-
Orbital’s Cygnus preparing for the opening salvo to regain US independence
by
Chris Bergin
on 25 Aug, 2011 23:34
-
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/orbitals-cygnus-preparing-to-regain-us-independence/Now you may be thinking "Hang on Chris, this isn't some exclusive L2 acquired news we've come to expect from this site" and you'd be right.
However, this is a milestone which should be reported (as much as you'll of seen the pressers and as much as I worked this into a standalone article). It also provides us with a baseline reference article, as the good folks at Orbital have agreed to work with us on content
So you can expect some excellent coverage on Orbital from this point onwards.
Chris = very happy with Orbital today
-
#1
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 25 Aug, 2011 23:40
-
Orbital and Cygnus really dont get enough attention, and deserve the quality press work from this site regardless. Just happy to see Virginia is getting into the big time for space access.
-
#2
by
RyanC
on 25 Aug, 2011 23:46
-
Hyperbolic title anyone? It's not re-gaining US independence if the launch vehicle uses NK-33/43.
-
#3
by
mmeijeri
on 25 Aug, 2011 23:48
-
Opening salvo? What about Falcon 9 and Dragon?
-
#4
by
Chris Bergin
on 25 Aug, 2011 23:52
-
Hyperbolic title anyone? It's not re-gaining US independence if the launch vehicle uses NK-33/43.
NASA contract with a US commercial company. The title also represents the "opening salvo" towards that goal, which is why COTS, CRS and CCDEV are all referenced.
Opening salvo? What about Falcon 9 and Dragon?
Yep, they are part of the salvo, as referenced three times in the article.
-
#5
by
Jason1701
on 26 Aug, 2011 00:08
-
Great article and header image - hadn't seen it before. The title made me visualize a Cygnus flying to the Battle of Brandywine to punish the British Redcoats.
-
#6
by
Norm Hartnett
on 26 Aug, 2011 00:16
-
Great article and header image - hadn't seen it before. The title made me visualize a Cygnus flying to the Battle of Brandywine to punish the British Redcoats.
Oh, not a good analogy.
"The battle, which was a decisive victory for the British, left Philadelphia, the revolutionary capital, undefended."
-
#7
by
TrueBlueWitt
on 26 Aug, 2011 00:26
-
Hyperbolic title anyone? It's not re-gaining US independence if the launch vehicle uses NK-33/43.
NASA contract with a US commercial company. The title also represents the "opening salvo" towards that goal, which is why COTS, CRS and CCDEV are all referenced.
Opening salvo? What about Falcon 9 and Dragon?
Yep, they are part of the salvo, as referenced three times in the article.
"preparing to
join" would have been more accurate title
-
#8
by
Rocket Science
on 26 Aug, 2011 00:28
-
How similar are the fairings being used to the last two failures both with hot/cold gas separation. I don’t think we know the root cause yet do we? They all looked really stunned at the press conference…
Regards
Robert
-
#9
by
Downix
on 26 Aug, 2011 00:45
-
How similar are the fairings being used to the last two failures both with hot/cold gas separation. I don’t think we know the root cause yet do we? They all looked really stunned at the press conference…
Regards
Robert
Simple, they're not. The Taurus II uses a new fairing, produced by a different company.
http://www.aascworld.com/Taurus_II/service--1211796061/program.html
-
#10
by
Rocket Science
on 26 Aug, 2011 00:55
-
How similar are the fairings being used to the last two failures both with hot/cold gas separation. I don’t think we know the root cause yet do we? They all looked really stunned at the press conference…
Regards
Robert
Simple, they're not. The Taurus II uses a new fairing, produced by a different company.
http://www.aascworld.com/Taurus_II/service--1211796061/program.html
Thanks Nate,
Well that’s one way around the problem I hope. Would be still nice to learn something from those two failures. I don’t want to see another presser like that last one, felt bad for those guys… and we need reliable cargo to station in light of what is going on now. Fingers crossed…
Regards
Robert
-
#11
by
Downix
on 26 Aug, 2011 01:06
-
How similar are the fairings being used to the last two failures both with hot/cold gas separation. I don’t think we know the root cause yet do we? They all looked really stunned at the press conference…
Regards
Robert
Simple, they're not. The Taurus II uses a new fairing, produced by a different company.
http://www.aascworld.com/Taurus_II/service--1211796061/program.html
Thanks Nate,
Well that’s one way around the problem I hope. Would be still nice to learn something from those two failures. I don’t want to see another presser like that last one, felt bad for those guys… and we need reliable cargo to station in light of what is going on now. Fingers crossed…
Regards
Robert
If you go to the address on that page you'd also see that this company is making the shroud for the Orion as well.
As for what's happened, whatever it is, the Minotaur has yet to be effected, which makes it even more curious.
-
#12
by
Rocket Science
on 26 Aug, 2011 01:22
-
How similar are the fairings being used to the last two failures both with hot/cold gas separation. I don’t think we know the root cause yet do we? They all looked really stunned at the press conference…
Regards
Robert
Simple, they're not. The Taurus II uses a new fairing, produced by a different company.
http://www.aascworld.com/Taurus_II/service--1211796061/program.html
Thanks Nate,
Well that’s one way around the problem I hope. Would be still nice to learn something from those two failures. I don’t want to see another presser like that last one, felt bad for those guys… and we need reliable cargo to station in light of what is going on now. Fingers crossed…
Regards
Robert
If you go to the address on that page you'd also see that this company is making the shroud for the Orion as well.
As for what's happened, whatever it is, the Minotaur has yet to be effected, which makes it even more curious.
All I can say is don’t call the Russian priest who blessed “their” last launch…. Didn’t work out so well for them
-
#13
by
Chris Bergin
on 26 Aug, 2011 01:30
-
-
#14
by
Launch Fan
on 26 Aug, 2011 02:55
-
Thanks for the article Chris. Good to see the no nonsense Orbital are doing well. I say no nonsense compared to the "other guys"
-
#15
by
Antares
on 26 Aug, 2011 04:18
-
The fairing itself isn't relevant. The problems seem to be in the part that holds it together when it's supposed to be together and separates when it's supposed to be apart. Fairing manufacturers don't make those. They either come from ordnance or metal suppliers.
As for T2/Cygnus, I'm honestly very concerned that the program will survive the direct hit from Irene at Wallops.
-
#16
by
arachnitect
on 26 Aug, 2011 05:56
-
The PCM was unloaded from the Antonov An-26
I think it came over on an AN-124
The Thales press release says AN 24, but I believe they meant AN-124
AN-24/26 are relatively small.
Kudos to NSF on being so prolific lately.
-
#17
by
HMXHMX
on 26 Aug, 2011 07:00
-
The fairing itself isn't relevant. The problems seem to be in the part that holds it together when it's supposed to be together and separates when it's supposed to be apart. Fairing manufacturers don't make those. They either come from ordnance or metal suppliers.
As for T2/Cygnus, I'm honestly very concerned that the program will survive the direct hit from Irene at Wallops.
A very real concern. The NWS Interactive Storm Surge program shows 10-20 ft surge 2-4 miles inland. As I recall, the assembly hall is about 11 ft above sea level, and Sunday is high tide, too.
There are two first stages, one second stage (I think) and a Cygnus at risk.
-
#18
by
Lewis007
on 26 Aug, 2011 07:15
-
-
#19
by
Chris Bergin
on 26 Aug, 2011 17:07
-
The PCM was unloaded from the Antonov An-26
I think it came over on an AN-124
The Thales press release says AN 24, but I believe they meant AN-124
AN-24/26 are relatively small.
Kudos to NSF on being so prolific lately.
Thanks very much! I'll check into the plane.
-
#20
by
as58
on 26 Aug, 2011 18:23
-
The PCM was unloaded from the Antonov An-26
I think it came over on an AN-124
The Thales press release says AN 24, but I believe they meant AN-124
AN-24/26 are relatively small.
Kudos to NSF on being so prolific lately.
Thanks very much! I'll check into the plane.
It's clearly an AN-124.
http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/VDA1396
-
#21
by
simonbp
on 26 Aug, 2011 19:33
-
Yeah IIRC, Cygnus has about the payload capacity of an AN-26...
-
#22
by
strangequark
on 26 Aug, 2011 22:01
-
Hyperbolic title anyone? It's not re-gaining US independence if the launch vehicle uses NK-33/43.
We will be making
AJ-26s here; we just haven't run through the Russian stock.
-
#23
by
RyanC
on 27 Aug, 2011 02:02
-
We will be making AJ-26s here; we just haven't run through the Russian stock.
You mean taking NK-33s from the 1970s, refurbishing them, and giving them a US designed gimbal system then changing the nameplate to read AJ-26?
As for US production of NK-33, I remain highly skeptical that a 30 year old Russian engine can have it's production line restarted in a foreign country that doesn't speak the same language and makes use of a different measurement system in a lot of things.
-
#24
by
Jim
on 27 Aug, 2011 02:47
-
We will be making AJ-26s here; we just haven't run through the Russian stock.
You mean taking NK-33s from the 1970s, refurbishing them, and giving them a US designed gimbal system then changing the nameplate to read AJ-26?
As for US production of NK-33, I remain highly skeptical that a 30 year old Russian engine can have it's production line restarted in a foreign country that doesn't speak the same language and makes use of a different measurement system in a lot of things.
The process was already done for the RD-180
-
#25
by
Jason1701
on 27 Aug, 2011 03:09
-
We will be making AJ-26s here; we just haven't run through the Russian stock.
You mean taking NK-33s from the 1970s, refurbishing them, and giving them a US designed gimbal system then changing the nameplate to read AJ-26?
As for US production of NK-33, I remain highly skeptical that a 30 year old Russian engine can have it's production line restarted in a foreign country that doesn't speak the same language and makes use of a different measurement system in a lot of things.
The process was already done for the RD-180
Have any RD-180s actually been produced in the US?
-
#26
by
Nomadd
on 27 Aug, 2011 03:10
-
US independence by using Russian motors to launch Italian modules.
-
#27
by
JazzFan
on 27 Aug, 2011 13:57
-
US independence by using Russian motors to launch Italian modules.
How about, to a Chinese space station in the 2022.
-
#28
by
Antares
on 28 Aug, 2011 04:11
-
This foreign FUD is tiresome and stale. The same issues have now been rehashed for years. No new data for the argument. Can we rise above it?
-
#29
by
strangequark
on 28 Aug, 2011 04:50
-
You mean taking NK-33s from the 1970s, refurbishing them, and giving them a US designed gimbal system then changing the nameplate to read AJ-26?
As for US production of NK-33, I remain highly skeptical that a 30 year old Russian engine can have it's production line restarted in a foreign country that doesn't speak the same language and makes use of a different measurement system in a lot of things.
No, I mean building them here.
You can be as skeptical as you want. I know with 100% certainty that the AJ-26 can be made here, and I am in a position to know.
Russia using SI has not prevented us from creating a space station with them. Is that the best you can come up with?
To try to bring this back on topic, Orbital using some foreign made components does not negate the fact this this helps restore an independent mode of US station access. Show me an aircraft or spacecraft made in Country X, and there is plenty of it made in Countries Y, Z, Q, W, etc.
-
#30
by
happyflower
on 28 Aug, 2011 08:48
-
Congrats to Orbital's Cygnus team. We all wish you a very successful first flight to the ISS.
Looking forward to seeing both Cygnus and Dragon making regular deliveries to the ISS. People that think the US is going to lose their leadership role in the future of human and cargo space flight better watch out!
Also I don’t understand how procuring components or parts from your European partners casts a shadow on the program here?
-
#31
by
mmeijeri
on 28 Aug, 2011 12:58
-
Not to mention that US policy has long been in favour of free trade and the fact that starting with foreign / third party components allows you to work towards producing them yourself if there's a business case for it.
-
#32
by
Lars_J
on 29 Aug, 2011 15:17
-
To try to bring this back on topic, Orbital using some foreign made components does not negate the fact this this helps restore an independent mode of US station access. Show me an aircraft or spacecraft made in Country X, and there is plenty of it made in Countries Y, Z, Q, W, etc.
Not that I disagree with you in general, but there are examples. There isn't "plenty" of F9 that is made abroad.
-
#33
by
strangequark
on 29 Aug, 2011 17:25
-
To try to bring this back on topic, Orbital using some foreign made components does not negate the fact this this helps restore an independent mode of US station access. Show me an aircraft or spacecraft made in Country X, and there is plenty of it made in Countries Y, Z, Q, W, etc.
Not that I disagree with you in general, but there are examples. There isn't "plenty" of F9 that is made abroad.
Fair enough, and noting that SpaceX's level of vertical integration is a rare beast anywhere in industry these days. And I bet that at least one mission critical component is still made in another country.
-
#34
by
Prober
on 29 Aug, 2011 18:26
-
To try to bring this back on topic, Orbital using some foreign made components does not negate the fact this this helps restore an independent mode of US station access. Show me an aircraft or spacecraft made in Country X, and there is plenty of it made in Countries Y, Z, Q, W, etc.
Not that I disagree with you in general, but there are examples. There isn't "plenty" of F9 that is made abroad.
Fair enough, and noting that SpaceX's level of vertical integration is a rare beast anywhere in industry these days. And I bet that at least one mission critical component is still made in another country.
Agreed, some of the electronic parts must be.
