The U.S. Air Force is hoping to bridge a potential gap in on-orbit space surveillance capabilities with a small satellite launching as soon as 2017 that would be developed by a rapid-response military space office that the service has proposed disbanding, a top Air Force officer said April 3.Gen. William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee that the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS)-5 mission also would act as a pathfinder for technologies to be used in a follow-on to the current Space Based Space Surveillance (SBSS) satellite.Built by Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems of El Segundo, Calif., the SBSS satellite is part of a space situational awareness architecture that also includes ground-based radar and optical sensors. Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. of Boulder, Colo., was a major subcontractor on the SBSS satellite.But the Air Force potentially faces a lengthy gap in capability once the current SBSS Block 10 satellite reaches the end of its lifetime, expected around 2017. A proposed follow-on satellite has been repeatedly delayed — the Air Force hopes to the start development in 2016 — and now will not launch before 2021 at the earliest.Without some kind of gap filler, Shelton has said, the Air Force would be hard-pressed to keep tabs on threats to satellites in geosynchronous orbits. The ORS-5 mission would potentially plug that hole.
Is this different from the recently announced Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSAP) http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34081.0If so, looks like they are building two different platforms for a similar mission.
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s Operationally Response Space (ORS) Office is seeking information on potential launch service providers for a small satellite that the U.S. Air Force has characterized as a potential augmentation for existing U.S. space surveillance capabilities.“The ORS Office is seeking capability statements from those interested launch service providers that have a proven launch vehicle that is capable of meeting the performance and cost goals,” the office said April 15 on the Federal Business Opportunities website. “A proven launch vehicle is one that has achieved placing a payload into orbit prior to the ORS-5 launch and can present post flight the performance achieved.”ORS-5, tentatively slated to launch in 2017, has been touted by the Air Force as a potential gap-filler between the Space Based Space Surveillance Block 10 satellite, currently on orbit, and a successor that is not expected to launch before 2021. From its low Earth orbit vantage point, the Block 10 satellite keeps tabs on objects in geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers above the equator, home to critical U.S. communications and missile warning satellites.
The Air Force says it is seeking a dedicated launcher for the ORS 5 satellite, which is in the lift range of the Orbital Sciences Corp. Pegasus XL and Minotaur 1 rockets, along with Lockheed Martin's Athena 1c booster."The ORS 5 program will demonstrate a low-cost small satellite launch capability and aspects of autonomous operations via the existing Multi-Mission Space Operations Center ground architecture," the Air Force said.
The Spacenews article (http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-chosen-to-launch-u-s-air-forces-ors-5-satellite/) says, ORS-5 is going to a 0° equatorial orbit. This hints to Pegasus, as Minotaur-1 can not do this from the existing launch sites.
Why not Minotaur V?
Quote from: arachnitect on 07/03/2015 03:55 pmWhy not Minotaur V?Because it is far more expensive than the 23.6 M$ cited here. A Minotaur-IV was quoted in 2010 for ~50 M$.
Quote from: Skyrocket on 07/03/2015 08:24 pmQuote from: arachnitect on 07/03/2015 03:55 pmWhy not Minotaur V?Because it is far more expensive than the 23.6 M$ cited here. A Minotaur-IV was quoted in 2010 for ~50 M$.Pegasus missions are running more than $50M as well. I know that additional missions will be cheaper, but half as expensive?I've never seen a Minotaur IV/V cost number I really believed. Never seen one under $35M though.The only thing Orbital is flying that's close to this price is Minotaur I, and that would presumably need HAPS. And launch from CCAFS.I almost wonder if OrbATK is selling this launch below cost to deter competitors.Dumping a Minotaur-C on the AF to get it back on the market?
Quote from: arachnitect on 07/03/2015 10:24 pmQuote from: Skyrocket on 07/03/2015 08:24 pmQuote from: arachnitect on 07/03/2015 03:55 pmWhy not Minotaur V?Because it is far more expensive than the 23.6 M$ cited here. A Minotaur-IV was quoted in 2010 for ~50 M$.Pegasus missions are running more than $50M as well. I know that additional missions will be cheaper, but half as expensive?I've never seen a Minotaur IV/V cost number I really believed. Never seen one under $35M though.The only thing Orbital is flying that's close to this price is Minotaur I, and that would presumably need HAPS. And launch from CCAFS.I almost wonder if OrbATK is selling this launch below cost to deter competitors.Dumping a Minotaur-C on the AF to get it back on the market?Negative on the Minotaur-C as it hasn't been recerted yet for government flights, hence why its has civilian missions lined up for now.
In its launch services solicitation last year, the Air Force said the chosen launch vehicle must be capable of putting the 80-110-kilogram satellite into an equatorial orbit with an altitude of 500-700 kilometers.
The folks that have built the rockets or done the rideshares came back said we cant meet it but only because you’re going to a highly unique orbit. You’re going to zero degrees.
@Gruss_SN says it's Minotaur IV from LC-46 (Space Florida pad)