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.
Orbital ATK’s business case requires five or six launches of the rocket per year for the military, NASA, or commercial customers, he said.
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