NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => NGIS (Formerly Orbital ATK) - Antares/Cygnus Section => Topic started by: Star One on 12/28/2016 02:46 pm
-
The biggest limitation on Pegasus must be its L-1011 launch aircraft and the ever increasing costs of keeping it flying as with its RAF retirement there can't be many operational examples still out there. Spare parts must be drying up and manufacturing new ones would I think be prohibitively expensive.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/12/27/orbital-atk-has-no-plans-phase-out-seldom-used-pegasus-rocket/
-
Many replacement parts for out of production aircraft can be made by skilled machinists. Delta airlines does that.
As mentioned in the article, Stratolaunch’s carrier aircraft would be an option.
-
Many replacement parts for out of production aircraft can be made by skilled machinists. Delta airlines does that.
As mentioned in the article, Stratolaunch’s carrier aircraft would be an option.
It would seem the sooner they transfer to a new launch aircraft the better.
-
Many replacement parts for out of production aircraft can be made by skilled machinists. Delta airlines does that.
As mentioned in the article, Stratolaunch’s carrier aircraft would be an option.
It would seem the sooner they transfer to a new launch aircraft the better.
Stratolaunch, with its six used 747 engines, surely will cost more to operate than 3-engined Stargazer.
- Ed Kyle
-
Many replacement parts for out of production aircraft can be made by skilled machinists. Delta airlines does that.
As mentioned in the article, Stratolaunch’s carrier aircraft would be an option.
It would seem the sooner they transfer to a new launch aircraft the better.
Stratolaunch, with its six used 747 engines, surely will cost more to operate than 3-engined Stargazer.
- Ed Kyle
Yet they are still considering it as an alternative so there must be some advantage in it be it financial or some other factor.
-
Spare parts must be drying up and manufacturing new ones would I think be prohibitively expensive.
I'm not convinced this is as big a deal as many assume. Orbital must have had the opportunity stock up on spares as L-1011 fleets retired, and given how little Stargazer flies, parts near the end of their service life in airliner terms would last a long time.
Yet they are still considering it as an alternative so there must be some advantage in it be it financial or some other factor.
If Paul Allen wants to open his wallet, why would they say no? ;)
-
Many replacement parts for out of production aircraft can be made by skilled machinists. Delta airlines does that.
As mentioned in the article, Stratolaunch’s carrier aircraft would be an option.
It would seem the sooner they transfer to a new launch aircraft the better.
Stratolaunch, with its six used 747 engines, surely will cost more to operate than 3-engined Stargazer.
- Ed Kyle
The difference is between owning and maintaining the L-1011 versus paying for a ride on Stratolaunch. As long as Paul Allen can find other uses for his big airplane, per flight prices for Pegasus might be reasonable.
-
Stratolaunch, with its six used 747 engines, surely will cost more to operate than 3-engined Stargazer.
- Ed Kyle
Six very common engines used on at least 5 different aircraft many of which are still in service versus 3 engines that were only ever deployed on L1011s.
-
I think it would (at the least) be an interesting exercise for OA, recreating aboard another aircraft the launch support equipment they have aboard Stargazer.
-
Many replacement parts for out of production aircraft can be made by skilled machinists. Delta airlines does that.
As mentioned in the article, Stratolaunch’s carrier aircraft would be an option.
It would seem the sooner they transfer to a new launch aircraft the better.
Stratolaunch, with its six used 747 engines, surely will cost more to operate than 3-engined Stargazer.
- Ed Kyle
I suspect, since Stratolaunch is a Paul Allen prestige project, that the cost will be subsidized by Vulcan Aerospace unless the flight rate climbs high enough (or other payloads for Stratolaunch found) to make it work without help.
-
The main obstacle to the L1011 is the FAA. They come out with AD'S that can ground the aircraft at anytime. There was one recently on an LPT bearing on the engine that affected all 3 of the engines plus the 2 spare engines. AMOC (alternate means of compliance ) is needed. Only 1 shop left in the world that can fix the engines, but because of opening a section of the engine it could add other AD'S to the repair. Because of low utilization of the L1011, it should be allowed to do borescope inspections. Plenty of spare parts on hand, will know a lot more about how long the L1011 will last after the next heavy check is done in 2017.
-
As well as the aforementioned challenges with sourcing spares and complying FAA directives for the L1101 - don't forget the challenges with keeping the flight crew current from a legal perspective and well practiced with flying the aircraft. Pilot Type ratings expire after 90 days of not flying, and flight reviews with a instructor are required every 2 years on the type of aircraft the rating is for. Some of this can be done using simulators rather than a real flight on a real aircraft, but the last L1101 simulator run by Delta in GA was shut in 2014. (Rumor that it was actually sold to Orbital?).
Flying one of the last examples of an airliner is really hard and can become prohibitively expensive - particularly when its for a "low cost" launcher where its hard to hide the costs...
-
Launching Pegasus from the L1011 will still be needed because of the orbit required for the customer satellite. Stratolaunch is restricted by its range and it's available landing sites. CNOFS, IBEX, NUSTAR, and upcoming ICON missions all from Kwaj with a 6800' long runway. I don't think Launcherone can land the 747 there either. Available hotpad areas that can handle the ramp weight is an issue too.
-
6800' may be doable for a 747 if you offload a little fuel.
-
As well as the aforementioned challenges with sourcing spares and complying FAA directives for the L1101 - don't forget the challenges with keeping the flight crew current from a legal perspective and well practiced with flying the aircraft. Pilot Type ratings expire after 90 days of not flying, and flight reviews with a instructor are required every 2 years on the type of aircraft the rating is for. Some of this can be done using simulators rather than a real flight on a real aircraft, but the last L1101 simulator run by Delta in GA was shut in 2014. (Rumor that it was actually sold to Orbital?).
Is there any path to "downgrade" an old commercial aircraft to experimental, or whatever type of license they use for White Knight or StratoLaunch? That would seem more appropriate for an aircraft that only flies technical missions, and where the only passengers are professionals who know and acknowledge the risks.
In absolute terms, I'd have to think an old, ex-commercial airliner would be safer than a new, one-of-a-kind aircraft.
-
Orbitalatk has an FAA certified L1011 simulator in Carlsbad Ca. And pilot, flight engineer check airmen.
-
6800' may be doable for a 747 if you offload a little fuel.
I don't know about taking off, but some 747s have landed on the 5400' runway in McMinnville Oregon. They were being turned into display pieces so I'm assuming they were also stripped down to minimize weight.
-
As well as the aforementioned challenges with sourcing spares and complying FAA directives for the L1101 - don't forget the challenges with keeping the flight crew current from a legal perspective and well practiced with flying the aircraft. Pilot Type ratings expire after 90 days of not flying, and flight reviews with a instructor are required every 2 years on the type of aircraft the rating is for. Some of this can be done using simulators rather than a real flight on a real aircraft, but the last L1101 simulator run by Delta in GA was shut in 2014. (Rumor that it was actually sold to Orbital?).
Is there any path to "downgrade" an old commercial aircraft to experimental, or whatever type of license they use for White Knight or StratoLaunch? That would seem more appropriate for an aircraft that only flies technical missions, and where the only passengers are professionals who know and acknowledge the risks.
In absolute terms, I'd have to think an old, ex-commercial airliner would be safer than a new, one-of-a-kind aircraft.
As best as I can recall Northrop Grumman did this with their BAC-111's when the commercial airworthiness was withdrawn.
-
Pegasus has another launch opportunity in 2020.
http://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-x-ray-astronomy-mission/
-
I think Orbital ATK is betting on the smallsat market finally taking off and having a vehicle already intended for it would give them a head start.
-
Resuscitating an old thread.
Pegasus has another launch opportunity in 2020.
http://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-x-ray-astronomy-mission/
The next "Pegasus-class payload," IXPE, was awarded to Falcon 9.
July 08, 2019
CONTRACT RELEASE C19-018
NASA Awards Launch Services Contract for Groundbreaking Astrophysics Mission
NASA has selected SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, to provide launch services for the agency’s Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) mission, which will allow astronomers to discover, for the first time, the hidden details of some of the most exotic astronomical objects in our universe.
The total cost for NASA to launch IXPE is approximately $50.3 million, which includes the launch service and other mission-related costs.
IXPE measures polarized X-rays from objects, such as black holes and neutron stars to better understand these types of cosmic phenomena and extreme environments.
The IXPE mission currently is targeted to launch in April 2021 on a Falcon 9 rocket from Launch Complex 39A in Florida. IXPE will fly three space telescopes with sensitive detectors capable of measuring the polarization of cosmic X-rays, allowing scientists to answer fundamental questions about these turbulent environments where gravitational, electric and magnetic fields are at their limits.
NASA’s Launch Services Program at Kennedy Space Center in Florida will manage the SpaceX launch service. The IXPE project office is located at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama and is managed by the Explorers Program Office at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.
For more information about NASA programs and missions, visit: http://www.nasa.gov
Are there any other "Pegasus-class" payloads in the pipeline? Or is ICON the final Pegasus payload?
IXPE/Falcon 9 launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.0)
-
Resuscitating an old thread.
Pegasus has another launch opportunity in 2020.
http://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-x-ray-astronomy-mission/
The next "Pegasus-class payload," IXPE, was awarded to Falcon 9.
July 08, 2019
CONTRACT RELEASE C19-018
NASA Awards Launch Services Contract for Groundbreaking Astrophysics Mission
NASA has selected SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, to provide launch services for the agency’s Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) mission, which will allow astronomers to discover, for the first time, the hidden details of some of the most exotic astronomical objects in our universe.
The total cost for NASA to launch IXPE is approximately $50.3 million, which includes the launch service and other mission-related costs.
IXPE measures polarized X-rays from objects, such as black holes and neutron stars to better understand these types of cosmic phenomena and extreme environments.
The IXPE mission currently is targeted to launch in April 2021 on a Falcon 9 rocket from Launch Complex 39A in Florida. IXPE will fly three space telescopes with sensitive detectors capable of measuring the polarization of cosmic X-rays, allowing scientists to answer fundamental questions about these turbulent environments where gravitational, electric and magnetic fields are at their limits.
NASA’s Launch Services Program at Kennedy Space Center in Florida will manage the SpaceX launch service. The IXPE project office is located at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama and is managed by the Explorers Program Office at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.
For more information about NASA programs and missions, visit: http://www.nasa.gov
Are there any other "Pegasus-class" payloads in the pipeline? Or is ICON the final Pegasus payload?
IXPE/Falcon 9 launch thread
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.0)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36125.msg1963936#msg1963936
Read my theoretical post about the possibility of Pegasus’ swansong.
-
Resuscitating an old thread.
Pegasus has another launch opportunity in 2020.
http://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-x-ray-astronomy-mission/
The next "Pegasus-class payload," IXPE, was awarded to Falcon 9.
July 08, 2019
CONTRACT RELEASE C19-018
NASA Awards Launch Services Contract for Groundbreaking Astrophysics Mission
NASA has selected SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, to provide launch services for the agency’s Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) mission, which will allow astronomers to discover, for the first time, the hidden details of some of the most exotic astronomical objects in our universe.
The total cost for NASA to launch IXPE is approximately $50.3 million, which includes the launch service and other mission-related costs.
IXPE measures polarized X-rays from objects, such as black holes and neutron stars to better understand these types of cosmic phenomena and extreme environments.
The IXPE mission currently is targeted to launch in April 2021 on a Falcon 9 rocket from Launch Complex 39A in Florida. IXPE will fly three space telescopes with sensitive detectors capable of measuring the polarization of cosmic X-rays, allowing scientists to answer fundamental questions about these turbulent environments where gravitational, electric and magnetic fields are at their limits.
NASA’s Launch Services Program at Kennedy Space Center in Florida will manage the SpaceX launch service. The IXPE project office is located at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama and is managed by the Explorers Program Office at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.
For more information about NASA programs and missions, visit: http://www.nasa.gov
Are there any other "Pegasus-class" payloads in the pipeline? Or is ICON the final Pegasus payload?
IXPE/Falcon 9 launch thread
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.0)
PUNCH/TRACERS
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48395.0
...but the IXPE award really narrows the path forward for Pegasus.
-
PUNCH/TRACERS
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48395.0
...but the IXPE award really narrows the path forward for Pegasus.
At least some PUNCH team members are expecting a Falcon 9 launch.
-
PUNCH/TRACERS
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48395.0
...but the IXPE award really narrows the path forward for Pegasus.
At least some PUNCH team members are expecting a Falcon 9 launch.
There are two motor sets at VAFB excluding the motors for ICON.
-
PUNCH/TRACERS
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48395.0
...but the IXPE award really narrows the path forward for Pegasus.
At least some PUNCH team members are expecting a Falcon 9 launch.
There are two motor sets at VAFB excluding the motors for ICON.
So you think there could be a "fire sale" launches with NGST keeping Stargazer active until two more flights get off?
I wonder what fraction of total launch costs those motor sets represent.
Could they be the dominant fraction of cost?
-
LauncherOne is direct competition to Pegasus (500kg vs 450kg to LEO) and lot cheaper ($10-15m vs $30-40m). Will take few nominal launches before it can compete for high value DOD and NASA payloads Pegasus launches. Following LauncherOne will be even more capable Firefly Alpha and Relativity Terran. Both of which will be lot cheaper than Pegasus and will most likely force VG to reduce LauncherOne price.
-
PUNCH/TRACERS
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48395.0
...but the IXPE award really narrows the path forward for Pegasus.
At least some PUNCH team members are expecting a Falcon 9 launch.
There are two motor sets at VAFB excluding the motors for ICON.
So you think there could be a "fire sale" launches with NGST keeping Stargazer active until two more flights get off?
I wonder what fraction of total launch costs those motor sets represent.
Could they be the dominant fraction of cost?
Who knows. They are early in their shelf life. Stargazer noise and emissions compliance is mainly the present limiting factor followed by the age of the airframe. Excluding the air launch capability it's redundant inside NGIS to the Minotaur-C sub-family.
-
Right now, there's no launch vehicle assigned to launch SPHEREx, which weighs 178 kilograms. Maybe one of the Pegasus rockets in storage could launch SPHEREx since it's within the payload capability to SSO.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/explorer_spherex.htm
Also, we have PUNCH and TRACERS that are presumably within Pegasus' SSO capability, so that could be another candidate for Pegasus.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/explorer_punch.htm
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/explorer_tracers.htm
-
https://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-contract-to-launch-nasa-small-astrophysics-mission/
SpaceX undercut NGIS on this bid, offering F9R for $50m.
Even if NGIS reduce price dramatically from current $56m, can't see them matching likes of LauncherOne and Alpha on price . Both will be well under $20m.
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/10/rockets-purchased-by-stratolaunch-back-under-northrop-grumman-control/
There might be two more Pegasus missions on the manifest since Northrop Grumman bought back the spare parts from Stratolaunch.
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/10/rockets-purchased-by-stratolaunch-back-under-northrop-grumman-control/
There might be two more Pegasus missions on the manifest since Northrop Grumman bought back the spare parts from Stratolaunch.
That $50 million price tho. Better off sending the 2 rockets and plane to museums.
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/10/rockets-purchased-by-stratolaunch-back-under-northrop-grumman-control/
There might be two more Pegasus missions on the manifest since Northrop Grumman bought back the spare parts from Stratolaunch.
That $50 million price tho. Better off sending the 2 rockets and plane to museums.
They have loaded propellant and other hazards that would need to be inserted and safed to even consider that possibility.
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/10/rockets-purchased-by-stratolaunch-back-under-northrop-grumman-control/
There might be two more Pegasus missions on the manifest since Northrop Grumman bought back the spare parts from Stratolaunch.
That $50 million price tho. Better off sending the 2 rockets and plane to museums.
The $56 million price mentioned was on an Orbital Sciences contract. Subsequently, Orbital merged with ATK, which later merged into Northrop Grumman. The company now owns the motor manufacturer, which theoretically should substantially reduce the cost (and price) of a launch. If they intend to compete, they will have to offer lower prices.
- Ed Kyle
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/10/rockets-purchased-by-stratolaunch-back-under-northrop-grumman-control/
There might be two more Pegasus missions on the manifest since Northrop Grumman bought back the spare parts from Stratolaunch.
That $50 million price tho. Better off sending the 2 rockets and plane to museums.
The $56 million price mentioned was on an Orbital Sciences contract. Subsequently, Orbital merged with ATK, which later merged into Northrop Grumman. The company now owns the motor manufacturer, which theoretically should substantially reduce the cost (and price) of a launch. If they intend to compete, they will have to offer lower prices.
- Ed Kyle
I wouldn't read too much into it. The ICON bid was the highest the contractor thought it could be while still having a good chance of winning the contract (which they did btw). With the loss of IXPE, that calculus simply changes. Pegasus likely can still outbid Falcon 9 given the entire rocket masses about 20% as much as the falcon 9 upper stage.
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/10/rockets-purchased-by-stratolaunch-back-under-northrop-grumman-control/
There might be two more Pegasus missions on the manifest since Northrop Grumman bought back the spare parts from Stratolaunch.
That $50 million price tho. Better off sending the 2 rockets and plane to museums.
The $56 million price mentioned was on an Orbital Sciences contract. Subsequently, Orbital merged with ATK, which later merged into Northrop Grumman. The company now owns the motor manufacturer, which theoretically should substantially reduce the cost (and price) of a launch. If they intend to compete, they will have to offer lower prices.
- Ed Kyle
I wouldn't read too much into it. The ICON bid was the highest the contractor thought it could be while still having a good chance of winning the contract (which they did btw). With the loss of IXPE, that calculus simply changes. Pegasus likely can still outbid Falcon 9 given the entire rocket masses about 20% as much as the falcon 9 upper stage.
I doubt that Pegasus has a future due to it's costs. 500kg on the monthly scheduled F9 ride share flights is priced at $2.5 million. Pegasus can't fly their L1011 for that, much less the rocket.
Say, double that if you want to go to a somewhat different LEO orbit via upper stage delivery. This is much, much less than Pegasus's costs.
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/10/rockets-purchased-by-stratolaunch-back-under-northrop-grumman-control/
There might be two more Pegasus missions on the manifest since Northrop Grumman bought back the spare parts from Stratolaunch.
That $50 million price tho. Better off sending the 2 rockets and plane to museums.
The $56 million price mentioned was on an Orbital Sciences contract. Subsequently, Orbital merged with ATK, which later merged into Northrop Grumman. The company now owns the motor manufacturer, which theoretically should substantially reduce the cost (and price) of a launch. If they intend to compete, they will have to offer lower prices.
- Ed Kyle
I wouldn't read too much into it. The ICON bid was the highest the contractor thought it could be while still having a good chance of winning the contract (which they did btw). With the loss of IXPE, that calculus simply changes. Pegasus likely can still outbid Falcon 9 given the entire rocket masses about 20% as much as the falcon 9 upper stage.
I doubt that Pegasus has a future due to it's costs. 500kg on the monthly scheduled F9 ride share flights is priced at $2.5 million. Pegasus can't fly their L1011 for that, much less the rocket.
Say, double that if you want to go to a somewhat different LEO orbit via upper stage delivery. This is much, much less than Pegasus's costs.
Probably a lot more than double given it would have to drop off starlink payloads at 53 degrees and then do a 20 degree inclination change (for ICON). That is a delta v of 2.7 km/s. Not sure about IXPE and what determines the orbit there, but ICON wants to focus on the equatorial regions as interesting activity occurs there in the ionosphere.
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/10/rockets-purchased-by-stratolaunch-back-under-northrop-grumman-control/
There might be two more Pegasus missions on the manifest since Northrop Grumman bought back the spare parts from Stratolaunch.
That $50 million price tho. Better off sending the 2 rockets and plane to museums.
The $56 million price mentioned was on an Orbital Sciences contract. Subsequently, Orbital merged with ATK, which later merged into Northrop Grumman. The company now owns the motor manufacturer, which theoretically should substantially reduce the cost (and price) of a launch. If they intend to compete, they will have to offer lower prices.
- Ed Kyle
I wouldn't read too much into it. The ICON bid was the highest the contractor thought it could be while still having a good chance of winning the contract (which they did btw). With the loss of IXPE, that calculus simply changes. Pegasus likely can still outbid Falcon 9 given the entire rocket masses about 20% as much as the falcon 9 upper stage.
I doubt that Pegasus has a future due to it's costs. 500kg on the monthly scheduled F9 ride share flights is priced at $2.5 million. Pegasus can't fly their L1011 for that, much less the rocket.
Say, double that if you want to go to a somewhat different LEO orbit via upper stage delivery. This is much, much less than Pegasus's costs.
Probably a lot more than double given it would have to drop off starlink payloads at 53 degrees and then do a 20 degree inclination change (for ICON). That is a delta v of 2.7 km/s. Not sure about IXPE and what determines the orbit there, but ICON wants to focus on the equatorial regions as interesting activity occurs there in the ionosphere.
Yeah, that much of a plane change would be expensive. I checked Momentus's website, and looks like you'd need an additional 1500Kg of fuel and upper stage to get roughly there.
I guess there are some economical niche cases between the normal ride share to SSO or 53º (at 5 million or so), and a dedicated F9 launch to a specific orbit (at 50 million-ish).
-
I wouldn't read too much into it. The ICON bid was the highest the contractor thought it could be while still having a good chance of winning the contract (which they did btw). With the loss of IXPE, that calculus simply changes. Pegasus likely can still outbid Falcon 9 given the entire rocket masses about 20% as much as the falcon 9 upper stage.
Yes and No
The loss to IXPE does indicate that the balance has shifted.
But the mass is irrelevant. The vast majority of the mass of the F9 second stage, the only part that is expended, is fuel, which is a fraction of the cost.
Pegasus is a five stage rocket with a reusable, air breathing, piloted, 200,000 kg first stage for which production ceased decades ago. The next three stages are solid fueled, with all its storage advantages and handling disadvantages. Most have actuated engines and the second stage has aerodynamic controls. All that hardware is expendable. To get to an equatorial orbit it has to launch out of a very remote island location near the equator.
Falcon 9 is a two stage, liquid fueled rocket with a reusable first stage from an active production line. Even the payload fairings will be recovered and reused under nominal circumstances. It can carry more than four times the payload to an equatorial orbit from the Cape.
IXPE will fly in an equatorial orbit to minimize interaction with the South Atlantic Anomaly.
If IXPE has been designed for Falcon 9, with its voluminous payload fairing and higher mass limit it would have cost much less. Several very expensive subsystems, particularly the extendable boom and the Tip-Tilt-Rotate mechanism on its end, and the deploying solar panels, were needed to fit in the limited volume of the Pegasus.
-
L1011 is in great shape. Plenty of spare parts, spare L1011 and repair shops that can fix components. Stargazer flew from Mojave to Vafb to the Cape, launched Pegasus/ICON and flew back to vafb and Mojave with no problems. Did you see the Audi commercial that was done in August. Stargazer looked awesome. Other work than launching Pegasus is in the works. This aircraft has been flying less than 900 hours since 1993 and is continuing to be maintained as if it was flown in a airliner type operation. Ex-RAF L1011 tankers could fly again in the near future, due to a recent contract for the DOD. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13486/retired-raf-tristars-will-get-new-life-as-contracted-aerial-refuelers
More pilots. I think Phil Joyce was right in saying the aircraft could last up to another 5 to 10 years. Virgin Orbit still needs to prove what it says it can do. They also will need to sell a bunch of launches to keep that factory going and keep the price down. If they don't, they will have to raise the price just like Orbital had to do.
-
Did you see the Audi commercial that was done in August. Stargazer looked awesome. Other work than launching Pegasus is in the works.
The commercial is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shKCTep5yoM
-
Look at the seats on that plane--you can tell that ad was filmed on nothing modern!
-
L1011 is in great shape. Plenty of spare parts, spare L1011 and repair shops that can fix components. Stargazer flew from Mojave to VAFB to the Cape, launched Pegasus/ICON and flew back to vafb and Mojave with no problems. Did you see the Audi commercial that was done in August. Stargazer looked awesome. Other work than launching Pegasus is in the works. This aircraft has been flying less than 900 hours since 1993 and is continuing to be maintained as if it was flown in a airliner type operation. Ex-RAF L1011 tankers could fly again in the near future, due to a recent contract for the DOD. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13486/retired-raf-tristars-will-get-new-life-as-contracted-aerial-refuelers (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13486/retired-raf-tristars-will-get-new-life-as-contracted-aerial-refuelers)
More pilots. I think Phil Joyce was right in saying the aircraft could last up to another 5 to 10 years. Virgin Orbit still needs to prove what it says it can do. They also will need to sell a bunch of launches to keep that factory going and keep the price down. If they don't, they will have to raise the price just like Orbital had to do.
OOH! One of my little jabs was over the line!
Stop the presses!
Look, I am VERY fond of the L-1011. Lovely lines from the era of three engine jetliners.
Stargazer could well remain operational for another half century. I hope it does.
I also appreciated the Pegasus when it was a small, agile, lower cost alternative to the Atlas V and Delta IV.
That doesn't change the bulk of my arguments.
It doesn't even contradict the statement that L-1011 production is long gone.
Pegasus has MANY disadvantages with respect to Falcon 9.
This is either evidenced by or because of it's much lower launch pace.
Even with two paid-for vehicles, it is unlikely to fly again.
We will see.
-
NASA blew it on IXPE. If they would have waited till ICON was launched, they would have saved the taxpayer millions of dollars. NGIS have 2 Pegasus rockets at Vandenburg that are in almost ready to use configuration. Believe me, NGIS would not have agreed to buying those rockets back, if it wasn't a sweet deal. And they are well aware of SX costs. NASA should in its best interests keep Pegasus busy just in case the other new launch vehicles have issues, financially or technically.
-
NASA blew it on IXPE. If they would have waited till ICON was launched, they would have saved the taxpayer millions of dollars. NGIS have 2 Pegasus rockets at Vandenburg that are in almost ready to use configuration. Believe me, NGIS would not have agreed to buying those rockets back, if it wasn't a sweet deal. And they are well aware of SX costs. NASA should in its best interests keep Pegasus busy just in case the other new launch vehicles have issues, financially or technically.
Not at all
NASA won on IXPE by getting a launch for 80% of what they anticipated. That saved NASA (not the taxpayers) over $10M.
(NASA doesn’t give that money back to Congress. They spend it elsewhere.)
Wait what for ICON? ICON waited two years to iron out kinks in the Stargazer/Pegasus system.
You think NASA should guarantee business for another vehicle like the Air Force did with EELV and ULA? Don’t hold your breath.
SpaceX is a private company not engaging in cost-plus contracts. Their dramatically undercutting the price of Pegasus may be evidence that NASA doesn’t know the inner workings of SpaceX as well as you suppose.
-
Could Pegasus have a next launch coming soon?
NASA has awarded a $13.7 million contract to Advanced Space of Boulder, Colorado, to develop and operate the CAPSTONE (Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment) CubeSat mission to the same lunar orbit targeted for Gateway – an orbiting outpost astronauts will visit before descending to the surface of the Moon in a landing system as part of NASA’s Artemis program.
-
Could Pegasus have a next launch coming soon?
NASA has awarded a $13.7 million contract to Advanced Space of Boulder, Colorado, to develop and operate the CAPSTONE (Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment) CubeSat mission to the same lunar orbit targeted for Gateway – an orbiting outpost astronauts will visit before descending to the surface of the Moon in a landing system as part of NASA’s Artemis program.
Why? At $40 million a pop, looks to be way over budget, especially compared to either RocketLab or Falcon 9
-
Can Rocket lab launch to lunar orbit? I don't think so. Pegasus launched IBEX with a 4th stage that has changed orbits multiple times. I think that Pegasus has proven itself again with NASA after ICON and I believe that SpaceX will not be able to compete on price. Now if SpaceX does a piggy back with the IXPE launch and how a stage would look like for a lunar orbit, that could be interesting. Probably bring the CAPSTONE launch price way down.
-
Can Rocket lab launch to lunar orbit? I don't think so.
Rocket Lab themselves begs to differ.
They are explicitly offering missions to lunar orbit.
(https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-to-deliver-payloads-to-the-moon-and-beyond-with-photon/)
-
RocketLab is capable of low mass lunar missions:
https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-unveils-photon-smallsat-bus/
A ride share on a SX rocket could get you to GTO or LEO where a momentus upper stage could get you to Lunar Orbit.
I believe either of these is well under 1/2 the price of a Pegasus.
-
I thought Pegasus launch cost $56M. Falcon 9 launch is only $51M.
-
Could Pegasus have a next launch coming soon?
NASA has awarded a $13.7 million contract to Advanced Space of Boulder, Colorado, to develop and operate the CAPSTONE (Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment) CubeSat mission to the same lunar orbit targeted for Gateway – an orbiting outpost astronauts will visit before descending to the surface of the Moon in a landing system as part of NASA’s Artemis program.
Why? At $40 million a pop, looks to be way over budget, especially compared to either RocketLab or Falcon 9
Where did you get that $40M?
I think the Pegasus for IXPE was priced at >$60M, and lost to Falcon 9 on cost by a huge margin.
We don’t know if NG has offered discounts on the reputed two existing Pegasus vehicles. Selling them for a fraction of “list price” might be better than letting them sit there.
-
I thought Pegasus launch cost $56M. Falcon 9 launch is only $51M.
There are rarely “list prices” for launches, particularly NASA launches which require “extra services”.
That said your numbers are not correct.
The difference for IXPE was much greater.
YRLMV (Rocket Launch 😁)
-
Could Pegasus have a next launch coming soon?
NASA has awarded a $13.7 million contract to Advanced Space of Boulder, Colorado, to develop and operate the CAPSTONE (Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment) CubeSat mission to the same lunar orbit targeted for Gateway – an orbiting outpost astronauts will visit before descending to the surface of the Moon in a landing system as part of NASA’s Artemis program.
Why? At $40 million a pop, looks to be way over budget, especially compared to either RocketLab or Falcon 9
Where did you get that $40M?
I think the Pegasus for IXPE was priced at >$60M, and lost to Falcon 9 on cost by a huge margin.
We don’t know if NG has offered discounts on the reputed two existing Pegasus vehicles. Selling them for a fraction of “list price” might be better than letting sit there.
I sourced it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)
You make a good point that the remaining stock of Pegasus rockets might be priced at a discount.
-
They will need to sell them at $15m to compete against new 1000kg LVs coming on market in next year or two.
-
They will need to sell them at $15m to compete against new 1000kg LVs coming on market in next year or two.
Lots of groups SAY they will compete with Pegasus.
If and When Launcher One gets to orbit twice real (built and adequately financed) missions will consider and compare them.
Maybe someone else but don’t hold your breath
-
If a lunar launch price is $15m for Rocketlab or VO for 1 time in the next 2 years for NASA what kind of profit can these companies make? With all the infrastructure (launch sites, aircraft) costs, personnel, R&D, new hardware, software all these expenses has to be a huge liability. How can small profits sustain them? How many more competitive launch vehicles will come to b in the next few years?
-
If a lunar launch price is $15m for Rocketlab or VO for 1 time in the next 2 years for NASA what kind of profit can these companies make? With all the infrastructure (launch sites, aircraft) costs, personnel, R&D, new hardware, software all these expenses has to be a huge liability. How can small profits sustain them? How many more competitive launch vehicles will come to b in the next few years?
Where did you get $15m for RL lunar mission?
Electron is $7.5m, Photon should only add $1-2m.
-
I wouldn't read too much into it. The ICON bid was the highest the contractor thought it could be while still having a good chance of winning the contract (which they did btw). With the loss of IXPE, that calculus simply changes. Pegasus likely can still outbid Falcon 9 given the entire rocket masses about 20% as much as the falcon 9 upper stage.
I doubt that Pegasus has a future due to it's costs. 500kg on the monthly scheduled F9 ride share flights is priced at $2.5 million. Pegasus can't fly their L1011 for that, much less the rocket.
Say, double that if you want to go to a somewhat different LEO orbit via upper stage delivery. This is much, much less than Pegasus's costs.
Probably a lot more than double given it would have to drop off starlink payloads at 53 degrees and then do a 20 degree inclination change (for ICON). That is a delta v of 2.7 km/s. Not sure about IXPE and what determines the orbit there, but ICON wants to focus on the equatorial regions as interesting activity occurs there in the ionosphere.
Now that is a good point.
In earths atmosphere plane change (for a winged 0th stage) is a case of choosing a take off site and flying the right course. for a satellite it's a much more involved process.
So that raises the question "How many payloads need such specialized orbits that neither F9's standard launches or RL's custom launches cannot satisfy them either in terms of mass to orbit, achievable orbital parameters or delta v needed by the payload to get them to their destination orbit" ?
It's a sort of "reverse Goldilocks" problem. Payloads too big for Electron, too much delta v needed for an F9 rideshare or starlink launch for the payload to accommodate. IE just wrong for both.
And of course given the expense of a Pegasus launch most payload developers would be looking hard to avoid needing that option to begin with (assuming launch costs come out of their budget. The situation is different if they can get launch costs paid for in another way).
NG are betting that that their are enough such payloads to keep them in the launch business. Pegasus is fully developed (unlike the OmegA or liberty paper rockets they pledged to continue to development of when NASA didn't fund them) so the assets already exist and are operational.
IDK the smallsat launch market well enough to know how restrictive RL's and F9's payload and orbit limits really are. Time will tell if it's big enough to sustain the pegasus operation or if staff should start considering early retirement or reskilling. :(
BTW I did not realize that now both the ELV mfg and it's major engine mfg are part of the same corporation.
That should allow more flexibility on setting internal prices and hence the competitiveness of the overall package.
-
BTW I did not realize that now both the ELV mfg and it's major engine mfg are part of the same corporation.
That should allow more flexibility on setting internal prices and hence the competitiveness of the overall package.
The annual cost of maintaining launch crew and ground systems (plane in case of airlaunch) are fixed. These costs need to amortised over the year's launches. SpaceX and RL have high enough flight rates to help amortise these costs, NGIS typically have one if any launches a year.
-
BTW I did not realize that now both the ELV mfg and it's major engine mfg are part of the same corporation.
That should allow more flexibility on setting internal prices and hence the competitiveness of the overall package.
The annual cost of maintaining launch crew and ground systems (plane in case of airlaunch) are fixed. These costs need to amortised over the year's launches. SpaceX and RL have high enough flight rates to help amortise these costs, NGIS typically have one if any launches a year.
Exactly
Pegasus has always been the odd combination for fixed costs.
The solid stages can be stored fully fueled with very limited maintenance. That’s one of the few advantages of solids.
In contrast, the L-1011 Starliner “first stage” requires much work to keep it in active storage, including flights to keep the crew current.
The same will be true for Launcher One’s “Cosmic Girl” 747 if and when it becomes operational.
And NGIS would have to make many sales, despite not making any for four years, to climb to one Pegasus launch per year.
-
So that raises the question "How many payloads need such specialized orbits that neither F9's standard launches or RL's custom launches cannot satisfy them either in terms of mass to orbit, achievable orbital parameters or delta v needed by the payload to get them to their destination orbit" ?
It's a sort of "reverse Goldilocks" problem. Payloads too big for Electron, too much delta v needed for an F9 rideshare or starlink launch for the payload to accommodate. IE just wrong for both.
Pegasus can take about 400 kg to any LEO inclination, for about 40 million (can this price drop a bit and still be viable?)
Rocket lab can take over 200kg to any LEO inclination > 37 degrees. for about 7 million
F9 rideshare + momentus upper stage can get 400 kg to any LEO inclination for about 7 million.
There isn't any space between the offerings. There is a 30 million dollar difference in price (about 4 times more). Also, Rocketlab and SX are demonstrably more reliable than pegasus.
-
Pegasus can take about 400 kg to any LEO inclination, for about 40 million (can this price drop a bit and still be viable?)
Rocket lab can take over 200kg to any LEO inclination > 37 degrees. for about 7 million
F9 rideshare + momentus upper stage can get 400 kg to any LEO inclination for about 7 million.
There isn't any space between the offerings. There is a 30 million dollar difference in price (about 4 times more). Also, Rocketlab and SX are demonstrably more reliable than pegasus.
Thanks for that roundup.
But note that momentus just withdrew their FCC application for bandwidth use, suggesting their development programme has been delayed. First launch by 2021 perhaps.
So if you want <37 deg inclinations and/or > 200Kg of mass pegasus looks like it might have a few years of life yet.
It's very important to compare what is fully available now. Pegasus is. Provided momentus delivers its tug to orbit and it become operational then the situation changes. But we are still a long way from that happening.
Right now if you fly on a SX rideshare, or a starlink launch you go where the US takes you. If your payload can supply any necessary delta v then that's not a problem. If it can't and that's not where you want to be then either you look at non US launchers or you wait on the ground.
-
It's very important to compare what is fully available now. Pegasus is. Provided momentus delivers its tug to orbit and it become operational then the situation changes. But we are still a long way from that happening.
Right now if you fly on a SX rideshare, or a starlink launch you go where the US takes you. If your payload can supply any necessary delta v then that's not a problem. If it can't and that's not where you want to be then either you look at non US launchers or you wait on the ground.
Fair enough. SX hasn't really started flying it's ride share just yet ... they are targeting March 2020, so we a few months to wait. It's been announced that Momentus will demo their upper stage on the first dedicated SX ride share. https://spacenews.com/spacex-revamps-smallsat-rideshare-program/
So sell those Pegasus rocket flights now!
-
Pegasus can take about 400 kg to any LEO inclination, for about 40 million (can this price drop a bit and still be viable?)
Rocket lab can take over 200kg to any LEO inclination > 37 degrees. for about 7 million
F9 rideshare + momentus upper stage can get 400 kg to any LEO inclination for about 7 million.
There isn't any space between the offerings. There is a 30 million dollar difference in price (about 4 times more). Also, Rocketlab and SX are demonstrably more reliable than pegasus.
Thanks for that roundup.
But note that momentus just withdrew their FCC application for bandwidth use, suggesting their development programme has been delayed. First launch by 2021 perhaps.
So if you want <37 deg inclinations and/or > 200Kg of mass pegasus looks like it might have a few years of life yet.
It's very important to compare what is fully available now. Pegasus is. Provided momentus delivers its tug to orbit and it become operational then the situation changes. But we are still a long way from that happening.
Right now if you fly on a SX rideshare, or a starlink launch you go where the US takes you. If your payload can supply any necessary delta v then that's not a problem. If it can't and that's not where you want to be then either you look at non US launchers or you wait on the ground.
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. If rideshare then include propulsion for extra DV to get from drop orbit to destination orbit.
With space tugs they don't need extra propulsion and can choose between rideshare + tug or dedicated LVs like Electron.
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. If rideshare then include propulsion for extra DV to get from drop orbit to destination orbit.
Exactly
With space tugs they don't need extra propulsion and can choose between rideshare + tug or dedicated LVs like Electron.
Obviously if a smallsat LV mfg can also supply a "space tug" service as well (sooner rather than later for preference) then the economics change quite considerably.
But I'm not sure who's in pole position for this at the moment.
-
I'm not sure if this is better here (where it's been discussed) or the "countdown to smallsat launchers" thread where it would be relevant as well.
Propulsion is a step change issue for payloads.
If the LV does a good enough job then a payload can get by with no propulsion at all. If you've bought the launch then it pretty much has to take you where you want to go.
Once it's a standard orbit only you're into a problem with multiple constraints.
1) You must have X amount of delta v.
2) It must fit the payloads size/power/mass budgets
The question is how bad is this problem for the bulk of potential smallsat customers?
If, for most of them its a case "Not bothered what orbit we are in" that's not an issue.
Beyond that you have the issue of wheather the payloads are already 3-axis stabilized. If not then all those issues have to be dealt with first before you can reliably point the thruster in a particular direction in space. How many smallsats just tumble in space?
For those that are already 3axis stable your GNC problem got a lot harder, possibly needing a processor upgrade, depending on how tight your budget was to begin with.
From pointing in a specific direction to working out where you are in space and calculating attitude, thrust and duration is quite a big step up.
Then there is the question of how serious a delta v you need?
Again it's what fraction of those payloads need serious changes? What's going to GEO? Moon? Mars?
Could we be looking at asteroid prospecting missions, calling for on board navigation out to 2AU?
If the centroid of the market is a) Not bothered about where they are dropped off or b) Have delta v's that can be met by modest cold compressed gas systems then the future looks quite bleak for providers offering more bespoke launches.
OTOH if a significant fraction of these new payloads are concerned with exactly where they are going (or have such high delta v needs that they need every bit of assistance from their LV to get where they want to go then I'd say they do have a future, even at the prices NGL are charging.
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. If rideshare then include propulsion for extra DV to get from drop orbit to destination orbit.
With space tugs they don't need extra propulsion and can choose between rideshare + tug or dedicated LVs like Electron.
From the context you snipped, I think "LV choice" here meant dedicated vs. rideshare, more generically, rather than the specific launcher, since the next sentence was about whether large-scale on-board propulsion is necessary. In theory, most payloads with a standard payload interface could launch on a variety of launchers. Exceptions would include Photon and in the past some Agena missions, where the upper stage also serves as the satellite bus.
For IXPE, rideshare isn't practical, given the rarity of payloads going to equatorial LEO. By my count, it's about one every 5 years or so: HETE-2 (2000, Pegasus), AGILE (2007, PSLV-CA), NUSTAR (2012, Pegasus), ORS-5 (2017, Minotaur IV), and now IXPE.
That said, IXPE probably would have been easier to build if it had been designed for Falcon 9 instead of Pegasus, as the much larger payload fairing envelope likely would have allowed eliminating some deployable structures.
Edit: left NUSTAR out of the 5-year cadence
-
(snip)
That said, IXPE probably would have been easier to build if it had been designed for Falcon 9 instead of Pegasus, as the much larger payload fairing envelope likely would have allowed eliminating some deployable structures.
Absolutely
The deployable mast, the Tip/Tilt/Rotate mechanism on its end, the deployable solar panels, and the deployable X-ray shields (although the latter may yet be replaced with a fixed shield.)
But this thread is about the viability of Pegasus as the dedicated launch vehicle.
Pegasus couldn’t beat Falcon 9, even with the much larger rocket dedicated to the single payload at a fraction of its capacity.
There was no need to organize a rideshare.
There was no need for propulsion or a tug.
Adding the potential for saving money by simplifying the spacecraft makes the case even stronger.
I repeat, perhaps at the Electron payload size dedicated launch makes sense, but Pegasus does not.
NGIS says they are betting it can.
We shall see
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
Can you provide your information on how much the Pegasus bid was versus the Falcon bid was? The IXPE platform was a copy of NUSTAR platform that was launched by Pegasus.
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
Can you provide your information on how much the Pegasus bid was versus the Falcon bid was? The IXPE platform was a copy of NUSTAR platform that was launched by Pegasus.
IIRC the Pegasus was just more expensive than launching on Falcon. It was something like $64 million vs $60 million but I could be wrong on those numbers, if we even know the numbers...
-
[
I repeat, perhaps at the Electron payload size dedicated launch makes sense, but Pegasus does not.
NGIS says they are betting it can.
We shall see
Its not Pegasus payload size that is problem but its price. Needs to be around $10-15m to compete against LauncherOne and Alpha for commercial launches. At $40M+ its competing directly with F9R.
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
Can you provide your information on how much the Pegasus bid was versus the Falcon bid was? The IXPE platform was a copy of NUSTAR platform that was launched by Pegasus.
IIRC the Pegasus was just more expensive than launching on Falcon. It was something like $64 million vs $60 million but I could be wrong on those numbers, if we even know the numbers...
You are not recalling correctly. The total launch price (which includes non-SpaceX costs) is only $50M. I don't recall the number for Pegasus ever being released.
edit: SpaceX got $42M for the launch. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.msg1967914#msg1967914)
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
You said "substantially undercut " and then admit that you don't know what price NGIS bid was.
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
You said "substantially undercut " and then admit that you don't know what price NGIS bid was.
Where did I say that?
We do know NGIS bid for Pegasus.
And you missed my point:
IXPE was designed for Pegasus.
See the NSF article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/07/ball-design-review-ixpe-spacex-contract-growing-profiles/)
Then NASA awarded launch to SpaceX.
IXPE will make almost no changes given the new capacity (extra mass and volume) because the design is almost finished and the build is far along.
So the statement "smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building" has been proven untrue.
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
You said "substantially undercut " and then admit that you don't know what price NGIS bid was.
Where did I say that?
We do know NGIS bid for Pegasus.
And you missed my point:
IXPE was designed for Pegasus.
See the NSF article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/07/ball-design-review-ixpe-spacex-contract-growing-profiles/)
Then NASA awarded launch to SpaceX.
IXPE will make almost no changes given the new capacity (extra mass and volume) because the design is almost finished and the build is far along.
So the statement "smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building" has been proven untrue.
My statement is still valid, if LV isn't delivering smallsat to its target orbit then smallsat it needs extra DV added to make it from dropoff orbit to its target orbit.
This is dedicated launch not rideshare, satellite will be delivered to target orbit.
-
Can you remind us how that is relevant to NGIS keeping Pegasus available?
-
I heard today that Pegasus remains the “reference launch vehicle”, or something similar, for NASA SMEX (small Explorer) missions.
So future small missions will compact, fold, and limit themselves to the capacity of Pegasus even though it’s cheaper to carry several times more mass to ANY orbit on Falcon.
It does keep two current domestic vehicles capable of competing for future SMEX launches.
-
The reason IXPE was not awarded to NG was not the price, it was because of the problems that occurred for ICON.
-
I heard today that Pegasus remains the “reference launch vehicle”, or something similar, for NASA SMEX (small Explorer) missions.
So future small missions will compact, fold, and limit themselves to the capacity of Pegasus even though it’s cheaper to carry several times more mass to ANY orbit on Falcon.
It does keep two current domestic vehicles capable of competing for future SMEX launches.
Won't LauncherOne and Firefly's Alpha both be in that class pretty soon here? I think it's a good reference size for a small mission, but I can't see Pegasus actually competing in that class for much longer.
-
The reason IXPE was not awarded to NG was not the price, it was because of the problems that occurred for ICON.
Well that's interesting, because the bid NASA got for ICPE on F9 was lower than recent Pegasus missions. Did NG lower their price on Pegasus in order to compete with F9? If so, that would be remarkable.
Or is this more like a case where they would have lost on price anyway, but never had a chance because the ICON issues doomed the bid before it even got down to price comparisions?
-
I heard today that Pegasus remains the “reference launch vehicle”, or something similar, for NASA SMEX (small Explorer) missions.
So future small missions will compact, fold, and limit themselves to the capacity of Pegasus even though it’s cheaper to carry several times more mass to ANY orbit on Falcon.
It does keep two current domestic vehicles capable of competing for future SMEX launches.
Won't LauncherOne and Firefly's Alpha both be in that class pretty soon here? I think it's a good reference size for a small mission, but I can't see Pegasus actually competing in that class for much longer.
Perhaps someday
Perhaps soon but not today
Not only will LauncherOne and Alpha will have to launch successfully, they will have to do so multiple times with stable configurations that NASA can verify.
As you can see, NASA is behind the curve, having missions assume Pegasus even after Falcon 9 has won a bidding war hands down.
They are unlikely to anticipate future launchers.
Nor are organizations looking to frequent launches going to spend much time on a potential customer with such infrequent payloads.
Other than TDRS, a NASA “constellation” can be a pair, like Landsat.
-
I heard today that Pegasus remains the “reference launch vehicle”, or something similar, for NASA SMEX (small Explorer) missions.
So future small missions will compact, fold, and limit themselves to the capacity of Pegasus even though it’s cheaper to carry several times more mass to ANY orbit on Falcon.
It does keep two current domestic vehicles capable of competing for future SMEX launches.
So the Falcon 9 is also a "reference launch vehicle" ? I assume it must be kosher because it's launching IXPE. So why wouldn't the future missions just plan for F9 (for both size and mass).
-
The reason IXPE was not awarded to NG was not the price, it was because of the problems that occurred for ICON.
What's your source for that?
-
The reason IXPE was not awarded to NG was not the price, it was because of the problems that occurred for ICON.
What's your source for that?
Yes. Please tell us how you reached that conclusion.
It conflicts with what I heard.
-
FWIW in regards to this topic:
Sadly, the Pegasus chief engineer got the boot in December. I would imagine he was the scapegoat for the enormous loss NGIS took with all the delays to the ICON launch.
-
The reason IXPE was not awarded to NG was not the price, it was because of the problems that occurred for ICON.
Check out the decision memo for the CAPSTONE mission attached to this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50152.msg2047859#msg2047859).
Nowhere in this incredibly clinical evaluation does it mention the delays in launching ICON.
Unless your statement is backed up by strong evidence not yet shared, the CAPSTONE decision memo adds to the case that it is refuted.
-
One thing to watch for re: keeping Pegasus in service will be whether or not they renew their FAA active launch licenses (which begin expiring in a month and a half per https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/)
The California license expires September 1st, Virginia and Florida in March.
-
One thing to watch for re: keeping Pegasus in service will be whether or not they renew their FAA active launch licenses (which begin expiring in a month and a half per https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/)
The California license expires September 1st, Virginia and Florida in March.
The one they've renewed is for Kwajalein, used for equatorial launches
-
Updated FAA licenses, reflecting an incorporation change: Orbital Sciences Corporation has become Orbital Sciences, LLC.
1) Redesignated License No. LLO 01-058 (Rev 2) to LLO 01-058 (Rev 3).
2) Changed “Rev 2 Effective: March 18, 2016” to “Rev 3 Effective: March 18 2021”.
3) Changed “Orbital Sciences Corporation” to “Orbital Sciences, LLC”.
4) Changed Division title of signee from “Manager, Licensing and Evaluation Division” to “Manager, Safety Authorization Division”.
Same for LLO 01-059.
Updated FAA licenses, reflecting an incorporation change: Orbital Sciences Corporation has become Orbital Sciences, LLC.
1) Redesignated License No. LLO 01-058 (Rev 2) to LLO 01-058 (Rev 3).
2) Changed “Rev 2 Effective: March 18, 2016” to “Rev 3 Effective: March 18 2021”.
3) Changed “Orbital Sciences Corporation” to “Orbital Sciences, LLC”.
4) Changed Division title of signee from “Manager, Licensing and Evaluation Division” to “Manager, Safety Authorization Division”.
Same for LLO 01-059.
Added note:
Purpose is a renewal of the Pegaus XL launch license, which would have expired on March 18.
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/03/17/northrop-grummans-pegasus-rocket-selected-for-responsive-launch-demo/
-
How many spare Pegasus rockets are left? Is it just the two that were taken back from Stratolaunch (including this upcoming mission)?
-
How many spare Pegasus rockets are left? Is it just the two that were taken back from Stratolaunch (including this upcoming mission)?
Just two. NG doesn't maintain an inventory, just the ability to produce.
-
One Pegasus remaining in Northrop Grumman's current inventory.
How many spare Pegasus rockets are left? Is it just the two that were taken back from Stratolaunch (including this upcoming mission)?
Just two. NG doesn't maintain an inventory, just the ability to produce.
TacRL-2 launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53257.0)
Belated quote from SFN re: Pegasus, dated June 15:
NRO satellites launched by Minotaur rocket with surplus missile parts (https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/06/15/three-nro-satellites-launched-by-minotaur-rocket-with-surplus-missile-parts/)
Northrop Grumman has no more Pegasus launches in its backlog...
-
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
[zubenelgenubi: Split/merged posts to more relevant thread.]
-
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Can't park it without inerting the stages. The rocket family has suborbital configurations and that is what they are pushing towards hypersonic research projects and other research programmes. The orbital capability will remain for the random missions that might pop up.
-
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Orbital Sciences donated a Pegasus XL to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in 2004. It is on display at the museum's Udvar Hazy facility near the Dulles Airport. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/launch-vehicle-pegasus-xl-orbital-sciences-corporation/nasm_A20040262000 (https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/launch-vehicle-pegasus-xl-orbital-sciences-corporation/nasm_A20040262000)
-
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Can't park it without inerting the stages. The rocket family has suborbital configurations and that is what they are pushing towards hypersonic research projects and other research programmes. The orbital capability will remain for the random missions that might pop up.
It has been five years since the last Taurus (Minotaur-C). Northrop Grumman has never announced that one was retired, but I doubt it will fly again. I expect the same silence about Pegasus, and probably Minotaurs 4 and 5 as well. These were all Orbital Sciences developments - a company founded to launch things to and in space. Northrop Grumman has, shall we say, other priorities. If it ever does a next-gen solid orbital rocket, it would be Sentinel-based I expect.
- Ed Kyle
-
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Can't park it without inerting the stages. The rocket family has suborbital configurations and that is what they are pushing towards hypersonic research projects and other research programmes. The orbital capability will remain for the random missions that might pop up.
It has been five years since the last Taurus (Minotaur-C). Northrop Grumman has never announced that one was retired, but I doubt it will fly again. I expect the same silence about Pegasus, and probably Minotaurs 4 and 5 as well. These were all Orbital Sciences developments - a company founded to launch things to and in space. Northrop Grumman has, shall we say, other priorities. If it ever does a next-gen solid orbital rocket, it would be Sentinel-based I expect.
- Ed Kyle
The Minotaur V has had only one launch so far, and a two Minotaur launches are expected to take place next year. Whether Northrop Grumman develops an SLV derivative of the forthcoming Sentinel ICBM partly depends how many Sentinels are built and deployed.
-
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Orbital Sciences donated a Pegasus XL to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in 2004. It is on display at the museum's Udvar Hazy facility near the Dulles Airport. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/launch-vehicle-pegasus-xl-orbital-sciences-corporation/nasm_A20040262000 (https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/launch-vehicle-pegasus-xl-orbital-sciences-corporation/nasm_A20040262000)
It's not a real launch vehicle : the page you linked says "This vehicle includes the wing of a Pegasus flown into space and recovered in 2000, as well as the first-stage rocket motor used in ground testing the XL version in 1994". So it can't be the last Pegasus (therefore 2004 was well before Pegasus end of life).
-
It has been five years since the last Taurus (Minotaur-C). Northrop Grumman has never announced that one was retired, but I doubt it will fly again. I expect the same silence about Pegasus, and probably Minotaurs 4 and 5 as well. These were all Orbital Sciences developments - a company founded to launch things to and in space. Northrop Grumman has, shall we say, other priorities. If it ever does a next-gen solid orbital rocket, it would be Sentinel-based I expect.
Minotaur (excluding Minotaur-C) are somewhat special, as these rockets can not be sold commercially as they are based on government-furnished solid rocket motors from decommissioned Minuteman or Peacekeeper ICBMs. The economics on building Minotaurs for government entities (NASA, USSF, USAF) are different from the economics of the commercial market.
-
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Orbital Sciences donated a Pegasus XL to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in 2004. It is on display at the museum's Udvar Hazy facility near the Dulles Airport. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/launch-vehicle-pegasus-xl-orbital-sciences-corporation/nasm_A20040262000 (https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/launch-vehicle-pegasus-xl-orbital-sciences-corporation/nasm_A20040262000)
It's not a real launch vehicle : the page you linked says "This vehicle includes the wing of a Pegasus flown into space and recovered in 2000, as well as the first-stage rocket motor used in ground testing the XL version in 1994". So it can't be the last Pegasus (therefore 2004 was well before Pegasus end of life).
The last mission Pegasus should've won and flown was lost to F9R as SpaceX offered cheaper price. New 1000kg class LVs like Alpha and Terran 1 plus LauncherOne which is direct replacement make Pegasus obsolete.
There are on going costs in holding onto Pegasus as there is maintenace of L-1011 carrier aircraft which isn't getting any younger.
-
Minotaur (excluding Minotaur-C) are somewhat special, as these rockets can not be sold commercially as they are based on government-furnished solid rocket motors from decommissioned Minuteman or Peacekeeper ICBMs. The economics on building Minotaurs for government entities (NASA, USSF, USAF) are different from the economics of the commercial market.
Still, the end must inevitably be approaching. The MX motors remaining are probably more than 35 years old now, and how many are left? Minuteman is still in service, but its long program life has meant that large numbers have already been expended in operational test flights, etc. At some point, even the Pentagon can't ignore the fact that the economics of launching retired missiles to orbit fell apart after the final Atlas E lifted off in 1995!
- Ed Kyle
-
The Minotaur V has had only one launch so far, and a two Minotaur launches are expected to take place next year. Whether Northrop Grumman develops an SLV derivative of the forthcoming Sentinel ICBM partly depends how many Sentinels are built and deployed.
No. It won't be able to make any Sentinel based SLV. NG only makes SLVs from decommissioned ICBM components.
-
The Minotaur V has had only one launch so far, and a two Minotaur launches are expected to take place next year. Whether Northrop Grumman develops an SLV derivative of the forthcoming Sentinel ICBM partly depends how many Sentinels are built and deployed.
No. It won't be able to make any Sentinel based SLV. NG only makes SLVs from decommissioned ICBM components.
Pegasus and Minotaur-C (aka Taurus) are both made from commercial motors.
My understanding is that they are only allowed to fly government payloads on LVs made from cheap surplus ICBM motors to maintain competition in the commercial LV market. But why would that stop them, in theory, from building a new LV using newly-built motors developed for the Sentinel ICBM?
Not that a new all-solid LV would be commercially viable in the current market, anyway.
-
The Minotaur V has had only one launch so far, and a two Minotaur launches are expected to take place next year. Whether Northrop Grumman develops an SLV derivative of the forthcoming Sentinel ICBM partly depends how many Sentinels are built and deployed.
No. It won't be able to make any Sentinel based SLV. NG only makes SLVs from decommissioned ICBM components.
Pegasus and Minotaur-C (aka Taurus) are both made from commercial motors.
My understanding is that they are only allowed to fly government payloads on LVs made from cheap surplus ICBM motors to maintain competition in the commercial LV market. But why would that stop them, in theory, from building a new LV using newly-built motors developed for the Sentinel ICBM?
Not that a new all-solid LV would be commercially viable in the current market, anyway.
Cannot use an active ICBM because payloads could record ITAR'd performance characteristics et cetera. Currently by law et al we can only use retired motors declared surplus. There is one Minotaur-C configuration which uses GFE motors however it is rarely flown.
-
Pegasus has had only 3 launches in the past decade and has no planned launches listed in the table in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Pegasus. The launch vehicle market is only getting more competitive. Firefly Alpha is less than half the cost of Pegasus and over 2x payload. RS1 will be a quarter the price for 3x payload. Terran 1 was a third the price and 3x payload. Falcon 9 is ~50% more expensive and ~40x payload. If Starship achieves a small fraction of Elon's cost goals it will end up costing less per launch with ~400x payload. Several other competitors exist. Some of these competitors will probably fail but some will succeed. Why is Northrop Grumman still paying the fixed costs for this formerly ground-breaking but now obsolete rocket?
-
Pegasus has had only 3 launches in the past decade and has no planned launches listed in the table in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Pegasus. The launch vehicle market is only getting more competitive. Firefly Alpha is less than half the cost of Pegasus and over 2x payload. RS1 will be a quarter the price for 3x payload. Terran 1 was a third the price and 3x payload. Falcon 9 is ~50% more expensive and ~40x payload. If Starship achieves a small fraction of Elon's cost goals it will end up costing less per launch with ~400x payload. Several other competitors exist. Some of these competitors will probably fail but some will succeed. Why is Northrop Grumman still paying the fixed costs for this formerly ground-breaking but now obsolete rocket?
Last launch that should've been theirs, SpaceX bid and won F9R at lower price.
-
I want to pitch an idea to upper management to develop a new Pegasus rocket that can be built cheaper, simpler and lighter so it can be launched from a B-52. The L1011 I work on, is not going to be around for much longer, maybe 2030, and I believe that the Space force and Air force could use an air launched TacRL type, orbit versatile, time sensitive military launch capability. I think there are different chemical blends of propellant that might be cheaper, lighter, more performance to use, and maybe making the first, second stage longer (50XL) and if needed a HAPS for third stage. The wing could be removed and 3 fins removed and use thrust vectoring nozzle. The Pegasus Standard size was launched off a B-52 6 times, so there is experience with doing it. I am an airplane guy with minimal rocket knowledge. I have spoke to some of our engineers about this, but it seems it is always a cost issue and risk analysis business case. I am reaching out to some of the experts that are out there that know way more than I do, to help me a little with the possibilities. We have 1 more Pegasus to launch, and already alot of modifications being done. This little rocket has already morphed into so many other programs, ie, targets and MDA interceptors, I think it can be greatly improved upon. Thanks for any input.
-
I think there are different chemical blends of propellant that might be cheaper, lighter, more performance to use,
There aren't. The existing motors used the cheapest high performance solid motors. They were already composite casings (i.e. light)
Going liquid to increase performance increases costs. And make operations less flexible.
if needed a HAPS for third stage.
That causes complexity and increase costs.
The wing could be removed and 3 fins removed and use thrust vectoring nozzle.
That was the key that made Pegasus work. Remove them and you will need much more performance to achieve the same payload mass. Using the wing to provide lift to make the turn better than using solid propellant to do it.
-
It seems clearer each month to me that Northrop Grumman has little interest in continuing most of the ex-Orbital Sciences launch capability. The Pegasus/Minotaur/Taurus family did not fly last year to orbit and has not flown since 2021/2021/2017. (A Minotaur 2+, essentially a retired Minuteman missile, failed on a suborbital flight in 2022.) I wonder if they haven't already "retired" most of these systems, quietly.
Northrop Grumman's Antares flew one last time during 2023 with a Ukrainian first stage powered by Russian rocket engines.
Plans for a new Antares seem more of interest to Firefly than Northrop Grumman, in my only slightly informed, outside looking in opinion.
- Ed Kyle
-
It seems clearer each month to me that Northrop Grumman has little interest in continuing most of the ex-Orbital Sciences launch capability. The Pegasus/Minotaur/Taurus family did not fly last year to orbit and has not flown since 2021/2021/2017. (A Minotaur 2+, essentially a retired Minuteman missile, failed on a suborbital flight in 2022.) I wonder if they haven't already "retired" most of these systems, quietly.
Northrop Grumman's Antares flew one last time during 2023 with a Ukrainian first stage powered by Russian rocket engines.
Plans for a new Antares seem more of interest to Firefly than Northrop Grumman, in my only slightly informed, outside looking in opinion.
- Ed Kyle
NASA uses Cargo Dragon and Cygnus for CRS-2 resupply, and Northrop Grumman is contracted to keep flying Cygnus until at least 2025. Cargo Dream Chaser has not yet flown. Without the Ukrainian Antares stage, Cygnus must fly on Falcon 9 until the Firefly stage is available. I would guess that NASA is at least a little bit concerned that there is only one LV type (Falcon 9) for ISS resupply until this mess gets sorted out. Surely this would be a concern for Northrop Grumman also?
-
I want to pitch an idea to upper management to develop a new Pegasus rocket that can be built cheaper, simpler and lighter so it can be launched from a B-52. The L1011 I work on, is not going to be around for much longer, maybe 2030, and I believe that the Space force and Air force could use an air launched TacRL type, orbit versatile, time sensitive military launch capability. I think there are different chemical blends of propellant that might be cheaper, lighter, more performance to use, and maybe making the first, second stage longer (50XL) and if needed a HAPS for third stage. The wing could be removed and 3 fins removed and use thrust vectoring nozzle. The Pegasus Standard size was launched off a B-52 6 times, so there is experience with doing it. I am an airplane guy with minimal rocket knowledge. I have spoke to some of our engineers about this, but it seems it is always a cost issue and risk analysis business case. I am reaching out to some of the experts that are out there that know way more than I do, to help me a little with the possibilities. We have 1 more Pegasus to launch, and already alot of modifications being done. This little rocket has already morphed into so many other programs, ie, targets and MDA interceptors, I think it can be greatly improved upon. Thanks for any input.
Is there a specific preference for B-52 compatibility here, or simply the fact that a qualified version did fly on that platform already so qualifies as legacy? Note that it flew on I think the NASA Balls-8 NB-52B (maybe it's successor B-52H? Is that called a NB-52H?), and appears to need the test launch modified B-52 variant with the wing flap notch to accommodate the Pegasus's tail, so a standard B-52 will need additional modifications. Is the successor B-52 still available for semi-commercial reimbursed ops even?
Otherwise the simplest solution is to subcontract to Stratolaunch and launch the current Pegasus from the Roc and retire the L1011. It's likely the easiest new platform to qualify for drop release. The Roc also can handle any newer modifications that increase weight, as I think there were promotional concepts for flying three Pegasi from the center mount.
-
It seems clearer each month to me that Northrop Grumman has little interest in continuing most of the ex-Orbital Sciences launch capability.
...
Plans for a new Antares seem more of interest to Firefly than Northrop Grumman, in my only slightly informed, outside looking in opinion.
If NG didn't want to be in the launch vehicle market I think they would have retired Antares when the Russia-Ukraine war forced them to get a new first stage. They probably could have used Terran R, Neutron, or Firefly MLV to meet their ISS resupply obligations including preserving dissimilar redundancy. So they seem to have at least a little interest in making launch vehicles.
-
There has been news lately of Northrop SMART Demo making rockets cheaper through 3d printing parts. https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-successfully-tests-a-new-solid-rocket-motor-developed-in-less-than-a-year
And the B52 looking for a new wing pylon for heavier weapons.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/b-52-needs-new-pylons-to-carry-max-load-of-hypersonic-missiles
With better performance engines, avionics mission systems, maybe a beefed up wing and only a few B52's that could launch a Pegasus that is lighter say 40k pounds. USAF needs TacRL, they say.
-
I think the key would be to design new motors different from the 30 and 50xl because the price is locked by the government for using them on other targets and interceptors. The X-43 was about 41k lbs and had a new pylon made for it to launch off a B52.
-
I want to pitch an idea to upper management to develop a new Pegasus rocket that can be built cheaper, simpler and lighter so it can be launched from a B-52.
There are two big problems with air launched rockets. The first is the fact that air launch gets you to ~600 mph and ~39,000 feet which is a small fraction of the ~17,000 mph and ~500,000 feet that's needed for orbital launch. Therefore air launching doesn't make the rocket much smaller. The other problem is you need a very large airplane relative to the small amount of payload to orbit you get, e.g. Pegasus gets only ~1/40th of Falcon 9's payload. (You also win a little from not needing sea level compatible nozzles on the first stage but you lose a little because you need a wing to convert the horizontal velocity that air launch gives you into the vertical velocity that you need to get out of the atmosphere to keep aerodynamic forces reasonable.) Overall one can get the same performance cheaper by launching a slightly bigger rocket from a traditional pad. At least this seems to be the common wisdom these days.
You'd need to reduce Pegasus's price from ~$40M to something like ~$10M to compete with Firefly Alpha, RS1, Electron, Falcon 9, Starship and New Glenn. I really doubt that you'll find that level of savings by tweaking Pegasus. If it's possible to make Pegasus competitive you would probably need to make some of the stages reusable and massively increase the flight rate. But this is a wild guess - the Pegasus engineers you're talking to, who unlike me do this for a living, may be able to tell you where the current Pegasus program spends most of its money which could give you an idea if major savings are possible.
Air launch proponents frequently cite various non-cost advantages of air launch but I'm not convinced those purported advantages are enough to close the business case.
-
The only customer is one who already has an asset on orbit providing some critical function, and that asset is lost. The customer needs to rapidly deploy new orbital assets that provide at least some of the lost function. (Rapid might mean 48 to 72 hours.)
A case could be made that a ready-to-fly constellation of small satellites, stored at an undisclosed location and air-launched on Pegasus-like solid rockets, maybe 3 at a time by Stratolaunch, could meet that need.
That customer would need to be willing to pay a high price to establish and maintain the capability, not to mention the price of using it.
-
Whatever if there's another usage for the aircraft, Stargazer is still flying today to be exact: https://twitter.com/Task_Force23/status/1745122578610413884?s=20
-
The only customer is one who already has an asset on orbit providing some critical function, and that asset is lost. The customer needs to rapidly deploy new orbital assets that provide at least some of the lost function. (Rapid might mean 48 to 72 hours.)
A case could be made that a ready-to-fly constellation of small satellites, stored at an undisclosed location and air-launched on Pegasus-like solid rockets, maybe 3 at a time by Stratolaunch, could meet that need.
That customer would need to be willing to pay a high price to establish and maintain the capability, not to mention the price of using it.
Such a capability could be attractive to DOD and/or intelligence agencies. 🤔
Edit/add
Such capability has been discussed on the forum before, I'm sure.
-
There has been news lately of Northrop SMART Demo making rockets cheaper through 3d printing parts. https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-successfully-tests-a-new-solid-rocket-motor-developed-in-less-than-a-year
And the B52 looking for a new wing pylon for heavier weapons.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/b-52-needs-new-pylons-to-carry-max-load-of-hypersonic-missiles
With better performance engines, avionics mission systems, maybe a beefed up wing and only a few B52's that could launch a Pegasus that is lighter say 40k pounds. USAF needs TacRL, they say.
Even with the beefier B-52 weapons pylon you still need that flap notch to accommodate the vertical tail of Pegasus. If Pegasus got longer the vertical rudder might clear the flap physically, but it might not like the airflow. Any B-52 rewinging is not happening, though the new engine program got greenlit.
-
The only customer is one who already has an asset on orbit providing some critical function, and that asset is lost. The customer needs to rapidly deploy new orbital assets that provide at least some of the lost function. (Rapid might mean 48 to 72 hours.)
A case could be made that a ready-to-fly constellation of small satellites, stored at an undisclosed location and air-launched on Pegasus-like solid rockets, maybe 3 at a time by Stratolaunch, could meet that need.
That customer would need to be willing to pay a high price to establish and maintain the capability, not to mention the price of using it.
How does air-launch in particular help that capacity? Other than the case of "the adversary knocks out the launch site, too." I guess if the launch site happens to have multiple days of bad weather?
-
How does air-launch in particular help that capacity? Other than the case of "the adversary knocks out the launch site, too." I guess if the launch site happens to have multiple days of bad weather?
Right. There are many 4 km runways in the United States. Preposition 3 rapid launch spacecraft at two different ones for "fault tolerance."
-
I want to pitch an idea to upper management to develop a new Pegasus rocket that can be built cheaper, simpler and lighter so it can be launched from a B-52. The L1011 I work on, is not going to be around for much longer, maybe 2030, and I believe that the Space force and Air force could use an air launched TacRL type, orbit versatile, time sensitive military launch capability. I think there are different chemical blends of propellant that might be cheaper, lighter, more performance to use, and maybe making the first, second stage longer (50XL) and if needed a HAPS for third stage. The wing could be removed and 3 fins removed and use thrust vectoring nozzle. The Pegasus Standard size was launched off a B-52 6 times, so there is experience with doing it. I am an airplane guy with minimal rocket knowledge. I have spoke to some of our engineers about this, but it seems it is always a cost issue and risk analysis business case. I am reaching out to some of the experts that are out there that know way more than I do, to help me a little with the possibilities. We have 1 more Pegasus to launch, and already alot of modifications being done. This little rocket has already morphed into so many other programs, ie, targets and MDA interceptors, I think it can be greatly improved upon. Thanks for any input.
Is there a specific preference for B-52 compatibility here, or simply the fact that a qualified version did fly on that platform already so qualifies as legacy? Note that it flew on I think the NASA Balls-8 NB-52B (maybe it's successor B-52H? Is that called a NB-52H?), and appears to need the test launch modified B-52 variant with the wing flap notch to accommodate the Pegasus's tail, so a standard B-52 will need additional modifications. Is the successor B-52 still available for semi-commercial reimbursed ops even?
Otherwise the simplest solution is to subcontract to Stratolaunch and launch the current Pegasus from the Roc and retire the L1011. It's likely the easiest new platform to qualify for drop release. The Roc also can handle any newer modifications that increase weight, as I think there were promotional concepts for flying three Pegasi from the center mount.
Why not just modify a 747, as done by Virgin Orbit? Pegasus XL weighs less than LauncherOne. As a one-of-a-kind aircraft that only flies from one airport, Roc isn't a great choice for responsive launch. And the fact that Stratolaunch bought a Cosmic Girl to use for launching Talon seems to indicate that Roc isn't the most economical choice.
-
Land based facilities can't reach every orbit due to their location. Some orbits require quite high performance penalty especially equatorial if not launching from equator.
With airlaunch the plane can fly to optimum launch position for given orbit, maximizing LV performance. This was LauncherOnes selling point.
VO failed because of poor financial management, not because airlaunch was bad idea. They demonstrated it worked successfully on few occasions.
-
ROC has runway/airport limitations and too big, not efficient. Strato's 747 wouldn't work because of the rudder on Pegasus, but if aft skirt redesigned for a smaller rudder or no rudder might work. Wing on Pegasus also is too wide and doesn't leave much gap between #2 engine and fuselage. When ICON mission had issues with the rudder position pot, some people were saying the rudder doesn't do much anyway. I propose using the B-52 and giving USAF/SF a TacRL smallsat launch capability.
The engine performance, and new pylon to carry more weight could be able to carry 52K, I really don't know what the max is for that area.
-
He’s dead Jim.
-
See Kurt Eberly Northrop Grumman Space Launch Vehicle Director in this discussion about Tactical Responsive Space and General Guetlein. Says the culture is coming. About 1:06 in video.
https://youtu.be/OKSu3LKEjDA
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/tactically-responsive-space-macgyver-mindset/
-
Ok, maybe losing NGI helps Pegasus a little here. I'm hopeful for a second stage like this and maybe not having the 3rd stage. Longer fairing and increased payload capacity.
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-successfully-tests-first-digitally-designed-large-solid-rocket-motor-6902471