#Certification Mission 2 | Vulcan VC2S
1191 messages · Page 2 of 2 (latest)
There was no loss of vehicle or mission, and the debris fell within the hazard area's
Like there is this impression a lot of space influencers give that the FAA just hand picks what is investigated and what isn’t
When it is literally defined by US law
Big question is what does the DOD think
9-3 was not a simple engine out on ascent lmao
yes hence the 
oh okay cool
Yeah I’m more concerned about that tbh
I wanna hear what the NRO and USSF think
of what? sorry need to silence a rogue spacex boy rq
Code of Federal Regulations
Specifically 14 CFR 401.5
401.5 governs all non Part 450 launch licenses (which I believe Vulcan is not 450)
401.7 is the definition set for Part 450 that everyone will need to move to
Correct, Vulcan is not 450
so basically it’s not a mishap because it got to orbit?
Yeah like the mission was completed as planned and nobody got put at any more risk than ordinary
It’s certainly a very undesirable condition and a near miss and ULA will complete a full internal investigation for their own sake
So do you think we’ll see another Vulcan launch before the end of the year?
Yes
Entirely depends on what the root cause is
I think we will
If it’s a one off defect kinda sucks but it’s plausible
deffo depends on the outcome of investigation and any corrective actions
If it’s a design flaw in the 63XLs then probably not
Well yeah, if it's a design flaw like Vega-C it'll be a while
I don’t think we’ll see the other one that was planned for this month actually launch this month
Yeah that would suck
Next month at the earliest
USSF-106, probably already was delayed into November when Cert-2 delayed from Mid-September to Early-October
Oh my goodness gracious https://www.tmahlmann.com/2024/10/vulcan-soars-again-bullseye-in-the-end/
Oh gotcha
vulcan has absurd diamonds
Ahh..;
Can’t wait to see nooglins
Elon really did win
Can't wait to see the New Glenn plume
now every FAA "decision" /conclusion of a mishap or not is scrutinized by the public
Tbh it probably would not have fallen under the definition of a mishap for part 450
I think a lot of people assume that the FAA regulates like, reliability or effectiveness of launch vehicles in a way similar to aviation
Which is a fair assumption but sets you up for a lot of surprises when by law the only thing their regulations are ever allowed to be for is public safety
CelesTrak has GP data for 1 object from the launch (2024-179) of the ULA Cert-2 mission atop a Vulcan Centaur rocket from Cape Canaveral on Oct 4 at 1125 UTC: https://spacenews.com/vulcan-competes-second-flight-despite-srb-anomaly/. Data for the launch can be found at: https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/table.php?INTDES=2024-179.
Parking orbit was 500km circular inclined 30 degrees
what is a safety critical system
FTS, launch abort, etc
Yeah an engine giving out is not safety critical. However if your flight rules mean that you’re fucked and some form of flight termination needs to kick in as a result and it doesn’t then you’ve failed
Like I don’t believe CRS-1(?) was a mishap
vulcan so badass it can take an srb exploding and still survive B)
Daily reminder that French and French supervised large SRBs have a perfect (zero failure or partial failure) flight record over almost the last 50 years
having SRBs that fail is quite literally a skill issue
isnt vega french supervised? 
well somehow its still the french's fault i just know it /s
but seriously tho that's quite impressive
Last french large SRBs that failed were during test flight of.. I think M3 SLBM in the late 70s
Ariane 3/4 SRBs were Italian made under CNES design/supervision and never failed (but had some pretty wide performance margin, admitedly), Ariane 5 (mostly french, a bit italian SRB) never had SRB failure, M4 and M45 no propulsive failure, M51 test failure is not propulsive
so there have been 700 succesful large french/French supervised SRB flights in a row over the past 47 years
Can you spot the differences?
https://x.com/BCCarCounters/status/1811747339280765116
https://x.com/BCCarCounters/status/1842234216169525466
landing outside of the exclusionary is a big no no no
it didn’t complete the mission as planned so why the hell would 9-3 not have an investigation
Someone sent this to me, idk who took it but it’s pretty
SPX FANBOYS SEETHING 
https://fixupx.com/spacesudoer/status/1842307544817238113
The FAA has determined that no mishap investigation is required for the Vulcan launch anomaly.
Double standards by the FAA.
I understand why now
Like
There wasn’t a reason to bc the FAA rule book didn’t say it was needed

lmao
Pretty sure if that was a normal payload it would've failed?
Don't think generally that much overcorrection capacity in terms of booster dV
And Centaur well doesn't have the trust mostly
no
tory said that they didnt even run into the centaur margins
standard reserves got it into orbit fine
And remember just because it didn't carry any payload it doesn't mean it didn't have any mass up top
The inert payload was supposedly 1.5 tonnes
Why don't Elon bootlickers understand the concept of exclusion zones ?
fr
I'm glad that the superior meme is high on sxmr
remove the failure from your bio you vulcan hater
the ground tracking shots were unreal for this launch
I wonder how much more dramatic it would have been during a nighttime launch
Since you can't see the rocket too well and all
We'd be seeing sparks coming off, the blowout and think it had exploded
I’m glad it ended up delaying so it launched in sunlight
We could see more
While a jellyfish would’ve been cool, it’s better to have launched when it did
Those are some sweet views
the SWIR view would go crazy
it ran out only a a few seconds faster
I WANT TO BE HERE
United Launch Alliance (ULA) successfully launched the second Certification (Cert-2) flight test of the Vulcan rocket on Oct. 4 at 7:25 a.m. EDT from Space Launch Complex-41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. The rocket achieved a hyperbolic Earth-escape trajectory with bullseye accuracy as part of flight test obligations to meet U.S. Space ...
wake up babe, ULA has dropped Launch Highlights
Loud
HELL YEAH
As promised, here's a clip from one the new camera angles freshly cleared through ITAR.
yeey
Despite there being no sound in space or the video you can still hear the fairing there
that said I think there was a highlight in that launch ula missed
it’s flapping away
didn't know fairings can get so flappy
well I think this is more the norm
compared to the common image people have of the F9 fairings which are regid for re-entry and re-use
ah
did they change the fairings for reuse that much??
did we have footage from before recovery?
no clue
but implying they’re not flappy because of reuse means structural changes
and if they weren’t flappy before maybe it was just a convenient thing
theyve always been more not flappy
its not a specifically purposeful choice
just an effect of it tapering out at the bottom
to fit 5m payloads
Youll notice fairings such as vulcan mostly flap at the bottom because they have no taper
compared to the top
top is fine, bottom is what flaps
yeah no shaping means way less structural integrity
What system does ULA use to identify which side booster is which
Like some companies do port and starboard
Is it the same for Vulcan?
if I had to guess, some sort of clocking arangement. Since Vulcan has symetrical SRB spots, I wouldn't be shocked if it's a star pattern
(as in the attachments used for VC2+ are always 1 and 2, the ones used for VC4+ are always 3 and 4, and VC6 having 5 and 6)
I’ll try and ask Tory and see if I get a response
they do port and starboard for DIVH
so i assume they just carried that onto vulcan
Regarding the "observation": https://x.com/torybruno/status/1844755499679350991
@sts1251 Working it. Good quality data collected. Hardware recovered. Very small impact on the flight. I expect a relatively rapid resolution.
Sounds like they went out and collected the lost nozzle
they found the thing??
Apparently
shouldn’t be too hard considering people tracked it
they likely knew exactly where it fell
I'm more surprised they even had a boat to go recover it in time before Milton
SMART REUSE 
GEM can be reused
At #IAC2024, ULA's @torybruno says that the loss of the nozzle on one SRB on Cert-2 10 days ago resulted in <2% loss of impulse from that booster, which the core stage could make up. Working to find out what happened, but "pretty confident" will get to root cause quickly.
@jeff_foust @torybruno That sounds more like the total impulse loss on core+boosters
@DJSnM @jeff_foust @torybruno That's right. He was referring to the total loss
That’s how I interpret it, yes
I remember people speculating up to 15-20% thrust loss of the whole vehicle back then
Nozzle blowing up is probably a little more than a 2% loss for that booster yeah
But the boosters aren't that much of the thrust of the rocket
It seemed to make the booster run out of fuel faster than the other though
iirc
Wider throat, different burn time
But they were only like two seconds from each other so
SMART
"We recovered some small pieces of the GEM 63XL SRB nozzle that were liberated in the vicinity of the launch pad," Arnold said. "The team is inspecting the hardware to aid in the investigation."
So it was breaking up right off the pad?
Rapid Unscheduled Liberation?
Rapid Unscheduled Observation
Smart Unscheduled Observation 
I’m having a discussion about Vulcan in another server and we’re talking about the LEO version, what does CVL stand for
Centaur V LEO
there’s gotta be a better way to talk about that
no. make the acronym even worse
CVL... light aircraft carrier lol
