulcan fleets in 2025 and 2026, “unless something interesting happens.”Bruno expressed confidence in achieving nine launches this year, bolstered by the completion of a new Vertical Integration Facility (VIF) and Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), enabling parallel rocket assembly.

[zubenelgenubi]

FYI launch availability about to increase; cross-post:

Stacking for this mission will start in "a few weeks" from VIF-A:

When do you expect to start stacking the first Vulcan in VIF-A?

A few weeks

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1995558409618563390

I think the best thread for discussion is here with launch manifest discussion:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60664.0

[meekGee]

Right this illustrates what I am referring to - calling a milled panel a "Vulcan in production" is a stretch. If you say have a surplus of gore panels for the next 20 LOX tank domes, or wire harnesses for the next 20 avionics installs, 20 "Vulcans in production" is misleading. It's actually even worse than that because it seems like he's just mixing and matching different parts of the vehicle, so who knows if they even have 20 wire harnesses.

No, it isn't.  it is standard industry practice.  it is not misleading.

Industry practices, in many industries, are designed to mislead.

The misleading doesn't happen when you use the term, it's when the everyday meaning of the term is later used to make inferences, for example by assuming that having "20 vehicles in production" means that the company is somehow significantly close to having 20 vehicles ready, whereas in fact all they have is 20 wiring hardness or 20 valves or just 20 S/N production files.

[Jim]

for example by assuming that having "20 vehicles in production" means that the company is somehow significantly close to having 20 vehicles ready

Wrong, but spin it however it makes you feel better.

They didn't use the industry standards  "20 vehicles in final production"  or "20 vehicles close to delivery"

Only "20 vehicles in production" means there are materials, documentation and work on the production floor assigned to 20 different end items.  No more no less. It makes no inference on the actual state of the vehicles. 

[meekGee]

for example by assuming that having "20 vehicles in production" means that the company is somehow significantly close to having 20 vehicles ready

Wrong, but spin it however it makes you feel better.

They didn't use the industry standards  "20 vehicles in final production"  or "20 vehicles close to delivery"

Only "20 vehicles in production" means there are materials, documentation and work on the production floor assigned to 20 different end items.  No more no less. It makes no inference on the actual state of the vehicles.

I know what it means...

I just also know that PRs are aimed at a broader audience (whether public or politicians) that are likely to take home the plain-english understanding of the phraseology, and that phraseology was chosen to convey something to those Ps. Hence "misleading".

It misleads those it intends to mislead, and is perfectly accurate for those in the know.

As a counter example, in ship building, start of "in production" is when they lay the keel.  I like that better, since it represents a certain big step in commitment of resources, much more than when procuring some minor piece of the BOM.

I don't know if that's applicable to modern ship building though.

For rockets, the equivalent could be the thrust structure - a long lead item that's expensive and unique per S/N and can't be just put in a bin somewhere.

[clongton]

]I know what it means...

I just also know that PRs are aimed at a broader audience (whether public or politicians) that are likely to take home the plain-english understanding of the phraseology, and that phraseology was chosen to convey something to those Ps. Hence "misleading".

Are you implying that Mr. Bruno is deliberately trying to mislead the public by using an industry-standard description (found on hundreds of thousands of PERT and GANTT charts around the world to inform management teams in planning and scheduling meetings) to spin the production as nothing but PR? Yes or No please.

[Jim]

As a counter example, in ship building, start of "in production" is when they lay the keel.  I like that better, since it represents a certain big step in commitment of resources, much more than when procuring some minor piece of the BOM.

I don't know if that's applicable to modern ship building though.

For rockets, the equivalent could be the thrust structure - a long lead item that's expensive and unique per S/N and can't be just put in a bin somewhere.

A.  Nobody said anything about "procuring" any hardware. 
b.  Thrust structure is not equivalent to the keel.  It is a large structure itself that requires a lot of assembly
c.  Laying the keel is not the beginning of ship yard production.  Cutting the metal and assembling parts of the keel occur much early and are included in the production.
d. You are confusing "assembly" with "production". Bruno said 22 vehicles* in production and not in assembly.  Production includes manufacturing, which is such things as milling tank panels, building wire harnesses, laying up composite structures, machining struts, etc..  Assembly is taking subassembly like tanks, harness, engines, etc and putting them together in a final product.

* I would say 21 and not include making raw stock for V-023 as depicted in the image.

[leeloodallasmultipass]

An infographics by ULA says Vulcan vehicle can be prepared in 11-12(based on configuration) days but all launches point to more like 30 plus days intervals. Why do you think that is? Seems like huge discrepancy.

[sstli2]

An infographics by ULA says Vulcan vehicle can be prepared in 11-12(based on configuration) days but all launches point to more like 30 plus days intervals. Why do you think that is? Seems like huge discrepancy.

They technically did stack the vehicle in 11-12 days for USSF-87. But as it's still an early mission, they may they now take their time with integrated vehicle checkouts and pad rollout.

This was the fastest Vulcan stack to date, so they are trending in the right direction, at least.