NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => NGIS (Formerly Orbital ATK) - Antares/Cygnus Section => Topic started by: Robotbeat on 02/06/2022 02:35 pm
-
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
I honestly think they probably are better off closing up Wallops. How can one launch per year be enough for an orbital rocket?
-
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.
I understand why Russia seems to get all the good Antares news before us, but I'm still annoyed by it none the less. Do we have any idea what these massive upgrades consist of? Do they go beyond the switch to the RD-181M that we already knew about, and the improved performance that come with? There is a lot of potential for Antares to be upgraded in a lot of different ways.
-
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.
The reason they flew on Atlas was... well, the first two times, it was just because Antares wasn't available, so they hardly count. And OATK probably would've never launched on Atlas again if it was all up to them. To quote an article from this site:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/s-s-john-glenn-oa-7-cygnus-arrival-station/
However, despite Antares’ successful Return To Flight, NASA began discussions with Orbital ATK shortly thereafter, asking the commercial company to take advantage of the Atlas V rocket’s ability to pack more payload into Cygnus and therefore switch the OA-7 mission from Antares to an Atlas V.
NASA, out of a desire to keep the ISS's supply cupboards a little more full than they were back in early 2017, was the one who asked OATK to fly on Atlas again. And they probably paid a premium for it.
Now consider that the performance of Antares has only gotten better, and will likely continue to increase. The past four Antares launches matched or beat that last Atlas launch for cargo payload. And Antares is still not fully taking advantage of the RD-181s it has now (it could be stretched some), the RD-181Ms it's getting are likely to provide even more performance, and the Castor-30 just keep getting better (Last I heard, they had realized they could thin down the walls of the 30XL further).
Performance and cost will not be enough to separate Cygnus from Antares. It would require the demise of Antares for Cygnus to switch launchers.
-
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.
I understand why Russia seems to get all the good Antares news before us, but I'm still annoyed by it none the less. Do we have any idea what these massive upgrades consist of? Do they go beyond the switch to the RD-181M that we already knew about, and the improved performance that come with? There is a lot of potential for Antares to be upgraded in a lot of different ways.
I remember reading somewhere about 6 months ago that NG where planning to upgrade the upper stage to cryogenic, similar to the upper stage for the Omega. I can't find that source.
-
Now consider that the performance of Antares has only gotten better, and will likely continue to increase. The past four Antares launches matched or beat that last Atlas launch for cargo payload.
not really. Atlas still had much more performance still available.
-
If Antares had a good liquid upper stage, it might do much better than the heavier solid they are using.
-
Yeah, I mean with an optimized hydrolox upper stage it’d basically be the Atlas V in its most common configuration, ie without boosters.
But I kind of have a hard time seeing it continue for the same reason Atlas V isn’t sticking around.
after all, the Antares first stage is built in the Dnipropetrovsk region of Ukraine, if I understand correctly… not too far from the low grade Russo-Ukrainian war trenches in eastern Ukraine. That’s some sizable geopolitical risk right there, on top of the use of the Russian RD-170-derived engine, a property that forced ULA to retire the venerable Atlas V. (And similar deal with Zenit…)
…then again, maybe the West, Ukraine, and Russia will be able to step down the ladder and cool off. Here’s hoping!
-
I mean, they might as well just go straight to a Zenit first stage, but call it something else.
The current Antares first stage is basically Zenit-derived, being built in the same factory and same diameter. The engines are RD-181, derived from Zenit’s RD-170.
Kind of weird right now. Half the thrust of Zenit but double the number of engines.
Russia pulled out of Zenit… but are happy to provide engines for Antares? LOL, it’s pretty funny to me. “We won’t cooperate with you on Zenit, but if the Americans want to build a mini-Zenit with a stage from the same Ukrainian factory, no problem!” :)
-
Now consider that the performance of Antares has only gotten better, and will likely continue to increase. The past four Antares launches matched or beat that last Atlas launch for cargo payload.
not really. Atlas still had much more performance still available.
What do you mean not really?
Orb-D1G. David Low : Antares 110 : 1,299 lb (589 kg)
Orb-1C. Gordon Fullerton : Antares 120 : 2,780 lb (1,260 kg)
Orb-2Janice E. Voss : Antares 120 : 3,293 lb (1,494 kg)
Orb-3 Deke Slayton : Antares 130 : 4,883 lb (2,215 kg) Failure
OA-4 Deke Slayton II : Atlas V 401 : 7,746 lb (3,514 kg)
OA-6 Rick Husband : Atlas V 401 : 7,758 lb (3,519 kg)
OA-5 Alan Poindexter : Antares 230 : 5,163 lb (2,342 kg)
OA-7 John Glenn : Atlas V 401 : 7,443 lb (3,376 kg)
OA-8E Gene Cernan : Antares 230 : 7,359 lb (3,338 kg)
OA-9E J.R. Thompson : Antares 230 : 7,385 lb (3,350 kg)
NG-10 John Young : Antares 230 : 7,386 lb (3,350 kg)
NG-11 Roger Chaffee : Antares 230 : 7,575 lb (3,436 kg)
NG-12 Alan Bean : Antares 230+ : 8,221 lb (3,729 kg)
NG-13 Robert Lawrence Jr. : Antares 230+ : 8,009 lb (3,633 kg)
NG-14 Kalpana Chawla : Antares 230+ : 7,624 lb (3,458 kg)
NG-15 Katherine Johnson : Antares 230+ : 8,400 lb (3,800 kg)
NG-16 Ellison Onizuka : Antares 230+ : 8,208 lb (3,723 kg)
Antares is consistently beating the cargo payload numbers of the missions launched on Atlas. Sure, Atlas has the performance to launch more mass, but they weren't using that performance before, and there's probably a reason. I suspect that we've long-since reached the point where the limiting factor is the volume of Cygnus, not the performance of Antares, and that the improvement in payload we see more recently has more to do with more efficient packing than anything else.
-
Antares is consistently beating the cargo payload numbers of the missions launched on Atlas. Sure, Atlas has the performance to launch more mass, but they weren't using that performance before, and there's probably a reason. I suspect that we've long-since reached the point where the limiting factor is the volume of Cygnus, not the performance of Antares, and that the improvement in payload we see more recently has more to do with more efficient packing than anything else.
no, there is the ability to load more.
-
no, there is the ability to load more.
Are you saying that the three Cygnus/Atlas missions flew with unused volume and performance?
-
no, there is the ability to load more.
Are you saying that the three Cygnus/Atlas missions flew with unused volume and performance?
Guessing that a Cygnus with a extra ring segment in a taller 5 meter diameter Atlas V payload fairing should get more mass and volume into orbit.
-
If Antares had a good liquid upper stage, it might do much better than the heavier solid they are using.
They could, in theory, adapt the LOX/H2 stage they were developing for OmegA, even though it would be a scaling down and it would require significant modifications to Antares as well as its GSE to support it.
But it requires NGIS to buy RL-10C engines from Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR), and the Castor XL keeps things all in-house for them.
-
I'm trying to think of what NGIS could LEGO together that would be no worse than Ariane 6, and it's making me realize that Ariane 6 can actually be a high bar in certain contexts.
-
When you absolutely, positively need to launch on time and on schedule. At the moment Falcon 9, accept no substitutes.
-
I'm trying to think of what NGIS could LEGO together that would be no worse than Ariane 6, and it's making me realize that Ariane 6 can actually be a high bar in certain contexts.
Yeah, it's not great. Still there are things that can be done.
The best case scenario would be contracting for SCE-200 engines from India. They are based on Ukranian engine tech, and would essentially be drop-in replacements for the RD-181s, but they haven't been tested yet, and development of them may be effected by the events in eastern Europe.
The next largest LOX/RP1 engine, in the world, not built by SpaceX or Russia or Ukraine, that exists today is... uh... I'm pretty sure it's the Virgin Orbit NewtonThree. You only need 13 of them to meet the thrust of two RD-181s! Though they are gas-generator engines, so isp will be worse, so more fuel may be needed, and therefore more thrust. On the other hand, American tanks will probably be lighter, so maybe it will cancel out?
I mean, 13+ Virgin Orbit engines pushing a Cygnus and a Castor-30XL into the sky sounds ridiculous. But hey, it's still less than half as many engines as SuperHeavy. NG gets a quick and cheap to develop all-American rocket, and Virgin Orbit gets an actual income stream, so that seems fair to me.
Other than that, NG would have to either switch fuel, or launch with someone else.
-
Can we exclude the possibility that Northrop Grumman is excited to announce that the future of Antares is to be flipped upside down, with a large solid booster stage based on the fiber-wound composite tooling from Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and a liquid upper stage, maybe a high-thrust hydrolox like BE-3U? Would they announce another resurrection of The Stick with a straight face and expect a round of applause? Would Safran/ArianeGroup still offer to sell them Vulcain-2.1 like they did back when Liberty was The Stick de jure?
Because if NGIS needs a powerful booster stage for a medium lifter, the most obvious hammer they have for that nail is a big solid cash cow of a military contract. Big solids aren't a good fit for Wallops, where Cygnus is currently processed, but they've done Cygnus launches on Atlas from the Cape, and big solids could be a good fit for the LC-39B clean pad. NASA KSC would love that.
-
Can we exclude the possibility that Northrop Grumman is excited to announce that the future of Antares is to be flipped upside down, with a large solid booster stage based on the fiber-wound composite tooling from Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and a liquid upper stage, maybe a high-thrust hydrolox like BE-3U? Would they announce another resurrection of The Stick with a straight face and expect a round of applause? Would Safran/ArianeGroup still offer to sell them Vulcain-2.1 like they did back when Liberty was The Stick de jure?
Because if NGIS needs a powerful booster stage for a medium lifter, the most obvious hammer they have for that nail is a big solid cash cow of a military contract. Big solids aren't a good fit for Wallops, where Cygnus is currently processed, but they've done Cygnus launches on Atlas from the Cape, and big solids could be a good fit for the LC-39B clean pad. NASA KSC would love that.
If they were to design a new medium launch from scratch, I'd absolutely expect it to be two solid stages topped by a hydrolox stage, like a mini OmegA. That said, I suspect that NG won't be willing to design a new launch vehicle from scratch to replace Antares. Cygnus launches pretty infrequently, so any new NG rocket would have to have it's development cost paid off in only half a dozen launches or so, or they're better off flying on someone else's booster.
-
India's GSLV mkIII uses an 4.0 meter wide first stage, similar to Antares 3.9 meter diameter. It is set to use the SCE-200 engines which are based on Ukrainian engines. Strap a solid upper stage or 2 on top and it's probably cheaper than the current Antares.
-
If Antares had a good liquid upper stage, it might do much better than the heavier solid they are using.
They could, in theory, adapt the LOX/H2 stage they were developing for OmegA, even though it would be a scaling down and it would require significant modifications to Antares as well as its GSE to support it.
But it requires NGIS to buy RL-10C engines from Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR), and the Castor XL keeps things all in-house for them.
Ah, if only Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR) had taken the initiative all those years ago to see through development of AR1, then it would just be a matter of a couple years to modify the Antares first stage to use it instead of the RD-181. But no, even now AJR still drags its feet and all they've managed is just one lone full first iteration development engine that has yet to see even a static test firing.
-
If Antares had a good liquid upper stage, it might do much better than the heavier solid they are using.
They could, in theory, adapt the LOX/H2 stage they were developing for OmegA, even though it would be a scaling down and it would require significant modifications to Antares as well as its GSE to support it.
But it requires NGIS to buy RL-10C engines from Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR), and the Castor XL keeps things all in-house for them.
Ah, if only Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR) had taken the initiative all those years ago to see through development of AR1, then it would just be a matter of a couple years to modify the Antares first stage to use it instead of the RD-181. But no, even now AJR still drags its feet and all they've managed is just one lone full first iteration development engine that has yet to see even a static test firing.
Why would ARJ spend $1B developing engines with no guarantee market. All engines in development now are for specific LVs.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
A better question (I know, rhetorical) is why would they need to spend $1B developing the engine?
There are existing launch providers that develop and fly entire launch systems for way less money than that.
I already know the history- it's answering the rhetorical question that is enlightening about why they didn't and why they won't (and likely never will.)
-
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.
Atlas 5 has already launched Cygnus, three times. I would expect ULA to be the "backup" launch service for Cygnus if Antares is not available. I also expect that Northrop Grumman has been looking at an alternative version of Antares for post-CRS-2. But its all moot if there is no ISS.
- Ed Kyle
-
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.
Atlas 5 has already launched Cygnus, three times. I would expect ULA to be the "backup" launch service for Cygnus if Antares is not available. I also expect that Northrop Grumman has been looking at an alternative version of Antares for post-CRS-2. But its all moot if there is no ISS.
- Ed Kyle
All of the 25 remaining Atlas Vs have been sold. To use an Atlas V for Cygnus, ULA will need for some customer to cancel one or more of these sales. e.g., Starliner flights or Kuiper flights. It probably makes more sense to just fly Crew Dragon instead until a new launcher can be qualified, since that's the justification for having two CRS-2 vendors in the first place.
-
If Antares had a good liquid upper stage, it might do much better than the heavier solid they are using.
They could, in theory, adapt the LOX/H2 stage they were developing for OmegA, even though it would be a scaling down and it would require significant modifications to Antares as well as its GSE to support it.
But it requires NGIS to buy RL-10C engines from Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR), and the Castor XL keeps things all in-house for them.
Ah, if only Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR) had taken the initiative all those years ago to see through development of AR1, then it would just be a matter of a couple years to modify the Antares first stage to use it instead of the RD-181. But no, even now AJR still drags its feet and all they've managed is just one lone full first iteration development engine that has yet to see even a static test firing.
Why would ARJ spend $1B developing engines with no guarantee market. All engines in development now are for specific LVs.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Why indeed. But in hindsight, I imagine that AJR is probably now wishing that they had done much more than they did.
-
All of the 25 remaining Atlas Vs have been sold. To use an Atlas V for Cygnus, ULA will need for some customer to cancel one or more of these sales. e.g., Starliner flights or Kuiper flights. It probably makes more sense to just fly Crew Dragon instead until a new launcher can be qualified, since that's the justification for having two CRS-2 vendors in the first place.
Vulcan for Cygnus.
- Ed Kyle
-
All of the 25 remaining Atlas Vs have been sold. To use an Atlas V for Cygnus, ULA will need for some customer to cancel one or more of these sales. e.g., Starliner flights or Kuiper flights. It probably makes more sense to just fly Crew Dragon instead until a new launcher can be qualified, since that's the justification for having two CRS-2 vendors in the first place.
Vulcan for Cygnus.
- Ed Kyle
You post stated that Cygnus had flown on Atlas V as support for NG using ULA. Vulcan is not Atlas V, so I did not see this as support for Cygnus on Vulcan instead of Cygnus on any other yet-to-be-flown launcher. Unless NG intends to bid Cygnus for missions other than ISS, qualifying any new launcher may not make economic sense.
-
All of the 25 remaining Atlas Vs have been sold. To use an Atlas V for Cygnus, ULA will need for some customer to cancel one or more of these sales. e.g., Starliner flights or Kuiper flights. It probably makes more sense to just fly Crew Dragon instead until a new launcher can be qualified, since that's the justification for having two CRS-2 vendors in the first place.
Vulcan for Cygnus.
- Ed Kyle
You post stated that Cygnus had flown on Atlas V as support for NG using ULA. Vulcan is not Atlas V, so I did not see this as support for Cygnus on Vulcan instead of Cygnus on any other yet-to-be-flown launcher. Unless NG intends to bid Cygnus for missions other than ISS, qualifying any new launcher may not make economic sense.
I should have been clearer and simply noted that Cygnus had flown on ULA launchers. Vulcan is obviously next for ULA. I don't see why it couldn't handle Cygnus *if* Northrop Grumman wins a CRS-3 contract. It would have a solid chance against a rocket much earlier in its development like Neutron.
- Ed Kyle
-
Yeah, the details belong in the Antares thread if anywhere.
But just gonna say I feel a little vindicated by this thread. Just weeks ago, people were talking about upgraded Antares. A possibility that looks increasingly remote (but not impossible… it depends on the factory surviving somehow while Russia is repelled… and the possibilities of *both* those things happening seems unlikely right now). Although ISS beyond 2024 also is starting to look less likely.
Cygnus might have a role to play still with the fate of ISS. Who knows what will happen.
But if ISS doesn’t continue past 2024 through to 2030, I’m not sure Cygnus on Neutron will matter because it just won’t be needed for anything.
Neutron won’t be ready before 2024, that’s for absolute certain.
Cygnus on Vulcan could happen, though. Do we know if there are enough Antares first stages and engines outside of Russia and Ukraine right now?
-
Yeah, the details belong in the Antares thread if anywhere.
But just gonna say I feel a little vindicated by this thread. Just weeks ago, people were talking about upgraded Antares. A possibility that looks increasingly remote (but not impossible… it depends on the factory surviving somehow while Russia is repelled… and the possibilities of *both* those things happening seems unlikely right now). Although ISS beyond 2024 also is starting to look less likely.
Cygnus might have a role to play still with the fate of ISS. Who knows what will happen.
But if ISS doesn’t continue past 2024 through to 2030, I’m not sure Cygnus on Neutron will matter because it just won’t be needed for anything.
Neutron won’t be ready before 2024, that’s for absolute certain.
Cygnus on Vulcan could happen, though. Do we know if there are enough Antares first stages and engines outside of Russia and Ukraine right now?
They need to be splintered into a separate thread with a different name.
-
Not the first time I've made a thread about replacing Antares, but certainly the first time we knew with some certainty it would be replaced. Hopefully the title is self explanatory.
-
Not the first time I've made a thread about replacing Antares, but certainly the first time we knew with some certainty it would be replaced. Hopefully the title is self explanatory.
Atlas/Vulcan
-
Not the first time I've made a thread about replacing Antares, but certainly the first time we knew with some certainty it would be replaced. Hopefully the title is self explanatory.
OmegA restart?
-
Falcon 9 or Vulcan. I think those are the only real choices.
The argument for Falcon 9 is it is reliable and inexpensive.
The argument for Vulcan would that it's a different launcher than the Falcon 9 and therefore provides an independent path to space. But on the other hand both the Dream Chaser and probably the Starliner are going to be launching on the Vulcan. So how much redundancy is this in reality?
The other problem with the Vulcan is it hasn't launched yet and I don't see how it can plausibly be certified in time either.
The best choice may be to pursue both. Northrup Grumman has a year to build two adapters for the Cygnus Antares: one for the Falcon 9 and one for the Vulcan.
-
Oh, and by the way, I am confused about the title. SpaceX has CRS-3. Northrup Grumman doesn't.
Northrup Grumman has enough stuff on hand for two more Antares missions, NG-18 and NG-19.
Edit: SpaceX's CRS-3, or SpX-3, was the third mission for the initial Commercial Resupply Service contract.
-
New Glenn would also be within the realm of possibility.
-
Two relevant posts from another thread, for the wild speculation category:
India's GSLV mkIII uses an 4.0 meter wide first stage, similar to Antares 3.9 meter diameter. It is set to use the SCE-200 engines which are based on Ukrainian engines. Strap a solid upper stage or 2 on top and it's probably cheaper than the current Antares.
And another, this one mine:
The next largest LOX/RP1 engine, in the world, that exists today, that is not built by SpaceX or Russia or Ukraine, is... uh... I'm pretty sure it's the Virgin Orbit NewtonThree. You only need 13 of them to meet the thrust of two RD-181s! Though they are gas-generator engines, so isp will be worse, so more fuel may be needed, and therefore more thrust. On the other hand, American tanks, particularly composite tanks like the Omega will probably be lighter, so maybe it will cancel out?
If NG wanted to keep flying a vehicle, I'm pretty sure those are the only RP-1 engine options.
-
Oh, and by the way, I am confused about the title. SpaceX has CRS-3. Northrup Grumman doesn't.
Northrup Grumman has enough stuff on hand for two more Antares missions, NG-18 and NG-19.
The third round of CRS contracts is commonly referred to as CRS-3
-
Not the first time I've made a thread about replacing Antares, but certainly the first time we knew with some certainty it would be replaced. Hopefully the title is self explanatory.
Atlas/Vulcan
Makes perfect sense, and provides a nice symmetry with the Crew Launch contracts. Cygnus crews have already demonstrated launch campaigns via. ULA.
- Ed Kyle
-
Oh, and by the way, I am confused about the title. SpaceX has CRS-3. Northrup Grumman doesn't.
Northrup Grumman has enough stuff on hand for two more Antares missions, NG-18 and NG-19.
The third round of CRS contracts is commonly referred to as CRS-3
Well yes, I guess your right! I missed that. With NG-18 and NG-19, for which Northrup Grumman has all the stuff including the first stages and engines already, Northrup Grumman will have completed their minimum requirements for CRS-2.
But note these six missions were just the minimum for CRS-2. NASA could have bought more missions from Northrup Grumman without renegotiating the terms.
For instance three more CRS-2 missions have been added to SpaceX's manifest to make a total of nine CRS-2 SpaceX missions, so far.
-
Not the first time I've made a thread about replacing Antares, but certainly the first time we knew with some certainty it would be replaced. Hopefully the title is self explanatory.
Atlas/Vulcan
Makes perfect sense, and provides a nice symmetry with the Crew Launch contracts. Cygnus crews have already demonstrated launch campaigns via. ULA.
- Ed Kyle
My counter would be that all of the Atlas Vs that are left have been sold, as have the first several Vulcan launches, which means the long pole for continued Cygnus flight would become Blue Origin's BE-4 production rate. Which doesn't fill me with any confidence. And NG would be competing with the DoD, who always has priority, and Sierra Space, who got there first, for those Vulcans that do get built. How many Vulcan cores can ULA even build in a year?
-
Operationally, probably a Vulcan, as all the Atlas 5's have been spoken for. Since Cygnus is essentially launcher agnostic, it would not surprise me to see a couple fly on a Falcon 9, given Vulcan has yet to fly and there are payloads for it already on the books.
It should be well within the capabilities of an Ariane 62; Ariane has been having a challenge getting orders from non-institutional European countries, and it would be both interesting to see as well as good to demonstrate further interoperability of Cygnus and redundant ability to support the ISS, given recent events.
-
It should be well within the capabilities of an Ariane 62; Ariane has been having a challenge getting orders from non-institutional European countries, and it would be both interesting to see as well as good to demonstrate further interoperability of Cygnus and redundant ability to support the ISS, given recent events.
In that vein, it's worth pointing out that the Japanese H3-30 (that's the cheapest version of the H3; three engines and no SRBs) should also be plenty capable of launching Cygnus, and will apparently be priced at $45 million, which is pretty damn good all things considered.
-
Operationally, probably a Vulcan, as all the Atlas 5's have been spoken for. Since Cygnus is essentially launcher agnostic, it would not surprise me to see a couple fly on a Falcon 9, given Vulcan has yet to fly and there are payloads for it already on the books.
It should be well within the capabilities of an Ariane 62; Ariane has been having a challenge getting orders from non-institutional European countries, and it would be both interesting to see as well as good to demonstrate further interoperability of Cygnus and redundant ability to support the ISS, given recent events.
They cannot bid Vulcan as it is not certified for NLSP.
-
Not the first time I've made a thread about replacing Antares, but certainly the first time we knew with some certainty it would be replaced. Hopefully the title is self explanatory.
Atlas/Vulcan
Makes perfect sense, and provides a nice symmetry with the Crew Launch contracts. Cygnus crews have already demonstrated launch campaigns via. ULA.
- Ed Kyle
My counter would be that all of the Atlas Vs that are left have been sold, as have the first several Vulcan launches, which means the long pole for continued Cygnus flight would become Blue Origin's BE-4 production rate. Which doesn't fill me with any confidence. And NG would be competing with the DoD, who always has priority, and Sierra Space, who got there first, for those Vulcans that do get built. How many Vulcan cores can ULA even build in a year?
Payloads can be shuffled and they might have parts for 1-2 Antares rockets on hand. Dream Chaser could also run extra flights(if successful). The only thing they need is the go ahead as the CRS flights are ordered years in advance.
-
It should be well within the capabilities of an Ariane 62; Ariane has been having a challenge getting orders from non-institutional European countries, and it would be both interesting to see as well as good to demonstrate further interoperability of Cygnus and redundant ability to support the ISS, given recent events.
In that vein, it's worth pointing out that the Japanese H3-30 (that's the cheapest version of the H3; three engines and no SRBs) should also be plenty capable of launching Cygnus, and will apparently be priced at $45 million, which is pretty damn good all things considered.
They cannot bid any vehicle that has not completed certification for NLSP. Cygnus by default is designed for horizontal transport on Antares thus F9/FH can be selected as the immediate alternate NLSP certified launcher. F9/FH can also fly the four segment Cygnus as is planned for the upgraded Antares which by the current NG company statements is still on the books albeit predating the recent events.
-
Not the first time I've made a thread about replacing Antares, but certainly the first time we knew with some certainty it would be replaced. Hopefully the title is self explanatory.
Atlas/Vulcan
Makes perfect sense, and provides a nice symmetry with the Crew Launch contracts. Cygnus crews have already demonstrated launch campaigns via. ULA.
- Ed Kyle
My counter would be that all of the Atlas Vs that are left have been sold, as have the first several Vulcan launches, which means the long pole for continued Cygnus flight would become Blue Origin's BE-4 production rate. Which doesn't fill me with any confidence. And NG would be competing with the DoD, who always has priority, and Sierra Space, who got there first, for those Vulcans that do get built. How many Vulcan cores can ULA even build in a year?
Payloads can be shuffled and they might have parts for 1-2 Antares rockets on hand. Dream Chaser could also run extra flights(if successful). The only thing they need is the go ahead as the CRS flights are ordered years in advance.
The current Antares-230+ cannot fly the four segment version that they are pitching for CRS-3. Antares-3xx is the expected upgrade path designation.
-
They cannot bid Vulcan as it is not certified for NLSP.
Is this a technicality in that they can bid "Atlas/Vulcan" because Atlas is LSP-certified, even though no Atlas launchers will actually be available for CRS-3 missions? Would NASA accept such a bid with the understanding that for all intents and purposes they are bidding Vulcan, and Vulcan would have to be certified in advance of Cygnus CRS-3 missions?
-
I don't think there will be a future generation of Antares, I don't think NGIS has any interest in liquid launch vehicles, and I think they'd rather sell spacecraft and space services than commercial launch service. My speculation is that they don't care what launches Cygnus as long as they're selling Cygnus.
They could launch on Falcon if Vulcan isn't ready. They can launch on Vulcan until Neutron or New Glenn is ready. Whatever is capable and certified for as long as NASA wants to fly Cygnus missions. Maybe Rocket Lab and Blue Origin might someday compete for Cygnus missions, should both of those systems come online before circumstances are totally different.
-
Why would NLSP apply? CRS pays for cargo services not spacecraft launch. NASA has already awarded CRS-2 missions to Vulcan.
Also I challenge the assumption that there will be a "CRS-3" at all.
-
Also I challenge the assumption that there will be a "CRS-3" at all.
Challenge it all you want, but it's in the thread title, so for this thread let's just assume there's a CRS-3.
-
Moderator:
Speculation OK.
Wild speculation that goes off-topic not OK.
-
It should be well within the capabilities of an Ariane 62; Ariane has been having a challenge getting orders from non-institutional European countries, and it would be both interesting to see as well as good to demonstrate further interoperability of Cygnus and redundant ability to support the ISS, given recent events.
In that vein, it's worth pointing out that the Japanese H3-30 (that's the cheapest version of the H3; three engines and no SRBs) should also be plenty capable of launching Cygnus, and will apparently be priced at $45 million, which is pretty damn good all things considered.
They cannot bid any vehicle that has not completed certification for NLSP. Cygnus by default is designed for horizontal transport on Antares thus F9/FH can be selected as the immediate alternate NLSP certified launcher. F9/FH can also fly the four segment Cygnus as is planned for the upgraded Antares which by the current NG company statements is still on the books albeit predating the recent events.
Cygnus has launched 3 times (OA-4, OA-6, and OA-7) on Atlas 5s; the spacecraft were vertically integrated for those missions, and obviously horizontal integration isn't a hard-and-fast requirement.
It is true that Ariane 6 and H3 (in any of their versions) are not NLSP certified; neither, at this time, are Vulcan or Neutron. As I indicated in a prior post, I fully expect Vulcan to be used operationally for any notional Cygnus launches not currently on the books, with another launcher potentially filling in a few times to fill a gap.
AFAIK when JWST launched on an Ariane 5, that vehicle didn't need to be NLSP certified, so obviously it's not a requirement for NASA payloads. If Cygnus needed a ride and Arianespace or JAXA had a competitive price for one of those vehicles - or if ESA/JAXA wanted to cover launch costs as a contribution towards the ISS program - I'm sure the paperwork technicalities could be worked out.
-
Oh, and by the way, I am confused about the title. SpaceX has CRS-3. Northrup Grumman doesn't.
Northrup Grumman has enough stuff on hand for two more Antares missions, NG-18 and NG-19.
The third round of CRS contracts is commonly referred to as CRS-3
There has been no third round of CRS contracts. What you are talking about is part of CRS-2. I'm sure you are right in saying that some people are describing the additional three missions that SpaceX has been awarded under CRS-2, so far, as CRS-3 but I don't like this usage at all. It's not accurate and it promotes confusion.
There's a price cap for how much money NASA can spend under CRS-2 but NASA is nowhere near the limit.
SpaceX has been awarded nine missions so far under CRS-2. Northrup Grumman has been awarded six.
As long as we don't lose the ISS as a consequence of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine, both SpaceX and Northrup Grumman are likely to be awarded more CRS-2 missions.
-
Thinking about it more Northrup Grumman only has one way to satisfy a request from NASA to do more missions after NG-19. If, that is, the first stage of the Antares launch vehicle can no longer be produced at Dnepropetrovsk. Or to constrain it further, if NASA also wants more missions after NG-19 and it wants them without a significant hiatus.
That is to put the Cygnus Antares on top of the Falcon 9. Nothing else can realistically be done in the time available between now and this possible future NG-20.
Some will say that the Vulcan could be certified for this purpose during that time. I don't think so. Or at least I don't think NASA can do that without bending its own rules.
But the issue for Northrup Grumman is that they can't assume that the Vulcan will be certified within the next year. Northrup Grumman knows it's possible to launch the Cygnus Antares on the Falcon 9 but they need an adapter and the like to do that, and that means they need to start working on this very soon. Or very soon if production of the first stage in Dnepropetrovsk becomes problematic.
Edit: Well this was wrong. I forgot that neither Antares nor, originally, the Falcon 9 needed to be certified by NASA in order to do a Commercial Resupply Service mission to the ISS. I'll leave this up anyway as a record of my mistaken thinking.
What is still true is that there are only two plausible ways to get Cygnus to the ISS for a putative NG20 mission with all the qualifications I stated above. That is either the Falcon 9 or the Vulcan.
And if Northrup Grumman does not prepare an adaptor for the Falcon 9 then they would be taking a gamble since the Vulcan has yet to do an orbital launch.
-
That is to put the Antares on top of the Falcon 9. Nothing else can realistically be done in the time available between now and this possible future NG-20.
Some will say that the Vulcan could be certified for this purpose during that time. I don't think so. Or at least I don't think NASA can do that without bending its own rules.
Wrong on both accounts. Vulcan doesn't have to be certified. Antares isn't.
BTW, the spacecraft is Cygnus.
-
BTW, the spacecraft is Cygnus.
Thank you for that correction. And actually thanks for both corrections.
-
The Late Load requirement could be an issue for any launcher other than Antares. At the start of the CRS-2 program, NG modified the fairing and created a portable white room that allowed perishable items to be loaded within 24 hours of launch. The fairing was given a removable nose cone and, with the launcher lowered to horizontal while at the launch pad, provided access to the Cygnus hatch for the launch team to load the last minute items.
This capability did not exist during CRS-1. (It may have for the last few missions of that program as NG was developing this capability and wanted to provide proof of concept in order to meet this requirement for CRS-2). Either this was only a desirement on CRS-1 or NG got a waiver for those missions. I believe it is a requirement on CRS-2 and most likely is on CRS-3.
-
The Late Load requirement could be an issue for any launcher other than Antares.
Not really.
This was explored with Atlas/Vulcan. SLC-41 has a whiteroom and with a hatch in the fairing, Cygnus is accessible.
-
Jim,
I know about the white room and that most launchers have access panels in the sides of the fairings. But Cygnus payload module can only be accessed from bulkhead that is pointing up when in the launch configuration. If you are saying there's a hatch in the fairing that allows access at the "pointy end", I'll take your word for it. I was not aware of this.
-
@ StarryKnight https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/features/northrop-grummans-antares-team-demonstrates-new-capability-to-load-cargo-just-before-launch
-
Jim,
I know about the white room and that most launchers have access panels in the sides of the fairings. But Cygnus payload module can only be accessed from bulkhead that is pointing up when in the launch configuration. If you are saying there's a hatch in the fairing that allows access at the "pointy end", I'll take your word for it. I was not aware of this.
There won't be anymore metallic fairings. They can put it in the side above bulkhead before the nosecone.
-
Jim,
I know about the white room and that most launchers have access panels in the sides of the fairings. But Cygnus payload module can only be accessed from bulkhead that is pointing up when in the launch configuration. If you are saying there's a hatch in the fairing that allows access at the "pointy end", I'll take your word for it. I was not aware of this.
There won't be anymore metallic fairings. They can put it in the side above bulkhead before the nosecone.
They need to be able to put a rig, basically a crane, that can carry and lower the late-load cargo. I ignore the size of the access panel, but it would have to be at least 4/6ft high and have such a rig certified. I would suspect some other clients have much more stringent requirements, but I have to ask.
-
Jim,
I know about the white room and that most launchers have access panels in the sides of the fairings. But Cygnus payload module can only be accessed from bulkhead that is pointing up when in the launch configuration. If you are saying there's a hatch in the fairing that allows access at the "pointy end", I'll take your word for it. I was not aware of this.
There won't be anymore metallic fairings. They can put it in the side above bulkhead before the nosecone.
They need to be able to put a rig, basically a crane, that can carry and lower the late-load cargo. I ignore the size of the access panel, but it would have to be at least 4/6ft high and have such a rig certified. I would suspect some other clients have much more stringent requirements, but I have to ask.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10600.msg217651#msg217651
-
Jim,
I know about the white room and that most launchers have access panels in the sides of the fairings. But Cygnus payload module can only be accessed from bulkhead that is pointing up when in the launch configuration. If you are saying there's a hatch in the fairing that allows access at the "pointy end", I'll take your word for it. I was not aware of this.
There won't be anymore metallic fairings. They can put it in the side above bulkhead before the nosecone.
They need to be able to put a rig, basically a crane, that can carry and lower the late-load cargo. I ignore the size of the access panel, but it would have to be at least 4/6ft high and have such a rig certified. I would suspect some other clients have much more stringent requirements, but I have to ask.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10600.msg217651#msg217651
Yep, like that. But that was Shuttle. I was wondering about composite Atlas V/Vulcan fairing. Actually, I think only Vulcan would be an option.
-
Jim,
I know about the white room and that most launchers have access panels in the sides of the fairings. But Cygnus payload module can only be accessed from bulkhead that is pointing up when in the launch configuration. If you are saying there's a hatch in the fairing that allows access at the "pointy end", I'll take your word for it. I was not aware of this.
There won't be anymore metallic fairings. They can put it in the side above bulkhead before the nosecone.
They need to be able to put a rig, basically a crane, that can carry and lower the late-load cargo. I ignore the size of the access panel, but it would have to be at least 4/6ft high and have such a rig certified. I would suspect some other clients have much more stringent requirements, but I have to ask.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10600.msg217651#msg217651
Yep, like that. But that was Shuttle. I was wondering about composite Atlas V/Vulcan fairing. Actually, I think only Vulcan would be an option.
Door on the left would be fine.
-
Moderator:
I edited the title to remove reference to "CRS-3."
-
For CRS2, NG had offered Cygnus on an Atlas as an option. I imagine that this CRS2 option can be replaced with Vulcan-Centaur.
-
For CRS2, NG had offered Cygnus on an Atlas as an option. I imagine that this CRS2 option can be replaced with Vulcan-Centaur.
I'm doubtful about this. The first several vulcans are already spoken for. ULA desperately needs them for nssl contracts and other stuff. I doubt there is gonna be any extra to sell for a few years.
-
For CRS2, NG had offered Cygnus on an Atlas as an option. I imagine that this CRS2 option can be replaced with Vulcan-Centaur.
I'm doubtful about this. The first several vulcans are already spoken for. ULA desperately needs them for nssl contracts and other stuff. I doubt there is gonna be any extra to sell for a few years.
ULA is a rocket launch provider. Atlas V is retireing after the remaining 24 are used and Delta IV is retiring after the last three are used. Vulcan is all they have to sell after those 27 already-sold rockets are launched. They have a factory that can build 30 Vulcans a year starting as soon as they can get the engines. Many of the existing Atlases (and Deltas?) are already allocated for NSSL. As soon as the first three Vulcan flights are completed, Vulcan will be certified and they will surely want to begin commercial launches including Cygnus.
The only problem: NG will need its first non-Antares rocket no later than about August 2023 to maintain its CRS-2 cadence.
-
Certification is not required for commercial launches
-
Certification is not required for commercial launches
Formal certification is not needed, but surely it affects the insurance prices? I was just assuming without any evidence that the same first three flights that are already booked for Vulcan-Centaur would precede any additional Vulcan-Centaur flights including any Cygnus flights.
-
Certification is not required for commercial launches
Formal certification is not needed, but surely it affects the insurance prices? I was just assuming without any evidence that the same first three flights that are already booked for Vulcan-Centaur would precede any additional Vulcan-Centaur flights including any Cygnus flights.
That is between ULA and its customers and none of us are privy to it.
-
Certification is not required for commercial launches
Formal certification is not needed, but surely it affects the insurance prices? I was just assuming without any evidence that the same first three flights that are already booked for Vulcan-Centaur would precede any additional Vulcan-Centaur flights including any Cygnus flights.
That is between ULA and its customers and none of us are privy to it.
How long would be contracting and integration work for Vulcan/Falcon 9? I'm wondering if NG would be able to offer Vulcan with F9 as an option if their initial Vulcan is delayed or suffers an anomaly.
-
For CRS2, NG had offered Cygnus on an Atlas as an option. I imagine that this CRS2 option can be replaced with Vulcan-Centaur.
I'm doubtful about this. The first several vulcans are already spoken for. ULA desperately needs them for nssl contracts and other stuff. I doubt there is gonna be any extra to sell for a few years.
ULA is a rocket launch provider. Atlas V is retireing after the remaining 24 are used and Delta IV is retiring after the last three are used. Vulcan is all they have to sell after those 27 already-sold rockets are launched. They have a factory that can build 30 Vulcans a year starting as soon as they can get the engines. Many of the existing Atlases (and Deltas?) are already allocated for NSSL. As soon as the first three Vulcan flights are completed, Vulcan will be certified and they will surely want to begin commercial launches including Cygnus.
The only problem: NG will need its first non-Antares rocket no later than about August 2023 to maintain its CRS-2 cadence.
The engines do not prevent them from manufacturing everything for each Vulcan minus the engines. They are already building out their year 1 manifest at this time plus some.
-
For CRS2, NG had offered Cygnus on an Atlas as an option. I imagine that this CRS2 option can be replaced with Vulcan-Centaur.
I'm doubtful about this. The first several vulcans are already spoken for. ULA desperately needs them for nssl contracts and other stuff. I doubt there is gonna be any extra to sell for a few years.
ULA is a rocket launch provider. Atlas V is retireing after the remaining 24 are used and Delta IV is retiring after the last three are used. Vulcan is all they have to sell after those 27 already-sold rockets are launched. They have a factory that can build 30 Vulcans a year starting as soon as they can get the engines. Many of the existing Atlases (and Deltas?) are already allocated for NSSL. As soon as the first three Vulcan flights are completed, Vulcan will be certified and they will surely want to begin commercial launches including Cygnus.
The only problem: NG will need its first non-Antares rocket no later than about August 2023 to maintain its CRS-2 cadence.
The engines do not prevent them from manufacturing everything for each Vulcan minus the engines. They are already building out their year 1 manifest at this time plus some.
Sorry, my phrasing was sloppy: ULA needs the engines for integration and delivery, and I have no inside info as to the engineless build status or the integration time after engines are delivered. If ULA is even a little ahead of the engines as you say, then Vulcans are constrained nearly exclusively by BE-4 production rate (after BE-4 production units are qualified by ULA).
The other gating factor is an actual contract between NG and ULA. Based only on public info, The first two Vulcan flights are already booked and there are follow-on flights for Dream Chasers and for USSF, so it's unclear as seen from the outside when the first Cygnus-on-Vulcan could fly. Can it fly by August 2023? If not, can ULA free up an Atlas V?
-
From start of a contract awarded to ULA for launch and integration on a Atlas V. ULA launched Cygnus 1 year later. So getting Cygnus onto Vulcan should be able to be done in about the same timeline, especially since ULA has already done integration of Cygnus before but on a Atlas V. The question would be is when available Vulcan Flight hardware would be available?
So yes it is likely that a Vulcan launch of Cygnus could happen as early as Summer of 2023. As long as it gets on contract by this summer 2022 and there are engines to do the flight. But since there are 2 sets of LV hardware already in NG's hands. That gives time to do the swap without a hiccup in any of the planned flights of Cygnus.
-
From start of a contract awarded to ULA for launch and integration on a Atlas V. ULA launched Cygnus 1 year later. So getting Cygnus onto Vulcan should be able to be done in about the same timeline, especially since ULA has already done integration of Cygnus before but on a Atlas V. The question would be is when available Vulcan Flight hardware would be available?
So yes it is likely that a Vulcan launch of Cygnus could happen as early as Summer of 2023. As long as it gets on contract by this summer 2022 and there are engines to do the flight. But since there are 2 sets of LV hardware already in NG's hands. That gives time to do the swap without a hiccup in any of the planned flights of Cygnus.
But if we expect Vulcan to launch towards Q4 '22, I don't see it doing more than 3 launches in 2023. which means I can hardly see NG getting a slot before Q4 2024. If they need to keep the cadence (which I'm not sure since Dram Chaser would be flying on the second Vulcan and covers most of Cygnus needs), they could get one or two F9 launches to keep the ISS running. Seeing how the situation is affecting ESA and obviously Roscosmos, I think NASA should ask for as much redundancy as possible for the next four years.
-
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1507396142555926535
They are looking at several options for engines, I believe. It's also possible Project Kuiper could "give back" some of the nine Atlas launches procured earlier.
-
From start of a contract awarded to ULA for launch and integration on a Atlas V. ULA launched Cygnus 1 year later. So getting Cygnus onto Vulcan should be able to be done in about the same timeline, especially since ULA has already done integration of Cygnus before but on a Atlas V. The question would be is when available Vulcan Flight hardware would be available?
So yes it is likely that a Vulcan launch of Cygnus could happen as early as Summer of 2023. As long as it gets on contract by this summer 2022 and there are engines to do the flight. But since there are 2 sets of LV hardware already in NG's hands. That gives time to do the swap without a hiccup in any of the planned flights of Cygnus.
But if we expect Vulcan to launch towards Q4 '22, I don't see it doing more than 3 launches in 2023. which means I can hardly see NG getting a slot before Q4 2024. If they need to keep the cadence (which I'm not sure since Dram Chaser would be flying on the second Vulcan and covers most of Cygnus needs), they could get one or two F9 launches to keep the ISS running. Seeing how the situation is affecting ESA and obviously Roscosmos, I think NASA should ask for as much redundancy as possible for the next four years.
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
-
From start of a contract awarded to ULA for launch and integration on a Atlas V. ULA launched Cygnus 1 year later. So getting Cygnus onto Vulcan should be able to be done in about the same timeline, especially since ULA has already done integration of Cygnus before but on a Atlas V. The question would be is when available Vulcan Flight hardware would be available?
So yes it is likely that a Vulcan launch of Cygnus could happen as early as Summer of 2023. As long as it gets on contract by this summer 2022 and there are engines to do the flight. But since there are 2 sets of LV hardware already in NG's hands. That gives time to do the swap without a hiccup in any of the planned flights of Cygnus.
But if we expect Vulcan to launch towards Q4 '22, I don't see it doing more than 3 launches in 2023. which means I can hardly see NG getting a slot before Q4 2024. If they need to keep the cadence (which I'm not sure since Dram Chaser would be flying on the second Vulcan and covers most of Cygnus needs), they could get one or two F9 launches to keep the ISS running. Seeing how the situation is affecting ESA and obviously Roscosmos, I think NASA should ask for as much redundancy as possible for the next four years.
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
Unless that’s the year it actually launches. ;)
-
[...]
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
ULA has not stopped anything that they could do without the flight engines. And I'm pretty sure they have been studying how to accelerate everything else after they receive them, too. I now that they are now NET Q4 2022, which is just a NET. But I've not lost all hope. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they switch payloads so they launch as fast as they can. The market is currently supply limited.
-
[...]
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
ULA has not stopped anything that they could do without the flight engines. And I'm pretty sure they have been studying how to accelerate everything else after they receive them, too. I now that they are now NET Q4 2022, which is just a NET. But I've not lost all hope. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they switch payloads so they launch as fast as they can. The market is currently supply limited.
The market may be LV supply limited, but I think that at least the first two launches will remain "test" launches, where loss of payload is not catastrophic. As of now, I think those two launches are Peregrine and Dream Chaser Demo-1.
-
[...]
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
ULA has not stopped anything that they could do without the flight engines. And I'm pretty sure they have been studying how to accelerate everything else after they receive them, too. I now that they are now NET Q4 2022, which is just a NET. But I've not lost all hope. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they switch payloads so they launch as fast as they can. The market is currently supply limited.
The market may be LV supply limited, but I think that at least the first two launches will remain "test" launches, where loss of payload is not catastrophic. As of now, I think those two launches are Peregrine and Dream Chaser Demo-1.
My point is that those payloads will probably be late. And something cheap, like a Kuiper or some small GEO sat can probably take the risk and be ready pretty fast.
-
[...]
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
ULA has not stopped anything that they could do without the flight engines. And I'm pretty sure they have been studying how to accelerate everything else after they receive them, too. I now that they are now NET Q4 2022, which is just a NET. But I've not lost all hope. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they switch payloads so they launch as fast as they can. The market is currently supply limited.
The market may be LV supply limited, but I think that at least the first two launches will remain "test" launches, where loss of payload is not catastrophic. As of now, I think those two launches are Peregrine and Dream Chaser Demo-1.
My point is that those payloads will probably be late. And something cheap, like a Kuiper or some small GEO sat can probably take the risk and be ready pretty fast.
:) Or if nobody wants to take a risk, just fly a Tesla Roadster. :)
-
I think its fun that this same thread happens every 6-12 months about vulcan and be-4. Every time the same people mock anyone who doesn't believe the unrealistic timeline. Then they forget and move on to the next one
-
I think its fun that this same thread happens every 6-12 months about vulcan and be-4. Every time the same people mock anyone who doesn't believe the unrealistic timeline. Then they forget and move on to the next one
What unrealistic timeline?
-
I think its fun that this same thread happens every 6-12 months about vulcan and be-4. Every time the same people mock anyone who doesn't believe the unrealistic timeline. Then they forget and move on to the next one
That would be because the timelines are not unrealistic, merely wrong.
-
This SpaceNews article about NG and the lunar lander contract also talks about Cygnus at the end.
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-weighing-options-for-new-artemis-lunar-lander-competition/
Despite the launch uncertainty, NASA awarded Northrop Grumman March 25 six additional Cygnus cargo missions to the ISS under its Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) 2 contract awarded in 2016. NASA has now ordered 14 Cygnus missions through its CRS-2 contract.
-
Northrop Grumman says it has backup plan for ISS resupply, but silent on details
https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/05/11/facing-rocket-supply-crunch-northrop-grumman-says-it-has-backup-options-for-iss-resupply/
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
My thinking is that for the limited number of Cygnus flights left. Northrop Grumman and NASA should just launch them on the Falcon 9 for less cost and launcher availability. Probably less paperwork than for a new launcher that might done only a few flights by mid 2023.
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
My thinking is that for the limited number of Cygnus flights left. Northrop Grumman and NASA should just launch them on the Falcon 9 for less cost and launcher availability. Probably less paperwork than for a new launcher that might done only a few flights by mid 2023.
But now you have two problems. Will NASA permit an operational Cygnus-on-F9 without an initial test flight, and loss of launcher redundancy. Probably better to plan for Cygnus-on-Vulcan long-term, with Cargo Dragon as the contingency for one or two extra CRS flights if Cygnus-on-Vulcan slips.
-
If there’s a problem with F9, could just switch to Vulcan.
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
My thinking is that for the limited number of Cygnus flights left. Northrop Grumman and NASA should just launch them on the Falcon 9 for less cost and launcher availability. Probably less paperwork than for a new launcher that might done only a few flights by mid 2023.
But now you have two problems. Will NASA permit an operational Cygnus-on-F9 without an initial test flight, and loss of launcher redundancy. Probably better to plan for Cygnus-on-Vulcan long-term, with Cargo Dragon as the contingency for one or two extra CRS flights if Cygnus-on-Vulcan slips.
The only thing new with the Cygnus on a Falcon 9 is the Cygnus itself. There was no test flight of the Cygnus on the Atlas V previously.
Also one of the Falcon 9 booster has refly multiple times with NRO payloads. A much more demanding customer than NASA.
Loss of launcher redundancy have to weighted against the time and cost in qualifying a new and more expensive launcher for a limited number of Cygnus flights.
-
My thinking is that for the limited number of Cygnus flights left. Northrop Grumman and NASA should just launch them on the Falcon 9 for less cost and launcher availability. Probably less paperwork than for a new launcher that might done only a few flights by mid 2023.
But now you have two problems. Will NASA permit an operational Cygnus-on-F9 without an initial test flight, and loss of launcher redundancy.
I think Falcon 9/H has arrived at the point in its operational history that a single loss of a launch vehicle (1st or 2nd stage) won't result in a long stand down period. If any.
Certainly for the reusable 1st stage, the beauty of reusability is that SpaceX can inspect the 1st stage for any signs of wear and tear, but if a Falcon 9 1st stage fails after it has flown multiple times, I don't think NASA will be worried with the fleet as a whole.
Probably better to plan for Cygnus-on-Vulcan long-term, with Cargo Dragon as the contingency for one or two extra CRS flights if Cygnus-on-Vulcan slips.
And to be clear, I support supplier redundancy, so I'm not advocating Northrop Grumman choose the Falcon 9, just that the Falcon 9 is probably past the point where a launch failure results in a significant impact on launch schedules.
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
I suspect Falcon 9. Its not like they is a pile of extra vulcans laying around in the next 12-15 months.
Especially if NASA wants a test fligt. Though I suppose ULA loves the paperwork route, but can that even be completed by next summer when the rocket hasn't ever flown yet?
-
I'm not a rocket scientist or even a rocket engineer. How hard is it to move Cygnus to another launcher as measured in time and money? My guess it that it's a bit harder in the real world than it is in Kerbal. Is NASA likely to require a demonstration launch or not? Cygnus has flown on Atlas. Does this mean it's easier to fly it on Vulcan or not?
-
I'm not a rocket scientist or even a rocket engineer. How hard is it to move Cygnus to another launcher as measured in time and money? My guess it that it's a bit harder in the real world than it is in Kerbal. Is NASA likely to require a demonstration launch or not? Cygnus has flown on Atlas. Does this mean it's easier to fly it on Vulcan or not?
Cygnus Orb-3 (which failed) was launched on 28 October 2014; the next Cygnus mission (OA-4) launched on an Atlas V on 6 December 2015, so Orbital was able to switch launchers in just over 13 months. AFAIK Atlas V was not in the cards as a Cygnus launcher prior to the Orb-3 failure - Orbital had already been looking to upgrade the engines on Antares before the accident.
The OA-4 mission was also the first enhanced Cygnus vehicle to be launched; NASA didn't require a demonstration mission due to launching on an Atlas V or due to an upgraded Cygnus being used. Presumably there would be some sort of oversight required but this precedent does not suggest that they would require a demonstration for a Cygnus launched on Vulcan.
I would assume it would be easier/more straightforward, from an integration standpoint, for ULA to launch a Cygnus on a Vulcan than it would be for a different provider with a different rocket, if only because Cygnus has already flown on Atlas V and ULA has presumably already done some work on what kinds of payload adaptors would be needed to fly customers who have traditionally flown on Atlas V on Vulcan.
Caveat: I am not a rocket scientist or engineer, either.
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
I suspect Falcon 9. Its not like they is a pile of extra vulcans laying around in the next 12-15 months.
Especially if NASA wants a test fligt. Though I suppose ULA loves the paperwork route, but can that even be completed by next summer when the rocket hasn't ever flown yet?
No extra Vulcans, but maybe quite a few idle F9s If SpaceX actually gets Starship operating by then. Putting Starlink on Starship would potentially free up half the F9 launches starting in Q2 2023. We'll see.
-
Please remember that DreamChaser should take some of the burden put on Cygnus. And also if Vulcan is available to Cygnus, is probably as available to Kuiper and they might squeeze a few extra satellites so they wouldn't mind switching.
-
I'm not a rocket scientist or even a rocket engineer. How hard is it to move Cygnus to another launcher as measured in time and money? My guess it that it's a bit harder in the real world than it is in Kerbal. Is NASA likely to require a demonstration launch or not? Cygnus has flown on Atlas. Does this mean it's easier to fly it on Vulcan or not?
The main time consuming thing is looking at the limitations of the payload with regard to how it handles the launch environment in the rocket fairing. ULA already knows all that information for Cygnus.
The next thing is working out how the payload connects to / separates from the upper stage. That should be minimal effort since ULA already has operational experience with a Centaur-Cygnus adapter.
So yes, it should be a lot easier to fly on Vulcan than with a new launch provider.
NASA didn't require a demonstration launch for Atlas, there's no reason it should need a non-operational demonstration Cygnus launch from Vulcan.
-
I'm not a rocket scientist or even a rocket engineer. How hard is it to move Cygnus to another launcher as measured in time and money? My guess it that it's a bit harder in the real world than it is in Kerbal. Is NASA likely to require a demonstration launch or not? Cygnus has flown on Atlas. Does this mean it's easier to fly it on Vulcan or not?
Cygnus Orb-3 (which failed) was launched on 28 October 2014; the next Cygnus mission (OA-4) launched on an Atlas V on 6 December 2015, so Orbital was able to switch launchers in just over 13 months. AFAIK Atlas V was not in the cards as a Cygnus launcher prior to the Orb-3 failure - Orbital had already been looking to upgrade the engines on Antares before the accident.
The OA-4 mission was also the first enhanced Cygnus vehicle to be launched; NASA didn't require a demonstration mission due to launching on an Atlas V or due to an upgraded Cygnus being used. Presumably there would be some sort of oversight required but this precedent does not suggest that they would require a demonstration for a Cygnus launched on Vulcan.
I would assume it would be easier/more straightforward, from an integration standpoint, for ULA to launch a Cygnus on a Vulcan than it would be for a different provider with a different rocket, if only because Cygnus has already flown on Atlas V and ULA has presumably already done some work on what kinds of payload adaptors would be needed to fly customers who have traditionally flown on Atlas V on Vulcan.
Caveat: I am not a rocket scientist or engineer, either.
This is true, and Vulcan is made specifically to launch Atlas V payloads with no or minimal adjustments. So Cygnus has already launched on Atlas V, it should be no problem to do so again.
Which is why it shouldn’t be a problem to use Falcon 9 in the meantime, assuming it’s affordable or cheaper and they don’t want to wait for Vulcan. If there IS a problem with Falcon 9, they can seamlessly do the next launch on Vulcan. ULA claims to be a fast response provider now, so it should take even less time than it did after the Antares failure.
So the least risk, lowest cost option is just to also launch on Falcon 9. If there’s a problem with Falcon 9, launch on Vulcan. It’s only problematic if Vulcan isn’t available yet… which avoiding Falcon 9 would make even worse.
-
Cygnus on Falcon 9 might have some late-load cargo issues. With Antares they have specific fairing entry points and rigs. With a vertical integration facility is also pretty easy, but you need different fairing door and rig. But on Falcon 9, specially now that they are recovering them, it might get pretty expensive.
-
This is true, and Vulcan is made specifically to launch Atlas V payloads with no or minimal adjustments. So Cygnus has already launched on Atlas V, it should be no problem to do so again.
Which is why it shouldn’t be a problem to use Falcon 9 in the meantime, assuming it’s affordable or cheaper and they don’t want to wait for Vulcan. If there IS a problem with Falcon 9, they can seamlessly do the next launch on Vulcan. ULA claims to be a fast response provider now, so it should take even less time than it did after the Antares failure.
So the least risk, lowest cost option is just to also launch on Falcon 9. If there’s a problem with Falcon 9, launch on Vulcan. It’s only problematic if Vulcan isn’t available yet… which avoiding Falcon 9 would make even worse.
I don't understand. Apparently there is design work involved to launch Cygnus on F9: i.e., some sort of payload adaptor and some analysis of the "launch environment". This effort would need to start very soon in order to use F9 in August 2023 if a Vulcan is not available then. It might be cheaper overall to just skip that flight and let NASA use a Cargo Dragon in the fairly unlikely event that neither Cygnus-on-Vulcan nor Cygnus-on-Atlas are available. The drawbacks are:
--Cygnus is probably a better re-booster for ISS than is Cargo Dragon
--The berthing port used by Cygnus permits slightly larger cargo containers than the docking port used by Cargo Dragon
--possible revenue loss (mitigated by avoidance of the F9 option study cost)
--minor embarrassment of not flying Cygnus
I think that the Cygnus-on-F9 study effort will only be done if NG concludes that Vulcan may continue to be unavailable until after the Spring 2024 flight.
-
I'm not a rocket scientist or even a rocket engineer. How hard is it to move Cygnus to another launcher as measured in time and money? My guess it that it's a bit harder in the real world than it is in Kerbal. Is NASA likely to require a demonstration launch or not? Cygnus has flown on Atlas. Does this mean it's easier to fly it on Vulcan or not?
NASA is buying a service - delivery of goods to the ISS. It does not really care how the goods get there. Switching the launcher should not matter.
The "only" thing which REALLY matters to NASA is behaviour of the spacecraft (Cygnus) in the ISS exclusion zone. (See: SX CRS-1 mission Orbcomm loss).
Cygnus would be the same - already tested -> no need to do another demo launch.
(Yes, I know I'm simplifying a little bit)
-
This is true, and Vulcan is made specifically to launch Atlas V payloads with no or minimal adjustments. So Cygnus has already launched on Atlas V, it should be no problem to do so again.
Which is why it shouldn’t be a problem to use Falcon 9 in the meantime, assuming it’s affordable or cheaper and they don’t want to wait for Vulcan. If there IS a problem with Falcon 9, they can seamlessly do the next launch on Vulcan. ULA claims to be a fast response provider now, so it should take even less time than it did after the Antares failure.
So the least risk, lowest cost option is just to also launch on Falcon 9. If there’s a problem with Falcon 9, launch on Vulcan. It’s only problematic if Vulcan isn’t available yet… which avoiding Falcon 9 would make even worse.
I don't understand. Apparently there is design work involved to launch Cygnus on F9: i.e., some sort of payload adaptor and some analysis of the "launch environment". This effort would need to start very soon in order to use F9 in August 2023 if a Vulcan is not available then. It might be cheaper overall to just skip that flight and let NASA use a Cargo Dragon in the fairly unlikely event that neither Cygnus-on-Vulcan nor Cygnus-on-Atlas are available. The drawbacks are:
--Cygnus is probably a better re-booster for ISS than is Cargo Dragon
--The berthing port used by Cygnus permits slightly larger cargo containers than the docking port used by Cargo Dragon
--possible revenue loss (mitigated by avoidance of the F9 option study cost)
--minor embarrassment of not flying Cygnus
I think that the Cygnus-on-F9 study effort will only be done if NG concludes that Vulcan may continue to be unavailable until after the Spring 2024 flight.
NG already has the Cygnus, though. They can’t replace it with a Dragon. They CAN replace the rocket, as they already had to do once before.
I don’t think launching Cygnus on F9 would be particularly expensive to setup. Falcon 9 is made to launch lots of commercial (and government) satellites (Including those which previously launched on Atlas V), which is what Cygnus is.
SoaceX has pretty rapid ops already, so they may just do late-load in the hangar.
SoaceX has achieved really good turnaround times for Falcon 9, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they could go from hangar to launch within 24 hours.
-
What’s the fastest time from roll out to launch for Falcon 9?
-
Lack of late load was issue on Atlas as it was integrated with fairing 2weeks before launch. Something they would want to address with any long term replacement launch.
Those fresh fruit and veggies are an important part of cargo deliveries. One benefit of the private Axiom missions was extra fresh food deliveries.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
Lack of late load was issue on Atlas as it was integrated with fairing 2weeks before launch. Something they would want to address with any long term replacement launch.
Those fresh fruit and veggies are an important part of cargo deliveries. One benefit of the private Axiom missions was extra fresh food deliveries.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Late load on Atlas was discussed starting at post 57 of this thread. Jim pointed out a few posts later that Atlas has a solution.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55886.msg2345509#msg2345509
-
??? who makes the pressurized segment of Cygnus? ... Thales Alenia Space in Italy.
Cygnus can launch pressurized cargo and very small unpressurized cargo on Antares.
The ISS program has been extended by NASA from 2024 to 2030.
Since the fifth ATV flight, ESA's contribution to the ISS (barter element) have been the Orion service module. :o >:(
ESA/ it's member states still have to approve extension of the ISS, and what their barter element will be.
May I propose: launching Cygnus NG-20 to -25 on Ariane 62. I think they can mount external payloads (Gold-2) on the outside of Cygnus so it can deliver more unpressurized payload.
This could lower cost for NASA. It was NASA/US policy that preferred CRS above continuing ATV flights. And requested Europe to develop and supply the Orion service module.
JAXA was allowed to continue HTV launches and the development of HTV-X.
So Cygnus becomes a mainly ESA cargo resupply vehicle. (ESA launch and pressurized cargo module; Northrup Grumman is design lead and build the service module.) Thus lower cost for the US.
Side benefit for NG: they can sell their Antares launch facilities to Rocketlab. Remove the burden from that from their operations.
-
??? who makes the pressurized segment of Cygnus? ... Thales Alenia Space in Italy.
Cygnus can launch pressurized cargo and very small unpressurized cargo on Antares.
The ISS program has been extended by NASA from 2024 to 2030.
Since the fifth ATV flight, ESA's contribution to the ISS (barter element) have been the Orion service module. :o >:(
ESA/ it's member states still have to approve extension of the ISS, and what their barter element will be.
May I propose: launching Cygnus NG-20 to -25 on Ariane 62. I think they can mount external payloads (Gold-2) on the outside of Cygnus so it can deliver more unpressurized payload.
This could lower cost for NASA. It was NASA/US policy that preferred CRS above continuing ATV flights. And requested Europe to develop and supply the Orion service module.
JAXA was allowed to continue HTV launches and the development of HTV-X.
So Cygnus becomes a mainly ESA cargo resupply vehicle. (ESA launch and pressurized cargo module; Northrup Grumman is design lead and build the service module.) Thus lower cost for the US.
Side benefit for NG: they can sell their Antares launch facilities to Rocketlab. Remove the burden from that from their operations.
There is the small issue of loading the cargo and experiments at Kourou when the payload processing is at Kennedy and Wallops.
AIUI Northrop Grumman leases from the facilities at Mid Atlantic Regional Spaceport from a Virginia state agency. RocketLab need to have a working Neutron launcher before they need the MARS facilities.