-
#40
by
Robotbeat
on 01 Mar, 2023 20:37
-
It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.
Right now (or after Starliner has its first crewed mission and after Starship has a successful orbital flight) would be a good time for NASA to start getting industry input for a commercial crew service to Gateway/cislunar. Maybe an RFP.
-
#41
by
TrevorMonty
on 01 Mar, 2023 22:39
-
It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.
Right now (or after Starliner has its first crewed mission and after Starship has a successful orbital flight) would be a good time for NASA to start getting industry input for a commercial crew service to Gateway/cislunar. Maybe an RFP.
That would make SLS redundant. Something ULA may well do in future with new owners whoever they are.
-
#42
by
DanClemmensen
on 01 Mar, 2023 22:53
-
It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.
A minor note on nomenclature: The largest Vulcan is called "Vulcan upgrade", not "Vulcan Heavy". From Wikipedia: "The most powerful Vulcan Centaur will have a Vulcan first stage, a Centaur upper stage with RL10CX engines with a nozzle extension and six SRBs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_CentaurThe configuration was formerly called "Vulcan Heavy", but the name was changed, presumably to reserve the name "Vulcan Heavy" for a 3-core version that was being investigated.
-
#43
by
Robotbeat
on 01 Mar, 2023 23:27
-
It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.
A minor note on nomenclature: The largest Vulcan is called "Vulcan upgrade", not "Vulcan Heavy". From Wikipedia: "The most powerful Vulcan Centaur will have a Vulcan first stage, a Centaur upper stage with RL10CX engines with a nozzle extension and six SRBs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur
The configuration was formerly called "Vulcan Heavy", but the name was changed, presumably to reserve the name "Vulcan Heavy" for a 3-core version that was being investigated.
No, I’m using Vulcan heavy intentionally as I’m referring to the tricore version. (And “Vulcan Heavy” ALWAYS referred to the tricore version.)
-
#44
by
DanClemmensen
on 02 Mar, 2023 01:12
-
It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.
A minor note on nomenclature: The largest Vulcan is called "Vulcan upgrade", not "Vulcan Heavy". From Wikipedia: "The most powerful Vulcan Centaur will have a Vulcan first stage, a Centaur upper stage with RL10CX engines with a nozzle extension and six SRBs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur
The configuration was formerly called "Vulcan Heavy", but the name was changed, presumably to reserve the name "Vulcan Heavy" for a 3-core version that was being investigated.
No, I’m using Vulcan heavy intentionally as I’m referring to the tricore version. (And “Vulcan Heavy” ALWAYS referred to the tricore version.)
I became interested in the awhile back, which is why I knew the nomenclature had changed. Here is a version of the ULA data sheet from 2020:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200605032023/https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdfand here is the current version:
https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdfAs you can see, ULA really did refer to the most capable single-stick V6 as "Vulcan Heavy".
-
#45
by
Robotbeat
on 02 Mar, 2023 05:47
-
It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.
A minor note on nomenclature: The largest Vulcan is called "Vulcan upgrade", not "Vulcan Heavy". From Wikipedia: "The most powerful Vulcan Centaur will have a Vulcan first stage, a Centaur upper stage with RL10CX engines with a nozzle extension and six SRBs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur
The configuration was formerly called "Vulcan Heavy", but the name was changed, presumably to reserve the name "Vulcan Heavy" for a 3-core version that was being investigated.
No, I’m using Vulcan heavy intentionally as I’m referring to the tricore version. (And “Vulcan Heavy” ALWAYS referred to the tricore version.)
I became interested in the awhile back, which is why I knew the nomenclature had changed. Here is a version of the ULA data sheet from 2020:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200605032023/https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf
and here is the current version:
https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf
As you can see, ULA really did refer to the most capable single-stick V6 as "Vulcan Heavy".
Nope! They referred to it as “Vulcan Centaur Heavy.” And your links confirm it. You’re falsely using “Vulcan heavy” in quotes! That exact phrase is NOT mentioned (except in reference to the tricore variant)!
-
#46
by
ZachS09
on 02 Mar, 2023 12:43
-
It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.
A minor note on nomenclature: The largest Vulcan is called "Vulcan upgrade", not "Vulcan Heavy". From Wikipedia: "The most powerful Vulcan Centaur will have a Vulcan first stage, a Centaur upper stage with RL10CX engines with a nozzle extension and six SRBs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur
The configuration was formerly called "Vulcan Heavy", but the name was changed, presumably to reserve the name "Vulcan Heavy" for a 3-core version that was being investigated.
No, I’m using Vulcan heavy intentionally as I’m referring to the tricore version. (And “Vulcan Heavy” ALWAYS referred to the tricore version.)
I became interested in the awhile back, which is why I knew the nomenclature had changed. Here is a version of the ULA data sheet from 2020:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200605032023/https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf
and here is the current version:
https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf
As you can see, ULA really did refer to the most capable single-stick V6 as "Vulcan Heavy".
Nope! They referred to it as “Vulcan Centaur Heavy.” And your links confirm it. You’re falsely using “Vulcan heavy” in quotes! That exact phrase is NOT mentioned (except in reference to the tricore variant)!
Can we put a “heavy” pin in this argument before it gets out of hand?
-
#47
by
tgr9898
on 03 Mar, 2023 02:04
-
As you can see, ULA really did refer to the most capable single-stick V6 as "Vulcan Heavy".
Nope! They referred to it as “Vulcan Centaur Heavy.” And your links confirm it. You’re falsely using “Vulcan heavy” in quotes! That exact phrase is NOT mentioned (except in reference to the tricore variant)!
Can we put a “heavy” pin in this argument before it gets out of hand?
One pin by itself or three pins clustered together?
-
#48
by
ZachS09
on 03 Mar, 2023 04:19
-
As you can see, ULA really did refer to the most capable single-stick V6 as "Vulcan Heavy".
Nope! They referred to it as “Vulcan Centaur Heavy.” And your links confirm it. You’re falsely using “Vulcan heavy” in quotes! That exact phrase is NOT mentioned (except in reference to the tricore variant)!
Can we put a “heavy” pin in this argument before it gets out of hand?
One pin by itself or three pins clustered together?
Three.
-
#49
by
Vahe231991
on 24 May, 2023 02:00
-
It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.
Right now (or after Starliner has its first crewed mission and after Starship has a successful orbital flight) would be a good time for NASA to start getting industry input for a commercial crew service to Gateway/cislunar. Maybe an RFP.
That would make SLS redundant. Something ULA may well do in future with new owners whoever they are.
With Blue Origin having recently won a contract from NASA to become the second company to provide lunar landing services for the Artemis program, any talk of proposing to use the Vulcan Heavy to conduct lunar missions involving an uprated Starliner will be definitely out of the question if Blue Origin decides to develop a larger version of the New Glenn to carry a cargo spacecraft to haul supplies to the Gateway Lunar Station.
-
#50
by
Asteroza
on 24 May, 2023 03:00
-
It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.
Right now (or after Starliner has its first crewed mission and after Starship has a successful orbital flight) would be a good time for NASA to start getting industry input for a commercial crew service to Gateway/cislunar. Maybe an RFP.
That would make SLS redundant. Something ULA may well do in future with new owners whoever they are.
With Blue Origin having recently won a contract from NASA to become the second company to provide lunar landing services for the Artemis program, any talk of proposing to use the Vulcan Heavy to conduct lunar missions involving an uprated Starliner will be definitely out of the question if Blue Origin decides to develop a larger version of the New Glenn to carry a cargo spacecraft to haul supplies to the Gateway Lunar Station.
With the CIS Lunar Transporter in the mix now, Vulcan can just deliver Starliner to that for transport to the moon rather than doing a Starliner TLI delivery.
-
#51
by
Jim
on 25 May, 2023 17:36
-
With Blue Origin having recently won a contract from NASA to become the second company to provide lunar landing services for the Artemis program, any talk of proposing to use the Vulcan Heavy to conduct lunar missions involving an uprated Starliner will be definitely out of the question if Blue Origin decides to develop a larger version of the New Glenn to carry a cargo spacecraft to haul supplies to the Gateway Lunar Station.
Unsubstantiated
-
#52
by
JEF_300
on 25 May, 2023 17:40
-
Do you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start.
An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.
-
#53
by
whitelancer64
on 25 May, 2023 17:57
-
Do you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start.
An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.
New Glenn certainly has the payload capacity, and it is likely to be cheaper than Vulcan.
Both Vulcan and New Glenn have been designed with human rating in mind, and both could be certified as such by NASA with probably a very similar level of difficulty / cost.
-
#54
by
JEF_300
on 25 May, 2023 18:47
-
Both Vulcan and New Glenn have been designed with human rating in mind, and both could be certified as such by NASA with probably a very similar level of difficulty / cost.
Still, New Glenn should be 'cheaper' to crew-certify, because Bezos will probably pay for it, rather than Boeing or ULA having too.
-
#55
by
Jim
on 25 May, 2023 18:59
-
Both Vulcan and New Glenn have been designed with human rating in mind, and both could be certified as such by NASA with probably a very similar level of difficulty / cost.
Still, New Glenn should be 'cheaper' to crew-certify, because Bezos will probably pay for it, rather than Boeing or ULA having too.
can't say that
-
#56
by
TrevorMonty
on 25 May, 2023 19:29
-
ULA has already certified Atlas for Starliner doing same for Vulcan shouldn't be hard. Be surprised if they didn't allow for it in the design. ULA also has crew access tower on the pad.
-
#57
by
DanClemmensen
on 25 May, 2023 19:30
-
Both Vulcan and New Glenn have been designed with human rating in mind, and both could be certified as such by NASA with probably a very similar level of difficulty / cost.
Still, New Glenn should be 'cheaper' to crew-certify, because Bezos will probably pay for it, rather than Boeing or ULA having too.
This thread is supposed to be about Starliner on Vulcan, not about new Glenn. It should be easier to certify Starliner on Vulcan, because the Vulcan Centaur architecture is effectively identical to Atlas V: SRBs, two stage to orbit, no faring covering Starliner. furthermore, Vulcan Centaur is supposed to fly in a month or so, so the certification process will start sooner.
Vulcan may also be used for crewed Dreamchaser, so certification costs might be shared. Based on something posted (by Jim?) some time ago about Starliner on Atlas V, the LV portion of crew certification is all about the signalling from the LV to the crewed spacecraft. Presumably the same interface will be used for Vulcan.
-
#58
by
whitelancer64
on 25 May, 2023 20:05
-
ULA has already certified Atlas for Starliner doing same for Vulcan shouldn't be hard. Be surprised if they didn't allow for it in the design. ULA also has crew access tower on the pad.
Yes, Vulcan was designed with human rating in mind, per a tweet by Tory Bruno in 2019.
It doesn't have a retractable access arm, but crew access pathways have been built into Blue Origin's big launch tower at LC-36
-
#59
by
JEF_300
on 25 May, 2023 22:30
-
Both Vulcan and New Glenn have been designed with human rating in mind, and both could be certified as such by NASA with probably a very similar level of difficulty / cost.
Still, New Glenn should be 'cheaper' to crew-certify, because Bezos will probably pay for it, rather than Boeing or ULA having too.
can't say that
Well seeing as I did say that...
Unless of course you mean that I can't be sure of that, which is obviously true, and the reason the word 'probably' was in the sentence.