-
#60
by
Comga
on 29 Dec, 2019 15:01
-
BTW I did not realize that now both the ELV mfg and it's major engine mfg are part of the same corporation.
That should allow more flexibility on setting internal prices and hence the competitiveness of the overall package.
The annual cost of maintaining launch crew and ground systems (plane in case of airlaunch) are fixed. These costs need to amortised over the year's launches. SpaceX and RL have high enough flight rates to help amortise these costs, NGIS typically have one if any launches a year.
Exactly
Pegasus has always been the odd combination for fixed costs.
The solid stages can be stored fully fueled with very limited maintenance. That’s one of the few advantages of solids.
In contrast, the L-1011 Starliner “first stage” requires much work to keep it in active storage, including flights to keep the crew current.
The same will be true for Launcher One’s “Cosmic Girl” 747 if and when it becomes operational.
And NGIS would have to make many sales, despite not making any for four years, to climb to one Pegasus launch per year.
-
#61
by
freddo411
on 29 Dec, 2019 18:35
-
So that raises the question "How many payloads need such specialized orbits that neither F9's standard launches or RL's custom launches cannot satisfy them either in terms of mass to orbit, achievable orbital parameters or delta v needed by the payload to get them to their destination orbit" ?
It's a sort of "reverse Goldilocks" problem. Payloads too big for Electron, too much delta v needed for an F9 rideshare or starlink launch for the payload to accommodate. IE just wrong for both.
Pegasus can take about 400 kg to any LEO inclination, for about 40 million (can this price drop a bit and still be viable?)
Rocket lab can take over 200kg to any LEO inclination > 37 degrees. for about 7 million
F9 rideshare + momentus upper stage can get 400 kg to any LEO inclination for about 7 million.
There isn't any space between the offerings. There is a 30 million dollar difference in price (about 4 times more). Also, Rocketlab and SX are demonstrably more reliable than pegasus.
-
#62
by
john smith 19
on 30 Dec, 2019 05:51
-
Pegasus can take about 400 kg to any LEO inclination, for about 40 million (can this price drop a bit and still be viable?)
Rocket lab can take over 200kg to any LEO inclination > 37 degrees. for about 7 million
F9 rideshare + momentus upper stage can get 400 kg to any LEO inclination for about 7 million.
There isn't any space between the offerings. There is a 30 million dollar difference in price (about 4 times more). Also, Rocketlab and SX are demonstrably more reliable than pegasus.
Thanks for that roundup.
But note that momentus just withdrew their FCC application for bandwidth use, suggesting their development programme has been delayed. First launch by 2021 perhaps.
So if you want <37 deg inclinations and/or > 200Kg of mass pegasus looks like it might have a few years of life yet.
It's very important to compare what is
fully available now. Pegasus is. Provided momentus delivers its tug to orbit and it become operational then the situation changes. But we are still a
long way from that happening.
Right now if you fly on a SX rideshare, or a starlink launch you go where the US takes you. If your payload can supply any necessary delta v then that's not a problem. If it can't and that's not where you want to be then either you look at non US launchers or you wait on the ground.
-
#63
by
freddo411
on 30 Dec, 2019 06:06
-
It's very important to compare what is fully available now. Pegasus is. Provided momentus delivers its tug to orbit and it become operational then the situation changes. But we are still a long way from that happening.
Right now if you fly on a SX rideshare, or a starlink launch you go where the US takes you. If your payload can supply any necessary delta v then that's not a problem. If it can't and that's not where you want to be then either you look at non US launchers or you wait on the ground.
Fair enough. SX hasn't really started flying it's ride share just yet ... they are targeting March 2020, so we a few months to wait. It's been announced that Momentus will demo their upper stage on the first dedicated SX ride share.
https://spacenews.com/spacex-revamps-smallsat-rideshare-program/So sell those Pegasus rocket flights now!
-
#64
by
TrevorMonty
on 30 Dec, 2019 08:32
-
Pegasus can take about 400 kg to any LEO inclination, for about 40 million (can this price drop a bit and still be viable?)
Rocket lab can take over 200kg to any LEO inclination > 37 degrees. for about 7 million
F9 rideshare + momentus upper stage can get 400 kg to any LEO inclination for about 7 million.
There isn't any space between the offerings. There is a 30 million dollar difference in price (about 4 times more). Also, Rocketlab and SX are demonstrably more reliable than pegasus.
Thanks for that roundup.
But note that momentus just withdrew their FCC application for bandwidth use, suggesting their development programme has been delayed. First launch by 2021 perhaps.
So if you want <37 deg inclinations and/or > 200Kg of mass pegasus looks like it might have a few years of life yet.
It's very important to compare what is fully available now. Pegasus is. Provided momentus delivers its tug to orbit and it become operational then the situation changes. But we are still a long way from that happening.
Right now if you fly on a SX rideshare, or a starlink launch you go where the US takes you. If your payload can supply any necessary delta v then that's not a problem. If it can't and that's not where you want to be then either you look at non US launchers or you wait on the ground.
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. If rideshare then include propulsion for extra DV to get from drop orbit to destination orbit.
With space tugs they don't need extra propulsion and can choose between rideshare + tug or dedicated LVs like Electron.
-
#65
by
john smith 19
on 30 Dec, 2019 20:52
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. If rideshare then include propulsion for extra DV to get from drop orbit to destination orbit.
Exactly
With space tugs they don't need extra propulsion and can choose between rideshare + tug or dedicated LVs like Electron.
Obviously
if a smallsat LV mfg can also supply a "space tug" service as well (sooner rather than later for preference) then the economics change quite considerably.
But I'm not sure who's in pole position for this at the moment.
-
#66
by
john smith 19
on 31 Dec, 2019 22:27
-
I'm not sure if this is better here (where it's been discussed) or the "countdown to smallsat launchers" thread where it would be relevant as well.
Propulsion is a step change issue for payloads.
If the LV does a good enough job then a payload can get by with no propulsion at all. If you've bought the launch then it pretty much has to take you where you want to go.
Once it's a standard orbit only you're into a problem with multiple constraints.
1) You must have X amount of delta v.
2) It must fit the payloads size/power/mass budgets
The question is how bad is this problem for the bulk of potential smallsat customers?
If, for most of them its a case "Not bothered what orbit we are in" that's not an issue.
Beyond that you have the issue of wheather the payloads are already 3-axis stabilized. If not then all those issues have to be dealt with first before you can reliably point the thruster in a particular direction in space. How many smallsats just tumble in space?
For those that are already 3axis stable your GNC problem got a lot harder, possibly needing a processor upgrade, depending on how tight your budget was to begin with.
From pointing in a specific direction to working out where you are in space and calculating attitude, thrust and duration is quite a big step up.
Then there is the question of how serious a delta v you need?
Again it's what fraction of those payloads need serious changes? What's going to GEO? Moon? Mars?
Could we be looking at asteroid prospecting missions, calling for on board navigation out to 2AU?
If the centroid of the market is a) Not bothered about where they are dropped off or b) Have delta v's that can be met by modest cold compressed gas systems then the future looks quite bleak for providers offering more bespoke launches.
OTOH if a significant fraction of these new payloads are concerned with exactly where they are going (or have such high delta v needs that they need every bit of assistance from their LV to get where they want to go then I'd say they do have a future, even at the prices NGL are charging.
-
#67
by
Comga
on 08 Jan, 2020 16:19
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
-
#68
by
Sam Ho
on 08 Jan, 2020 21:48
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. If rideshare then include propulsion for extra DV to get from drop orbit to destination orbit.
With space tugs they don't need extra propulsion and can choose between rideshare + tug or dedicated LVs like Electron.
From the context you snipped, I think "LV choice" here meant dedicated vs. rideshare, more generically, rather than the specific launcher, since the next sentence was about whether large-scale on-board propulsion is necessary. In theory, most payloads with a standard payload interface could launch on a variety of launchers. Exceptions would include Photon and in the past some Agena missions, where the upper stage also serves as the satellite bus.
For IXPE, rideshare isn't practical, given the rarity of payloads going to equatorial LEO. By my count, it's about one every 5 years or so: HETE-2 (2000, Pegasus), AGILE (2007, PSLV-CA), NUSTAR (2012, Pegasus), ORS-5 (2017, Minotaur IV), and now IXPE.
That said, IXPE probably would have been easier to build if it had been designed for Falcon 9 instead of Pegasus, as the much larger payload fairing envelope likely would have allowed eliminating some deployable structures.
Edit: left NUSTAR out of the 5-year cadence
-
#69
by
Comga
on 08 Jan, 2020 22:20
-
(snip)
That said, IXPE probably would have been easier to build if it had been designed for Falcon 9 instead of Pegasus, as the much larger payload fairing envelope likely would have allowed eliminating some deployable structures.
Absolutely
The deployable mast, the Tip/Tilt/Rotate mechanism on its end, the deployable solar panels, and the deployable X-ray shields (although the latter may yet be replaced with a fixed shield.)
But this thread is about the viability of Pegasus as the dedicated launch vehicle.
Pegasus couldn’t beat Falcon 9, even with the much larger rocket dedicated to the single payload at a fraction of its capacity.
There was no need to organize a rideshare.
There was no need for propulsion or a tug.
Adding the potential for saving money by simplifying the spacecraft makes the case even stronger.
I repeat, perhaps at the Electron payload size dedicated launch makes sense, but Pegasus does not.
NGIS says they are betting it can.
We shall see
-
#70
by
starchasercowboy
on 09 Jan, 2020 14:55
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
Can you provide your information on how much the Pegasus bid was versus the Falcon bid was? The IXPE platform was a copy of NUSTAR platform that was launched by Pegasus.
-
#71
by
Captain Crutch
on 09 Jan, 2020 15:26
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
Can you provide your information on how much the Pegasus bid was versus the Falcon bid was? The IXPE platform was a copy of NUSTAR platform that was launched by Pegasus.
IIRC the Pegasus was just more expensive than launching on Falcon. It was something like $64 million vs $60 million but I could be wrong on those numbers, if we even know the numbers...
-
#72
by
TrevorMonty
on 09 Jan, 2020 16:11
-
[
I repeat, perhaps at the Electron payload size dedicated launch makes sense, but Pegasus does not.
NGIS says they are betting it can.
We shall see
Its not Pegasus payload size that is problem but its price. Needs to be around $10-15m to compete against LauncherOne and Alpha for commercial launches. At $40M+ its competing directly with F9R.
-
#73
by
gongora
on 09 Jan, 2020 16:20
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
Can you provide your information on how much the Pegasus bid was versus the Falcon bid was? The IXPE platform was a copy of NUSTAR platform that was launched by Pegasus.
IIRC the Pegasus was just more expensive than launching on Falcon. It was something like $64 million vs $60 million but I could be wrong on those numbers, if we even know the numbers...
You are not recalling correctly. The total launch price (which includes non-SpaceX costs) is only $50M. I don't recall the number for Pegasus ever being released.
edit: SpaceX
got $42M for the launch.
-
#74
by
starchasercowboy
on 09 Jan, 2020 18:55
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
You said "substantially undercut " and then admit that you don't know what price NGIS bid was.
-
#75
by
Comga
on 12 Feb, 2020 19:49
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
You said "substantially undercut " and then admit that you don't know what price NGIS bid was.
Where did I say that?
We do know NGIS bid for Pegasus.
And you missed my point:
IXPE was designed for Pegasus.
See the
NSF articleThen NASA awarded launch to SpaceX.
IXPE will make almost no changes given the new capacity (extra mass and volume) because the design is almost finished and the build is far along.
So the statement "smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building" has been proven untrue.
-
#76
by
TrevorMonty
on 12 Feb, 2020 21:09
-
Without space tugs, smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building. (snip)
This was not true for IXPE
It may be true for a Rocketlab scale “smallsat” but NGIS’s Pegasus bid for IXPE was substantially undercut by SpaceX’s Falcon 9. And that was to an orbit for which Pegasus claimed a technical advantage.
You said "substantially undercut " and then admit that you don't know what price NGIS bid was.
Where did I say that?
We do know NGIS bid for Pegasus.
And you missed my point:
IXPE was designed for Pegasus.
See the NSF article
Then NASA awarded launch to SpaceX.
IXPE will make almost no changes given the new capacity (extra mass and volume) because the design is almost finished and the build is far along.
So the statement "smallsat builders need to decide on LV choice before building" has been proven untrue.
My statement is still valid, if LV isn't delivering smallsat to its target orbit then smallsat it needs extra DV added to make it from dropoff orbit to its target orbit.
This is dedicated launch not rideshare, satellite will be delivered to target orbit.
-
#77
by
Comga
on 13 Feb, 2020 05:10
-
Can you remind us how that is relevant to NGIS keeping Pegasus available?
-
#78
by
Comga
on 13 Feb, 2020 05:18
-
I heard today that Pegasus remains the “reference launch vehicle”, or something similar, for NASA SMEX (small Explorer) missions.
So future small missions will compact, fold, and limit themselves to the capacity of Pegasus even though it’s cheaper to carry several times more mass to ANY orbit on Falcon.
It does keep two current domestic vehicles capable of competing for future SMEX launches.
-
#79
by
starchasercowboy
on 13 Feb, 2020 14:18
-
The reason IXPE was not awarded to NG was not the price, it was because of the problems that occurred for ICON.