This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vulcan Centaur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Vulcan Centaur was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 January 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Looking for inspiration to help develop this article? Check out SpaceX Starship, a good article on a similar topic. |
ULA CEO Tory Bruno was a guest on The Space Show] July 23rd. During the show he reportedly revealed a number of new details about the Centaur upgrade path and engine configurations for Vulcan Centaur.
As previously announced Centaur V will be a 5.4m diameter stage, and now confirmed with 2 RL-10C engines.
After Centaur V a newly revealed variant, Centaur V+, will come online with an engine upgrade in a 2 engine configuration. A Centaur V+ Long will be introduced which will support 170klb of prop, studies are still on going on dual versus quads. This is designed to replace Delta IV Heavy.
Finally there will be a hard cut over to ACES which will introduce IVF.
that summary is from this forum, with is of course not a Wikipedia reliable source. But the main interview could be used to support any claims Mr. Bruno makes that might improve the Vulcan article. N2e ( talk) 11:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Not a proposal; just a discussion. Should we perhaps consider a rename of this article?
When the name was introduced in 2015, ULA clearly called this launch vehicle only Vulcan, and in my view, this article name Vulcan (rocket) was the correct article name for a long time after that.
Recently, however (sometime following the announcement that the second stage would be the Centaur V (rather than the originally planned Common Centaur, aka Centaur III, in early 2018), ULA and space media have been referring to the two-stage launch vehicle as Vulcan Centaur.
What do others think? N2e ( talk) 12:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Why no apparent mention of test failures and delays in 2023 at Marshall? I did not find that in the text. Is that intentionally left out? What about the significant delays and difficulties in development? Looks biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.231.213 ( talk • contribs)
@ ULA christa: Currently there don't seem to be any open source renders/images of Vulcan, and the main article image is of Vulcan-Common Centaur instead of Centaur V. Are you aware of any sources for images? 5Ept5xW ( talk) 23:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Hello! I'm a member of ULA's communications team, and wanted to share that there was recently a topping off ceremony for the MLP that will support Vulcan. I'm not sure how much media outlets picked up on the ceremony, or if this is a detail worth noting, but I'm happy to let editors decide whether or not to update the article.
In conjunction, ULA announced the rename of the Solid Motor Assembly and Readiness Facility (SMARF), which harkens back to the Titan IV days, to SPOC – Spaceflight Processing Operations Center. I wasn't sure if the Activities section on the main ULA article should be updated. @ Beatgr: You may have thoughts, since you recently updated this page about SMARF. Also, User:Rowan Forest, I am bringing this to your attention (since you added the Facilities section to the article based on this edit request), in case you think any updates should be made.
Will an editor please review this request and update the article? I have a WP:Conflict of Interest, so I won't be editing the article directly. Thank you. ULA Megan ( talk) 14:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The reference used for the table in Payload mass capabilities also includes payload to TLI, so we could add that column to the table here ? - Rod57 ( talk) 12:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
What is the empty mass of the Vulcan first stage ? and the propellant mass ? It would be notable if ULA haven't released this data. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Have ULA stated, or reliable commentators estimated, empty and full mass of Centaur V ? - Rod57 ( talk) 15:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Some where, eg in the Future launches section - could mention the 38 Vulcan launches Amazon ordered April 2022 for Project Kuiper satellite launches. [1] - Rod57 ( talk) 13:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Under First flight hardware can we say when the first core stage was complete and fitted with pathfinder BE-4 engines ? - Rod57 ( talk) 10:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The ULA website no longer uses the term "Vulcan Centaur Heavy". They do list "Vulcan Centaur Upgrade" after the smaller configurations, but it is vague and basically adds little or nothing to the understanding of the product. I think we should simply remove "Vulcan Centaur Heavy" from the infobox and probably from most of the article, leaving at most a sentence in the historical section, and use the numbers from the VC6 config in the infobox. They are mostly the same anyway.
(Non-RS blog entries speculate that the change was made because "heavy" has come to mean a rocket with three cores, like Falcon Heavy and Delta IV heavy. Delta IV Heavy is a ULA product that will be replaced by Vulcan Centaur, so "heavy" might cause confusion. We cannot put this speculation in the article, though.) - Arch dude ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Someone has put together a lovely and informative chart comparing the development time and slips in planned launch dates for a number of recent new launch vehicles. Very relevant comparative info, in my view. Shows New Glenn in context with
Ariane 6
Starship,
New Glenn,
SLS, and others.
CHART of launch vehicle announce/planned_launch/first_launch dates, by Ken Kirtland
Perhaps Kirtland might be interested in releasing that chart under CC license, or someone might make up a new one (as long as it has good sources). — N2e ( talk) 01:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
(NSSL) program for use by the United States Space Force and U.S. mind scool for national security satellite launches. 2601:5CF:8000:A870:E0CF:FE78:6FA2:FCA2 ( talk) 13:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The burn time is missing from the first stage's section in the table on the right, ULA's broadcast says it's 4 minutes 59 seconds. I just doubt that's a good enough source for wikipedia, so I think someone could try to find a good source and add it. Sp epic ( talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This passage, added by @ Thue, needs citations: "The current (as of 2024) version of the Vulcan rocket is fully expendable, unlike competitors like Falcon 9 which use booster reuse to drastically lower launch costs. ULA is considering making a future version of the rocket which ejects the expensive engine module from the booster during flight, which then parachutes back to earth and reused." I've moved it here, rather than adding cn tags, because it makes uncited claims not just about Vulcan but about Falcon 9. Happy to see it restored with proper citation. PRRfan ( talk) 12:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vulcan Centaur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Vulcan Centaur was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 January 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Looking for inspiration to help develop this article? Check out SpaceX Starship, a good article on a similar topic. |
ULA CEO Tory Bruno was a guest on The Space Show] July 23rd. During the show he reportedly revealed a number of new details about the Centaur upgrade path and engine configurations for Vulcan Centaur.
As previously announced Centaur V will be a 5.4m diameter stage, and now confirmed with 2 RL-10C engines.
After Centaur V a newly revealed variant, Centaur V+, will come online with an engine upgrade in a 2 engine configuration. A Centaur V+ Long will be introduced which will support 170klb of prop, studies are still on going on dual versus quads. This is designed to replace Delta IV Heavy.
Finally there will be a hard cut over to ACES which will introduce IVF.
that summary is from this forum, with is of course not a Wikipedia reliable source. But the main interview could be used to support any claims Mr. Bruno makes that might improve the Vulcan article. N2e ( talk) 11:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Not a proposal; just a discussion. Should we perhaps consider a rename of this article?
When the name was introduced in 2015, ULA clearly called this launch vehicle only Vulcan, and in my view, this article name Vulcan (rocket) was the correct article name for a long time after that.
Recently, however (sometime following the announcement that the second stage would be the Centaur V (rather than the originally planned Common Centaur, aka Centaur III, in early 2018), ULA and space media have been referring to the two-stage launch vehicle as Vulcan Centaur.
What do others think? N2e ( talk) 12:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Why no apparent mention of test failures and delays in 2023 at Marshall? I did not find that in the text. Is that intentionally left out? What about the significant delays and difficulties in development? Looks biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.231.213 ( talk • contribs)
@ ULA christa: Currently there don't seem to be any open source renders/images of Vulcan, and the main article image is of Vulcan-Common Centaur instead of Centaur V. Are you aware of any sources for images? 5Ept5xW ( talk) 23:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Hello! I'm a member of ULA's communications team, and wanted to share that there was recently a topping off ceremony for the MLP that will support Vulcan. I'm not sure how much media outlets picked up on the ceremony, or if this is a detail worth noting, but I'm happy to let editors decide whether or not to update the article.
In conjunction, ULA announced the rename of the Solid Motor Assembly and Readiness Facility (SMARF), which harkens back to the Titan IV days, to SPOC – Spaceflight Processing Operations Center. I wasn't sure if the Activities section on the main ULA article should be updated. @ Beatgr: You may have thoughts, since you recently updated this page about SMARF. Also, User:Rowan Forest, I am bringing this to your attention (since you added the Facilities section to the article based on this edit request), in case you think any updates should be made.
Will an editor please review this request and update the article? I have a WP:Conflict of Interest, so I won't be editing the article directly. Thank you. ULA Megan ( talk) 14:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The reference used for the table in Payload mass capabilities also includes payload to TLI, so we could add that column to the table here ? - Rod57 ( talk) 12:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
What is the empty mass of the Vulcan first stage ? and the propellant mass ? It would be notable if ULA haven't released this data. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Have ULA stated, or reliable commentators estimated, empty and full mass of Centaur V ? - Rod57 ( talk) 15:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Some where, eg in the Future launches section - could mention the 38 Vulcan launches Amazon ordered April 2022 for Project Kuiper satellite launches. [1] - Rod57 ( talk) 13:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Under First flight hardware can we say when the first core stage was complete and fitted with pathfinder BE-4 engines ? - Rod57 ( talk) 10:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The ULA website no longer uses the term "Vulcan Centaur Heavy". They do list "Vulcan Centaur Upgrade" after the smaller configurations, but it is vague and basically adds little or nothing to the understanding of the product. I think we should simply remove "Vulcan Centaur Heavy" from the infobox and probably from most of the article, leaving at most a sentence in the historical section, and use the numbers from the VC6 config in the infobox. They are mostly the same anyway.
(Non-RS blog entries speculate that the change was made because "heavy" has come to mean a rocket with three cores, like Falcon Heavy and Delta IV heavy. Delta IV Heavy is a ULA product that will be replaced by Vulcan Centaur, so "heavy" might cause confusion. We cannot put this speculation in the article, though.) - Arch dude ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Someone has put together a lovely and informative chart comparing the development time and slips in planned launch dates for a number of recent new launch vehicles. Very relevant comparative info, in my view. Shows New Glenn in context with
Ariane 6
Starship,
New Glenn,
SLS, and others.
CHART of launch vehicle announce/planned_launch/first_launch dates, by Ken Kirtland
Perhaps Kirtland might be interested in releasing that chart under CC license, or someone might make up a new one (as long as it has good sources). — N2e ( talk) 01:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
(NSSL) program for use by the United States Space Force and U.S. mind scool for national security satellite launches. 2601:5CF:8000:A870:E0CF:FE78:6FA2:FCA2 ( talk) 13:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The burn time is missing from the first stage's section in the table on the right, ULA's broadcast says it's 4 minutes 59 seconds. I just doubt that's a good enough source for wikipedia, so I think someone could try to find a good source and add it. Sp epic ( talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This passage, added by @ Thue, needs citations: "The current (as of 2024) version of the Vulcan rocket is fully expendable, unlike competitors like Falcon 9 which use booster reuse to drastically lower launch costs. ULA is considering making a future version of the rocket which ejects the expensive engine module from the booster during flight, which then parachutes back to earth and reused." I've moved it here, rather than adding cn tags, because it makes uncited claims not just about Vulcan but about Falcon 9. Happy to see it restored with proper citation. PRRfan ( talk) 12:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)