United Launch Alliance's (ULA) powerful new Vulcan Centaur rocket is two for two.
Vulcan Centaur, the successor to ULA's workhorse Atlas V, launched today (Oct. 4) at 7:25 a.m. EDT (1125 GMT) after a series of holds from Florida's Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, kicking off a key test flight called Cert-2.
ULA declared the flight a success, apparently keeping the new rocket on track to be certified for use on national security missions — a box that could be checked in the coming weeks, after ULA and the U.S. Space Force have had a chance to review data from the flight.
"I think we're all really excited to see that it's such a significant launch in terms of our certification and where we're going with Vulcan," Space Force program manager Megan Lepien said during the ULA launch livestream. "It was just a tremendous accomplishment from this team."
Vulcan Centaur flew for the first time this past January. That mission, called Cert-1, was a success, delivering the private Peregrine lunar lander to a highly elliptical moon-intercepting orbit as planned.
Peregrine didn't make it to the lunar surface, however; it suffered a propellant leak shortly after separating from the rocket's Centaur V upper stage and was guided back to Earth before getting destroyed in our atmosphere.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
Cert-2 was supposed to be the first-ever flight of Dream Chaser, a robotic space plane built by the Colorado company Sierra Space. But the private vehicle wasn't ready in time for liftoff, so ULA changed course, putting an inert "mass simulator" and a set of the company's own rocket-monitoring instruments on the Vulcan Centaur instead of a customer payload.
This shift meant ULA had to foot the entire bill for Cert-2, whose price tag is in the "high tens of millions of dollars," ULA CEO Tory Bruno told reporters in a prelaunch briefing on Wednesday (Oct. 2).
Cert-2 "has literally one primary objective, which is to go fly a second time and have another success," Bruno added in Wednesday's briefing.
That objective was apparently achieved, as Vulcan Centaur seemed to perform well throughout the flight. The rocket ticked all the major boxes on schedule — jettisoning its two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) around two minutes after liftoff, for example, and acing stage separation about three minutes after that.
There was a burst of material from the rocket about 39 seconds after liftoff, as seen in the launch video. The cause was a failed nozzle on one of the SRBs, Bruno explained in a series of X posts after liftoff. But Vulcan Centaur was able to fly its planned flight profile nonetheless, he said.
"Rocket compensated, as designed. Nominal trajectory. Bullseye insertion," Bruno wrote in one such post.
The Centaur V upper stage conducted two long engine burns as planned, the second ending about 35 minutes after liftoff. That milestone brought the main Cert-2 mission to an end, though ULA planned to do a little more work after that as well.
"We're going to conduct a few maneuvers with the upper stage, just to learn better how it behaves in those types of maneuvers, and also to give us more time with the [onboard] experiments," Bruno said in Wednesday's briefing.
Those maneuvers and experiments could inform the development of a future version of the Centaur V that's capable of operating in the final frontier for much longer than an hour or so, which Bruno said is the current norm for an upper stage.
"We think it's possible to take this to months, and that's a game-changer," he said. "What that would allow us to do is have an in-space transportation capability for in-space mobility and servicing and things like that."
If all goes according to plan, the Centaur V will head to a disposal orbit around the sun after completing those extra maneuvers and experiments, Bruno said via X on Wednesday. The stage will then be "passivated" — drained of propellant and battery power until it's an inert hunk of metal.
ULA will analyze the Cert-2 flight data, then hand that information over to Space Force officials who will perform their own examination, Bruno said. Certification could follow relatively soon after.
"If the mission is very clean, like the Cert-1 mission, that goes pretty quickly," Bruno said on Wednesday. "I mean, that'll be done in weeks, not months."
ULA is gearing up for that short timeline. The company hopes to launch two national security missions, known as USSF-106 and USSF-87, with Vulcan Centaur before the end of the year. And, if all goes according to plan, the new rocket will be a big part of a busy 2025 for ULA. The company aims to launch 20 missions next year, Bruno said, half of them with Vulcan Centaur and half with the still-active Atlas V.
One of those Vulcan Centaur flights will likely loft the space plane that was originally supposed to fly today.
"We have room in the 2025 manifest for Dream Chaser," Bruno said on Wednesday. "It's just a matter of, you know, when they're ready to go, and then we'll work with the range and the other customers and find a slot for them, and we'll get them up there."
Editor's note: This story was updated at 12:50 p.m. ET with information about the SRB nozzle failure from Tory Bruno.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Michael Wall is a Senior Space Writer with Space.com and joined the team in 2010. He primarily covers exoplanets, spaceflight and military space, but has been known to dabble in the space art beat. His book about the search for alien life, "Out There," was published on Nov. 13, 2018. Before becoming a science writer, Michael worked as a herpetologist and wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest project is, you can follow Michael on Twitter.
-
Avenger 2.0 Wouldn't call that 'aces' as the SRB anomaly (with the nozzle exploding) almost ended the mission...Reply -
Unclear Engineer Why doesn't this article in Space.com include any mention of the problem with one of the strap-on solid rocket boosters?Reply
From "that other site":
"the separation of the two GEM 63XL solid rocket boosters (SRB) took place nearly 30 seconds later than the timeline the company provided before launch. About 35 seconds after liftoff, there appeared to be material coming off one of the boosters, whose plume changed appearance, suggesting damage to the SRB’s nozzle."
"ULA did not mention the incident during the ascent, but the timing of subsequent events, including separation of the booster and the shutdown of the Centaur upper stage’s engines after an initial burn, were behind the timeline by up to 20 seconds."
"That certification process, if all goes well, could be completed in weeks, although the anomaly with the solid rocket booster could delay that."
What would the FAA do if this was a SpaceX launch? Why would they not declare this is a "mishap"? Why would they not put a hold on further launch licenses pending their review of ULA's corrective actions? After all, Boeing is a big part of ULA. -
Unclear Engineer The question on the table about bias is why didn't SpaceX report the anomaly, like Spacenews.com reported it. Space.com did report the anomalies and FAA responses for SpaceX launches, so why not for the ULA launch? It is especially significant for this particular launch because the only reason for this launch was to get NASA certification. It cost ULA a lot of money to do this launch without a paying customer with a functional payload.Reply -
fltpath A booster cone ejecting on takeoff is a very serious issue.Reply
There is always a safety zone to protect surface vessels and aircraft from anomalies.
Where did this cone land?
Was it a danger to land, sea, or air?
This may be the same issue for the boosters ejecting 30 seconds late...still fall withing the target zone?
ULA was touting they had these solid boosters racked up in storage...I guess perhaps they do not age as well as expected? -
Unclear Engineer I doubt the nozzle would land outside a planned safety area, considering that planning is designed for much more serious problems. The real issue is what it might do to the core stage, either damage or failure to achieve proper orbit. Remember, this is supposed to be the new workhorse, replacing the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles. It should be crew rated to fully fill that role. And, various versions of the Vulcan use 0, 2, 4 or 6 of these solid rocket boosters.Reply
It might be logical and legally feasible to certify the Vulcan 0 booster version, given that part of the equipment worked fine and even compensated for the failure of one of the strap-on solid boosters. But, the versions that depend on the strap-ons really should not be certified at this point. Without seeing data, it is hard to know how many of those strap-ons have been used already and what their failure rate has been. But, if a Vulcan mission needs 6 of them to all work without anomalies, the data might not be there to provide confidence for that. I would not be surprised if there have been fewer of these strap-ons launched that Falcon 9 second stages. -
fltpath
Thank you for the information. It could be twofold, the cone itself, but also the booster trajectory without a cone, that would appear to create a different CG....Unclear Engineer said:I doubt the nozzle would land outside a planned safety area, considering that planning is designed for much more serious problems. The real issue is what it might do to the core stage, either damage or failure to achieve proper orbit. Remember, this is supposed to be the new workhorse, replacing the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles. It should be crew rated to fully fill that role. And, various versions of the Vulcan use 0, 2, 4 or 6 of these solid rocket boosters.
It might be logical and legally feasible to certify the Vulcan 0 booster version, given that part of the equipment worked fine and even compensated for the failure of one of the strap-on solid boosters. But, the versions that depend on the strap-ons really should not be certified at this point. Without seeing data, it is hard to know how many of those strap-ons have been used already and what their failure rate has been. But, if a Vulcan mission needs 6 of them to all work without anomalies, the data might not be there to provide confidence for that. I would not be surprised if there have been fewer of these strap-ons launched that Falcon 9 second stages.
I was trying to find the TFR or NOTAM for the launch, but could not find it in the usual places. -
DrBoo "Vulcan Centaur seemed to perform well throughout the flight. The rocket ticked all the major boxes on schedule"Reply
No, it did neither of those. A significant anomaly occurred in a SRB mid-flight, and the vehicle may have been lucky to have continued to orbit. It did not perform "on schedule" as the author claims. The separation of SRBs was significantly later than scheduled, for example. This appears to be inaccurate reporting at best - and such an anomaly as shown in the video and images are cause for serious concern. They certainly didn't "ace" this mission, and the rocket is now compromised in terms of perceived safety and ability to perform reliably.
I would hope/expect that in the interests of consistency, the FAA would immediately ground this rocket until ULA find and fix the fault and demonstrate the same level of "safety compliance" that FAA demands of SpaceX.
Better reporting, please. Use of terms such as "aced" and "ticked all the major boxes on schedule" are opinions - and incorrect ones at that. Just give the facts without the superlatives. That is, if you want to be a reliable and unbiased source of space news. -
Unclear Engineer I almost agree with DrBoo.Reply
The caveat is that the core Vulcan booster and Centaur upper stage did perform properly, and even compensated for the strap-on booster failure. So, just referring to them as having "aced" their test may be true enough. But, the "mission" was definitely not a complete enough success to say that it was "aced". Vulcan with no strap-ons can probably be certified, but versions that require any strap-ons should not be certified at this point.
Regarding the issue of "bias" in the reporting and the regulating: That is often most detectable by comparing (1) what is not being said in the various sources of information, as well as (2) what emotion-laden words are selected to describe what is being said.
Space.com is disappointing me here, because of not only what it chooses to not mention, but how it chooses words to describe what it does choose to report.
For instance, we have seen Space.com articles about fired employees of SpaceX alleging sexual harassment, told from the perspective of those employees, but I don't remember Space.com ever reporting that Boeing plead guilty to criminal charges resulting from the Federal investigation of its 737 crashes and its failure to comply with corrective actions in a pre-decision settlement with the FAA. (Although Space,com may eventually have reported that somewhere, but long after I had posted it here.) From the perspective of what is important news for development of space hardware, the Boeing news seems much more relevant here, but was what was neglected in the choice for article subjects. It was big news, elsewhere.
I realize that Musk often irks people, frequently including me. But, that should not influence how actual facts are presented here.
It is important that "reporters" report the actual news, objectively and fully. Otherwise, all we readers get is propaganda built around parts of the news. And then we need to go listen to all sorts of biased reporting by the different "sides" on a politicized issue to get the complete picture of what is really happening.