Author Topic: Shelton Touts ORS-5 Satellite as Space Surveillance Gap Filler  (Read 10936 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7746
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
Not really sure where to put this as no potential launcher is mentioned in the article.

Quote
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.

Rest on link.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/40119shelton-touts-ors-5-satellite-as-space-surveillance-gap-filler
« Last Edit: 04/05/2014 09:16 AM by Star One »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8478
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1016
  • Likes Given: 232
Is this different from the recently announced Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSAP) 

 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34081.0

If so, looks like they are building two different platforms for a similar mission.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7746
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168

Is this different from the recently announced Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSAP) 

 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34081.0

If so, looks like they are building two different platforms for a similar mission.

I was confused by this as well, but as you say they must be developing two different systems. I wonder how they are differentiated, orbits or something else.

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1031
Is this different from the recently announced Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSAP) 

 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34081.0

If so, looks like they are building two different platforms for a similar mission.
Yes it is very different.
Yes the new system will do some of the tasks of SBSS.
The Air Force could have gotten a second SBSS for much less than the first but Boeing tried to drive a hard bargain.
Boeing DID NOT build the SBSS satellite or the payload. They built a key satellite subsystem, the ground system, and oversaw the construction and testing of he satellite and payload by Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2014 04:15 AM by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7746
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
Follow up to the original article.

Quote
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.

Rest on link.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/40234pentagon-seeks-info-on-launchers-for-ors-5-satellite

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7746
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
This mission has now been approved by the USAF to be built by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory for a launch in 2017.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1409/03ors5/#.VAdOnGK9KSM

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2014 05:31 PM by Star One »

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3559
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 360
Orbital Sciences Corporation, Chandler, Arizona, has been awarded a $23,600,000 firm fixed price contract for Operationally Responsive Space-5 Launch Services. Contractor will provide the following launch services support for ORS-5 mission: launch services planning, analysis, design, development, production, integration and testing required to launch the ORS-5 SensorSat space vehicle to the desired orbit. Work will be performed at Chandler, Arizona, and is expected to be complete by a to-be-designated launch date in second quarter calendar year 2017. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition that was solicited via FedBizOps and one offer was received. Fiscal year 2014 and 2015 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $23,600,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Space and Missile Systems Center, Advanced Systems & Development Directorate Contracting Division, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, is the contracting activity. (FA8818-15-C-0003)
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7746
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
So a new payload for Pegasus XL then?
« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 05:38 AM by Star One »

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2042
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 61
Or Minotaur-1?

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 456
Pegasus for $23M?

It's gotta be Minotaur.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2042
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 61
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.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7746
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168

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.

Thanks. Be nice to see Pegasus finally have another payload to launch.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 456
Why not Minotaur V?

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2042
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 61
Why 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$.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 456
Why 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?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3650
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 655
  • Likes Given: 416
Why 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.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 10:51 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 456
Why 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.

What is the relevent contract for ORS flights? It's not EELV or NLS II. Are ORS missions subject to OSP-3?

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Liked: 351
  • Likes Given: 682
The spacenews article linked earlier by Skyrocket says
Quote
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.

Pegasus XL should have significant excess capacity: The user guide says it can do >300kg to a 700km, 11 deg orbit from Kwaj. So if Orbital can line up payload for the remaining capacity, that would seem to bring it in line with quoted Pegasus costs.

The article does say
Quote
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.
but I read the ride-share part as flying as a secondary on Atlas etc. Some other experimental small-sats might not care too much about being in an equatorial orbit.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 456
@Gruss_SN says it's Minotaur IV from LC-46 (Space Florida pad)

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3650
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 655
  • Likes Given: 416
@Gruss_SN says it's Minotaur IV from LC-46 (Space Florida pad)
yes because primary site (MARS 0B) is still out of service since Antares failure. 0A Service Structure is getting overhaul after shockwave damaged equipment on it.
Amended
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 09:35 PM by russianhalo117 »

Tags: