There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
There is another point for the use of the name "Omega". If you were going to compartmentalize certain specific parts of NSS that might never be economically bid by any commercial, the "last" option might be to have a minimum footprint means of supplying that need.Such a means would likely be a vehicle like NGL (or, for the Europeans, an uprated Vega-C). Such a vehicle might also be a way of handling funding/development/continued flight of solids based vehicles. It would subsidize both needs at the same time.The difficulty with that approach would be in the cost escalation as well as the tendency to under- or over-commit missions based solely on keeping alive a narrow need that might imply single-sourcing. This might be difficult for the AF procurement processes.
Quote from: Welsh Dragon on 04/18/2018 01:25 pmThere doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 04/18/2018 04:07 pmQuote from: Welsh Dragon on 04/18/2018 01:25 pmThere doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?A little strange that OATK isn’t more specific about this - among other details.
Quote from: Kasponaut on 04/18/2018 05:11 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 04/18/2018 04:07 pmQuote from: Welsh Dragon on 04/18/2018 01:25 pmThere doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?A little strange that OATK isn’t more specific about this - among other details.They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.
Any price or price range mentioned?
Quote from: envy887 on 04/18/2018 06:20 pmThey specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.Okay. Where did they specify that?
They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.
The intermediate and heavy configurations could get an additional boost from up to six strap-on boosters, the same 63-inch diameter augmentation motors Orbital ATK is currently qualifying for use on ULA’s Atlas 5 and Vulcan rockets. The number of strap-on boosters on each NGL flight could be tailored based on mission requirements, allowing for odd numbers boosters to fly on the rocket, similar to the Atlas 5’s design, Laidley said.
Let's start with a link to the OmegA page on OATK website. I think there could be a lot of similarity between the 5-segment SRB and the Castor 1200. I also think some members of the Orion 50, Castor 30/120, GEM40-63 stages could be smaler versions of the Castor 300, 600 and 1200. AFAIK solids scale very easily. I think GreenShrike nailed the reasoning behind the OmegA name. OA mega; the largest possible launcher from Orbital ATK.
Quote from: Lars-J on 04/17/2018 12:27 amVery interesting! Not a bad name Two RL-10s.I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.
Very interesting! Not a bad name Two RL-10s.I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/17/2018 12:34 amQuote from: Lars-J on 04/17/2018 12:27 amVery interesting! Not a bad name Two RL-10s.I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?
Quote from: rst on 04/19/2018 08:40 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/17/2018 12:34 amQuote from: Lars-J on 04/17/2018 12:27 amVery interesting! Not a bad name Two RL-10s.I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.
Quote from: Lars-J on 04/19/2018 08:54 pmQuote from: rst on 04/19/2018 08:40 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/17/2018 12:34 amQuote from: Lars-J on 04/17/2018 12:27 amVery interesting! Not a bad name Two RL-10s.I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.Would that not be Delta IV pad at Vandenberg since it was originally built for the Shuttle?
How I understood it, the OmegA can launch in the following configurations:OmegA 500; 0 ; 2 or 4 GEM63XL boostersOmegA 500XL; 0, 2, 3, 4, 6 GEM63XL Boosters.I wonder if Orbital ATK is also going to develop a OmegA 400 (4m fairing), possibly a smaller version with a Castor 300 instead of 600 as first stage.