Wow what a pretty launch! I’m glad we had a delay so we got to see a dawn Vulcan launch! But also… yikes, that right SRB nozzle did not have a good time. Amazing that Vulcan was able to compensate for such an off nominal situation.
Saw a lot of visuals on this launch I've never seen before. Solid rockets pretty much never have something go wrong with them without them just exploding. Vulcan's systems seemed to have handled it perfectly.
Oooh wee I'm late to the launch but holy crap that srb was extra sketchy, glad it went well, hate that nobody actually addressed it during the launch though. To be watching it live, it would have been much more frightening than watching back the vod
Poor commentators unable to deviate from the script and not permitted to acknowledge the obvious major anomaly in the booster, that thing could have easily have taken out the whole rocket. There, design redundancy at work! Well done Vulcan!
“One of the SRBs blew itself apart, but other than that this flight was perfect”. Well, yes, if ULA only want to carry inexpensive low-mass payloads. A customer will not accept this risk or pay for these kinds of performance margins.
ULA can't really do much to fix the SRB issue, the SRBs are made by Northrop Grumman. The hardware/software that ULA and Blue Origin made dealt with the anomaly very well.
Looked like one of the solid booster's nozzle decided to leave. Definitely a bit hairy, but I think Blur Orgin and the GNC team need a raise, cause Vulcan just powered through
Nice launch - would be good to have some onboard cameras and some overlaid telemetery, would not need the animations at the end then and give an avenue for the flerfs to moan how it's fake, they do that anyway but hey, at least we would get some good videos from onboard cameras!!!
I nearing being blind and I could see a problem...and the previous statement about reliability?? How many times has ULA had to reschedule liftoffs? Way more than they are saying. Please be honest if you want anyone to believe you in the future. @equiserre is so spot on.
Actually that flight was a very good test of ULA's, and Blue Origin's systems on Vulcan. This is because the boosters which malfunctioned were not made by ULA or Blue Origin, they were made by Northrop Grumman, and Vulcan, which ULA built, went on to still reach orbit despite that massive anomaly. ULA should be praised for this, and Northrop Grumman is the one to blame.
For me, the flame at L+0:37 with sparks and the difference of size of plume afterwards (maybe due to the camera angle), and the SRB jettison at L+2:10 and not L+1:49 look strange. But the callouts "everything is nominal" indicates the launch was ok. 🤔
No it definitely was not, Tory Bruno did confirm what we saw, as an “observation” of the right hand SRB, aka the nozzle or the aft casing failed. Centaur ended up burning extra because of the underperformance from the anomaly
So did they just… ignore that booster almost failing? There’s a lot to watch here and I’m not combing through it all but it doesn’t seem like there was any recognition of that by control during the ascent whatsoever.
I really miss simple thinks like Altitude and Velocity on the screen that so many other launch provides have in their broadcasts. Seems like an opportunity for improvement here on ULA broadcasts.
Gee no ack of an SRB failure, nor the fact of planned timeline deviations. Quick failure analysis shows nozzle failure on SRB that apparently was able to be corrected. Things were not “Nominal” as was reported though. Get a new script, or at least watch the launch, the failure was very obvious.
Good to have another rocket in the mix to choose from. Other than some SRB excitement things went well. SX fanboys busy spreading the light of consciousness as always.
Your willingness to just glance over the SRB excitement is odd. That's not a minor issue. They need to analyse the data to see if the success was due to redundant tech or due to pure luck.
@@Pranav_Bhamidipati Vulcan can have as many as 6 strap on SRBs so this will be thoroughly investigated. Northrup Grumman is the SRB manufacturer. Another rocket company launched 3 prototype rockets that had engines fail during flight and the community was fine with that.
@@Pranav_Bhamidipati Not a minor issue, but not a show stopper either. Per SpacePolicyOnline, "FAA assessed the operation and determined no investigation is warranted at this time". Some are upset there's more than one rocket company and are being hyper critical even to the point there's too many people in the control room. Bottom line Vulcan reached orbit successfully.
@@armandomercado2248 That irked me a little. A chunk of the nozzle literally broke off and fell down to the ground, not to mention that the rocket was on a slightly off-nominal trajectory. How could that not warrant a mishap investigation to check if public safety was ever endangered? There was no disposal of SRB nozzle planned (until later in the flight where the entire side boosters were jettisoned).
ULA said that the vehicle’s performance was nominal in the early stages of flight. However, 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. and ... 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.
Oh really!!!...when GM started to build cars was obsolete against Ford, when Japanese in the 1950s!!! were obsolete against american cars....look now...Musk is NOT!!! god...sometimes blowing rockets is not the only way to succeed in the space industry
@ULA, don't be afraid, show us telemetry! At a minimum altitude and velocity. Congrats and thanks!
Glad to see the BE-4 engines performed nominally even after that booster nozzle failure!
sooo it blowing apart is a normal feature ?
@@tc539 The SRB nozzle blew up, not the BE-4 engine. Know the difference before you comment. 🤷
@@PorkchopXpress 😉i do thats why i said it
Hooo boy, that was spicy!
Well done on the guidance teams. Very lucky it burned through the nozzle on that side and not in the direction of the BE4's.
Amen BE-4. Took the SRB loss of thrust like a champ.
How heavy was the dummy payload?
Wow what a pretty launch! I’m glad we had a delay so we got to see a dawn Vulcan launch! But also… yikes, that right SRB nozzle did not have a good time. Amazing that Vulcan was able to compensate for such an off nominal situation.
Broken SRB: Wow… YOUR DOING GREAT! 😀👍
BE-4’s: WE’RE DOING EVERYTHING!!!
Saw a lot of visuals on this launch I've never seen before. Solid rockets pretty much never have something go wrong with them without them just exploding. Vulcan's systems seemed to have handled it perfectly.
That SRB at 1:50:26 had me worried that it would pull a challenger.
Don’t think it was too far from it
they got lucky thats all. its not from being good
Those SRBs come from Northrop Grumman. I wonder what they have to say.
more like delta 2 but yea
@@Pranav_Bhamidipati "woopsie"
Bravo Zulu ULA! End outcome was spot on! 🔥
Oooh wee I'm late to the launch but holy crap that srb was extra sketchy, glad it went well, hate that nobody actually addressed it during the launch though. To be watching it live, it would have been much more frightening than watching back the vod
Lucky that SRB wasn’t much bigger
they are soooooooo lucky
Poor commentators unable to deviate from the script and not permitted to acknowledge the obvious major anomaly in the booster, that thing could have easily have taken out the whole rocket. There, design redundancy at work! Well done Vulcan!
Deviate from the script and it's off to the gulag comrade!!!
Yes but it is a failure of the certification test! Especially if the Vulcan booster exploded (rapid unscheduled disassembly) after stage separation!
So is the FAA going to fine and ground Vulcan due to the obvious SRB malfunction as well during liftoff?
Either have real commentators or just give us comms. The poor girl reading the script was cringe.
@@mahbriggshow does something that is planned to be expended being expended make it a failure???
“One of the SRBs blew itself apart, but other than that this flight was perfect”.
Well, yes, if ULA only want to carry inexpensive low-mass payloads. A customer will not accept this risk or pay for these kinds of performance margins.
ULA can't really do much to fix the SRB issue, the SRBs are made by Northrop Grumman. The hardware/software that ULA and Blue Origin made dealt with the anomaly very well.
Great accomplishment! More telemetry data please.
We deem it a success!
There is crap flying off the booster and sparks everywhere! Nozzle detached!
Victory.
Jealous of the Atlas V551…the Vulcan attempts its own power slide.
Well, I had hoped to see the launch from South Florida, but, it was too cloudy. 😟
What went "POP" at 01:50:26
Looked like one of the solid booster's nozzle decided to leave. Definitely a bit hairy, but I think Blur Orgin and the GNC team need a raise, cause Vulcan just powered through
@@rocketcello5354
Yep. Tough machine.
they still can’t recover any part of the rocket so its not cost effective.
Nice launch - would be good to have some onboard cameras and some overlaid telemetery, would not need the animations at the end then and give an avenue for the flerfs to moan how it's fake, they do that anyway but hey, at least we would get some good videos from onboard cameras!!!
I nearing being blind and I could see a problem...and the previous statement about reliability?? How many times has ULA had to reschedule liftoffs? Way more than they are saying. Please be honest if you want anyone to believe you in the future. @equiserre is so spot on.
No real time communication of status, failure to acknowledge anomaly. Come on guys.
good thing they talked over the engine launch audio.......
I would want another test before certification! That solid booster could have destroyed the entire vehicle.
Actually that flight was a very good test of ULA's, and Blue Origin's systems on Vulcan. This is because the boosters which malfunctioned were not made by ULA or Blue Origin, they were made by Northrop Grumman, and Vulcan, which ULA built, went on to still reach orbit despite that massive anomaly. ULA should be praised for this, and Northrop Grumman is the one to blame.
How do we know it was a booster nozzle issue and not propellant chunks ejecting?
For me, the flame at L+0:37 with sparks and the difference of size of plume afterwards (maybe due to the camera angle), and the SRB jettison at L+2:10 and not L+1:49 look strange. But the callouts "everything is nominal" indicates the launch was ok. 🤔
No it definitely was not, Tory Bruno did confirm what we saw, as an “observation” of the right hand SRB, aka the nozzle or the aft casing failed. Centaur ended up burning extra because of the underperformance from the anomaly
@clevergirl4457, where did Tory Bruno confirm this? I don't see it on Twitter. Is there another information outlet, or did i just miss it?
@@clevergirl4457 Thanks for this explanation! Makes sense!
@@bryantsmith1295 At 2:32:00 Tory mentions.
@@bryantsmith1295 on the stream
And it was great. And it was awesome. And... get the point?
Great launch even if the commentary was freshman level...
Why they are roughly 5 times more people in the operator room of ULA than in SpaceX ? Cost of launch does not seem optimized.
I think that they have 5 times the checking of all the space 🤔 also the hotels are full 🤔
So did they just… ignore that booster almost failing? There’s a lot to watch here and I’m not combing through it all but it doesn’t seem like there was any recognition of that by control during the ascent whatsoever.
What happened to the SRB, omw !! thats terrible!!! But how didn't it explode
How are they going to handle the recovery of the booster?
They don’t recover it. For the same reason that on max performance launches, neither does spacex.
@@tylerp6375 This is a test flight, even so, there was never a plan to re-land this rocket. Possibly salvage the engines via parachute.
BE-4s built in Huntsville💪
Amazing parts blowing off gets a “successful mission” from people here. I guess Starliner is a “success” for delivering its payload? Sheesh…
You should watch your competitor’s launch coverage to learn how to do it….
The centaur 2nd stage worked fine.
Lucky the solid rocket booster didn't destroy the whole vehicle! Too close for comfort. ULA better be very careful with actual pay loads!
The atlas 2nd stage worked fine.
The launch ascent data commentator honestly doesn't have a clear understand on this!!! Why didn't we hear anything
WONDERFUL
I really miss simple thinks like Altitude and Velocity on the screen that so many other launch provides have in their broadcasts. Seems like an opportunity for improvement here on ULA broadcasts.
Booster within expectations means they expected parts to blow off?
The SRB Engine Bell Explodes but that dosent stop vulcan! What a succes!
Gee no ack of an SRB failure, nor the fact of planned timeline deviations. Quick failure analysis shows nozzle failure on SRB that apparently was able to be corrected. Things were not “Nominal” as was reported though. Get a new script, or at least watch the launch, the failure was very obvious.
Good to have another rocket in the mix to choose from. Other than some SRB excitement things went well. SX fanboys busy spreading the light of consciousness as always.
Your willingness to just glance over the SRB excitement is odd. That's not a minor issue. They need to analyse the data to see if the success was due to redundant tech or due to pure luck.
@@Pranav_Bhamidipati Vulcan can have as many as 6 strap on SRBs so this will be thoroughly investigated. Northrup Grumman is the SRB manufacturer. Another rocket company launched 3 prototype rockets that had engines fail during flight and the community was fine with that.
@@armandomercado2248 I'd argue that there's a difference between a certification flight and a developmental test flight, but you do you.
@@Pranav_Bhamidipati Not a minor issue, but not a show stopper either. Per SpacePolicyOnline, "FAA assessed the operation and determined no investigation is warranted at this time". Some are upset there's more than one rocket company and are being hyper critical even to the point there's too many people in the control room. Bottom line Vulcan reached orbit successfully.
@@armandomercado2248 That irked me a little. A chunk of the nozzle literally broke off and fell down to the ground, not to mention that the rocket was on a slightly off-nominal trajectory. How could that not warrant a mishap investigation to check if public safety was ever endangered? There was no disposal of SRB nozzle planned (until later in the flight where the entire side boosters were jettisoned).
as a rocket scientist, i can say that this was absolutely flawless. no notes. well done ula
The uhhhh SRB???
ULA said that the vehicle’s performance was nominal in the early stages of flight. However, 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.
and ... 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.
@@jimwilliams4643 oh I should've noticed that. hey ho, looks like it got up to space okay. probably just a loose screw or something.
@@hcolemann the silicone rubber bands are all fine. it got to space and landed fine. ready for the next launch!
@earthplusplastics
Did you watch the same launch as every one else!
There was no recovery of the Vulcan booster!
Incredible how much better SpaceX is at this..
You have got to be kidding!!!
Falcon 9 is smaller than Vulcan, Vulcan is a very good rocket already. No need to bring SpaceX up
They should have had space x do it
what a pos. really? cant anyone other than elon make a rocket usefull or atleast not junk waste of money?
Obsolete rocket suffers major failure on second flight, somehow manages not to explode. USA!
This wasn’t the maiden flight, but this does seem like a significant issue. Incredible it survived
not excited to watch this obsolete rocket fly!😂😂😂
Nobody asked for your lame opinion Robert 👍
Oh really!!!...when GM started to build cars was obsolete against Ford, when Japanese in the 1950s!!! were obsolete against american cars....look now...Musk is NOT!!! god...sometimes blowing rockets is not the only way to succeed in the space industry
@@josephn944I did!!
Party pooper.
I did as well
NO Thanks for your garbage feed being delayed by 10 minutes.
I missed watching the launch because of your slow feed...
NOT HAPPY
That’s on you, not ULA. It was fine for me.
get better connection lmfao thats a you problem