Author Topic: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION  (Read 7198 times)

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #40 on: 05/16/2017 10:20 AM »
So there are 5 vehicles with an estimated LEO payload capacity of >30,000 kg actively being developed in the US right now?

SpaceX, Falcon Heavy
ULA, Vulcan/Aces
Blue Origin, New Glenn
Orbital ATK, NGL 500 XL
and, obviously SLS.

Strange times.

Six...

SpaceX, BFR

ZWell really this is a paper rocket that will get built if the government gives them the money, why on earth would they do that SX have alternatives and BO is also spending its own money to make something with similar capabilities. Nothing about congress would surprise me but funding development of this thing would seem like madness.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12264
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3015
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #41 on: 05/16/2017 01:51 PM »
ZWell really this is a paper rocket that will get built if the government gives them the money, why on earth would they do that SX have alternatives and BO is also spending its own money to make something with similar capabilities. Nothing about congress would surprise me but funding development of this thing would seem like madness.
Can't the same be said for some of the others?  Vulcan ACES is as much paper as NGL.  New Glenn is no further along than NGL.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/16/2017 01:52 PM by edkyle99 »

Online envy887

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #42 on: 05/16/2017 04:16 PM »
ZWell really this is a paper rocket that will get built if the government gives them the money, why on earth would they do that SX have alternatives and BO is also spending its own money to make something with similar capabilities. Nothing about congress would surprise me but funding development of this thing would seem like madness.
Can't the same be said for some of the others?  Vulcan ACES is as much paper as NGL.  New Glenn is no further along than NGL.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

They are all well past the paper stage as they are all building and testing primary propulsion - except NGL, which is still heavily based on built and tested STS/SLS hardware.

I think the point above was more about the money. Of the six US heavy or super-heavy lift vehicles in development, only NGL and SLS are primarily dependent on USG funding for development and missions. Vulcan is at least trying to be commercially viable, and its dev funding is primarily from ULA.

FH, NG, and ITS are almost entirely privately funded through development and don't need USG payloads to make development worthwhile.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12264
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3015
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #43 on: 05/16/2017 05:09 PM »
ZWell really this is a paper rocket that will get built if the government gives them the money, why on earth would they do that SX have alternatives and BO is also spending its own money to make something with similar capabilities. Nothing about congress would surprise me but funding development of this thing would seem like madness.
Can't the same be said for some of the others?  Vulcan ACES is as much paper as NGL.  New Glenn is no further along than NGL.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

They are all well past the paper stage as they are all building and testing primary propulsion - except NGL, which is still heavily based on built and tested STS/SLS hardware.
Orbital ATK has fabricated composite Common Booster Segment casings.  ULA has fabricated some Vulcan core test panels.  Orbital ATK has not yet test fired a CBS motor, but then again BE-4 has also not yet been test fired.  NGL's upper stage motor is (most likely) derived from BE-3.  The ACES upper stage motor has not yet been selected, but BE-3 is a candidate.  It seems to me that there are similarities in state-of-progress.
Quote

I think the point above was more about the money. Of the six US heavy or super-heavy lift vehicles in development, only NGL and SLS are primarily dependent on USG funding for development and missions. Vulcan is at least trying to be commercially viable, and its dev funding is primarily from ULA.

FH, NG, and ITS are almost entirely privately funded through development and don't need USG payloads to make development worthwhile.
If the Pentagon passes on Vulcan, ULA will drop it in an instant.  Just like Orbital ATK, ULA is getting some money from the government for this early development work.  Falcon Heavy is being developed to compete for EELV work, and yes, SpaceX is also getting a piece of Pentagon funding help.  (I would be surprised to see FH continue to fly if it were to lose the EELV competition.)  This is all part of the funding allotted after RD-180 became a political football.  There are at least three contenders, but plans call for only two winners in the end.     
http://www.americaspace.com/2016/03/03/air-force-funds-both-ar1-and-be-4-rocket-engine-development-to-replace-ulas-russian-rd-180/
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/as-rd-180-ban-looms-space-companies-make-steady-progress-on-new-launch-technologies

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/16/2017 05:17 PM by edkyle99 »

Online envy887

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #44 on: 05/16/2017 08:30 PM »
...  It seems to me that there are similarities in state-of-progress.
That was indeed my point.


Quote
If the Pentagon passes on Vulcan, ULA will drop it in an instant. Just like Orbital ATK, ULA is getting some money from the government for this early development work.  Falcon Heavy is being developed to compete for EELV work, and yes, SpaceX is also getting a piece of Pentagon funding help.  (I would be surprised to see FH continue to fly if it were to lose the EELV competition.)

Vulcan should be at least marginally competitive in the commercial market. It wouldn't be a viable project without USG funding and payloads, but it should be able to win some commercial customers.

NGL doesn't seem to be going anywhere unless the majority of development is USG funded, and several USG payloads per year guaranteed. It doesn't sound like it will be competitive commercially, and even moving Cygnus missions to NGL and canning Antares wouldn't be enough to keep it alive.

SLS is pretty much in the same boat as NGL - a USG built launcher for USG purposes.

FH is commercially viable for large commsats and HSF, and has paying customers for both. Add in SpaceX's internal needs and I'd be highly surprised to see it canceled. They can't even delay it much more, since they have to stop improving F9. I haven't seen any indication that FH is specifically getting USG funding. Raptor is partially funded by the USAF, notionally for F9/FH, but Raptor seems rather unlikely to fly until some version of ITS.
« Last Edit: 05/16/2017 08:32 PM by envy887 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12264
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3015
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #45 on: 05/17/2017 12:15 AM »
SLS is pretty much in the same boat as NGL - a USG built launcher for USG purposes.
SLS is a NASA design, with NASA serving as the oversight general contractor in a way.  NGL is an Orbital ATK project and design.  It is not all government funded, so erase that fallacy from your mind.  The current development efforts are proceeding on a cost-sharing basis, just like the comparable ULA and SpaceX efforts.  And don't kid yourself about Vulcan being commercially competitive.  If Vulcan does not win a Pentagon contract, it won't get built, in my opinion.  The same is true of NGL and, I believe, Falcon Heavy.

Falcon Heavy only has two or three commercial contracts, and only a handful of total planned launches at present.  It could very well prosper, but that is not a certainty.  I see NGL as part of an "all hands on deck" effort to replace RD-180.   Multiple efforts are underway.  Not all will succeed.  I'm not willing to bet for or against any of these efforts at this time.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/17/2017 12:17 AM by edkyle99 »

Online envy887

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #46 on: 05/17/2017 01:48 AM »
SLS is pretty much in the same boat as NGL - a USG built launcher for USG purposes.
SLS is a NASA design, with NASA serving as the oversight general contractor in a way.  NGL is an Orbital ATK project and design.  It is not all government funded, so erase that fallacy from your mind.  The current development efforts are proceeding on a cost-sharing basis, just like the comparable ULA and SpaceX efforts.  And don't kid yourself about Vulcan being commercially competitive.  If Vulcan does not win a Pentagon contract, it won't get built, in my opinion.  The same is true of NGL and, I believe, Falcon Heavy.

Falcon Heavy only has two or three commercial contracts, and only a handful of total planned launches at present.  It could very well prosper, but that is not a certainty.  I see NGL as part of an "all hands on deck" effort to replace RD-180.   Multiple efforts are underway.  Not all will succeed.  I'm not willing to bet for or against any of these efforts at this time.

 - Ed Kyle

While technically "commercial" I don't think NGL has any commercial launch business case, and it has been primarily funded by the USAF contributing $180M while Orbital chipped in $135M to develop propulsion [1]. The USAF also paid $200M to develop BE-4, but ULA is paying $135M and Blue a "sizable but proprietary" amount [2]. The USAF only paid "up to" $60M to SpaceX for Raptor, contingent on SpaceX contributing twice that amount [3].

I don't doubt ULA will drop Vulcan (and likely close shop) if it doesn't win a EELV spot. But that doesn't mean they won't sell a decent number of commercial launches on teh side if they win. Probably not enough to support the business, but far more than NGL. And Vulcan can also launch Starliner which is technically commercial and potentially rather profitable.

So while SLS is solely funded by NASA for NASA launches, NGL is just mostly funded by the DOD, mostly for DOD launches. Neither is an enviable position from my view.

[1] http://www.space.com/36362-orbital-atk-new-rocket-family.html
[2] http://www.americaspace.com/2016/03/03/air-force-funds-both-ar1-and-be-4-rocket-engine-development-to-replace-ulas-russian-rd-180/
[3] http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/18/spacex-air-force-funding-infusion-raptor-engine/

Offline spacenut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1807
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #47 on: 05/17/2017 02:30 AM »
From what I've seen from the last SpaceX launch, it was 6 tons to GTO.  Their website says 5.5 tons.  So, they have improved the F9 to the point it can cut out some FH launches.  IF, big IF, they develop a Raptor based 2nd stage, F9 could very well get 28-30 tons to LEO expendible.  They may not need FH except to compete with SLS or New Glenn with a Raptor based upper stage. 

If Orbital can use existing solid segments to make a 3 stage EELV, that would give some competition to SpaceX and ULA especially for government launches. 

ULA may be hurt if they don't get Vulcan with ACES built, it depends on it's parents.   

Offline GWH

Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #48 on: 05/17/2017 02:34 AM »
From what I've seen from the last SpaceX launch, it was 6 tons to GTO.  Their website says 5.5 tons.  So, they have improved the F9 to the point it can cut out some FH launches.

That is the recoverable capacity...

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7418
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1413
  • Likes Given: 4392
Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #49 on: 05/17/2017 01:31 PM »
SpaceX has just demonstrated Proton-M/Zenith performance with expendable less-than-Block5 Falcon 9. I don't know what's the price point of expendable Falcon 9, but if they can do 6 tonnes and recover the first stage, NGL would need one huge business case to compete. And I'm assuming failure of New Glenn and Vulcan to match that price point.
CRS2 might be it. A CRS-like contract to a future Moon neighborhood station might be it. But without an Advanced SRB contract for SLS, I don't see the minimum scale of economics.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: Orbital ATK NGL Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION
« Reply #50 on: 05/19/2017 04:46 PM »
So while SLS is solely funded by NASA for NASA launches, NGL is just mostly funded by the DOD, mostly for DOD launches. Neither is an enviable position from my view.

I'll bet that DoD will look favorably on NGL, despite iffy economics, simply because it will keep the US solid-motor industry turning over.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2017 06:06 PM by Proponent »

Tags: