How does ULA's Vulcan rocket compare to the competition?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- Come to the Astro Awards! - January 13th / 14th, in Austin TX, remaining tickets are 25% off!!! - astroawards2024.com
How does the Vulcan rocket compare to its predecessors, the rockets it’s replacing, the Atlas V and the Delta IV Heavy, and maybe more importantly, how does it compare to its biggest competitor, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy?
00:00 - Intro
01:38 - Dimensions
02:08 - 1st Stage Engines
05:02 - Upper Stage Engines
06:34 - Payload Capacity
09:33 - Payload Volume
10:03 - Price
13:35 - Summary
--------------------------
Want to support what I do? Consider becoming a Patreon supporter for access to exclusive livestreams, our discord channel! - / everydayastronaut
Or become a CZcams member for some bonus perks as well! - / @everydayastronaut
The best place for all your space merch needs!
everydayastronaut.com/shop/
All music is original! Check out my album "Maximum Aerodynamic Pressure" anywhere you listen to music (Spotify, iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc) or click here for easy links - everydayastronaut.com/music - Věda a technologie
Come to the Astro Awards! - January 13th / 14th, in Austin TX, now 25% off!!! astroawards2024.com
Cost per kg to orbit??? I can back it out, but thats a key metric for comparing across vehicles. Plz :), add to the blog post version?
I really miss your more-often videos. Would love to see more of the vids a few years ago on the tech and such.
I am with AlexKrause. A million dollar per ton payload, would be the ideal way of estimating actual cost.
How was the trip to the moon?
So, you saw the Artemis reentry video, right. Still have the "warm fuzzies" about Dear Moon?
One point that often gets overlooked when comparing these launch vehicles is that Vulcan has a cool fire painted on its side which makes it go faster.
Exactly what I was thinking
A cool RED fire!
They should have painted the engines Yellow, it makes them more powerful!
And they should paint the payload blue, to be lucky.
Yeah but the Delta IV Heavy has the real thing going up the side.
Red ones go faster. Scientific fact. ;)
Actually it is the opposite. Paint adds weight...
The best part of Vulcans successful launch is that the next one will be with Dream Chasers debut launch. And im here for it!
Really? That's even more exciting! Soon enough hopefully...
@classydave75 i presume march at the earliest, but it's confirmed that the 2nd launch is Dream Chaser.
@@tyler60904 April, actually. The post launch analysis, combined with the work still left to do on DC, and ISS schedule make that the earliest.
@Nowhereman10 you're probably right. Last i heard was march, and thats when they were supposed to launch at the end of December. I feel late march might be too optimistic, lol.
@@Nowhereman10yes, April 2030
As unfortunate it is that the Peregrine Lunar Lander failed, it’s amazing that Vulcan finally made its debut! Go team space!!
Peregrine failing had nothing to do with the rocket though right?
@@iamaduckquack ULA said the lander had a good separation from the upper-stage. So as far as we know (currently), no. Astrobotic did release a picture of the lander that showed some sort of damage to the aft-end. My guess is they must have had some sort of anomaly in the thrusters when they attempted to fire them. They also said they were losing propellant.
I haven't been following the story very close so take that with a grain of salt. More information might have come out already.
Did vulcan deliver peregrine to the correct orbit, if it did, go ULA
@@dr4d1s Basically all information to come out has already come out, per Astrobotics, it was a valve that failed to reseal which led to a spike of pressure and blew up the tank.
Astrobotics also said themselves that ULA and the rocket had absolutely nothing to do with the lander being damaged, and there's nothing to suggest the damage was caused due to launch.
@@Pengun3 I appreciate you taking the time to give me the update. Thank you. Valves are freaking hard, man.
The 20-30 minutes format mixed into your standard long form is excellent and very welcome!! Great video!
Rapid production and iterative iteration is good for video content and quality and competition, too!!!!! 🎉❤
Please do this more 👏🏼
I'm disappointed that this is only 20 minutes long but I'm still going to arrange my evening around watching it!
Cheers Tim!
i only have 20 mins left before i gotta leave for work so i love the short videos when it counts lol. Love the long videos too but i think both are nice and have their place
Go to settings play at half speed! Haha your welcome
Less than 20 min videos are 100% better than than the feature-length films that are all over CZcams today.
I like shorter videos. I am following so many channels, I just don't have time for videos over 20 minutes anymore. That's not to say I didn't enjoy all your deep dives. But you sort of have me "caught up" on all the really broad topics, so these shorter updates are fine with me.
I think that the Vulcan rocket will have a limited role in LEO, but will continue to survive through the next couple of years due to the fact that it is good for high energy orbits.
Huge fairing will get the DOD, NRO, and USSF missions.
i think itle be around for a while with govt contracts but in the private launch market its gonna get outbid
@@KiRiTO72987 Vulcan is in its first version, much will change.
@sandbridgekid4121 If they can increase their launch cadence there are a lot of opportunities.
It’s far too expensive and it can’t match the Falcon Heavy to high energy orbits.
I feel like this will be critical for whoever ends up buying ULA.
Elon Moosk?
The Chinese.
@@sebione3576Nah, the United States government wouldn't allow that to happen. It has to be a 100% American company.
Well, if BO even try it, it will be extream stubidty..you are buying the competitor that is giving you money to test ur engine and who will be bankrupt in 5 years and who your prime product ..new glen will destroy it..thus it makes no sense..maybe ULA can be integrated will The company that makes its solid rocket and upper stage engines
@@mr.normalguy69Probably Amazon, They have their own interests with their engines
Don’t underestimate how important total faring dimensions and volume are! JWST’s specs were driven heavily by the Ariane 5, and Hubble was built to fit by a hair into the space shuttle. The large size of Vulcan’s capacity is a big selling point - not just for government contracts, but for other satellites and probes as well, perhaps.
Those faring dimensions are a huge selling point today. But that price for it is going to be a hard pill to swallow and will likely be the end of the rocket within 3-4 years. Multiple launchers coming online this year and next. Starship likely to take the bulk and has a vastly larger payload volume and better price per kg.
I think the thing that will determine success or failure for Vulcan beyond this current slate of missions (which by itself would be a respectable launch record) will be how much they continue to innovate with it. With SMART reuse and some of the Centaur V/ACES upgrades (IVF, XEUS and other in space operations) it could have a very long life serving its niche of the market.
Aside from government contracts (which probably depend more on deals with politicians, than cost/performance of a rocket), I think success or failure of Vulcan will depend on how fast New Glen and Neutron become reusable, and start competing for contracts with SpaceX. This should lead to great cost/kg to space price reduction, which we do not see now, as SpaceX have no competitors with cheap, reusable launchers.
@@NeblogaiLTbear in mind cost per kg is only one of probably many factors that decide the launch vehicle.
ULA are known for being the best at orbital accuracy which for a lot of customers will take priority over cost per kg.
Don't cheat yourself. Vulcan have no chances after Neutron, Stock Space, Starship and similar rockets will achieve reusability.
@@vyacheslavromantovsky1238 reusability with small fairings vs non reuse with a fairing over twice the size of its current competitor.
Having more space means you can have multiple customers on a single launch and this can drastically reduce the cost per customer
@@Iain31313 Even if that were true (and it seems very suspicious to me because thrusters are a thing) so what? If you can afford to put up more mass, then you just add a bit more fuel to the spacecraft and adjust the orbit yourself. More mass makes almost anything else you want to do in space much easier.
Excellent work as always Tim!
Excellent brief report!
I’ve been excited for Vulcan since it was announced. They definitely knew what they were doing by designing a rocket for high-energy orbits for DoD, NASA, and Communications Satellites, and not trying to compete with the LEO market which is driven primarily by price and not performance.
> designing a rocket for high-energy orbits
Then why Vulcan is still worse than Falcon Heavy?
@@denysvlasenko1865 It's only worse than the fully expended Falcon Heavy (9:24).
@@mikeg9b SpaceX will still have a huge cost advantage even with a fully expended Falcon Heavy they use side boosters that have already flown ~15 times and are fully depreciated.
@@TheUweRoss Rockets should only be used to get to LEO anyway.
Use the money saved by flying SpaceX for electric drives, ion, steam, plasma, etc.
High energy orbits are not enough. And remember, Vulcan doesn't match Falcon 9's HE performance until you start adding solid rocket boosters to it. Those each increase the cost. By the time they are able to match F9, the cost for the launch is nearly double the price of F9. I would love to see ULA compete, but Vulcan just isn't good enough overall. Basically they will only get launches that are specifically choosing not to launch with SpaceX or need more payload volume. That's it. Cost and launch cadence are both completely in the hands of SpaceX.
Gotta love a "short" Everyday Astronaut video!
I was searching for such a comparison the last few days, Tim you’re a godsend!
Great job Tim! I prefer the shorter episode...hard to fit more than 20 mins into busy schedule.
I love your simple language explaining complex things. You're sketches, arrows etc on key photos really help.
Thanks for your purist approach, also nice to hear your opinions and visions!
Great video. I appreciate the fact you point out uncertainties where they occur instead of just glossing over them like many others. Great work!
Answering the questions that everyday people like me have.. had for a very long time. Thanks Tim. as ever!
Great summary, Tim. I think however, mentioning that because SpaceX launches so often, its availability is that much greater. Taking five years to schedule a flight, which is a weakness ISRO not to mention ESA has, is a none starter for many customers. SpaceX seems to always have the capacity to fit a customer in the schedule when needed. That gives SpaceX a huge competitive advantage.
Did you even watch the video?!
You are only concidering the cost of launches, not capabilities.
@@akyhnehe didnt mention cost. He talked about launch times and cadence. Five years is too long for a startup to wait to have a satelite launched. Most will choose Spacex for turnaround time alone. Cost is just one more factor in Spacex's favor.
@@wmason1961 @wmason1961 No, he didn't mention costs, but neglected the fact, that most of the other rockets have capabilites, beyond the SpaceX rockets.
"SpaceX seems to always have the capacity to fit a customer..." is what he wrote.
You are neglecting this also, by talking about turnaround. I don't see, what this has to do with anything. It's not like a company builds a satellite, then after it's finished, they start figuring out how to launch it. It's the other way around. The rocket decides the max. dimensions, of the satellite.
How quickly SpaceX can refurbish a rocket, has no impact on this.
And SpaceX isn't necessarily cheaper. Yes, in some cases, no in other.
Don't believe for a second, that SpaceX doesn't charge every penny they can, for a launch.
You also forget that SpaceX is here, for two reasons. Government fundings, and that they are their own best customer, by far.
@@akyhnefrankly if the lowerd the price so they only make a mil or 2 they will be sued for anti compatitive behavier
@@akyhne His point , which you are choosing to dismiss, was that launch availability was crucial to many customers. It doesn't matter if the launch was free (or any other advantage that your denial can dream up), if the customer needs to launch this year and you can't launch for five you don't get a contract. Plain and simple.
Honestly, I can see Vulcan lasting a long time, precisely because it's tailored towards high-energy payloads. A lot of rockets today (including Starship as it would need refueling otherwise) are kinda designed for LEO, and that limits their abilities for higher orbits (Ariane 6 being an obvious exception). From my understanding, ULA is doing SMART because of these high-energy orbits throwing the booster so far downrange that reentering Earth's atmosphere is just entirely impractical. With SMART going online, and if anything with ACES is done, I can absolutely see Vulcan remaining competitive for a long time.
I agree, I worry that government customers will push them to freeze the rocket and not risk innovation and I think that would kill them, I hope they continue to push SMART and ACES.
thats actually a very good point thanks!
This is nothing but ULA talking points.
It's nice to see a well thought-out response and not someone spewing out the rocket will fail because it isn't fully reusable/"old technology"/costs too much and SpaceX is going to rule the universe.
Starship probably much cheaper even with refuelling
Superb Video Tim, the length is great.
Tim, bud. I need more of these short and sweet vids, I absolutely adored it.
Me too!
Vulcan’s “smart reuse” is quite smart, it involves throwing away the “cheap” booster tanks but saving the engines. The only thing is the tanks aren’t “cheap”, at least compared to other rockets. ULA uses friction stir welding for fabrication of the tank, which is better than starships mig or tig welding, but also much more expensive. Also Ula’s tanks use isogrid or orthogrid structures, requiring 90% of the raw material to be thrown away as they use CNC machines to mill down the tanks to the right shape. To make Vulcan very economical, they should adopt what SpaceX does, using thin cheap sheet metal and welding stringers to the inside. That would make the rocket cheaper.
I'm pretty sure the Falcon 9 is also friction stir welded, but of course, it generally isn't thrown away.
the 90% of raw materials removed by the CNC are recycled back into the process. The method of making the tanks is very economical in that way.
cheap sheet metal has disadvantages too. There are always pros and cons of course.
The metal isn’t “thrown away” - it’s recycled.
Aluminium alloy is easily recycled.
And none of the Starship launches have yet reached orbit. Vulcan has, on the first attempt.
@@shnizalwizal that’s true but you also have to consider the cost of machinery, time to construct, and other infrastructure. If you have watched Smarter everyday’s video on the ULA factory, you will see a lot of infrastructure going into recovery of the subtracted metal, not to mention that the size of the cnc mills are massive! It is still expensive to mill out the tanks compared to other methods.
The orthogrid method is often cheaper. Sure, it uses more raw materials and has higher capital costs, but aluminum stock and orthogrid cnc machining are relatively cheap recurring costs. Welding stringers can end up being more expensive from a labor standpoint and less performant. There are a lot of factors that play into determining which method is superior to use, but I think the ULA engineers are right that orthogrid is the best option for Vulcan's first stage.
I think it may have a longer life, especially if the engines can be reused as planned. And the US market really does not want to be in the position to only have one provider in this category. For that reason, I am hoping New Glenn works as advertised. It's also very interesting to compare Space X and ULA's development style. Throw them up and tweak vs let's test on the ground until we are guaranteed a successful debut launch. Can't argue with the outcome, either way.
Take that engine reuse as a happy anouncement. They can't even build capsules nowadays, that don't have any hiccups... greetings from Germany, which hasn't done anything for space travel anytime.
@tilmerkan3882 Check out RocketFactory Augsburg. They have a rocket in development that could launch from the European spaceport in French Guiana at some point.
Engine reuse won't happen anytime soon if at all. They haven't even shown a detailed plan how it would work. They showed a single page drawing that looked like it was made by a 12 year old. Everything I have seen makes it look like a gimmick, like slapping a green energy sticker on an F-150. Hopefully I'm wrong but I don't think I am.
Short videos are cool but My favorite videos are the Hour long in depth rocket engine breakdown. From the different cycles to how to start a rocket engine, I love the full explanation and detailed info in those long videos and hope for more like those soon!
Thanks as always Tim, and great to have the bitesized analysis. Looking forward to how new upcoming rockets fit in to this matrix.
Comparing Rockets is like comparing apples to oranges. But wen you throw the reusable factor in, it's like throwing a Mango into the mix. It's so freakin sweet!!!
Nice work on this video, Tim.
Can't wait to watch the Astro Awards !!! 🤟
Very interesting comparison for sure. You hit the nail on the head with how difficult it is to break down costs for launches but more importantly how much it’s costing each customer for a payload. Just because a launch is more expensive overall, doesn’t mean the cost to the customer is more….
I’d say it’s somewhat misleading dropping the falcon 9 launch down to 50mm as you don’t know if they’re launching for cost or at a loss for a one off flight like that. More representative to base on a larger contract as this will be at a realistic price per launch.
I don't think that 50M is even close to a loss. I've read that in an interview Musk quoted starlink internal launch cost at around 20M total, 15M for the new upper stage, and 5M for refurbishment of booster and fairings, propellant etc. If the real numbers are even somewhat close to that 50M is definitely possible even with the overhead and added expenses of an external customer.
@@HellsBergel musk is renowned for giving unrealistically low costs for projects. I’d take what he says with. Very large pinch of salt.
Additional, starlink is a subsidiary of spacex and will therefore be at cost to help make starlink more financially viable
@@Iain31313 Absolutely Elon is always enjoying his incredible figures but i can't imagine how how he could throw this much of starlink mission if it was'nt paid for by other commertial missions. I Love spaceX and their incredible upscale. But i enjoy a lot more ULA forward thinking with Vulcan, wich should allow more launch than falconHeavy if done right.
@@Fagorio , I would be highly surprised if Vulcan gets many commercial customers. It appears to me that it will get government contracts and any commercial customers (like Project Kuiper) who don't want to be dependent on SpaceX/Musk. With reusability, SpaceX will always be able to undercut ULA on launch prices, so SpaceX is almost always going to win an bidding wars. Once Starship starts flying regularly, SpaceX is going to have a ridiculous cost advantage. Maybe New Glenn can provide some competition, but I am skeptical whether any of the StarLink competitors in the West have any chance, because they simply can't match Starship's cost per kg. Their only option will be to swallow their pride and use Starship to launch their satellites.
@@amosbatto3051don’t let the cost per launch fool you into thinking it is cheaper for a customer to launch on it. Larger fairings, for example, allow for more payloads and cost per customer could be cut significantly if ULA implement this. Which from the first launch having a primary and secondary payload, I’m assuming is something they are implementing on all launches.
I’m still very optermistic if starship will ever become a regular flyer. They said this about falcon heavy and it’s only had 10 launches I believe.
The issue with Starship for me is that it uses so much propellant to get to LEO that it will be too costly for LEO and needing refuelling to go further is added risk which makes things significantly harder to manage.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative and timely video. Great job. Keep it up.
Nice job Tim. Good and fair comparisons among all the rockets including payloads, farings and cost.
I would be curious to hear what the GTO payload would be for Falcon Heavy with a down range recovery, given the limited extra tonnage gained when the Falcon 9 is fully expended. It would certainly be interesting to see a dual down range recovery
Love this wording: "...I'll soak in what might be the end of an era seeing massive relatively expensive rockets be sacrificed to Poseidon." The best, as always Tim! Cheers!
Love this style of video! Kinda love all the styles you do so just drop some of these in between the long form …
Always informative and enjoyable. Thanks for the hard work!
The biggest difference between the Vulcan and the F9 and F9H isn't weight to orbit capacity. But volume in it's payload fairing. That is the main drawback to the F9H. Sure it can move more mass, but that mass either has to occupy a smaller space, or get launched in pieces.
I have no idea personally, but would you think volume limit or mass limit, is normally reached first with payloads?
I note that many if not most Starlink satellites have been launched in the spare payload available when launching a 3rd party's payload.
As Spacex did about 90% of all launches in 2023, it seems that volume is not the limiting factor for most payloads.
SpaceX does have a larger fairing on the way for some new Air Force launches.
I think the volume can be customized depending on customer's demand. Almost falcon's payload are fitted inside the falcon's fairing very well.
Nice video, appreciated the content ! :D But don't you think the fairing size for Vulcan will play a major role as big satellites constructors are often restricted by the size available and have to add more actuators and points of failures to fit in and then deploy.
And communication satellites, science, are getting bigger & bigger, so I think for this, it makes sense too.
(Also me & my doggo pics were on Peregrine, we may not achieve the moon but we will be in space ✨Go Vulcan, go Centaur!)
Vulcan has 2 payload fairing sizes. The 15.5-m (51-ft) standard that was used on CERT-1 and 21.3-m (70-ft) long version.
Definitely enjoyed the launch, thanks for streaming it! And I’ve gotta say, without an incredible technology leak, this is likely the last big ground-up throwaway rocket developed in the USA
I think this is the last new big launcher with solid side boosters.
I hope ULA will be sold to Blue Origin, merched and that Bezos will install Tory Bruno as the CEO and give him the freedom for development that he didn’t have under the Lockheed-Boeing ownership.
I'm sure BO will buy ULA, then transition all of ULA's customers to New Glenn, either by offering discounts to change their current contracts, or only offering New Glenn on future contracts. Either way, once they have launched the last of the currently contracted Vulcan payloads, they will retire it and shut down the remaining husk of ULA.
@@odysseusrex5908 that’s my expectation as well. Blue should also try to buy Boeing’s Starliner division. I don’t think Boeing can’t make much money from it. But if Blue gains ownership for a good price, they probably can.
Other potential ULA buyers could include: RTX (Raytheon's new name), L3Harris (which absorbed Aerojet Rocketdyne), and Northrop Grumman (which absorbed Orbital ATK). Buying ULA would get them into the launch business overnight. But do any of them want to get into the launch business?
@@JonMartinYXD besides Blue Origin it’s Textron and Cerberus that are having talks. The companies you mentioned haven’t shown interest.
@@odysseusrex5908 what I believe to be more likely is that BO wants Vulcan so they can serve the high energy market better. Having NG and Vulcan would mean competitive offerings for **both** Low and High energy orbits (NG being low energy optimized). If they do transfer any contracts, it will be the ones utilizing smaller Vulcans that would make more sense on NG. They may also stop offering single stick and maybe 2 booster variants.
There are also other benefits for them, including but not limited to an "in" on gov't contracts, and potentially discounts for Kuiper.
Excellent presentation.
The Cost Per 1kg /1lb to LEO & GTO is a Key Rocket Metric that ties the performance data together and identifies the economic potential of each launch system.
In my opinion this cost to orbit statistic should be included in any rocket performance assessments.
As always well done and thanks for all you do.
The customers pay per launch, not per kg. (Unless smallsats on rideshare).
While important to a certain extent there are many other factors at play which would make this comparison not a reliable indicator on competitiveness such as availability, not able to use all the extra capacity, payload fairing size, price undercutting, reliability, insurance rates, and special needs. All of these rockets were designed to fill a specific niche in the market.
Regardless of the payload mass, you still need to pay for an entire rocket, and the crew to make it happen.
Yay! Classic style Everyday Astronaut video.
Tim we need an updated video on Stoke! Really excited to see their progress!
Using a really high ISP (ie hydrolox) for the upper stage and balancing the load so the lower stage is very high-energy is a thought-through approach to having a niche that they can survive in. They can't compete head-on against SpaceX in LEO and they're only going to be competitive in GTO/GEO for as long as the Falcons are all SpaceX has. But those aren't the only orbits, and designing for high-energy makes a lot of sense. They'll be attractive to Space Force - note that they needed a Falcon Heavy for a high-energy X-37 orbit that I suspect Vulcan could have achieved in a single-stick format. NASA will also find them attractive for beyond earth orbit missions: I suspect that ULA will put in a Vulcan bid for Dragonfly to Saturn, and for the Mars sample return missions, for instance. Beyond Mars, they're probably competitive with Starship if Starship doesn't do in-orbit refuelling, and who knows how long that will take to get reliable enough results?
> they're only going to be competitive in GTO/GEO for as long as the Falcons are all SpaceX has
No, they are not. Look at the numbers again. Falcons are more performant and cheaper.
@@denysvlasenko1865 simply put, Falcon's uperstage is not good enough for these kinds of mission's, it doesn't matter if a Falcon 9 is cheaper, If it doesn't have the energy requirements
@@jesusramirezromo2037 What are you smoking? Falcon Heavy's payload to GTO is LARGER that Vulcan's!
@@denysvlasenko1865 In expendable configuration. SpaceX does not like flying these missions because they may have to lose 3 cores. Which is pretty rough considering they only make up to 6 cores a year.
A lot of wishful thinking, we will see. I hope there is a lot of competition to SpaceX
Some things to consider in Vulcan-Centaur's favor. Diameter and payload volume are huge factors for customers. You wouldn't believe how much aerospace companies cram into satellites. Also, while being more traditional, ULA has excellent target accuracy. That means satellites use less propellant to get in the proper orbit and therefore have much longer lifespans. It's one thing to have a nominal trajectory (3-sigma) versus nailing it (0.2-sigma). Roughly 2/3rds of the cost are the BE-4 engines. ULA is in bed with Blue Origin. Blue is pumping these engines out in Huntsville and the costs are likely to go down. Given the age of the Falcon series and the simpler kerosene propellant, they are fantastic rockets. In the end the gov't won't allow a single supplier. ULA did a phenomenal job. Also, rockets in the modern era are never delivered on schedule. 10 years of development is impressive, especially since ULA started with legacy Boeing & Lockheed designs. I think Vulcan has a long and bright future.
> That means satellites use less propellant to get in the proper orbit and therefore have much longer lifespans. It's one thing to have a nominal trajectory (3-sigma) versus nailing it (0.2-sigma).
False. It's in the noise compared to the propellant needed for GTO to GEO transfer.
> Blue is pumping these engines out in Huntsville
Having a 3 years delay is not what most people call "pumping out".
@@denysvlasenko1865 How many years have you worked supporting spaceflight hardware to deliver satellites?
@@denysvlasenko1865How many years did it take to make Raptor? How many delays did it have?
@@brianmcnichols8092 Don't bother, yet another special SpaceX "fan"... Where did you work by the way? If you can say...
I am happy you made another deep dive long time since the last one
Rapid iteration is key to cost optimization, safety, and innovation. The process that can iterate quickly will naturally develop a culture of experimentation. The process that is heavy and costly will fear experimentation and innovation.
Well if ULA is sold I hope Tory Bruno still continues as leader. He is one of the few tech savvy people that I can listen to all day. Well Elon too.
Vulcan looks good, I just hope we will see the smart reuse sooner rather than later... given its ULA probably not as they don't rush things, but then again launch first time without issues.
We'll never see SMART reuse. I have serous doubts that ULA ever really wanted to do it. They were just hoping that ther biggest customer, the United States government, would continue to value reliability over cost and let them quietly shelve the project. Now though, 'm betting Blue Origin buys them, and their lovely contracts, fulfills the present Vulcan manifest but only offers New Glenn to future customers. They will just shut down ULA when the last of the currently contracted payloads are launched.
@@odysseusrex5908 Agreed, SMART will never happen. It's not a real-world plan for re-use, it's a hypothetical "we _could_ do this if we wanted".
Great video! I really appreciate the length 🎉
Happy to watch you as always. Thank you for your hard work and passion sharing. I am eager to see Axiom space station become true!
As you mentioned, I think Vulcan is a good, sensible design that makes sense for ULA's operations and customers. It's also good to see BE-4s flying. While Vulcan itself isn't pushing too much new tech, the BE-4s are a thoroughly modern engine. Having it get flight hours on Vulcan will certainly be good for more ambitious future applications like New Glenn, and I think it'll be helpful for next-gen methalox engines in general. Hopefully the SMART re-use will see implementation in the future alongside other upgrades, though I think it'll require a certain launch frequency/cadence for ULA to find those things worth developing. That's a lot of R&D that doesn't come cheap. I could see Kuiper being that impetus if it really picks up steam.
In addition to LEO & GTO, I think it would have been interesting to see comparison numbers for direct-geostationary, TLI, and deep-space launch profiles. Falcon 9 & FH are excellent orbital launchers, but with the extra fuel & equipment they carry for landing the first stages, along with their less-efficient engines and the way their upper stages are set up, they really run out of steam if you try to make them go higher.
Vulcans design was shown to be obsolete in 2013 when Falcon 9 proved that using a single fuel and same engines for both stages along with a large cluster of first stage engines without SRBs was far cheaper, even before reuse.
The F9 design led to a high production volume for the Merlin engine, enabling the use of mass production methods that lowered production costs by an order of magnitude. The expendable 2013 F9 put similar payloads into LEO as a Vulcan V0, at about half the cost. So over ten years later they finally respond after F9 has doubled its payload mass to LEO while lowering its launch cost. SMART reuse only exists as a PowerPoint, it’s at least five years away and it can never be remotely as cost effective as propulsive landings. Vulcan can never even attempt propulsive landings due to its twin engine design and high staging velocity.
And Falcon Heavy has far higher performance to all higher energy orbits, and at a lower cost than Vulcan. It proves that making an inexpensive design bigger always trumps the far higher costs of Hydrolox uppers and add on SRBs.
Vulcan is a terrible design that won’t last long given its only economic purpose is to give the military a backup launch provider. As soon as New Glenn launches, Vulcan has zero market left. And that is even ignoring Starship, which if it meets design goals will put nearly 10x the payload of Vulcan into orbit for 1/10th of the cost, with a fairing over three times larger.
Really interesting video to see all the rockets compared this way. Great job Tim and team!
I do find it a little weird though that you left the $50m amount at the end for Falcon 9 because of 1 mission. They were very obviously doing a deal for NASA on that one for some reason. You did mention the "normal" cost of Falcon 9 (which is good) and I think you should have closed the segment with that number instead of the $50m.
This is just a nitpick in the way that part was edited and is not indicative of the rest of the video.
Yes, especially as NASA in paying SpaceX 300M per mission to resupply the ISS.
Great summary Tim. Looking forward to seeing what the Vulcan rocket becomes over the coming years with reuse a priority
Thank you for this video. Was looking for something like this.
I hope NASA and ULA will pursue crew rating Vulcan for Starliner and future crewed Dreamchaser flights. It seems like one of the few rockets that is capable of doing this kind of work without being way oversized for the mission.
i like the short format. you have a awesome channel and you are awesome.
Great video! Thanks Tim 🙏
También hubiera sido interesante conocer la comparativa del precio por tonelada o por kilogramo de llevar una carga al espacio.
Typically pretty high with ULA
Was waiting for this video!! Looking forward to your astroawards live stream!!
(I won't be able to come, but I'm sure I'll come for 2025)
I heard if you say your favorite CZcamsr's name 3 times, you'll get pinned!
But I'm going to say it 4 times!
1.Everyday Astronaut
2.Everyday Astronaut
3.Everyday Astronaut
4.Everyday Astronaut
Let's see if I get pinned!
Love the graphic of all the rockets side by side
Always good to see another rocket come online. The launch was fantastic to see. I think they have at least a five year run, and maybe a ten year run, going into the 2030s. Would based these time frames on: Their ties with defense; capacity to place payloads in GTO; and the allowance that likely should be given for the time needed for Starship and New Glenn to iron out any issues and come online.
The Vulcan rocket seems to me like it's tailored for the needs of the next 2-3 decades which is just perfect and shows ULA's expertise in the market research, just like they did with the past rockets. Too bad that they didn't predict the uprise of smallsats earlier, by Tory's own admission.
I think that the results of the smart reuse strategy will be the make or break factor for Vulcan. It seems like it has a lot of the benefits of both Space Shuttle and Falcon 9 with much smaller parts being brought back.
If they can pull it off with no refurbishment of the engines, easy remounting to a core without having to ship the engines far, and high success rates, I think the savings could be enough to keep it competitive for a while.
If it ends up costing a lot to develop, needing substantially more work (refurbishment, mounting, shipping, testing) to reuse them, or they lose engines at a higher rate, I think Vulcan will probably retire fairly quickly.
Looking at the price for a launch with competitors, doesn't seem to be a break factor for Vulcan...
And... Refurbishment of the engines will probably be pretty straightforward, with much smaller parts being brought back as you said. Should work well for them, hopefully.
I am unclear about the SMART concept. I ULA graphic implied they would try to pluck the parachuting engines mid-air, with a chopper. Which sounds very uncertain. This video suggests plopping down into the sea. My feeling is that even minimal contact with sea water would complicate reburbishment.
@@alexanderSydneyOz RocketLab has abandoned the helicopter mid-air catch for their boosters and will pick them up at sea as well... So it seems that should not be a problem. At least if you pick them soon enough I guess, which will certainly be the case.
Terrific comparison! I’d love to see you talk about JAXA’s H3 rocket as well!
I build the GEM 63 and 63xl motors for Northrop Grumman, and its way cool to learn how they stack up to the competition!
I'm thinking being that Tory has a very high security clearance, something other operators do not have, the decision to go for a very much wider payload was not random, nor the sheer specific impulse of vulcan. There might be payloads that the NRO want to launch in the future that other rocket providers simply cannot accommodate, and therefore cost of launch is totally irrelevant. Maybe Tory has been extremely smart and as Tim alluded to the vulcan has been designed for very specific missions which would secure ULA's future. ULA might not get as many launches as other providers in the future but they would have a secure and predictable income stream.
Yeah I think this will be a military workhorse
It's not silly to speculate about ULA's future. When Starship comes on line it'll be game over for ULA except for the protected government market.
The current Falcon already outperforms Vulcan. It's obsolete before it has flown.
Why? Starship would be overly complex and expensive for interplanetary missions or geo stationary where you could just use an expendable rocket
Not to mention Falcon's pitiful fairing size, and their small diameter
@@jesusramirezromo2037 Where is your crysal ball to know about "overly expensive & overly complex", and specifically what that means for a commercially competitive rocket? 🚀 ? Especially in the face of rapid, reliable, complete and total reusability??
The answer is in the design, and Vulcan has no answer to that design.
@@simian_essence You clearly didn't learn from the shuttle
@@jesusramirezromo2037 I certainly did learn from the shuttle (as did Spacex). We learned that it was 180 degrees opposite of rapid. We learned that stacking the orbiter on an external tank covered in insulation that "normally" fell off as hardened ice chunks was not the way to design something that was reliable. We learned that a throwaway tank was not reusable.
From all that learning arose the 4r Starship design: A rapidly reusable reliable rocket.
Another thing that was learned from the Space Shuttle was how not to design a reusable rocket. The shuttle was designed by committee. Starship, like Vostok, and like the V2 and Saturn 5, were all essentially designed by one person.
Thank you for being objective and honest with your evaluation between ULA and SpaceX. Go Vulcan go Be4 !
This question was on my mind as I was watching other space updates, so thanks!
First
Edit: Any reward? 🥺
It’s with great honor that I present to you, this awesome emoji 🦖
Really proud to be working for the company that provided the payload fairing, adapter interstage adapter and heat shield!
Amazing quality video, love your channel
Fair assessment Tim! It was a really exciting launch.
Hi Tim,
This new "abnormal" short format video is great. Sometimes just the basics are enough. Not everyone is interested in what brand of brilcream VonBraun used or the colors of Koroliev's underpants.😉
I really hope you keep the CZcams angle going… no one is in a better position to give the more advanced version of these events. We need you Tim.
Great video, I'd love to see you talk about the Japanese rockets sometime in the future, they're amazing!
I like how you actually explain the strength and weaknesses of the rockets without just jerking off SpaceX like everyone else does. Thank you for that.
Excellent video, very informative. The ULA situation reminds me of aircraft companies after WW2 developing new propeller driven fighters, they were obsolete before they were finished. I think any company not embracing mass production and reusability are going to have a tough time competing
One aspect here that got me thinking, is how flexible each company and launch system is, or would like to be, in regards to launch locations, strange orbits, retrograde or other, pad turnaround times and rapid response launch requirements. A lot of these aspects are increasingly interesting to space force and DoD contracts, and its very interesting to see Firefly (Browncoats forever!) position itself to be the leading rapid-response provider for time-critical payloads.
That was really good. Thank you.
Great video. I wish you should take into consideration also the radius of the payload in the analysis for payload capacity.
I don't have much knowledge about payload distribution or capacity but in my ksp fandom we can allways shrink things if it is hevier, larger or longer the JWST show how origami and engeneering overcome thoses. And you are right the power of Vulcan and ULA have always been to accept mission above LTO and GTO.
Go Team space !!!!
I love how a short video about rockets is still ~20 minutes 🖤
I like the longer form videos, I would love it if you went back to those
Another comparison element is simply how often the companies can launch. All fine to say 'this is cost of your launch', but the launch capacity needs to be available. Spacex has demonstrated stunning capacity with multiple launches in a single week. Even two on the same day recently, I believe?
Tim alluded to that in noting the difficulty of comparing Vulcan to Falcon 9/Heavy.
SpaceX unquestionably have availability, yes. If you have a payload ready to go, you can probably get a launch within a month or two at this point... they'll take your money, bump a Starlink payload down the queue, and the main delay will be payload integration.
Great video. I agree, it's always great to see more modern rockets being flown. To what you said, I'd love to see a video going into detail about all the unusable rockets currently in development. How far along they are? Their potential to compete with SpaceX ETC. If that is, you're looking for ideas. Have a good day.
I love this short video format!
I am 63 years old, and I am very much enjoying all the private activity, developing new aerospace technologies. They are the steps of a generation of scientists and engineers, with brilliant minds, achieving the dreams of their grandparents. Humanity launches into space colonies.
great concise explanation, thanx
Missed you Tim, your content is still the best out there. Cheers Bro
As much as i love the long form videos. This was a nice change of pace - god its exciting with all these new reusable launc vehicles coming about
Always good to hear from yo you Tim, don't be a stranger.
It's been fun comparing rocket sizes with you
Great video! Answers lots of questions!
OTHER GREAT QUESTIONS:
1.) COST PER KILOGRAM, by launch system/manufacturer?
2.) PERCENT KILOGRAMS TO LEO/GTO, by expendable orbital launch systems
3.) US TAXPAYER FUNDING OF EXPENDABLE LAUNCH SYSTEMS, and how much is that per year?
4.) FUTURE KG TO LEO/GTO PRICE, by elon musk/spacex/starship-booster heavy orbital launch system?
5.) IF YOU USED YOUR CAR/BICYCLE/TRUCK, like nasa uses expendable launch systems, how long would that last? the us taxpayer foots the bill for marginal gain technology increases
6.) WHO ARE THE CURRENT SPACE PLANE technology companies, and what are their projected kg to leo/gto costs/prices?
It is great to see the Vulcan first launch fully successful! They may not compete for the low-end LEO market with Falcon 9 but some customers need more performance and Vulcan is in the same price range as Falcon Heavy. We need some competition in the launch market.
The Falcon Heavy rocket provides ten times more efficiency and performance compared to the Vulcan rocket.
Congrats on a clear comparison video.
Great summary!
Tim, I am, and have been excited about anything rocket related since the mid sixties. I had the thrill of witnessing the last space shuttle launch🎉
I work at the Pratt/Rocketdyne facility where the RL10 and where the RD-AMROSS “office was for the RD-180 @ 2:25 @everydayastronaut. Its funny, they still have to hold on to the records from “production “, so they keep moving the boxes from one broom closet to the other. They had an awesome mockup of the thrust portion of the Atlas V that they let us explore once the program ended. The B2 nozzle extension mfg. process on the RL10 is impressive to watch.
The problem is, the price of a RL-10 is impressive to watch as well (upwards of $10M, right?), and Vulcan needs two of these. Merlin-1D is about ~$1M, and Falcon needs just one...
Good video. I would suggest turning the more important parts of the tables you present into graphs. Usually a much better way to communicate data than a table and with a box plot type plot you can easily communicate ranges like you have in your tables.
Great breakdown as always!
Thanks