NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => NGIS (Formerly Orbital ATK) - Antares/Cygnus Section => Topic started by: JEF_300 on 08/08/2020 12:49 am
-
With the NSSL Phase 2 awards out, we now know that OmegA did not win. Which means, as has been pointed out across multiple threads already today, there is a chance that OmegA will be canceled.
If you guys are anything like me, you've already begun wondering what will be next for all the launch vehicle engineers at NGSS. This thread is for speculating about what that may be.
This question is just as relevant if OmegA is canceled in the coming months as it is if OmegA flys in a year, so feel free to assume either outcome in your speculation. Just be sure to specify your assumption.
If I'm to be totally blunt, I mainly made this thread because I realized that if I didn't, I would soon start dragging other thread off-topic with my inevitable speculation. Hopefully, having a place to dump those ideas will help, and hopefully it helps others too.
EDIT: Broadened the main question, in the hopes of avoid arguments about OmegA's impending possible cancelation.
-
OmegA may survive only because NG makes solids for the military, their biggest money maker. Launching satellites would only be secondary as far as a money maker. However the same technology to make military missiles can be used on OmegA. The only real thing they need is an upper stage that can be restarted to get to higher orbits. They may continue development and bid the rocket on the next go round with the Space Force.
-
There are other Air/Space Force and DARPA contracts like OSP as well. So if there is the political support, NG will get their money.
-
Not certain this will help but allow me to suggest you disambiguate: are you interested in the OmegA branding of the vehicle, the precise configurations, or the underlying motors? The so-called "Castor 300/600/1200" motor designs use various numbers of "common boost segments." See https://www.space.com/northrop-grumman-omega-rocket-test-fire.html for a reasonable description of that design.
In addition to OmegA there is another vehicle which someday might fly with common boost segments: SLS. It seems unlikely NG will completely shelve continued work on that technology.
-
If you guys are anything like me, you've already begun wondering what will be next for all the launch vehicle engineers at NGSS. This thread is for speculating about what that may be.
My guess is layoffs. Some people will likely move to other areas within NG, but the other NG programs are likely fully-staffed already or close to it, and some of the specialties needed for OmegA just won't be needed on other programs.
-
NGSS have said they don't need many launches to operate OmegA profitably. If the National Team wins the Lunar lander competition, I could see them using OmegA to launch the Transfer Element which they are designing, with Lockheed Martin using Vulcan for the Ascent Element and New Glenn for the Descent Element.
-
NGSS have said they don't need many launches to operate OmegA profitably. If the National Team wins the Lunar lander competition, I could see them using OmegA to launch the Transfer Element which they are designing, with Lockheed Martin using Vulcan for the Ascent Element and New Glenn for the Descent Element.
Is it even the manufacturer's decision which launch vehicle to use? Or is NASA contracting for the launches itself separately?
Even if OmegA were being used for all the transfer element launches, that's only three launches at best, from 2024 through 2026. No matter what NG boasts about not needing many launches, it's just not remotely plausible that three launches could support completing the development and maintaining the infrastructure for OmegA.
Wikipedia's list of Artemis launches lists the launch vehicle for each of the transfer elements as an unknown commercial launch vehicle. If NG's contract with NASA for the transfer element gave NG the right to determine the launch vehicle, don't you think NG would already have been trumpeting that news? They have been trying to hype OmegA all that they can, yet I haven't found any indicate NG has ever claimed OmegA will be used for these launches.
-
Last I heard, NGIS thought OmegA needed at least 3 launches per year to be viable. 1 every other year for the lander and 1 every other year for GLS (if we think wishful-y), is not that.
None of which matters anyway, because this thread's title doesn't begin, "Will Omega be canceled?", but rather, "Assuming Omega is canceled...". There is an excellent OmegA general discussion thread where wether or not it will be canceled can be argued. This is the thread about what comes after OmegA.
In fact, I'm probably going to go back and edit the original post and title, and remove any mention of cancelation. The real question is "What comes after OmegA?". Even if they don't cancel OmegA, making that question irrelevant now, it would be relevant again be in about a year when OmegA would start flying.
-
If you guys are anything like me, you've already begun wondering what will be next for all the launch vehicle engineers at NGSS. This thread is for speculating about what that may be.
My guess is layoffs. Some people will likely move to other areas within NG, but the other NG programs are likely fully-staffed already or close to it, and some of the specialties needed for OmegA just won't be needed on other programs.
There's a lot of good, seasoned engineers who are working on OmegA. If we do see layoffs at NGSS, I wonder if we'll also see a related increase in the number of smallsat companies since that seems to be the standard retirement plan of rocket scientist nowadays.
-
There are still Cygnus launches, Antares isn't an inexpensive launch vehicle and had been a total flop commercially. If they could punt Cygnus launches over to Omega and pick up even a single extra flight per year that might just be enough or better than where they are now.
There is also NG's satellite servicing business, if they can vertically integrate for launches of that Omega would be an asset to them.
-
Better to fly it at near cost and make some money. If they aren't trying recoup R&D investment then could be quite competitive, even with F9R.
In regards to lander missions, they will need heavy version using Castor 1200, this isn't scheduled to fly till 2024.
-
NG has a lot of LVs: Pegasus, Antares, various breed of Minotaur. NG doesn't lack LVs, they have too many IMO.
NGSS have said they don't need many launches to operate OmegA profitably. If the National Team wins the Lunar lander competition, I could see them using OmegA to launch the Transfer Element which they are designing, with Lockheed Martin using Vulcan for the Ascent Element and New Glenn for the Descent Element.
Does non-Heavy version of OmegA has enough performance to launch Transfer Element?
-
Northrop Grumman is the only prime for the next generation ICBM program, so as long as that goes forward there should be plenty of jobs:
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2020/04/16/northrop-could-be-getting-an-85b-award-to-produce-next-gen-icbms-sooner-than-expected/
They also have the SRBs for the SLS program, along with the abort motors for Orion, and the boosters for Vulcan.
-
There are still Cygnus launches, Antares isn't an inexpensive launch vehicle and had been a total flop commercially. If they could punt Cygnus launches over to Omega and pick up even a single extra flight per year that might just be enough or better than where they are now.
<snip>
The current Antares launcher is optimized for ISS logistics at LEO. Antares could pick up some more commercial payloads if the solid motor upper stage is replaced with new upper stage with a restartable liquid motor that have more delta-V for GTO missions with the emerging small comsat market.
-
There are still Cygnus launches, Antares isn't an inexpensive launch vehicle and had been a total flop commercially. If they could punt Cygnus launches over to Omega and pick up even a single extra flight per year that might just be enough or better than where they are now.
<snip>
The current Antares launcher is optimized for ISS logistics at LEO. Antares could pick up some more commercial payloads if the solid motor upper stage is replaced with new upper stage with a restartable liquid motor that have more delta-V for GTO missions with the emerging small comsat market.
Thats my hope. Take parts from the Omega program and use them to make Antares more competitive. A liquid booster can at least have a path to reusability (I doubt Antares itself can be practically reused, beyond something like SMART, but they can test entry dynamics and such for a future vehicle). A hydrogen upper stage, scaled down from the Omega third stage, should increase performance to high energy orbits and allow more complex insertion geometry/accuracy. Star can be retained as an optional third stage for extra high-energy missions. If even more performance is needed, especially to LEO, GEM-63 can be used.
Strapon SRBs and liquid (hydrogen, kerosene, methane, or hypergolic) second stages are both things that were part of the original Antares evolution roadmap, before the OATK merger. And Northrop certainly has the heritage and resources for all of these things, including moving towards reuse
-
I think the most likely scenario is Antares only flies 2-4 more times and NGSS starts procuring Cygnus launch services from ULA and/or BO rather than committing to more Antares production.
-
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.
-
There are still Cygnus launches, Antares isn't an inexpensive launch vehicle and had been a total flop commercially. If they could punt Cygnus launches over to Omega and pick up even a single extra flight per year that might just be enough or better than where they are now.
<snip>
The current Antares launcher is optimized for ISS logistics at LEO. Antares could pick up some more commercial payloads if the solid motor upper stage is replaced with new upper stage with a restartable liquid motor that have more delta-V for GTO missions with the emerging small comsat market.
Thats my hope. Take parts from the Omega program and use them to make Antares more competitive. A liquid booster can at least have a path to reusability (I doubt Antares itself can be practically reused, beyond something like SMART, but they can test entry dynamics and such for a future vehicle). A hydrogen upper stage, scaled down from the Omega third stage, should increase performance to high energy orbits and allow more complex insertion geometry/accuracy. Star can be retained as an optional third stage for extra high-energy missions. If even more performance is needed, especially to LEO, GEM-63 can be used.
Strapon SRBs and liquid (hydrogen, kerosene, methane, or hypergolic) second stages are both things that were part of the original Antares evolution roadmap, before the OATK merger. And Northrop certainly has the heritage and resources for all of these things, including moving towards reuse
Antares could evolve into another Atlas V, given booster is practically same. Need larger 2nd stage, Centuar was always unsized, SRBs are easy.
Downside is booster and engines are built externally, with Omega booster is all internal.
-
Antares could evolve into another Atlas V, given booster is practically same. Need larger 2nd stage, Centuar was always unsized, SRBs are easy.
With NGSS now working on composite hydrolox tanks for the National Team lander transfer stage, it's very easy to imagine them building essentially a 4-meter composite centaur. And they could easily evolve that into a sort of little-ACES.
-
I predict that NGSS will exit the medium/heavy launch market, focus on orbital propulsion (hydrolox), and dangle a solid smallsat launcher concept in front of USAF for extra cash. The big booster space is too crowded and way too competitive for NGSS. The same could be said for smallsat launchers, but USAF will sprinkle money around, and with the exception of Rocket Lab, who knows if any of the competitors will remain solvent.
I know the prompt is specifically about LVs, but in all likelihood, NGSS has much better prospects in LEO and beyond, and from a neutral space fan perspective, I think it's a good thing for the traditional aerospace giants to move up the value chain and cede the launch sector to the younger companies that can do it more cost-effectively.
-
I predict that NGSS will exit the medium/heavy launch market, focus on orbital propulsion (hydrolox), and dangle a solid smallsat launcher concept in front of USAF for extra cash. The big booster space is too crowded and way too competitive for NGSS. The same could be said for smallsat launchers, but USAF will sprinkle money around, and with the exception of Rocket Lab, who knows if any of the competitors will remain solvent.
I know the prompt is specifically about LVs, but in all likelihood, NGSS has much better prospects in LEO and beyond, and from a neutral space fan perspective, I think it's a good thing for the traditional aerospace giants to move up the value chain and cede the launch sector to the younger companies that can do it more cost-effectively.
I'm also fan of NGSS inspace efforts, at present they are leaders in this field, think its right place for them to focus their business.
In regards to smallsat launcher, SRB booster with restartable BE7 powered US could be interesting option.
-
I predict that NGSS will exit the medium/heavy launch market, focus on orbital propulsion (hydrolox), and dangle a solid smallsat launcher concept in front of USAF for extra cash. The big booster space is too crowded and way too competitive for NGSS. The same could be said for smallsat launchers, but USAF will sprinkle money around, and with the exception of Rocket Lab, who knows if any of the competitors will remain solvent.
I know the prompt is specifically about LVs, but in all likelihood, NGSS has much better prospects in LEO and beyond, and from a neutral space fan perspective, I think it's a good thing for the traditional aerospace giants to move up the value chain and cede the launch sector to the younger companies that can do it more cost-effectively.
I'm also fan of NGSS inspace efforts, at present they are leaders in this field, think its right place for them to focus their business.
In regards to smallsat launcher, SRB booster with restartable BE7 powered US could be interesting option.
I once realized that the Electron first stage and the GEMs are quite similar in size, and ever since then I've wondered if a properly modified GEM could be used as the first stage of a smallsat launcher. My guess would be that it's probably not possible to get the propellant to burn slow enough for that to be practical, but I'd love to hear from people who know more.
If it is possible, I suspect that commonality with the strap-ons for Vulcan and Atlas (and maybe OmegA) could make it actually quite affordable.
-
There are still Cygnus launches, Antares isn't an inexpensive launch vehicle and had been a total flop commercially. If they could punt Cygnus launches over to Omega and pick up even a single extra flight per year that might just be enough or better than where they are now.
No, OmegA is a lot more expensive to NGSS than Antares. It would be bonkers for them to launch Cygnus on a more expensive launch vehicle. Cygnus launches are on a fixed-price contract, not cost plus. The government won't pay a dime more to launch Cygnus on OmegA, so moving it would just cause NGSS to lose a whole lot of money for no gain.
Anyway, if NGSS thought it made any sense to launch Cygnus on Omega after having lost NSSL Phase 2, then they would have thought it would make even more sense when they were still in the running for NSSL Phase 2 and they would have loudly announced it then, because it would have supported their NSSL Phase 2 bid.
There is also NG's satellite servicing business, if they can vertically integrate for launches of that Omega would be an asset to them.
No, integrating a much more expensive launcher than the competition into a package would not be an asset to them. Not at all. They'd either have to sell the package deal at a huge loss and throw away money or price it to break even and have zero customers for the package.
-
Better to fly it at near cost and make some money. If they aren't trying recoup R&D investment then could be quite competitive, even with F9R.
In what fantasy universe? If it could be cost competitive with reusable Falcon 9, why couldn't they find any commercial customers for it?
In regards to lander missions, they will need heavy version using Castor 1200, this isn't scheduled to fly till 2024.
There's no reason to believe OmegA will get any lander missions, that was just speculation based on zero evidence. If OmegA were getting any lander missions, NGSS would have loudly announced it already.
-
Northrop Grumman is the only prime for the next generation ICBM program, so as long as that goes forward there should be plenty of jobs:
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2020/04/16/northrop-could-be-getting-an-85b-award-to-produce-next-gen-icbms-sooner-than-expected/
They also have the SRBs for the SLS program, along with the abort motors for Orion, and the boosters for Vulcan.
All of those other programs already have people working on them. It's far from clear that they have enough job openings to absorb all the people who have been working on OmegA.
-
all the people who have been working on OmegA.
How many is that? What are their job titles?
-
all the people who have been working on OmegA.
How many is that? What are their job titles?
Obviously, I don't know their job titles or the exact number of people. So what?
Obviously there were a significant number of people working on the OmegA program. They were getting hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding for it and they were announcing progress on it.
-
NG could potentially receive a little bit of money in FY21 for space launch technology but it's not a huge amount:
Regardless of whether it’s $150 million or $250 million, this is a “small amount of money relative to what we’ll be spending on launch,” he said. [...]
The Air Force said it planned to begin investing in Phase 3 by 2023 but Smith worries that the two companies that don’t win Phase 2 could exit the national security space launch market and that the government can prevent that by accelerating investments.
https://spacenews.com/smith-encouraged-by-senate-ndaa-proposal-to-increase-funding-for-space-launch-technology/
See section 1601 of the House bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6395/text
See section 1602 of the Senate bill:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s4049/text
-
all the people who have been working on OmegA.
How many is that? What are their job titles?
Obviously, I don't know their job titles or the exact number of people. So what?
You seem very sure that Omega is more expensive than Cygnus for NG to operate so obviously you must have an in depth knowledge of the program that the rest of us don't have.
PS Antares launch cost is $80-$85M as per this document: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf
That's much more than F9 and not much less than Vuclan's expected price. If Omega was to be cost competitive than it shouldn't be much more. As the underdogs in the competition I wouldn't expect them to be higher in cost and also heavily subsidized by their SLS booster work.
-
all the people who have been working on OmegA.
How many is that? What are their job titles?
Obviously, I don't know their job titles or the exact number of people. So what?
You seem very sure that Omega is more expensive than Cygnus for NG to operate so obviously you must have an in depth knowledge of the program that the rest of us don't have.
No, it doesn't take in-depth knowledge to know that OmegA is more expensive than Antares. Just look at the evidence.
OmegA and Antares aren't even in the same payload class. OmegA can launch far more. OmegA could launch big GEO comsats. But they've gotten no commercial interest. It's clear that OmegA is too expensive to compete on price in its own payload class, so the idea it could be cheaper than a rocket for a much smaller payload class is not plausible. And NGSS have not been talking about moving Cygnus launches to OmegA, which they would have been doing already if OmegA could compete with Antares on price.
Solid rocket technology is widespread around the world because it's useful for military purposes. Yet the world of launch is dominated by liquid rockets for their cores, with solids relegated to strap-on boosters as a way to give additional performance for additional cost. Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles. All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
-
[ OmegA can launch far more. OmegA could launch big GEO comsats. But they've gotten no commercial interest.
https://spacenews.com/saturn-satellite-networks-to-be-first-customer-of-northrop-grummans-omega/
-
[ OmegA can launch far more. OmegA could launch big GEO comsats. But they've gotten no commercial interest.
https://spacenews.com/saturn-satellite-networks-to-be-first-customer-of-northrop-grummans-omega/
That was not a real commercial customer.
This is just a case where the manufacturer needs to do a test flight as their first flight of a new vehicle. The manufacturer has to pay for the test flight anyway. Someone without a lot of money is willing to pay some small amount for a very high risk, low cost flight for their payloads. The money the manufacturer receives is nowhere near enough to pay for the cost of the flight, but it doesn't matter because they have to pay for the flight anyway so they might as well get a little revenue from it.
-
Nationsats can mass up to 1700 kg. So, two of them could be 3,400 kg which is in the same mass range of quite a few Falcon 9 launches to GTO. I wouldn't assume that this is a low revenue flight. It seems like SSN may not be exactly happy with the service by SpaceX given a few weeks after it was reported their launch vehicle was being delayed by SpaceX, they signed this agreement with Northrop Grumman for NationSats 2/3. So, the reasons for the move may not exactly be heavily discounted pricing.
-
I'm gonna make a prediction that one day, maybe about a year from now, I will be thinking about either OmegA or Antares pricing, and I'll think, 'Wait, wasn't there a discussion on NASASpaceflight.com about this a year ago?' And then I'll go looking for this discussion you guys have had above.
But I'll never find it, because when I read the title of this thread (which I'll probably have totally forgotten about in a year), I'll think, 'No, that discussion I'm looking for doesn't have anything to do with what comes after OmegA. I think I'll go check in the OmegA General Discussion thread instead.'
Seriously though, this has happened to me before. You guys have made a lot of very good posts, with good information, that are totally off-topic on this thread, and I wish I was confident I could find them later.
-
I could only really see OmegA launching 3 missions, 2 missions for Saturn Satellite Networks, and the HALO component for Gateway since Northrop Grumman is building the module.
-
I could only really see OmegA launching 3 missions, 2 missions for Saturn Satellite Networks, and the HALO component for Gateway since Northrop Grumman is building the module.
I don't think there's been any talk of 2 missions for Saturn Satellite Networks. What has been said is that Saturn will fly one or two satellites on the first OmegA launch. So if Saturn flies two satellites on OmegA they will both be on the same flight, the first OmegA flight. The satellites aren't very big, so OmegA can easily carry two of them at the same time.
As to flying HALO, just because NG is building it doesn't mean they get to decide which launcher it uses. Normal NASA practice is to contract with one company to build something and with another company to launch it. The launch contracts are normally competed separately. I don't see any reason it would be any different with HALO.
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Yes, and there's Pegasus and Taurus/Minotaur too. I didn't say quite what I meant to say in my post. I meant to say that solid-based launchers have been limited to either small, expensive vehicles or cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Epsilon: $39 million for 590 kg to SSO
Vega: $37 million for 1,450 kg to SSO
Pegasus: $40 million for 443 kg to LEO
Minotaur: $40 million for 1,054 kg to SSO
All more than half the price of even an expendable Falcon 9 for less than a tenth the payload of a reusable Falcon 9.
So these small solid launchers support my point, which was the last statement in the post to which you responded:
All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Yes, and there's Pegasus and Taurus/Minotaur too. I didn't say quite what I meant to say in my post. I meant to say that solid-based launchers have been limited to either small, expensive vehicles or cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Epsilon: $39 million for 590 kg to SSO
Vega: $37 million for 1,450 kg to SSO
Pegasus: $40 million for 443 kg to LEO
Minotaur: $40 million for 1,054 kg to SSO
All more than half the price of even an expendable Falcon 9 for less than a tenth the payload of a reusable Falcon 9.
So these small solid launchers support my point, which was the last statement in the post to which you responded:
All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
Cost isn't everything. Independent access to space, prestige, and safeguarding industry are all very important factors for governmental space agencies.
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Also Scout
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Yes, and there's Pegasus and Taurus/Minotaur too. I didn't say quite what I meant to say in my post. I meant to say that solid-based launchers have been limited to either small, expensive vehicles or cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Epsilon: $39 million for 590 kg to SSO
Vega: $37 million for 1,450 kg to SSO
Pegasus: $40 million for 443 kg to LEO
Minotaur: $40 million for 1,054 kg to SSO
All more than half the price of even an expendable Falcon 9 for less than a tenth the payload of a reusable Falcon 9.
So these small solid launchers support my point, which was the last statement in the post to which you responded:
All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
Cost isn't everything. Independent access to space, prestige, and safeguarding industry are all very important factors for governmental space agencies.
Those might well be factors for government space agencies, but it's not relevant to the debate we were having here. If you look back at the reply chain you'll see that the debate was over whether OmegA could be cheaper than or the same prices as Antares so that NG might choose to replace Antares with OmegA for Cygnus launches.
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Yes, and there's Pegasus and Taurus/Minotaur too. I didn't say quite what I meant to say in my post. I meant to say that solid-based launchers have been limited to either small, expensive vehicles or cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Epsilon: $39 million for 590 kg to SSO
Vega: $37 million for 1,450 kg to SSO
Pegasus: $40 million for 443 kg to LEO
Minotaur: $40 million for 1,054 kg to SSO
All more than half the price of even an expendable Falcon 9 for less than a tenth the payload of a reusable Falcon 9.
So these small solid launchers support my point, which was the last statement in the post to which you responded:
All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
Cost isn't everything. Independent access to space, prestige, and safeguarding industry are all very important factors for governmental space agencies.
Those might well be factors for government space agencies, but it's not relevant to the debate we were having here. If you look back at the reply chain you'll see that the debate was over whether OmegA could be cheaper than or the same prices as Antares so that NG might choose to replace Antares with OmegA for Cygnus launches.
You're the one who used Vega and Epsilon, both governmental launchers, as examples.
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Yes, and there's Pegasus and Taurus/Minotaur too. I didn't say quite what I meant to say in my post. I meant to say that solid-based launchers have been limited to either small, expensive vehicles or cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Epsilon: $39 million for 590 kg to SSO
Vega: $37 million for 1,450 kg to SSO
Pegasus: $40 million for 443 kg to LEO
Minotaur: $40 million for 1,054 kg to SSO
All more than half the price of even an expendable Falcon 9 for less than a tenth the payload of a reusable Falcon 9.
So these small solid launchers support my point, which was the last statement in the post to which you responded:
All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
Prices for launch vehicles don't tend to scale linearly with size. Electron is 1 tenth the price of Falcon 9 but 1/100th the payload. But Falcon 9 and an ASDS only gets 11030 kg to a 700 km SSO that Vega gets ~1450 kg to, which is more than 1/10th the payload, not less. It is more like 1/7th the payload. Vega C will be about 1/5th the payload. But it more comes down to Elon Musk being able to corner the market for launches. If Falcon 9 was flying as infrequently as Vega, it wouldn't be as cheap as it is.
Anyways, OmegA isn't that much bigger than Antares in its smallest configuration. It probably costs ~$20 million more to launch than Antares. Northrop Grumman could replace Antares with it and use the extra payload capacity for additional Cygnus payload (the current Cygnus is more mass limited by the launch vehicle than it is volume limited by the Cygnus) and then be much better off to compete in Phase 3 of NSSL in ~48 months.
-
Northrop Grumman is the only prime for the next generation ICBM program, so as long as that goes forward there should be plenty of jobs:
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2020/04/16/northrop-could-be-getting-an-85b-award-to-produce-next-gen-icbms-sooner-than-expected/
How similar is GBSD (Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, i.e., the trendy new way to say "ICBM") to OmegA?
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Yes, and there's Pegasus and Taurus/Minotaur too. I didn't say quite what I meant to say in my post. I meant to say that solid-based launchers have been limited to either small, expensive vehicles or cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Epsilon: $39 million for 590 kg to SSO
Vega: $37 million for 1,450 kg to SSO
Pegasus: $40 million for 443 kg to LEO
Minotaur: $40 million for 1,054 kg to SSO
All more than half the price of even an expendable Falcon 9 for less than a tenth the payload of a reusable Falcon 9.
So these small solid launchers support my point, which was the last statement in the post to which you responded:
All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
What is the price of a expendable Falcon 9? And what source is it from?
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Yes, and there's Pegasus and Taurus/Minotaur too. I didn't say quite what I meant to say in my post. I meant to say that solid-based launchers have been limited to either small, expensive vehicles or cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Epsilon: $39 million for 590 kg to SSO
Vega: $37 million for 1,450 kg to SSO
Pegasus: $40 million for 443 kg to LEO
Minotaur: $40 million for 1,054 kg to SSO
All more than half the price of even an expendable Falcon 9 for less than a tenth the payload of a reusable Falcon 9.
So these small solid launchers support my point, which was the last statement in the post to which you responded:
All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
What is the price of a expendable Falcon 9? And what source is it from?
There are many sources. SpaceX has publicly said many times that it was between $59 million and $62 million.
But perhaps the best source was documents filed with a court in a legal case by Iridium. The documents quoted the exact amount paid by Iridium to launch its satellites on expendable Falcon 9 rockets. It was about $60 million per flight. That was the full amount paid to SpaceX. Irridium certified that was correct, under penalty of perjury, to the court, and Iridium had no reason to lie. You can't really get any better evidence than that.
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Yes, and there's Pegasus and Taurus/Minotaur too. I didn't say quite what I meant to say in my post. I meant to say that solid-based launchers have been limited to either small, expensive vehicles or cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Epsilon: $39 million for 590 kg to SSO
Vega: $37 million for 1,450 kg to SSO
Pegasus: $40 million for 443 kg to LEO
Minotaur: $40 million for 1,054 kg to SSO
All more than half the price of even an expendable Falcon 9 for less than a tenth the payload of a reusable Falcon 9.
So these small solid launchers support my point, which was the last statement in the post to which you responded:
All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
What is the price of a expendable Falcon 9? And what source is it from?
There are many sources. SpaceX has publicly said many times that it was between $59 million and $62 million.
But perhaps the best source was documents filed with a court in a legal case by Iridium. The documents quoted the exact amount paid by Iridium to launch its satellites on expendable Falcon 9 rockets. It was about $60 million per flight. That was the full amount paid to SpaceX. Irridium certified that was correct, under penalty of perjury, to the court, and Iridium had no reason to lie. You can't really get any better evidence than that.
So, reusable Falcon 9 is $62 million and expendable falcon 9 is $59-$62 million? Talking current prices and current Falcon 9 launch vehicles, not contracts signed 10 years ago.
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
-
What is the price of a expendable Falcon 9? And what source is it from?
There are many sources. SpaceX has publicly said many times that it was between $59 million and $62 million.
But perhaps the best source was documents filed with a court in a legal case by Iridium. The documents quoted the exact amount paid by Iridium to launch its satellites on expendable Falcon 9 rockets. It was about $60 million per flight. That was the full amount paid to SpaceX. Irridium certified that was correct, under penalty of perjury, to the court, and Iridium had no reason to lie. You can't really get any better evidence than that.
So, reusable Falcon 9 is $62 million and expendable falcon 9 is $59-$62 million? Talking current prices and current Falcon 9 launch vehicles, not contracts signed 10 years ago.
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-launch-services-contract-for-groundbreaking-astrophysics-mission
SpaceX recently bid a reused booster for the NASA IXPE flight, and won the launch award, with a bid of $50.3 million. That's with extra costs for NASA oversight and red tape.
So a reused booster flight is probably closer to $40 million for a commercial launch. Maybe even less.
-
What is the price of a expendable Falcon 9? And what source is it from?
There are many sources. SpaceX has publicly said many times that it was between $59 million and $62 million.
But perhaps the best source was documents filed with a court in a legal case by Iridium. The documents quoted the exact amount paid by Iridium to launch its satellites on expendable Falcon 9 rockets. It was about $60 million per flight. That was the full amount paid to SpaceX. Irridium certified that was correct, under penalty of perjury, to the court, and Iridium had no reason to lie. You can't really get any better evidence than that.
So, reusable Falcon 9 is $62 million and expendable falcon 9 is $59-$62 million?
No, not at all. The question I was asked was explicitly about expendable Falcon 9 and my answer was to that question. Over time, the prices we have heard for expendable Falcon 9 have varied in the range from around $59 to $62 million.
For reusable Falcon 9, Musk tweeted that those were priced "around $50 million". And we know the exact amount NASA will be paying SpaceX for the launch of the IXPE mission on a reusable Falcon 9: $50.3 million.
Talking current prices and current Falcon 9 launch vehicles, not contracts signed 10 years ago.
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
Current prices are for reusable Falcon 9 launches, and that's about $50 million. Customers have become comfortable with reusable Falcon 9 launches, so that's what most "current" prices are.
All evidence is that basic expendable Falcon 9 prices have stayed at around $60 million and basic reusable Falcon 9 prices have stayed at around $50 million. The best evidence for expendable Falcon 9 launches comes from contracts signed years ago because recent contracts have been mostly for reusable, not expendable, Falcon 9.
Government missions have cost more when the government has demanded additional services that are expensive, but still always, as far as we have evidence for, below the prices of any and all competitors providing the same services.
-
What is the price of a expendable Falcon 9? And what source is it from?
There are many sources. SpaceX has publicly said many times that it was between $59 million and $62 million.
But perhaps the best source was documents filed with a court in a legal case by Iridium. The documents quoted the exact amount paid by Iridium to launch its satellites on expendable Falcon 9 rockets. It was about $60 million per flight. That was the full amount paid to SpaceX. Irridium certified that was correct, under penalty of perjury, to the court, and Iridium had no reason to lie. You can't really get any better evidence than that.
So, reusable Falcon 9 is $62 million and expendable falcon 9 is $59-$62 million?
No, not at all. The question I was asked was explicitly about expendable Falcon 9 and my answer was to that question. Over time, the prices we have heard for expendable Falcon 9 have varied in the range from around $59 to $62 million.
For reusable Falcon 9, Musk tweeted that those were priced "around $50 million". And we know the exact amount NASA will be paying SpaceX for the launch of the IXPE mission on a reusable Falcon 9: $50.3 million.
Talking current prices and current Falcon 9 launch vehicles, not contracts signed 10 years ago.
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
Current prices are for reusable Falcon 9 launches, and that's about $50 million. Customers have become comfortable with reusable Falcon 9 launches, so that's what most "current" prices are.
All evidence is that basic expendable Falcon 9 prices have stayed at around $60 million and basic reusable Falcon 9 prices have stayed at around $50 million. The best evidence for expendable Falcon 9 launches comes from contracts signed years ago because recent contracts have been mostly for reusable, not expendable, Falcon 9.
Government missions have cost more when the government has demanded additional services that are expensive, but still always, as far as we have evidence for, below the prices of any and all competitors providing the same services.
Then nobody would be crazy enough to pay $30 million more for a Falcon Heavy when they can do an expendable Falcon 9 for $30 million less. IXPE was bid in a certain way to undercut Pegasus. It isn't average Falcon 9 pricing.
-
What is the price of a expendable Falcon 9? And what source is it from?
There are many sources. SpaceX has publicly said many times that it was between $59 million and $62 million.
But perhaps the best source was documents filed with a court in a legal case by Iridium. The documents quoted the exact amount paid by Iridium to launch its satellites on expendable Falcon 9 rockets. It was about $60 million per flight. That was the full amount paid to SpaceX. Irridium certified that was correct, under penalty of perjury, to the court, and Iridium had no reason to lie. You can't really get any better evidence than that.
So, reusable Falcon 9 is $62 million and expendable falcon 9 is $59-$62 million?
No, not at all. The question I was asked was explicitly about expendable Falcon 9 and my answer was to that question. Over time, the prices we have heard for expendable Falcon 9 have varied in the range from around $59 to $62 million.
For reusable Falcon 9, Musk tweeted that those were priced "around $50 million". And we know the exact amount NASA will be paying SpaceX for the launch of the IXPE mission on a reusable Falcon 9: $50.3 million.
Talking current prices and current Falcon 9 launch vehicles, not contracts signed 10 years ago.
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
Current prices are for reusable Falcon 9 launches, and that's about $50 million. Customers have become comfortable with reusable Falcon 9 launches, so that's what most "current" prices are.
All evidence is that basic expendable Falcon 9 prices have stayed at around $60 million and basic reusable Falcon 9 prices have stayed at around $50 million. The best evidence for expendable Falcon 9 launches comes from contracts signed years ago because recent contracts have been mostly for reusable, not expendable, Falcon 9.
Government missions have cost more when the government has demanded additional services that are expensive, but still always, as far as we have evidence for, below the prices of any and all competitors providing the same services.
Then nobody would be crazy enough to pay $30 million more for a Falcon Heavy when they can do an expendable Falcon 9 for $30 million less.
Sure, and that's why there have been so few Falcon Heavy missions. If the job can be done by Falcon 9 expendable, that's the cheaper option.
Falcon Heavy is more powerful than Falcon 9 expendable, so it can do missions Falcon 9 expendable cannot. So you use Falcon 9 if you can and pay more for Falcon Heavy if you need Falcon Heavy.
IXPE was bid in a certain way to undercut Pegasus. It isn't average Falcon 9 pricing.
I'm just telling you what the evidence is. If you want to ignore all the evidence because it conflicts with your pre-existing world view, knock yourself out.
-
If anyone has any more comments about Falcon 9 pricing, I would suggest taking it to a Falcon 9 thread. This is an NGSS-after-OmegA thread.
-
Also Scout
Lest we forget, Conestoga and Super Strypi were also all solid, but failed on their first and only launch.
-
And NOTS-EV-1 Pilot with a minuscule 1.05 kg payload to LEO. No launches were ever cataloged as reaching orbit because ground stations were ordered to stand down. However, one ground station in New Zealand heard weak signals (from the satellite) in the right place at the right time for the first and third orbits so who knows.
-
Shuttle-diameter solid boosters from ATK Launch Systems1 have now been paired in three different designs with liquid upper stages, powered by J-2X (Ares I), Vulcain2 (Liberty) and RL10 (OmegA).
What's next? Develop yet another business case for a launch vehicle that includes a big, liquid upper stage! Any ideas which engine they might use this time?
----
1. I think that's the proper name today for the NG subsidiary in Utah....
-
<snip>
Anyways, OmegA isn't that much bigger than Antares in its smallest configuration. It probably costs ~$20 million more to launch than Antares. Northrop Grumman could replace Antares with it and use the extra payload capacity for additional Cygnus payload (the current Cygnus is more mass limited by the launch vehicle than it is volume limited by the Cygnus) and then be much better off to compete in Phase 3 of NSSL in ~48 months.
You do realize that the OmegA could only currently launch from LC-39B on a modified mobile launcher after being emplaced with the crawler transport after being stacked at one the bays at the VAB. So likely much more cost than $20M additional than the Antares.
There will most likely to be political cost to closing down the Wallops Antares launch pad and payload processing facility for Northrop Grumman.
The current Antares launcher's performance is hampered by its Castor 30XL solid motor powered upper stage. The Castor 30XL make the Antares a boutique launcher suitable mostly for ISS logistics.
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Yes, and there's Pegasus and Taurus/Minotaur too. I didn't say quite what I meant to say in my post. I meant to say that solid-based launchers have been limited to either small, expensive vehicles or cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Epsilon: $39 million for 590 kg to SSO
Vega: $37 million for 1,450 kg to SSO
Pegasus: $40 million for 443 kg to LEO
Minotaur: $40 million for 1,054 kg to SSO
All more than half the price of even an expendable Falcon 9 for less than a tenth the payload of a reusable Falcon 9.
So these small solid launchers support my point, which was the last statement in the post to which you responded:
All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
What is the price of a expendable Falcon 9? And what source is it from?
There are many sources. SpaceX has publicly said many times that it was between $59 million and $62 million.
But perhaps the best source was documents filed with a court in a legal case by Iridium. The documents quoted the exact amount paid by Iridium to launch its satellites on expendable Falcon 9 rockets. It was about $60 million per flight. That was the full amount paid to SpaceX. Irridium certified that was correct, under penalty of perjury, to the court, and Iridium had no reason to lie. You can't really get any better evidence than that.
It's not the best evidence for general F9 expendable pricing. When the iridium contract was being negotiated:
- Falcon 9 was not available at reusable pricing
- Falcon 9 had not been re-used
- Falcon 9 had not been recovered
- Falcon 9 had not been launched
- Falcon 9 had not been built
- Falcon 1 had yet to reach orbit
- The contract was for a batch of 8 launches
All those point to Iridium getting a pretty sweet deal on launches. Almost certainly not at a loss, but likely very close to break-even pricing with very thin margins indeed.
-
<snip>
Anyways, OmegA isn't that much bigger than Antares in its smallest configuration. It probably costs ~$20 million more to launch than Antares. Northrop Grumman could replace Antares with it and use the extra payload capacity for additional Cygnus payload (the current Cygnus is more mass limited by the launch vehicle than it is volume limited by the Cygnus) and then be much better off to compete in Phase 3 of NSSL in ~48 months.
You do realize that the OmegA could only currently launch from LC-39B on a modified mobile launcher after being emplaced with the crawler transport after being stacked at one the bays at the VAB. So likely much more cost than $20M additional than the Antares.
Exactly, all that stuff is existing. There is nothing really new except the mobile launcher configuration. Northrop Grumman doesn't have to pay for all that anymore than SpaceX would have to pay for the DSN to do Red Dragon. We don't know the details, but I imagine stuff like the 39A lease was done on pretty attractive terms.
-
Solid-based launchers have been limited to cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Here are two solid launch vehicles that contradict your point.
Epsilon (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/epsilon.htm)
Vega (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/vega.htm)
Yes, and there's Pegasus and Taurus/Minotaur too. I didn't say quite what I meant to say in my post. I meant to say that solid-based launchers have been limited to either small, expensive vehicles or cases of old ICBMs that governments didn't need any more and sold cheap as launch vehicles.
Epsilon: $39 million for 590 kg to SSO
Vega: $37 million for 1,450 kg to SSO
Pegasus: $40 million for 443 kg to LEO
Minotaur: $40 million for 1,054 kg to SSO
All more than half the price of even an expendable Falcon 9 for less than a tenth the payload of a reusable Falcon 9.
So these small solid launchers support my point, which was the last statement in the post to which you responded:
All of that indicates pretty strongly that liquids are more cost-effective for the cores of launch vehicles, particularly in larger launch vehicles.
What is the price of a expendable Falcon 9? And what source is it from?
There are many sources. SpaceX has publicly said many times that it was between $59 million and $62 million.
But perhaps the best source was documents filed with a court in a legal case by Iridium. The documents quoted the exact amount paid by Iridium to launch its satellites on expendable Falcon 9 rockets. It was about $60 million per flight. That was the full amount paid to SpaceX. Irridium certified that was correct, under penalty of perjury, to the court, and Iridium had no reason to lie. You can't really get any better evidence than that.
It's not the best evidence for general F9 expendable pricing. When the iridium contract was being negotiated:
- Falcon 9 was not available at reusable pricing
- Falcon 9 had not been re-used
- Falcon 9 had not been recovered
- Falcon 9 had not been launched
- Falcon 9 had not been built
- Falcon 1 had yet to reach orbit
- The contract was for a batch of 8 launches
All those point to Iridium getting a pretty sweet deal on launches. Almost certainly not at a loss, but likely very close to break-even pricing with very thin margins indeed.
If you don't think it's the best evidence, please cite better evidence. If you don't have better evidence, the evidence I gave is the best evidence.
So far, you've attacked my evidence with your own theories and presented no conflicting evidence.
-
It's not the best evidence for general F9 expendable pricing. When the iridium contract was being negotiated:
- Falcon 9 was not available at reusable pricing
- Falcon 9 had not been re-used
- Falcon 9 had not been recovered
None of which is relevant to the expendable pricing.
- Falcon 9 had not been launched
- Falcon 9 had not been built
- Falcon 1 had yet to reach orbit
- The contract was for a batch of 8 launches
Check your calendar, you are off by a couple years, the above had all happened. The contract was finalized shortly after the first F9 launch.
https://www.space.com/8611-largest-commercial-rocket-launch-deal-signed-spacex.html
I mention that just to clear up this misinformation. What I am actually here for is discussion on the subject of the thread, which I have seen almost none of. The thread is explicitly not about whether OmegA will be cancelled, but what happens next.
The reasons why OmegA will be cancelled (or put on indefinite hiatus, same thing) are not the subject. If you want to debate the assertion I embedded in there, take it to another thread. On the subject of this thread, I expect the relevant engineers will merge over into other Northrop work on ICBMs or similar, some will move to other positions within the company, and some will get laid off. Probably not all that many for the latter, there are a lot of ways people can get internally shuffled around in a company that size, reductions in hiring can make room for people over time. I have seen no indication from Northrop that they have any actual interest in developing the kinds of tech like reusability that will be required to be a competitive launch provider in the future, making this the beginning of them exiting this market.
-
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
-
Joey Roulette added this:
Hardly surprising - Northrop CEO Kathy Warden, during a recent earnings call, said NG would redirect OmegA investments “into other propulsion activities” if not successful on the NSSL competition
Private and LSA investments into R&D for OmegA, a national security-tailored rocket, are set up such that they can be shared "across a product line that we can now utilize for other endeavors." (not specific but shows they anticipated failure by having dual-use investments)
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1295838257004064768
-
Private and LSA investments into R&D for OmegA, a national security-tailored rocket, are set up such that they can be shared "across a product line that we can now utilize for other endeavors." (not specific but shows they anticipated failure by having dual-use investments)
In other words, their LSA bid was set up to make money whether they won NSSL or not. No wonder they bid even though nobody thought they'd win. Sounds a lot like a scam to me.
-
Private and LSA investments into R&D for OmegA, a national security-tailored rocket, are set up such that they can be shared "across a product line that we can now utilize for other endeavors." (not specific but shows they anticipated failure by having dual-use investments)
In other words, their LSA bid was set up to make money whether they won NSSL or not. No wonder they bid even though nobody thought they'd win. Sounds a lot like a scam to me.
If this was a "scam", then so were all of the other LSAs awarded to all of the other companies.
You think that the money being spent on Vulcan through LSA was being spent in a way that would benefit ULA whether they cancelled Vulcan or not? I don't.
-
Private and LSA investments into R&D for OmegA, a national security-tailored rocket, are set up such that they can be shared "across a product line that we can now utilize for other endeavors." (not specific but shows they anticipated failure by having dual-use investments)
In other words, their LSA bid was set up to make money whether they won NSSL or not. No wonder they bid even though nobody thought they'd win. Sounds a lot like a scam to me.
If this was a "scam", then so were all of the other LSAs awarded to all of the other companies.
You think that the money being spent on Vulcan through LSA was being spent in a way that would benefit ULA whether they cancelled Vulcan or not? I don't.
I'm mean, the fairing, GEMs, and (don't quote me on this one) avionics for Vulcan all work and will be flown on Atlas first. So actually, yes.
-
It seems to me that if NGSS wants to stay in the launch market, or at least maintain the capability, their focus should be on Antares.
I've heard that the combined cost of Antares and Cygnus comes out better than Falcon and Dragon, so there may be a market for them in commercial station resupply. And with a kick stage, Antares is actually capable of throwing a MEV (Mission Extension Vehicle) straight into GTO, so that's another few launches they could secure for themselves, even after CRS-2 is gone. And of course, there's the old all-in-one 'we'll build and launch your satellite' idea, which could maybe get them a few more launches.
Antares clearly doesn't need many launches a year to be viable, so any one or two of those things should keep it flying for the immediate future. Of course, that all assumes that NGSS does want to keep launching.
-
From depending on RD-180/RS-68/Merlin, the Pentagon has trimmed it down to Merlin/BE-4. BE-4 has to work.
- Ed Kyle
The whole point of NSSL/EELV is to have multiple providers and minimize/eliminate common mode failures. The riskiest period for national security launch capability was before SpaceX sued the Air Force, when certain issues with the RL-10 or ULA's common avionics suite could have grounded both Atlas V and Delta IV. We're in a much better place now with dissimilar redundancy.
If BE-4 has another setback, ULA has plenty of "patriated" RD-180s, and SpaceX can also pick up the slack. We all know that, when push comes to shove, nothing is going to stop Atlas V from launching national security missions using RD-180 engines if that's the best option. I really doubt it will come to that, but the Air Force wouldn't have been so happy with ULA's bid if they thought there was a realistic chance that Vulcan wouldn't materialize and ULA would be unable to fulfill NSSL requirement without it.
So BE-4 doesn't have to work. ULA and SpaceX can deliver the required services even if some spectacular calamity were to doom the BE-4 program.
-
I've heard that the combined cost of Antares and Cygnus comes out better than Falcon and Dragon, so there may be a market for them in commercial station resupply.
It seems unlikely to me that there will be a commercial station before there will be a Starship, and Starship will be an order of magnitude cheaper than Antares+Cygnus for much more cargo.
Even without that, there's Dragon XL. Dragon XL doesn't have re-entry capability, so it can carry much more cargo on the same Falcon 9 launch.
Also, SpaceX bid for CRS knowing that they could only get a split of the business. They didn't want to bid any lower a price than necessary to be one of the two providers. It doesn't mean they couldn't bid lower for a commercial station that only cares about cost.
-
Private and LSA investments into R&D for OmegA, a national security-tailored rocket, are set up such that they can be shared "across a product line that we can now utilize for other endeavors." (not specific but shows they anticipated failure by having dual-use investments)
In other words, their LSA bid was set up to make money whether they won NSSL or not. No wonder they bid even though nobody thought they'd win. Sounds a lot like a scam to me.
Does anyone have an idea how much they had invested into VAB High Bay and MLP modifications prior to this point??
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/04/northrop-grumman-progress-omega/
-
If you guys are anything like me, you've already begun wondering what will be next for all the launch vehicle engineers at NGSS. This thread is for speculating about what that may be.
My guess is layoffs. Some people will likely move to other areas within NG, but the other NG programs are likely fully-staffed already or close to it, and some of the specialties needed for OmegA just won't be needed on other programs.
There's a lot of good, seasoned engineers who are working on OmegA. If we do see layoffs at NGSS, I wonder if we'll also see a related increase in the number of smallsat companies since that seems to be the standard retirement plan of rocket scientist nowadays.
The rumors of layoffs are greatly exaggerated.*
If/when/as the OmegA program winds down (see asterisk, we have not heard the government outbrief yet, no decisions yet on contesting the award, no announcement of off-ramp plans, etc.), it's important to remember that OmegA was always recognized as a dark horse candidate in this competition. I've read a lot of "to no one's surprise" comments regarding this outcome, just quibbling over right way the 60/40 split should have been allocated -- and of course SpaceX-or-bust fanatics who want 100/0. We put in a very compelling offering to the government, but inertia and incumbency are the dominating forces in this universe. "No one's surprise" in this context also includes company leadership, from whom we've heard words like "disappointed" but not "surprised."
Also, losing NSSL is not an existential threat to NGSS as it is for ULA. SpaceX would continue flying F9, FH and developing SH/SS; Blue would continue developing at their own pace; but for ULA this was a must-win contract. For NGSS, Space Launch is a fairly small part of the portfolio; albeit would have gotten much, much larger with an NSSL award. At Launch Vehicles, the bread and butter is in military suborbital contracts: targets (e.g. Coyote SSST) and interceptors (GMD/GBI/OBV, with NGI competition ramping up). Launch Vehicles also has the booster integration role on GBSD which is also ramping up. I also hear of programs that sound like cover names, probably in the hypersonics or counter-hypersonics realm. They would not have built a new giant, beautiful HQ facility in Chandler contingent on winning NSSL/LSP. It might be mostly vacant today, but it's been that way for 5 months due to COVID, not OmegA and LSP. At Dulles, Launch Vehicles has a fairly small presence -- most of the work there is in satellites and spacecraft. I hope my colleagues there are able to transition into current programs or new developments without personal disruption. Pegasus, Minotaur in its many varieties, even Antares have a role to play.
Similar story at Propulsion Systems -- SLS, D5 Trident II, GBSD, Orion motors, GEM 63/63XL, hypersonics, flares & decoys... I'm just talking about two business units, not even half of heritage Orbital ATK, in a megacorp that's more than an order of magnitude larger. A lot of work to go around, most of it though not in the limelight of space launch. If SLS is cancelled, there will probably be layoffs and reorgs here, but I kinda doubt there will be Yet Another Resurrection Of The Stick originating from Utah.
For some people, orbital space launch is where they want to be -- and we've lost a lot of good talent to Blue and other places (or divisions within NG) especially from the Launch Vehicles unit over time... and we've picked up some great talent too. It's an exciting time to be in this industry. The more "Space," the merrier. And although much of the work on the Liquid Upper Stage has been outsourced -- not quite to the extent that Antares first stage is outsourced --, NGSS has developed a lot of expertise in liquid engines and stages over these years. If there's an opportunity to develop a new liquid LV or stage, NGSS/LV has some very good and mature foundations to build on.
Having said all that, the company is responsible to earth-based stockholders, not space-colonist billionaires. Decisions on staffing, etc., are made with realistic forecasts... and some would say the pain of having to staff up after an NSSL win is easier to bear than the pain of downsizing after a loss. In other words, I (see asterisk) do not expect to hear of layoffs anytime soon.
For NGSS, the future may include OmegA-derived LVs, Omega/Antares hybrids, Antares upgrades/evolutions... or maybe it won't. Maybe there's something completely different on the horizon. Maybe heritage Northrop/TRW has something from the back of their catalog that will see new light. Maybe it's an exit to this segment of the market. There are also white-tail assets whose future is unknown.
Personally, I recognize that participating in the development of a Heavy-Lift launch system such as OmegA is very likely a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and I'm glad to have been a part of it from Day 0. Go OmegA! :D
*Opinions are my own, not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. :-X
Edit:Finished an incomplete sentence and changed up a repetitive word or two to keep my HS Junior English teacher from marking off points on my essay.
-
The rumors of layoffs are greatly exaggerated.*
Thanks very much for sharing your perspective here; the thoughtfulness of your entire post it is greatly appreciated.
Also, losing NSSL is not an existential threat to NGSS as it is for ULA. SpaceX would continue flying F9, FH and developing SH/SS; Blue would continue developing at their own pace; but for ULA this was a must-win contract.
Excellent summary. It precisely addresses a major concern of those who feel e.g. SpaceX (but also NGSS) should have received more support. The legacy of the Arsenal Act lives on.... (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42062.pdf)
A minor point though: like for NGSS, losing NSSL would not have been an existential threat to either of the ULA parent companies.
counter-hypersonics
Ew. Just personally I find that thought frightening in the extreme.
-
Tweet (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1296462155559186436?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=ars&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_mailing=ARS_Rocket_082620&utm_medium=email&bxid=5d89234cfc942d478885250c&cndid=51219722&esrc=&utm_term=ARS_RocketReport) from Eric Berger of Ars Technica.
-
Getting to orbit is only part of story it is what you do in space that counts.NGSS are still pushing ahead with in space technologies eg MEV MRV MEP and Transfer Element. In space transport, robotics and assembly is where future is with NGSS being one of leaders.
-
Getting to orbit is only part of story it is what you do in space that counts.NGSS are still pushing ahead with in space technologies eg MEV MRV MEP and Transfer Element. In space transport, robotics and assembly is where future is with NGSS being one of leaders.
I do suspect their future is in space, not launch. But I think it's more in terms of weapons than these other applications. Missiles are where solids really shine. I think in the long run solids for other propulsion will be out-competed by liquids, ion drives, solar sails, nuclear propulsion, etc.
Where people go, there will be weapons, so NGSS has a future in space.
-
Getting to orbit is only part of story it is what you do in space that counts.NGSS are still pushing ahead with in space technologies eg MEV MRV MEP and Transfer Element. In space transport, robotics and assembly is where future is with NGSS being one of leaders.
Absolutely. Orbital launch has always had the biggest mindshare, yet been a relatively small portion of space revenue. It doesn't take much to extrapolate the current industry changes to conclude that a few years from now, launch-to-orbit will be almost a fool's errand as a business. Spacecraft along with the proliferation of space missions will be the pot of gold.
-
SpaceNews takes a not-so-categorical tack on OmegA's future: Northrop Grumman statement: “We will determine next steps once the debriefing process concludes." (https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-weighing-exit-options-for-omega-rocket/)
-
Northrop Grumman Wins $13.3 Billion ICBM Contract (http://parabolicarc.com/2020/09/09/northrop-grumman-wins-13-3-billion-icbm-contract/).
Not particularly topical question: if OmegA really is dead, will any system aside from SLS be using segmented SRM's following Ariane 5's retirement?
-
Not particularly topical question: if OmegA really is dead, will any system aside from SLS be using segmented SRM's following Ariane 5's retirement?
Well, there's ISRO's GSLV Mk3, which uses 3 segment SRMs as their ground lit stage, kind of analogous to the Titan family of rockets. I'm not sure if the S125 or S139 motors of PSLV and earlier GSLV are single or multi-segment.
-
Well, there's ISRO's GSLV Mk3, which uses 3 segment SRMs as their ground lit stage, kind of analogous to the Titan family of rockets. I'm not sure if the S125 or S139 motors of PSLV and earlier GSLV are single or multi-segment.
The PSLV and GSLV Mk.II core solid motors are multi segment. You can see this in the various press kits.
https://www.isro.gov.in/brochures-0
-
And it's official: Northrop Grumman to terminate OmegA rocket program (https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-to-terminate-omega-rocket-program/).
EDIT: It's hard to believe the Stick might actually be dead, after an agonizing 15-year demise.