

Space Force Certifies Vulcan For National Security Launches (spacenews.com) 49
The U.S. Space Force has certified United Launch Alliance's Vulcan Centaur rocket for national security missions after successful test flights and resolution of a booster nozzle issue. This certification allows ULA to join SpaceX in conducting launches under the National Security Space Launch program, with Vulcan missions expected to begin this summer. SpaceNews reports: "Thank you to all our customer partners who have worked hand-in-hand with us throughout this comprehensive certification process. We are grateful for the collaboration and excited to reach this critical milestone in Vulcan development," said Tory Bruno, president and chief executive of United Launch Alliance in a ULA statement about the vehicle's certification.
Bruno said at the roundtable that the next launch by ULA will be of its Atlas 5, carrying a set of Project Kuiper broadband satellites for Amazon. That launch is expected as soon as next month. He said then that would be followed by the first two Vulcan national security launches, missions designated USSF-106 and USSF-87. ULA did not give a schedule for those upcoming Vulcan launches but Space Systems Command, in a summary accompanying its press release, said the first NSSL mission on Vulcan is planned for the summer. Bruno said at the roundtable that the payloads for those missions have "complex processing" requirements beyond a typical mission, and did not state how long it would take them to be ready for a launch.
Bruno said ULA is projecting a dozen launches this year, split roughly evenly between Atlas and Vulcan and between national security and commercial missions. ULA has been stockpiling components, such as BE-4 engines and solid rocket boosters, needed for those missions. "We're all staged up and ready, and as spacecraft show up, we'll be able to fly them," he said. He noted the company wants to get to a "baseline tempo" of two launches a month by the end of this year and perform 20 launches next year.
Bruno said at the roundtable that the next launch by ULA will be of its Atlas 5, carrying a set of Project Kuiper broadband satellites for Amazon. That launch is expected as soon as next month. He said then that would be followed by the first two Vulcan national security launches, missions designated USSF-106 and USSF-87. ULA did not give a schedule for those upcoming Vulcan launches but Space Systems Command, in a summary accompanying its press release, said the first NSSL mission on Vulcan is planned for the summer. Bruno said at the roundtable that the payloads for those missions have "complex processing" requirements beyond a typical mission, and did not state how long it would take them to be ready for a launch.
Bruno said ULA is projecting a dozen launches this year, split roughly evenly between Atlas and Vulcan and between national security and commercial missions. ULA has been stockpiling components, such as BE-4 engines and solid rocket boosters, needed for those missions. "We're all staged up and ready, and as spacecraft show up, we'll be able to fly them," he said. He noted the company wants to get to a "baseline tempo" of two launches a month by the end of this year and perform 20 launches next year.
After only 2 succesfull launches ?! (Score:2, Funny)
Not even to talk about the fact that these are non-reusable rockets so with every launch, at least 736 baby seals die. =/
Re:After only 2 succesfull launches ?! (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, you definitely do not want to read up on Operation Paperclip.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
We don't need space nazis and working for SpaceX makes them collaborators.
Let's not punish them for what Leon does. Let's just deport him like we should have when he violated his student visa. It's not too late!
Re: (Score:2)
Is he wrong, though? If we're setting Teslas and dealerships on fire, why does SpaceX get a pass?
SpaceX has a rocket we want to use. Not Starshit, which is never going to deliver its promised payload amounts because it's going to take the addition or more mass just to protect it from heat, but Falcon Heavy. Why should we throw the baby out with the Nazi?
Keep talking like that and Trump will be peddling Starships on the South Lawn of the White House, like he did for Tesla... :-)
Trump turns the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom [nbcnews.com]
(Or pave over the Rose Garden [newsweek.com] and turn it into a launch pad.)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing's different,
Well except the historically unprecedented fact that we have the current CEO of a major automobile brand (and the wealthiest person in human history) in a high-power Federal government position where they are influencing decisions over the Federal budget and programs that have nothing to do with the auto industry. Musk is the literal face of Tesla that's why he is still CEO today and that as we can see that has pros and cons.
When I bought my Toyota I never had to consider the opinion of Akio Toyoda on our
Re: (Score:2)
For the normie ordinary people they aren't face to face with SpaceX equipment every single day, unless they are Starlink customers their friends and family won't own gear from SpaceX, far fewer people have thought about taking a position on SpaceX, they may only see it on the news occasionally, Tesla is in all our faces today.
Also the timing of the Cybertruck with Musk's rightward turn and the election makes it effectively the "un-official-official vehicle of the Trump Administration", people see that and i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I gave you 5 valid points, you chose one of them to respond to and act like that's the entire argument, pretty bad faith my friend.
Really makes it hard to take seriously
Based on your reading comprehensions I am sure few things are serious.
so I'll continue to treat Tesla vandalism as what it really is: domestic terrorism.
Nobody was disputing that but your virtues have been signaled and thus noted.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing's different, including the inconsistencies of mental toddlers who throw a tantrum when they don't get their way.
You can tell how strong his point is by the way he hand-waves away the motivation of the people he's criticizing.
Re: After only 2 succesfull launches ?! (Score:3)
Not to mention that the cybertruck is trash on every level. It fails at being a truck, it fails at being reliable, it fails to remain intact while simply going down the road...
Then there's the way that Tesla doesn't sell parts like every other automaker does so you can only get them from wrecks, and the wrecks tend to burn up, and they are much more deadly to crash than anyone else's cars right now...
Re: (Score:2)
Not accepting the false premise. We should not be setting cars and structures on fire for political reasons, regardless of the politics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:After only 2 succesfull launches ?! (Score:4, Insightful)
without worrying about their relation to factual reality
Since when has that been a concern for you?
Re:After only 2 succesfull launches ?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Success? If random journalists are getting sent classified materials what do you think countries with actual spy programs are gleaming?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't have to "glean" anything when the president just sends them the documents. Unless that's exactly what you mean by a "spy program"...
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have to "glean" anything when the president just sends them the documents. Unless that's exactly what you mean by a "spy program"...
Or people could just be bribed here or abroad. The DOJ apparently isn't going to prosecute that any more.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the success of Donald Trump and his goons has inspired all the less-gifted among us to just post the first things they think of, without worrying about their relation to factual reality.
Yup, what's good the goose ...
Re: (Score:3)
So a reusable rocket that returns to base makes for some issues that others aren't interested in copying.
Other than a whole lot of others such as every other nation currently with their own launch program...
China Long March 10
European Space Agency Themis
Indian Space Research Organisation Reusable Launch Vehicle Technology Demonstrator
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (no name but openly stated their next launch vehicle after the H3 will be a vertical lander)
Then in the private space, beyond SpaceX working on their third reusuable launcher...
Blue Origin New Glenn
Rocket Lab Neutron
iSpace Hyperbola-2
Stoke Space
Simplifying the discussion a bit (Score:2)
It's usually "Science is cool by default" on /.
It is much harder to have the "Science is cool by default, let's talk budget, science priorities, environmental impact, and what other programs could the money be spent on" discussion on /.
The second one often results in incorrect knee-jerk "You think science is bad, basic research is bad" responses....
I'm all for a reasoned discussion of priorities, programs and budget for government and international program with the stipulations that
1. They have documented p
Re:After only 2 succesfull launches ?! (Score:4)
Taking SpaceX's operations as a whole, how much of what they have launched was non-reusable because it exploded?
That's an answerable question. SpaceX has launched 465 Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavy rockets [wikipedia.org], 5 Falcon-1 rockets [wikipedia.org], and 8 Starship launches [wikipedia.org].
I see 3 Falcon 1 failures, 3 Falcon 9 failures, and 4 Starship failures. So, in answer to your question, taking SpaceX's operations as a whole, 2.09% of them were non-reusable because they failed. Of course, all of the failures were early in the development, and for the Falcon-1 and the first few years of the Falcon-9 operational life they weren't re-usable (but, you asked for the SpaceX operations as a whole, not the reusable launches only. The failure rate would be lower if you don't count the launches of non-reusable vehicles, because half of these failures were before they started re-using boosters).
Re: (Score:2)
Of course over 90% of the launch weight of a reusable rocket is fuel, so reusing the rocket part doesn't save much in terms of environmental costs.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course over 90% of the launch weight of a reusable rocket is fuel, so reusing the rocket part doesn't save much in terms of environmental costs.
Empirically? No. The overhead of assembly and manufacturing a rocket is THE dominant environmental cost. It takes VERY significant manpower, materials, and energy to build one.
For the same reasons, Falcon reuse yields an 80% cost savings, and Starship, once it’s fully operational, will yield something like a 90% or even 95% savings by being even more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing environmental with economic costs.
Re: (Score:1)
You are confusing environmental with economic costs.
No. I am not. The environmental cost of building a rocket, or anything, is proportional to the labor and manufacturing cost of building it along with the manufacturing environmental costs themselves. Mining, smelting, grinding, assembly, etc, all have significant environmental costs - not to mention the environmental cost of the labor itself (the workers emit CO2 too!). You are simply focusing on CO2 emissions from a single launch’s fuel supply while ignoring the huge environmental cost of building th
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing manufacturing *having* environmental costs with it being *all* the environmental costs.
Re: (Score:1)
You are (a) putting words in my mouth - I obviously did not write “all”, and (b) attempting to move the goalposts by doing so. Silly.
That would indeed seem... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
For a second I thought they were saying they were going to launch from the planet Vulcan, which I figured Trump probably thinks is a real planet.
Re: (Score:3)
"Mr. Spock has been a disaster and planet Vulcan has been been treated very unfairly. If I had been President in 2009 it never would have been blown up. "
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like Star Trek News (Score:1)
That's a headline a year after the Vulcans visited earth after Cochrane did his little stunt...
Re: That sounds like Star Trek News (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
USSF really need Vulcan-Centaur (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
for the orbit and package that formerly can only be serviced by retired Delta IV Heavy. Some of those profile cannot be serviced by Falcon Heavy yet.
What limitations are left? Took them a while, but SpaceX finally has gotten their extending fairing into production to handle the larger physical sizes. They did their first vertical payload integration a couple years back. There were a couple of the DoD reference orbits that Heavy could not make in its first two flights, but those were sorted on flight 3.
Re: (Score:2)