Company’s Partnership with U. S. Air Force Focused on New Intermediate- and Large-Class Space Launch VehiclesNew Launchers to Use Company’s Industry-Leading Solid Rocket Propulsion Technology and Other Modular ElementsDulles, Virginia 3 April 2017 – Orbital ATK (NYSE: OA), a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies, today announced that it has made important progress over the past 18 months in developing advanced solid rocket propulsion and other technologies to be used in a new generation of intermediate- and large-class space launch vehicles. Through a combination of internal investment and government funding from an Air Force contract awarded in late 2015 by the Space and Missile Systems Center’s Launch Systems Directorate, the company’s Flight Systems Group recently completed design reviews, facility upgrades and tooling fabrication, and has now begun early production of development hardware for its Next Generation Launch (NGL) system. The company’s modular NGL rocket family will be capable of launching a wide variety of national security payloads, as well as science and commercial satellites that are too large to be launched by its current fleet of Pegasus, Minotaur and Antares space launch vehicles. The NGL vehicles will operate from both east and west coast launch facilities and will share common propulsion, structures and avionics systems with other company programs, including its smaller space launch vehicles as well as missile defense interceptors, target vehicles and strategic missile systems. “The NGL program is a great example of how industry and government can work together to develop an American launch system to support national security space launch requirements,” said Scott Lehr, President of Orbital ATK’s Flight Systems Group. “Orbital ATK is well-positioned to introduce an intermediate- and large-class family of launch vehicles by leveraging the strengths of the merged company to achieve low-cost assured space access for current and future national security payloads and other satellites.”Through commonality of hardware and other economies of scale, Orbital ATK’s proposed launch system will also reduce the cost of other U.S. Government rocket and missile programs managed by the Air Force, Navy, NASA and Missile Defense Agency, saving taxpayers up to $600 million on these programs over a ten-year period.Over the past 18 months, Orbital ATK has successfully completed critical design reviews for major elements of the company’s solid propulsion stages, along with preliminary vehicle-level and launch site infrastructure reviews. The company has also refurbished a 60,000-square-foot production building, including installation of automated tooling, cranes and other equipment to enable the manufacture of large-diameter composite-case rocket motors. Recently, the company completed the manufacturing of prototype motor test articles to be used in verification activities this summer.“The Orbital ATK NGL team, which now numbers several hundred engineers and technicians, has made tremendous progress since late 2015. Building on this work, we are looking forward to providing the Air Force and other customers with a highly-reliable and cost-effective launch system within the next four years,” said Lehr.The next phase of the program is expected to commence when the Air Force awards Launch Services Agreements in early 2018, which would entail full vehicle and launch site development, with work taking place at company facilities in Promontory and Magna, Utah; Iuka, Mississippi; Chandler, Arizona; and Kennedy Space Center, Florida.About Orbital ATKOrbital ATK is a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies. The company designs, builds and delivers space, defense and aviation systems for customers around the world, both as a prime contractor and merchant supplier. Its main products include launch vehicles and related propulsion systems; missile products, subsystems and defense electronics; precision weapons, armament systems and ammunition; satellites and associated space components and services; and advanced aerospace structures. Headquartered in Dulles, Virginia, Orbital ATK employs approximately 12,500 people in 18 states across the U.S. and in several international locations. For more information, visit www.orbitalatk.com.
from a distance the bottom pic looks like an Atlas V 521 on 39B
Really curious what the LEO payload would be - not the intended market I know but still.
Quote from: IanThePineapple on 04/04/2017 12:26 amfrom a distance the bottom pic looks like an Atlas V 521 on 39BYep. I'm curious what Vandenberg pad they are hoping to use, though. There is no Shuttle heritage infrastructure left there.
Not stated but US is likely to be BE3U powered with possibility Blue will build complete stage.
Quote from: GWH on 04/04/2017 12:36 amReally curious what the LEO payload would be - not the intended market I know but still.Super 4 Segment Cygnus?
Even more interesting is ability to deliver payloads direct to GEO, something only ULA have offered and will be with ACES.
This long lived US may also be capable of delivering payloads direct to DSG.
Super 4 Segment Cygnus?
Quote from: GWH on 04/04/2017 12:36 amReally curious what the LEO payload would be - not the intended market I know but still.It's usually between 2.5X~3X GTO performance. So this should be somewhere between 15 and 25 tonnes. The big uncertainty is due to the GTO undertainty. But yes, a 4.2m diameter evolution of the Cygnus could very well do up to something equivalent to the ATV performance (~20tonnes of cargo).
I am also highly interested in the LEO and DRO payloads. I would love to see an set of trades on an OATK Deep Space Gateway. Course i'd also like to see trades on an "All of the above" Commercial DSG.
Orbital ATK’s business case requires five or six launches of the rocket per year for the military, NASA, or commercial customers, he said.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/27/details-of-orbital-atks-proposed-heavy-launcher-revealed/QuoteOrbital ATK’s business case requires five or six launches of the rocket per year for the military, NASA, or commercial customers, he said.uh. that's worse than I thought.I figured the selling point for this project was going to be viability at a glacial launch rate. Like 2 or 3 launches per year.
Given that the capacity of all those new/existing launch systems far exceeds the long-term capacity predictions I don't see NGL progressing significantly beyond the Powerpoint-and-models stage.
Quote from: arachnitect on 04/05/2017 07:00 amhttps://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/27/details-of-orbital-atks-proposed-heavy-launcher-revealed/QuoteOrbital ATKs business case requires five or six launches of the rocket per year for the military, NASA, or commercial customers, he said.uh. that's worse than I thought.I figured the selling point for this project was going to be viability at a glacial launch rate. Like 2 or 3 launches per year.I think this will show the limitations of big solids. Unless they get the SLS Block 2 boostr contract and leverage the government payed infrastructure.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/27/details-of-orbital-atks-proposed-heavy-launcher-revealed/QuoteOrbital ATKs business case requires five or six launches of the rocket per year for the military, NASA, or commercial customers, he said.uh. that's worse than I thought.I figured the selling point for this project was going to be viability at a glacial launch rate. Like 2 or 3 launches per year.
Orbital ATKs business case requires five or six launches of the rocket per year for the military, NASA, or commercial customers, he said.
possible typothe paylode for the castor 1200 is given as less than the 600. Is this a typo?
Bigger version. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/04/2017 09:48 pmBigger version. - Ed KyleDoes this more detailed model give us more clues about the stages involved in this rocket? It appears at a brief glance be a 2 stage and booster setup, but one single large solid first stage would not seem to have sufficient performance with the small liquid upper stage (in fairing) to match Delta IV Heavy...
May not be cheaper than F9R but should be competitive with Ariane 6 and Vulcan.
It will share the BE-3 and potentially the upper stage with Blue. It will share the strap on SRMs with ULA. It will use LC-39B and potentially the VAB. The fairing is likely to be built by a company already supplying another launch provider. The government has already paid for the a lot of the development of those big solids.
If they retire Antares and launch Cygnus on this rocket then they only have to get a few extra launches to be viable.
It is interesting that they didn't use the liquid core from Antares instead of the big solids as the core of this rocket. I wonder what the cost and performance would have been if they upgraded Antares with the SRMs and the BE-3 upper stage.
I think this will show the limitations of big solids. Unless they get the SLS Block 2 booster contract and leverage the government paid infrastructure.
If you look real close, you'll see a break in the cable conduit on the side of the solids about where the interstage should be located. I think we're looking at a two-segment first stage topped by a one-segment second stage. These are likely the new composite common booster segments rather than the SRB segments to which we are accustomed.
a) I think LM dropped off the Athena programb) I hope OATK will bring it to market eventually
Some bits of news in today's Defense News article. First, Orbital ATK believes NGL can be profitable on "three to four missions [per] year". Second, C300 and C600 motors have completed CDR and will be static test fired in 2019. Third, Orbital ATK will "select its [third stage] engine supplier as early as a month from now". Finally, the third stage "tank assembly" will be "homegrown" (built by Orbital ATK).http://www.defensenews.com/articles/commonality-key-for-orbital-atks-bid-to-win-air-force-launch-vehicle-program - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/06/2017 01:41 pmSome bits of news in today's Defense News article. First, Orbital ATK believes NGL can be profitable on "three to four missions [per] year". Second, C300 and C600 motors have completed CDR and will be static test fired in 2019. Third, Orbital ATK will "select its [third stage] engine supplier as early as a month from now". Finally, the third stage "tank assembly" will be "homegrown" (built by Orbital ATK).http://www.defensenews.com/articles/commonality-key-for-orbital-atks-bid-to-win-air-force-launch-vehicle-program - Ed KyleSo could it be profitable launching just Cygnus? Or with one other launch a year?
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 HeavyULA, Vulcan/AcesBlue Origin, New GlennOrbital ATK, NGL 500 XLand, obviously SLS.Strange times.
Building 3rd stage inhouse means they are not dependant on Blue, can always switch to RL10s if need be. Avionics can come from Antares.SRBs lend themselves to robotic assembly, case and fuel loading especially.
Quote from: JH on 04/05/2017 06:57 amSo there are 5 vehicles with an estimated LEO payload capacity of >30,000 kg actively being developed in the US right now? SpaceX, Falcon HeavyULA, Vulcan/AcesBlue Origin, New GlennOrbital ATK, NGL 500 XLand, 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.
Quote from: corneliussulla on 05/16/2017 10:20 amZWell 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
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/16/2017 01:51 pmQuote from: corneliussulla on 05/16/2017 10:20 amZWell 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 KyleThey 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.
... It seems to me that there are similarities in state-of-progress.
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.)
SLS is pretty much in the same boat as NGL - a USG built launcher for USG purposes.
Quote from: envy887 on 05/16/2017 08:30 pmSLS 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
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.
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.
The “chairman’s mark” version of the [fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)], released by the committee June 26, includes a section restricting Air Force funding of vehicle development under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program. Under that provision, the Air Force would be limited to funding new engines, integration of those engines with vehicles, and related capabilities to support national security launches.The section includes a specific prohibition against funding “the development of new launch vehicles under such program.” It also specifically defines a “rocket propulsion system” that can be funded as a first-stage rocket engine or motor. “The term does not include a launch vehicle, an upper stage, a strap-on motor, or related infrastructure,” it states.The Defense Department opposes that language in the bill. In a document submitted to the committee and obtained by SpaceNews, it warned that the language would force it to abandon some ongoing vehicle development efforts and rely primarily on ULA’s Delta 4 and SpaceX’s Falcon 9.[...]“Section 1615 appears to force the Department to end the more than $300 [million] investment in the industry-developed systems and instead use a modernized Delta IV launch vehicle and/or the Falcon 9,” it stated, referring to the section of the NDAA that contains the funding restriction. The Falcon 9, it noted, cannot handle many national security missions, while the Delta 4 is significantly more expensive than alternative existing vehicles.
It seems as if the NGL rocket already has the "components" to make one from existing boosters and developments. How long if they started today, could they have a complete rocket ready to test and launch? Could it beat Vulcan or New Glenn to the launch pad?
... And they don't have experience being a launch provider....
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/29/2017 02:44 pm... And they don't have experience being a launch provider....Pegasus. Taurus. Minotaur. Antares.
Quote from: Lars-J on 06/30/2017 12:27 amIt all depends on on how silo'd (separated) off the Orbital and ATK parts of the company are. OATK hasn't exactly warmly embraced Antares until perhaps recently. Also, past history of an organization is no guarantee that the current employees have retained that skill-set. There are lots of examples of that.David Thompson, Orbital co-founder, is at the helm of this merged company. He moved Scott Lehr, from the ATK side of the house, into the lead of Orbital ATK’s Flight Systems Group, which is developing NGL (and operating Antares, Pegasus, Minotaur, etc.). It seems to me to have been a purposeful move designed to help tear down the old walls.No guarantees, but this merger seems to me to have many synergies. Motor builder joins company that uses motors. - Ed Kyle
It all depends on on how silo'd (separated) off the Orbital and ATK parts of the company are. OATK hasn't exactly warmly embraced Antares until perhaps recently. Also, past history of an organization is no guarantee that the current employees have retained that skill-set. There are lots of examples of that.
I keep reading "LNG rocket" hence a rocket running on liquid natural gas (refueled and launched from a LNG ship ?)
The Be3U powered US would be the most challenging for OA as they don't have LH experience. Nothing poaching engineers from ULA or Blue couldn't fix. Blue may even offer help if it results in BE3 sales.
Systems Engineering position (among several) for ULA Vulcan and Orbital ATK Next Generation Launcher (NGL) USAF New Entrant Certification in Los Angeles, CA. This is likely a job for a contractor working for the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) in El Segundo, CA at Los Angeles Air Force Base. https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/388507126 - Ed Kyle
Orbital ATK plans to compete its proposed NGL intermediate- and heavy-lift rockets in future Air Force competitions. So far, the company has passed crucial design reviews and is working toward a static fire of its four-segment heavy-lift booster in about 2022. The company expects that rocket to be operational in 2024.Orbital ATK sees NGL as a natural progression from its smaller rockets, such as Pegasus and Antares. Antares currently delivers supplies for NASA to the International Space Station.“We have made very incremental steps in improving our capability,” said Mark Pieczynski, vice president of business development and strategy for Orbital ATK’s flight systems group. “We’re now ready to move into the intermediate and heavy class.”Orbital ATK and the Air Force together are investing more than $200 million to develop the launch system.
Quote from: Archibald on 07/01/2017 10:26 amI keep reading "LNG rocket" hence a rocket running on liquid natural gas (refueled and launched from a LNG ship ?) What do you think about a expendable TSTO with BE-4U engine upper-stage? (Instead of Castor300+BE-3UEN 3th stage) Could LOx and LNG alu or plastic COPV propallent tanks be produced using the same tooling as for the Castor X00 solid casings?
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 2m2 minutes ago[Orbital ATK's David] Thompson: expecting joint go/no-go decision with the Air Force late this year or early next year on next phase of Next Generation Launcher.
Is there a reason the Ares 1 vibration issues won't also be a problem on NGL? The XL version is pretty similar in design.
Quote from: envy887 on 08/03/2017 02:54 pmIs there a reason the Ares 1 vibration issues won't also be a problem on NGL? The XL version is pretty similar in design.Different stage lengths for starters.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 08/03/2017 04:31 pmQuote from: envy887 on 08/03/2017 02:54 pmIs there a reason the Ares 1 vibration issues won't also be a problem on NGL? The XL version is pretty similar in design.Different stage lengths for starters.The NGL 500 XL has the same size motors as the STS SRBs, which experienced significant thrust oscillation that was largely damped by the stiffness ET thrust beam and the mass of the ET. NGL doesn't have a ET or a thrust beam.It is also the same size as the Ares 1-X booster, which apparently didn't have any significant problems related to thrust oscillation.
In our flight systems segment, the company and the Air Force are now in the second year of what may well be a thought year, jointly funded program to create a new intermediate and large class launch vehicle.As I mentioned before, our objective, our joint objective is to develop a family of vehicles capable of launching both defense as well as commercial and scientific satellites that are larger heavier than those that can be accommodated by our current Antares rocket and have those new launchers ready for initial flights in 2020 or 2021.Our investments last year and this year together with those of the Air Force that covered the preliminary phases of design and facility expansion, we're expecting a joint go no go between the Air Force and Orbital ATK late this year or early next year concerning the next phase to actually move into full-scale development and testing of these vehicles in advance of commencing production and launch operations around the end of the decade.
A BE-3 based upper stage with enough propellant may only need the first stage SRB for LEO missions.A Castor 1200 with a two BE-3U upper stage should be good for around 10,000kg on the low end I made a lot of conservative assumptions based on the shuttle RSRM and S-IVB mass fractions and assumed the BE 3-U has an ISP of around 435 though the engine can probably do better than this.Everything sized around the Castor 600 would be about 5tons.
OATK wants to use their own solids as much as possible, not want to buy liquid engines from other companies just because it's possible.What might make sense is to always have solid first and second stage. Then have two different third stages, solid for LEO and (single) BE-3U based for HEO.
There have been several DLR studies for expendable rockets with a solid first stage and cryogenic upperstage. One of the studies: VENUS (VEga New Upper Stage) studied multiple configurations for future vega rockets. The VEGA-F configuration used a P120-P160 first stage and a Vince powered upperstage. The conclusion with that configuration was that the acceleration levels would be very high, because the 2th stage + payload & fairing are very light (<40mT).That's why I don't think a configuration with Castor600 or Castor1200 and a cryogenic upper-stage would work.Because BE-3U (530kN [120k lbf] in vacuum) is roughly 3x as powerful as Vince (180kN [40 470 lbf], the cryogenic upper-stage could be much larger and heavier. Thus I think that a Castor 300 + enlarged Cryostage could work, but the cryo stage wouldn't be the same stage as for the other NGL configurations.Quote from: hkultala on 11/08/2017 06:17 amOATK wants to use their own solids as much as possible, not want to buy liquid engines from other companies just because it's possible.What might make sense is to always have solid first and second stage. Then have two different third stages, solid for LEO and (single) BE-3U based for HEO.I agree with this, with the side note that two different liquid upper-stages; deep cryo (LOX LH2) and soft cryo (LOx RP-1), could also bring benefits. (A LOxLCH4 / LOxLC3H8 cryo stage would be even beter).I think that two different lengths of cryogenic stages could work economically. But OATK want's to use their solids.
Surprising news! OrbitalATK is considering the AerojetRocketdyne RL10 or ArianeGroup Vinci rocket engine for its Next Generation Launcher upper stage after rejecting Blueorigin's BE-3U. Decision expected in Q1 2018. http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/orbital-atk-pick-upper-stage-engine-ngl
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 11/08/2017 09:30 amThere have been several DLR studies for expendable rockets with a solid first stage and cryogenic upperstage. One of the studies: VENUS (VEga New Upper Stage) studied multiple configurations for future vega rockets. The VEGA-F configuration used a P120-P160 first stage and a Vince powered upperstage. The conclusion with that configuration was that the acceleration levels would be very high, because the 2th stage + payload & fairing are very light (<40mT).That's why I don't think a configuration with Castor600 or Castor1200 and a cryogenic upper-stage would work.Because BE-3U (530kN [120k lbf] in vacuum) is roughly 3x as powerful as Vince (180kN [40 470 lbf], the cryogenic upper-stage could be much larger and heavier. Thus I think that a Castor 300 + enlarged Cryostage could work, but the cryo stage wouldn't be the same stage as for the other NGL configurations.Quote from: hkultala on 11/08/2017 06:17 amOATK wants to use their own solids as much as possible, not want to buy liquid engines from other companies just because it's possible.What might make sense is to always have solid first and second stage. Then have two different third stages, solid for LEO and (single) BE-3U based for HEO.I agree with this, with the side note that two different liquid upper-stages; deep cryo (LOX LH2) and soft cryo (LOx RP-1), could also bring benefits. (A LOxLCH4 / LOxLC3H8 cryo stage would be even beter).I think that two different lengths of cryogenic stages could work economically. But OATK want's to use their solids.An upper stage properly sized for the BE3-U would be about 60% the size of a S-IVB but it can throttle deeply so in theory could be made to work on a smaller stage but you'd have a high mass penalty of a too large engine.The RL-10 or Vinci looks like the best option though I wonder could a couple of Rutherfords work for a third stage?
The Vinci option maybe there as bargaining chip against AJR. Has good reliability record and built by allies so DoD certification may not be big issue. The NGLV will be competing with Ariane 6 for commercial launches, not sure how Ariane Aerospace view that.
The ESA itself is not a civilian agency. It is an agency for peaceful purposes and may have programmes with a security component. If and when Europe needs space as an enabling tool for its security and defence policy, ESA will be prepared to develop the required programmes.”
Rutherfords are not exactly Hydrolox engines. At least so far.An argument for Vinci over RL10 would be to offer a dissimilar engine that is flying a lot (with someone else). Taking the backup launcher idea and running with it.
Reposted:Quote from: Mike Jones on 12/13/2017 09:48 pmSurprising news! OrbitalATK is considering the AerojetRocketdyne RL10 or ArianeGroup Vinci rocket engine for its Next Generation Launcher upper stage after rejecting Blueorigin's BE-3U. Decision expected in Q1 2018. http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/orbital-atk-pick-upper-stage-engine-nglWonder what Orbital saw in Blue's engine that they didn't like? Does this reduce Blue's chances on Vulcan, too?
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 12/14/2017 03:52 amThe Vinci option maybe there as bargaining chip against AJR. Has good reliability record and built by allies so DoD certification may not be big issue. The NGLV will be competing with Ariane 6 for commercial launches, not sure how Ariane Aerospace view that.The fact that Vinci is built by allies of the USA does exactly nothing to aid certification for US NSS use: from a USA point-of-view it is a foreign-designed, -built and -tested engine.What also won't help is that Vinci is developed exclusively with ESA money. ESA might object to Vinci being used on a US launcher for US NSS purposes. Quote from: ESA Director GeneralThe ESA itself is not a civilian agency. It is an agency for peaceful purposes and may have programmes with a security component. If and when Europe needs space as an enabling tool for its security and defence policy, ESA will be prepared to develop the required programmes.” Additionally: NASA was initially interested in using Vinci on the EUS for SLS (2014). But that plan went nowhere when NASA and ESA couldn't agree on the specific terms-of-use and the general certification requirements for Vinci.So, what makes people think that the certifying agencies for US NSS launches will be able to come to an agreement with ESA?
BTW IIRC neither BE-3 or Vince has any flight history.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/14/2017 09:50 amSo, what makes people think that the certifying agencies for US NSS launches will be able to come to an agreement with ESA?OA wouldn't even consider Vinci if they didn't think there was good chance both parties would approve it. They went though same process with Liberty before it was shelved.
So, what makes people think that the certifying agencies for US NSS launches will be able to come to an agreement with ESA?
Quote from: john smith 19 on 12/14/2017 11:14 amBTW IIRC neither BE-3 or Vince has any flight history.No flight history, true, but Vinci has gone through extensive test firings and flight-ready engines are in production now.
My bet is on OATK down-selecting to RL10. It fits "build American, fly American".
This is like Liberty Launcher Lite?
My guess is that the reason for this engine change is the same reason that drove ULA toward Centaur 5. The NGL design team, preparing to respond to the EELV RFP, found that BE-3U didn't pass muster. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: woods170 on 12/14/2017 10:02 amMy bet is on OATK down-selecting to RL10. It fits "build American, fly American".Anyone want to take a shot at the performance of Vinci and RL-10 NGLs? Oh and if someone would like to try their hand at a Rutherford Version, I'm certainly curious.
A Rutherford or electric pump engine wouldn't scale to RL10 class engine. An engine developer on a podcast I listened to said 5klbs is about it.
Quote from: Chasm on 12/14/2017 07:04 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/14/2017 10:02 amMy bet is on OATK down-selecting to RL10. It fits "build American, fly American".Mine btw. too. I think talking publicly about Vinci is first and foremost a strong message to ARJ that the rejection of BE-3U did not make RL10 the inevitable choice. Certainly not at any cost.I'm not so sure. Remember, Orbital ATK is the company flying the least-American orbital rocket currently flying from U.S. soil, with a Ukrainian built first stage powered by Russian engines, boosting a largely Italian-built payload. Vinci is, or will be, more efficient than RL10. For all we know it might also cost less. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: woods170 on 12/14/2017 10:02 amMy bet is on OATK down-selecting to RL10. It fits "build American, fly American".Mine btw. too. I think talking publicly about Vinci is first and foremost a strong message to ARJ that the rejection of BE-3U did not make RL10 the inevitable choice. Certainly not at any cost.
Anyone know if Broadsword was ever seriously considered for NGL?
Quote from: woods170 on 12/15/2017 06:49 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:34 amVinci is, or will be, more efficient than RL10. For all we know it might also cost less.On that last phrase I can assure you: it won't.That is: not until they bring down the parts number significantly and streamline production. Remember, the basic design of Vinci is almost 20 years old, before the time of "econonomic viability" and "additive manufacturing". Plus it is being constructed in Europe where production of aerospace products is almost as expensive as it is in the USA due to the relatively large number of sub-contractors involved.Vinci is a youngster compared to RL10. RL10 first flew in 1961 and was firing on test stands a year or two earlier, when Eisenhower was U.S. President!
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:34 amVinci is, or will be, more efficient than RL10. For all we know it might also cost less.On that last phrase I can assure you: it won't.That is: not until they bring down the parts number significantly and streamline production. Remember, the basic design of Vinci is almost 20 years old, before the time of "econonomic viability" and "additive manufacturing". Plus it is being constructed in Europe where production of aerospace products is almost as expensive as it is in the USA due to the relatively large number of sub-contractors involved.
Vinci is, or will be, more efficient than RL10. For all we know it might also cost less.
You may be right about the cost comparison, but Aerojet Rocketdyne costs have skyrocketed in recent years, so I'll withhold judgement. It will be an interesting decision.
It's not the number of years per se, but the engineering & manufacturing generation it was created in.For instance products created before high volume 3D printing became practical for rocket engine parts may not be able to be redesigned to take advantage of the cost and time savings that 3D printing can provide. Which would put the Vinci engine in the same situation as the RL-10.
The economic challenge is one of our main concerns today. The Vinci engine is purpose-designed to cost requirements. That is why we chose an "Expander" cycle. This technology sidesteps specific gas generators, as opposed to our other engines. We have also packed many technological breakthroughs into this engine, including powder metallurgy and additive manufacturing, to optimize operating cost-efficiency even further.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/15/2017 08:07 pmIt's not the number of years per se, but the engineering & manufacturing generation it was created in.For instance products created before high volume 3D printing became practical for rocket engine parts may not be able to be redesigned to take advantage of the cost and time savings that 3D printing can provide. Which would put the Vinci engine in the same situation as the RL-10.Vinci manufacturing processes aren't that old:Arianegroup:QuoteThe economic challenge is one of our main concerns today. The Vinci engine is purpose-designed to cost requirements. That is why we chose an "Expander" cycle. This technology sidesteps specific gas generators, as opposed to our other engines. We have also packed many technological breakthroughs into this engine, including powder metallurgy and additive manufacturing, to optimize operating cost-efficiency even further.https://www.safran-group.com/media/20131120_vinci-one-engine-two-ariane-launchers
Signed Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with @AF_SMC enables certification of NGL to carry National Security Space missions bit.ly/2lU1pcw
Maybe I'm going crazy, but this upper stage is sounding more and more like the 4 meter DCSS. Surely there's some obvious difference I'm just blanking on.And for fun either way, how well would the Delta upper stage work on top of NGL?
Anyone have a guess to where they can launch the NGL on the West Coast?
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 03/09/2018 08:25 amAnyone have a guess to where they can launch the NGL on the West Coast?NGL’s West Coast site is SLC-2W, which is where the Delta II launches from during its own West Coast flights.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 03/09/2018 02:01 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 03/09/2018 08:25 amAnyone have a guess to where they can launch the NGL on the West Coast?NGL’s West Coast site is SLC-2W, which is where the Delta II launches from during its own West Coast flights.Actually AFAIU both SLC-2W and SLC-2E would be ripped out and be rebuilt as a single SLC-2 Launch pad.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 03/09/2018 03:36 pmQuote from: ZachS09 on 03/09/2018 02:01 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 03/09/2018 08:25 amAnyone have a guess to where they can launch the NGL on the West Coast?NGL’s West Coast site is SLC-2W, which is where the Delta II launches from during its own West Coast flights.Actually AFAIU both SLC-2W and SLC-2E would be ripped out and be rebuilt as a single SLC-2 Launch pad.It that new SLC-2 pad notional or there is actual budget for the transformation?
Updated 2018 OATK NGL Factsheet: https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/space-launch-vehicles/NGL/docs/NGL_Factsheet.pdf
Hydrolox engine selected for US will be made public 16April.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/31/2018 02:20 amHydrolox engine selected for US will be made public 16April.What engines are the contenders?
Orbital ATK said that the BE-3U is not one of the third stage engine candidates.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 03/31/2018 12:45 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/31/2018 02:20 amHydrolox engine selected for US will be made public 16April.What engines are the contenders?BE-3UVinciRL-10Throwing it out there Raptor, but with Blue indicating they are going for BE-3U, than that might be strong contender for NGL
Domestic is not a requirement. The same announcement which dropped BE-3U also confirmed that Vinci is in the running
Quote from: brickmack on 03/31/2018 04:08 pmDomestic is not a requirement. The same announcement which dropped BE-3U also confirmed that Vinci is in the runningIt is if they expect to get much EELV contract action. Otherwise ULA would rightfully cry foul over the Atlas V.
This is a no brainer. Vinci is newer. It makes more thrust at a higher specific impulse than RL10C-1. It likely costs less to boot. Congress is not going to arbitrarily ban a rocket component produced in Germany. SLS, after all, uses German-built core tank walls. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: AnalogMan on 03/31/2018 10:13 pmI thought AMRO Fabricating Corp. manufactured all the SLS core tank panels.http://amrofab.com/https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/AMRO-fabricating-corp-lining-up-panels-for-sls.htmlGermany's MT Aerospace provides panels. These may be for the tank domes. http://www.mt-aerospace.de/news-details-en/items/nasa-space-launch-system-mt-aerospace-awarded-further-contracts-by-boeing.html - Ed Kyle
I thought AMRO Fabricating Corp. manufactured all the SLS core tank panels.http://amrofab.com/https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/AMRO-fabricating-corp-lining-up-panels-for-sls.html
It is if they expect to get much EELV contract action. Otherwise ULA would rightfully cry foul over the Atlas V.
Foreign parts are not and never have been banned, beyond simply requiring that a particular percentage of the cost of the vehicle be made by American companies. RD-180 is being banned because its from Russia specifically. America and the EU are on great terms.
Quote from: brickmack on 04/01/2018 04:04 amForeign parts are not and never have been banned, beyond simply requiring that a particular percentage of the cost of the vehicle be made by American companies. RD-180 is being banned because its from Russia specifically. America and the EU are on great terms.And in 1995 America and Russia were on pretty good terms to.
FEATURE ARTICLE: Orbital ATK preparing for next phase of NGL rocket development - https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/orbital-atk-next-phase-ngl-rocket-development/ - By Chris Gebhardt
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/30/2018 09:35 pmFEATURE ARTICLE: Orbital ATK preparing for next phase of NGL rocket development - https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/orbital-atk-next-phase-ngl-rocket-development/ - By Chris Gebhardt The rocketline graphic should also have Falcon 9 and Delta IV Heavy. New Glenn is shown with the old 5 m fairing which is no longer planned. Possibly too late to be incorporated, the New Glenn second stage will be longer as it is now using hydrolox instead of methalox. Possibly more interesting than height, would be the vehicle payload into LEO.
I completely agree! Details like these are important and should be fixed - this is NasaSpaceFlight.com
Quote from: Kasponaut on 04/02/2018 09:05 amI completely agree! Details like these are important and should be fixed - this is NasaSpaceFlight.comThis is not the fault of NSF. The graphic is from Orbital-ATK!
Stephen Clark story today titled "Orbital ATK confident new rocket will win Air Force support". https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/12/orbital-atk-confident-new-rocket-will-win-air-force-support/Orbital ATK has the solids, the crucial avionics, the fairing, and the launch site essentially in-hand. A no-nonsense rocket design with no unnecessary, costly, performance-robbing fancy stuff like landing legs. The key will be that mystery upper stage. - Ed Kyle
Says "all with U.S.-supplied propulsion systems", is Vinci out?
Stephen Clark story today titled "Orbital ATK confident new rocket will win Air Force support". https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/12/orbital-atk-confident-new-rocket-will-win-air-force-support/
Orbital ATK has the solids, the crucial avionics, the fairing, and the launch site essentially in-hand.
A no-nonsense rocket design with no unnecessary, costly, performance-robbing fancy stuff like landing legs.
The key will be that mystery upper stage.
Quote from: envy887 on 04/13/2018 06:49 pmSays "all with U.S.-supplied propulsion systems", is Vinci out?That exact quote never appears in the article, it says "all with U.S.-supplied booster propulsion systems." Vinci is not a booster engine.
So this thing is getting the official unveiling on Monday, right?Ok... With ATKs penchant for over-the-top patriotic names for their products (Liberty anyone?), what will the name of NGL be? - Liberty (why not try again?) - Freedom - Patriot - America - Rebublic - Democracy - Constitution - WashingtonAny other suggestions?
Quote from: Lars-J on 04/14/2018 06:14 amSo this thing is getting the official unveiling on Monday, right?Ok... With ATKs penchant for over-the-top patriotic names for their products (Liberty anyone?), what will the name of NGL be? - Liberty (why not try again?) - Freedom - Patriot - America - Rebublic - Democracy - Constitution - WashingtonAny other suggestions? AFAIK, the name is expected to be in line with their (Orbital - Pre ATK merger) existing naming system.
“Right now, we’re planning on about three to four missions per year to close our business case,” Laidley said. “A couple of those could come from the Air Force and a couple of those could come from either our internal needs or the commercial community. We can close our business case with a fairly low launch rate, and that’s primarily due to the diversity of our business base, and the fact that right now we’ve got a number of other large programs in our launch vehicle division, along with the propulsion systems division and aerospace structures.”
An interesting bit in the article was the low number of NSS flights needed to close the business case:Quote“Right now, we’re planning on about three to four missions per year to close our business case,” Laidley said. “A couple of those could come from the Air Force and a couple of those could come from either our internal needs or the commercial community. We can close our business case with a fairly low launch rate, and that’s primarily due to the diversity of our business base, and the fact that right now we’ve got a number of other large programs in our launch vehicle division, along with the propulsion systems division and aerospace structures.”The 40% share of the Phase 2 competition should be right in that range... they have zero chance of getting the winning (60%) share. Being viable with 2-3 USAF launches per year could be a significant selling point.
We took a hard look at what those missions have sold for historically, and we can be competitive in that marketplace.
Quote from: Star One on 04/14/2018 12:57 pmI still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?Apparently. Six of the last seven Falcon 9's were fully expended. There is still no evidence that stage recovery reduces cost, given the fact that SpaceX charges the same price for both new and used rockets.
I still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/14/2018 02:36 pmQuote from: Star One on 04/14/2018 12:57 pmI still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?Apparently. Six of the last seven Falcon 9's were fully expended. There is still no evidence that stage recovery reduces cost, given the fact that SpaceX charges the same price for both new and used rockets.Let's make a wager, to see if you really believe this. How about every time a Block 5 booster is expended (on purpose or by accident), I'll send you $10. In return, every time one is recovered, you send me $10.I'm willing to bet $100 you won't take this bet. If you do, I'll get my money back soon enough.
Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that SpaceX prices will stay low, given the massive expenditures currently planned by the company. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-funding/spacex-looks-to-raise-507-million-in-a-new-funding-round-filing-idUSKBN1HJ3D8
Quote from: Star One on 04/14/2018 12:57 pmI still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?Apparently. Six of the last seven Falcon 9's were fully expended. There is still no evidence that stage recovery reduces cost, given the fact that SpaceX charges the same price for both new and used rockets.SpaceX prices are lower because the company developed a great engine and a highly efficient production line. There's no reason that Orbital ATK and others can't do the same. Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that SpaceX prices will stay low, given the massive expenditures currently planned by the company. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-funding/spacex-looks-to-raise-507-million-in-a-new-funding-round-filing-idUSKBN1HJ3D8 - Ed Kyle
In the early 20s, we can expect both relatively low number of US gov. launches and 4 EELV class launchers (not counting BFR)
...Vulkan, New Glen...
Since IMO NGL is unlikely to be price competitive with Falcon 9, I doubt that even accounting for "managed competition" they will get more than 1 US gov. launch per year.
In the commercial market, NGL will compete with them as well and not only is price more important there, compared to gov. contracts, Falcon 9 should also have 100+ launches, while Vulkan, New Glen, and NGL will be starting with no launch history.
So, I don't think the market will be able to support 4 US LVs - and non-reusable ones will be most likely to fail.
...Northrup Grumman...
Quote from: AncientU on 04/14/2018 11:45 amAn interesting bit in the article was the low number of NSS flights needed to close the business case:Quote“Right now, we’re planning on about three to four missions per year to close our business case,” Laidley said. “A couple of those could come from the Air Force and a couple of those could come from either our internal needs or the commercial community. We can close our business case with a fairly low launch rate, and that’s primarily due to the diversity of our business base, and the fact that right now we’ve got a number of other large programs in our launch vehicle division, along with the propulsion systems division and aerospace structures.”The 40% share of the Phase 2 competition should be right in that range... they have zero chance of getting the winning (60%) share. Being viable with 2-3 USAF launches per year could be a significant selling point.I still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?
And New Glenn.
Quote from: AncientU on 04/15/2018 12:10 amAnd New Glenn.At the risk of derailing a bit. I thought they weren't involved in the USAF competition?
In the discussion of whether or not NGL will be competitive as a mostly-solid launch vehicle, one other factor to keep in mind is DoD's ongoing desire to keep the solid propellant industry from withering in the absence of large contracts like Shuttle SRM. The solids industry tends to be cyclical between big procurements for new ICBM's and SLBM's, and in between it makes DoD nervous if capabilities and institutional knowledge are lost.So, in the background, there is always an underlying Gov't interest in keeping the solids industry healthy. I expect that played a role in the solids component of SLS, but as it becomes clear SLS is a budget-busting dinosaur, other more cost-effective solids users like NGL will at least help keep the solids industry tooled up. That is of at least some motivation to the Air Force to see NGL succeed, regardless of cost comparisons to F9, FH, New Glenn, et al.
Quote from: Kabloona on 04/15/2018 03:23 amIn the discussion of whether or not NGL will be competitive as a mostly-solid launch vehicle, one other factor to keep in mind is DoD's ongoing desire to keep the solid propellant industry from withering in the absence of large contracts like Shuttle SRM. The solids industry tends to be cyclical between big procurements for new ICBM's and SLBM's, and in between it makes DoD nervous if capabilities and institutional knowledge are lost.So, in the background, there is always an underlying Gov't interest in keeping the solids industry healthy. I expect that played a role in the solids component of SLS, but as it becomes clear SLS is a budget-busting dinosaur, other more cost-effective solids users like NGL will at least help keep the solids industry tooled up. That is of at least some motivation to the Air Force to see NGL succeed, regardless of cost comparisons to F9, FH, New Glenn, et al.But if AF didn't write this desire into the RFP, wouldn't they open themselves to protest if they try to move the scale towards NGL?Also how much money is really needed to preserve the solid propellant industry? Last time I checked, the AP production company only needs $65M revenue per year to be profitable, that's pittance comparing the money AF can save by choosing the right EELV2, how about AF just use the saved money from EELV2 to buy solid propellant and dump it somewhere? That would be more economical than any favor towards NGL.
Dollars flowing to the solids industry keep incremental improvements happening in areas like composite case winding, case insulation, ablative nozzle design and manufacturing, propellant formulation and processing, etc, and these incremental imrovements then become available for programs the Air Force really cares about, like next gen ICBM's. And virtually none of the EELV $$ spent on liquids advances these technologies.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/14/2018 02:36 pmQuote from: Star One on 04/14/2018 12:57 pmI still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?Apparently. Six of the last seven Falcon 9's were fully expended. There is still no evidence that stage recovery reduces cost, given the fact that SpaceX charges the same price for both new and used rockets.Right. Just like there's no evidence reusing a 737 reduces costs over throwing it away, given that Southwest airlines charges the same price for a flight on a new 737 that it charges on a used 737 and even on a 737 it's about to retire. No evidence at all.
Quote from: Kabloona on 04/15/2018 04:06 amDollars flowing to the solids industry keep incremental improvements happening in areas like composite case winding, case insulation, ablative nozzle design and manufacturing, propellant formulation and processing, etc, and these incremental imrovements then become available for programs the Air Force really cares about, like next gen ICBM's. And virtually none of the EELV $$ spent on liquids advances these technologies.I think this is moving the goal post though. AF is already funding these non-recurring engineering for solids in their smaller missile programs. The talking point for NGL (and SLS) is that those smaller missile programs do not consume enough propellant, thus the need for big solids. But I question the economics of this, I think it would be much cheaper to solve this issue by giving a direct subsidy to solid propellant industry.
Like other Evolvable Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs), NGL will operate from both east and west coast launch facilities. NGL will share common propulsion, structures and avionics systems with current and future programs. In addition, NGL will leverage current in-production programs that already are staffed with a skilled and highly experienced workforce, and will use existing facilities, supplier relationships and available subsystems for the new launch system’s development and production. Because NGL shares so many common elements with other programs, the system is affordable for the Air Force while also providing savings of approximately $600 million to other government agencies over 10 years.
Quote from: Star One on 04/14/2018 12:57 pmI still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?Sure they could. USAF has been getting flak for funding components when they were instructed to fund complete systems. Indications are they will select two proposals for further funding and it sounds as if there's only two complete systems competing (Vulcan and NGL).
The solids industry tends to be cyclical between big procurements for new ICBM's and SLBM's, and in between it makes DoD nervous if capabilities and institutional knowledge are lost.
This heavy-class rocket will have a payload capacity of up to 10,100 kg to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) and up to 7,800 kg to Geostationary Equatorial Orbit (GEO) #OmegaRocket