Talk:Vulcan (rocket)/Archive 1

No longer a privately-financed development project
The times they are a changing. For the first year and a half of this rocket's existence, since Tory Bruno announced it in the fall of 2014, the rocket has been, or has been perceived to be, a privately-financed development project. ULA's owners (Lockheed and Boeing) have been making only very short term commitments of capital, and the article has reflected that (per sources); but the article has also been explicit that the development program was privately-financed. This is no longer true.

The funding is now an explicit public-private partnership, with the US government picking up the majority of the funding commitments for Vulcan development to this point in time, March 2016.

I have updated the article with this information, and sourced each statement. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What else happened in 2017
Article seems silent on : Did the BE-4/methane version get beyond PDR ? Did the AR1/RP-1 version even get to PDR ? [or] What did the company [or commentators] say in 2017 to explain lack of progress ? How is the AR1 engine doing ? When do ULA now say they will decide between the engines ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The final design review of the Vulcan Rocket was in December 2017. Rumor has it this review is based upon a 5.4 meter center core, which suggests methane engines for the first stage.  RP-1 engines would only need a 3.6 meter wide core due to the higher density of RP-1.  The BE-4 uses methane fuel and the AR-1 uses RP-1 fuel.  ULA has brought together a large panel of experts to make the final decision on the engine.  That should be announced this year.  Considering that the Vulcan rocket design is based upon the BE-4, it would be quite surprising if they chose the AR-1 for Vulcan. Martin Cash (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Could say how different configurations and versions are named
eg based on the choice of 2nd stage and 0-6 boosters. I think it's Vulcan DBS (D=fairing diameter in metres eg 5, B=Nr of boosters 0-6, S=Number of engines on the 2nd stage) eg Vulcan 561 shown. - Rod57 (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you have a good source for that you can cite, would be an acceptable addition to the article. N2e (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have a source, but it seems consistent with the Atlas V naming. - Rod57 (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Reason for date change
Hello! I am a member of ULA's communications team and have a WP:Conflict of Interest, so I won't be editing this article, but I have a suggested edit for editors to consider. The article says, "At the announcement in 2015, the ULA board had not yet approved the new launch vehicle, with first launch initially planned for 2019, a date that would subsequently slip to 2020, and then to 2021." If appropriate, can the text clarify that the Air Force contract is the reason for the date change? "ULA now planning first launch of Vulcan in 2021" says "United Launch Alliance now expects to perform the first launch of its next-generation Vulcan rocket in the spring of 2021, a slip of nearly a year that the company says is due to requirements of a recent Air Force award." I think citing a reason for the delay is helpful to readers. Thank you. ULA christa (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Hi, Could you say what specific USAF requirement(s) led to the change of date ? (eg something relevant to engine choice?) - Rod57 (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. The change has nothing to do with engine selection. As stated in the article sourced, we made the change to be in line with the Air Force timeline noted in LSA. ULA christa (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)