-
#640 by Patchouli on 07 Sep, 2015 15:34
-
Ukraine is proposing to push russians completely out of renewed Antares project:
Original story: http://news.liga.net/news/politics/6557086-ukraina_i_ssha_sozdadut_kosmicheskuyu_raketu_bez_privlecheniya_rossii.htm
Google Translate. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//news.liga.net/news/politics/6557086-ukraina_i_ssha_sozdadut_kosmicheskuyu_raketu_bez_privlecheniya_rossii.htm&hl=et&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8
Not sure how they propose doing that as they lack an engine capable of doing the mission.
The only replacement and the RD-181 is the AR-1 which is a few years away from being ready for flight.
The other option an all solid Antares launching from the cape but they wouldn't get much out of that deal as those parts would be sourced from the ATK branch.
-
#641 by baldusi on 07 Sep, 2015 16:56
-
The Indian SCE-200 is actually based on the completed RD-810. The Ukrainians lacked the money to actually build it and test it, but if they somehow got the money, they could easily produce it. And I'm pretty sure that if ISRO actually starts bench testing the SCE-200 in 2016, they could have it ready by 2019 at Indian low price.Ukraine is proposing to push russians completely out of renewed Antares project:
Original story: http://news.liga.net/news/politics/6557086-ukraina_i_ssha_sozdadut_kosmicheskuyu_raketu_bez_privlecheniya_rossii.htm
Google Translate. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//news.liga.net/news/politics/6557086-ukraina_i_ssha_sozdadut_kosmicheskuyu_raketu_bez_privlecheniya_rossii.htm&hl=et&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8
Not sure how they propose doing that as they lack an engine capable of doing the mission.
The only replacement and the RD-181 is the AR-1 which is a few years away from being ready for flight.
The other option an all solid Antares launching from the cape but they wouldn't get much out of that deal as those parts would be sourced from the ATK branch. -
#642 by Prober on 17 Sep, 2015 18:00
-
This is not looking good.
Report: Orbital faces risks in resuming space station runs
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orbital-faces-risks-resuming-160305210.html
"The space agency's inspector general said Thursday that Orbital Sciences Corp. faces significant risks in its effort to recover from last October's launch explosion."
-
#643 by spacenut on 17 Sep, 2015 18:13
-
Then SpaceX should get on the ball and get back to launching. Also, Orbital went with the Russian engines, from Aerojet. Aerojet wasted a lot of time not developing their own engines. Politics and foreign suppliers cannot be depended on.
-
#644 by Prober on 17 Sep, 2015 19:20
-
Bumped into the Full Report
https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY15/IG-15-023.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=198&v=vh9vWeIIfOc
NASA’s Response to Orbital’s October 2014 Launch Failure: Impacts on Commercial Resupply of the International Space Station
The Office of Inspector General examined NASA’s management of commercial resupply contracts for cargo delivery to the International Space Station in light of Orbital’s October 2014 launch failure.
Edit: add video & text -
#645 by a_langwich on 17 Sep, 2015 19:53
-
This is not looking good.
Report: Orbital faces risks in resuming space station runs
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orbital-faces-risks-resuming-160305210.html
"The space agency's inspector general said Thursday that Orbital Sciences Corp. faces significant risks in its effort to recover from last October's launch explosion."
The actual report
https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY15/IG-15-023.pdf
The risks are already well known:
- Orbital has "risks" in adapting Cygnus to Atlas V and verifying it will work. Yes, there's a risk (see: Progress and Soyuz 2.1), but since it was already designed to make that switch, it's more of a caution thing ("let's make sure we get this right") than a I-don't-know-if-they-can-make-this-work thing.
- Orbital has a very tight schedule to integrate the new RD-181s, and won't conduct a non-cargo test flight first. Yes, yes they do, and no, indeed they won't have a test flight. I think those risks are understood and have been accepted by NASA.
- NASA has not conducted a detailed technical evaluation of the modified Antares and its proposed qualification testing program. (This, IMO, is likely to be a CYA warning from the lawyer: NASA your backside is exposed here, you need to better formally document your scrutiny, and perhaps increase the level of scrutiny.)
- The IG thinks ISS may be "disadvantaged" by the loss of one Orbital mission.
Some of the things that irk me about Inspector General reports can be found here. For example, their opinion the ISS program will be disadvantaged by one fewer Cygnus flight is plausible, but they interviewed the relevant ISS personnel and were told that in fact the newer Cygnus configurations will be more helpful to ISS (more space, more mass). So persisting in their opinion that it's a net problem either indicates the IG's office feels like they understand ISS cargo needs better than the ISS personnel, or they feel the ISS personnel were dishonest and not forthright in saying the changes were positive. Which is it?
-
#646 by edkyle99 on 18 Sep, 2015 00:43
-
Some of the things that irk me about Inspector General reports can be found here. For example, their opinion the ISS program will be disadvantaged by one fewer Cygnus flight is plausible, but they interviewed the relevant ISS personnel and were told that in fact the newer Cygnus configurations will be more helpful to ISS (more space, more mass). So persisting in their opinion that it's a net problem either indicates the IG's office feels like they understand ISS cargo needs better than the ISS personnel, or they feel the ISS personnel were dishonest and not forthright in saying the changes were positive. Which is it?
I think that NASA IG has a right to write a big complain-y report about the Antares and Falcon 9 failures (the latter report is still to come). After all, the Agency's contractors failed in very big fashion here. They failed to deliver and failed to meet schedule. These companies deserve to be publicly called out like this, at a bare minimum. The contractors may redeem themselves in coming months. We'll see.
- Ed Kyle -
#647 by grythumn on 18 Sep, 2015 16:08
-
From OrbitalATK's twitter:
@OrbitalATK
ICYMI: Progress continues on Antares return to flight, 2 RD-181’s already integrated with first stage at Wallops
-
#648 by rcoppola on 18 Sep, 2015 21:34
-
I agree it's plausible, perhaps even probable. But I don't think anyone is calling NASA dishonest. It's not a dictate, just some watchouts that should be considered.This is not looking good.
Report: Orbital faces risks in resuming space station runs
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orbital-faces-risks-resuming-160305210.html
"The space agency's inspector general said Thursday that Orbital Sciences Corp. faces significant risks in its effort to recover from last October's launch explosion."
The actual report
https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY15/IG-15-023.pdf
.........{Snip}
- The IG thinks ISS may be "disadvantaged" by the loss of one Orbital mission.
Some of the things that irk me about Inspector General reports can be found here. For example, their opinion the ISS program will be disadvantaged by one fewer Cygnus flight is plausible, but they interviewed the relevant ISS personnel and were told that in fact the newer Cygnus configurations will be more helpful to ISS (more space, more mass). So persisting in their opinion that it's a net problem either indicates the IG's office feels like they understand ISS cargo needs better than the ISS personnel, or they feel the ISS personnel were dishonest and not forthright in saying the changes were positive. Which is it?
The larger point of the ISS being potentially disadvantaged by one fewer Cygnus flight seems valid on a number levels.
A few relevant points from the report that are not unreasonable:
-Although Orbital has added cargo containers in multiple locations in the Enhanced Cygnus, most of these containers are smaller than the containers in the original storage areas.
-NASA will have access to fewer "large" containers than it would have under the original five-flight plan, which affects the type of goods that can be transported to the ISS.
-In our judgment, the cancellation of Orb-8 results in decreased flexibility in the type and size of cargo that can be transported.
-Our concerns are compounded by the fact that with the exception of Orb-3, both Orbital and SpaceX resupply missions have generally not carried the maximum required upmass due in part to volumetric constraints.
And add the fact that for their RTF, NASA will not be placing any Mission Critical cargo on this flight, they now only have 3 more flights to do so.
So anyways, all doable but I find the details interesting and worth mentioning. IMO. -
#649 by MarcAlain on 24 Sep, 2015 19:01
-
Aerojet to pay Orbital $50 million over Antares rocket accident
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/24/aerojet-orbital-atk-settlement-idUSL1N11U1L520150924QuoteAerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc will pay Orbital ATK $50 million to settle a dispute stemming from an Antares rocket launch accident last year that destroyed a load of cargo bound for the International Space Station, Aerojet said on Thursday.
The company also said it would take title to 10 AJ-26 rocket engines previously earmarked for Orbital, one of two companies hired by NASA to fly cargo to the station after the agency retired its space shuttles.
Orbital successfully flew two of eight planned missions under its original $1.9 billion contract with NASA before the Oct. 28, 2014, accident from Wallops Island, Virginia.
A final report on the botched mission is pending, though the companies have publicly disagreed about whether an engine manufacturing problem by Aerojet and/or mishandling of the engine during processing by Orbital triggered the explosion.
Aerojet declined to release any details about the settlement.
"All the data related to the analysis is proprietary," Aerojet spokesman Glenn Mahone told Reuters.
Orbital did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
An undisclosed part of the one-time, $50 million payment will be covered by insurance, Mahone said, adding that the money will be paid by Sept. 30.
The settlement formally ends Aerojet's involvement in the Antares rocket program. Orbital last year decided to speed up a previously planned engine replacement program and is working toward a March 2016 debut of the revamped rocket.
Orbital also has purchased two Atlas rocket launches from United Launch Alliance, a partnership of Lockheed Martin and Boeing to fly a pair of Cygnus cargo ships to the station to help bridge the gap.
NASA's second cargo line, operated by privately owned SpaceX, also is temporarily grounded due to an unrelated accident of its Falcon 9 rocket in June.
The station, a $100 billion research laboratory that flies about 250 miles (400 km) above Earth, is also serviced by Russian and Japanese freighters. -
#650 by Prober on 24 Sep, 2015 20:13
-
same basic story out of Sacramento
Aerojet agrees to multi-million dollar settlement with key partner
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/09/24/aerojet-agrees-to-multi-million-dollar-settlement.html?ana=yahoo
Love this line in the story...."Orbital will give back title to Aerojet for 10 engines scheduled for delivery under the previous deal."
-
#651 by Kansan52 on 24 Sep, 2015 20:55
-
"Orbital will give back title to Aerojet for 10 engines scheduled for delivery under the previous deal."
This confuses me. It seems to say the titles were signed over to Orbital at no cost and now will be signed back to AJ, also for no money. Is transferring titles for no money a common practice? -
#652 by TrevorMonty on 24 Sep, 2015 21:02
-
The accident must have be an engine failure and not due to debris in fuel tanks, which ARJ stated at one time.
Anybody want to buy a rocket engine for garden ornament. -
#653 by edkyle99 on 24 Sep, 2015 23:28
-
The accident must have be an engine failure and not due to debris in fuel tanks, which ARJ stated at one time.
I don't think that this conclusion can be reached based on the agreement. The Sacramento story says that "[t]he SEC filing shows the two companies essentially agreed to disagree over what caused the October accident". The agreement simply means that there won't be a messy protracted legal battle about what seems to be an undecided root cause.
- Ed Kyle -
#654 by woods170 on 25 Sep, 2015 09:20
-
Emphasis mine.The accident must have be an engine failure and not due to debris in fuel tanks, which ARJ stated at one time.
I don't think that this conclusion can be reached based on the agreement. The Sacramento story says that "[t]he SEC filing shows the two companies essentially agreed to disagree over what caused the October accident". The agreement simply means that there won't be a messy protracted legal battle about what seems to be an undecided root cause.
- Ed Kyle
That is also a conclusion that cannot be reached based on the little information that has leaked out so far.
Pot meet kettle. -
#655 by edkyle99 on 25 Sep, 2015 14:21
-
If the primary contractors involved, those who know the hardware better than anyone, do not agree on a cause, then there is no agreement on a cause. The result has to be "undetermined" with regard to the root, root cause.
Emphasis mine.The accident must have be an engine failure and not due to debris in fuel tanks, which ARJ stated at one time.
I don't think that this conclusion can be reached based on the agreement. The Sacramento story says that "[t]he SEC filing shows the two companies essentially agreed to disagree over what caused the October accident". The agreement simply means that there won't be a messy protracted legal battle about what seems to be an undecided root cause.
- Ed Kyle
That is also a conclusion that cannot be reached based on the little information that has leaked out so far.
Pot meet kettle.
- Ed Kyle -
#656 by starchasercowboy on 28 Sep, 2015 14:38
-
$50 million partly covered by insurance?? AJR is taking a big hit on there next quarterly financials!
-
#657 by Space Ghost 1962 on 28 Sep, 2015 17:20
-
"Orbital will give back title to Aerojet for 10 engines scheduled for delivery under the previous deal."
More about revenue recognition issues in no financial change between corporations triggering SEC/IRS here. The value of such items of a deal may be placed differently then you'd think, for accounting reasons.
This confuses me. It seems to say the titles were signed over to Orbital at no cost and now will be signed back to AJ, also for no money. Is transferring titles for no money a common practice? -
#658 by rayleighscatter on 28 Sep, 2015 21:04
-
"Orbital will give back title to Aerojet for 10 engines scheduled for delivery under the previous deal."
Although I'm not privy to the contract it probably works a bit like an option, or very simplistically, a promise. Even if they hadn't paid for each engine yet Orbital wouldn't want to build a rocket and find AJ decided to sell the engines they were planning to use to some other party, so they were essentially signed over to (likely) be paid for before delivery of each unit.
This confuses me. It seems to say the titles were signed over to Orbital at no cost and now will be signed back to AJ, also for no money. Is transferring titles for no money a common practice?
Now that the engines aren't going to be used Orbital can surrender their "ownership" to avoid actually paying for those other engines they will never take possession of. -
#659 by cdleonard on 29 Sep, 2015 00:02
-
"Orbital will give back title to Aerojet for 10 engines scheduled for delivery under the previous deal."
Although I'm not privy to the contract it probably works a bit like an option, or very simplistically, a promise. Even if they hadn't paid for each engine yet Orbital wouldn't want to build a rocket and find AJ decided to sell the engines they were planning to use to some other party, so they were essentially signed over to (likely) be paid for before delivery of each unit.
This confuses me. It seems to say the titles were signed over to Orbital at no cost and now will be signed back to AJ, also for no money. Is transferring titles for no money a common practice?
Now that the engines aren't going to be used Orbital can surrender their "ownership" to avoid actually paying for those other engines they will never take possession of.
Did Aerojet already pay the russians for the engines? It seems they got screwed pretty hard, they are now stuck with some old engines in inventory that are known to fail.