Orbital: Cygnus General Discussion Thread

[guckyfan]

It's not a two in one year. Orbital expects about two years for the 200 Antares. So it might be closer to one core in 15 months and one core in 20 months.

In that - likely - case wouldn't they need more than two launches on other vehicles to keep their obligations? They are already behind by one.

[Zed_Noir]

It's not a two in one year. Orbital expects about two years for the 200 Antares. So it might be closer to one core in 15 months and one core in 20 months.

In that - likely - case wouldn't they need more than two launches on other vehicles to keep their obligations? They are already behind by one.

IIRC the enhanced Cygnus on the F9 have a greater payload than on the Antares 130. So 2 F9 flights equals 3 Antares 130 flights in up mass more or less. With cheaper launcher cost since Orbital is using 2 cheaper F9 instead of 3 more expensive Antares 130. The launch cost per Antares 130 is about $240m from one of the NSF Orbital threads.

[arachnitect]

The launch cost per Antares 130 is about $240m from one of the NSF Orbital threads.

For the whole stack including Cygnus. Antares is maybe a third of that?

[rayleighscatter]

The launch cost per Antares 130 is about $240m from one of the NSF Orbital threads.

That's very high. The entire contract for Orbital is 1.9 Billion and that includes Antares, Cygnus, operations, etc. With 9 originally planned flights a $240m Antares alone would have cost 2.1 Billion.

EDIT: Accidentally misrepresented the demo flight thinking it was part of CRS, not COTS. My point is still correct though, that Antares by itself is much much less than $240m per flight.

[ChrisWilson68]

The launch cost per Antares 130 is about $240m from one of the NSF Orbital threads.

That's very high. The entire contract for Orbital is 1.9 Billion and that includes Antares, Cygnus, operations, etc. With 9 originally planned flights a $240m Antares alone would have cost 2.1 Billion.

There were originally 8 planned flights under CRS-1.  The other flight was under COTS.  I believe the $240m number came from the CRS-1 contract and includes not just the launch vehicle but Cygnus and everything else -- someone just divided the total to Orbital from CRS-1 by the 8 flights.  Antares itself has never been broken out as a separate line item.

[S.Paulissen]

The launch cost per Antares 130 is about $240m from one of the NSF Orbital threads.

That's very high. The entire contract for Orbital is 1.9 Billion and that includes Antares, Cygnus, operations, etc. With 9 originally planned flights a $240m Antares alone would have cost 2.1 Billion.

Contract was for 8 flights, thus the per flight cost of just shy of $240m (237.5m).

Wilson beat me to it.  Given that SpX rocket is $57m per launch (pre-price hike) and their per launch price was $133.3m we can get an incredibly rough estimate of the cost of Antares as a rocket.  At 133.3m the 57m falcon 9 is approximately 42.8% of the launch price of a SpX CRS mission.  If we make a heavy handed assumption that Orbital's costs are roughly in the same proportion as SpX, I estimate that Antares costs ~$101.5m per launch. 

Yikes, 40% more cost for 40% less performance (numbers pulled out of a dark damp cavern.)

[MDDevice]

Cygnus will fly on the Atlas V

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Cygnus will fly on the Atlas V

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251

So to summarize:

Cygnus CRS-4 - Fall 2015 - Atlas V (401?)
Cygnus CRS-5 - 1Q 2016 - Antares "231" (Atlas V as back-up)
Cygnus CRS-6 - 2Q 2016 - Antares "231"
Cygnus CRS-7 - 4Q 2016 - Antares "231"
Cygnus CRS-8 - removed from CRS-1 contract (has the spacecraft parts been built yet?)

Is that correct?

[TrevorMonty]

Cygnus will fly on the Atlas V

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251

So much for the Spaceflight Insider and their SpaceX prediction. There was similar prediction about DC and CC. The only reliable source is the actual companies/ agencies involved in the decision making process.

[arachnitect]

Cygnus will fly on the Atlas V

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251

So to summarize:

Cygnus CRS-4 - Fall 2015 - Atlas V (401?)
Cygnus CRS-5 - 1Q 2016 - Antares "231" (Atlas V as back-up)
Cygnus CRS-6 - 2Q 2016 - Antares "231"
Cygnus CRS-7 - 4Q 2016 - Antares "231"
Cygnus CRS-8 - removed from CRS-1 contract (has the spacecraft parts been built yet?)

Is that correct?

Probably Antares "230"

"231" would have Bipropellant Transfer Stage.

[baldusi]

Cygnus will fly on the Atlas V

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251

So to summarize:

Cygnus CRS-4 - Fall 2015 - Atlas V (401?)
Cygnus CRS-5 - 1Q 2016 - Antares "231" (Atlas V as back-up)
Cygnus CRS-6 - 2Q 2016 - Antares "231"
Cygnus CRS-7 - 4Q 2016 - Antares "231"
Cygnus CRS-8 - removed from CRS-1 contract (has the spacecraft parts been built yet?)

Is that correct?

Probably Antares "230"

"231" would have Bipropellant Transfer Stage.

131 had the highest performance to ISS, something like 10% to 18% more than 130 depending on final altitude (300km vs 350km). In the press release they are talking about a 20% extra payload (compared to an Antares 130's 2700kg), which is about a 12% extra total performance. Could it be achieved just with a new core? Could they be planning a Castor 30XLB?

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Interesting to see that ULA/Lockheed Martin has yet to announce this contract.... 

[psloss]

Cygnus will fly on the Atlas V

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251

So much for the Spaceflight Insider and their SpaceX prediction. There was similar prediction about DC and CC. The only reliable source is the actual companies/ agencies involved in the decision making process.

To be fair, they were a messenger for that and largely the same thing was reported in a story here.


Edit -- same press release, via Orbital.com link:
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=1928

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Interesting to see that ULA/Lockheed Martin has yet to announce this contract.... 

And my wish has been granted: http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-signs-contract-with-orbital-sciences.aspx

The launch(es) will use the 401 version.

[psloss]

Thanks for the spotting the ULA link.

It will still be interesting (as we were wondering a few weeks back) to see what integration of the Enhanced Cygnus with the Atlas V looks like.  If it's a 401, maybe they'll waive the late load requirement and adjust the cargo distribution accordingly.

[baldusi]

Cygnus will fly on the Atlas V

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251

So to summarize:

Cygnus CRS-4 - Fall 2015 - Atlas V (401?)
Cygnus CRS-5 - 1Q 2016 - Antares "231" (Atlas V as back-up)
Cygnus CRS-6 - 2Q 2016 - Antares "231"
Cygnus CRS-7 - 4Q 2016 - Antares "231"
Cygnus CRS-8 - removed from CRS-1 contract (has the spacecraft parts been built yet?)

Is that correct?

They wouldn't use the same number would they?

Why wouldn't they?

[Tomness]

They also have a CRS contract with NASA, which might give NASA some leverage to make them add a Cygnus launch?

OSC has a CRS contract too, they could contract ULA for launch services and this would be transparent to NASA.  NASA has no leverage on Spacex or OSC to tell them which launch vehicle to use.

Don't bet against The Night-Gator - you will lose lol- We need to take Jim with us to Texas hold'em probably win big time

[Prober]

Cygnus will fly on the Atlas V

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251

So to summarize:

Cygnus CRS-4 - Fall 2015 - Atlas V (401?)
Cygnus CRS-5 - 1Q 2016 - Antares "231" (Atlas V as back-up)
Cygnus CRS-6 - 2Q 2016 - Antares "231"
Cygnus CRS-7 - 4Q 2016 - Antares "231"
Cygnus CRS-8 - removed from CRS-1 contract (has the spacecraft parts been built yet?)

Is that correct?

They wouldn't use the same number would they?

Why wouldn't they?

my number mix up....removed

[TrevorMonty]

With NASA pushing ahead with a BEO habitat/mini station, the Cygnus module would be prime candidate as a resupply vehicle. There is still the issue of disposing of it and the rubbish it carrys. Instead of sending it into deep space for disposal give it a secondary mission.
1) Place it in lunar orbit as Comms relay.
2) Load it with hatch basket plus cubesats and use it to survey Asteroids.

Using electric bus would help extend these missions.

[A_M_Swallow]

With the Jupiter space tug appearing as a rival I wonder if Orbital will build a Cygnus 2 in a few years time?

New functions could be adding an arm and inflight refuelling.