NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => NGIS (Formerly Orbital ATK) - Antares/Cygnus Section => Topic started by: tvg98 on 04/17/2018 12:10 am
-
Thread 2:
Thread 1:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42663.0
Pre-announcement overview on the rocket:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/orbital-atk-next-phase-ngl-rocket-development/
--
We are thrilled to announce the name of our new large-class rocket: OmegA #OmegaRocket
The OmegA name represents the book-end of our rocket lineup from small-class Pegasus & Minotaur to medium-class Antares and now large-class OmegA
https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986029298195759105 (https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986029298195759105)
-
As work continues on #OmegaRocket, we are also excited to announce that we have selected @AerojetRdyne’s RL10C engine to support the vehicle’s upper stage flight
https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986029516337373184 (https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986029516337373184)
-
-#OmegaRocket is a three-stage rocket with the option to add up to 6 strap-on boosters – 1st and 2nd stage are solid propellant motors & 3rd stage is cryogenic powered by @AerojetRdyne RL10C
https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986030002213879808 (https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986030002213879808)
-
This heavy-class rocket will have a payload capacity of up to 10,100 kg to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) and up to 7,800 kg to Geostationary Equatorial Orbit (GEO) #OmegaRocket
https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986031910504796161 (https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986031910504796161)
-
To date, we have completed 4 large composite cases and will begin casting propellant in the first inert motor next week #OmegaRocket
https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986031070398345216 (https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986031070398345216)
-
New thread for the rocket now we have a name and an overview.
-
OmegA: Orbital ATK’s New Large-Class Rocket
https://youtu.be/Gekjig-QeIA (https://youtu.be/Gekjig-QeIA)
-
Very interesting! Not a bad name :) Two RL-10s.
I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.
-
Very interesting! Not a bad name :) Two RL-10s.
I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.
They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.
-
Very interesting! Not a bad name :) Two RL-10s.
I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.
They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.
Not that I think it's likely it will actually make it to that stage -- I think they'll take the Air Force money if they can get it, but they won't actually end up fielding an operational system. It's just too impractical compared to SpaceX and Blue Origin and by the time they get close to flying it will be so clear that it's far too expensive that nobody will be able to steer National Security launches to it.
-
I find it interesting they went with RL-10s for the upper stage. Don't they cost about $19m apiece?
-
Very interesting! Not a bad name :) Two RL-10s.
I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.
They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.
Not that I think it's likely it will actually make it to that stage -- I think they'll take the Air Force money if they can get it, but they won't actually end up fielding an operational system. It's just too impractical compared to SpaceX and Blue Origin and by the time they get close to flying it will be so clear that it's far too expensive that nobody will be able to steer National Security launches to it.
Perhaps. But OrbitalATK is not gunning for SpaceX or Blue Origin. What they want to replace is ULA.
One positive thing that Omega has in its favor is that Orbital ATK appears to be investing some real resources into it. They won't go it all alone, but I think they might go further than you think.
-
I knew it! RL-10 is such a reliable upper stage engine that I predicted correctly that a cluster would be used in the OmegA’s third stage.
-
The only way this can make sense economically is if they have been raking in huge profits on their SRB businesses. Combine that with vertical integration and you might get somewhat close.
-
Perhaps. But OrbitalATK is not gunning for SpaceX or Blue Origin. What they want to replace is ULA.
Yeah, they're not gunning for SpaceX or Blue Origin, but I think they'll be gunned down by the massive firepower of SpaceX and Blue Origin. ULA can last a little while clinging to the "more dependable" mantra, but OmegA doesn't have that.
-
https://www.rt.com/politics/424010-russia-sanctions-nuclear-us/ (https://www.rt.com/politics/424010-russia-sanctions-nuclear-us/) {RT}
Russia to suspend nuclear, rocket cooperation with America, ban US tobacco & alcohol – draft law
Russian lawmakers have drafted a bill suspending cooperation with US companies in the nuclear, missile and aircraft-building spheres, as well as introducing restrictions on imports of alcohol and tobacco produced in the US.
“The bill is about alcohol and tobacco products and about ceasing or suspending international cooperation in the nuclear sphere, rocket engine building and aircraft building between Russian companies and organizations under US jurisdiction,” one of the bill’s sponsors, MP Ivan Melnikov (Communist Party), was quoted as saying in the State Duma’s Twitter message.
This could put pressure on Atlas before Vulcan is ready to fly. Also, F9 and FH haven't been certified for all USAF, NRO and NASA flights. Options?
-
Also, F9 and FH haven't been certified for all USAF, NRO and NASA flights. Options?
Are you suggesting OmegA will be certified before F9 and FH? What do you think is the time frame for certifying OmegA?
-
Also, F9 and FH haven't been certified for all USAF, NRO and NASA flights. Options?
Are you suggesting OmegA will be certified before F9 and FH? What do you think is the time frame for certifying OmegA?
No wondering how it will effect all the players including the certification people in different programs. Also, wasn't ATK, at one point making a possible replacement engine for the Atlas?
-
Also, F9 and FH haven't been certified for all USAF, NRO and NASA flights. Options?
Are you suggesting OmegA will be certified before F9 and FH? What do you think is the time frame for certifying OmegA?
No wondering how it will effect all the players including the certification people in different programs. Also, wasn't ATK, at one point making a possible replacement engine for the Atlas?
Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR)
-
Also, F9 and FH haven't been certified for all USAF, NRO and NASA flights. Options?
Are you suggesting OmegA will be certified before F9 and FH? What do you think is the time frame for certifying OmegA?
No wondering how it will effect all the players including the certification people in different programs. Also, wasn't ATK, at one point making a possible replacement engine for the Atlas?
Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR)
Thanks! Various tax filings of mine are killing all my brain cells. Only one more day to finish all of them.
-
Omega is the last letter in the greek alphabet. Often this implies the last in a series. "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end".
Why do the upper stage nozzles appear to be underexpanded? Solids are poor on iSP, they need all the help they can get. And even RL-10's can support drop down nozzles.
The graphic suggests monolithic stages, but the first stage is too large for rail transport, so it must be segmented. Which requires assembly as part of the flow and readiness time, as well as a time limit on pad and in the VAB.
Where are the fairing dimensions? Are they similar the RUAG's? Are they RUAG?
-
Does "RL10C" imply these engines will not be the modernized RL10 variant AJR is working on?
-
Does "RL10C" imply these engines will not be the modernized RL10 variant AJR is working on?
There is good shot of RL10C at 0:25 in video. Looks like a few 3D printed parts.
Expect price of RL10C be low $Ms. AJR have spent lot of money modernising it reducing build cost. Between Omega, Vulcan and odd SLS, AJR stand to sell 20-30 engines a year as all these LVs use 2-4 per US.
At 7800kg direct to GEO the heavy is a powerful LV, if its US can last a few days it would be capable of delivering significant payloads eg fully loaded Cygnus direct to lunar orbits. Given latest announcements about SLS 1A and 1B trades, NASA may need commercial HLVs like this to deliver LOP-G modules.
-
AJR calls the variant for Omega the RL10C-5-1, and that it has a 3D printed injector assembly. It's a derivative of the RL10-C1 but no specs are given.
http://www.rocket.com/article/rl10-selected-omega%E2%84%A2-rocket
-
Omega is the last letter in the greek alphabet. Often this implies the last in a series. "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end".
Why do the upper stage nozzles appear to be underexpanded? Solids are poor on iSP, they need all the help they can get. And even RL-10's can support drop down nozzles.
The graphic suggests monolithic stages, but the first stage is too large for rail transport, so it must be segmented. Which requires assembly as part of the flow and readiness time, as well as a time limit on pad and in the VAB.
Where are the fairing dimensions? Are they similar the RUAG's? Are they RUAG?
ATK is making the fairing themselves.
-
The graphic suggests monolithic stages, but the first stage is too large for rail transport, so it must be segmented. Which requires assembly as part of the flow and readiness time, as well as a time limit on pad and in the VAB.
According to this earlier SFN report, Stage 1 is indeed segmented. The graphic is poor, but it does seem to show vague joint lines at intervals equal to the length of Stage 2, which is one segment long.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/27/details-of-orbital-atks-proposed-heavy-launcher-revealed/
(Obviously written before OATK opted for RL-10 vs. BE-3U, but the details of the solids seem current).
Ed Kyle has put some estimated numbers on the SRM segments here, for reference:
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ngl.html
-
What needs would this rocket fulfill in world where you'll have F9, FH, Vulcan & New Glenn? I mean sure, if they want to build, test and then offer this up for a competitive price then that's fine. But I see no reason the AF should spend precious resources on this effort besides certifying it, if it comes to that.
-
What needs would this rocket fulfill in world where you'll have F9, FH, Vulcan & New Glenn?
The Air Force's desire to keep the solid propellant industry busy.
-
What needs would this rocket fulfill in world where you'll have F9, FH, Vulcan & New Glenn?
The Air Force's desire to keep the solid propellant industry busy.
I would think there are better, more efficient ways to do that than propping up an unnecessary, unneeded launcher and associated expenses, some of which would have nothing to do with solid propellants.
-
What needs would this rocket fulfill in world where you'll have F9, FH, Vulcan & New Glenn?
The Air Force's desire to keep the solid propellant industry busy.
I would think there are better, more efficient ways to do that than propping up an unnecessary, unneeded launcher and associated expenses, some of which would have nothing to do with solid propellants.
That discussion has already been had, over here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42663.msg1810534#msg1810534
But don't fret, OmegA won't survive if its business case doesn't close. OATK does actually have a board to answer to, unlike SpaceX and Blue.
As of 2 years ago, OATK was saying they would need 5-6 launches of OmegA for the case to close. The following SFN article has some interesting discussion of the financials, ending with OATK's blunt admission that OmegA needs gov't funding help for development and won't survive unless the numbers add up.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/27/details-of-orbital-atks-proposed-heavy-launcher-revealed/
-
The graphic suggests monolithic stages, but the first stage is too large for rail transport, so it must be segmented. Which requires assembly as part of the flow and readiness time, as well as a time limit on pad and in the VAB.
According to this earlier SFN report, Stage 1 is indeed segmented. The graphic is poor, but it does seem to show vague joint lines at intervals equal to the length of Stage 2, which is one segment long.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/27/details-of-orbital-atks-proposed-heavy-launcher-revealed/
(Obviously written before OATK opted for RL-10 vs. BE-3U, but the details of the solids seem current).
Ed Kyle has put some estimated numbers on the SRM segments here, for reference:
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ngl.html
The single-segment Castor 300 motor would serve as the second stage of all variants. A two-segment Castor 600 motor would power the intermediate NGL 500-series first stage. A four-segment Castor 1200 motor would serve as the first stage of the heavy-class NGL 500XL variant.
-
The heavy class looks like a vibration nightmare. Wonder how they will solve that...
-
-
The heavy class looks like a vibration nightmare. Wonder how they will solve that...
Orbital does have some experience with the dynamics of large solids, ie Stage 0 (Castor 120) on Taurus. Because that stage was so big compared to the Pegasus stages on top, they had to implement active control of the first bending moment into the Taurus GNC software.
But yes, the Castor 1200 stack is going to be a much bigger beast to tame.
-
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)
Yes it is. Omega just lends itself to jokes about coming in last.
-
To date, we have completed 4 large composite cases and will begin casting propellant in the first inert motor next week #OmegaRocket
https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986031070398345216 (https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986031070398345216)
AFAIA: the inert motors will also be used for battleship testing (processing, transport, lifting, stacking tests et cetera.) at KSC's VAB for OmegA and evaluation for SLS Block-II under the guise of the Advanced Booster Competition programme.
-
There is another point for the use of the name "Omega". If you were going to compartmentalize certain specific parts of NSS that might never be economically bid by any commercial, the "last" option might be to have a minimum footprint means of supplying that need.
Such a means would likely be a vehicle like NGL (or, for the Europeans, an uprated Vega-C). Such a vehicle might also be a way of handling funding/development/continued flight of solids based vehicles. It would subsidize both needs at the same time.
The difficulty with that approach would be in the cost escalation as well as the tendency to under- or over-commit missions based solely on keeping alive a narrow need that might imply single-sourcing. This might be difficult for the AF procurement processes.
-
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)
Yes it is. Omega just lends itself to jokes about coming in last.
I like how they not-so-subtly emphasized the Orbital 'O' and ATK 'A' in the name OmegA. I wonder how much it influenced the name selection?
Gonna be an upward slog getting people actually using the mixed case for Omega, though.* :-)
Edit -- Heh, especially when even the Omega factsheet PDF on OATK's site doesn't bother.
-
There is another point for the use of the name "Omega". If you were going to compartmentalize certain specific parts of NSS that might never be economically bid by any commercial, the "last" option might be to have a minimum footprint means of supplying that need.
Not sure what you mean by "minimum footprint." Would you please elaborate?
-
Let's start with a link to the OmegA page (https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/space-launch-vehicles/OmegA/default.aspx) on OATK website.
I think there could be a lot of similarity between the 5-segment SRB and the Castor 1200. I also think some members of the Orion 50, Castor 30/120, GEM40-63 stages could be smaler versions of the Castor 300, 600 and 1200. AFAIK solids scale very easily.
I think GreenShrike nailed the reasoning behind the OmegA name. OA mega; the largest possible launcher from Orbital ATK.
-
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
-
The idea of ‘package deals’ seems an interesting proposition from a business prospective where they build your satellite and provide their own launcher as well.
-
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
A solid can pretty much have as much thrust as they need by changing the casting composition and shape.
-
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.
-
There is another point for the use of the name "Omega". If you were going to compartmentalize certain specific parts of NSS that might never be economically bid by any commercial, the "last" option might be to have a minimum footprint means of supplying that need.
Such a means would likely be a vehicle like NGL (or, for the Europeans, an uprated Vega-C). Such a vehicle might also be a way of handling funding/development/continued flight of solids based vehicles. It would subsidize both needs at the same time.
The difficulty with that approach would be in the cost escalation as well as the tendency to under- or over-commit missions based solely on keeping alive a narrow need that might imply single-sourcing. This might be difficult for the AF procurement processes.
Mike Griffin has repeatedly called for the USAF to have its own launch capability. Could be that NGL/Omega is the perfect vehicle for this... warehouse a dozen solid boosters plus second stages (kinda like NRO is doing with Delta Heavies, or Atlas V did with stockpiling RD-180s) and you have a level of launch redundancy that can fill in for temporary disruptions of NSS launch services.
Having NG-O-ATK as one of the two NSS vendors keeps such an option viable, while rotating the warehoused stock.
-
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.
Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?
A little strange that OATK isn’t more specific about this - among other details.
-
0,1,2,3,4,5,6 SRMs
-
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.
Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?
A little strange that OATK isn’t more specific about this - among other details.
They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.
-
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.
Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?
A little strange that OATK isn’t more specific about this - among other details.
They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.
It has been said a while ago in the past that if the MLP's launch mount was changed to allow SRM's all the way around the Castor motor it is capable of flying that way. That is a future growth path if more payload to orbit is required for both versions.
-
Any price or price range mentioned?
-
Any price or price range mentioned?
10 million less than a Vulcan/Centaur? :P
-
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.
Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?
A little strange that OATK isn’t more specific about this - among other details.
They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.
Okay. Where did they specify that?
-
They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.
Okay. Where did they specify that?
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/12/orbital-atk-confident-new-rocket-will-win-air-force-support/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/12/orbital-atk-confident-new-rocket-will-win-air-force-support/)
The intermediate and heavy configurations could get an additional boost from up to six strap-on boosters, the same 63-inch diameter augmentation motors Orbital ATK is currently qualifying for use on ULA’s Atlas 5 and Vulcan rockets. The number of strap-on boosters on each NGL flight could be tailored based on mission requirements, allowing for odd numbers boosters to fly on the rocket, similar to the Atlas 5’s design, Laidley said.
-
How I understood it, the OmegA can launch in the following configurations:
OmegA 500; 0 ; 2 or 4 GEM63XL boosters
OmegA 500XL; 0, 2, 3, 4, 6 GEM63XL Boosters.
I wonder if Orbital ATK is also going to develop a OmegA 400 (4m fairing), possibly a smaller version with a Castor 300 instead of 600 as first stage.
-
Let's start with a link to the OmegA page (https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/space-launch-vehicles/OmegA/default.aspx) on OATK website.
I think there could be a lot of similarity between the 5-segment SRB and the Castor 1200. I also think some members of the Orion 50, Castor 30/120, GEM40-63 stages could be smaler versions of the Castor 300, 600 and 1200. AFAIK solids scale very easily.
I think GreenShrike nailed the reasoning behind the OmegA name. OA mega; the largest possible launcher from Orbital ATK.
My understanding is that scaling a solid is a bit of a black art. If these were simple end burning grains like an Estes motor it would be fine- just pay by the foot- but in the real world you need to test out different grain shapes and all the thermal and vibrational considerations that go with that.
-
Very interesting! Not a bad name :) Two RL-10s.
I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.
They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.
VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?
-
Very interesting! Not a bad name :) Two RL-10s.
I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.
They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.
VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?
Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.
-
Very interesting! Not a bad name :) Two RL-10s.
I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.
They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.
VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?
Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.
Would that not be Delta IV pad at Vandenberg since it was originally built for the Shuttle?
-
Very interesting! Not a bad name :) Two RL-10s.
I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.
They're going to use the VAB for integration. So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all. But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.
VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?
Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.
Would that not be Delta IV pad at Vandenberg since it was originally built for the Shuttle?
I'm not sure what you mean, but Delta II and Delta IV uses different pads, and both should be available in the near future. The Delta II pad seems more right-sized, though, the Delta IV pad has a lot of expensive infrastructure.
-
How I understood it, the OmegA can launch in the following configurations:
OmegA 500; 0 ; 2 or 4 GEM63XL boosters
OmegA 500XL; 0, 2, 3, 4, 6 GEM63XL Boosters.
I wonder if Orbital ATK is also going to develop a OmegA 400 (4m fairing), possibly a smaller version with a Castor 300 instead of 600 as first stage.
GEM-63XL on Vulcan
GEM-63XLT on OmegA
4m fairing is currently not proposed. Also currently developed is Castor-900 and a few other configurations per their latest motor catalog.
-
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter. (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
-
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter. (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
There is nothing stated publicly however they have facilities in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, Arkansas River Valley and elsewhere in several regions with river access. The stage they show looks quite like a DCSS but there are no indication that ULA will build the stage. We ought to know more in the coming months and 2019. I guess OATK (NG) will need an OmegA Mariner ship as I down know how else they can transport it unless they build the stage at both launch sites.
-
There is nothing stated publicly however they have facilities in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, Arkansas River Valley and elsewhere in several regions with river access. The stage they show looks quite like a DCSS but there are no indication that ULA will build the stage. We ought to know more in the coming months and 2019. I guess OATK (NG) will need an OmegA Mariner ship as I down know how else they can transport it unless they build the stage at both launch sites.
Would about barging another mobile crawler & tower from KSC to West Coast?
-
There is nothing stated publicly however they have facilities in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, Arkansas River Valley and elsewhere in several regions with river access. The stage they show looks quite like a DCSS but there are no indication that ULA will build the stage. We ought to know more in the coming months and 2019. I guess OATK (NG) will need an OmegA Mariner ship as I down know how else they can transport it unless they build the stage at both launch sites.
Would about barging another mobile crawler & tower from KSC to West Coast?
There is not a causeway and infrastructure at VAFB. Fixed pads are used where vertical inteintegration is required. This would be a case where VI is required.
-
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter. (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
If the third stage is 5 meters in diameter; is it essentially a twin-engined version of the Delta IV upper stage?
-
There is nothing stated publicly however they have facilities in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, Arkansas River Valley and elsewhere in several regions with river access. The stage they show looks quite like a DCSS but there are no indication that ULA will build the stage. We ought to know more in the coming months and 2019. I guess OATK (NG) will need an OmegA Mariner ship as I down know how else they can transport it unless they build the stage at both launch sites.
Would about barging another mobile crawler & tower from KSC to West Coast?
There is not a causeway and infrastructure at VAFB. Fixed pads are used where vertical inteintegration is required. This would be a case where VI is required.
And there's only two crawlers in existance, both owned by NASA. And they have no interest in selling either one, especially not CT-2 which has been upgraded to be able to handle SLS. Another hurdle is the sheer massive weight of a crawler, 6.6 million lbs or 2.98 million metric tons. They can only move on a specially built gravel road called a Crawlerway which is way wider than any normal road. Not a simple project at the very hilly South Base of Vandenberg.
-
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter. (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
If the third stage is 5 meters in diameter; is it essentially a twin-engined version of the Delta IV upper stage?
Pretty much, the artwork makes it look very similar, although that may be artistic vagueness at this point. But it does bring into focus that this rocket will be very large (the DCSS is huge!), and they must be cutting some interesting deals if they can keep the cost down.
-
My guess for how the name was chosen:
The Northrop guys told the Orbital guys, "This is the last damn time you all are gonna get to design one of these." ---> Omega
-
The Delta II pad seems more right-sized, though, the Delta IV pad has a lot of expensive infrastructure.
That big core SRM is going to require a substantial flame trench. Substantially bigger than the one that is currently underneath SLC-2W.
-
I'm not sure what you mean, but Delta II and Delta IV uses different pads, and both should be available in the near future. The Delta II pad seems more right-sized, though, the Delta IV pad has a lot of expensive infrastructure.
Both options are reportedly being considered:
For a West Coast launch site to support polar orbit missions, Orbital ATK is considering at least two options: Upgrading the Delta 2 launch pad at Space Launch Complex 2-West once that rocket is retired later this year, or moving into Space Launch Complex-6 when the Delta 4-Heavy flies its last mission in the 2020s. (https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/12/orbital-atk-confident-new-rocket-will-win-air-force-support/)
-
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter. (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
The upper stage looks an awful lot like the Delta IV US/ ICPS.
-
Another hurdle is the sheer massive weight of a crawler, 6.6 million lbs or 2.98 million metric tons.
I think you're off a little bit... 2.98 million tonnes is equal to 30 aircraft carriers. ;P
-
Another hurdle is the sheer massive weight of a crawler, 6.6 million lbs or 2.98 million metric tons.
I think you're off a little bit... 2.98 million tonnes is equal to 30 aircraft carriers. ;P
Yes, I converted things wrong. I of course meant 2, 980 metric tons.
-
GEM-63XL on Vulcan
GEM-63XLT on OmegA
4m fairing is currently not proposed. Also currently developed is Castor-900 and a few other configurations per their latest motor catalog.
Thanks for correcting me, by sharing new info.
I can only find the 2016 motor catalog. Could you share a link to the most resent version? Thanks in advance.
(There are two versions on OATKs website a May 2016 and a October 20168 version.)
-
GEM-63XL on Vulcan
GEM-63XLT on OmegA
4m fairing is currently not proposed. Also currently developed is Castor-900 and a few other configurations per their latest motor catalog.
Thanks for correcting me, by sharing new info.
I can only find the 2016 motor catalog. Could you share a link to the most resent version? Thanks in advance.
(There are two versions on OATKs website a May 2016 and a October 2018 version.)
The 2016 is most recent on the site however there a wrong file that is supposed to be the 2017 update. 2018 is not out yet thus GEM-63XLT is not listed yet. As for Castor-900. The Castor designations are actively replacing the steel case RSRM series. There will be new composite versions offered in the future. Composite segments are longer than their steel predecessors. SLS SRB is 5 segments whereas the composite Castor-1200 is 4 segments. Castor-900 will be 3 , Castor-600 is 2 and Castor 300 is 1. It is yet to be foreseen if they will introduce half segments to replace the rest of the existing RSRM series.
-
The Omega Heavy at 7800kg to GEO is slightly more powerful than Vulcan 7000.
Whether it can manage 36t to LEO it not clear as OA don't publish LEO performance.
-
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter. (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
If the third stage is 5 meters in diameter; is it essentially a twin-engined version of the Delta IV upper stage?
Pretty much, the artwork makes it look very similar, although that may be artistic vagueness at this point. But it does bring into focus that this rocket will be very large (the DCSS is huge!), and they must be cutting some interesting deals if they can keep the cost down.
One possibility is OATK is buying the IP rights and such for DCSS 5 meter so that they can create a modern 2 RL-10C-1 engine derivative. OmegA I dont believe hasn't yet gone through CDR so the stage design might change into a more efficient design.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/23/jefferies-orbital-atk-could-upset-spacex-ula-for-air-force-launches.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar
With NG buying OA, build and launch deals for Orbital satellites can also be extended to NG built satellites.
-
I remember reading years ago about the Air Force wanting the ability to rapidly launch large payloads to orbit, I’m wondering if this LV wouldn’t lend itself to be able to go from cold storage to launch quickly, kind of like when they went from Titan II’s to Minutemen ICBM’s.
-
I remember reading years ago about the Air Force wanting the ability to rapidly launch large payloads to orbit, I’m wondering if this LV wouldn’t lend itself to be able to go from cold storage to launch quickly, kind of like when they went from Titan II’s to Minutemen ICBM’s.
For solid LVs of this scale, nothing is quick though. The munitions analogue doesn't quite hold here, unless you store your LVs on launch pads ready to go. (and pads are not that plentiful nor cheap) ;)
You could likely put liquid stages in storage and use them up just as fast. Also remember that OmegA has a liquid third stage which it cannot launch without.
-
We recently completed casting propellant into our first Common Boost Segment (CBS) rocket motor which paves the way for the CBS program. CBS motors will be used on our #OmegArocket! (https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/989214567870935041)
-
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6. Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments. I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure. Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?
- Ed Kyle
It certainly adds a schedule question as well. ULA is not letting go of SLC-6 until their last Delta IV heavy flies. Which could be later than 2021.
-
Orbital ATK successfully cast the first inert motor segment for CBS.
-
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6. Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments. I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure. Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?
- Ed Kyle
It certainly adds a schedule question as well. ULA is not letting go of SLC-6 until their last Delta IV heavy flies. Which could be later than 2021.
I thought west coast launches weren't required until 2024?
-
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6. Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments. I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure. Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?
- Ed Kyle
It certainly adds a schedule question as well. ULA is not letting go of SLC-6 until their last Delta IV heavy flies. Which could be later than 2021.
I thought west coast launches weren't required until 2024?
But without a west coast pad and the capability that gives, they might have to win *ALL* DoD contracts to be viable. Without the capability of polar and high inclination launches they would be limiting the missions they can bid on.
-
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6. Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments. I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure. Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?
- Ed Kyle
It certainly adds a schedule question as well. ULA is not letting go of SLC-6 until their last Delta IV heavy flies. Which could be later than 2021.
Ed. The FST and main (original) MST were designed for the taller Titan-IIIM. They were shortened and modified for West Coast Shuttle.
Lars-J: A VAFB pad is not needed by 2021. They are pressing East Coast startup first. I wouldnt expect ULA to be ready to hand over SLC-6 until at least 2025.
-
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6. Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments. I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure. Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?
- Ed Kyle
OmegA has AFTS doesn't it? It might be able to use the same polar corridor from the Cape that was recently announced. Blue seems to have no plans for a west coast New Glenn pad, and SpaceX has shown no indication of upgrading their west pad for FH or building one for BFR. Seems like thats the direction everyone else is going, except maybe ULA
-
All new rockets must have an AFTS system. All existing rockets (including sounding and meteorological rockets) must also eventually implement AFTS.
SpaceX also has taken steps to implement West Coast FH. The reaction frame and launch mount requires substantial standardisation work or replacement to support FH launches.
-
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter. (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
If the third stage is 5 meters in diameter; is it essentially a twin-engined version of the Delta IV upper stage?
Pretty much, the artwork makes it look very similar, although that may be artistic vagueness at this point. But it does bring into focus that this rocket will be very large (the DCSS is huge!), and they must be cutting some interesting deals if they can keep the cost down.
Upper Stage Update: US will use 2 RL10C-5-1's per http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/omega.htm
via ARH: http://rocket.com/article/rl10-selected-omega%E2%84%A2-rocket
RL10 Selected for OmegA™ Rocket
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., April 16, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Orbital ATK has selected the RL10 rocket engine to provide propulsion for the third stage of the company's OmegA rocket which includes a lineup of intermediate- and large-class space launch vehicles.
"The RL10 has provided reliable upper stage propulsion for more than five decades and we look forward to continuing that legacy with Orbital ATK and its OmegA rocket," said Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and President Eileen Drake. "By selecting the RL10, Orbital ATK is able to leverage investments made by the U.S. Air Force and others to build resilient space launch capabilities for our nation."
"The RL10 has an extensive flight history and provides a low-risk, affordable engine with outstanding performance," said Mike Pinkston, Deputy General Manager of Orbital ATK's Launch Vehicles Division. "OmegA is a robust all-American launch system with its entire design based on flight-proven technologies and common components from Orbital ATK's diversified lineup of rockets and propulsion systems."
The RL10 burns cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants using a highly-efficient expander engine cycle. With nearly 500 engines flown in space, the RL10 has helped place hundreds of satellites into orbit, sent spacecraft to explore every planet in our solar system and propelled the first human-made object, the Voyager I spacecraft, into interstellar space.
The RL10C-5-1 model that will support the OmegA system is derived from the RL10C-1 that made its inaugural flight in December 2014. This new variant of the RL10 will feature an injector assembly that is built using additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing.
"Having our RL10 engine selected to provide upper stage propulsion for a fourth launch vehicle reflects the confidence industry places in our product," said Space Business Unit Senior Vice President Jerry Tarnacki. "It also confirms that the steps Aerojet Rocketdyne has been taking to make our products more competitive—such as incorporating 3-D printing to reduce production costs—are being welcomed in the marketplace."
Aerojet Rocketdyne, a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), is an innovative company delivering solutions that create value for its customers in the aerospace and defense markets. The company is a world-recognized aerospace and defense leader that provides propulsion and energetics to the space, missile defense and strategic systems, tactical systems and armaments areas, in support of domestic and international markets. Additional information about Aerojet Rocketdyne can be obtained by visiting our websites at www.Rocket.com and www.AerojetRocketdyne.com.
-
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6. Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments. I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure. Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?
- Ed Kyle
It certainly adds a schedule question as well. ULA is not letting go of SLC-6 until their last Delta IV heavy flies. Which could be later than 2021.
The last scheduled Delta IV Heavy:
Year: 2023
Payload: NROL-91
Launchpad: Vandenberg SLC-6
source: http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-plans-to-buy-2-delta-4-heavy-rockets-for-nro-missions/
So I don't expect anyone else to be able to use SLC-6 until at least 2025
-
They have also 2 other possibilities:
1) Upgrade one of the pads that were used for Minotaur/Taurus launches
2) Build a new pad from scratch on unused land or on unused pads (SLC-1/SLC-5/SLC-10)
Either way the work would be extensive and require a big investment.
-
They have also 2 other possibilities:
1) Upgrade one of the pads that were used for Minotaur/Taurus launches
2) Build a new pad from scratch on unused land or on unused pads (SLC-1/SLC-5/SLC-10)
Either way the work would be extensive and require a big investment.
SLC-10's pads are not available as it is a National Historic Site and cannot be modified.
-
They have also 2 other possibilities:
1) Upgrade one of the pads that were used for Minotaur/Taurus launches
2) Build a new pad from scratch on unused land or on unused pads (SLC-1/SLC-5/SLC-10)
Either way the work would be extensive and require a big investment.
SLC-10's pads are not available as it is a National Historic Site and cannot be modified.
LC-39 is as well. Historic designations only carry so much weight.
-
They have also 2 other possibilities:
1) Upgrade one of the pads that were used for Minotaur/Taurus launches
2) Build a new pad from scratch on unused land or on unused pads (SLC-1/SLC-5/SLC-10)
Either way the work would be extensive and require a big investment.
SLC-10's pads are not available as it is a National Historic Site and cannot be modified.
LC-39 is as well. Historic designations only carry so much weight.
It is explained a while back in L2. SLC-10 (LE-6, LE-7, and LE-8) is home to VAFB's Space and Missile Heritage Center (http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/338395/space-and-missile-heritage-center/) also https://www.nps.gov/articles/space-launch-complex-10.htm
-
Tweets from Jeff Foust (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/999005747357929473):
Michael Laidley, Orbital ATK: we have about 500 people working on our OmegA rocket right now; expect that to ramp up to about 1,000. Ground testing of first stage to begin next year. #SpaceTechExpo
Laidley: on schedule for first flight of intermediate version of OmegA in 2021, with USAF certification in 2022. Heavy version first launch 2024. #SpaceTechExpo
Laidley: if we don’t win Launch Services Award from USAF for OmegA, we would not proceed with the vehicle as currently defined. It would be some other design that doesn’t address all EELV requirements. #SpaceTechExpo
-
OmegA: Northrop Grumman’s New Large-Class Rocket
Northrop Grumman
Published on Jun 13, 2018
Modified on June 18, 2018
Northrop Grumman has announced the name of the company's new large-class rocket: OmegA. This all-American rocket, designed for the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, will have a capacity of up to 10,100 kg to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) and up to 7,800 kg to Geostationary Equatorial Orbit (GEO). Aerojet Rocketdyne's RL10C engine will be the vehicle’s upper stage propulsion system.
Learn more: bit.ly/OmegaRocket
https://youtu.be/rZc8SktOz7E?t=001
https://youtu.be/rZc8SktOz7E
Updated: Jue 18, 2018 Tony De La Rosa
-
Good article on OmegA.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3539/1
They've proposed it as backup to Antares for Cygnus ISS launches. Don't how costs compare to Antares but a couple extra flights a year for OmegA could make the difference to its financial viability.
-
Good article on OmegA.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3539/1
They've proposed it as backup to Antares for Cygnus ISS launches. Don't how costs compare to Antares but a couple extra flights a year for OmegA could make the difference to its financial viability.
So going internal and I guessing they will be shedding Atlas V/Vulcan launch options as a result of that decision.
-
and I guessing they will be shedding Atlas V/Vulcan launch options as a result of that decision.
... if Omega actually goes into service, which may not really be decided for a couple more years.
-
Good article on OmegA.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3539/1
They've proposed it as backup to Antares for Cygnus ISS launches. Don't how costs compare to Antares but a couple extra flights a year for OmegA could make the difference to its financial viability.
Thanks for the link. That's an uncommonly excellent article, both in terms of technical depth and clarity for the layperson. Written by an engineer, no less! Someone should hire that guy to do technical writing for a living.
-
It is very well written, however it is also clearly from someone who is very pro-OmegA and seems to have some insight into the program beyond what's generally known. It could be used as a PR piece supporting OmegA, honestly. The stuff about how OrbATK is great with security and working with contractors in that environment, and the implication the post-Zuma back-and-forth wouldn't have happened - and in fact, maybe the presumed loss of the satellite might not have happened with them - is really weak sauce.
I'm not saying this to dismiss the content - it's very good! - but there's clearly a bias as well.
-
It is very well written, however it is also clearly from someone who is very pro-OmegA and seems to have some insight into the program beyond what's generally known. It could be used as a PR piece supporting OmegA, honestly. The stuff about how OrbATK is great with security and working with contractors in that environment, and the implication the post-Zuma back-and-forth wouldn't have happened - and in fact, maybe the presumed loss of the satellite might not have happened with them - is really weak sauce.
I'm not saying this to dismiss the content - it's very good! - but there's clearly a bias as well.
Agreed, and the description of the solid propellant formulation and grain design is so detailed that it wouldn't surprise me if this guy is/was an ATK solid propulsion engineer.
-
I'd just like to point out that if they renamed the rocket Onega they could capitalize the letters of Orbital, ATK, and Northrop Grumman. ONeGA.
I'll let myself out.
-
I'd just like to point out that if they renamed the rocket Onega they could capitalize the letters of Orbital, ATK, and Northrop Grumman. ONeGA.
I'll let myself out.
You do realize that the most common web search result for Onega is a lake near Saint Petersburg Russia?
Somehow renaming the OmegA for a Russian lake seems far fetch. However with the current POTUS that is not totally impossible. ::)
-
Northrop Grumman Omega is how I write it. We'll find out shortly if we have to keep writing the name, at least for awhile longer.
- Ed Kyle
-
The dual capitalization is used on its page on the Northrop Grumman website:
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/omega/Pages/default.aspx
-
The dual capitalization is used on its page on the Northrop Grumman website:
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/omega/Pages/default.aspx
Yes, I know, but it (the capitalization of the last letter) is an abomination. I refuse!
- Ed Kyle
-
Agreed, and the description of the solid propellant formulation and grain design is so detailed that it wouldn't surprise me if this guy is/was an ATK solid propulsion engineer.
I sent him a note about an error in one of his links, plus a couple thoughts of my own.
In his response, he stated that he wasn't "an Orbital ATK person or with Northrop, so I have no horse in this race."
Doesn't rule out past association, of course. The fact that he wrote "OmegA" even in private correspondence leads me to think at least a little koolaid has been sipped. Capital "abomination" is right. ;-)
-
Yes, I know, but it (the capitalization of the last letter) is an abomination. I refuse!
Eh, I'm still grateful that we don't have to refer to the ULA "GalaxyOne"...
-
Agreed, and the description of the solid propellant formulation and grain design is so detailed that it wouldn't surprise me if this guy is/was an ATK solid propulsion engineer.
I sent him a note about an error in one of his links, plus a couple thoughts of my own.
In his response, he stated that he wasn't "an Orbital ATK person or with Northrop, so I have no horse in this race."
Doesn't rule out past association, of course. The fact that he wrote "OmegA" even in private correspondence leads me to think at least a little koolaid has been sipped. Capital "abomination" is right. ;-)
Well, for someone with no horse in the race, he does seem unusually well acquainted with at least one of the horses.
Thanks for reporting his reply.
-
The OmegA uses a shuttle derived booster that should have some commonality with that used on SLS. I was wondering though: is it going to be more similar to the current 5-segment boosters, or the more powerful 4-segment "Dark Night" advanced boosters? I'm assuming that the composite casing is the same as on the Dark Nights, but are they using the propellant mixture from the Block I boosters or the type that they developed for the Dark Nights?
Thanks.
I read this thread and the previous thread as well as the speculation thread. I saw a bunch of references to the SLS but not a determinate answer to this question.
-
The OmegA uses a shuttle derived booster that should have some commonality with that used on SLS. I was wondering though: is it going to be more similar to the current 5-segment boosters, or the more powerful 4-segment "Dark Night" advanced boosters? I'm assuming that the composite casing is the same as on the Dark Nights, but are they using the propellant mixture from the Block I boosters or the type that they developed for the Dark Nights?
Thanks.
I read this thread and the previous thread as well as the speculation thread. I saw a bunch of references to the SLS but not a determinate answer to this question.
The new Common Booster Segment is just that - new. It shares the same general diameter with the STS/SLS booster, but most everything else differs. It uses a composite case rather than steel. It is longer than an STS/SLS segment. It is HTPB rather than PBAN. Etc.
The general assumption is that the Common Booster Segment development effort would eventually spill over to be shared with SLS, but there's no guarantee that will happen.
- Ed Kyle
-
The fact that he wrote "OmegA" even in private correspondence leads me to think at least a little koolaid has been sipped. Capital "abomination" is right. ;-)
Still not as bad as "SpaceShipTwo"!
-
NGIS OmegA launch vehicle wins USAF launch services contract
Orbital Sciences Corp., Chandler, Arizona, has been awarded a $791,601,015 other-transaction agreement for the development of a Launch System Prototype for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1658771/
-
NGIS OmegA launch vehicle wins USAF launch services contract
Orbital Sciences Corp., Chandler, Arizona, has been awarded a $791,601,015 other-transaction agreement for the development of a Launch System Prototype for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1658771/
Interesting. They are really heading their bets here with juicy contracts...
$1 billion for Vulcan
$800 million for OmegA
$500 million for New Glenn.
Looks like Xmas came early. :)
-
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/10/ngis-highlights-air-force-contract-win-omega/ - by Chris Gebhardt who visited their base and interviewed the officials face to face. Another article to come from it.
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1050853823303090177
Creating a standalone thread for specific discussion in this section.
-
Big solids make great weapon systems.
As long as they are not segmented, or have any requirement to be shut down in an emergency (the smallish ones on Atlas V can be jettisoned relatively easily).
So my question would be what will be powering the successor to Trident? Could this be it?
If you didn't have a skills base in solids that you wanted to preserve (or wanted to acquire) what good are they?
And note that once NASA walked away from actually funding Liberty for CCC all promises of company funded development would continue blew away like leaves in the wind.
Let's see if this goes anywhere other than the bottom line of NGL's company report.
-
So my question would be what will be powering the successor to Trident? Could this be it?
Some of the technology likely, but the motor is far too large for a submarine.
-
Big solids make great weapon systems.
As long as they are not segmented, or have any requirement to be shut down in an emergency (the smallish ones on Atlas V can be jettisoned relatively easily).
So my question would be what will be powering the successor to Trident? Could this be it?
If you didn't have a skills base in solids that you wanted to preserve (or wanted to acquire) what good are they?
And note that once NASA walked away from actually funding Liberty for CCC all promises of company funded development would continue blew away like leaves in the wind.
Let's see if this goes anywhere other than the bottom line of NGL's company report.
CBS is a cross and combination of Castor-120 heritage and modern experiments done under the AFRL/NRL Large Class Stage programme (LCS-1 through LCS-III stage motors equal an ICBM of Peacekeeper class (civilian versions of LCS motors Castor-120XL and Castor-30XL are now about to/already flying on NGIS rockets) and other motor programmes (STS SRB et cetera).
-
And note that once NASA walked away from actually funding Liberty for CCC all promises of company funded development would continue blew away like leaves in the wind.
Let's see if this goes anywhere other than the bottom line of NGL's company report.
Comparing a paper rocket (Liberty) to one that is physical (OmegA) is a quick way to try to connect two things that have nothing to do with each other. As the article states, NGL has already poured a significant amount of money into this rocket. So your assertion of "let's see if they self-fund it" is already moot.
I would also say that you should listen/read the full interview on L2. OmegA is not a paper rocket. And, as the article also reported, even if they don't continue to Phase 2 of the contract, OmegA will still exist in some capacity.
-
The heavy class looks like a vibration nightmare. Wonder how they will solve that...
I'm more interested/concerned with them air lighting a 12ft solid upper stage.
That thing better have wheelibars. Can't wait to see the test flight.
-
The heavy class looks like a vibration nightmare. Wonder how they will solve that...
I'm more interested/concerned with them air lighting a 12ft solid upper stage.
That thing better have wheelibars. Can't wait to see the test flight.
They have plenty of experience with air lit motors (Anatares, Minotaur, Peacekeeper, Minuteman, etc.) and the initial burn can be controlled with the casting pattern.
-
They have plenty of experience with air lit motors (Anatares, Minotaur, Peacekeeper, Minuteman, etc.) and the initial burn can be controlled with the casting pattern.
Agreed, but I also know they'll have their hands full due to the solid's size. Diameter increases combustion instability-producing yaw, especially upon ignition. An obvious solution is to retard ignition, giving time for combustion to equalize, but that's a performance killer for upper stages. An alternative is to cast a longer throat, giving room for higher-pressure to reflect into the plume's center. Not sure what they'll do, but I'm looking forward to seeing them test it.
----------------------------
Ever since OmegA and it's ginormous solid US was revealed I've questioned the design, especially since a liquid US like Ares-1 or Liberty would be so capable. On Oct 22 a meeting and several announcements came out of Yuzhnoe. They've kept a few lights on producing tankage for Antares, built a few other tanks (1st and 2nd) to show investors and may soon have access to the RD-120 needed for uppers.
RussianSpaceWeb article, cut to avoid linking: ht tp://ww w.russiansp aceweb.com/sea-lau nch-2018.html#1018
Considering Orbital's working relation with them and history developing versions of the stick, a Castor 900 topped by Zenit's 2nd-stage is doable, just about perfect flight profile, eliminates the DeltaIV cryo-stage and offers performance about equal to the Heavy OmegA. A downside; the RD-8 currently can't be re-fired so Orbital would need to offer their hypergolic BTS or other 3rd-stage for GEO or crazy maneuvers.
edit: clean up.
-
This post is a continuation of a thread in L2, I'm placing it here as there is nothing revolutionary in its contents.
For clarity, is this NGL technology for the core stage Solid Rocket Motors, which are approx. the same size as STS/SLS Solid Rocket Boosters, going to be directly applicable to the future "Black Knights" Solid Rocket Boosters that will be required once the current stock of 1/2" thick steel casings have been exhausted via SLS launches?
I'd think that most of this development would be a "wrap" considering there was a set of flight Filament Wound Case Solid Rocket Boosters (FWC-SRB) stacked at the West Coast shuttle launch facility that was chosen back in 1972 which was Vandenberg AFB, more precisely Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6 or "slick-Six")awaiting final stacking with ET-(sorry couldnt quickly find a tank number) and OV-103 Discovery in preparation for the imminent due South launch of the polar mission STS-62-A crewed by:
Robert L. Crippen
Guy S. Gardner
Richard M. Mullane
Jerry L. Ross
Dale A. Gardner
Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.
Brett Watterson
One added bonus of using such a Solid Rocket Motor in a "stick" configuration is that there would be no "twang" motion for the joints to account for during launch.
pics
1) Filament Wound Case prior to test firing
2) SLC-6 in Shuttle Operations mode
3) Mission patch for STS-62-A
-
This post is a continuation of a thread in L2, I'm placing it here as there is nothing revolutionary in its contents.
For clarity, is this NGL technology for the core stage Solid Rocket Motors, which are approx. the same size as STS/SLS Solid Rocket Boosters, going to be directly applicable to the future "Black Knights" Solid Rocket Boosters that will be required once the current stock of 1/2" thick steel casings have been exhausted via SLS launches?
I'd think that most of this development would be a "wrap" considering there was a set of flight Filament Wound Case Solid Rocket Boosters (FWC-SRB) stacked at the West Coast shuttle launch facility that was chosen back in 1972 which was Vandenberg AFB, more precisely Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6 or "slick-Six")awaiting final stacking with ET-(sorry couldnt quickly find a tank number) and OV-103 Discovery in preparation for the imminent due South launch of the polar mission STS-62-A crewed by:
Robert L. Crippen
Guy S. Gardner
Richard M. Mullane
Jerry L. Ross
Dale A. Gardner
Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.
Brett Watterson
One added bonus of using such a Solid Rocket Motor in a "stick" configuration is that there would be no "twang" motion for the joints to account for during launch.
The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that the NGL/OmegA solids will incorporate lessons learned from both the FWC effort as well as the Titan SRMU, however, the length of time that has elapsed from those programs means that there are lessons that will need to be relearned as well as new materials to incorporate. The "Black Knights" will utilize that expertise along with the infrastructure investments that were made for NGL/OmegA.
-
While its obviously not its intended purpose, has anyone tried to take a stab at what Omega & Omega Heavy could place in LEO?
-
While its obviously not its intended purpose, has anyone tried to take a stab at what Omega & Omega Heavy could place in LEO?
Assuming the composites reduce dry mass by 40%, and the upper stage is basically a 2-engine DCSS, I get about 12.5 t to ISS from the Cape for the base version.
Interestingly, they could eliminate the solid 2nd stage and still get about 8 tonnes to ISS, roughly the performance of Atlas V 401 with just a 2-seg solid booster and the LH2 upper stage. The second engine on the upper stage helps a lot here.
The 6-solid XL should get around 25-30 t to very low orbit or 22-26 t to ISS, similar to DIVH performance.
-
This post is a continuation of a thread in L2, I'm placing it here as there is nothing revolutionary in its contents.
For clarity, is this NGL technology for the core stage Solid Rocket Motors, which are approx. the same size as STS/SLS Solid Rocket Boosters, going to be directly applicable to the future "Black Knights" Solid Rocket Boosters that will be required once the current stock of 1/2" thick steel casings have been exhausted via SLS launches?
I'd think that most of this development would be a "wrap" considering there was a set of flight Filament Wound Case Solid Rocket Boosters (FWC-SRB) stacked at the West Coast shuttle launch facility that was chosen back in 1972 which was Vandenberg AFB, more precisely Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6 or "slick-Six")awaiting final stacking with ET-(sorry couldnt quickly find a tank number) and OV-103 Discovery in preparation for the imminent due South launch of the polar mission STS-62-A crewed by:
Robert L. Crippen
Guy S. Gardner
Richard M. Mullane
Jerry L. Ross
Dale A. Gardner
Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.
Brett Watterson
One added bonus of using such a Solid Rocket Motor in a "stick" configuration is that there would be no "twang" motion for the joints to account for during launch.
The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that the NGL/OmegA solids will incorporate lessons learned from both the FWC effort as well as the Titan SRMU, however, the length of time that has elapsed from those programs means that there are lessons that will need to be relearned as well as new materials to incorporate. The "Black Knights" will utilize that expertise along with the infrastructure investments that were made for NGL/OmegA.
Your view is to narrow: they just completed several next gen development programmes (Castor-120XL, LCS et cetera). In terms of casing material and construction they are going with next gen design used on LCS ICBM stage development programme and civilian equivalent Castor 120, 30 Star 92. Lessons learned from the previous shuttle/Titan motor programmes are also being incorporated too.
-
This post is a continuation of a thread in L2, I'm placing it here as there is nothing revolutionary in its contents.
For clarity, is this NGL technology for the core stage Solid Rocket Motors, which are approx. the same size as STS/SLS Solid Rocket Boosters, going to be directly applicable to the future "Black Knights" Solid Rocket Boosters that will be required once the current stock of 1/2" thick steel casings have been exhausted via SLS launches?
I'd think that most of this development would be a "wrap" considering there was a set of flight Filament Wound Case Solid Rocket Boosters (FWC-SRB) stacked at the West Coast shuttle launch facility that was chosen back in 1972 which was Vandenberg AFB, more precisely Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6 or "slick-Six")awaiting final stacking with ET-(sorry couldnt quickly find a tank number) and OV-103 Discovery in preparation for the imminent due South launch of the polar mission STS-62-A crewed by:
Robert L. Crippen
Guy S. Gardner
Richard M. Mullane
Jerry L. Ross
Dale A. Gardner
Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.
Brett Watterson
One added bonus of using such a Solid Rocket Motor in a "stick" configuration is that there would be no "twang" motion for the joints to account for during launch.
The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that the NGL/OmegA solids will incorporate lessons learned from both the FWC effort as well as the Titan SRMU, however, the length of time that has elapsed from those programs means that there are lessons that will need to be relearned as well as new materials to incorporate. The "Black Knights" will utilize that expertise along with the infrastructure investments that were made for NGL/OmegA.
Your view is to narrow: they just completed several next gen development programmes (Castor-120XL, LCS et cetera). In terms of casing material and construction they are going with next gen design used on LCS ICBM stage development programme and civilian equivalent Castor 120, 30 Star 92. Lessons learned from the previous shuttle/Titan motor programmes are also being incorporated too.
It should be noted that the filament-wound case (FWC) for the shuttle program failed in a hydrostatic test. While it exceeded the expected flight loads, it failed before reaching the required factor of safety. A classic problem with composite materials is that there is a much wider variation in failure loads across multiple samples than would be true for metallic samples. Reaching the required factor of safety with high confidence across the range of expected variations of individual parts would have added more weight and reduced the advantage of using a FWC. In the end, since the Challenger accident caused NASA to cancel flying from Vandenberg (which was the real driver for FWC) they just canceled the program.
-
https://twitter.com/northropgrumman/status/1075816858492776449
-
Noticed this in a USAF VAFB EIS study previously linked in a SpaceX thread:
1 The final launch of the Delta II rocket occurred in September 2018, however a new corporate entity has proposed to reutilize SLC-2W.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/24/2019-00090/taking-and-importing-marine-mammals-taking-marine-mammals-incidental-to-us-air-force-launches-and
The report does mention Blue Origin, but it is called out on its own, leading me to suspect that NGIS might be looking at the pad for the West Coast OmegA pad.
-
Noticed this in a USAF VAFB EIS study previously linked in a SpaceX thread:
1 The final launch of the Delta II rocket occurred in September 2018, however a new corporate entity has proposed to reutilize SLC-2W.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/24/2019-00090/taking-and-importing-marine-mammals-taking-marine-mammals-incidental-to-us-air-force-launches-and
The report does mention Blue Origin, but it is called out on its own, leading me to suspect that NGIS might be looking at the pad for the West Coast OmegA pad.
SLC-2W will be used by Firefly for they Firefly Alpha rocket, and maybe even Beta later.
-
Noticed this in a USAF VAFB EIS study previously linked in a SpaceX thread:
1 The final launch of the Delta II rocket occurred in September 2018, however a new corporate entity has proposed to reutilize SLC-2W.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/24/2019-00090/taking-and-importing-marine-mammals-taking-marine-mammals-incidental-to-us-air-force-launches-and
The report does mention Blue Origin, but it is called out on its own, leading me to suspect that NGIS might be looking at the pad for the West Coast OmegA pad.
SLC-2W will be used by Firefly for they Firefly Alpha rocket, and maybe even Beta later.
Actually 2W and 2E
-
-
First and second stage OmegA solid rocket motors are being manufactured at Northrop Grumman’s facility in Promontory, Utah, in preparation for static test firing in 2019
-
Just out of curiosity. Can the SLC-6 pad at VAFB be able to launched the Delta IV and the OmegA with minor GSE modifications? In other words can they shared the pad before Delta IV Heavy retires?
-
Just out of curiosity. Can the SLC-6 pad at VAFB be able to launched the Delta IV and the OmegA with minor GSE modifications? In other words can they shared the pad before Delta IV Heavy retires?
No. The Launch Table only fits Delta IV. Same for the Fixed Umbilical Tower (FUT) swing arms, they're set up for Delta IV umbilicals.
-
Just out of curiosity. Can the SLC-6 pad at VAFB be able to launched the Delta IV and the OmegA with minor GSE modifications? In other words can they shared the pad before Delta IV Heavy retires?
No, a direct handover is required. To convert for OmegA would require moving of the FST and conversion of the flame duct back to its original Titan-IIIM pad configuration since the current STS/DIV pad configuration would not be favourable or be in line with the LC-39B flame trench.
-
First and second stage OmegA solid rocket motors are being manufactured at Northrop Grumman’s facility in Promontory, Utah, in preparation for static test firing in 2019
A bit of extra detail and context for the photo. Not exactly sure what "Phase 1" consists of.
Phase 1 of the new Shuttle-solid-rocket-booster-derived OmegA launch platform, intended to house a cryogenic upper stage, is completed and heading to inspection.
-
A bit of extra detail and context for the photo. Not exactly sure what "Phase 1" consists of.
I believe that is the intermediate configuration shown below, possibly without any boosters.
-
A bit of extra detail and context for the photo. Not exactly sure what "Phase 1" consists of.
I believe that is the intermediate configuration shown below, possibly without any boosters.
Both Intermediate and Heavy support 0-6 Gem63XL SRBs, 4900kg GTO will be for 0x SRBs, 10,000kgs for 6xSRBs.
-
That is a lot of payload to GTO.
I wonder if Northrop Grumman would consider doing dual-satellite launches if OmegA does start flying.
-
That is a lot of payload to GTO.
I wonder if Northrop Grumman would consider doing dual-satellite launches if OmegA does start flying.
Not likely IMO. There is not that many commercial GEO satcom payloads for the next few years.
However the OmegA XL could be an alternative to the Falcon Heavy for direct injection to GEO as shown with the 7800 kg payload capacity to GEO in the performance table up thread. As Falcon Heavy launch slots at the LC-39A pad is constrained by commercial crew and CRS missions.
A shorter time for a GEO satcom bird to get to operational location might be worth a launch premium for some satcom operators along with launch slot availability. After all the LC-39B pad only got one SLS flight annually at best or more likely biennial for the foreseeable future.
-
However the OmegA XL could be an alternative to the Falcon Heavy for direct injection to GEO as shown with the 7800 kg payload capacity to GEO in the performance table up thread. As Falcon Heavy launch slots at the LC-39A pad is constrained by commercial crew and CRS missions.
SpaceX CRS missions are all assigned to SLC-40: https://www.spacex.com/missions
-
The NGIS MEV is made to be launched with another GEO bird. So there could be savings for NGIS by launching an MEV with a GEO satellite its building for someone else or by launching two MEVs.
As for direct inject to GEO, there is a time savings of several months to get to its final station for a satellite that has all electric propulsion system. But for a satellite using chemical for orbit raising, there could be a time savings or it could end up taking longer depending on how far it has to drift from the injection location to the final location. The biggest savings in either case is in mass, which could be used to add more fuel for longer orbital life and/or more payload.
-
The NGIS MEV is made to be launched with another GEO bird. So there could be savings for NGIS by launching an MEV with a GEO satellite its building for someone else or by launching two MEVs.
As for direct inject to GEO, there is a time savings of several months to get to its final station for a satellite that has all electric propulsion system. But for a satellite using chemical for orbit raising, there could be a time savings or it could end up taking longer depending on how far it has to drift from the injection location to the final location. The biggest savings in either case is in mass, which could be used to add more fuel for longer orbital life and/or more payload.
This is oneway for NG to add value to their Omega launches. Adding a few extra SRBs to make up for additional mass is cheap way to get MEVs into orbit. Most launch cost is already covered by GEO satellite.
NB NG will be offering a complete build and launch package for GEO satellites, I'd guess launch insurance is included.
This may mean profit from satellite build is subsidizing Omega launch costs. As long as they make OK 4profit on complete package it doesn't matter. Means Omega will be avaliable for high value DOD missions.
-
Inside Look: OmegA Rocket
Northrop Grumman
Published on Feb 21, 2019
Katie Qian and Burke Williams, with Propulsion Systems, share about the exciting work being accomplished and progress made on the rocket motors for Northrop Grumman’s new OmegA rocket. bit.ly/2LkKxpW
https://youtu.be/yyaX83JLhj8?t=001
https://youtu.be/yyaX83JLhj8
-
Summarising from the video, they are casting three segments this year. Two-segment test fire in April 2020 and single segment test fire in August 2020.
-
Are there any news about upper stage? Would somebody help them to design and produce it or NG has strong expertise to do it?
-
Are there any news about upper stage? Would somebody help them to design and produce it or NG has strong expertise to do it?
NGIS has there sibling NGAS which used to be TRW. In terms of building rocket stages and engines it's been a while since they built any.
-
Are there any news about upper stage? Would somebody help them to design and produce it or NG has strong expertise to do it?
NGIS has there sibling NGAS which used to be TRW. In terms of building rocket stages and engines it's been a while since they built any.
May need to hire a few hydrolox engineers. No shortage of experienced engineers in country ie ULA, Blue, ARJ, Stratolauncher(PGA engine), Boeing (XS1 and SLS). If they go off shore lot more options.
NG did compete for XS1 competition plus the team from Antares, so some inhouse RP1 and LOX experience.
They already have flight proven avionics which came with OrbitalATK.
-
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way. However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?
-
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way. However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?
The fueling process isn't what keeps a rocket from launching quickly, a Falcon doesn't get fueled until two hours before launch, similar for any deep cryo like hydrogen that will boil off over longer periods. If you're talking about quicker response times than that what you want isn't a rocket but a missile. The way to get response times down to days/hours is to have rockets in storage ready to be fueled, either through readiness contracts or by supporting enough business to always have a few reused cores lying around.
-
So the NGL rocket wouldn't be stacked and ready to go quickly, but would have to be stacked and upper sage refueled? Or would the first and second solid stages be stacked and waiting for the upper stage?
-
Summarising from the video, they are casting three segments this year. Two-segment test fire in April 2020 and single segment test fire in August 2020.
He states, toward the end, that it would be April, 2019 and August. The video seems to be done in 2018. Maybe?
-
I went to the NG web site and their fact sheet says April 2019 and August 2019.
First and second flight will be all solid (C600 1st stage and C300 second stage plus strap ons for the second flight).
-
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way. However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?
AIUI you can only stacked the the OmegA at the VAB and launch from LC-39B with current operational facilities. Using a Mobile Launch Platform on a Crawler-Transporter is not a quick standby way of launching anything.
As for hypergolic upper stages. AFAIK the only one in the US building large hypergolic motors in quantity is the folks from Hawthorne. Don't think AJR's AJ10 production line is building more than the occasional AJ10-190 motor for the Orion. Somehow don't see NGIS funding the development of a new low production run upper stage on their own.
Never mind that the AJ-10 engine uses Aerozine 50 as the fuel for non-HSF applications.
-
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way. However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?
Toxic hypergolics for main propulsion are off the table for EELV-2 entries yet is only not recommended for thrusters and ullage motors.
-
I went to the NG web site and their fact sheet says April 2019 and August 2019.
First and second flight will be all solid (C600 1st stage and C300 second stage plus strap ons for the second flight).
Nice catch. I too was under the impression they were talking about 2020.
-
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way. However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quickly launch?
AIUI you can only stacked the the OmegA at the VAB and launch from LC-39B with current operational facilities. Using a Mobile Launch Platform on a Crawler-Transporter is not a quick standby way of launching anything.
As for hypergolic upper stages. AFAIK the only one in the US building large hypergolic motors in quantity is the folks from Hawthorne. Don't think AJR's AJ10 production line is building more than the occasional AJ10-190 motor for the Orion. Somehow don't see NGIS funding the development of a new low production run upper stage on their own.
Never mind that the AJ-10 engine uses Aerozine 50 as the fuel for non-HSF applications.
AJ10-190 is retired with production ended during STS. NASA is holding a competition and AR is working on a new modernized (3D printing et cetera (RL10C-X/RL10C-5-1) version with two proposed variants with downselect later: 1) traditional toxic hypergolic version and 2) new green hypergolic version.
-
The fueling process isn't what keeps a rocket from launching quickly, a Falcon doesn't get fueled until two hours before launch, ...
Falcon 9 refuelling starts much later, at T-35 minutes.
-
<snip>
AJ10-190 is retired with production ended during STS. NASA is holding a competition and AR is working on a new modernized (3D printing et cetera (RL10C-X/RL10C-5-1) version with two proposed variants with downselect later: 1) traditional toxic hypergolic version and 2) new green hypergolic version.
So AJR is just re-furbishing the old AJ10-190s for use in the Orion service module until the replacement is in service?
-
<snip>
AJ10-190 is retired with production ended during STS. NASA is holding a competition and AR is working on a new modernized (3D printing et cetera (RL10C-X/RL10C-5-1) version with two proposed variants with downselect later: 1) traditional toxic hypergolic version and 2) new green hypergolic version.
So AJR is just re-furbishing the old AJ10-190s for use in the Orion service module until the replacement is in service?
Yes and qualification for SLS. Existing STS and parts stockpiles to be exhausted first. NASA will sign a contract at some point. RFI was last year. Not sure when they will do the RFP and contract award. It is open to US and contributing countries.
-
Interesting interview, for know the state of the Omega...
https://spacenews.com/for-omega-u-s-air-force-launch-competition-is-a-must-win/
-
MLP-3 is going for a ride ahead of modification!
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1123647202176401409
-
Interesting interview, for know the state of the Omega...
https://spacenews.com/for-omega-u-s-air-force-launch-competition-is-a-must-win/
A quote from the article in that post.
"If we had had OmegA along sooner, we would have loved to have lifted either one of the capsules. The reliability of our system lends itself to human spaceflight."
- Former NASA astronaut Kent Rominger
I thought that was noteworthy since we've never seen anyone involved with OmegA discuss using it for manned flight before.
-
Preparing for the OmegA Rocket: How to do a Static Test
Tucked into the hillside off a quiet Utah highway, bunker-like buildings go relatively unnoticed among the brush. Deep inside one of these shed-like structures rests the work of dozens of the country’s best rocket scientists. Soon, years of development and dedication will culminate in a ten-second countdown and a smoke plume, but following this qualification test the opportunities are vast.
Recently, a team of technicians in Promontory, Utah, artfully manipulated the first stage of Northrop Grumman’s OmegA rocket into its final configuration using multiple cranes and other large tooling. After assembly, the 12-foot-diameter and 80-foot-long stage rests on supports, wiring spilling from its forward end and leading to data collection points carefully located based on precise measurements.
Northrop Grumman is building OmegA to launch intermediate to heavy national security payloads for the U.S. Air Force, as well as science and commercial payloads for other customers. Solid rocket motors with lightweight composite cases power the first and second stages. In a few weeks, the company will perform its first full-scale static test of the first stage, the bottom and most powerful portion of the rocket’s propulsion.
When talking to Scott Lehr, vice president and general manager of Northrop Grumman’s flight systems division, it is immediately clear he is proud of the work going on at Promontory. “This first stage ground test is a major milestone. Three and a half years ago we said we would accomplish this test in the spring of 2019, and that is exactly what we are going to do. In the National Security market, schedule is everything,” he said.
In the remaining days leading up to the static test, currently scheduled for May 30, 2019, technicians will finish attaching instrumentation gauges and data recorders that will measure key characteristics such as thrust, vibration and burn rate. Then they will practice conducting the test, running through and repeating each step of the countdown multiple times. Performing these simulations ensures the team members have all the test systems calibrated and functioning properly.
“Every countdown step is critical and has to be performed with perfection,” says Jamie Barney, director of test and research operations, propulsion systems, Northrop Grumman. “We have an extremely experienced team, but no one here is ever complacent about a rocket test.”
On test day, the entire test bay will roll back to expose the first stage motor attached to three “spacer” segments totaling 177 feet of white casing. When the countdown clock reaches zero, the igniter, housed in the forward segment, will rapidly ignite and pressurize the entire motor.
The motor will continue to burn for approximately two minutes, producing more than two million pounds of thrust channeled through a vectorable nozzle. During the test, 30 to 40 technicians and engineers will line the control room, closely monitoring the sensors, instrumentation, and cameras on and around the motor. They will collect approximately 700 data channels, gauging everything from case growth to component stresses to motor pressure to temperatures – all essential data to qualify this motor for flight.
“The first stage rocket motor is the heart of the OmegA vehicle,” says Paul Messer, OmegA first and second stage motor program manager, Northrop Grumman. “With the critical data from the static fire test, and the post-test inspections, we can qualify our products and ensure their reliability to our customers.”
For about six months after the test, the team will assess the data and disassemble, evaluate and dissect the hardware to observe the effects of motor operation. A post-assessment verdict of reliability across all systems will qualify the motor for flight.
“Successfully completing the full-scale static test later this month will be a significant milestone,” says Kevin Wilder, OmegA deputy program director, Northrop Grumman. “Everyone on the team is personally invested in this program, and we are all looking forward to OmegA’s first launch in 2021.”
-
NGIS still thinks Omega is viable on as few as 4 launches per year:
Kent Rominger, a Northrop Grumman vice president, said his company is not relying on commercial demand for its proposed OmegA rocket. “The commercial market is tough to predict,” he said. “We didn’t build our business case around this commercial market. It’s really built around national security space and civil.”
He said later that OmegA can be successful at a far lower launch rate than [the 8 to 12] Bruno estimated was viable. “We can go down to a very low rate,” he said. “As low as two [National Security Space Launch] and a couple of others. That lets us close our business case.”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3716/1
-
It helps they are benefitting from SLS and Shuttle.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/11/northrop-grumman-synergy-omega-sls-solid-boosters/
I
-
It helps they are benefitting from SLS and Shuttle.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/11/northrop-grumman-synergy-omega-sls-solid-boosters/
I
And Vulcan in terms of the strap on auxiliary boosters. And SLS and Vulcan in terms of upper stage propulsion.
-
If they are expecting 2 million pounds of thrust from 2 Shuttle Derived Composite cases, shouldn't the thrust from an OmegA Heavy 1st stage which is comprised of 4 Shuttle Derived Composite Cases scale up to be approx. 4 million pounds of thrust?
This makes sense as they said that the first stage for the May 30 test will be attached to 3 "spacer segments." "On test day, the entire test bay will roll back to expose the first stage motor attached to three “spacer” segments totaling 177 feet of white casing."
The OmegA Heavy version will include a 4 segment Shuttle derived 1st Stage, with a Single segment Shuttle derived solid 2nd Stage, so while only the first 2 segments of the test will have propellant, they will conduct the test with a total length of the 1st and 2nd Stages of the OmegA Heavy version. Of the total length of the 5 segments, only the first 2 segments will contain propellant.
So if we took the 1st stage of the OmegA Heavy variant(4 Shuttle Derived Segments) and strapped one to each side of an SLS stack, we'd be looking at around 8 million pounds of thrust from these "Dark Knights" Advanced Solid Rocket Boosters.
A 4 segment Shuttle Derived Composite Cased SRB with each segment measuring 425" x 4 segments gives us 1700 inches or propellant segment length. The total booster length is to be 2,105 inches which leaves 405 inches for the Ariane'like nosecone and the nozzle assemblies.
For comparison the 4 segment .479" thick steel Shuttle SRB's were 149 feet long(1788 inches) and provided just over 3 million pounds of thrust weighing in at 1.3 million pounds.
The 5 segment SLS steel SRBs are 179 feet long (2148 inches) and provide 3.6 million pounds of thrust weighing 1.6 million pounds each.
The 4 segment Shuttle derived Composite Case is very close to the length of the 5 segment steel cased SLS SRB length.
OmegA and the SLS Advanced Booster(Dark Knights) are a great way to leverage the same technology for 2 projects.
-
If they are expecting 2 million pounds of thrust from 2 Shuttle Derived Composite cases, shouldn't the thrust from an OmegA Heavy 1st stage which is comprised of 4 Shuttle Derived Composite Cases scale up to be approx. 4 million pounds of thrust?
The casings or sections are in series not parallel. Still 2 Mlbs of thrust just runs for longer ie bigger fuel tank.
-
The casings or sections are in series not parallel. Still 2 Mlbs of thrust just runs for longer ie bigger fuel tank.
No. The solid propellant in the additional 2 segments burns at the same time and rate as the propellant in the other 2 segments, resulting in 2x the mass flow rate and 2x the thrust, assuming chamber pressure is kept constant (by roughly doubling the nozzle throat area).
Here's a link to an article that was posted earlier, but is worth re-posting because it's uncommonly well-written and detailed on the OmegA rocket motors:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3539/1
-
OmegA: Northrop Grumman’s New Heavy-Lift Rocket
Northrop Grumman
Published on May 23, 2019
Building off its small- and medium-class rocket heritage, Northrop Grumman has expanded its capabilities into the heavy-class of launch vehicles with its new OmegA rocket. The design has prioritized National Security Space Launch for national defense and global security. OmegA is set for its first flight in 2021.
https://youtu.be/D1LAeOKUDHs?t=001
https://youtu.be/D1LAeOKUDHs
-
Let's give the static fire test a standalone thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48252.0
-
Northrop Orbital-ATK,
Is doing a gig at DAR Constitution Hall today. Trying to get support for OmegA to get an Airforce launch contract.
They have a 18' prop on stage & a RL-10 in the lobby.
I just work here, & figured someone might find this interesting.
Ned
-
https://twitter.com/AntoniaJ_11/status/1174664062891974656
“The nozzle exit cone break up that occurred at motor shut down was caused by a ground test phenomenon that would not have occurred in flight," @northropgrumman told @Florida_Today in regards to #OmegA anomaly. Story by @Rachael_Joy.
Link to Florida Today story (https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2019/09/19/northrop-grumman-says-omega-still-schedule-despite-test-fire-anomaly/2364085001/)
-
Odd, but the opening video for these presentations. Stated that the 1st stage static fire was completely successful.
Ned
-
“The nozzle exit cone break up that occurred at motor shut down was caused by a ground test phenomenon that would not have occurred in flight," @northropgrumman told @Florida_Today in regards to #OmegA anomaly. Story by @Rachael_Joy.
OK, so what are the "ground test phenomenon" options? Something about the exhaust plume expansion interacting with the ground and reflecting heat back, etc.?
- Ed Kyle
-
The casings or sections are in series not parallel. Still 2 Mlbs of thrust just runs for longer ie bigger fuel tank.
No. The solid propellant in the additional 2 segments burns at the same time and rate as the propellant in the other 2 segments, resulting in 2x the mass flow rate and 2x the thrust, assuming chamber pressure is kept constant (by roughly doubling the nozzle throat area).
Here's a link to an article that was posted earlier, but is worth re-posting because it's uncommonly well-written and detailed on the OmegA rocket motors:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3539/1
John Steinmeyer
Presenting here today.
Just said that the heavy lift cast-12 version has 3 million pounds of thrust plus the Gem63xlt strap on boosters. Not 4 Mlbs plus the srb's.
Ned
Edit add 1st name 2nd, correct name
-
OK, so what are the "ground test phenomenon" options? Something about the exhaust plume expansion interacting with the ground and reflecting heat back, etc.?
Primary phenomenon is flow separation shock at ambient pressure which would be negligible at altitude. The heat reflection you mentioned is probably contributing as well.
John Steinmeyer
Presenting here today.
Just said that the heavy lift cast-12 version has 3 million pounds of thrust plus the Gem63xlt strap on boosters. Not 4 Mlbs plus the srb's.
Ned
Edit add 1st name 2nd, correct name
I figured you must have meant Steinmeyer. CASTOR 1200 will use a lower burning rate propellant than C600 and C300 to keep loads down, so not quite double the thrust ("3 million" is right to one significant figure) and slightly longer burn time.
-
OK, so what are the "ground test phenomenon" options? Something about the exhaust plume expansion interacting with the ground and reflecting heat back, etc.?
Primary phenomenon is flow separation shock at ambient pressure which would be negligible at altitude. The heat reflection you mentioned is probably contributing as well.
John Steinmeyer
Presenting here today.
Just said that the heavy lift cast-12 version has 3 million pounds of thrust plus the Gem63xlt strap on boosters. Not 4 Mlbs plus the srb's.
Ned
Edit add 1st name 2nd, correct name
I figured you must have meant Steinmeyer. CASTOR 1200 will use a lower burning rate propellant than C600 and C300 to keep loads down, so not quite double the thrust ("3 million" is right to one significant figure) and slightly longer burn time.
I thought that C1200 was to have a variable propellant mix and form to tailor thrust to the G loads profile. In other words high thrust at T-0 and lower thrust by the end.
-
“The nozzle exit cone break up that occurred at motor shut down was caused by a ground test phenomenon that would not have occurred in flight," @northropgrumman told @Florida_Today in regards to #OmegA anomaly. Story by @Rachael_Joy.
OK, so what are the "ground test phenomenon" options? Something about the exhaust plume expansion interacting with the ground and reflecting heat back, etc.?
- Ed Kyle
I don't think heat reflected from the ground would be any hotter than the thrust exiting the nozzle. I was thinking this referred to acoustic reflection from the ground, perhaps for an extended period of time. In flight, ground reflection wouldn't last very long.
-
.......
Snip.
.......
CASTOR 1200 will use a lower burning rate propellant than C600 and C300 to keep loads down, so not quite double the thrust ("3 million" is right to one significant figure) and slightly longer burn time.
I thought that C1200 was to have a variable propellant mix and form to tailor thrust to the G loads profile. In other words high thrust at T-0 and lower thrust by the end.
I don't remember John mentioning a tailored thrust profile for the C1200.
There were 4.5 hours of presentations. On OmegA with a lunch break. So I might have missed it.
I could have recorded it, but there was no interest in my first post.
There were only 32 people in the audience. 16 after lunch.
Ned
-
OK, so what are the "ground test phenomenon" options? Something about the exhaust plume expansion interacting with the ground and reflecting heat back, etc.?
- Ed Kyle
I don't think heat reflected from the ground would be any hotter than the thrust exiting the nozzle. I was thinking this referred to acoustic reflection from the ground, perhaps for an extended period of time. In flight, ground reflection wouldn't last very long.
I agree with you.
The heating environment on the ground is usually boring because the plumes are overexpanded at sea level. It's not until you get to high altitude that you start seeing really aggressive base heating environments. Acoustics are different depending on what they can reflect off of. Kind of a wimpy excuse- they have to be able to test at sea level so that's part of the loading that they should design to. Probably doesn't really matter, I'm sure they'll fix it.
-
“The nozzle exit cone break up that occurred at motor shut down was caused by a ground test phenomenon that would not have occurred in flight," @northropgrumman told @Florida_Today in regards to #OmegA anomaly. Story by @Rachael_Joy.
OK, so what are the "ground test phenomenon" options? Something about the exhaust plume expansion interacting with the ground and reflecting heat back, etc.?
Yet this has never happened during any previous SRB test from the same stand - to my knowledge.
-
“The nozzle exit cone break up that occurred at motor shut down was caused by a ground test phenomenon that would not have occurred in flight," @northropgrumman told @Florida_Today in regards to #OmegA anomaly. Story by @Rachael_Joy.
OK, so what are the "ground test phenomenon" options? Something about the exhaust plume expansion interacting with the ground and reflecting heat back, etc.?
Yet this has never happened during any previous SRB test from the same stand - to my knowledge.
This is a new nozzle that, as far as I know, has never been tested there. I think it has a bigger expansion ratio, etc.
- Ed Kyle
-
“The nozzle exit cone break up that occurred at motor shut down was caused by a ground test phenomenon that would not have occurred in flight," @northropgrumman told @Florida_Today in regards to #OmegA anomaly. Story by @Rachael_Joy.
OK, so what are the "ground test phenomenon" options? Something about the exhaust plume expansion interacting with the ground and reflecting heat back, etc.?
Yet this has never happened during any previous SRB test from the same stand - to my knowledge.
This is a new nozzle that, as far as I know, has never been tested there. I think it has a bigger expansion ratio, etc.
- Ed Kyle
AFAIU it is derived from SLS nozzle but newer materials developed with NASA and AFRL (and some other national Labs) and other changes.
-
“The nozzle exit cone break up that occurred at motor shut down was caused by a ground test phenomenon that would not have occurred in flight," @northropgrumman told @Florida_Today in regards to #OmegA anomaly. Story by @Rachael_Joy.
OK, so what are the "ground test phenomenon" options? Something about the exhaust plume expansion interacting with the ground and reflecting heat back, etc.?
Yet this has never happened during any previous SRB test from the same stand - to my knowledge.
This is a new nozzle that, as far as I know, has never been tested there. I think it has a bigger expansion ratio, etc.
- Ed Kyle
Without any particular knowledge, I first read it as a hardware difference because of the ground test, eg an early development nozzle, or a variant better suited to ground testing.
-
“The nozzle exit cone break up that occurred at motor shut down was caused by a ground test phenomenon that would not have occurred in flight," @northropgrumman told @Florida_Today in regards to #OmegA anomaly. Story by @Rachael_Joy.
OK, so what are the "ground test phenomenon" options? Something about the exhaust plume expansion interacting with the ground and reflecting heat back, etc.?
Yet this has never happened during any previous SRB test from the same stand - to my knowledge.
This is a new nozzle that, as far as I know, has never been tested there. I think it has a bigger expansion ratio, etc.
I doubt it has a bigger expansion ratio, it is still meant to be launched at sea level. New materials maybe...
-
OmegA Team Values Partnerships with Customer, Suppliers
As aerospace and defense suppliers from across the country took their seats at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C., a gleaming 18-foot-tall OmegA rocket model on the stage commanded their attention. The event was the third annual OmegA suppliers conference, and judging from the overall reaction to the 1/12-scale model, the only thing the suppliers would have liked to see more was an actual rocket ready to launch.
“On behalf of the OmegA program, we appreciate all of your contributions,” said Kent Rominger, vice president, OmegA business development, Northrop Grumman. “The OmegA team works as a true partner with the Air Force, and that partnership extends to our suppliers.” Rominger said key elements of this partnership are transparency, shared goals and 100 percent focus on the customer’s mission. His message resonated with attendees, who have one critical goal in common -- supporting the initial launch of OmegA from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in early 2021.
Northrop Grumman hosted this event to share the team’s progress on the rocket and ground support systems, and apprise attendees of the program’s upcoming milestones. OmegA’s 146 suppliers, located in 32 states, provide everything from microchips, wire harnesses and cryogenic tank assemblies to entire rocket engines. For those who provide a single component, it was exciting to see hardware photos demonstrating how much the OmegA team has accomplished since Northrop Grumman received a Launch Services Agreement from the U.S. Air Force last year.
Mike Laidley, vice president, OmegA, Northrop Grumman, asked attendees to pass on to their teams his appreciation for all the hard work they have done so far. Then he shared with suppliers significant progress on each major subsystem, including the successful completion of the first static fire test earlier this year.
“Incredible collaboration and commitment has got us to where we are today and will carry us into the future,” said Kevin Wilder, program manager, OmegA, Northrop Grumman. “There has been really solid work with industry partners to meet national security space needs.”
Throughout the conference, Northrop Grumman stressed that each supplier plays a critical role ensuring assured access to space for the U.S. Air Force. At the end of the day, suppliers returned to their manufacturing plants carrying messages of appreciation and the value of true partnership. Every member of the team is doing its part to get OmegA ready to fly in 2021.
-
Will the GEM-63XL boosters be jettisoned during the first stage burn or will they stay attached after Stage 1 sep and Stage 2 ignition?
-
Will the GEM-63XL boosters be jettisoned during the first stage burn or will they stay attached after Stage 1 sep and Stage 2 ignition?
I don't know, but my expectation is that they would be jettisoned so as to give better performance.
-
Will the GEM-63XL boosters be jettisoned during the first stage burn or will they stay attached after Stage 1 sep and Stage 2 ignition?
I don't know, but my expectation is that they would be jettisoned so as to give better performance.
That would be my guess. GEM-63XL burn time is something like 84 seconds while Castor 600 is roughly two minutes.
- Ed Kyle
-
Will the GEM-63XL boosters be jettisoned during the first stage burn or will they stay attached after Stage 1 sep and Stage 2 ignition?
I don't know, but my expectation is that they would be jettisoned so as to give better performance.
That would be my guess. GEM-63XL burn time is something like 84 seconds while Castor 600 is roughly two minutes.
- Ed Kyle
Do you know how long Castor 1200 will burn for? I think it might be two and a half minutes, but I could be wrong.
-
Would it pay NGIS to make the solid booster and second stage modules out of stainless steel in order to parachute them back down for reuse? Kind of like the shuttle boosters, but could resist heat better than composite on return. Seems a waste to dunk them.
-
Would it pay NGIS to make the solid booster and second stage modules out of stainless steel in order to parachute them back down for reuse? Kind of like the shuttle boosters, but could resist heat better than composite on return. Seems a waste to dunk them.
The Shuttle's SRB casings were made out of stainless steel to begin with. The casings were made from stainless both to withstand the heat loads experienced prior to parachute recovery, and to not corrode due to salt water immersion.
The entire point of switching to a composite casing is to reduce weight, not to withstand reentry heat loads, since they aren't recovering and reusing them.
-
Do you know how long Castor 1200 will burn for? I think it might be two and a half minutes, but I could be wrong.
I don't, but my guess would be that the SLS five-segment booster, which burns for 128 seconds, is a useful model to consider. Four-segment booster was 124 seconds. Solid motor length principally increases thrust, not burn time, though the thrust/time profile can be tailored in various ways.
- Ed Kyle
-
Full OmegA specs!
Medium Heavy (kg)
LEO 22,000 23,200
SSO 15,500 18,000
MTO 8,900 13,200
MEO 5.400 9,300
GTO 9,200 14,000
GEO 3,200 6,700
TLI 7,000 12,300+ mT
Escape 6,400 10,700
Mars 5,000 12,000+ mT
https://twitter.com/Tschnn/status/1187009600450682885
-
That "Medium" is formidable all by itself. 1.67 times more payload to GTO than a Falcon 9 with reuse. 1.15 times more than Falcon Heavy full reuse. 1.37 times more than Vulcan Centaur 522. More than any Atlas 5.
- Ed Kyle
-
So that LEO is not even to 200km. I thought that is standard height for LEO numbers? I get ~185km with the 100 nautical miles on the slide.
I am also confused that the LEO rating is so small between the medium and heavy, but the other specs are not. How can you only get 1,200kg more mass to LEO orbit but 7,000kg more to Mars?
-
So that LEO is not even to 200km. I thought that is standard height for LEO numbers? I get ~185km with the 100 nautical miles on the slide.
I am also confused that the LEO rating is so small between the medium and heavy, but the other specs are not. How can you only get 1,200kg more mass to LEO orbit but 7,000kg more to Mars?
Hydrolox upper stage performance. Same reason the Delta IV Heavy outperforms the Falcon Heavy (reusable) to higher orbits in spite of being similar in throw weight to LEO.
-
That "Medium" is formidable all by itself. 1.67 times more payload to GTO than a Falcon 9 with reuse. 1.15 times more than Falcon Heavy full reuse. 1.37 times more than Vulcan Centaur 522. More than any Atlas 5.
- Ed Kyle
I assume that both are with 8 GEM-63XL/T's attached.
-
It isn't exactly that weird. SLS Block 1B gets more to LEO than block 1 but less to very high energy orbits. So, going from Block 1B and "upgrading" to Block 1 would simultaneously decrease your payload to LEO but increase it to certain other trajectories.
-
They've designed LV for BLEO payloads not heavy LEO payloads. No demand for +20t LEO payloads but lot for 6t to GTO and GEO.
The TLI performance will be useful for supporting lunar missions especially National Team.
-
So that LEO is not even to 200km. I thought that is standard height for LEO numbers? I get ~185km with the 100 nautical miles on the slide.
I am also confused that the LEO rating is so small between the medium and heavy, but the other specs are not. How can you only get 1,200kg more mass to LEO orbit but 7,000kg more to Mars?
Hydrolox upper stage performance. Same reason the Delta IV Heavy outperforms the Falcon Heavy (reusable) to higher orbits in spite of being similar in throw weight to LEO.
I got that part....The upper stage makes all the difference for higher energy orbits (higher ISP).
It's the such tiny difference to LEO that is confusing. The (F9 is 22K/kg to LEO and the FH is 63K/kg to LEO) or (DIV is 13K/kg LEO and the DIV-H is 28K/kg LEO) for examples. The difference between medium and heavy for OmegA is almost non-existent to LEO...which is not what I have seen with other rockets. You would think a "heavy" could push more then 1.2K/kg more then the medium to LEO anyways.
As I said....no other medium to heavy comparison I have ever seen has such a small LEO difference....but such a large BEO difference. Just struck me as odd.
-
That "Medium" is formidable all by itself. 1.67 times more payload to GTO than a Falcon 9 with reuse. 1.15 times more than Falcon Heavy full reuse. 1.37 times more than Vulcan Centaur 522. More than any Atlas 5.
- Ed Kyle
I assume that both are with 8 GEM-63XL/T's attached.
Six, I believe, is the maximum, and I would expect that these numbers represent that SRM configuration for the Medium. I'm not sure about the Heavy. If they're not adding SRMs to the Heavy, that could explain part of the relatively small difference in LEO capability between the max SRM Medium and the "straight" Heavy.
- Ed Kyle
-
Ed, are you certain that OmegA will actually be flying as soon as it's rendered "flight-ready", or will all the payloads within OmegA's performance be launched by either Vulcan or Starship (maybe F9 and/or FH if they're still flying)?
-
Ed, are you certain that OmegA will actually be flying as soon as it's rendered "flight-ready", or will all the payloads within OmegA's performance be launched by either Vulcan or Starship?
If OmegA finishes development, it will be launching payloads. If they don't win the Air Force contract, and they don't get a bunch of launches from somewhere else, I'm pretty confident they will just shut the program down.
-
So that LEO is not even to 200km. I thought that is standard height for LEO numbers? I get ~185km with the 100 nautical miles on the slide.
I am also confused that the LEO rating is so small between the medium and heavy, but the other specs are not. How can you only get 1,200kg more mass to LEO orbit but 7,000kg more to Mars?
Hydrolox upper stage performance. Same reason the Delta IV Heavy outperforms the Falcon Heavy (reusable) to higher orbits in spite of being similar in throw weight to LEO.
I got that part....The upper stage makes all the difference for higher energy orbits (higher ISP).
It's the such tiny difference to LEO that is confusing. The (F9 is 22K/kg to LEO and the FH is 63K/kg to LEO) or (DIV is 13K/kg LEO and the DIV-H is 28K/kg LEO) for examples. The difference between medium and heavy for OmegA is almost non-existent to LEO...which is not what I have seen with other rockets. You would think a "heavy" could push more then 1.2K/kg more then the medium to LEO anyways.
As I said....no other medium to heavy comparison I have ever seen has such a small LEO difference....but such a large BEO difference. Just struck me as odd.
Maybe the payload adapter have a maximum limit of 23k kg due to possible higher acceleration with the OmegA Heavy. I am guessing, NG is probably using the Delta IV heavy payload adapter.
-
That "Medium" is formidable all by itself. 1.67 times more payload to GTO than a Falcon 9 with reuse. 1.15 times more than Falcon Heavy full reuse. 1.37 times more than Vulcan Centaur 522. More than any Atlas 5.
- Ed Kyle
I assume that both are with 8 GEM-63XL/T's attached.
Six, I believe, is the maximum, and I would expect that these numbers represent that SRM configuration for the Medium. I'm not sure about the Heavy. If they're not adding SRMs to the Heavy, that could explain part of the relatively small difference in LEO capability between the max SRM Medium and the "straight" Heavy.
- Ed Kyle
At the MLP handover ceremony Chris-G's videos clearly state 8 GEM's at least twice especially in the video actually next to the MLP. Could be an error but I haven't found any corrective statements saying otherwise.
-
If OmegA finishes development, it will be launching payloads. If they don't win the Air Force contract, and they don't get a bunch of launches from somewhere else, I'm pretty confident they will just shut the program down.
Interestingly enough, OmegA - of all the rockets in development right now - might not need a whole lot of "other" business to close its business case if it doesn't get the Air Force contract.
I seem to remember that one of the key "advantages" NG sold in its bid for OmegA is that it requires only (IIRC) 2-4 launches a year to be worth keeping the production line open. That's due to the extensive commonality with other NG solid rocket products, such as ICBMs and SLS boosters.
It's worth keeping in mind that NG somehow - astoundingly - manages to keep Antares "profitable" despite it having had absolutely zero commercial customers. They have only used it to launch Cygnus missions for CRS, which are no more than 1-3 a year. My guess is that this works for them because even though their costs to build and operate Antares are too high to be able to sell it at a low enough price for commercial viability, when they sell it to themselves, they can still turn some profit, or at the very least break even. Sure, their profit margin wouldn't be great compared to competitors, but when they're buying from themselves, whatever profit they get is theirs to keep. If they were launching Cygnus on a Falcon 9 or Atlas V, they'd have to pay not only the cost of production and operation, but the profit margin to someone else. Even at break-even, it's business going to their factories and their workers instead of someone else's.
With the commonality across all of NG's solid rocket products, I would not be surprised if using Antares for Cygnus would be worthwhile to them even if they're just breaking even on it, simply due to improving economies of scale across the board. I am convinced that every Antares they "sell" to themselves is little more than an excuse to sell a Castor 30 for the second stage. The first stage, after all, was designed and is manufactured in Ukraine as a derivative of Zenit, so I doubt NG is taking much profit on that. The Castor is basically the only thing they're bringing to the table (besides Cygnus of course which is orthogonal to the choice of launch vehicle).
A similar rationale could justify keeping OmegA alive without Air Force support. They could retire Antares and use the smallest OmegA to launch Cygnus missions to the ISS (with more cargo per flight as a bonus, similar to the Atlas V option now) - which, right there, gives them 1-3 missions a year. Add in a couple Cygnus missions to the Gateway each year, which would go on OmegA Heavy, and they've easily got the "2-4 launches a year" they claim they need to make the business case close. And since OmegA is supposed to be more competitive on price (relative to capability) and a better fit to the private market's needs than Antares, they might be able to sell one or two launches to private customers (GEO comsats, etc.) on top of that. Again, they don't need to make much profit on the overall rocket - as long as they break even and can improve economies of scale for their solids business, it's a win.
The big hurdle, I think, is going to be funding to finish development of OmegA. A barely-profitable rocket might be a win if the development is already paid for, but if they have to invest a lot of their own money to finish it and amortize that over launch profits, it could take a long time to pay that off, breaking the business case.
If they're counting on NSSL Phase 2 funding to get to a minimum viable product (OmegA Medium to replace Antares) then OmegA will probably die on the vine. The Phase 1 funding is supposed to be enough to cover development and the initial test launches. At that point the rocket is in production and they can keep it alive with (at minimum) their own business from Cygnus and Artemis stuff. The tricky part is that, under the original NSSL wording, the Phase 1 funding - which is paid out gradually - is terminated once they lose the Phase 2 (block buy) bid. I know they lobbied to get that changed, but I don't know if they succeeded or not.
The interesting thing is that, even if their Phase 1 funding were to be cut off by losing Phase 2, they might be close enough to the finish line already to get the rest of the way without the Air Force funding. They've already done a ground static fire of an OmegA first stage, which was mostly successful (aside from the nozzle snafu, but they didn't seem too concerned about that). The second stage is basically the same as the first stage, just half as long. And the boosters (GEM-63) are already being developed for Vulcan. The main missing piece is the upper stage, which is itself a straightforward design based on the extremely proven RL-10 engine. (I'll bet they're contracting out nearly all the hard parts of that to people who have already solved those problems, just like they did with Antares's first stage.)
Besides Vulcan funding coming in for GEM-63, OmegA's first and second stages are basically variants of the same solid rocket design that they're working on for the SLS Block 2 SRBs. Now, of course, SLS Block 2 is kind of laughable at this point, but I think they got some money already to develop that, right? That should defray the remaining development costs of OmegA even further. The convenient thing about having such commonality across their product lines is that they can effectively take funding they receive from all of their programs and use it as a slush fund for developing their "big solid rocket thing", whatever form the customer wants to see it in (OmegA, SLS Advanced Boosters, etc.)
-
If US can handle multiple restarts then gives them lots of surplus performance for rideshares when launching Cygnus.
-
If OmegA finishes development, it will be launching payloads. If they don't win the Air Force contract, and they don't get a bunch of launches from somewhere else, I'm pretty confident they will just shut the program down.
Interestingly enough, OmegA - of all the rockets in development right now - might not need a whole lot of "other" business to close its business case if it doesn't get the Air Force contract.
I seem to remember that one of the key "advantages" NG sold in its bid for OmegA is that it requires only (IIRC) 2-4 launches a year to be worth keeping the production line open. That's due to the extensive commonality with other NG solid rocket products, such as ICBMs and SLS boosters.
It's worth keeping in mind that NG somehow - astoundingly - manages to keep Antares "profitable" despite it having had absolutely zero commercial customers. They have only used it to launch Cygnus missions for CRS, which are no more than 1-3 a year. My guess is that this works for them because even though their costs to build and operate Antares are too high to be able to sell it at a low enough price for commercial viability, when they sell it to themselves, they can still turn some profit, or at the very least break even. Sure, their profit margin wouldn't be great compared to competitors, but when they're buying from themselves, whatever profit they get is theirs to keep. If they were launching Cygnus on a Falcon 9 or Atlas V, they'd have to pay not only the cost of production and operation, but the profit margin to someone else. Even at break-even, it's business going to their factories and their workers instead of someone else's.
With the commonality across all of NG's solid rocket products, I would not be surprised if using Antares for Cygnus would be worthwhile to them even if they're just breaking even on it, simply due to improving economies of scale across the board. I am convinced that every Antares they "sell" to themselves is little more than an excuse to sell a Castor 30 for the second stage. The first stage, after all, was designed and is manufactured in Ukraine as a derivative of Zenit, so I doubt NG is taking much profit on that. The Castor is basically the only thing they're bringing to the table (besides Cygnus of course which is orthogonal to the choice of launch vehicle).
A similar rationale could justify keeping OmegA alive without Air Force support. They could retire Antares and use the smallest OmegA to launch Cygnus missions to the ISS (with more cargo per flight as a bonus, similar to the Atlas V option now) - which, right there, gives them 1-3 missions a year. Add in a couple Cygnus missions to the Gateway each year, which would go on OmegA Heavy, and they've easily got the "2-4 launches a year" they claim they need to make the business case close. And since OmegA is supposed to be more competitive on price (relative to capability) and a better fit to the private market's needs than Antares, they might be able to sell one or two launches to private customers (GEO comsats, etc.) on top of that. Again, they don't need to make much profit on the overall rocket - as long as they break even and can improve economies of scale for their solids business, it's a win.
The big hurdle, I think, is going to be funding to finish development of OmegA. A barely-profitable rocket might be a win if the development is already paid for, but if they have to invest a lot of their own money to finish it and amortize that over launch profits, it could take a long time to pay that off, breaking the business case.
If they're counting on NSSL Phase 2 funding to get to a minimum viable product (OmegA Medium to replace Antares) then OmegA will probably die on the vine. The Phase 1 funding is supposed to be enough to cover development and the initial test launches. At that point the rocket is in production and they can keep it alive with (at minimum) their own business from Cygnus and Artemis stuff. The tricky part is that, under the original NSSL wording, the Phase 1 funding - which is paid out gradually - is terminated once they lose the Phase 2 (block buy) bid. I know they lobbied to get that changed, but I don't know if they succeeded or not.
The interesting thing is that, even if their Phase 1 funding were to be cut off by losing Phase 2, they might be close enough to the finish line already to get the rest of the way without the Air Force funding. They've already done a ground static fire of an OmegA first stage, which was mostly successful (aside from the nozzle snafu, but they didn't seem too concerned about that). The second stage is basically the same as the first stage, just half as long. And the boosters (GEM-63) are already being developed for Vulcan. The main missing piece is the upper stage, which is itself a straightforward design based on the extremely proven RL-10 engine. (I'll bet they're contracting out nearly all the hard parts of that to people who have already solved those problems, just like they did with Antares's first stage.)
Besides Vulcan funding coming in for GEM-63, OmegA's first and second stages are basically variants of the same solid rocket design that they're working on for the SLS Block 2 SRBs. Now, of course, SLS Block 2 is kind of laughable at this point, but I think they got some money already to develop that, right? That should defray the remaining development costs of OmegA even further. The convenient thing about having such commonality across their product lines is that they can effectively take funding they receive from all of their programs and use it as a slush fund for developing their "big solid rocket thing", whatever form the customer wants to see it in (OmegA, SLS Advanced Boosters, etc.)
AFAIU Upper stage is being built at MAF with Boeing as a contractor.
-
If US can handle multiple restarts then gives them lots of surplus performance for rideshares when launching Cygnus.
Not to mention you could haul a lot of cargo on a cargo version of the 4 segment Cygnus they are building for gateway with the expanded lift capacity. The fact that ISS is in the orbits list suggests they are thinking in those terms. When they adjusted the launch vehicles for Cygnus, they were able to negotiate with NASA for less flights to meet their contract as each flight carried a bit more on Atlas and the upgraded Antares. This would bring most of the launch vehicle in house rather than just the upper stage as well. The other potential curve ball is the super sized Cygnus based propulsion module for the Blue Origin lander.
-
That "Medium" is formidable all by itself. 1.67 times more payload to GTO than a Falcon 9 with reuse. 1.15 times more than Falcon Heavy full reuse. 1.37 times more than Vulcan Centaur 522. More than any Atlas 5.
- Ed Kyle
Omega Intermediate has at least 1 full stage more than any of those, and is heavier on the pad than any except FH. Also, it's nice to have performance data, but price is also important. If that performance costs $200M it's not going to get a lot of use.
Any idea why performance to Mars is higher than to Escape? I'm not aware of any ways to reach Mars without reaching Earth escape...
-
AFAIU Upper stage is being built at MAF with Boeing as a contractor.
I've read about Michoud assembly, but I've not seen anything specifically mentioning Boeing. For that matter, I've seen no images of or read any news about upper stage assembly work at all, except for photos of a couple of RL10 engines on hand. This for a rocket that is supposed to fly in 2021. Omega's upper stage will likely be the pacing item for this launch vehicle.
- Ed Kyle
-
Any idea why performance to Mars is higher than to Escape? I'm not aware of any ways to reach Mars without reaching Earth escape...
Probably a typo on the slide. Doesn't make sense otherwise. A guess.
- Ed Kyle
-
If OmegA finishes development, it will be launching payloads. If they don't win the Air Force contract, and they don't get a bunch of launches from somewhere else, I'm pretty confident they will just shut the program down.
Interestingly enough, OmegA - of all the rockets in development right now - might not need a whole lot of "other" business to close its business case if it doesn't get the Air Force contract.
I seem to remember that one of the key "advantages" NG sold in its bid for OmegA is that it requires only (IIRC) 2-4 launches a year to be worth keeping the production line open. That's due to the extensive commonality with other NG solid rocket products, such as ICBMs and SLS boosters.
This was an excellent post. I believe I was aware of all of that, though I recalled it being 2-6 launches.
Bellow is the only thing I'd dispute.
A similar rationale could justify keeping OmegA alive without Air Force support. They could retire Antares and use the smallest OmegA to launch Cygnus missions to the ISS (with more cargo per flight as a bonus, similar to the Atlas V option now) - which, right there, gives them 1-3 missions a year. Add in a couple Cygnus missions to the Gateway each year, which would go on OmegA Heavy, and they've easily got the "2-4 launches a year" they claim they need to make the business case close. And since OmegA is supposed to be more competitive on price (relative to capability) and a better fit to the private market's needs than Antares, they might be able to sell one or two launches to private customers (GEO comsats, etc.) on top of that. Again, they don't need to make much profit on the overall rocket - as long as they break even and can improve economies of scale for their solids business, it's a win.
It's true that if they moved the CRS flights over to OmegA, they would gain an extra 1-3 OmegA medium flights per year. However, NGIS have stated numerous times that they have no intention of moving the CRS flights off of Antares, and they're in fact working on upgrading Antares further.
That said, the newly announced "Team America" (aka Blue Origin) lander might be able to cover 2-4 launches.
If you assume 1 Cygnus mission to resupply Gateway and 1 mission to launch the Northrop Grumman transfer stage of the lander, you already get up to 2 heavy launches a year. If Lockheed Martin's ascent stage also launches on OmegA you get 3.
Honestly, at around 5 launches a year you have to start wondering if they'd run schedule conflicts with SLS, which we should remember launches from the same pad. So maybe 3 or so launches is about perfect.
-
It's true that if they moved the CRS flights over to OmegA, they would gain an extra 1-3 OmegA medium flights per year. However, NGIS have stated numerous times that they have no intention of moving the CRS flights off of Antares, and they're in fact working on upgrading Antares further.
Yeah, I remember reading that too. My guess is that if those 1-3 extra flights per year made the difference between OmegA being viable or not, they would pick OmegA over Antares since it's the one more likely to garner additional business. Plus, under the working theory that "Antares is just an excuse to sell a Castor", OmegA would be even better, because it's an excuse to sell two bigger Castors. ;)
I do find it interesting that they are so keen to keep Antares around even in a (hypothetical) world with OmegA in operation. I'm sure Antares is cheaper per-launch than OmegA in terms of raw cost (which of course is what they're paying), but one would think that the cost of having to maintain a whole separate pad infrastructure for it (at a different location no less) is something they'd be keen to avoid. ULA has been eager to streamline its own stable to one rocket family for exactly that reason. (Although in fairness, their pad overheads are doubled due to having to maintain Vandenberg facilities, something Antares doesn't.)
Wikipedia cites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares_(rocket)) a GAO report (PDF) (https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf) from 2017 which quotes Antares' commercial per-launch price at $80-$85 million. Although we don't know the actual cost to NGIS internally, I suspect it can't be much less than $50 million or so, because if it were, they could cut the price and take a good chunk of Falcon 9's market for small-ish LEO satellites - particularly West Coast flights going to SSO, most of which are well under Antares's 8-tonne capacity. (Their profit margin wouldn't be great, but since they're operating the rocket anyway, commercial missions would help economies of scale as long as they can break even.) (This of course hand-waves away the cost of a West Coast pad. For all we know that's the only thing standing in the way of them having done this already.)
I don't think we've seen any public numbers on OmegA's targeted commercial prices yet, but they've said they're aiming for it to be viable on the commercial market, which means they can't get away with (at most) charging more than a comparable Vulcan. They've indicated they're intending to go after the same "boutique" segment of the market as Vulcan, i.e. payloads to mostly high orbits where the satellite itself and its operational value largely outweigh the cost of launch. IIRC Vulcan is aiming for a $90-$100 million price tag in the base configuration, with the hope that they'll be able to compete with a $50-$60 million Falcon 9 by offering lower insurance premiums (due to expected reliability) and a quicker ultimate trip to GEO (which in SpaceX world would typically require a $90 million Falcon Heavy). OmegA offers similar high-orbit performance but won't start out with a built-in reliability advantage, so my guesstimate would be that they'll have to aim for the $70-$80 million range in the base configuration.
That already undercuts Antares on sticker price (or at least matches it at much better capability), which suggests internal cost isn't too far behind.
I wonder if their publicly stated plans to keep Antares alongside OmegA might be politically focused. "Please give us a share of the block buy because we need 2-6 launches a year to keep the production line viable and don't expect to get that without NSSL" was a cornerstone of NGIS's NSSL bid. If they were saying "we plan to retire Antares and shift Cygnus to OmegA" out of the other side of their mouth, it would undercut their "NSSL will make or break OmegA" angle. Whereas after the fact, if they end of losing in the block buy (or even if they win), that is no longer a factor and they can make the decision based solely on the numbers.
That said, the newly announced "Team America" (aka Blue Origin) lander might be able to cover 2-4 launches.
I've started calling them "The Blue Team", it works on so many levels. ;) (Although I think none of the partners involved would much like that moniker.)
If you assume 1 Cygnus mission to resupply Gateway and 1 mission to launch the Northrop Grumman transfer stage of the lander, you already get up to 2 heavy launches a year. If Lockheed Martin's ascent stage also launches on OmegA you get 3.
Honestly, at around 5 launches a year you have to start wondering if they'd run schedule conflicts with SLS, which we should remember launches from the same pad. So maybe 3 or so launches is about perfect.
That's a very good point. Choosing Pad 39B could prove to be short-sighted on their part. Even if they (as is likely) don't win in the block buy and end up only doing a few launches per year for Artemis, scheduling could get tricky because Artemis support launches will have explicit schedule dependencies with the few SLS launches that will be competing for the pad. SLS is certainly not designed for rapid pad workflow and will be sitting on the pad for likely months prior to launch, which could force any Artemis components launching on OmegA to support that SLS crew flight to be ready for launch substantially earlier than if they were on a different rocket.
I do wonder how much work it would take to make a separate pad for OmegA (e.g. retrofitting some other idle pad at the Cape), considering that it launches from a "clean pad" using a mobile launcher that could (in theory) be rolled to some other location at the Cape. Obviously GSE is needed beyond the mobile launcher, but with the upper stage being the only liquid part, they should only need a fraction of what 39B is designed to support. (Building a pad at Wallops for OmegA is probably not an attractive option since they are relying on the VAB for integration, and the mobile launcher can't exactly be rolled to Virginia. ;) I suppose they could barge it though.)
-
That's a very good point. Choosing Pad 39B could prove to be short-sighted on their part. Even if they (as is likely) don't win in the block buy and end up only doing a few launches per year for Artemis, scheduling could get tricky because Artemis support launches will have explicit schedule dependencies with the few SLS launches that will be competing for the pad. SLS is certainly not designed for rapid pad workflow and will be sitting on the pad for likely months prior to launch, which could force any Artemis components launching on OmegA to support that SLS crew flight to be ready for launch substantially earlier than if they were on a different rocket.
I do wonder how much work it would take to make a separate pad for OmegA (e.g. retrofitting some other idle pad at the Cape), considering that it launches from a "clean pad" using a mobile launcher that could (in theory) be rolled to some other location at the Cape. Obviously GSE is needed beyond the mobile launcher, but with the upper stage being the only liquid part, they should only need a fraction of what 39B is designed to support. (Building a pad at Wallops for OmegA is probably not an attractive option since they are relying on the VAB for integration, and the mobile launcher can't exactly be rolled to Virginia. ;) I suppose they could barge it though.)
The fact that SLS and OmegA use mobile launchers may be their saving grace here, since it is possible that a lot of the pad work could be done off of the actual launch site.
It also helps that both vehicles should have at least a couple flights under their belt by the time of the Artemis missions where such conflicts would actually arrise, so they'll have some time to refine pad workflow.
I started a thread talking about launching a mini OmegA from Wallops (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48273.0), and the conclusion there was that the infastructure (specifically the lack of rail or harbor) at Wallops wouldn't be able to handle the heavy OmegA SRB segments.
-
AFAIU Upper stage is being built at MAF with Boeing as a contractor.
I've read about Michoud assembly, but I've not seen anything specifically mentioning Boeing. For that matter, I've seen no images of or read any news about upper stage assembly work at all, except for photos of a couple of RL10 engines on hand. This for a rocket that is supposed to fly in 2021. Omega's upper stage will likely be the pacing item for this launch vehicle.
- Ed Kyle
Northrop Grumman posted this a few days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJrpCRVRbmY
Shows upper stage work briefly.
-
This structure looks second stage related, and the background does look Michoud-like. Still, this isn't a tank wall. It looks like one of the skirts - most likely the upper skirt on the LH2 tank.
Another shot in the video shows what appear to be a payload adapter and an avionics bay, which would both go on top of the second stage.
- Ed Kyle
-
Omega to launch from VAFB SLC-6. Makes sense. The place was built for big solid motors from its outset. Interesting how Northrop Grumman is going to elbow its way in there while ULA is still using the place for Delta 4 Heavy. (I wonder if SLC-6 will handle Omega Heavy while KSC will only see the Intermediate version. That would simplify launch infrastructure. I'm probably wrong.)
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-to-launch-omega-rocket-from-ulas-delta-4-pad-at-vandenberg/
This story also includes the news that "Northrop Grumman “postponed the OmegA second stage static fire test to early next year to provide time to incorporate lessons learned from the first stage test.”"
- Ed Kyle
-
Why would each of the variants launch from a set-in-stone pad (Heavy from SLC-6 and Intermediate from LC-39B)?
I thought both pads can be configured for both variants.
-
Do you guys remember when NGIS invited the press for the mobile launcher sign over ceremony at Kennedy? I'm pretty they said during the Q&A of that event that the mobile launcher would have to accomodate both the intermediate and heavy.
-
Omega to launch from VAFB SLC-6. Makes sense. The place was built for big solid motors from its outset. Interesting how Northrop Grumman is going to elbow its way in there while ULA is still using the place for Delta 4 Heavy. (I wonder if SLC-6 will handle Omega Heavy while KSC will only see the Intermediate version. That would simplify launch infrastructure. I'm probably wrong.)
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-to-launch-omega-rocket-from-ulas-delta-4-pad-at-vandenberg/
This story also includes the news that "Northrop Grumman “postponed the OmegA second stage static fire test to early next year to provide time to incorporate lessons learned from the first stage test.”"
- Ed Kyle
Blue Origin is looking to share SLC-6 with NG.
-
Why would each of the variants launch from a set-in-stone pad (Heavy from SLC-6 and Intermediate from LC-39B)?
I thought both pads can be configured for both variants.
Unlike other NSSL entrants, Omega's Heavy and "Medium" versions have substantial height differences. Why build a full-height umbilical tower if its not needed? Then again, it might be needed. I'm really not certain. My guess is that Heavies will be needed on the West Coast for those spysat LEO missions, but as I write this I am reminded of the small difference in announced LEO performance between Heavy and Medium. Whether it will be needed at KSC depends on the GEO missions requirements, which I haven't looked at closely for awhile.
- Ed Kyle
-
Omega to launch from VAFB SLC-6. Makes sense. The place was built for big solid motors from its outset. Interesting how Northrop Grumman is going to elbow its way in there while ULA is still using the place for Delta 4 Heavy. (I wonder if SLC-6 will handle Omega Heavy while KSC will only see the Intermediate version. That would simplify launch infrastructure. I'm probably wrong.)
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-to-launch-omega-rocket-from-ulas-delta-4-pad-at-vandenberg/
This story also includes the news that "Northrop Grumman “postponed the OmegA second stage static fire test to early next year to provide time to incorporate lessons learned from the first stage test.”"
- Ed Kyle
Blue Origin is looking to share SLC-6 with NG.
Provide proof to your statement.
-
Some progress on the mobile launch platform mods:
https://twitter.com/northropgrumman/status/1195404858343481350
I've always been a fan of the 'clean pad' approach. Nice to see it coming to fruition!
-
That's a very good point. Choosing Pad 39B could prove to be short-sighted on their part. Even if they (as is likely) don't win in the block buy and end up only doing a few launches per year for Artemis, scheduling could get tricky because Artemis support launches will have explicit schedule dependencies with the few SLS launches that will be competing for the pad. SLS is certainly not designed for rapid pad workflow and will be sitting on the pad for likely months prior to launch, which could force any Artemis components launching on OmegA to support that SLS crew flight to be ready for launch substantially earlier than if they were on a different rocket.
This is categorically false.
The SLS is not Saturn or Shuttle. There are no huge service structures to be used to service the rocket on the pad. Payloads will be encapsulated in the MPPF or PHSF and shipped to the VAB where they will be stacked on the rocket. Pyrotechnics will also be installed in the VAB.
There is very little to be done at the pad besides hooking up the ML to pad utilities, checking everything's functional, filling up the rocket, and launching it. There will be no need for multi-month-long pad stays.
-
Northrop Grumman touts financial strength in marketing pitch for OmegA rocket
by Sandra Erwin — December 3, 2019
Northrop is pushing the message that its financial strength should be considered by the Air Force as it decides which two providers in 2020 will receive five-year contracts for launch services.
edit/gongora: Don't post the entire text of articles.
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-touts-financial-strength-in-marketing-pitch-for-omega-rocket/
-
The SpaceNews article states: "OmegA is an underdog in the NSSL competition that pits Northrop Grumman against SpaceX, United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin." It doesn't elaborate further though and I don't know all the ins and outs of the US launch industry.
For what reasons is the OmegA rocket considered to be the underdog?
-
The SpaceNews article states: "OmegA is an underdog in the NSSL competition that pits Northrop Grumman against SpaceX, United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin." It doesn't elaborate further though and I don't know all the ins and outs of the US launch industry.
For what reasons is the OmegA rocket considered to be the underdog?
It has never self designed and built a rocket family that serves the entire medium to heavy spacecraft/mission ranges nor has it as it's former self OATK launched a government EELV class payload.
-
For what reasons is the OmegA rocket considered to be the underdog?
Why would they be a favorite over ULA, SpaceX or Blue? At best & most generous they are at parity in their preparedness with Blue Origen, & there is no prize for 3rd place.
-
For what reasons is the OmegA rocket considered to be the underdog?
Why would they be a favorite over ULA, SpaceX or Blue? At best & most generous they are at parity in their preparedness with Blue Origen, & there is no prize for 3rd place.
There is the NASA equivalent and the on ramp process later on.
-
I'd give NGIS better odds than Blue, personally. Not because I believe in dumb theories about Blue "not being serious," but because NGIS has a longer track record in the industry (back when they were Orbital).
That being said, I give even better odds to SpaceX and ULA, though I do think people tend to underrate NGIS' competitiveness.
-
They are a major defense supplier, they are using big solids and the contract isn‘t for NASA but the „military“, so imo they are not an underdog at all. I think they have good chances to get launches for their capable and scalable rocket. And as they have stated several times that they don‘t need a lot of launches to be financially viable, they even have a bonus point over ULA.
-
OmegA rocket will launch up to two NationSats for Saturn Satellite Networks on certification flight for the US Air Force NSSL program in spring 2021
Space • OmegA • Rocket December 12, 2019
DULLES, Va. – Dec. 12, 2019 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) announced that Saturn Satellite Networks has selected the OmegA space launch vehicle to launch up to two satellites on the rocket’s inaugural flight scheduled for spring 2021. OmegA will launch from Kennedy Space Center’s Pad 39B and insert the SSN satellites into a geosynchronous transfer orbit.
“The OmegA rocket expands Northrop Grumman’s launch capabilities beyond our small and medium class rockets, which have successfully launched nearly 80 missions,” said Scott Lehr, vice president and general manager, flight systems, Northrop Grumman. “Expanding the company’s launch capabilities to the intermediate/heavy class with OmegA complements our national security satellite portfolio and enables us to better support our customers.”
Jim Simpson, CEO of Saturn, said, “We are excited to launch Saturn’s NationSat on Northrop Grumman’s OmegA launch vehicle’s inaugural mission. OmegA’s performance, payload accommodations, and rigorous certification program assures us it is a great fit for NationSats and our customers.”
Last October, the U.S. Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $792 million Launch Services Agreement to complete detailed design and verification of the OmegA launch vehicle and launch sites.
“The first flight of OmegA is a key step in our certification process for the U.S. Air Force National Security Space Launch program,” said Charlie Precourt, vice president, propulsion systems, Northrop Grumman. “Having Saturn’s NationSat on board for this mission further demonstrates the versatility of OmegA to serve other markets including commercial and civil government.”
Precourt continued, “Our customer’s mission comes first, whether OmegA is launching a commercial satellite or a national security payload. At the end of the day, we deliver the customer’s spacecraft where it needs to go.”
“Northrop Grumman designed OmegA to use the most reliable propulsion available—solid propulsion for the boost stages and flight proven RL10 engines for the upper stage—to ensure exceptional mission assurance for our customers,” Precourt added. “Northrop Grumman’s technical expertise is both broad and deep, and we bring unmatched experience, stability and a strong customer focus to every partnership.”
Northrop Grumman has a distinguished heritage in space launch. In 1990, the company developed Pegasus™, the world’s first privately developed space launch system. The company’s Minotaur launch vehicle has achieved 100 percent success on its 18 space missions and nine suborbital missions. Northrop Grumman’s AntaresTM rocket has launched more than 70,000 pounds of food, equipment and supplies to the astronauts aboard the International Space Station.
Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in autonomous systems, cyber, C4ISR, space, strike, and logistics and modernization to customers worldwide. Please visit news.northropgrumman.com and follow us on Twitter, @NGCNews, for more information.
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-signs-customer-for-first-flight-of-omegaTM
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
You aren't quite right on a few points there. The solid components for OmegA will be new rocket segments built for this rocket, while a lot of work and research has been made into composite solid rocket motors, this will be the first rocket the large scale composite casings are used. The upper stage is also totally new, while it looks like a centaur, its a totally new design built in house.
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
You aren't quite right on a few points there. The solid components for OmegA will be new rocket segments built for this rocket, while a lot of work and research has been made into composite solid rocket motors, this will be the first rocket the large scale composite casings are used. The upper stage is also totally new, while it looks like a centaur, its a totally new design built in house.
The upper stage (called the "cryostage") looks more like a Delta Cryogenic Upper Stage than a Centaur. I've been told that part, if not all, of the stage is being built at Michoud.
The upper stage is the first big weakness of Northrop's proposal, because the company has no prior experience with liquid cryogenic orbital launch rocket stages to my knowledge.*
The second big weakness is the capitalized "a" at the end of the name Omega. It is beyond annoying. NSSL may dock them points just for that. :)
- Ed Kyle
* Then again, the same can be said for most of the NSSL competitors, i.e. the BE-4 staged combustion burning LNG for two of them and some yet to be demonstrated capabilities of Falcon Heavy, etc..
-
...
The second big weakness is the capitalized "a" at the end of the name Omega. It is beyond annoying. NSSL may dock them points just for that. :)
- Ed Kyle
Of course, Mr. Kyle and most of us here know that OmegA is spelled that way in deference to it's designers, Orbital ATK, before they were merged into NG. They did display the name that way even before the merger. I thought/think it was a neat idea. But yes, from an English grammatical standpoint it is annoying.
What I want to know (1) is if they, in their press release said mentioned 'experience' and 'stability' in a subliminal jab at SpaceX or was it just normal PR. I personally think SpaceX has plenty of experience already even with their relatively short time in existence (lean and mean, as the old saying goes) compared to Old Space and SpaceX is stable as well (very high mission success rate and a deep mission backlog to work).
(2) Will the pricing of OmegA be in good competition to SpaceX for F9? I would assume it is close or else Saturn Satellite Networks wouldn't have been brow-beat (pure specualation here) into being the guinea pig for the first mission. As usual, the exact pricing SSN (bad name/abbreviation choice on their part) paid/will pay was not disclosed.
Thoughts?
-
I’m kind of worried about the maiden launch with the SSN sats onboard because if OmegA fails at any point, not only will NG lose the money put into that first rocket, but SSN will lose their sats too.
My point is that using a payload simulator for a rocket’s maiden launch would be the right choice so that expensive sats won’t be destroyed during a launch failure.
-
I’m kind of worried about the maiden launch with the SSN sats onboard because if OmegA fails at any point, not only will NG lose the money put into that first rocket, but SSN will lose their sats too.
My point is that using a payload simulator for a rocket’s maiden launch would be the right choice so that expensive sats won’t be destroyed during a launch failure.
They likely got a substantial discount for agreeing to be on the test launch. Satellites are commonly insured against risks during launch (and post-launch), so they're likely prepared for the possibility it won't make it. Their insurance provider has no doubt estimated the risk and boiled it down to a dollar amount that they have to pay in higher premiums - which is primarily what the discount from the launch provider for accepting a risky flight is compensation for.
Ultimately it comes down to a) how much riskier the customer and the insurance provider expect the first flight to be, b) how much damage the "intangible" impacts of failing to get their satellites into orbit would do to the customer even after getting the insurance money, and c) whether, with all of that factored in, they expect to come out ahead on their bottom line.
The same principle has applied to SpaceX customers agreeing to fly on "pathfinder" flights pushing first-stage reuse to new levels. The most dramatic example of this was with SES-10, which flew on the first reused core. In that case, the risk was considered high enough that SES didn't consider the cash discount sufficient to cover it. They chose to accept the risk anyway because they occupy a large enough portion of the comsat market that they considered it in their interest to subsidize the development of reuse to improve the market for themselves in the future. Subsequent to that, we have seen commercial customers express reluctance about being the first to fly on a core that's pushing to a new "level of reuse" (e.g. the first third or fourth flight of a core). The first third flight was taken by Spaceflight Industries for a smallsat rideshare filled with customers desperate for a cheap launch and willing to take on quite a bit of risk - either because their business model is "lots of cheap satellites" (i.e. they can afford to lose a few) or because they're a startup that can barely afford their first launch and are betting the company on it anyway, often without insurance. It's notable that SpaceX took the first fourth flight itself with Starlink-1 (which fits the "can afford to lose a few" model) rather than finding a customer willing to do it.
I've never heard of Saturn Satellite Networks before so I'm guessing they're not a huge player in the satellite industry yet. They are likely agreeing to fly on OmegA's first flight because they're willing to bet their business (or at least this product line) on a high-risk flight in exchange for getting it cheap.
It's also worth noting that if OmegA doesn't win in NSSL Phase 2 (which is likely), it's going to get the unspent portion of its Phase 1 development funding pulled out from under it. The general expectation is that that'll lead to OmegA's cancellation without ever making it to the first flight. SSN undoubtedly knows that and is likely prepared to seek other arrangements in that case.
Although, personally, I suspect NG has a plan to finish OmegA and bring it to market anyway even if they lose NSSL Phase 2. Despite the tears they've shed in their Air Force bid about how NSSL is critical to OmegA's commercial viability, they've also leaned heavily on the claim that they only need a few launches a year to make it viable, thanks to its shared economies of scale with their other solid-fuel product lines (ICBMs, SLS boosters, Atlas/Vulcan boosters, kick stages, etc.) They seem to be quite close to the finish line on OmegA's development, at least for the solid stages; they've already static-fired the first stage (which is essentially the same as the second stage), as well as the side boosters which are shared with Atlas/Vulcan. All that's left is the upper stage, which is basically a DCSS clone that seems to be utilizing existing production infrastructure at Michoud. There's honestly not much left to do at this point except build the thing and fly it. (Undoubtedly there are still engineering challenges to address but they're likely far less than those remaining for their competitors at this stage, like Blue Origin or even ULA with Vulcan. Neither New Glenn nor Vulcan has had a first stage fired yet; BE-4's had engine firings but still seems to be a work in progress. OmegA's first stage hot fire was much closer to a full vehicle test than just an engine firing.)
I think they can get there on their own without NSSL if they're willing to put a bit of private capital in the game (which they've demonstrated they are - they were already well underway on OmegA's development before they got NSSL funding). It might be delayed by a year or two* but I think it'll happen. And while OmegA will have a hard time competing in the long run against fully reusable rockets, they seem to have figured out how to make the business case close for competitive pricing in today's commercial market against Falcon/Vulcan/New Glenn. If they can muster 3-4 launches a year - some of which they can provide as their own customer for cislunar Cygnus and Gateway modules for Artemis - they'll have a viable product. I've said before that I'm convinced the only reason they keep flying Antares is because it's an excuse to sell a Castor SRB (nearly everything else in the rocket is outsourced), and OmegA will be that times ten. Ditto their other rockets like Pegasus and Minotaur which are laughably uncompetitive but somehow still turn a profit on de minimis launch manifests. I don't think they're so concerned about long-term competitiveness since most of the development and infrastructure costs have already been amortized across all their solid rocket programs.
*In fairness, delaying OmegA by a year or two could mean the difference between getting a few years of profitable business versus none at all before Starship comes in and steals everyone's lunch. I'm not sure how seriously NG is taking that but even if Starship is delayed and doesn't start launching basic commercial payloads until 2023-24, OmegA doesn't have any time to lose. Vulcan will likely be able to lean on NSSL to stay afloat despite Starship, and Blue is lining up a good manifest of customers to sustain them until they can develop something fully reusable, but OmegA doesn't have that upgrade path and will be fighting for the table scraps of the commercial market if they don't get NSSL, so those couple of years could make all the difference.
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.
Not exactly the same strap on boosters. OmegA will use the GEM 63XLT rather than the GEM 63XL. Similar, but not the same.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.
Not exactly the same strap on boosters. OmegA will use the GEM 63XLT rather than the GEM 63XL. Similar, but not the same.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Does the "T" mean increased dry mass? Or is there a different meaning?
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.
Not exactly the same strap on boosters. OmegA will use the GEM 63XLT rather than the GEM 63XL. Similar, but not the same.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Close enough to share the same production line whichs helps with cost savings.
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.
Not exactly the same strap on boosters. OmegA will use the GEM 63XLT rather than the GEM 63XL. Similar, but not the same.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Does the "T" mean increased dry mass? Or is there a different meaning?
The GEM family is a sub family that was tied to the Orion series nomenclature.
NGSS has since standardized the nomenclature across the entire motor catalog (as per catalog page 12 June 2018 version)
Identification Key
Example Orion 50 S XL G T
SRM class
SRM diameter (in)
Stretch
• With “S” denotes Stage 1
• Without “S” denotes Stage 2
XL or Std motor length
• “XL” denotes extra length (otherwise standard length)
Nozzle configuration
• “G” denotes ground-launched (truncated exit cone)
Thicker skirt
• “T” denotes thicker skirt (increased structural capacity)
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.
Not exactly the same strap on boosters. OmegA will use the GEM 63XLT rather than the GEM 63XL. Similar, but not the same.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Does the "T" mean increased dry mass? Or is there a different meaning?
The GEM family is a sub family that was tied to the Orion series nomenclature.
NGSS has since standardized the nomenclature across the entire motor catalog (as per catalog page 12 June 2018 version)
Identification Key
Example Orion 50 S XL G T
SRM class
SRM diameter (in)
Stretch
• With “S” denotes Stage 1
• Without “S” denotes Stage 2
XL or Std motor length
• “XL” denotes extra length (otherwise standard length)
Nozzle configuration
• “G” denotes ground-launched (truncated exit cone)
Thicker skirt
• “T” denotes thicker skirt (increased structural capacity)
I wish the meaning behind the "T" in "GEM 63XLT" were as clear cut as the suffices in the Orion family of motors. I think it was originally supposed to be short for "TVC" because we identified early on that the vehicle would benefit from the additional roll control capability that a thrust vector control system on one of the strap-on boosters, and that was a change from the Atlas and Vulcan versions of the GEM 63/63XL, so an additional variant was created. There are more differences than just that, specifically the attach point locations to the core vehicle and that interface, and one or two minor things besides that.
Technically we have two subtypes of 63XLT: "XLT-V" is the Vectorable version, and the first GEM is always a vectorable one. "XLT-F" is the Fixed version, which is used for the 2nd through 6th strap-ons.
I'd love to address more minor misunderstandings and assumptions (right or wrong) in this thread, but then would risk putting too much out there for public consumption that borders on proprietary and/or technical (ITAR).
-
OmegA rocket’s first customer still needs customer of its own
by Caleb Henry — December 16, 2019
WASHINGTON — Startup satellite builder Saturn Satellite Networks says it doesn’t have a customer lined up for the small geostationary spacecraft it booked aboard the inaugural launch of Northrop Grumman’s OmegA rocket, but reserved the 2021 mission to save time down the road.
https://spacenews.com/omega-rockets-first-customer-still-needs-customer-of-its-own/
-
Until I checked this thread I had thought OmegA was as much a paper rocket as Liberty had been. But I see the USAF have forked over $791m to get it built so that suggests something will end up on the pad.
I agree that the LO2/LH2 US is probably the weak spot given NGL's history. OTOH keeping all major subsystems in house has been demonstrated as the way to control costs if you can.
It's been pointed out that the USG only really wants a main launch contractor and a spare in NSS terms NGL are pretty late to the party. ULA is clearly the first entrant in that list and SX look strong as the second.
I note NGL's only list capability to GTO or GEO and it's still about a third what an FH can supply. That suggests a ceiling price of about $91m but of course NSS is notorious for needing "extras" of various kind.
As for their launch customer all I could find was a 1 page placeholder website. It seems hard to believe that such a company will be needing most of OmegA's capacity to get an 8 tonne bird to geo (or swarm of them?)
BTW does anyone know if NGL will throw in free ride softening hardware? These systems were developed to stop USAF satellites being launched on repurposed ICBM's from being shaken to bits due to the high vibration levels of solids.
AFAIK this level is due to the combustion process itself. It cannot be removed by reformulating the propellant.
-
As for their launch customer all I could find was a 1 page placeholder website. It seems hard to believe that such a company will be needing most of OmegA's capacity to get an 8 tonne bird to geo (or swarm of them?)
The intermediate version of OmegA is 4.9 to 10.1 tonnes to GTO. I can't find an easy source but i believe this 1st customer launch is a GTO flight and not direct to GEO also. https://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/MediaKits/OmegARocket/pdf/OmegA_Factsheet.pdf
-
As for their launch customer all I could find was a 1 page placeholder website. It seems hard to believe that such a company will be needing most of OmegA's capacity to get an 8 tonne bird to geo (or swarm of them?)
The intermediate version of OmegA is 4.9 to 10.1 tonnes to GTO. I can't find an easy source but i believe this 1st customer launch is a GTO flight and not direct to GEO also. https://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/MediaKits/OmegARocket/pdf/OmegA_Factsheet.pdf
That would be the usual choice for comm sats.
Obvious question is how close is the design to any existing rocket whether Bayesian statistics apply. My instinct is not, so it's got a 50/50 of taking off without a hitch.
Of course if you ditch the liquid stage you've got a bang up ICBM for multiple warhead delivery, with the issue no US silo could hold it.
-
Until I checked this thread I had thought OmegA was as much a paper rocket as Liberty had been.
Don't worry, you're not unique. A lot of really smart people have failed to foresee OATK/NGIS's business choices here.
Case in point:
Or lease usage of KSC, as NASA says they want multi users there anyway? Infrastructure for handling large solids is already there, so that seems like it'd be the more likely choice. Does DoD require on-pad changeout? How would that be accomodated on a MLP at 39B if so? Or can it roll back to the VAB and still conform to DoD requirements?
Not really, the infrastructure is for handling shuttle SRM's and not just any old SRM. There are no advantages to use it. The motor can go straight from the factory to the pad.
Just forget about any commercial customer using an MLP or the VAB [emphasis mine]
Anyway;
I agree that the LO2/LH2 US is probably the weak spot given NGL's history. OTOH keeping all major subsystems in house has been demonstrated as the way to control costs if you can.
It's been pointed out that the USG only really wants a main launch contractor and a spare in NSS terms NGL are pretty late to the party. ULA is clearly the first entrant in that list and SX look strong as the second.
It would be quite an upset, but I wouldn't count NGIS out. They have a decently strong proposal, and the experience to back it up.
I note NGL's only list capability to GTO or GEO and it's still about a third what an FH can supply. That suggests a ceiling price of about $91m but of course NSS is notorious for needing "extras" of various kind.
As for their launch customer all I could find was a 1 page placeholder website. It seems hard to believe that such a company will be needing most of OmegA's capacity to get an 8 tonne bird to geo (or swarm of them?)
They almost certainly got a substantial discount on the launch.
BTW does anyone know if NGL will throw in free ride softening hardware? These systems were developed to stop USAF satellites being launched on repurposed ICBM's from being shaken to bits due to the high vibration levels of solids.
AFAIK this level is due to the combustion process itself. It cannot be removed by reformulating the propellant.
Supposedly OmegA's not actually that much of a rougher ride than other EELVs. Wish I could find the figures behind that...
-
I’ve arrived at NGC for the OmegA CBS-300 2nd stage test today.
-
Here’s the CBS-300 on the test stand. A bunch of dummy segments are in front so the short CBS-300 will fit on the test stand.
-
T-8 min and counting!
-
Looked like a very "nominal" static test on the video feed. Thrust vectoring was visible, burn time was about what was expected for a cold motor. No visible RUDs. ;D
-
As per Charlie Precourt everything looks good sor far with an initial very preliminary look. No “observations” mentioned so far
-
Have video of the test from 2 different cameras, will process later. Here’s a shot taken during the firing itself.
-
Article from Justin Davenport at the test for NSF:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/02/ng-omega-2nd-stage-tested-ngc-promontory/
And his epic video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjNf73yzhnU
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1233213161882497024
-
Northrop Grumman Successfully Completes Second Stage Test for OmegA™ Rocket
OmegA on track to support certification launch in 2021
February 27, 2020
PROMONTORY, Utah – Feb. 27, 2020 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) successfully conducted a full-scale static fire test of the second stage of its OmegA rocket today in Promontory, Utah. Developed to support the U.S. Space Force’s National Security Space Launch program, the OmegA Launch System remains on track for its first certification flight in spring 2021.
Northrop Grumman Successfully Completes Second Stage Test for OmegATM Rocket
During today’s test, the second stage motor fired for full-duration, approximately 140 seconds, burning nearly 340,000 pounds of solid propellant to produce upwards of 785,000 pounds of thrust. The test verified the motor’s ballistics and thermal performance as well as steering control and performance in a cold-conditioned environment. The test team collected more than 500 channels of data to aid in verifying the motor.
“Northrop Grumman designed OmegA to use the most reliable propulsion available to ensure exceptional mission assurance for our customers,” said Charlie Precourt, vice president, propulsion systems, Northrop Grumman. “Today’s firing is a significant accomplishment that demonstrates a domestic solution for the RD-180 rocket engine replacement.”
In October 2018, the U.S. Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $792 million Launch Services Agreement to complete detailed design and verification of the OmegA space launch vehicle and launch sites. Today’s cold test, in conjunction with the successful hot static fire in May 2019, subjected OmegA’s motors to the most extreme propellant temperatures the rocket will experience during storage, transport, stacking and launch.
Northrop Grumman has leveraged its flight proven technologies and extensive experience launching critical payloads in the development of the OmegA launch system. The rocket was designed to accommodate national security payloads while also serving the civil and commercial markets.
In preparation for OmegA’s inaugural flight, Northrop Grumman now occupies High Bay 2 as the first commercial tenant in NASA’s historic Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center. Construction crews are currently modifying Mobile Launch Platform-3 to serve as OmegA’s assembly and launch platform at Pad 39B.
-
OmegA Rocket Second Stage Motor Test Fire
We successfully test fired the #OmegArocket second stage motor Feb. 27, keeping it on track for first launch in 2021. www.northropgrumman.com/omega
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIqrsN5aRg
-
That motor looked far too long to be the 2nd stage. Or was most of it just empty to take up the "normal SRB length" for the test stand?
-
That motor looked far too long to be the 2nd stage. Or was most of it just empty to take up the "normal SRB length" for the test stand?
Here’s the CBS-300 on the test stand. A bunch of dummy segments are in front so the short CBS-300 will fit on the test stand.
-
Interesting that NG did not test with the full nozzle this time.
- Ed Kyle
-
Interesting that NG did not test with the full nozzle this time.
- Ed Kyle
That was always the plan, nothing to do with the C600 test outcome. C300 has a high expansion nozzle designed for high altitude operation. That's one advantage to a two-stage boost through the atmosphere, can optimize expansion ratio for both sea level and altitude pressures for better average Isp than with a single boost stage alone. There isn't a vacuum chamber test stand large enough to accommodate this motor, so its nozzle was going to have to be truncated to properly function at ambient pressures... to avoid the sort of thing "observed" on C600 (to paraphrase Rommel). It did look pretty funny with that stubby nozzle poking out, though.
-
A possibly stupid question--why have the solids horizontal, when that will leave a puddle of combustion products on the bottom of the casing? Why not test as you fly, not with a lake of molten aluminum?
-
A possibly stupid question--why have the solids horizontal, when that will leave a puddle of combustion products on the bottom of the casing? Why not test as you fly, not with a lake of molten aluminum?
Cost.
-
A possibly stupid question--why have the solids horizontal, when that will leave a puddle of combustion products on the bottom of the casing? Why not test as you fly, not with a lake of molten aluminum?
Vertical also isn't how it would fly, as it's not the first stage. To test as they'd fly they would need low atmospheric pressure and some sort of flight stand that can allow it to pitch over.
-
A possibly stupid question--why have the solids horizontal, when that will leave a puddle of combustion products on the bottom of the casing? Why not test as you fly, not with a lake of molten aluminum?
Vertical also isn't how it would fly, as it's not the first stage. To test as they'd fly they would need low atmospheric pressure and some sort of flight stand that can allow it to pitch over.
No. Though it's true that the stage will fly pitched over relative to the Earth's surface, the stage can't tell that. What matters to the stage is where the acceleration is. When lying on the ground, the acceleration is from the side. When standing up or when flying (pitched over relative to the Earth's surface or not), all the acceleration is along the axis. That's why a vertical test is closer to real flight conditions. Closer, but not the same, obviously, because it will still be very different in significant ways, including pressure, amount of acceleration, and how that acceleration is transferred to the vehicle.
-
A possibly stupid question--why have the solids horizontal, when that will leave a puddle of combustion products on the bottom of the casing? Why not test as you fly, not with a lake of molten aluminum?
The environment in the motor is so energetic that gravity is basically irrelevant. There is no puddle of aluminum, everything is vaporized and blasted out the nozzle.
-
NG have been posting regular brief videos related to OmegA
https://youtu.be/BdIU0sCnWVI
https://youtu.be/S9zPxlPXDZI
https://youtu.be/DE0ioxfXDPU
https://youtu.be/hKwKC1jsXQs
https://youtu.be/HnMQSnAoeTA
-
View of the MLP conversion
-
https://youtu.be/otRrl7udzDs
-
https://youtu.be/9yt6Cg0h7SE
-
These videos are neat. Wish they were a few minutes longer
-
View of the MLP conversion
Update for today
-
Video of train carrying 2 inert OmegA core stage segments and 10 fueled flight ready SLS booster segments. The OmegA segments are on the 2 "red" coloured 12 axle cars at the start and the end of the consist. The other 10 8 axle cars are carrying the SLS segments.
Tells you how much heavier the OmegA segments are compared to the 5 segment SLS SRM segments.
https://youtu.be/fcxEpUNRfys
-
Why are there boxcars between the solid segment cars?
-
Somehow, I don't thing you want to concentrate flammables too much, and it must spread the mass out too.
-
Why are there boxcars between the solid segment cars?
They are spacer ballast cars. That is their sole purpose and all cars of this consist are permanently assigned to these transport sorties.
-
Pause the frames & note the instructions on each SRB containing Boxcar.
"DO NOT HUMP" is a command that tells railroad employees in a freight yard not to send
a freight car so labeled over a railroad hill called a "hump," a man-made structure for sorting freight cars by gravity. During this sorting process, called "humping," an individual car rolls down the hump (hill) onto a destination-specific yard track until it collides with (couples to) cars already sitting on the track. The impact of this coupling is too strenuous for certain types of loads and for some types of freight cars.
I sincerely appreciate the sense of irony that railway professionals must have to use this term for gravitationally challenged loads. Way too strenuous indeed!
Captures my feelings regarding SRB's perfectly, but I sincerely wish NGIS good luck with OmegA. Lols! Taking one for the team I guess.
-
Why are there boxcars between the solid segment cars?
May be to reduce loads on some bridges by spreading out the weight. A guess.
- Ed Kyle
-
Why are there boxcars between the solid segment cars?
May be to reduce loads on some bridges by spreading out the weight. A guess.
- Ed Kyle
That is exactly why.
-
NASA KSC photos taken on June 10th, which show MLP construction
-
Video of train carrying 2 inert OmegA core stage segments and 10 fueled flight ready SLS booster segments. The OmegA segments are on the 2 "red" coloured 12 axle cars at the start and the end of the consist. The other 10 8 axle cars are carrying the SLS segments.
Tells you how much heavier the OmegA segments are compared to the 5 segment SLS SRM segments.
https://youtu.be/fcxEpUNRfys
Are the inert OmegA segments going to Florida for VAB and MLB processing testing? Are they first stage or second stage segments?
Thanks
-
Video of train carrying 2 inert OmegA core stage segments and 10 fueled flight ready SLS booster segments. The OmegA segments are on the 2 "red" coloured 12 axle cars at the start and the end of the consist. The other 10 8 axle cars are carrying the SLS segments.
Tells you how much heavier the OmegA segments are compared to the 5 segment SLS SRM segments.
https://youtu.be/fcxEpUNRfys
Are the inert OmegA segments going to Florida for VAB and MLB processing testing? Are they first stage or second stage segments?
Thanks
Yes. We publicly don't know yet however at least one is the aft segment of the first stage. Simulator pieces like for SLS can provide the rest.
-
Instagram post showing the MLP current condition:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CCN7yhTjQAN/
-
Instagram post showing the MLP current condition:
Just as a refresher for everyone, Ron's excellent pics are of Mobile Launcher-3 (MLP-3) as it was named for Shuttle usage, which was originally named Mobile Launcher-1 (ML-1) for Apollo.
Hopefully we see OmegA launch from its surface when its hard-down on Launch Complex-39B(LC-39B) next year. 2021 is going to be an exciting year for space launch.
-
So OmegA dead or are there other lifelines? I was looking forward to having a neighbor in HB-2.
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1291844256777285632
-
Today's award covers NSSL needs through 2026. NG can realign the OmegA effort to match up with the next phase of the procurement.
-
I don't see any other payloads for OmegA out there, so I suspect we'll see an announcement from NGSS about suspending work on it in the next couple of months, similar to what happened to Liberty after ATK lost commercial crew.
Which is a shame, because I really would've loved to watch an OmegA launch.
-
I think the only thing that can save OmegA is a protest of the contract award. But the chances of winning a protest for OmegA are slim. They've always been considered a long shot. So I doubt NG will file a protest.
I agree with those who have said here that OmegA will likely be shelved. I think it will be announced as a temporary freeze in the program, but it will never come out of that freeze. It might be talked about again for the next round of contracts, but no progress on it will have been made by then and it will be even less competitive, so there will be nothing more than talk.
-
Quoting this post with Northrop Grumman's statement from the NSSL phase 2 thread.
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1291852094119514112
I've reached out to Northrop Grumman and Blue Origin for comment on the NSSL Phase 2 results.
Notably, CEO Bob Smith told me that Blue Origin will absolutely continue to develop New Glenn even if it lost NSSL Phase 2.
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1291853962971361288
Northrop Grumman: "We are disappointed by this decision. We are confident we submitted a strong proposal that reflected our extensive space launch experience and provided value to our customer..." cnbc.com/2020/08/07/spa…
-
So OmegA dead or are there other lifelines? I was looking forward to having a neighbor in HB-2.
...
Very likely dead. They lost award to ULA and SpaceX... extremely unlikely life will get better for them unless ULA fumbles badly. If that happens, they would still likely face Blue. If Blue comes anywhere close to meeting their objectives, OmegA is toast (never mind ULA or SpaceX).
In short, don't think NG has what it takes. They have suckled at the government teat far too long and have no idea what it takes to compete. Let OmegA die a silent death without NG's BS.
-
Yes, solids are heavy, expensive, and expendable. Newer rockets are reusable, and if ULA gets ti act together, can salvage the BE-4 engines by pod/parachute that they were going to do to start with.
-
So OmegA dead or are there other lifelines? I was looking forward to having a neighbor in HB-2.
...
Very likely dead. They lost award to ULA and SpaceX... extremely unlikely life will get better for them unless ULA fumbles badly. If that happens, they would still likely face Blue. If Blue comes anywhere close to meeting their objectives, OmegA is toast (never mind ULA or SpaceX).
In short, don't think NG has what it takes. They have suckled at the government teat far too long and have no idea what it takes to compete. Let OmegA die a silent death without NG's BS.
Well they were still assembling the LUT today. If they don't push onwards it will sit like the Ares-I ML until someone repurpose it. I would imagine that they would complete the flight test they already have motors for at minimum as it provides data for BOLE.
-
So OmegA dead or are there other lifelines? I was looking forward to having a neighbor in HB-2.
...
Very likely dead. They lost award to ULA and SpaceX... extremely unlikely life will get better for them unless ULA fumbles badly. If that happens, they would still likely face Blue. If Blue comes anywhere close to meeting their objectives, OmegA is toast (never mind ULA or SpaceX).
In short, don't think NG has what it takes. They have suckled at the government teat far too long and have no idea what it takes to compete. Let OmegA die a silent death without NG's BS.
Well they were still assembling the LUT today. If they don't push onwards it will sit like the Ares-I ML until someone repurpose it. I would imagine that they would complete the flight test they already have motors for at minimum as it provides data for BOLE.
They got a development contract from the Air Force for phase 1. If there's work on that contract left to do, they'll continue doing that work to the extent it brings in more money than it costs them. They might also wait a couple of weeks until they get the debrief where the Space Force explains why they lost the contract. Then they'll likely pretty quickly conclude they have no basis for a protest and stop any work they're doing on their own dime.
-
The acronym russianhalo117 uses refers to the Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension program.
"The [NG] contract now includes the delivery of six Boosters for Artemis I, Artemis II, and Artemis III; the delivery of one flight test Booster; and funding for the Booster Obsolescence Life Extension to identify any issues with the design and manufacturing of upgraded and more capable boosters for future missions."
That's from the March 10, 2020 report by the NASA Office of Inspector General, "NASA’s Management of Space Launch System Program Costs and Contracts."
The total contract value is reported there as $2,422,194,489.
-
The acronym russianhalo117 uses refers to the Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension program.
"The [NG] contract now includes the delivery of six Boosters for Artemis I, Artemis II, and Artemis III; the delivery of one flight test Booster; and funding for the Booster Obsolescence Life Extension to identify any issues with the design and manufacturing of upgraded and more capable boosters for future missions."
That's from the March 10, 2020 report by the NASA Office of Inspector General, "NASA’s Management of Space Launch System Program Costs and Contracts."
The total contract value is reported there as $2,422,194,489.
Sure, but that's SLS, not OmegA. There's an awful lot more expense to an OmegA launch than an SLS booster, and there's not a lot of data you'd get from flying an OmegA that's applicable to SLS that you wouldn't already have from ground testing the SLS boosters and the legacy flight data from the shuttle days. Not enough that you'd want to go to the expense of flying OmegA just to get booster data for SLS. Otherwise, it would be part of the SLS program, which it's not.
-
Don't forget that BOLE uses five short segments and Omega Heavy uses four long segments, requiring different tooling for each booster. I guess someone figured that using the same segments for BOLE and Omega would make too much sense!
-
They got a development contract from the Air Force for phase 1. If there's work on that contract left to do, they'll continue doing that work to the extent it brings in more money than it costs them. They might also wait a couple of weeks until they get the debrief where the Space Force explains why they lost the contract. Then they'll likely pretty quickly conclude they have no basis for a protest and stop any work they're doing on their own dime.
One of the biggest gripes that Blue origin kept bringing up was the fact that the Air Force stated that they would terminate development awards to any company that didnt get a Phase 2 Contract. So they could have already, in theory, turned off all funding to New Glenn and OmegA.
Per the rules set by the Air Force, all three winners of LSA awards are required to compete in Phase 2, and the losers will have what remains of their LSA funding terminated.
https://spacenews.com/crunch-time-rocket-companies-in-all-out-battle-for-air-force-award/
-
I keep seeing people (mostly in other threads for some reason), saying that if Northrop Grumman could just get X contract, they will enough flights to justify continuing work on OmegA.
To quote this spaceflightnow article from back in 2018, " "Right now, we’re planning on about three to four missions per year to close our business case," " https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/12/orbital-atk-confident-new-rocket-will-win-air-force-support/
I don't know of any information since then that has provided a specific number of launches they think they need, so I will assume OmegA needs 3 launches a year to be viable. Now let's see if we can come up with a way to do that.
If we assume that the National Team lander transfer element can be launched to the gateway orbit by the OmegA Heavy and that NASA doesn't down select away from the National Team. That's another flight every other year, but it could be 1 flight a year if we assume that congress forces NASA to downselect to one lander.
And if we also assume that OmegA Heavy existing is reason enough for NASA to reopen GLS bidding and that OmegA Heavy with Cygnus would win that bid, then we get another flight every other year, for 1.5 flights a year in total so far. (and we'll just conveniently ignore that these flights wouldn't even start until mid-2023 / assume that NGSS doesn't need 3 flights in 2022 and 2023 to close the business case.)
But we still need more launches. To get them, we'll move all Cygnus flights to OmegA. We'll ignore all the time's personnel from NGSS (or what is now NGSS) have said that they have no intention of canceling Antares, and all the optimizations for Cygnus missions the Antares has that OmegA doesn't (ex. Late Load Capability), and just assume that everyone is ok with that. Also, we'll ignore that Dreamchaser is being on-ramped into commercial resupply and just assume that NASA will ask for just as many Cygnus flights a year until the ISS is decommissioned, and then we'll assume that after the ISS is decommissioned, commercial stations will pick up the slack by deciding to use Cygnus for resupply. That's 2 more flights per year.
Our total is now 3.5 flights per year. We did it, and all it took was 7-ish major assumptions!
Is it possible that OmegA still flys? Sure. But from a business perspective, continuing it now is at best a bad gamble.
-
1000% agree with JEF_300 that if the business case for OmegA needed to "stand on its own" it would be a non-starter. For clarity some suggestions being made (mostly elsewhere) are that the OmegA business case need not stand on its own; NG has other businesses with synergistic connections to OmegA.
-
1000% agree with JEF_300 that if the business case for OmegA needed to "stand on its own" it would be a non-starter. For clarity some suggestions being made (mostly elsewhere) are that the OmegA business case need not stand on its own; NG has other businesses with synergistic connections to OmegA.
To address this in case someone wants to make that argument, I've always assumed that the helpful synergies OmegA has with other NG programs were considered when coming to the '3-4 launches per year' number in the first place. I don't see why that wouldn't be something they would consider when trying to figure out what was needed to, to quote that article again, "close our business case,".
-
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1295826841853403139
Hearing that Northrop Grumman will cancel the Omega rocket after it failed to win the recent Air Force contest.
-
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1295826841853403139
Hearing that Northrop Grumman will cancel the Omega rocket after it failed to win the recent Air Force contest.
Does anyone have an idea how much they had invested into VAB High Bay and MLP modifications prior to this point??
-
Bit more context to Eric’s tweet a couple of days ago:
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1296462155559186436
Two days ago @northropgrumman informed its employees it was not moving forward with the Omega rocket, but there has still been no public announcement.
-
Bit more context to Eric’s tweet a couple of days ago:
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1296462155559186436
Two days ago @northropgrumman informed its employees it was not moving forward with the Omega rocket, but there has still been no public announcement.
I wonder if they're keeping the cancellation under warps because they don't want SpaceX to use this as evidence in their lawsuit...
-
Thinking back on it, all in hindsight, perhaps OSC/ATK/NG's misstep was made in 2007, when it made its Taurus 2 (Antares) decision. A forward-looking plan would have designed a core booster set up from the outset to be bid later for EELV-2, maybe leaving only a higher energy upper stage to develop when the time came. OSC did not, or could not, spend the bucks to develop the propulsion it really would have needed, choosing instead AJ-26/NK33, then when that failed having to revert to RD-181 which could not be bid, and finally having to start over altogether with Common Booster Segment.
- Ed Kyle
I'd say it's hard to call that a misstep when, near as I can tell, they barely managed to get the money to put Antares on a pad in the first place, essentially relying on NASA to bankroll them.
Then of course there's always the question of whether or not Orbital Sciences would have even considered an all liquid rocket at all. Their specialty was very much in dealing with solids, and that only became more true when they merged with ATK.
-
Thinking back on it, all in hindsight, perhaps OSC/ATK/NG's misstep was made in 2007...
In which case it wasn't Northrop Grumman's fault. They bought Orbital ATK for many reasons, and OmegA was just one of many products that came along with the purchase. I would suspect that they didn't see a lot of potential in it, but they let the management on it take it as far as they could.
...OSC did not, or could not, spend the bucks to develop the propulsion it really would have needed, choosing instead AJ-26/NK33, then when that failed having to revert to RD-181 which could not be bid, and finally having to start over altogether with Common Booster Segment.
OmegA was a solid propellant, disposable rocket in a liquid propellant, reusable rocket world.
The market changed, and OmegA was the wrong product for the new market. Pretty simple.
-
OmegA was a solid propellant, disposable rocket in a liquid propellant, reusable rocket world.
The market changed, and OmegA was the wrong product for the new market. Pretty simple.
Only one company on the planet right now is partially reusing its rockets. All of the other launch companies around the world are using expendable rockets and some are even developing new expendables. One of those just won NSSL Phase 2 with a brand new expendable design. Vulcan was no more the "wrong product" than Omega, it was just a better overall program proposal.
- Ed Kyle
Vulcan at least has a potential upgrade path for certain amounts of reusability (engines and upper stage in-space use.)
Every company that is paying attention and reasonably forward looking is starting on reuse. Those that aren't have been trapped by bad timing, slow reactions, or past decisions. OmegA uses solid rocket stages which are one technology that through past experience excludes economic reuse. With that architecture decision, it was a technological dead end.
This might not be directly a factor in the recent contract, but it has a lot to do with the rocket's overall viability, and ability to get any real launches outside of NSSL.
-
RD-180 could not be bid but why not RD-181?
-
Then of course there's always the question of whether or not Orbital Sciences would have even considered an all liquid rocket at all. Their specialty was very much in dealing with solids, and that only became more true when they merged with ATK.
Yes, an all-liquid Taurus-2/Antares was studied. RL10 was in the trade space. So was a PWR methane engine and a Russian kerosene engine. Castor 30 was picked to keep program costs low for the low-launch-rate COTS/Commercial Cargo program. An "Enhanced" second stage upgrade was initially promoted as a future upgrade from that choice.
- Ed Kyle
I didn't know that. Cool!
If they had developed an enhanced upper stage, then re-engine-ing the first stage and adding some strap-ons would've allowed them to compete for the intermediate NSSL launches. If they'd gone with the PWR methane engine (was it the RS-18?), then Raptor (which happens to have about the same thrust as an RD-181) would have been a very natural choice.
Still doesn't explain how they'd cover the heavy missions, but an interesting thought none the less. A thread about a theoretical Antares bid for NSSL would be fun, though I'm not sure whether that should go here or on AlternateHisotry.com.
-
RD-180 could not be bid but why not RD-181?
It's also a Russian engine
-
RD-180 could not be bid but why not RD-181?
It's also a Russian engine
True, but not banned. So worry was the reason for not bidding?
-
OmegA was a solid propellant, disposable rocket in a liquid propellant, reusable rocket world.
The market changed, and OmegA was the wrong product for the new market. Pretty simple.
Only one company on the planet right now is partially reusing its rockets. All of the other launch companies around the world are using expendable rockets and some are even developing new expendables. One of those just won NSSL Phase 2 with a brand new expendable design.
Using an engine that IS reusable. Oh, and ULA says that Vulcan will also be partially reusable.
Vulcan was no more the "wrong product" than Omega, it was just a better overall program proposal.
OmegA didn't offer anything better than Vulcan, and ULA had a built in advantage since they already have the launch facilities, the special payload handling infrastructure, and the personnel with knowledge about how U.S. Government payloads need to be processed.
The advantage that OmegA had is that it leveraged existing manufacturing capabilities for SLS SRBs, assuming SLS becomes operational. But that is a Northrop Grumman advantage, not a customer advantage, so OmegA had too many negatives (SRB vibration for one) and nothing that gave it an advantage.
-
RD-180 could not be bid but why not RD-181?
It's also a Russian engine
True, but not banned. So worry was the reason for not bidding?
Russian engines couldn't be bid for NSSL Phase 2
-
Then of course there's always the question of whether or not Orbital Sciences would have even considered an all liquid rocket at all. Their specialty was very much in dealing with solids, and that only became more true when they merged with ATK.
Yes, an all-liquid Taurus-2/Antares was studied. RL10 was in the trade space. So was a PWR methane engine and a Russian kerosene engine. Castor 30 was picked to keep program costs low for the low-launch-rate COTS/Commercial Cargo program. An "Enhanced" liquid second stage upgrade was initially promoted as a future upgrade from that choice.
- Ed Kyle
Ban on Russians would've killed any ideas of upgrading.
Now if they could've upgraded there are few option, sticking with RD181 booster and RL10 then add solids. For high performance missions use larger solids from SLS or Omega. This would be more like Antares than Atlas with strap ons.
-
If someone paid for the AR-1, then there would be a good first stage engine for someone to use. It could be a drop in replacement for the RD-181. Big IF. No one but SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing engines mostly on their own dime. Too bad. Aerojet can't do it alone. Boeing, NG, and Lockheed should pool their money to develop some new engines that could be shared, like the AR-1 and RL-60. And design them to have as many parts made with 3D printing to keep costs down, and design them to be reusable.
-
If someone paid for the AR-1, then there would be a good first stage engine for someone to use. It could be a drop in replacement for the RD-181. Big IF. No one but SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing engines mostly on their own dime. Too bad. Aerojet can't do it alone. Boeing, NG, and Lockheed should pool their money to develop some new engines that could be shared, like the AR-1 and RL-60. And design them to have as many parts made with 3D printing to keep costs down, and design them to be reusable.
Firefly is partnering with Aerojet Rocketdyne to develop the AR-1 for its Beta rocket.
-
If someone paid for the AR-1, then there would be a good first stage engine for someone to use. It could be a drop in replacement for the RD-181. Big IF. No one but SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing engines mostly on their own dime. Too bad. Aerojet can't do it alone. Boeing, NG, and Lockheed should pool their money to develop some new engines that could be shared, like the AR-1 and RL-60. And design them to have as many parts made with 3D printing to keep costs down, and design them to be reusable.
Firefly is partnering with Aerojet Rocketdyne to develop the AR-1 for its Beta rocket.
This is big maybe.
-
If someone paid for the AR-1, then there would be a good first stage engine for someone to use. It could be a drop in replacement for the RD-181. Big IF. No one but SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing engines mostly on their own dime. Too bad. Aerojet can't do it alone. Boeing, NG, and Lockheed should pool their money to develop some new engines that could be shared, like the AR-1 and RL-60. And design them to have as many parts made with 3D printing to keep costs down, and design them to be reusable.
Firefly is partnering with Aerojet Rocketdyne to develop the AR-1 for its Beta rocket.
This is big maybe.
Just to add to this; we heard on one or two occasions coming up on a year ago now that they were going to use the AR1, but there has been nothing about that since. So who knows what's happening.
-
Thinking back on it, all in hindsight, perhaps OSC/ATK/NG's misstep was made in 2007, when it made its Taurus 2 (Antares) decision. A forward-looking plan would have designed a core booster set up from the outset to be bid later for EELV-2, maybe leaving only a higher energy upper stage to develop when the time came. OSC did not, or could not, spend the bucks to develop the propulsion it really would have needed, choosing instead AJ-26/NK33, then when that failed having to revert to RD-181 which could not be bid, and finally having to start over altogether with Common Booster Segment.
I don't think Orbital sees it as a misstep, it basically their MO to pick whatever parts available from the catalog, slap together a LV that meets customer requirements with minimal amount of investment. The lack of long term vision is not a bug for them, it's a feature, since they don't see a bright future for launch, not in the US anyway (I'm pretty sure the boss of Orbital said we should outsource all launches to India or something like that).
Omega is a continuation of this MO, instead of picking parts from Russian/Ukrainian catalog, it merely changed to pick parts from SLS catalog. And it is designed to fly very few launches per year, just enough to survive on AF contracts alone. The entire thing is the antithesis of long term vision.
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
-
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
They probably consider GBSD a bigger deal than space superiority. To that end, advancing solids could be worth the $491 million spent - about 1 and a half F-22s. At least they got real data from full duration static fires of Castor-300/600 composite solids.
-
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
They probably consider GBSD a bigger deal than space superiority. To that end, advancing solids could be worth the $491 million spent - about 1 and a half F-22s. At least they got real data from full duration static fires of Castor-300/600 composite solids.
If they wanted to fund solids for missiles, they should have been buying missiles. It's a more efficient use of resources because then 100% of the dollars spent go toward what they want.
-
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
They probably consider GBSD a bigger deal than space superiority. To that end, advancing solids could be worth the $491 million spent - about 1 and a half F-22s. At least they got real data from full duration static fires of Castor-300/600 composite solids.
If they wanted to fund solids for missiles, they should have been buying missiles. It's a more efficient use of resources because then 100% of the dollars spent go toward what they want.
Going back in air force history, there wasn't much of a distinction between the two (launch vehicles and missiles) going back to the SM-65 Atlas ICBM that was used for launching orbital payloads after being phased out for the solid fuel based minuteman line.
-
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
They probably consider GBSD a bigger deal than space superiority. To that end, advancing solids could be worth the $491 million spent - about 1 and a half F-22s. At least they got real data from full duration static fires of Castor-300/600 composite solids.
Well if that is their thought process, then it's another reason to separate Space Force procurement from Air Force.
-
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
You people call yourself 'space fans,' but you are so incredibly dismissive of anything that isn't you-know-what. You can't even help yourself from dancing on other project's graves. It honestly makes me sick.
OmegA was an honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs. Unfortunately, it appears to not have been flexible enough outside this niche, but it still developed new technologies and infrastructure that will be useful in future projects.
-
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
You people call yourself 'space fans,' but you are so incredibly dismissive of anything that isn't you-know-what. You can't even help yourself from dancing on other project's graves. It honestly makes me sick.
OmegA was an honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs. Unfortunately, it appears to not have been flexible enough outside this niche, but it still developed new technologies and infrastructure that will be useful in future projects.
1. Actually I'm not dancing on this project's graves, I'm saying this project shouldn't be funded in the first place, in which case it wouldn't exist and there would be no grave to dance on
2. The fact that Omega is in the grave is 100% the result of Northrop Grumman's decision to shut it down, nobody forced them to do this, there's no external factor making it impossible to go on, they didn't have to do this. So I don't see why I should be sad about it, if NG doesn't value their own LV, why should I?
3. The other loser in the competition, Blue Origin, is still going forward with their LV, they can do this because they believe their LV is competitive enough that it can get enough commercial launches. The fact NG didn't feel their LV is competitive in the commercial market makes your claim that this is an "honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs" invalid, if they're building an affordable LV, they wouldn't need to cancel it since it would be able to survive on commercial launches.
4. If NG is not building a commercially viable LV, then they're violating the intent - if not the letter - of the LSA, which is to fund LVs that can find non-AF launches so that AF wouldn't need to shoulder all the fixed cost, it's not supposed to be a niche LV. This is another reason this project shouldn't be funded in the first place.
5. And what new technologies? Another wind turbine stabilizer? Omega would only be useful for one project: SLS, and this is why you're supporting it. You're not a neutral observer in this case, you yourself has advocated moving lunar lander launches from commercial LV to SLS, so don't tell me how I'm dismissive of other people's projects.
6. Finally, I have been saying large segmented solid is obsolete for years, this has nothing to do with my liking of SpaceX. This thing is entirely an accident of history, if Shuttle funding hasn't be cut to the bones, it wouldn't even exist. NASA already learned the hard way that using single stick large segmented solid as LV is a bad idea, AF should know better, it's time to shutdown this zombie once and for all.
-
3. The other loser in the competition, Blue Origin, is still going forward with their LV, they can do this because they believe their LV is competitive enough that it can get enough commercial launches.
BO are able to go forward because they're being personally bankrolled by the single wealthiest human being on the planet.
-
You people call yourself 'space fans,' but you are so incredibly dismissive of anything that isn't you-know-what. You can't even help yourself from dancing on other project's graves. It honestly makes me sick.
OmegA was an honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs. Unfortunately, it appears to not have been flexible enough outside this niche, but it still developed new technologies and infrastructure that will be useful in future projects.
This is a classic "no true Scotsman" fallacy/insult. You are asserting that for someone to be a real space fan they had to support OmegA and be sad that it is dead. (and please don't bother arguing that your condition was slightly different, there is no perspective or alternate meaning that would cause your words to not be an example on no true Scotsman.)
As a fallacy, no further response should be required, but for completeness, I am going to explain why there are in fact good reasons that a space fan would not be supportive of OmegA, or even glad that it is cancelled.* A common reason for someone to be a space fan, is new developments, exploration, and the general excitement or adventure that space brings. OmegA, however, does none of this, it is a rework of old technology that does not bring anything new or better than what already exists. It has already been demonstrated that advancements like economic reuse is not compatible with the core technology (solids.) You talk about advancements from it, but modest improvements to a dead end technology are still a dead end technology. You talk about other uses for the technology developed, but big solids have demonstrated being unhelpful for space flight. They have military uses, but that isn't something a space fan would necessarily support. Of course OmegA has a relationship to SLS, but I have explained elsewhere in detail how SLS is actively harmful to spaceflight (in particular the motivations I described here) and I still have yet to see a single counterargument to any of my points on that.
Having one less old, dead end tech rocket to distract from exciting advancements taking place elsewhere in the industry seem like something a space fan could reasonably be happy about, given the reasons for being a space fan that I listed.
*Note, that I am giving reasons why someone could have this opinion and there motivations, I am not stating that all space fans must have these exact motivations or opinions, this is being inclusive, not exclusive as you were in your no true Scotsman argument.
-
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
You people call yourself 'space fans,' but you are so incredibly dismissive of anything that isn't you-know-what. You can't even help yourself from dancing on other project's graves. It honestly makes me sick.
OmegA was an honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs. Unfortunately, it appears to not have been flexible enough outside this niche, but it still developed new technologies and infrastructure that will be useful in future projects.
Years ago, when the Constellation program and all the Direct talk. I thought the best way forward was to develop the Atlas V Phase II. This was a 5.5m diameter twin RD-180 engine rocket. A single core could have launched Orion with a J2X 5.5m upper stage. It would have matched Orion spacecraft perfectly. Then a 3 core heavy version could have launched over 70 tons to LEO. The original tonnage of Constellation and later SLS. Then a 5 core version could have matched the 130 ton payload. Atlas V phase II would have been very easy to develop as they already had Atlas V with the RD-180. Larger diameter and 2 engines wouldn't have been a problem. They were already developing a 5.5m J2X upper stage for the "stick", but it would have worked better on the lighter Atlas V phase II.
All this said is not against you in any way. Liquids for NASA just make more sense. Solids vibrate too much, and are too heavy. Great for the military, but for a realistic launcher like OmegA not so much, neither are solids for SLS. SLS technology goes back to the 1970's and is obsolete in today's world. So is OmegA, even their board of directors see this.
-
All this said is not against you in any way. Liquids for NASA just make more sense. Solids vibrate too much, and are too heavy. Great for the military, but for a realistic launcher like OmegA not so much, neither are solids for SLS. SLS technology goes back to the 1970's and is obsolete in today's world. So is OmegA, even their board of directors see this.
Good points, but let's not forget the business case for OmegA. It was to leverage NG (Orbital ATK) existing solid rocket business into a orbital launch system. If your company is already making solids for the military and SLS it's an economical route to make a new rocket.
-
All this said is not against you in any way. Liquids for NASA just make more sense. Solids vibrate too much, and are too heavy. Great for the military, but for a realistic launcher like OmegA not so much, neither are solids for SLS. SLS technology goes back to the 1970's and is obsolete in today's world. So is OmegA, even their board of directors see this.
Good points, but let's not forget the business case for OmegA. It was to leverage NG (Orbital ATK) existing solid rocket business into a orbital launch system. If your company is already making solids for the military and SLS it's an economical route to make a new rocket.
Yes it would be good leverage. But SLS is only going to launch once per year. OmegA would have to launch more to be cost effective. OmegA might have a hard time getting commercial launches due to vibration and cost vs F9/FH and New Glenn, and even Vulcan. It would also have to compete against it's own Antares rocket which is fairly cheap, except for heavy launches. Then you have strap on solids to add to the cost.
-
Solids are not obsolete. SLS will use them, Vulcan will use them, Ariene 6 will use them and I'm sure I'm missing another. Thats a use case for the next 20-30 years that is not tied to the military.
-
Solids are not obsolete. SLS will use them, Vulcan will use them, Ariene 6 will use them and I'm sure I'm missing another. Thats a use case for the next 20-30 years that is not tied to the military.
I believe the 'other' is the Japanese H3. Also, another Japanese company, Space One, is using solids for a smallsat launcher.
-
Solids are not obsolete. SLS will use them, Vulcan will use them, Ariene 6 will use them and I'm sure I'm missing another. Thats a use case for the next 20-30 years that is not tied to the military.
I believe the 'other' is the Japanese H3. Also, another Japanese company, Space One, is using solids for a smallsat launcher.
Vega,Epsilon, GSLV, PSLV, SSLV, Antares is still going to fly deep into the 2020s, Minotaur IV, LM-11...
did I miss any?
Maybe in an airplane like rocket world this wouldn't exist, but on the other hand various military airplanes use solid rocket motors for extra cargo capability...so...
-
Solids are not obsolete. SLS will use them, Vulcan will use them, Ariene 6 will use them and I'm sure I'm missing another. Thats a use case for the next 20-30 years that is not tied to the military.
The SLS is obsolete, it uses old tech in a worse way than it's original use. Those other mentions are small boosters, not large ones, significant difference, and your claim of 20-30 years is a baseless assertion. Ariane has already started looking towards an actual next gen rocket with reuse.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-reusable-falcon-rockets-europe-response/amp/
Vulcan potentially can do some reuse, but the architecture they have with solid boosters prevents them from effectively using the proven reuse techniques.
-
I think the real key to making a modern, profitable solid launch vehicle would be economies of scale. If you set up a production line to produce a thousand solid motors (as happens when the government orders a new missile), they can become relatively inexpensive, and their simplicity (at least when compared to liquid rockets), begins to shine through.
So for example, a solid smallsat launcher being used to launch an entire smallsat mega constellation might manage to be competitively priced. Not that I expect to see that even attempted.
-
Honestly, re-use of solid rocket boosters has barely been tried and only on large segmented steal cases. Various factors in that case complicated the re-use including not being able to catch it by boat/helicopter (due to size), having to tow it to shore rather than on board, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWR_MHkuBMU
Honestly, recovery of small modern composite SRBs wouldn't be that different than composite payload fairing recovery.
-
I think the real key to making a modern, profitable solid launch vehicle would be economies of scale. If you set up a production line to produce a thousand solid motors (as happens when the government orders a new missile), they can become relatively inexpensive, and their simplicity (at least when compared to liquid rockets), begins to shine through.
So for example, a solid smallsat launcher being used to launch an entire smallsat mega constellation might manage to be competitively priced. Not that I expect to see that even attempted.
If the USAF/USSF were to build a smallsat mega constellation for some purpose, (I seem to remember this being discussed a few years back) they could do as you say without even incurring any significant development costs:
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-ending-ban-on-retired-icbms-would-allow-u-s-companies-to-reclaim-small-satellite-launch-market/
-
Omega wasn't total waste of time, hydrolox US systems will most likely be used on Transfer Element and castor 300 segments on SLS and maybe their ballistic missiles.
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-weighing-exit-options-for-omega-rocket/
"Northrop Grumman’s biggest contract for solid rocket motors will be for the Air Force’s Ground Base Strategic Deterrent, a new intercontinental ballistic missile. The Air Force plans to award the GBSD contract this fall."
-
...
Would have been the biggest composite case motors, I think. More than 2 Mlbf liftoff thrust on a single motor. Old tech not. But apparently gone now regardless. SLS on borrowed time too it seems. In the old days Air Force made up its mind about launch technology and NASA followed.
- Ed Kyle
Now Elon makes up his mind, and NASA and then the Air Force follow, or so it seems... </snark>
More seriously, this may be an opportunity for NG to focus its ongoing investment on orbital (and beyond) projects. MEV is well positioned and seems well received. This, a presence within NASA's lunar projects, and a portfolio of kick stages are a good start. They can still play the boost-phase solids for all they are worth, without taking on a heavy lifter project. Solids are an inherently lower value-add technology in the long run, and the parent company's strength (in its military portfolio) is on high technology value-adds. Putting focus on LEO and beyond propulsion and payloads is a better strategic fit.
JMHO, of course.
-
Solids vibrate too much, and are too heavy.
Castor 600 and 300 were shorter than five-segment SRB. Vibration not an issue.
As for "too heavy", you might be surprised to discover which weighs or would have weighed more at liftoff when comparing basic Omega with Falcon 9 v1.2. Substantial difference actually.
Would have been the biggest composite case motors, I think. More than 2 Mlbf liftoff thrust on a single motor. Old tech not. But apparently gone now regardless. SLS on borrowed time too it seems. In the old days Air Force made up its mind about launch technology and NASA followed.
- Ed Kyle
Mass (weight if you prefer) at launch is hardly the issue.
Mass during transport is a big operational issue.
Old tech yes.
“biggest” doesn’t mean new or advanced. Just bigger.
-
Honestly, recovery of small modern composite SRBs wouldn't be that different than composite payload fairing recovery.
I think there's a big difference. The fairing only has to be able to be strong enough to resist the aerodynamic pressure of launch. That's not too much of a requirement, so the fairing is very low-density.
The casings of SRBs have to be strong enough to contain the high pressure of the combustion going on in the SRB. That means that they have to be a lot denser than a fairing.
-
1. Actually I'm not dancing on this project's graves, I'm saying this project shouldn't be funded in the first place, in which case it wouldn't exist and there would be no grave to dance on.
2. The fact that Omega is in the grave is 100% the result of Northrop Grumman's decision to shut it down, nobody forced them to do this, there's no external factor making it impossible to go on, they didn't have to do this. So I don't see why I should be sad about it, if NG doesn't value their own LV, why should I?
So: "Yes, I am dancing on this project's grave." At least be honest.
3. The other loser in the competition, Blue Origin, is still going forward with their LV, they can do this because they believe their LV is competitive enough that it can get enough commercial launches. The fact NG didn't feel their LV is competitive in the commercial market makes your claim that this is an "honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs" invalid, if they're building an affordable LV, they wouldn't need to cancel it since it would be able to survive on commercial launches.
It's almost like they're different market segments suited for different needs! Turns out that a vehicle optimized for Air Force payloads isn't going to be suited to the types of missions commercial customers may want. This isn't rocket science. Well, it is, but this part is actually just basic business sense.
4. If NG is not building a commercially viable LV, then they're violating the intent - if not the letter - of the LSA, which is to fund LVs that can find non-AF launches so that AF wouldn't need to shoulder all the fixed cost, it's not supposed to be a niche LV. This is another reason this project shouldn't be funded in the first place.
OmegA was part of a competitive bid. They weren't competitive enough, so they lost. If a launch provider can use commercial demand to lower the costs they need to charge the USSF, good for them! But fundamentally all that matters is what proposal with the best value makes it through the NSSL, commercial business on the side, or not.
You're alleging without a shred of evidence that this was some sort of bad-faith attempt to defraud the USSF of taxpayer money. I think that says more about your biases than it does about OmegA.
5. And what new technologies? Another wind turbine stabilizer? Omega would only be useful for one project: SLS, and this is why you're supporting it. You're not a neutral observer in this case, you yourself has advocated moving lunar lander launches from commercial LV to SLS, so don't tell me how I'm dismissive of other people's projects.
Composite SRBs are useful tech. They are advanced tech. They go beyond SLS, and they're useful ways to get lots of thrust that don't involve statistically risky clusters of liquid engines.
How on Earth is cheering for the death of a project at all equivalent to my opinions on HLS?
6. Finally, I have been saying large segmented solid is obsolete for years, this has nothing to do with my liking of SpaceX.
Debatable.
This thing is entirely an accident of history, if Shuttle funding hasn't be cut to the bones, it wouldn't even exist. NASA already learned the hard way that using single stick large segmented solid as LV is a bad idea, AF should know better, it's time to shutdown this zombie once and for all.
Ares I and OmegA were about as similar as Atlas V is to Delta IV. Don't see how that proves anything.
-
The SLS is obsolete, it uses old tech in a worse way than it's original use.
This again?
Those other mentions are small boosters, not large ones, significant difference, and your claim of 20-30 years is a baseless assertion. Ariane has already started looking towards an actual next gen rocket with reuse.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-reusable-falcon-rockets-europe-response/amp/
Yes, let's cite Teslarati as a source. I'm sure Teslarati is an objective outlet with no biases whatsoever. ::)
-
...
This thing is entirely an accident of history, if Shuttle funding hasn't be cut to the bones, it wouldn't even exist. NASA already learned the hard way that using single stick large segmented solid as LV is a bad idea, AF should know better, it's time to shutdown this zombie once and for all.
Ares I and OmegA were about as similar as Atlas V is to Delta IV. Don't see how that proves anything.
Can't speak for anything else here, but "accident of history" probably refers to Shuttle-Saturn, which was the predecessor design to the operational STS with the SRBs.
-
All this said is not against you in any way. Liquids for NASA just make more sense. Solids vibrate too much, and are too heavy. Great for the military, but for a realistic launcher like OmegA not so much, neither are solids for SLS. SLS technology goes back to the 1970's and is obsolete in today's world. So is OmegA, even their board of directors see this.
What exactly is '1970s' about OmegA? I mean, such an intellectually dishonest attack can at least be taken at face value with SLS - disregarding the fact that's equivalent to saying a N700 Shinkansen trainset is '1800s tech' - but OmegA?
Solids "vibrate too much?" Yeah, gonna need a source on that. Ares I had unique harmonic issues. The design of OmegA didn't share them.
For that matter, what does the weight of the vehicle have to do with anything? The first stages are solid. They're boosters. They don't need good Isp, and the effects of dry mass are negligible. The ones that do? Where the dry mass matters? They're liquid.
-
Can't speak for anything else here, but "accident of history" probably refers to Shuttle-Saturn, which was the predecessor design to the operational STS with the SRBs.
Well that would be a very interesting read of Shuttle history, but the idea that Shuttle would've worked economically "if only the OMB didn't cut their funding" seems disturbingly common these days.
It's not-at-all supported by the business case Shuttle was sold on (the Mathematica study), which relied on patently unrealistic assumptions about flight rate and payloads and yet still barely showed an advantage to a fully-reusable STS over a partially-reusable one, but eh. That's off-topic.
-
From what I understand. The composite solids cannot be reused. The steel cased solids can, as in shuttle solids.
I've never understood why the smaller strap on steel solids didn't allow for parachute recovery, like the larger shuttle solids. They are monolithic so no segments. They could have inflatable bladders on the sides to keep them afloat until recovered. Being monolithic they wouldn't have to be taken apart and new seals installed and re-assembled. Seems like it would only require a cleaning and reloading with propellant. They could also be recovered via helicopters.
I guess the amount of thrust for reuse cost just wasn't there.
As far as heavy goes, yes, the segmented solids that are 12' in diameter is the extreme transportation limit of solids unless they are built near the launch site. Even the new strap on composites being built for Vulcan are at the length limit of transportation on a railroad car or via tractor trailer over the interstate.
This is the reason solids are and will become obsolete. Rockets are getting larger and more powerful and reused is in it's infancy. Liquids are lighter before fueling up at the pads, and even large liquids being lighter are easier to transport. How much would a 5m, 7m, or 9m solid weigh? Also, where would it be built? How would it be transported? The weight alone might sink a barge, or only one very large segment at a time could be transported. What about vibration from a very large solid? Could the payload handle it?
NG lost the bid, I think because large solids have reached not only their weight limit with current infrastructure, the vibration issue, and the cost or a non-reusable booster. The ULA bid does allow for the smaller strap on solids, and at least 3- companies are involved with ULA. Solids, BE-4 engine, RL-10 engine, and tankage and avionics (ULA). Air force sees this as making everyone happy, except SpaceX. So SpaceX gets a bid also.
-
1. Actually I'm not dancing on this project's graves, I'm saying this project shouldn't be funded in the first place, in which case it wouldn't exist and there would be no grave to dance on.
2. The fact that Omega is in the grave is 100% the result of Northrop Grumman's decision to shut it down, nobody forced them to do this, there's no external factor making it impossible to go on, they didn't have to do this. So I don't see why I should be sad about it, if NG doesn't value their own LV, why should I?
So: "Yes, I am dancing on this project's grave." At least be honest.
I already stated my position, if you want to dramatize it, at least realize that I was talking about LSA, and Omega got killed after losing LSP, two different procurement processes.
3. The other loser in the competition, Blue Origin, is still going forward with their LV, they can do this because they believe their LV is competitive enough that it can get enough commercial launches. The fact NG didn't feel their LV is competitive in the commercial market makes your claim that this is an "honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs" invalid, if they're building an affordable LV, they wouldn't need to cancel it since it would be able to survive on commercial launches.
It's almost like they're different market segments suited for different needs! Turns out that a vehicle optimized for Air Force payloads isn't going to be suited to the types of missions commercial customers may want. This isn't rocket science. Well, it is, but this part is actually just basic business sense.
The market segments are not different enough to require a specifically designed LV. And I'm not seeing any so called "optimization" Omega has for AF payloads that other LVs don't have, the LSP result speaks for itself: There is no special optimization that only Omega possesses, if they have a secret sauce for AF, they wouldn't have lost.
4. If NG is not building a commercially viable LV, then they're violating the intent - if not the letter - of the LSA, which is to fund LVs that can find non-AF launches so that AF wouldn't need to shoulder all the fixed cost, it's not supposed to be a niche LV. This is another reason this project shouldn't be funded in the first place.
OmegA was part of a competitive bid. They weren't competitive enough, so they lost. If a launch provider can use commercial demand to lower the costs they need to charge the USSF, good for them! But fundamentally all that matters is what proposal with the best value makes it through the NSSL, commercial business on the side, or not.
You're alleging without a shred of evidence that this was some sort of bad-faith attempt to defraud the USSF of taxpayer money. I think that says more about your biases than it does about OmegA.
Of course I have evidence, it's in the LSA RFP: LSA_OTA_RFP.pdf (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43924.msg1732900#msg1732900)
1. "The goal of the EELV acquisition strategy is to leverage commercial launch solutions in order to have at least two domestic, commercial launch service providers that also meet NSS requirements, including the launch of the heaviest and most complex payloads."
2. "The focus of this solicitation is to leverage industry’s commercial launch solutions and ensure they are modified to meet NSS requirements."
3. "These public-private agreements will be tailored to each launch service provider’s needs in order to enable commercial launch systems to meet all NSS requirements. Subsequent procurements will allow launch system fixed costs to be shared across more launches, including commercial and civil, and will reduce the overall cost to the Air Force."
This couldn't be clearer, the launch provider is supposed to provide a commercial launch vehicle used for commercial and civil launches, then modify it to meet NSS requirements. It never asked for a LV specifically designed for NSS, because as the RFP stated, they wanted to share the fixed cost.
Whether Omega is a bad-faith attempt to defraud the tax payers would be up to the lawyers, but it's pretty clear from the RFP text that Omega violates the intent - if not the letter - of the RFP.
5. And what new technologies? Another wind turbine stabilizer? Omega would only be useful for one project: SLS, and this is why you're supporting it. You're not a neutral observer in this case, you yourself has advocated moving lunar lander launches from commercial LV to SLS, so don't tell me how I'm dismissive of other people's projects.
Composite SRBs are useful tech. They are advanced tech. They go beyond SLS, and they're useful ways to get lots of thrust that don't involve statistically risky clusters of liquid engines.
Composite SRBs are nothing new, Atlas V has been using AJ-60A for decades, the GEM series was used on Delta-II.
And no, there is not statistically significant risk with clusters of liquid engines, this has already been proven by Falcon 9.
How on Earth is cheering for the death of a project at all equivalent to my opinions on HLS?
Again, I'm not cheering Omega's death, I'm saying tax payer money shouldn't be used to fund this monstrosity. If Northrop Grumman thinks this tech is revolutionary, they are free to develop it and compete on the open market. It's only dead now because NG thinks it's not competitive.
There's no difference between me advocating AF payloads to be launched on liquid (reusable) boosters and you advocating lunar lander to be launched on SLS, both are advocating a specific range of payloads to be launched on specific LVs. It's just if commercial LVs lost lunar landers to SLS, they wouldn't be dead because they're commercially competitive and can find other launches, unlike Omega where losing AF payloads alone is enough for NG to kill it.
6. Finally, I have been saying large segmented solid is obsolete for years, this has nothing to do with my liking of SpaceX.
Debatable.
This thing is entirely an accident of history, if Shuttle funding hasn't be cut to the bones, it wouldn't even exist. NASA already learned the hard way that using single stick large segmented solid as LV is a bad idea, AF should know better, it's time to shutdown this zombie once and for all.
Ares I and OmegA were about as similar as Atlas V is to Delta IV. Don't see how that proves anything.
Actually there're commonalities between Atlas V and Delta IV in later versions, common avionics for example.
As for Ares I, there is a clear lineage from Ares I to Liberty to Omega, according to this NSF article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/orbital-atk-next-phase-ngl-rocket-development/):
"Despite the Constellation program’s cancellation, Orbital ATK, the predecessor of which would have built the five-segment SRB for Ares I and the company that is now building the five-segment dual SRBs for SLS, continued to see a usefulness for the overall Ares I design. This initially translated in 2011 to the Liberty rocket, a five-segment SRB first stage with an Ariane V core serving as the upper stage.
By May 2016, this overall design was incorporated into Orbital ATK’s participation and contract award from the U.S. Air Force as part of the Air Force’s Rocket Propulsion Systems Development project to replace the Russian-made RD-180 engine used on United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket and to also streamline the EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) program to reduce the overall cost and increase efficiency of U.S. rockets used for national security and government missions."
-
All the speculation about why Northrop Grumman & OmegA lost the NSSL Phase 2 LSP contract, pointing to things like reusability, obsolescence, what the commercial market will support, and so forth, amuses me. The government defined very specific criteria in their RFP for evaluating the proposals, and it's all in the public domain. I direct your attention here, specifically Attachment 6, or read the full RFP if you'd like to familiarize yourself.
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/c3e7f1e342154e92a5779c5daa1b1db0/view
The Readers Digest version goes kinda like this:
* There are multiple criteria on which your proposal is evaluated, and in each primary technical areas you can get a color/score of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. For non-technical areas you get an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating. On Price, they look at the "Total Evaluated Price" (TEP) and you get a Reasonable/Not Reasonable rating and Balance/Unbalanced rating.
* In the Technical factor, there are four subfactors
1. System Capability, specifically Mass-To-Orbit, Orbital Accuracy, and Mission Assurance
2. Category A/B Missions, including two sample missions that reflect real-life missions in planning, plus System Readiness. These sample missions would be those that you would expect to fly on an Atlas V, Delta IV M/M+, Falcon 9, OmegA Intermediate, or an early Vulcan Centaur.
3. Category C Missions, including two sample missions that reflect real-life missions in planning, plus System Readiness. These sample mission would be expected to fly on Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy, OmegA Heavy, or a later Vulcan Centaur/ACES.
4. System Risks and Mitigations
* In addition to the combined technical color-code rating, the Technical subfactors have a level-deeper list where individual Strengths and Weaknesses can be identified, which are helpful in comparing two offerors who have the same summary rating.
* The non-technical areas are Past Performance and Small Business Participation. You might want to say "ah-ha!" and suspect that a fail rating in one of these areas can explain some outcome, but I will put that to rest. All four competitors received "Acceptable" ratings in both of these categories.
* For the Price evaluation, each offeror needs to supply a list of products and services and price for each year of the contract, and my understanding is that those prices are Firm Fixed Price. The government bounces that against their mission manifest scenarios, including mission acceleration, launch service support and fleet surveillance, anomaly resolution, special studies, and integration studies. That weighted sum is called the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).
* During the evaluation process, the government informs each supplier with an "Evaluation Notice" (EN) with the strengths and weaknesses that have been identified in their proposal. The contractor can then respond with some more polish on areas of the proposal in order to close an identified weakness, or firm up an identified strength or significant strength. There were 3 rounds of ENs during the proposal evaluation.
So it comes down to the Technical factor and Price, and in the Price evaluation all four entrants were deemed to have "Reasonable" and "Balanced" pricing.
At this point I can't say much more, because the evaluation is marked FOUO and subject to distribution statements.
But I will point out that the Technical evaluation of each proposal is singularly focused on the offerors' ability to achieve the government's mission objectives and execute the contract during its period of performance with a low risk, highly reliable launch solution. Price is an important consideration, but not as important as Technical merit. There's nothing in there directly about hardware reuse, synergies with other government customers/programs, spreading the work around as many suppliers as possible to keep everyone happy (except as a tick-the-box requirement about Small Business utilization, which has a specific definition in government procurement law), etc., except to the extent that those features/bugs influence your TEP or risk, or show up as strengths or a weaknesses in the level-deeper comparison evaluation.
If SpaceX scored any Strengths on hardware reusability, portions of the comparative evaluation that pertain to that were redacted. If hardware reuse influenced their price to the government, I saw no evidence of that.
One more point, the government had to balance Technical/Risk scoring on one hand and Price on the other. In that case, a Value determination had to be made, which add some subjectivity. It was the job of the source selection committee to determine the Best Value (60%) and Next Best Value (40%) offerings, in a one-choice-at-a-time method. It was not a unanimous determination, but it wasn't a close call either.
I'd like to say more about how the evaluation was scored, but shouldn't do so, because that's not public information. OmegA was very competitive, and I'm proud of what the team accomplished and proposed. My opinion based on what I read is that if the government could have awarded three contracts, they would have.
I'd also like to echo what Tory Bruno said on Twitter recently, that if you look at the values of the contract task orders (i.e. missions) that were awarded at the LSP announcement, "the identity of the lowest price provider might surprise you..."
-
Quote "This is a classic "no true Scotsman" fallacy/insult. "
;D Years ago when Mike Meyers was on SNL, he performed a skit where he was a Scotsman who owned a gift shop/curio store called "If it ain't Scottish, it's Crap!" He would get angry and yell at all the patrons who would come in the shop, looking for 4 leaf clovers, leprechaun figures, Blarney stones etc.... "Scottish-Irish what's the difference?" "I'll tell ya Lassie!!!..." :D
Today it would be "If it ain't SPACEX it's Crap!"
-
Quote "This is a classic "no true Scotsman" fallacy/insult. "
;D Years ago when Mike Meyers was on SNL, he performed a skit where he was a Scotsman who owned a gift shop/curio store called "If it ain't Scottish, it's Crap!" He would get angry and yell at all the patrons who would come in the shop, looking for 4 leaf clovers, leprechaun figures, Blarney stones etc.... "Scottish-Irish what's the difference?" "I'll tell ya Lassie!!!..." :D
Today it would be "If it ain't SPACEX it's Crap!"
Unfortunately thats all too true. I absolutely love SpaceX, watch almost every launch and hope they continue to kick butt. But they're not the only shinny object in town that matters.
-
The SLS is obsolete, it uses old tech in a worse way than it's original use.
This again?
As you know, I have elsewhere provided a detailed, fact based breakdown of problems with SLS that explain why it is not something that should be pointed to as evidence that something is not obsolete. There still have been no actual rebuttals that I have seen. The details don't belong here other than that SLS is not a justification for the solid rocket main stage of OmegA not being obsolete.
Those other mentions are small boosters, not large ones, significant difference, and your claim of 20-30 years is a baseless assertion. Ariane has already started looking towards an actual next gen rocket with reuse.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-reusable-falcon-rockets-europe-response/amp/
Yes, let's cite Teslarati as a source. I'm sure Teslarati is an objective outlet with no biases whatsoever. ::)
It seems like you couldn't be bothered to even click the link to see the quote from a European commissioner about the future of European rockets. Instead you dismiss what he has to say based solely on the title of the news source that quoted him.
When you can't even directly address what I had to say, it does not say good things about the validity of your position.
-
Quote "This is a classic "no true Scotsman" fallacy/insult. "
;D Years ago when Mike Meyers was on SNL, he performed a skit where he was a Scotsman who owned a gift shop/curio store called "If it ain't Scottish, it's Crap!" He would get angry and yell at all the patrons who would come in the shop, looking for 4 leaf clovers, leprechaun figures, Blarney stones etc.... "Scottish-Irish what's the difference?" "I'll tell ya Lassie!!!..." :D
Today it would be "If it ain't SPACEX it's Crap!"
Unfortunately thats all too true. I absolutely love SpaceX, watch almost every launch and hope they continue to kick butt. But they're not the only shinny object in town that matters.
Some important context was removed when I was quoted here, it is jadebenn, who used the "no true scotsman" fallacy to disparage anyone who did not fully support OmegA.
-
OmegA was an honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs.
How, in any way, was it "affordable"?
And I'm assuming when you say "affordable" that you mean it would have cost less than what the USAF has currently been paying to ULA and SpaceX, because otherwise the word "affordable" is not the right one to use.
Unfortunately, it appears to not have been flexible enough outside this niche, but it still developed new technologies and infrastructure that will be useful in future projects.
What technologies would that be? Because solid rocket boosters were not new technologies, so at best one could say they matured the SRB technology a little more. But "new"?
OmegA was a head scratcher program from the beginning since it had no inherent advantages over current launchers, and no ability to be improved to any significant degree.
No one should have been surprised that the program was cancelled. The only surprise is that it made it this far...
-
Without DoD contracts Omega would've been entering a very competitive commercial launch market, soon to be serviced by 3 new LVs (Vulcan, Ariane6 and NG) one existing low cost F9R. Can also add JAXA H3 and ISRO GSLV to that list. The GTO market hasn't grown enough to support all these LVs and may actually shrink or move to smallsats. When comes to smallsats the LV market is even more competitive. If GTO competition had just been A6 and F9R, then they may of had a go.
-
As for Ares I, there is a clear lineage from Ares I to Liberty to Omega, according to this NSF article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/orbital-atk-next-phase-ngl-rocket-development/):
"Despite the Constellation program’s cancellation, Orbital ATK, the predecessor of which would have built the five-segment SRB for Ares I and the company that is now building the five-segment dual SRBs for SLS, continued to see a usefulness for the overall Ares I design. This initially translated in 2011 to the Liberty rocket, a five-segment SRB first stage with an Ariane V core serving as the upper stage.
By May 2016, this overall design was incorporated into Orbital ATK’s participation and contract award from the U.S. Air Force as part of the Air Force’s Rocket Propulsion Systems Development project to replace the Russian-made RD-180 engine used on United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket and to also streamline the EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) program to reduce the overall cost and increase efficiency of U.S. rockets used for national security and government missions."
Can I please debunk this? Except for the visual similarity (i.e. "The Stick"), there is actually very little in common with OmegA and Liberty or Ares I.
The OmegA Common Booster Segment (CBS) motors actually have much more in common with the Titan IV-B Upgraded SRBs (120" diameter, 3-segment composite cases) and the Stratolaunch Eagles LV first and second stage motors (146" diameter monolithic composite), and for that matter with the CASTOR 30/30XL/120 family of motors (92" diameter monolithic composite) and with the GEM family of motors (40 to 63" diameter, monolithic composite, open aft dome), than they do with RSRMV, the 5-segment steel-case motor derived from the Shuttle RSRM developed for Ares I, now the booster for SLS. What is common between RSRM/RSRMV and CBS? They're close enough in diameter to use some of the same facilities, handling tools, inspection equipment maybe, and railcar covers -- that's about it. RSRMV uses a completely different family of propellants (different polymers for sure -- at the chemical level most of the propellant is AP and aluminum, but even those are differentiated at the particle size level to produce different burn rates), different production tooling, even insulation materials and methods. Each of the CBS nozzles is a unique design for optimized performance, and broke ground for new materials and processes -- and as the C600 static fire showed we were able to learn some things. The CBS motors were designed to be a versatile commercial offering, tailored for an EELV-/NSSL-class launch system meeting SPRD & SIS requirements when paired with an appropriate upper stage, not a human-rated vehicle for LEO only like Ares I and Liberty. Now that the LSP contract has been awarded, I expect the CBS motors will show up in the motor catalog, replacing the RSRM/RSRMV-derived motors.
OmegA did not use "1970s Shuttle technologies" in its designs, at least to the extent the industry media and informed outsiders seem to believe. If we're honest about it, at least give us the benefit of using "1990s technologies" epitomized by CASTOR 120 (Athena I/II, Taurus/Minotaur-C) and Titan IV-B SRMU. Perhaps just as significantly, the future, evolved SLS booster (see "BOLE" Program in other thread topics) is leveraging CBS designs and technologies -- not the other way around.
That doesn't even touch how different the Liquid Upper Stage on OmegA is from Ares or Liberty. It's as though the 5-meter DCSS on Delta IV or Centaur-G (which are the closest physical analogues to the dual-RL10 OmegA LUS) were comparable to the J-2X powered Ares I Upper Stage or Ariane 5 core stage repurposed as a second stage. Completely different systems.
-
Can I please debunk this? Except for the visual similarity (i.e. "The Stick"), there is actually very little in common with OmegA and Liberty or Ares I.
Well the common concept between the three of them is that the 1st stage is a solid rocket motor, which has never been fielded as a 1st stage engine, only as boosters.
That key detail is why all three are looked at as the pretty much the same, even though the bits and pieces that make up everything else might be different between the three.
And I think the U.S. Taxpayer should be happy that no more of their money went to support this concept, since it was hard to see how it could evert result in an improvement in the end result that mattered - $/kg to orbit.
-
OmegA was an honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs.
How, in any way, was it "affordable"?
And I'm assuming when you say "affordable" that you mean it would have cost less than what the USAF has currently been paying to ULA and SpaceX, because otherwise the word "affordable" is not the right one to use.
Yes, that's the correct definition of "affordable." I am reasonably confident that the propulsion system and launch vehicle development funded by the RPS and LSA contracts resulted in four competitors for the LSP contract, all of which proposed Firm/Fixed Price services to the government that were more affordable, i.e. cost less to you and me the taxpayers, than is currently being paid to ULA and SpaceX under the current block buy for equivalent services. The press release from the Air Force says this process has saved them $7 billion so far, even accounting for RPS and LSA spending. LSA did its job, in that it brought as many competitors as possible to the table in a mature enough state that the government could trust them to launch these missions, at a price much lower than it is currently paying. Maybe the bean counters at the GAO will have a different conclusion, but I take the following at face value:
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2305576/space-force-awards-national-security-space-launch-phase-2-launch-service-contra/
This competitive acquisition adds to the considerable savings the NSSL program has achieved since the 2013 Phase 1 Block Buy award. The total life cycle cost reduction since the February 2013 program rebaseline now stands at $22 billion. The NSSL program has returned approximately $7 billion in procurement funds to the Department of the Air Force and National Reconnaissance Office, enabling them to fund additional capabilities. The Space and Missile Systems Center’s Launch Enterprise garnered these savings by creating innovative acquisition strategies, procuring launch services in economic order quantities, and fostering robust competition precipitated by investments in new commercial launch systems that also meet more stressing NSSL needs.
I think this is the purpose of "government investment." You do R&D to try to get breakthroughs, maybe that's technology and capability, out-do our international competitors/adversaries, and specifically for RPS to develop an alternative to the RD-180. Interestingly the drop-in RD-180 replacement of the AR-1 was not selected for RPS, because the technical merits of the other proposals offered more to the government. ULA's 2014 vehicle configuration trade study down-selected that option out in favor of the BE-4 option. In the case of LSP, the breakthrough appears to be primarily in cost -- with the minimum threshold for technical merit and performance set very high.
In my opinion, that lack of an ROI to the government, even a hypothetical return, is why SpaceX lost on the LSA contract. Funding BFR/SH+SS, as cool a breakthrough in technology that might/will be, was not going to save the government any money nor offer any additional service they were asking for, and perhaps would not even comply with their basic requirements. (Was SpaceX ever planning to launch BFR from both KSC/CCAFS and VAFB? If not, they failed to comply with at least one SPRD requirement.) If SpaceX proposed a $200-$300M development of MSTs at both launch sites for vertical integration and a stretched 5-meter fairing and payload adapter/fitting for FH to comply with SIS Category C payload requirements, it would have been a slam dunk and money in the bank. Their strategic mistake to propose BFR.
If you consider SpaceX's offering to the government, whatever dollar figure that is for all the products and services and white-glove treatment that National Security Space Launch entails (of which classified operations is no small part), to be "affordable," then I hate to burst your bubble, but so was ULA's offering, and Northrop's offering, and Blue's offering. The government did not give this contract to the two lowest bidders.
SpaceX might be offering dirt-cheap rides on F9/FH to commercial customers, but that's not what they're offering the U.S. Government. Or they're making it up in services and amortizing the cost of that MST and fairing over the next 6 years. OmegA would have been very affordable to USSF/SMC, but so far, SpaceX has undercut other domestic launchers so much that nearly all commercial customers and even civil payloads designed for Pegasus are transitioning to F9. Good for them. Competition makes us all better.
-
Well the common concept between the three of them is that the 1st stage is a solid rocket motor, which has never been fielded as a 1st stage engine, only as boosters.
No 1st stage solid rocket motors ever on space launchers, except on, let's see...
Athena I and II, Taurus (now Minotaur-C), all other flavors of Minotaur based on ICBM stages and Titan 4 (the core was air-lit, Stage 0 was the solid boosters), all of which use(d) NG/ATK-built first stage domestic solid rocket motors. Let's also throw in Conestoga and Super Strypi as examples, though with an asterisk. Looking internationally, we can add M-5 now Epsilon (Japan), Start-1 (Russia), CZ-11 (China), KT-2 (China), Kuaizhou (China), PSLV (India), Shavit (Israel), SS-520 (Japan), Vega (Europe), and ZQ-1 (China). Of note, PSLV and Vega have built quite the impressive flight history, and are still flying or will be returning to flight imminently.
If you mean, no solid rocket motor of this size has ever been fielded as a 1st stage, then yes. Vega currently holds that record with the P80, soon to be out done by the Vega-C with the P120. If you mean "segmented", then also yes, unless you include the Titan 4B SRBs as Stage 0.
Hat tip to Ed Kyle's http://spacelaunchreport.com/library.html for refreshing my memory.
-
As you know, I have elsewhere provided a detailed, fact based breakdown of problems with SLS that explain why it is not something that should be pointed to as evidence that something is not obsolete. There still have been no actual rebuttals that I have seen. The details don't belong here other than that SLS is not a justification for the solid rocket main stage of OmegA not being obsolete.
Past experience has lead me to believe that our positions are fundamentally irreconcilable, and I see no reason to once again devolve into posting screeds of text and exchanging heated PMs if there's no room for compromise between us. So, okay, maybe pithy little responses are a rather childish and uncivil way to express my disagreement, but I have no interest or obligation to sit at my laptop for an hour or two to produce a 1,000+ word response when I know it's not going to result in anything positive.
To put it more simply: I disagree. Let's leave it at that.
OmegA did not use "1970s Shuttle technologies" in its designs, at least to the extent the industry media and informed outsiders seem to believe. If we're honest about it, at least give us the benefit of using "1990s technologies" epitomized by CASTOR 120 (Athena I/II, Taurus/Minotaur-C) and Titan IV-B SRMU. Perhaps just as significantly, the future, evolved SLS booster (see "BOLE" Program in other thread topics) is leveraging CBS designs and technologies -- not the other way around.
I blame this tendency on the technology industry. A 10-year old processor is almost worthless. A modern processor will be unequivocally superior in every way (cost, efficiency, performance).
A 10-year old rocket engine, first of all, is never actually 10-years old when you account for all the changes made since then, and even if it was (and it's not), it's not like the laws of thermodynamics have fundamentally changed since then. I mean, the RL10 is still the premier US upper stage hydrolox engine. The modern RL10 is a modern engine, but you can still trace its heritage more than half-a-century back.
Fundamentally, chemical rocketry is a fairly mature field of technology that runs at the limits of what's thermodynamically possible. All that's really changing is how we build the engines, not how they work.
-
...
One more point, the government had to balance Technical/Risk scoring on one hand and Price on the other. In that case, a Value determination had to be made, which add some subjectivity. It was the job of the source selection committee to determine the Best Value (60%) and Next Best Value (40%) offerings, in a one-choice-at-a-time method. It was not a unanimous determination, but it wasn't a close call either.
...
I'd also like to echo what Tory Bruno said on Twitter recently, that if you look at the values of the contract task orders (i.e. missions) that were awarded at the LSP announcement, "the identity of the lowest price provider might surprise you..."
I'm not on Twitter. Do we know which of the three was cheapest? Which was second?
-
Well the common concept between the three of them is that the 1st stage is a solid rocket motor, which has never been fielded as a 1st stage engine, only as boosters.
...If you mean, no solid rocket motor of this size has ever been fielded as a 1st stage, then yes.
Obviously I was talking about a launcher "of this size" since OmegA was competing for the NSSL program... ::)
-
...
One more point, the government had to balance Technical/Risk scoring on one hand and Price on the other. In that case, a Value determination had to be made, which add some subjectivity. It was the job of the source selection committee to determine the Best Value (60%) and Next Best Value (40%) offerings, in a one-choice-at-a-time method. It was not a unanimous determination, but it wasn't a close call either.
...
I'd also like to echo what Tory Bruno said on Twitter recently, that if you look at the values of the contract task orders (i.e. missions) that were awarded at the LSP announcement, "the identity of the lowest price provider might surprise you..."
I'm not on Twitter. Do we know which of the three was cheapest? Which was second?
You don't need to be "on" Twitter to read a Tweet. In this case, Tory Bruno's tweet did not go beyond the quoted statement, nor could it until the Source Selection Statement is published.
You might want to check the prices in that competition. The identity of the lowest price provider might surprise you...
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1296112418070855682
-
In my opinion, that lack of an ROI to the government, even a hypothetical return, is why SpaceX lost on the LSA contract. Funding BFR/SH+SS, as cool a breakthrough in technology that might/will be, was not going to save the government any money nor offer any additional service they were asking for, and perhaps would not even comply with their basic requirements. (Was SpaceX ever planning to launch BFR from both KSC/CCAFS and VAFB? If not, they failed to comply with at least one SPRD requirement.) If SpaceX proposed a $200-$300M development of MSTs at both launch sites for vertical integration and a stretched 5-meter fairing and payload adapter/fitting for FH to comply with SIS Category C payload requirements, it would have been a slam dunk and money in the bank. Their strategic mistake to propose BFR.
Hmmm, what additional service BFR/Starship could have provided, let's see:
1. 100t to LEO
2. 100t to anywhere in the cislunar space
3. 100t to anywhere on Earth under an hour
4. 8m x 22m fairing envelope, SLS level of fairing volume is possible if expendable
5. Very low marginal launch cost, in the single digit millions
6. Very high launch rate, daily launches
7. Rapid response launches
8. Satellite inspection/servicing/retrieval
9. In orbit assembly of gigantic structures
10. BLEO Crewed flights
And that's just what I come up with in 5 minutes. There's no question it would save government money, even on their existing launches, but it can potentially provide so much more. It is true that AF didn't ask most of these, but various other part of the US government has shown interest in all of these, so it's very much wrong to say BFR/Starship wouldn't provide ROI to the government, in fact it's the complete opposite, it could provide a huge unprecedented ROI to the USG, which makes its dismissal from LSA criminally shortsighted.
SpaceX might be offering dirt-cheap rides on F9/FH to commercial customers, but that's not what they're offering the U.S. Government. Or they're making it up in services and amortizing the cost of that MST and fairing over the next 6 years.
Of course SpaceX is going to include the cost of MST and fairing in there, where else are they going to get this money? You are not seriously suggesting SpaceX should provide service to government for free, are you?
-
Well the common concept between the three of them is that the 1st stage is a solid rocket motor, which has never been fielded as a 1st stage engine, only as boosters.
...If you mean, no solid rocket motor of this size has ever been fielded as a 1st stage, then yes.
Obviously I was talking about a launcher "of this size" since OmegA was competing for the NSSL program... ::)
I still don't see how this a category error, solid first stage propulsion for an EELV. I see it as well-bounded. Plenty of Small-class launchers use in-line solids as a first stage, and plenty of Super Heavy-class launchers use solids for 80-100% of their liftoff thrust. Putting solid strap-ons on a solid core is not a new invention either (PSLV). CASTOR 600 for OmegA Intermediate is pretty close to the same size as the Titan 4B SRMU, and CASTOR 1200 for OmegA Heavy is roughly the same size as the 5-segment RSRMV for Ares I and SLS (but cheaper and with a better Isp and mass fraction). The CASTOR 300 second stage is a little bit larger than the Vega-C P120C first stage.
I grant that the elegance of all those shiny metal parts in a liquid rocket engine screams "Science!" in a way that a dumb firecracker or bottle-rocket scaled to the size of small skyscraper does not. But what does that have to do with it? (Strawman argument here, but one I read elsewhere.)
The argument here is "solids haven't done as a first stage for NSSL"... ignoring that the Titan family was the workhorse vehicle of the national security space community for decades, with its largest variants deriving 100% of its liftoff thrust from burning aluminum. But apply that argument to LOX/methane, and obviously anything using the BE-4 is destined to fail and Raptor will never get off the ground. Right? Or is it that it just hadn't been tried before?
No, I think the argument is really a mask for an ad hominem. Anything coming out of the solid rocket motor factories in Utah is bad, has no place launching stuff into space, which is good, just by definition. Right?
-
In my opinion, that lack of an ROI to the government, even a hypothetical return, is why SpaceX lost on the LSA contract. Funding BFR/SH+SS, as cool a breakthrough in technology that might/will be, was not going to save the government any money nor offer any additional service they were asking for, and perhaps would not even comply with their basic requirements. (Was SpaceX ever planning to launch BFR from both KSC/CCAFS and VAFB? If not, they failed to comply with at least one SPRD requirement.) If SpaceX proposed a $200-$300M development of MSTs at both launch sites for vertical integration and a stretched 5-meter fairing and payload adapter/fitting for FH to comply with SIS Category C payload requirements, it would have been a slam dunk and money in the bank. Their strategic mistake to propose BFR.
Hmmm, what additional service BFR/Starship could have provided, let's see:
1. 100t to LEO
2. 100t to anywhere in the cislunar space
3. 100t to anywhere on Earth under an hour
4. 8m x 22m fairing envelope, SLS level of fairing volume is possible if expendable
5. Very low marginal launch cost, in the single digit millions
6. Very high launch rate, daily launches
7. Rapid response launches
8. Satellite inspection/servicing/retrieval
9. In orbit assembly of gigantic structures
10. BLEO Crewed flights
And that's just what I come up with in 5 minutes. There's no question it would save government money, even on their existing launches, but it can potentially provide so much more. It is true that AF didn't ask most of these, but various other part of the US government has shown interest in all of these, so it's very much wrong to say BFR/Starship wouldn't provide ROI to the government, in fact it's the complete opposite, it could provide a huge unprecedented ROI to the USG, which makes its dismissal from LSA criminally shortsighted.
SpaceX might be offering dirt-cheap rides on F9/FH to commercial customers, but that's not what they're offering the U.S. Government. Or they're making it up in services and amortizing the cost of that MST and fairing over the next 6 years.
Of course SpaceX is going to include the cost of MST and fairing in there, where else are they going to get this money? You are not seriously suggesting SpaceX should provide service to government for free, are you?
Maybe you and I read a different RFP, but none of the things you listed were part of LSA or LSP. If I were a government reviewer and compared that list to my requirements, where I have exactly 12 reference missions with specific orbit and payload requirements not (a hundred tonnes to anywhere between here and the moon), I would have tossed the proposal in the trash heap. SpaceX learned their lesson it seems, because they hit it out of the park with their LSP proposal which offered the Air Force/Space Force something that they actually wanted and asked for.
"Shortsighted"? Are you expecting government/military bureaucrats to be visionary? The last time a launch system was promised to them that was the be-all end-all, it was the Shuttle, and that turned out poorly for them. Look again at your list, scale down the numbers a tad, and imagine you're Air Force general in 1972 hearing this in the context of something called the "Space Transportation System." <sigh>
Of course I expect SpaceX to make money on this, to pay for their infrastructure development. It just might surprise you how much though.
Sorry -- This is now off topic, and I'm in part to blame. So I'll just throw out there that OmegA Heavy would be extremely affordable to the tax payer, even fully expendable.
-
Well the common concept between the three of them is that the 1st stage is a solid rocket motor, which has never been fielded as a 1st stage engine, only as boosters.
...If you mean, no solid rocket motor of this size has ever been fielded as a 1st stage, then yes.
Obviously I was talking about a launcher "of this size" since OmegA was competing for the NSSL program... ::)
I still don't see how this a category error, solid first stage propulsion for an EELV.
The use case for a single-SRM launcher of this category is very limited. It would never be human-rated like the Falcon 9 and Vulcan specifically because of the studies the Air Force did on Ares I. And it could be argued that the vibration issues of Ares I were never fully addressed then, and likely still not addressed for OmegA.
Add on top of that the inflexibility of a sustainer motor that can't be throttled, and you have a limited set of use cases that the launcher is able to compete in.
Then there is the cost, which is really the deal killer. Northrop Grumman admitted that OmegA would never have a high cadence, and that is one of the factors needed to either lower costs or maintain them. But there is likely no way for OmegA to lower costs since so much of its cost base is in fixed infrastructure, including the buildings and equipment needed at KSC.
I grant that the elegance of all those shiny metal parts in a liquid rocket engine screams "Science!" in a way that a dumb firecracker or bottle-rocket scaled to the size of small skyscraper does not.
You know it has nothing to do with "science". Liquid engine launchers provide far more flexibility.
No, I think the argument is really a mask for an ad hominem. Anything coming out of the solid rocket motor factories in Utah is bad, has no place launching stuff into space, which is good, just by definition. Right?
Whoa there, I think you are taking the loss of business in Utah a little personal. SRM's don't have inherent flaws because of where they are built, they have inherent flaws because of the alternatives to them.
ULA gets a lot of flack for not building a reusable launcher when it was clear reusability was possible and practical, but ULA has built in advantages over Northrop Grumman due to its long history of launching everything the government needed. But there will come a time (I think NSSL 3) where ULA won't have that advantage anymore, and they will see how an expendable Vulcan was not the best choice to compete in an increasingly reusable launch market.
I don't think OmegA had a chance in the NSSL competition, and having an SRM as the 1st stage was just one of them.
My $0.02
-
tmoesser, thank you very much for replies. They have been very informative. I do have some questions that I hope you can answer.
1) Why wasn't the four segment CASTOR 1200 used to replace RSRMV? I was surprised to learn that BOLE is using a new five segment booster with the segments being about the same length as in RSRMV, which are shorter than the segments in CASTOR 1200.
2) Could CASTOR 600, 900 or 1200 be used to replace the first stage of Antares? If so, would it be cheaper than the existing stage?
-
The use case for a single-SRM launcher of this category is very limited. It would never be human-rated like the Falcon 9 and Vulcan specifically because of the studies the Air Force did on Ares I. And it could be argued that the vibration issues of Ares I were never fully addressed then, and likely still not addressed for OmegA.
Human-rating was not a design criterion for CBS/OmegA, as it is not for the Air Force for this procurement. Early on, we held out for a commercial crew customer, was willing to design around their requirements. Boeing and SN opted for ULA, and given their perfect track record it's hard to blame them. So we optimized around the EELV requirements, and tailored the vehicle for them with commercial satellite market in mind. Human-rating is or was a requirement for RSRM/Shuttle, RSRMV/Ares-SLS, BOLE/SLS, GEM 63/Atlas V and GEM 63XL/Vulcan. Human rating is safety factors, reliability allocations, and qualification standards at the element level and G's vs. Duration at the vehicle level. It makes your vehicle heavier (and thus needs to be bigger) and more expensive, but it's worth it if you're flying crew. If you're not going to fly crew, it's a con not a pro.
Vibration issues is another misconception that needs debunking. "It's a solid, must be a rough ride. Ares I!" Yes, solids are big organ pipes that tune at certain frequencies, and if your natural frequencies stack up around your vehicle, the payload is going to feel the chaos happening below. But do LREs not POGO anymore? There things that can be done to detune the vehicle or dampen those oscillations, and yes we have mitigation strategies. We designed OmegA to comply with all SIS requirements, and that includes random vibe and axial vs lateral acceleration limits.
Add on top of that the inflexibility of a sustainer motor that can't be throttled, and you have a limited set of use cases that the launcher is able to compete in.
I concede, continuous throttleability a la RD-180 or being able to shutdown one or more of your nine engines on Falcon prior to burn out is actually a very nice pro that a long burning liquid first stage has which a two-stage solid booster replacement does not. You can throttle down deeply through Max Q to limit your loads, you can closely control the acceleration environment you experience when you separate your fairing, and you can run at or near max acceleration as you approach burnout. You can schedule your throttle for your specific vehicle configuration, payload and mission. That is a nice knob to have when optimizing your trajectory. A colleague I partnered with at ULA for some early trade studies pre-RPS called this "shifting your impulse around", and it does add flexibility to mission planning.
But that flexibility is not a dealbreaker; it just means you have to design such that you don't violate the requirements when your solids burn in hot +3sigma conditions with a -3sigma payload. So your payload's nominal launch environment is … actually kinda benign. They're only going to see 6 g's in the most extreme cases, which is virtually never. For bigger configurations, we're actually way above the atmosphere when the fairing separates, which is good for the payload's free molecular heating environment. Feature, not a bug, right?
What that means for performance, though, is that the vehicle is suboptimal because you can't satisfy every design constraint and performance requirement simultaneously; throttle gives you a knob to re-optimize that you have access to after the vehicle is designed. We can't recast those solids to add or remove a fin on launch day. As a solid boost vehicle, OmegA has to be able to handle a huge range of Max Q's as a result of the 0-6 strap-ons for the first phase, and it has to live with a sustainer second stage that's hamstrung by the acceleration requirements of the lightest configuration and payload. You're going to incur more delta-V losses (gravity loss, drag loss, vectoring loss) and that loses performance compared to a single-config LV optimized for a single payload and mission flying a perfect gravity turn into orbit.
But we're talking DV losses on the order of several 100s (pick your unit, ft/s or m/s) translating into payload to orbit losses also on the order of several hundreds (lbm or kg). Less optimal than a liquid stage. Not impossible, not disqualifying. For a fleet of LVs that's intended to serve a very wide range of payloads and reference missions, every launcher is going to have compromises.
Aside, nobody seems to consider that a two-stage boost solution gives you the ability to optimize the nozzle expansion ratio for sea-level for the first stage, high altitude for the second stage, and vacuum for the third stage. An extra design knob, instead of a compromise.
Acknowledging my priors (phrase for the year), I actually agree with you that a solid-only boost vehicle is not the best technical solution. My ideal launch vehicle looks more like a Saturn V with huge strap-on solids, and maybe swap out the RP for LNG if the right engine can be designed. What I'm arguing is that solid boost vehicle is not a disqualifying solution. It is, however, the one that my company, the pairing of Orbital Sciences Launch Vehicles Division and ATK Propulsion Systems Division, and my colleagues and our leadership felt that we could offer to the government while meeting their performance and schedule requirements in the race-to-the-bottom launch market SpaceX created. And, believe it or not, we dang near did it.
Then there is the cost, which is really the deal killer. Northrop Grumman admitted that OmegA would never have a high cadence, and that is one of the factors needed to either lower costs or maintain them. But there is likely no way for OmegA to lower costs since so much of its cost base is in fixed infrastructure, including the buildings and equipment needed at KSC.
I wish I could point you to non-public evidence to the contrary which I have access to, because you may be surprised. And it could be that Starship and New Glenn wipe out all our notions about how much access to space really costs in a few years. But to the U.S. Government, under LSP, for NSSL missions and all the rigmarole that entails, OmegA was very competitive on price, even at a low launch cadence, and especially for Heavy-class missions.
Whoa there, I think you are taking the loss of business in Utah a little personal. SRM's don't have inherent flaws because of where they are built, they have inherent flaws because of the alternatives to them.
Yeah, sorry you're right. I do have a good reason to take it personally; I have been attached to this program (and since before it was a program) for 6 years, and I'm bummed that it looks more and more likely that I won't get to see it fly.* And I said elsewhere, participating in the development of a launch system like this is likely a once-in-a-generation opportunity that I won't see again. I'm really proud of what we accomplished.
The other motivation for my remark is that there are fanatics out there, who are reading this, for whom Elon Musk and SpaceX is the only thing that matters in the world (it seems) or who really do believe that anything that smells of ATK is tainted with original sin. I politely disagree with those people, and see SpaceX as my competition, whereas based on comments I read I feel like I am their enemy and must be destroyed, a leach on society. In this world of anonymous internet posting, it's very easy to dehumanize those you have a disagreement with. I just want to point out that there are real people here, and we really care about our work, and we accomplished some great things. We all still have jobs thankfully, but as much as I will miss working on OmegA*, I will miss working with my colleagues in Chandler and Dulles even more... much more.
It was unfair of me to paint with so wide a brush of "those people" to include you, Ron -- please accept my apology and socially distant handshake.
ULA gets a lot of flack for not building a reusable launcher when it was clear reusability was possible and practical, but ULA has built in advantages over Northrop Grumman due to its long history of launching everything the government needed. But there will come a time (I think NSSL 3) where ULA won't have that advantage anymore, and they will see how an expendable Vulcan was not the best choice to compete in an increasingly reusable launch market.
Yes they do get more flack than they deserve, and yes they do have some built-in advantages. But they also revolutionized their company and the way they do business in the space of 6 years since Tory Bruno took over, in response to the aforementioned race to the bottom and existential threat that SpaceX posed... I take my hat off to them. From what I see, they slashed their expenses (as did their major suppliers*), and cut as much of the fat as they could, and they deserve the win they got as far as I'm concerned. Good game. Go Vulcan!
SpaceX has been working NSSL under the current block buy for several years already. The evidence I see points to SpaceX matching or exceeding ULA when it comes to customer satisfaction. It may surprise you how the final evaluation came out. As a citizen with an interest in national security, I am well pleased by SpaceX's technical evaluation on the proposal and am reassured that they will be able to execute and deliver. Go SpaceX!
I don't think OmegA had a chance in the NSSL competition, and having an SRM as the 1st stage was just one of them.
My $0.02
How about in spite of the technical challenges of an SRM 1st stage, and everything else, OmegA actually had a very good chance. We were always the dark horse candidate in this race (since we're in an election year), and some would think 4th out of 4. But we did very well on the evaluation, and very nearly unseated one of the incumbents. We scored some electoral votes in this contest.
And since I do still have a job, I should get some sleep and mute this discussion for awhile to avoid the temptation to write more essays as replies come in. I do still need to keep an accurate timecard, and if I'm on NSF I'm on my own time. Bills to pay, kids to raise, etc.
Thanks for the opportunity to vent some feelings and share one perspective on this adventure.
*Opinions are that of the author, not authorized to speak on behalf of the company, not a forward-looking statement, past performance is not a guarantee of future results, your mileage may vary, not valid in all states, caveat emptor, nolo contendere, e pluribus unum, et cetera ad nauseam.
-
tmoesser, thank you very much for replies. They have been very informative. I do have some questions that I hope you can answer.
1) Why wasn't the four segment CASTOR 1200 used to replace RSRMV? I was surprised to learn that BOLE is using a new five segment booster with the segments being about the same length as in RSRMV, which are shorter than the segments in CASTOR 1200.
2) Could CASTOR 600, 900 or 1200 be used to replace the first stage of Antares? If so, would it be cheaper than the existing stage?
Hard for me to speculate on question 1 because I've been so entrenched in OmegA and don't see what's happening elsewhere. CBS segments were pushing the limit, and sometimes breaking them, on what we could process and transport about plant and over rail. Somebody did a trade study and determined that size was not advantageous for SLS, or NASA said they liked segments to weigh no more than some number. Not sure, just a guess.
For #2, there's some yes and no there, but there are challenges to that idea. I will speak to the obvious. The burn time differences between Antares FS and any single large CASTOR motor developed so far do not indicate a drop in solution. There is a coast between first stage shutdown and second stage ignition on Antares, which hurts performance some, and that gets worse with any of those motors as a first stage alone with a 2-2.5 minute burn. We have studied a C600+C300+C30XL/Antares PLF as a possible vehicle option/hybrid. Can't say more, but if you do some back-of-the-envelope delta-V math it falls in the "it could work" category. At Wallops, there's infrastructure (bridges) and the TEL (VI vs. HI) that becomes a problem with large segmented solids. At KSC, we need the MLP and use of the VAB and pad to make something work, and that's an incomplete project today and status unclear. I don't know about the costs, and that would be proprietary anyway.
-
Yeah, sorry you're right. I do have a good reason to take it personally; I have been attached to this program (and since before it was a program) for 6 years, and I'm bummed that it looks more and more likely that I won't get to see it fly.* And I said elsewhere, participating in the development of a launch system like this is likely a once-in-a-generation opportunity that I won't see again. I'm really proud of what we accomplished.
Space related stuff is an avocation of mine, not a vocation like you, so I'll leave my comments as is.
I would hope though that OmegA does not end up being the last "once-in-a-generation opportunity" for you. You might have to leave Utah in order for that to happen, but I think the future is bright at this point for space-related hardware.
The other motivation for my remark is that there are fanatics out there, who are reading this, for whom Elon Musk and SpaceX is the only thing that matters in the world (it seems) or who really do believe that anything that smells of ATK is tainted with original sin.
I have been interpreted to be one of those fanatics, so I'll just say this. I advocate for those things that lower the cost to space. Today SpaceX is leading the charge in that, but I also recognize that we need redundancy and competition in order to provide the right incentives for expanding humanity out into space, so I don't want a SpaceX monopoly, no matter how benign it could possibly be.
So for ULA, I cite their studies all the time because their engineering is top notch. But it is the management decisions that are made by ULA's owners that I have disagreements with, not only for their direction today, but for the monopolistic way of doing business they used to have. Their management of ULA is proof that capitalism can't lead us out into space.
I politely disagree with those people, and see SpaceX as my competition, whereas based on comments I read I feel like I am their enemy and must be destroyed, a leach on society.
I originally started being active on space forums because I supported DIRECT, but real engineers steadily educated me on the cost aspects of the Shuttle system, and once I started applying my manufacturing cost accounting background I came to realize that even though DIRECT was a good reuse of existing hardware, it was not going to get humanity out into space in an affordable way.
Around that time I started following a young company called SpaceX, and came to appreciate their approach and goals. But they were competing against the giants of the government contracting world, and oh my gosh the advertising that was put out against them. Plus space forums were full of "Old Space" supporters, and SpaceX supporters were viewed in a very negative light.
So yes, many of us have "grown up" supporting and defending SpaceX from malicious posts. Have we become too defensive? I hope not.
It was unfair of me to paint with so wide a brush of "those people" to include you, Ron -- please accept my apology and socially distant handshake.
I accept the virtual handshake between two people that are passionate about space, and I never felt any sort of apology was merited. And I have to tell you that I am learning about OmegA from you, which may not be useful in my life, but I read a lot of stuff that isn't useful in my life because it is enjoyable. So thank you for that.
I wish you well in your current and future career! :D
-
*Opinions are that of the author, not authorized to speak on behalf of the company, not a forward-looking statement, past performance is not a guarantee of future results, your mileage may vary, not valid in all states, caveat emptor, nolo contendere, e pluribus unum, et cetera ad nauseam.
Nice!
-
I for one would like to see Omega fly, unfortunately its to late to soon to be crowded market. If it had been flying couple years ago would've done well when only competition is A5, F9 and unreliable Proton. With year or two of flights behind it would've been top contender for NSSL competition.
Could also say same about Vulcan and NG, timing is everything.
-
throttle gives you a knob to re-optimize that you have access to after the vehicle is designed. We can't recast those solids to add or remove a fin on launch day.
On launch day, sure. But was there any intent to cast specific solid cores for different mission profiles to deliver different burn profiles? Or with the fixed stage diameter, nozzle and throat does that mostly end up as a rounding error that isn't worth the hassle?
-
throttle gives you a knob to re-optimize that you have access to after the vehicle is designed. We can't recast those solids to add or remove a fin on launch day.
On launch day, sure. But was there any intent to cast specific solid cores for different mission profiles to deliver different burn profiles? Or with the fixed stage diameter, nozzle and throat does that mostly end up as a rounding error that isn't worth the hassle?
Adding strapon SRMs allows for some modifications to LV performance without changing SRBs design. The liquid US stage will have lot of flexibility.
-
Finally official:
https://twitter.com/sandra_i_erwin/status/1303793354220744704
Breaking news: Northrop Grumman tells SpaceNews it will not move forward with the development of the OmegA rocket. It will not protest the Air Force's decision to not select OmegA for national security space launch.
-
Northrop Grumman announced it will not move forward with the development of the OmegA rocket. The vehicle was designed for the sole purpose of competing for a National Security Space Launch contract award but didn’t make the cut.
“We have chosen not to continue development of the OmegA launch system at this time,” Northrop Grumman spokeswoman Jennifer Bowman said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing to play a key role in National Security Space Launch missions and leveraging our OmegA investments in other activities across our business.”
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-to-terminate-omega-rocket-program/
-
[Ares I vs. OmegA]
One was two stage with a big J-2X powered upper stage. The other was three stage using RL10 powered upper stage. One used steel solid motor cases on a five segment booster. The other used composite case motors on two solid stages - one a two or four-segment motor and the other a single-segment motor. The two rockets used different length/mass solid motor segments and two different solid propellant formulations. One had no strap on motors. The other would have used strap on motors.
Two completely different rockets.
- Ed Kyle
[zubenelgenubi: Edits by Chris B and zubenelgenubi. Discussion contained no L2-level information, so I moved such to the public-side OmegA updates and discussion thread.]
-
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/09/omega-mlp-ksc-39b-multi-user-pad/
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1304531739054952448
-
One was two stage with a big J-2X powered upper stage. The other was three stage using RL10 powered upper stage. One used steel solid motor cases on a five segment booster. The other used composite case motors on two solid stages - one a two or four-segment motor and the other a single-segment motor. The two rockets used different length/mass solid motor segments and two different solid propellant formulations. One had no strap on motors. The other would have used strap on motors.
Two completely different rockets.
- Ed Kyle
Thrust oscillation would have still made for a very rough ride for payloads.
Big, inline solid rocket motors make it very difficult to dampen out thrust oscillation issues.
Go back and review Ares 1's thrust oscillation issues.
Ares 1X used a four segment first stage, and thrust oscillation was very high on that first and thankfully only test flight.
-
One was two stage with a big J-2X powered upper stage. The other was three stage using RL10 powered upper stage. One used steel solid motor cases on a five segment booster. The other used composite case motors on two solid stages - one a two or four-segment motor and the other a single-segment motor. The two rockets used different length/mass solid motor segments and two different solid propellant formulations. One had no strap on motors. The other would have used strap on motors.
Two completely different rockets.
- Ed Kyle
Thrust oscillation would have still made for a very rough ride for payloads.
Big, inline solid rocket motors make it very difficult to dampen out thrust oscillation issues.
Go back and review Ares 1's thrust oscillation issues.
Ares 1X used a four segment first stage, and thrust oscillation was very high on that first and thankfully only test flight.
"The much ballyhooed thrust oscillations the vehicle might encounter were basically non-existent on Wednesday’s test flight. “We had two sensors to measure this and so far the oscillations look very small, similar to what the shuttle might encounter,” Ess said. “We didn’t see anything unusual or remotely like anything to indicate that thrust oscillation was a factor.”"
https://www.universetoday.com/43778/ares-i-x-manager-addresses-booster-damage-stage-tumbling-and-thrust-oscillation/
This was a four-segment booster. It was the extension to five-segments for Ares I, combined with the resonances of the Ares I launch vehicle altogether, that raised the thrust oscillation concern. Omega's solids were all shorter than five-segment booster. Even Castor 1200 would have been closer to an STS four-segment length. All newly engineered with thrust oscillation managed from the outset in the total vehicle design, to prevent such resonances.
Resonance/pogo can afflict liquid rockets too. Some kind of control system oscillation (maybe [triggered by?] sloshing or who knows what else) brought down that Astra Rocket this morning, for example.
- Ed Kyle
[zubenelgenubi: slight edit]
-
[Ares I vs. OmegA]
One was two stage with a big J-2X powered upper stage. The other was three stage using RL10 powered upper stage. One used steel solid motor cases on a five segment booster. The other used composite case motors on two solid stages - one a two or four-segment motor and the other a single-segment motor. The two rockets used different length/mass solid motor segments and two different solid propellant formulations. One had no strap on motors. The other would have used strap on motors.
Two completely different rockets.
1. two stage vs three stage: There're many launch vehicle which has optional 3rd stage, Delta-II for example, a 2 stage Delta-II is still Delta-II, so is a 3 stage Delta-II, still the same rocket family.
2. Different upper stage engines: Also fairly common when a launch vehicle evolves, either on paper or in hardware. New Glenn changed upper stage engine during design phase, Delta-II also changed 2nd stage engine from TR-201 to AJ10, still the same rocket family.
3. Casing: Shuttle external tank changed from using 2219 aluminum-copper alloy to 2195 aluminium-lithium alloy with friction stir welding, still the same rocket family.
4. Fuel: Vulcan maintained two different fuel (RP-1 vs methane) in design until recently, Soyuz-2 switched from RG-1 to naftil, still the same rocket family.
5. Length: Frequently changed on liquid boosters, Falcon 9 changed length several times, Antares too, still the same rocket family.
6. Strapons: Many launch vehicles have different strapon configurations, Atlas V 401 vs 551 for example, still the same rocket family.
So none of these makes OmegA a completely different rocket from Ares-I.
-
[Ares I vs. OmegA]
One was two stage with a big J-2X powered upper stage. The other was three stage using RL10 powered upper stage. One used steel solid motor cases on a five segment booster. The other used composite case motors on two solid stages - one a two or four-segment motor and the other a single-segment motor. The two rockets used different length/mass solid motor segments and two different solid propellant formulations. One had no strap on motors. The other would have used strap on motors.
Two completely different rockets.
1. two stage vs three stage: There're many launch vehicle which has optional 3rd stage, Delta-II for example, a 2 stage Delta-II is still Delta-II, so is a 3 stage Delta-II, still the same rocket family.
2. Different upper stage engines: Also fairly common when a launch vehicle evolves, either on paper or in hardware. New Glenn changed upper stage engine during design phase, Delta-II also changed 2nd stage engine from TR-201 to AJ10, still the same rocket family.
3. Casing: Shuttle external tank changed from using 2219 aluminum-copper alloy to 2195 aluminium-lithium alloy with friction stir welding, still the same rocket family.
4. Fuel: Vulcan maintained two different fuel (RP-1 vs methane) in design until recently, Soyuz-2 switched from RG-1 to naftil, still the same rocket family.
5. Length: Frequently changed on liquid boosters, Falcon 9 changed length several times, Antares too, still the same rocket family.
6. Strapons: Many launch vehicles have different strapon configurations, Atlas V 401 vs 551 for example, still the same rocket family.
So none of these makes OmegA a completely different rocket from Ares-I.
Maybe not individually. But if everything is just a little different, it's still different in every way.
-
Bottom line and all of this is IMHO of course:
Large segmented solid rocket motors just suck really. They are expensive and complex to make not to mention time consuming. They are very sensitive to environmental factors on the ground and have to be stored and handled very carefully. They have a wide variety of mission ending failure modes you cannot abort off of. They cannot be turned off once lit, restarted, or effectively controlled in the same ways as any liquid engine. They vibrate, shake, and are generally violent devices and they have a tendency to damage their own launch pads.
They also cannot be effectively re-used and they effectively prevent re-use of the LV they are integrated with.
Small scale solids make sense as boosters for liquid LVs. Solid motor first stages make sense for missiles and strategic deterrent devices requiring prompt launch on warning capability.
However these applications are where it begins and ends. The engineering community has known this for multiple decades which is why people consistently tried to tell congress and NASA pre-esas and even before Columbia that solids should be done away with in future programs.
I view this as a fitting end to the stick saga and the general obsession of certain parties with large scale solid motors and it's about time honestly.
I believe this also proves once again that an LRB based SLS would have been superior and should have been what was chosen had the decision been merit based and non political.
In any case my hope for the future here is that this zombie and dead end technology is finally dead as it should be. We know and have known for awhile now what rocket technology works and what rocket technology does not work. Time to stop pretending large solid motors are anything but a dangerous money pit.
I do have to applaud NGIS for trying to make this work one last time, and they certainly got farther along than all the predecessors of the stick got.
The stick is finally dead. Will not be missed.
-
Bottom line and all of this is IMHO of course:
<snip>
The stick is finally dead. Will not be missed.
Let's hope so.
Von Braun was right. And everyone knew he was right. But today we're still stuck with solids (SLS) thanks to penny-pinching NASA administrator James C. Fletcher. He over-ruled Von Braun over what was essentially pocket-change with regards to NASA's budget.
Amazing that seemingly small choices have profound effects in the decades afterwards.
-
<snip>
The stick is finally dead. Will not be missed.
Well the undead always find a way to hang around. :)
If the Congressional Critters is seeking continual large SRM production in Utah. Could see large segmented SRMs as strapped-on stage for a "Titanized" Vulcan HLV flying from pad LC-39B and be a tenant at the VAB.
A monstrosity consisting of a pair of Castor 600 with optional GEM-63XL supplemental SRBs as the first stage strapped to an air start Vulcan core along with stretched Centaur-V upper stage.
The scary thing is that all the flight hardware is already in the pipeline for SLS and Vulcan-Centaur. All that is missing is a MLP with a cropped launch tower. Oh, wait isn't there a half build MLP at KSC...
However, hoped the "Stick" is finally toasted. I will see myself out. ;D
-
Hasn't the senator that represented Utah and kept insisting on the solids retired?
-
Hasn't the senator that represented Utah and kept insisting on the solids retired?
Doesn't matter. The current Utah Congressional Critters will try to preserved the jobs associated with large segmented SRM. There is a lot of funding at stake.
-
4. Fuel: Vulcan maintained two different fuel (RP-1 vs methane) in design until recently, Soyuz-2 switched from RG-1 to naftil, still the same rocket family.
Naftil and RG-1 are the same. However, Soyuz did use Syntin which is different to RG-1.
-
Bottom line and all of this is IMHO of course:
<snip>
The stick is finally dead. Will not be missed.
Let's hope so.
Von Braun was right. And everyone knew he was right. But today we're still stuck with solids (SLS) thanks to penny-pinching NASA administrator James C. Fletcher. He over-ruled Von Braun over what was essentially pocket-change with regards to NASA's budget.
Amazing that seemingly small choices have profound effects in the decades afterwards.
I was all for SLS having hydrocarbon, reusable 'flyback' boosters that would land on the old Shuttle runway. But of course; you can't always get what you want... :(
-
Bottom line and all of this is IMHO of course:
<snip>
The stick is finally dead. Will not be missed.
Let's hope so.
Von Braun was right. And everyone knew he was right. But today we're still stuck with solids (SLS) thanks to penny-pinching NASA administrator James C. Fletcher. He over-ruled Von Braun over what was essentially pocket-change with regards to NASA's budget.
Amazing that seemingly small choices have profound effects in the decades afterwards.
I was all for SLS having hydrocarbon, reusable 'flyback' boosters that would land on the old Shuttle runway. But of course; you can't always get what you want... :(
Somebody should run the numbers on AJAX with four F9 boosters.
-
"Downix" figured the numbers on AJAX. He figured from 2-8 Atlas V's attached to the core. This could be done with F9 boosters for various payloads. Atlas V, F9 and the shuttle solids are all the same diameter.
-
Sadly discussion of AJAX has no relevance for this OmegA thread. It belongs in some "Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle That Might Have Been" conversation. Perhaps @clongton could adopt it into a resurrected DIRECT discussion? ;-)
-
Might I try to disrupt this discussion.
NGIS has the Pegasus, Minotaur and Antares launch vehicles and wanted to expand on this with OmegA.
I think the Antares is similarly to the Atlas V at a dead end, because of the RD-181 engines in the first stage.
Wouldn't it be a smart move from NGIS to replace the Antares first stage with a CASTOR 600 (/300)?
Or is it a better idea to use one BE-4 engine on the Antares first stage?
Or does NGIS stops offering {larger} orbital launchers?
I never understood why NGIS/Orbital ATK couldn't commercialize the Minotaur. The Castor 120/30(XL) could be used for a commercial Minotaur IV/V. Why can India, Japan and Europe develop affordable launcher with solids and are US manufacturers unable to do this!?
Now the sneer to USA politics; from 2000 to 2017 US micro-satellites and especially cubesats had to rely on foreign launchers (and the ISS) to get into orbit. (Now SpaceX with it's rideshare service and Rocketlab Electron (50% New Zealand) can launch these payloads.) While at the same time there are hundreds of surplus ICBM's in stowage.
Small launcher startups needed to develop multiple stages to get a launcher. Wouldn't it have helped if the Surplus ICBM's could have been used with commercial upper-stages? I think some opportunities have been missed.
I think NGIS on one of the (or the) best solid rocket motor manufactured in the world. But commercialization of these motors can be improved upon.
-
There's a US law forbidding surplus ICBM being used to launch commercial missions, only military missions can use these, since government shouldn't complete with private companies on the open market.
They can use newly built solid motor to launch commercial missions, and they did that once, using Minotaur-C to launch SkySats for Planet Labs. I can only assume the reason there's not more launches is because their price is not competitive on the commercial market, just like Omega.
-
Might I try to disrupt this discussion.
NGIS has the Pegasus, Minotaur and Antares launch vehicles and wanted to expand on this with OmegA.
I think the Antares is similarly to the Atlas V at a dead end, because of the RD-181 engines in the first stage.
Wouldn't it be a smart move from NGIS to replace the Antares first stage with a CASTOR 600 (/300)?
Or is it a better idea to use one BE-4 engine on the Antares first stage?
Or does NGIS stops offering {larger} orbital launchers?
No one's paying NG to develop a new launcher, so they'd have to decide it was worth funding the development themselves.
As it stands, Antares is expensive compared to Falcon 9; it costs more money and has a lower payload capacity. It's only won flights by being bundled with Cygnus; I can't recall Orb/OATK/NG winning a contract bundling a satellite they've built with an Antares launch.
Given the Falcon family's effect on the launch market -- something its upcoming competition with New Glenn will only reinforce -- and the new wave of cost-reduced launchers coming online (Ariane 6, H3, Vulcan) or already there (GSLV Mk3, possibly the CZ-7), launch is becoming a commodity. NG would be in the unenviable position of having the sixth or seventh offering in the world-wide market, and fourth in the US alone.
An Omega-lite replacement for Antares would, at a bare minimum, need to be cost competitive with H3 or dual-launched sats off A6 and Vulcan -- and preferably competitive with a reused F9-R (which NG is well aware beat their light launcher, Pegasus, on a ~$40M NASA contract).
And then there's the non-zero possibility that Starship will work as advertised and send launch pricing into another tumble in the same timeframe as an Omega-lite might debut.
So NG has to ask themselves: how much would it cost NG to upgrade Antares to an Omega-lite, how much would the upgrade lower the cost of launching Antares, and how much additional business would the upgraded rocket win over the current Antares? If the additional business and lowered costs are less than the upgrade's development costs, then the upgrade would be a losing proposition.
All-in-all, as NG doesn't think Omega is worth developing on its own, given the competition I doubt they'd consider sinking money into an Antares replacement. I also don't see anyone else paying them to do so, either. As such, I expect Antares will fly out the CRS2 contract, and maybe some additional LEO Cygnus missions, while a larger or non-LEO Cygnus would more likely fly on a larger rocket like Vulcan, as it's already done on Atlas V. They'd keep the money-making spacecraft, and just outsource the launch to the lowest-price bidder the customer finds acceptable.
-
Might I try to disrupt this discussion.
NGIS has the Pegasus, Minotaur and Antares launch vehicles and wanted to expand on this with OmegA.
I think the Antares is similarly to the Atlas V at a dead end, because of the RD-181 engines in the first stage.
Wouldn't it be a smart move from NGIS to replace the Antares first stage with a CASTOR 600 (/300)?
Or is it a better idea to use one BE-4 engine on the Antares first stage?
Or does NGIS stops offering {larger} orbital launchers?
I made a whole thread about the OmegA Light concept over a year ago now: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48273.msg1953225#msg1953225
The summary is that the infrastructure at Wallops couldn't conceivably support the weight of the Castor 300, much less the 600, meaning you'd have to launch from 39B, which essentially makes it a non-starter. I mean think about it; you're now talking about finishing modification to a mobile launch platform so that you can launch a vehicle with half of the Saturn IB's LEO tonnage off of it. It's just not cost effective.
Here's a post I made in another thread about upgrading Antares.
The way I see it, there are two possible routes to upgrades Antares. You can either start with the upper stage or start with the first stage.
And it's really a question of what you want to accomplish with the upgrade; if you want to increase the performance of Antares, then upgrading the upper stage is clearly the best option, as the Castor 30XL is literally weighing the rocket down. But if your goal is to decrease the cost of Antares, or simplify your supply lines, or avoid potential political problems for your government focused LV, then the Castor 30XL is an American stage you make within the company for relatively cheap, and the first stage is a crisis.
OmegA was supposed to be part of how they fixed these problems; remember how many times it has been emphasized that OmegA is 'All American'? If OmegA isn't flying, then it seems to me that replacing the Antares first stage entirely should be NGSS's first goal.
In that post I make what I think is a reasonably good argument replacing the Antares first stage, and keeping the Castor 30XL. If that's what you're designing, than you need to make sure your first stage has enough thrust to lift the heavy solid upper stage. A single BE-4 only provides you with about 5/8ths the thrust of the current Antares 1st stage, which I just don't think would be enough.
I generally think of an Antares replacement as having either 2x Raptors, 2x AR1s, or just an entirely new engine.
But that's getting pretty far off topic. If you'd like to continue discussion of Antares replacements, I made the thread the above quote is from specifically for discussions like this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51669.0
-
NG did look at using a CASTOR 600/CASTOR 300/CASTOR 30XL as a replacement for Antares, but I think without a customer who is willing to pay for most of its development, its going to stay on the drawing board.