Talk:Vulcan Centaur

ULA CEO interview: more specifications and information released
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)


 * This document on the ULA site confirms the existence of Centaur V+ Long but not the name: https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf?sfvrsn=10d7f58f_2. Old Vorlon (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignore the previous comment as the document has changed. The Vulcan Heavy now uses a Centaur with vacuum optimised engines. Old Vorlon (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we consider a rename of this article?
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)


 * It's being called the Vulcan-Centaur in order to differentiate it from the planned follow up Vulcan-ACES. I do not see why we would want a Wikipedia page that talks about the Vulcan-Centaur and not the Vulcan-ACES. Johnfwhitesell (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. We perhaps ought to then clarify the two concepts ("Vulcan-Centaur" and the planned (but apparently not committed) follow-up "Vulcan-ACES") a bit better in the prose of the article. N2e (talk)

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)

Updated schmatics
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)

Update Request - Ceremony, SMARF to SPOC
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. 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)
 * Can you clarify what language about the SPOC/SMARF you're referring to? I don't see why there'd be any issue updating the name of that building, so if you could point me in the right direction I'll see what I can do. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 23:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ but I have not updated the "Activities" section of the United Launch Alliance article, for now. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for replying. User:Soumya-8974 has updated the Vulcan article here. The other part of my request was asking if editors thought the Spaceflight Processing Operations Center (SPOC) should be mentioned in the Activities section of the main ULA article. ULA Megan (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've updated the disambig page for SPOC with the new facility as well. N2e (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Could add TLI payload to Payload mass capabilities table
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)


 * That sounds like a great idea. I will do it.Godzillaforpresident (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the empty mass of the Vulcan first stage
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)
 * They haven't released any info (related to your cmt) on their website yet - hopefully we will get more details and maybe a payload user's guide as we get closer to launch. OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 04:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [ref from comment section below:] Vulcan: Pathfinder fueling tests planned Aug 2021 says
 * "A liquid oxygen tanking test to load 808,000 pounds (366,500 kg) of liquid oxygen, chilled to -297 degrees F (-183 deg C), into the [first] stage."
 * "A liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanking test to load 254,000 pounds (115,200 kg) of LNG, chilled to -260 degrees F (-162 deg C), into the [first] stage." so total liquid propellant [for first/core stage] : 481,700 kg. - Rod57 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Need more details on Centaur V
Have ULA stated, or reliable commentators estimated, empty and full mass of Centaur V ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * For first stage; 115,200kg of LOX and 366,500kg of LNG. For second stage; 54,000kg of propellant; could probably find breakdown by looking at the mixture ratio of the RL10C-1-1A/RL10CX https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1244993184557563905/photo/1 https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/vulcan-centaur-pathfinder-fueling-tests-planned Barry Jenekuns (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * More than twice the 20,830 kg of propellant in the Centaur III ! - Rod57 (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Future launches - could mention the huge April 2022 Amazon order for Kuiper satellite launches.
Some where, eg in the Future launches section - could mention the 38 Vulcan launches Amazon ordered April 2022 for Project Kuiper satellite launches. - Rod57 (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we say when first flight core stage was built ready for engines ?
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)

Vulcan Centaur Heavy?
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)


 * It's worse than I thought: see . Therefore, I went ahead and scrubbed the article now instead of waiting for comments. -Arch dude (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Development timeline slips of Vulcan Centaur: compared
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)

I have no idea what this means
(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)


 * That mess was left from test edit or vandalism by IP user 176.59.52.9 from a few hours ago. I just undid that edit. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

First stage information
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)


 * The broadcast is a WP:RS. So, feel free to include it! Redacted II (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to do the edit but it's weird because it's in one of those boxes, but if someone could tell me how or do it themselves I have the source: https://www.youtube.com/live/wZ6KTFMHenA?si=CBV7nNRLQxzesqdr&t=3431. Sp epic (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"fully expendable"
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)


 * Partial reuse of Vulcan components is mentioned in the Announcement and SMART reuse sections now. But full reuse is big step forward and the wording seems over the top ("drastically"). Regards &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Falcon 9 is said to cost $20 million to launch, in internal costs to SpaceX. The Vulcan Centaur costs $200 million on the market. The difference is mainly reuse . Surely that justified the word "drastic"? Thue (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood, but this is comparing a brand new launch vehicle to a fully mature one. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The reuse thing is already mentioned in the SMART reuse section, and referenced there. I thought it was generally acceptable to write claims in a lede without references, when the lede was just a summation of referenced claims in the article itself? And surely we need to mention in the lede whether this rocket is expendable - the degree of reusability is central differentiator of modern rocket designs. Thue (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the SMART section does not make comparisons to other launch vehicles. The comparison part needs a reference. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)