Author Topic: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread  (Read 312436 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #100 on: 05/24/2011 04:16 pm »
This last exchange really bother me.  Let me make something perfectly clear: THERE ARE NO BIT ROLES IN SPACE TECHNOLOGY. 

Dr Elias,

The term  "bit role" was used to describe small companies who are suppliers of components or subsystems vs companies who are system integrators.


Offline tobi453

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #101 on: 05/24/2011 06:37 pm »
2.  There won't be operators until there are RLV's.  Operations of ELV's require to much work of the designer.

Arianespace is an operator and has ~300 employees. However, there is still a lot of engineering support by other companies like Astrium, Snecma etc.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #102 on: 05/24/2011 06:44 pm »
2.  There won't be operators until there are RLV's.  Operations of ELV's require to much work of the designer.

Arianespace is an operator and has ~300 employees. However, there is still a lot of engineering support by other companies like Astrium, Snecma etc.

Arianespace is just a contracting figurehead much like ILS.  The engineering support provided by other contractors is indicative of a nonoperator paradigm.

This is applicable to Sealaunch and USA.  The hardware contractors still perform a large role in the day to day ops.

Offline Freddie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #103 on: 05/31/2011 01:45 pm »
"Turin, May 30, 2011 – Thales Alenia Space announced that it has delivered to Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB) its first Pressurized Cargo Module (PCM) developed to transport cargo to the International Space Station. This first PCM will be used for the CygnusTM demonstration mission, under NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) research and development initiative with Orbital."

"The module was shipped from the Thales Alenia Space plant in Turin, Italy to NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, where Orbital will integrate it with the Cygnus service module to produce the complete Cygnus spacecraft. The first mission is currently scheduled for December 2011, using Orbital’s Taurus® II launcher."

Read more of the Thales Alenia Space news release at http://www.thalesgroup.com/Press_Releases/Markets/Space/2011/Thales_Alenia_Space_delivers_first_Cygnus_PCM_to_Orbital_Sciences_Corporation/.

Offline Space Pete

Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #104 on: 06/04/2011 06:10 pm »
Here's a great, newly-released animation of a Cygnus cargo mission to the ISS - available in 1020p HD! :)

NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #105 on: 06/04/2011 06:29 pm »
It burned up! Is it supposed to do that? ;)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Space Pete

Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #106 on: 06/04/2011 06:32 pm »
It burned up! Is it supposed to do that? ;)

OMG, what a waste! We should leave them all in LEO and assemble a Mars transit vehicle out of them! ;D

(BTW, that was a joke, before the "Cygnus as MTV?" thread shows up!)
« Last Edit: 06/04/2011 06:33 pm by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #107 on: 06/04/2011 08:24 pm »
It burned up! Is it supposed to do that? ;)

OMG, what a waste! We should leave them all in LEO and assemble a Mars transit vehicle out of them! ;D

(BTW, that was a joke, before the "Cygnus as MTV?" thread shows up!)

Well, some might just see that part and start to question: "is that normal?" 

Pretty neat video, thanks for the post. Like how they meld the people in the Cupola into it.
Let's hope it all goes that smoothly. Now what we really need is for it to happen, and soon!

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #108 on: 06/04/2011 09:09 pm »
Good to see Orbital releasing some flashy promos of their own. :)

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #109 on: 06/04/2011 11:15 pm »
Like how they meld the people in the Cupola into it.

I was particularly struck by the scene just after that, that shows the Cygnus berthing.  It somehow makes the comparative sizes of the modules more clear:  Cygnus isn't much smaller than Columbus, but it sure looks smaller than Kibo!
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline perian

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Wrocław, Poland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #110 on: 06/05/2011 03:50 pm »
  It somehow makes the comparative sizes of the modules more clear:  Cygnus isn't much smaller than Columbus, but it sure looks smaller than Kibo!

Cygnus is smaller, much smaller. Look at diameter: 3.07 m vs. 4.5 m.

Offline majormajor42

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #111 on: 06/05/2011 07:41 pm »
Quote
It burned up! Is it supposed to do that? ;)

I'm looking back at the COTS awards and CRS awards. I was wondering if SpaceX was getting more money because they have downmass capability. If NASA was intending on using that downmass capability and if so, compensate SpaceX for it. In looking back, I came across this:

Quote
The Cygnus spacecraft to be launched aboard the Taurus II rocket  will be capable of delivering up to 2,300 kg of cargo to the ISS and will be able to return 1,200 kg of cargo from the ISS to Earth.

“We are very appreciative of the trust NASA has placed with us to provide commercial cargo transportation services to and from the International Space Station, beginning with our demonstration flight scheduled in late 2010,” said Mr. David W. Thompson, Orbital’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/12/spacex-and-orbital-win-huge-crs-contract-from-nasa/

did the return capability of Cygnus get dropped at some point?

have the award values changes to reflect the difference in return capability?

sorry if I missed the point at which this was discussed in the forum. Skimmed through some COTS and CRS threads trying to find info.

I enjoyed the video and look forward to driving down from NY one day. Good luck to them!
...water is life and it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their craft.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #112 on: 06/05/2011 07:48 pm »
I'm looking back at the COTS awards and CRS awards. I was wondering if SpaceX was getting more money because they have downmass capability.

They got more money because they were one of the two original COTS winners. Once Kistler was dropped, the remaining money was awarded to Orbital.

Offline majormajor42

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #113 on: 06/05/2011 08:01 pm »
from that same article:
Quote
The award from NASA orders eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX.

quote from me corrected
Quote
I'm looking back at the COTS awards and CRS awards. I was wondering if SpaceX should now be getting more money because they have downmass capability
.

@ugordan your response would seem to indicate that SpaceX will in fact be paid more than Orbital? I'm hoping to clear this up, otherwise I might have to move these questions to a COTS/CRS thread. not sure which one though.



for some reason my ability to reply with quote is being blocked. sorry.

« Last Edit: 06/05/2011 08:02 pm by majormajor42 »
...water is life and it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their craft.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #114 on: 06/05/2011 08:14 pm »
@ugordan your response would seem to indicate that SpaceX will in fact be paid more than Orbital?

I was talking about COTS money, not CRS money. Both SpaceX and Orbital entered their prices in their CRS bids and NASA accepted.

I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable on whether SpaceX will get paid extra for any downmass. My understanding is the CRS contracts didn't factor in any downmass capability, but I didn't study the topic closely.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #115 on: 06/06/2011 12:11 am »
@ugordan your response would seem to indicate that SpaceX will in fact be paid more than Orbital?

I was talking about COTS money, not CRS money. Both SpaceX and Orbital entered their prices in their CRS bids and NASA accepted.

I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable on whether SpaceX will get paid extra for any downmass. My understanding is the CRS contracts didn't factor in any downmass capability, but I didn't study the topic closely.
I think SpaceX is feeling like they left a lot of money on the table for CRS. I remember SpaceX getting upset that Orbital got the same money for fewer flights.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #116 on: 06/06/2011 09:09 am »
I think SpaceX is feeling like they left a lot of money on the table for CRS. I remember SpaceX getting upset that Orbital got the same money for fewer flights.

That's nobody's fault but their own. Whether because they felt they had to go on the cheap side for NASA to select their bid or something else, it's irrelevant now.

I will point out, though, that looking at the CRS selection letter, OSC came pretty close to losing out to PlanetSpace. You can't set the price either too high or too low. So how do you a priori know what the sweet spot is?

Offline majormajor42

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #117 on: 06/06/2011 04:32 pm »
Thanks for the responses. I might look into the SpaceX side of things more in other threads or ask there. Back to Cygnus, in my post above, I have some quotes from the CRS award where it appears that Cygnus will have downmass capability. When did that change and does it effect the CRS contract if that was part of the original deal?

Quote
The Cygnus spacecraft to be launched aboard the Taurus II rocket  will be capable of delivering up to 2,300 kg of cargo to the ISS and will be able to return 1,200 kg of cargo from the ISS to Earth.

“We are very appreciative of the trust NASA has placed with us to provide commercial cargo transportation services to and from the International Space Station, beginning with our demonstration flight scheduled in late 2010,” said Mr. David W. Thompson, Orbital’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

edit: thanks for those links two posts below notherspacexfan. beginning to understand now.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2011 05:48 pm by majormajor42 »
...water is life and it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their craft.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #118 on: 06/06/2011 04:45 pm »
I have some quotes from the CRS award where it appears that Cygnus will have downmass capability.

I think "downmass" means garbage disposal, not actual safe return of cargo to earth.

Offline notherspacexfan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #119 on: 06/06/2011 05:00 pm »
There were 3 cygnus cargo modules initially, all were offered in the CRS contract.

PCM (pressurized)
UCM (unpressurized)
RCM (return)

Only the PCM was ordered for CRS. The COTS demo was originally to use a UCM but was switched to a PCM after the CRS order.

see:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11939.msg246697#msg246697
www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/418855main_oc_nnj09ga02b.pdf
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/cygnus-rcm.htm
« Last Edit: 06/06/2011 05:03 pm by notherspacexfan »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1