-
#100
by
Bean Kenobi
on 13 Dec, 2022 10:46
-
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Orbital Sciences donated a Pegasus XL to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in 2004. It is on display at the museum's Udvar Hazy facility near the Dulles Airport. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/launch-vehicle-pegasus-xl-orbital-sciences-corporation/nasm_A20040262000
It's not a real launch vehicle : the page you linked says "This vehicle includes the wing of a Pegasus flown into space and recovered in 2000, as well as the first-stage rocket motor used in ground testing the XL version in 1994". So it can't be the last Pegasus (therefore 2004 was well before Pegasus end of life).
-
#101
by
Skyrocket
on 13 Dec, 2022 11:50
-
It has been five years since the last Taurus (Minotaur-C). Northrop Grumman has never announced that one was retired, but I doubt it will fly again. I expect the same silence about Pegasus, and probably Minotaurs 4 and 5 as well. These were all Orbital Sciences developments - a company founded to launch things to and in space. Northrop Grumman has, shall we say, other priorities. If it ever does a next-gen solid orbital rocket, it would be Sentinel-based I expect.
Minotaur (excluding Minotaur-C) are somewhat special, as these rockets can not be sold commercially as they are based on government-furnished solid rocket motors from decommissioned Minuteman or Peacekeeper ICBMs. The economics on building Minotaurs for government entities (NASA, USSF, USAF) are different from the economics of the commercial market.
-
#102
by
TrevorMonty
on 13 Dec, 2022 15:14
-
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Orbital Sciences donated a Pegasus XL to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in 2004. It is on display at the museum's Udvar Hazy facility near the Dulles Airport. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/launch-vehicle-pegasus-xl-orbital-sciences-corporation/nasm_A20040262000
It's not a real launch vehicle : the page you linked says "This vehicle includes the wing of a Pegasus flown into space and recovered in 2000, as well as the first-stage rocket motor used in ground testing the XL version in 1994". So it can't be the last Pegasus (therefore 2004 was well before Pegasus end of life).
The last mission Pegasus should've won and flown was lost to F9R as SpaceX offered cheaper price. New 1000kg class LVs like Alpha and Terran 1 plus LauncherOne which is direct replacement make Pegasus obsolete.
There are on going costs in holding onto Pegasus as there is maintenace of L-1011 carrier aircraft which isn't getting any younger.
-
#103
by
edkyle99
on 13 Dec, 2022 20:12
-
Minotaur (excluding Minotaur-C) are somewhat special, as these rockets can not be sold commercially as they are based on government-furnished solid rocket motors from decommissioned Minuteman or Peacekeeper ICBMs. The economics on building Minotaurs for government entities (NASA, USSF, USAF) are different from the economics of the commercial market.
Still, the end must inevitably be approaching. The MX motors remaining are probably more than 35 years old now, and how many are left? Minuteman is still in service, but its long program life has meant that large numbers have already been expended in operational test flights, etc. At some point, even the Pentagon can't ignore the fact that the economics of launching retired missiles to orbit fell apart after the final Atlas E lifted off in 1995!
- Ed Kyle
-
#104
by
Jim
on 21 Dec, 2022 21:13
-
The Minotaur V has had only one launch so far, and a two Minotaur launches are expected to take place next year. Whether Northrop Grumman develops an SLV derivative of the forthcoming Sentinel ICBM partly depends how many Sentinels are built and deployed.
No. It won't be able to make any Sentinel based SLV. NG only makes SLVs from decommissioned ICBM components.
-
#105
by
lrk
on 21 Dec, 2022 22:42
-
The Minotaur V has had only one launch so far, and a two Minotaur launches are expected to take place next year. Whether Northrop Grumman develops an SLV derivative of the forthcoming Sentinel ICBM partly depends how many Sentinels are built and deployed.
No. It won't be able to make any Sentinel based SLV. NG only makes SLVs from decommissioned ICBM components.
Pegasus and Minotaur-C (aka Taurus) are both made from commercial motors.
My understanding is that they are only allowed to fly government payloads on LVs made from cheap surplus ICBM motors to maintain competition in the commercial LV market. But why would that stop them, in theory, from building a new LV using newly-built motors developed for the Sentinel ICBM?
Not that a new all-solid LV would be commercially viable in the current market, anyway.
-
#106
by
russianhalo117
on 22 Dec, 2022 01:03
-
The Minotaur V has had only one launch so far, and a two Minotaur launches are expected to take place next year. Whether Northrop Grumman develops an SLV derivative of the forthcoming Sentinel ICBM partly depends how many Sentinels are built and deployed.
No. It won't be able to make any Sentinel based SLV. NG only makes SLVs from decommissioned ICBM components.
Pegasus and Minotaur-C (aka Taurus) are both made from commercial motors.
My understanding is that they are only allowed to fly government payloads on LVs made from cheap surplus ICBM motors to maintain competition in the commercial LV market. But why would that stop them, in theory, from building a new LV using newly-built motors developed for the Sentinel ICBM?
Not that a new all-solid LV would be commercially viable in the current market, anyway.
Cannot use an active ICBM because payloads could record ITAR'd performance characteristics et cetera. Currently by law et al we can only use retired motors declared surplus. There is one Minotaur-C configuration which uses GFE motors however it is rarely flown.
-
#107
by
deltaV
on 03 Aug, 2023 03:06
-
Pegasus has had only 3 launches in the past decade and has no planned launches listed in the table in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Pegasus. The launch vehicle market is only getting more competitive. Firefly Alpha is less than half the cost of Pegasus and over 2x payload. RS1 will be a quarter the price for 3x payload. Terran 1 was a third the price and 3x payload. Falcon 9 is ~50% more expensive and ~40x payload. If Starship achieves a small fraction of Elon's cost goals it will end up costing less per launch with ~400x payload. Several other competitors exist. Some of these competitors will probably fail but some will succeed. Why is Northrop Grumman still paying the fixed costs for this formerly ground-breaking but now obsolete rocket?
-
#108
by
TrevorMonty
on 03 Aug, 2023 03:14
-
Pegasus has had only 3 launches in the past decade and has no planned launches listed in the table in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Pegasus. The launch vehicle market is only getting more competitive. Firefly Alpha is less than half the cost of Pegasus and over 2x payload. RS1 will be a quarter the price for 3x payload. Terran 1 was a third the price and 3x payload. Falcon 9 is ~50% more expensive and ~40x payload. If Starship achieves a small fraction of Elon's cost goals it will end up costing less per launch with ~400x payload. Several other competitors exist. Some of these competitors will probably fail but some will succeed. Why is Northrop Grumman still paying the fixed costs for this formerly ground-breaking but now obsolete rocket?
Last launch that should've been theirs, SpaceX bid and won F9R at lower price.
-
#109
by
starchasercowboy
on 10 Jan, 2024 16:29
-
I want to pitch an idea to upper management to develop a new Pegasus rocket that can be built cheaper, simpler and lighter so it can be launched from a B-52. The L1011 I work on, is not going to be around for much longer, maybe 2030, and I believe that the Space force and Air force could use an air launched TacRL type, orbit versatile, time sensitive military launch capability. I think there are different chemical blends of propellant that might be cheaper, lighter, more performance to use, and maybe making the first, second stage longer (50XL) and if needed a HAPS for third stage. The wing could be removed and 3 fins removed and use thrust vectoring nozzle. The Pegasus Standard size was launched off a B-52 6 times, so there is experience with doing it. I am an airplane guy with minimal rocket knowledge. I have spoke to some of our engineers about this, but it seems it is always a cost issue and risk analysis business case. I am reaching out to some of the experts that are out there that know way more than I do, to help me a little with the possibilities. We have 1 more Pegasus to launch, and already alot of modifications being done. This little rocket has already morphed into so many other programs, ie, targets and MDA interceptors, I think it can be greatly improved upon. Thanks for any input.
-
#110
by
Jim
on 10 Jan, 2024 18:12
-
I think there are different chemical blends of propellant that might be cheaper, lighter, more performance to use,
There aren't. The existing motors used the cheapest high performance solid motors. They were already composite casings (i.e. light)
Going liquid to increase performance increases costs. And make operations less flexible.
if needed a HAPS for third stage.
That causes complexity and increase costs.
The wing could be removed and 3 fins removed and use thrust vectoring nozzle.
That was the key that made Pegasus work. Remove them and you will need much more performance to achieve the same payload mass. Using the wing to provide lift to make the turn better than using solid propellant to do it.
-
#111
by
edkyle99
on 10 Jan, 2024 20:28
-
It seems clearer each month to me that Northrop Grumman has little interest in continuing most of the ex-Orbital Sciences launch capability. The Pegasus/Minotaur/Taurus family did not fly last year to orbit and has not flown since 2021/2021/2017. (A Minotaur 2+, essentially a retired Minuteman missile, failed on a suborbital flight in 2022.) I wonder if they haven't already "retired" most of these systems, quietly.
Northrop Grumman's Antares flew one last time during 2023 with a Ukrainian first stage powered by Russian rocket engines.
Plans for a new Antares seem more of interest to Firefly than Northrop Grumman, in my only slightly informed, outside looking in opinion.
- Ed Kyle
-
#112
by
DanClemmensen
on 10 Jan, 2024 20:45
-
It seems clearer each month to me that Northrop Grumman has little interest in continuing most of the ex-Orbital Sciences launch capability. The Pegasus/Minotaur/Taurus family did not fly last year to orbit and has not flown since 2021/2021/2017. (A Minotaur 2+, essentially a retired Minuteman missile, failed on a suborbital flight in 2022.) I wonder if they haven't already "retired" most of these systems, quietly.
Northrop Grumman's Antares flew one last time during 2023 with a Ukrainian first stage powered by Russian rocket engines.
Plans for a new Antares seem more of interest to Firefly than Northrop Grumman, in my only slightly informed, outside looking in opinion.
- Ed Kyle
NASA uses Cargo Dragon and Cygnus for CRS-2 resupply, and Northrop Grumman is contracted to keep flying Cygnus until at least 2025. Cargo Dream Chaser has not yet flown. Without the Ukrainian Antares stage, Cygnus must fly on Falcon 9 until the Firefly stage is available. I would guess that NASA is at least a little bit concerned that there is only one LV type (Falcon 9) for ISS resupply until this mess gets sorted out. Surely this would be a concern for Northrop Grumman also?
-
#113
by
Asteroza
on 10 Jan, 2024 21:40
-
I want to pitch an idea to upper management to develop a new Pegasus rocket that can be built cheaper, simpler and lighter so it can be launched from a B-52. The L1011 I work on, is not going to be around for much longer, maybe 2030, and I believe that the Space force and Air force could use an air launched TacRL type, orbit versatile, time sensitive military launch capability. I think there are different chemical blends of propellant that might be cheaper, lighter, more performance to use, and maybe making the first, second stage longer (50XL) and if needed a HAPS for third stage. The wing could be removed and 3 fins removed and use thrust vectoring nozzle. The Pegasus Standard size was launched off a B-52 6 times, so there is experience with doing it. I am an airplane guy with minimal rocket knowledge. I have spoke to some of our engineers about this, but it seems it is always a cost issue and risk analysis business case. I am reaching out to some of the experts that are out there that know way more than I do, to help me a little with the possibilities. We have 1 more Pegasus to launch, and already alot of modifications being done. This little rocket has already morphed into so many other programs, ie, targets and MDA interceptors, I think it can be greatly improved upon. Thanks for any input.
Is there a specific preference for B-52 compatibility here, or simply the fact that a qualified version did fly on that platform already so qualifies as legacy? Note that it flew on I think the NASA Balls-8 NB-52B (maybe it's successor B-52H? Is that called a NB-52H?), and appears to need the test launch modified B-52 variant with the wing flap notch to accommodate the Pegasus's tail, so a standard B-52 will need additional modifications. Is the successor B-52 still available for semi-commercial reimbursed ops even?
Otherwise the simplest solution is to subcontract to Stratolaunch and launch the current Pegasus from the Roc and retire the L1011. It's likely the easiest new platform to qualify for drop release. The Roc also can handle any newer modifications that increase weight, as I think there were promotional concepts for flying three Pegasi from the center mount.
-
#114
by
deltaV
on 10 Jan, 2024 21:52
-
It seems clearer each month to me that Northrop Grumman has little interest in continuing most of the ex-Orbital Sciences launch capability.
...
Plans for a new Antares seem more of interest to Firefly than Northrop Grumman, in my only slightly informed, outside looking in opinion.
If NG didn't want to be in the launch vehicle market I think they would have retired Antares when the Russia-Ukraine war forced them to get a new first stage. They probably could have used Terran R, Neutron, or Firefly MLV to meet their ISS resupply obligations including preserving dissimilar redundancy. So they seem to have at least a little interest in making launch vehicles.
-
#115
by
starchasercowboy
on 10 Jan, 2024 22:10
-
-
#116
by
starchasercowboy
on 10 Jan, 2024 22:30
-
I think the key would be to design new motors different from the 30 and 50xl because the price is locked by the government for using them on other targets and interceptors. The X-43 was about 41k lbs and had a new pylon made for it to launch off a B52.
-
#117
by
deltaV
on 10 Jan, 2024 23:05
-
I want to pitch an idea to upper management to develop a new Pegasus rocket that can be built cheaper, simpler and lighter so it can be launched from a B-52.
There are two big problems with air launched rockets. The first is the fact that air launch gets you to ~600 mph and ~39,000 feet which is a small fraction of the ~17,000 mph and ~500,000 feet that's needed for orbital launch. Therefore air launching doesn't make the rocket much smaller. The other problem is you need a very large airplane relative to the small amount of payload to orbit you get, e.g. Pegasus gets only ~1/40th of Falcon 9's payload. (You also win a little from not needing sea level compatible nozzles on the first stage but you lose a little because you need a wing to convert the horizontal velocity that air launch gives you into the vertical velocity that you need to get out of the atmosphere to keep aerodynamic forces reasonable.) Overall one can get the same performance cheaper by launching a slightly bigger rocket from a traditional pad. At least this seems to be the common wisdom these days.
You'd need to reduce Pegasus's price from ~$40M to something like ~$10M to compete with Firefly Alpha, RS1, Electron, Falcon 9, Starship and New Glenn. I really doubt that you'll find that level of savings by tweaking Pegasus. If it's possible to make Pegasus competitive you would probably need to make some of the stages reusable and massively increase the flight rate. But this is a wild guess - the Pegasus engineers you're talking to, who unlike me do this for a living, may be able to tell you where the current Pegasus program spends most of its money which could give you an idea if major savings are possible.
Air launch proponents frequently cite various non-cost advantages of air launch but I'm not convinced those purported advantages are enough to close the business case.
-
#118
by
sdsds
on 10 Jan, 2024 23:18
-
The only customer is one who already has an asset on orbit providing some critical function, and that asset is lost. The customer needs to rapidly deploy new orbital assets that provide at least some of the lost function. (Rapid might mean 48 to 72 hours.)
A case could be made that a ready-to-fly constellation of small satellites, stored at an undisclosed location and air-launched on Pegasus-like solid rockets, maybe 3 at a time by Stratolaunch, could meet that need.
That customer would need to be willing to pay a high price to establish and maintain the capability, not to mention the price of using it.
-
#119
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 10 Jan, 2024 23:21
-