NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => NGIS (Formerly Orbital ATK) - Antares/Cygnus Section => Topic started by: Robotbeat on 01/12/2022 06:30 pm
-
Antares and Neutron both have 8 tonnes to LEO performance. Neutron may also launch from Wallops. Seems a no-brainer to do Cygnus launches using Neutron, if the ISS cargo missions were extended to after Neutron’s introduction. Antares probably isn’t long for this world due to using Russian engines and a Ukrainian stage and a very low flightrate.
Lose out a little on revenue from Antares, but Neutron should be very cheap, and NG should be able to save a lot of money not keeping Antares infrastructure around.
EDIT: like this pic. https://twitter.com/brickmack/status/1495126295289729024?s=21
-
Antares and Neutron both have 8 tonnes to LEO performance. Neutron may also launch from Wallops. Seems a no-brainer to do Cygnus launches using Neutron, if the ISS cargo missions were extended to after Neutron’s introduction. Antares probably isn’t long for this world due to using Russian engines and a Ukrainian stage and a very low flightrate.
Lose out a little on revenue from Antares, but Neutron should be very cheap, and NG should be able to save a lot of money not keeping Antares infrastructure around.
ISS has been extended until 2030. If Neutron started lifting Cygnus in 2026 and did two flights a year to ISS, then that's a total of ten flights, presumably for a single Neutron slightly modified for Cygnus. NG flies Cygnus under a CRS-2 contract, so how would the Neutron deal be structured? would RL sell a Neutron and a backup Neutron to NG?
-
Antares and Neutron both have 8 tonnes to LEO performance. Neutron may also launch from Wallops. Seems a no-brainer to do Cygnus launches using Neutron, if the ISS cargo missions were extended to after Neutron’s introduction. Antares probably isn’t long for this world due to using Russian engines and a Ukrainian stage and a very low flightrate.
Lose out a little on revenue from Antares, but Neutron should be very cheap, and NG should be able to save a lot of money not keeping Antares infrastructure around.
Not really. It is a significant amount of their fee. Also, Cygnus uses the same facilities as Antares.
-
Unless NGIS want to close up Wallops site they are better off staying with Antares for now. Keeps their foot in door with launch and most importantly their LV crew.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
Unless NGIS want to close up Wallops site they are better off staying with Antares for now. Keeps their foot in door with launch and most importantly their LV crew.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Do NG want to keep their foot in the door on the orbital launch vehicle market? I would figure that if they did, they would be doing... I don't know, something. Anything. I mean on the development side, we've not heard a peep from them since OmegA lost. Everyone else in the market seems to think this is a moment to develop something new, to innovate at least a little, or else. And yet, since they bought OATK, NG very clearly has chosen not to develop anything new at all. I hate to say it, but I honestly think they're just going to fly Antares as-is until it doesn't make money anymore (or politics get's in the way), then stop.
TLDR: It seems relatively clear that NG bought OATK to make missiles, not Launch Vehicles.
Bringing it back to the actual topic; with the above in mind, yeah, I think Cygnus on Neutron is rather likely, eventually. And increasingly more likely if/as the conflict in Ukraine gets worse, and/or Russia tries something elsewhere. Antares is a lot more tied into geopolitics than you, in general, want your product to be.
-
Antares and Neutron both have 8 tonnes to LEO performance. Neutron may also launch from Wallops. Seems a no-brainer to do Cygnus launches using Neutron, if the ISS cargo missions were extended to after Neutron’s introduction. Antares probably isn’t long for this world due to using Russian engines and a Ukrainian stage and a very low flightrate.
Lose out a little on revenue from Antares, but Neutron should be very cheap, and NG should be able to save a lot of money not keeping Antares infrastructure around.
ISS has been extended until 2030. If Neutron started lifting Cygnus in 2026 and did two flights a year to ISS, then that's a total of ten flights, presumably for a single Neutron slightly modified for Cygnus. NG flies Cygnus under a CRS-2 contract, so how would the Neutron deal be structured? would RL sell a Neutron and a backup Neutron to NG?
I don’t think Neutron needs to be modified to fit Cygnus. Cygnus is just a spacecraft. The only thing I can see is late-load, but I’m not sure that requires mods to Neutron.
Remember, Cygnus launched on Atlas before. This would be the same but even easier because the Cygnus facilities are much, much closer to Neutron’s launch site than Atlas.
-
Antares and Neutron both have 8 tonnes to LEO performance. Neutron may also launch from Wallops. Seems a no-brainer to do Cygnus launches using Neutron, if the ISS cargo missions were extended to after Neutron’s introduction. Antares probably isn’t long for this world due to using Russian engines and a Ukrainian stage and a very low flightrate.
Lose out a little on revenue from Antares, but Neutron should be very cheap, and NG should be able to save a lot of money not keeping Antares infrastructure around.
ISS has been extended until 2030. If Neutron started lifting Cygnus in 2026 and did two flights a year to ISS, then that's a total of ten flights, presumably for a single Neutron slightly modified for Cygnus. NG flies Cygnus under a CRS-2 contract, so how would the Neutron deal be structured? would RL sell a Neutron and a backup Neutron to NG?
There are no plans to end Antares at the end of CRS-2. NG is pursuing the option to massively upgrade Antares with regards to the upcoming CRS-3 programme. The formulation and DAC phase for these upgrades is underway in at least some capacity.
-
Antares and Neutron both have 8 tonnes to LEO performance. Neutron may also launch from Wallops. Seems a no-brainer to do Cygnus launches using Neutron, if the ISS cargo missions were extended to after Neutron’s introduction. Antares probably isn’t long for this world due to using Russian engines and a Ukrainian stage and a very low flightrate.
Lose out a little on revenue from Antares, but Neutron should be very cheap, and NG should be able to save a lot of money not keeping Antares infrastructure around.
ISS has been extended until 2030. If Neutron started lifting Cygnus in 2026 and did two flights a year to ISS, then that's a total of ten flights, presumably for a single Neutron slightly modified for Cygnus. NG flies Cygnus under a CRS-2 contract, so how would the Neutron deal be structured? would RL sell a Neutron and a backup Neutron to NG?
I don’t think Neutron needs to be modified to fit Cygnus. Cygnus is just a spacecraft. The only thing I can see is late-load, but I’m not sure that requires mods to Neutron.
Remember, Cygnus launched on Atlas before. This would be the same but even easier because the Cygnus facilities are much, much closer to Neutron’s launch site than Atlas.
My comment was about the market, not the technology. Whatever the cost of the NRE (even zero) the other up-front costs (contract management, etc.) need to be recovered over at most ten launches and probably less. I just don't see how to make money with this model, especially if launches are assigned competitively.
-
Doesn’t square with the fact that launching on Atlas was a pretty successful deal for them even though they only did what, three launches?
This will have even LESS overhead than the Atlas launches.
To me, I think it comes down to availability of Russian RD-191 engines and the Ukrainian stages. If that situation stays as tense as it is or gets any worse, I don’t see how Antares can continue.
So have they stockpiled enough stages and engines to see them through ISS splashdown? If yes, then no Cygnus on Neutron most likely. If no, then it seems like the best deal to me that addresses the geopolitical risks inherent in the Antares launch vehicle. And the cost could be pretty dang cheap
But that assumes Neutron becomes available on time. Definitely not a given.
-
Someone had a similar idea: https://twitter.com/brickmack/status/1495126295289729024?s=21
-
Someone had a similar idea: https://twitter.com/brickmack/status/1495126295289729024?s=21
Problem is, even if all goes well with Neutron development, it'll be at least 4 years before it can start flying Cygnus. Realistically, if the usual R&D issues occur, it'll be more like 6 years.
-
With Russia situation deteriorating the future for Antares looks bleak. NG has LVs for next two missions which sees out current ISS supply contract. Final 19th is due in April 2023.
They really do need to find an alternative for future contracts. The first of which would most likely be 2024. If they choose Neutron would still need a backup LV for first one or two missions.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
Unless NGIS want to close up Wallops site they are better off staying with Antares for now. Keeps their foot in door with launch and most importantly their LV crew.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Not an option any more. I’m kind of vindicated, here.
It entirely depends on the speed with which Neutron is developed. If it really does launch by 2024, this may work (with a couple of non-Neutron Cygnus launches before that).
Of course… we might end up splashing ISS by 2024.
2-2.5 years seems like an eternity right now, though. So dang much has changed in the last 2.5 years.
-
Unless NGIS want to close up Wallops site they are better off staying with Antares for now. Keeps their foot in door with launch and most importantly their LV crew.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Not an option any more. I’m kind of vindicated, here.
It entirely depends on the speed with which Neutron is developed. If it really does launch by 2024, this may work (with a couple of non-Neutron Cygnus launches before that).
Of course… we might end up splashing ISS by 2024.
2-2.5 years seems like an eternity right now, though. So dang much has changed in the last 2.5 years.
The last two Antares flights will be NG-18 and NG-19. NG-19 launches in April 2023. Cygnus has been flying two CRS flights per year, so they need a different LV by about August 2023 unless something changes. Presumably NASA can use Cargo Dragon on F9 instead of Cygnus if a new LV is not available, or Cygnus can fly on Atlas V if one can be made available.
-
Or you can fly Cygnus on Falcon 9.
But that’s not what this thread is about. It’s about Cygnus on Neutron.
I think it depends strongly on if ISS will be extended past 2024.
-
Or you can fly Cygnus on Falcon 9.
But that’s not what this thread is about. It’s about Cygnus on Neutron.
I think it depends strongly on if ISS will be extended past 2024.
Indeed the timeline of Neutron and ISS is of huge importance. There is a big risk that Neutron won't be available until after ISS is decommissioned. Neutron could slip to 2026, ISS could end ... well anytime if cooperation ends abruptly.
-
I certainly hope that ISS has a future beyond the next couple of years, even if that future is to boost it to a 1000NM orbit and make it a museum/monument. As for Cygnus, I wonder how much NGIS has evaluated it's potential to service an Axiom space station or even as a free-flyer for Dragon or Dream Chaser to dock with for an extended civilian (polaris type) mission. Neutron might be available to lift Cygnus for those other purposes.
-
Neutron won't be option till at least 2025.
Assuming Cygnus contracts are extended which is likely especially given their ISS reboost capability. NG will need a LV in late 2023, with Vulcan most likely. Atlas may still be option if ULA can make deal with Atlas's customers were some are swapped for Vulcan. For Amazon this could be bonus as they may get more lift capability for same money.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
ISS is getting old. Solar panels today are more efficient and lighter. Larger modules could be launched on FH if need be and build a new station.
It might be better to ditch ISS and spend the money on Artemis station, growing and expanding it quicker. It could be expanded to do some research there outside the Van Allen radiation belt. Also, could help with lunar surface station.
Like everyone said, Neutron might be too late, but might be able to help with Artemis.
-
ISS is getting new solar arrays.
-
ISS is getting new solar arrays.
Maybe not now. With everything that is happening, if Russia decides to disconnect or deactivate their part of ISS. Seems to me it would be easier to go ahead and retire it.
-
ISS is getting new solar arrays.
Maybe not now.
Two iROSA arrays have already been installed, two more will be going up this April, and the last pair this September.
-
ISS is getting new solar arrays.
Maybe not now. With everything that is happening, if Russia decides to disconnect or deactivate their part of ISS. Seems to me it would be easier to go ahead and retire it.
The Russians aside, there are a lot of stakeholders in ISS, and they all seem to want to keep it in operation for as long as possible.
So, I think we have to work from that premise, whether we agree with the decision or not.
-
Neutron is several years out. Cygnus needs and answer in a few months.
-
Neutron is several years out. Cygnus needs and answer in a few months.
The answer (beyond the existing Antares stock if there are any) is Falcon 9. Atlas V as the emergency contingency of that (but would require some deal with Boeing?). …if Cygnus is the lynchpin of some emergency measure.
-
Neutron is several years out. Cygnus needs and answer in a few months.
The answer (beyond the existing Antares stock if there are any) is Falcon 9. Atlas V as the emergency contingency of that (but would require some deal with Boeing?). …if Cygnus is the lynchpin of some emergency measure.
We have been discussing two types of Cygnus mission: normal Cygnus CRS-2 resupply missions, and "emergency" reboost missions. Because Antares is manufactured in eastern Ukraine, NG can only count on the two Antares LV that have already been delivered.
Cygnus has been flying CRS missions about twice a year since 2014. the next two missions are NG-18 in August 2022 and NG-19 in April 2023. these missions will expend the remaining two Antares LVs. NG will need another launcher by August 2023, or NASA will be forced to use Cargo Dragon missions instead.
If NASA needs additional Cygnus missions for reboost on an emergency basis and if supply missions cannot also act as reboost missions, NASA could choose to use Cargo Dragon to replace the two Cygnus supply missions. We know a Cygnus supply mission can provide reboost, but I do not know if this dual-use mission cuts into the reboost capability. If more than two Cygnus reboosts are needed, a replacement LV will be needed, possibly sooner than August 2023 and certainly not later.
-
If NASA needs additional Cygnus missions for reboost on an emergency basis and if supply missions cannot also act as reboost missions, NASA could choose to use Cargo Dragon to replace the two Cygnus supply missions. We know a Cygnus supply mission can provide reboost, but I do not know if this dual-use mission cuts into the reboost capability. If more than two Cygnus reboosts are needed, a replacement LV will be needed, possibly sooner than August 2023 and certainly not later.
I'm pretty I've read that the amount of boost a Cygnus can provide the ISS is significantly less than what a Progress can provide. Does anyone have numbers for this?
-
If NASA needs additional Cygnus missions for reboost on an emergency basis and if supply missions cannot also act as reboost missions,
Why make this assumption and what are you basing it on? No need to take the discussion further without resolving this and involve any others.
-
I mean, if it's an emergency mission, I think they'll just use the Falcon 9. Even if for whatever reason SpaceX or Northrop Grumman were especially against working together, it's not like they're going to be so against it that they'd allow the Station to be endangered.
-
Not considering the immediate concerns with ISS.....Cygnus on Neutron might be a good combination for Orbital Reef if it gets built or the standalone Axiom Station. If I were Axiom, I hope I have a plan B for my station where it begins life as a free-flyer not dependent on ISS, just in case ISS is at the bottom of the Pacific before my first module launches. Upmass should be slightly improved for Cygnus to a station at a lower latitude than 56 degrees. I suppose it would no longer make sense to use Baikanor to determine orbital inclination. I can't remember right now if Rocket Lab gave orbital parameters for it's baseline 8MT to LEO figure.
-
I mean, if it's an emergency mission, I think they'll just use the Falcon 9. Even if for whatever reason SpaceX or Northrop Grumman were especially against working together, it's not like they're going to be so against it that they'd allow the Station to be endangered.
In an 'emergency', they'd use Atlas as Cygnus is already qualified to fly on it (and has done so) and Atlas is already qualified to launch it (and has done so). The chances of Amazon refusing to give up (with a nice compensation) one of their earmarked cores for an actual 'emergency' is slim to none.
-
I mean, if it's an emergency mission, I think they'll just use the Falcon 9. Even if for whatever reason SpaceX or Northrop Grumman were especially against working together, it's not like they're going to be so against it that they'd allow the Station to be endangered.
In an 'emergency', they'd use Atlas as Cygnus is already qualified to fly on it (and has done so) and Atlas is already qualified to launch it (and has done so). The chances of Amazon refusing to give up (with a nice compensation) one of their earmarked cores for an actual 'emergency' is slim to none.
If it was declared as needed for national security then maybe but right now through the end of the current Cygnus Contract it is not needed. Such a decision is nothing any of us would be privy to. Investors of all involved parties would be informed via a presentation and/or teleconference.
-
I mean, if it's an emergency mission, I think they'll just use the Falcon 9. Even if for whatever reason SpaceX or Northrop Grumman were especially against working together, it's not like they're going to be so against it that they'd allow the Station to be endangered.
SpaceX and NG have no problems with collaborating. E.g. the Gateway (for which the HALO module is built by NG) is launching on Falcon Heavy.
-
That’s NASA’s decision, not NG’s.
-
I mean, if it's an emergency mission, I think they'll just use the Falcon 9. Even if for whatever reason SpaceX or Northrop Grumman were especially against working together, it's not like they're going to be so against it that they'd allow the Station to be endangered.
In an 'emergency', they'd use Atlas as Cygnus is already qualified to fly on it (and has done so) and Atlas is already qualified to launch it (and has done so). The chances of Amazon refusing to give up (with a nice compensation) one of their earmarked cores for an actual 'emergency' is slim to none.
I think what would probably actually happen is they would use the last two Antares for any 'emergency' flights, since that is what would be fastest. Dragon flights could be shuffled forwards to cover a gap while either an adaptor is made for Cygnus to fly on another rocket, or access to Atlas V's is negotiated.
-
RocketLab posted just recently its upgraded LEO payload capability of 13t in the reuse configuration. An increase of 5t from its previous of 8t for reuse configuration.
This puts Neutron as a definite can do the Cygnus mission without difficulty as well as likely being very close to direct cost competitor to the F9.