You are not logged in.
It's a two-stage launcher. The new Vulcan is the first stage, and a version of the venerable Centaur is the second stage. Unless I am mistaken, Bezos's big methane-oxygen engines are what power Vulcan. Centaur is hydrogen-oxygen.
I may be wrong, but originally, they were going to try to recover the engines only, not the whole Vulcan stage, to address reusability. Otherwise, this is just another expendable launcher.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
You're right. Vulcan uses a pair of BE-4 engines. Engine pod will return via parachutes. And zero to six solid rockets, in pairs: GEM 63XL.
Upper stage will initially be Centaur III, or Centaur V, or ACES. Centaur III has a single RL-10 engine, Centaur V has two. Info-graphic says: "ACES is ULA's next generation upper stage. With integrated vehicle fluids, ACES can stay in orbit for weeks, not hours. In the future, ACES will possess on-orbit refuelling capabilities. This will on-orbit ACES stages to be reused, dramatically reducing cost and enabling the launch of much heavier spacecraft to the distant reaches of our solar system." The info-graphic shows same diameter as Vulcan core stage, and 4 RL-10 engines.
Hmm. Why does their flight profile not mention the engine pod separating and returning? Have they abandoned reuse?
Offline
Like button can go here
Rob:
Makes me also wonder whether they have abandoned re-use. Of course, perhaps they just don't want to attempt that nuance on the first flight or flights. Adding that complication later does make a lot of sense.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
Lockheed-Boeing Alliance Hit With US Fine for Launch Delays over delays of two military satellite launches this year, according to the service.
This should apply to all of the other collaborations...
Offline
Like button can go here
I see in the AIAA's email newsletter "Daily Launch" that Northrup-Grumman's "Cygnus" cargo craft is no longer launching to the ISS via ULA, now instead riding a Falcon-9 from SpaceX. It used to ride up on ULA's Atlas-5 launcher, which is now essentially gone except for a last few military missions.
I also see that Falcon-9 successfully put the Cygnus onto a transfer trajectory to the ISS, which I think is an ellipse with apogee near the ISS orbit, and perigee just out of the atmosphere. That would be a slightly shorter period, allowing the cargo craft to "wait out" the synchronization of ISS being there when Cygnus reaches its apogee. You circularize, and it's close-in maneuvering from there to docking.
I also see in the newsletter today that the circularization burn failed to work right, because the thruster shut down too early. Shades of Boeing and its Starliner thruster problems! Although, I'm not aware of this having been a problem on earlier Cygnus flights.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here