Author Topic: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread  (Read 312305 times)

Offline Stephan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Paris
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #80 on: 03/29/2011 08:51 am »
Thales Alenia Space España supplies Telecommunications equipment for Orbital’s Cygnus Spacecraft

24 March 2011

Madrid, March 24, 2011 - Thales Alenia Space España, has provided Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE:ORB) with advanced telecommunications systems for Telemetry, Tracking and Command (TTC) data for the Cygnus unmanned cargo resupply vehicle.The contract is worth more than 4 million Euros.

The contract with Thales Alenia Space España, signed last year, considers design, manufacturing, and supply for three TTC telecommunication systems in spread spectrum technology (a technology that prevents interference with nearby satellites) for the establishment of telecommunications links through the Tracking Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS)network. Thales’ systems will be installed in the first three Cygnus vehicles.

Juan Garcés de Marcilla, President and CEO of Thales Alenia Space España, said “ I am very pleased with the delivery of the communications systems to Orbital Sciences Corporation for its first Cygnus vehicle, seeing as this will encourage more collaboration between the companies and strengthen our leadership in telecommunications systems for space infrastructures and spacecrafts.¨ Also, Garcés de Marcilla stressed that “the flexibility of this product will serve all types of vehicles and launchers as it allows communication with the ground through various satellite systems.”

Thales Alenia Space España is the only European supplier of TTC telecommunications systems compatible with TDRSS satellites and validated by NASA. The Spanish company is a leading global supplier with a strong presence in the field of data telecommunications systems for both the European ATV and the Japanese HTV resupply vehicles. It also works actively in the definition and development of telecommunications systems, and for the future in-flight rendezvous manned vehicles (ARV).

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Press_Releases/Countries/Spain/2011/240311_Thales_Alenia_Space_Espa%C3%B1a_supplies_Telecommunications_equipment_for_Orbital%E2%80%99s_Cygnus_Spacecraft/
Best regards, Stephan

Offline Freddie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #81 on: 04/22/2011 02:58 am »
Orbital Sciences has posted today April 2011 updates today for its Cygnus spacecraft at http://www.orbital.com/CargoResupplyServices and its Taurus II launch vehicle at http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/ .

Offline Space Pete

Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #82 on: 05/11/2011 09:08 pm »
Andrews Space Delivers Cargo Module Power Unit for Orbital's Cygnus Spacecraft

Seattle, WA - May 10, 2011.      Andrews Space (Andrews) announced today that it has successfully delivered the first of four fight-qualified Cargo Module Power Units (CMPUs) that will supply power to payloads aboard Orbital's Cygnus spacecraft.

Andrews was contracted by Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB) in September 2010 to deliver three flight-qualified CMPUs, which power mid-deck locker payloads destined for the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Cygnus cargo vehicle.   Under the $1.9 billion Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract with NASA, Orbital will fly eight missions between 2012 and 2015, delivering 20,000 kilograms of cargo to the ISS.  The recently delivered CMPU will provide up to 150 Watts of 28VDC payload power and will be used on the first CRS mission scheduled for early 2012.

"I'm extremely proud of our team," said Jason Andrews, President and CEO of Andrews Space.  "We were on the critical path from the day we signed the contract and we met our aggressive cost and schedule commitments."  Andrews further commented,  "It was a pleasure working with the Orbital team on developing the CMPU and look forward to future collaborations."

Orbital recently contracted for a fourth flight unit.  All units will be delivered by the end of June 2011.

About Andrews Space:

Andrews Space, Inc. was founded in 1999 to be a catalyst in the commercialization and development of space. The company is an affordable integrator of aerospace systems and developer of advanced space technologies. To learn more, please visit: www.andrews-space.com.

http://www.andrews-space.com/news.php?subsection=MzU2
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #83 on: 05/13/2011 06:31 pm »
This is the part of aerospace that I really don't understand. Why couldn't Orbital itself produce a simple power unit for Mid Deck Lockers? Are they too busy? Can Andrews really sell a power unit to Orbital more cheaply than Orbital's cost?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #84 on: 05/13/2011 06:41 pm »
This is the part of aerospace that I really don't understand. Why couldn't Orbital itself produce a simple power unit for Mid Deck Lockers? Are they too busy? Can Andrews really sell a power unit to Orbital more cheaply than Orbital's cost?

Where do you work, Danderman?

Where I work, we basically buy everything from other vendors and integrate it together into a working product. We don't actually forge any steel or even do any machining. But this is pretty common! We are a small company, and there's NO WAY we could afford to keep up a machine shop just to produce enough parts to put in our products (and the parts we use are used for many other products that we don't sell).

Horizontal integration is a GOOD THING for a healthy industry. That SpaceX is forced to be vertically integrated for their launch vehicles (and Orbital is forced to use a lot of foreign components for its launch vehicles) is evidence that the domestic launch vehicle industry isn't exactly healthy (though that's not necessarily anyone's fault in particular). But other than eye-tar, the US satellite industry is much better and is somewhat competitive in the world market.
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 Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #85 on: 05/13/2011 06:55 pm »
This is the part of aerospace that I really don't understand. Why couldn't Orbital itself produce a simple power unit for Mid Deck Lockers? Are they too busy? Can Andrews really sell a power unit to Orbital more cheaply than Orbital's cost?

Where do you work, Danderman?

Where I work, we basically buy everything from other vendors and integrate it together into a working product. We don't actually forge any steel or even do any machining. But this is pretty common! We are a small company, and there's NO WAY we could afford to keep up a machine shop just to produce enough parts to put in our products (and the parts we use are used for many other products that we don't sell).

Horizontal integration is a GOOD THING for a healthy industry. That SpaceX is forced to be vertically integrated for their launch vehicles (and Orbital is forced to use a lot of foreign components for its launch vehicles) is evidence that the domestic launch vehicle industry isn't exactly healthy (though that's not necessarily anyone's fault in particular). But other than eye-tar, the US satellite industry is much better and is somewhat competitive in the world market.

You would think that a sub-system worthy of a press release is probably a large enough system that Orbital would make it inside the company.  I wouldn't expect Orbital to make its own machine tools or screws or metals, but I would expect Orbital to produce such subsystems.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2011 06:56 pm by Danderman »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #86 on: 05/13/2011 07:11 pm »
This is the part of aerospace that I really don't understand. Why couldn't Orbital itself produce a simple power unit for Mid Deck Lockers? Are they too busy? Can Andrews really sell a power unit to Orbital more cheaply than Orbital's cost?

Where do you work, Danderman?

Where I work, we basically buy everything from other vendors and integrate it together into a working product. We don't actually forge any steel or even do any machining. But this is pretty common! We are a small company, and there's NO WAY we could afford to keep up a machine shop just to produce enough parts to put in our products (and the parts we use are used for many other products that we don't sell).

Horizontal integration is a GOOD THING for a healthy industry. That SpaceX is forced to be vertically integrated for their launch vehicles (and Orbital is forced to use a lot of foreign components for its launch vehicles) is evidence that the domestic launch vehicle industry isn't exactly healthy (though that's not necessarily anyone's fault in particular). But other than eye-tar, the US satellite industry is much better and is somewhat competitive in the world market.

You would think that a sub-system worthy of a press release is probably a large enough system that Orbital would make it inside the company.  I wouldn't expect Orbital to make its own machine tools or screws or metals, but I would expect Orbital to produce such subsystems.

Why, when there are specialists that can do it for you?

Orbital doesn't like to do deep vertical integration. If Andrews is better at it than Orbital and can give Orbital a good price, why shouldn't Orbital buy it from Andrews?

Deep vertical integration is usually capital-intensive. It also means you have a non-specialist having to fight the learning curve, rather than a company that's likely done it before. If you pick the right suppliers (that have experience, etc), there can be less schedule risk. Andrews (and Orbital) is one of the last decade's "Alt Space" companies who were founded to try to do aerospace for cheaper and/or better than the traditional aerospace primes. Division of labor, in a healthy market, is better and more efficient than everyone doing vertical integration.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2011 07:15 pm by Robotbeat »
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #87 on: 05/13/2011 07:31 pm »
Personally, I prefer a bunch of small and medium-sized aerospace businesses like Andrews Space and XCor (etc) to very large corporations like Boeing and Lockheed. Andrews Space is a relatively small company (~100 employees?), so that may be one reason for the press release.

The only way you can expect high levels of vertical integration is with a relatively large company. That's why SpaceX is already well over 1000 employees (and likely to have many more when all is said and done) when they've only done a handful of launches. Orbital does other stuff besides launching spacecraft, and they have over 3000 employees. Now, SpaceX may well be able to do things more efficiently and with fewer employees than the traditional aerospace primes, but they are still going to be a relatively large company because they are so deeply vertically integrated.

Eventually (once launch vehicles--almost surely RLVs--fly often enough to be out of their test flight programs), the companies who operate commercial rockets will be different than the ones who design and manufacture them. This is starting with suborbital reusable rockets, like XCor selling their Lynx to different folks and Armadillo selling NASA the Morpheus rocket to play around with and to a certain degree with Scaled designing and building SpaceShipTwo for Virgin Galactic (though the entity who owns the tech and actually builds the spacecraft is technically partially owned by both Virgin and Scaled). And to a certain extent, Orbital is doing this... they are operating the launch vehicle though many parts are built or designed by others.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2011 07:32 pm by Robotbeat »
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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #88 on: 05/13/2011 07:47 pm »
Personally, I prefer a bunch of small and medium-sized aerospace businesses like Andrews Space and XCor (etc)

they won't have the resources to do anymore than bit roles

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #89 on: 05/13/2011 07:53 pm »
Orbital is doing this... they are operating the launch vehicle though many parts are built or designed by others.

No this is nothing new, this is SOP for spacecraft and launch vehicles and is the same thing as Boeing does for airliners. It is System design and integration.

Look at the Delta II and what other bring to the table

RS-27  PWR
GEMs  ATK - UT
PLF  ATK - Iuka
AJ-110 AJ
STAR-48 - MD
SS tanks - Alenia
Guidance - L3 (this may have changed)
Other boxes - Cant remember.
What does ULA do?
Over all design and integration, 1st and 2nd stage structure.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #90 on: 05/13/2011 08:12 pm »
Orbital is doing this... they are operating the launch vehicle though many parts are built or designed by others.

No this is nothing new, this is SOP for spacecraft and launch vehicles and is the same thing as Boeing does for airliners. It is System design and integration.
Agreed that it's nothing new and that it's the same for airliners, but for launch vehicles, generally the same company who designs and integrates the launch vehicle also operates it. It makes a lot of sense for expendable launch vehicles, but eventually with RLVs it will change to be more like the airliner model, where the aircraft designer and integrator is different from the operator.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2011 08:13 pm by Robotbeat »
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #91 on: 05/13/2011 08:15 pm »
Personally, I prefer a bunch of small and medium-sized aerospace businesses like Andrews Space and XCor (etc)

they won't have the resources to do anymore than bit roles
Important roles, not bit roles. In a healthy industry, there's a large spread of companies.

I agree that a launch vehicle designer/integrator generally needs to have about a thousand employees. But an operator doesn't necessarily need that many.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2011 08:20 pm by Robotbeat »
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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #92 on: 05/13/2011 08:26 pm »
1.  Important roles, not bit roles. In a healthy industry, there's a large spread of companies.

2.  I agree that a launch vehicle designer/integrator generally needs to have about a thousand employees. But an operator doesn't necessarily need that many.

1.  Avionics boxes are bit roles. there are many options.  Same goes for structure.

2.  There won't be operators until there are RLV's.  Operations of ELV's require to much work of the designer.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #93 on: 05/13/2011 08:32 pm »
...
2.  There won't be operators until there are RLV's.  Operations of ELV's require to much work of the designer.
I completely agree.

EDIT: And in fact, that's just what I said a couple posts back: ;)
Orbital is doing this... they are operating the launch vehicle though many parts are built or designed by others.

No this is nothing new, this is SOP for spacecraft and launch vehicles and is the same thing as Boeing does for airliners. It is System design and integration.
Agreed that it's nothing new and that it's the same for airliners, but for launch vehicles, generally the same company who designs and integrates the launch vehicle also operates it. It makes a lot of sense for expendable launch vehicles, but eventually with RLVs it will change to be more like the airliner model, where the aircraft designer and integrator is different from the operator.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2011 08:43 pm by Robotbeat »
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 antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #94 on: 05/22/2011 01:32 am »
This last exchange really bother me.  Let me make something perfectly clear: THERE ARE NO BIT ROLES IN SPACE TECHNOLOGY.  Due to the realities of mass fraction and specific impulse, launch vehicles and spacecraft are fundamentally designed to rely on the proper and predicted behavior of EVERY SINGLE BIT THAT GOES INTO THE VEHICLE!!!  And that INCLUDES, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, REDUNDANCY.  That is why any attempt to design/build spacecraft and LVs "like aircraft" is, by definition, wrong.  If an Andrews CMPU fails to operate as spec'd, we lose $25M, no questions asked.

As to "why can't Orbital build a simple power supply", let me tell you this: the space business has a lot of ups and downs: one month you have six spacecraft in the assembly floor, two months later only two.  The same goes for space-qualified (even more for HUMAN-SPACEFLIGHT-qualified) avionics.  You try to balance your load by carefully interleaving in-house build and vended units.  You want to be able to build space-qualified boxes in house, but you ALSO want to have a reliable source of qualified, financially stable partners and suppliers.  If we can't offer more orders to Andrews, it is our hope that others will buy their fine products, so they can even out THEIR load without Orbital help.

Humans are social animals; the success of the species is due to a delicate balance between cooperation and competition between individuals, tribes, villages, cities, nations, cultures.  Too much individualism is quickly snuffed out in the Darwinian sieve; same goes for too much dependency.

Wow!  It's been a long time since a forum exchange got me into flaming mode.  I apologize :( .  We DO manufacture in-house the Cygnus main avionics (Combined Avionics Unit - CAU, Partial Avionics Unit - PAU and Power Control Units - PCU; three of the four Fault Isolation Zones  or "FIZs" use a CAU each, the fourth a PAU... sounds familiar?)

It IS generally true, that, when in doubt, we would rather buy than build.  It's not always possible or affordable, however.

Traditionally harnesses are always built in-house.  Because of the four-FIZ architecture, the Cygnus harnesses are by far the most complex we've ever done - and we've built over a hundred spacecraft!  We build harnesses both at Dulles and at Gilbert.  The LV avionics are built at Chandler, the S/C avionics at Dulles (Gilbert used to, but during the GD era they lost that capability since big GD is in the avionics box business big time.)

We just bolted and connected fourth FIZ on Cygnus number 1.  The system went from three FIZs to four FIZs on the first power-up!  (well, it had done so many times in the "flatsat..." but it's always good when it does on the actual S/C...)
« Last Edit: 05/22/2011 01:34 am by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #95 on: 05/22/2011 01:55 am »
Thanks for the very informative reply, and congrads on the powerup! I can not wait to see it fly. Any chance we will see an ISS bound launch from the boston area or would a road trip be in order?

Of course if you keep flaming, we will have to report you ;)
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #96 on: 05/22/2011 02:32 am »
Any chance we will see an ISS bound launch from the boston area
My understanding is that while an ascending node shot from Wallops to ISS is theoretically possible, the first few ones will definitely be descending nodes, so no luck for the Boston area.
Quote
or would a road trip be in order?
Indeed, and it's an easy trip compared with FL.  Great area for a nice quiet beach vacation, unlike the madness at and around CCB.  Just remember, plan for a two-week vacation if you REALLY want to a see any given launch... see the story of STS-51 (I went to all the launch attempts, including the T-3 seconds scrub!!!  DID see the launch, after FOUR trips... have some hilarious J.R. Thompson anecdotes during these trips...)
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #97 on: 05/22/2011 10:02 am »
2.  There won't be operators until there are RLV's.  Operations of ELV's require to much work of the designer.

Can you explain why? I thought the problem was that with ELV launch prices there weren't enough flights to make the separation between designer / manufacturer and operator feasible. Since an RLV is so much more complicated than an ELV I would have thought an RLV needed more input from the designer.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2011 10:44 am by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #98 on: 05/24/2011 03:48 pm »
I'm hoping to see one of the initial launches and combine it with a trip to Williamsburg for the kids, weather permitting, but after multiple attemps to KSC and 0 launches seen, I've begun to be wary :D
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Northrop Grumman: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #99 on: 05/24/2011 03:57 pm »
As to "why can't Orbital build a simple power supply", let me tell you this: the space business has a lot of ups and downs: one month you have six spacecraft in the assembly floor, two months later only two.  The same goes for space-qualified (even more for HUMAN-SPACEFLIGHT-qualified) avionics.  You try to balance your load by carefully interleaving in-house build and vended units.  You want to be able to build space-qualified boxes in house, but you ALSO want to have a reliable source of qualified, financially stable partners and suppliers.  If we can't offer more orders to Andrews, it is our hope that others will buy their fine products, so they can even out THEIR load without Orbital help.

Thanks for answering the question!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0