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.
Won't LauncherOne and Firefly's Alpha both be in that class pretty soon here? I think it's a good reference size for a small mission, but I can't see Pegasus actually competing in that class for much longer.
The reason IXPE was not awarded to NG was not the price, it was because of the problems that occurred for ICON.
Well that's interesting, because the bid NASA got for ICPE on F9 was lower than recent Pegasus missions. Did NG lower their price on Pegasus in order to compete with F9? If so, that would be remarkable.
Or is this more like a case where they would have lost on price anyway, but never had a chance because the ICON issues doomed the bid before it even got down to price comparisions?
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.
Won't LauncherOne and Firefly's Alpha both be in that class pretty soon here? I think it's a good reference size for a small mission, but I can't see Pegasus actually competing in that class for much longer.
Perhaps someday
Perhaps soon but not today
Not only will LauncherOne and Alpha will have to launch successfully, they will have to do so multiple times with stable configurations that NASA can verify.
As you can see, NASA is behind the curve, having missions assume Pegasus even after Falcon 9 has won a bidding war hands down.
They are unlikely to anticipate future launchers.
Nor are organizations looking to frequent launches going to spend much time on a potential customer with such infrequent payloads.
Other than TDRS, a NASA “constellation” can be a pair, like Landsat.
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.
So the Falcon 9 is also a "reference launch vehicle" ? I assume it must be kosher because it's launching IXPE. So why wouldn't the future missions just plan for F9 (for both size and mass).
The reason IXPE was not awarded to NG was not the price, it was because of the problems that occurred for ICON.
What's your source for that?
The reason IXPE was not awarded to NG was not the price, it was because of the problems that occurred for ICON.
What's your source for that?
Yes. Please tell us how you reached that conclusion.
It conflicts with what I heard.
FWIW in regards to this topic:
Sadly, the Pegasus chief engineer got the boot in December. I would imagine he was the scapegoat for the enormous loss NGIS took with all the delays to the ICON launch.
The reason IXPE was not awarded to NG was not the price, it was because of the problems that occurred for ICON.
Check out the decision memo for the CAPSTONE mission attached to
this post.
Nowhere in this incredibly clinical evaluation does it mention the delays in launching ICON.
Unless your statement is backed up by strong evidence not yet shared, the CAPSTONE decision memo adds to the case that it is refuted.
One thing to watch for re: keeping Pegasus in service will be whether or not they renew their FAA active launch licenses (which begin expiring in a month and a half per https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/)
The California license expires September 1st, Virginia and Florida in March.
The one they've renewed is for Kwajalein, used for equatorial launches
Updated FAA licenses, reflecting an incorporation change: Orbital Sciences Corporation has become Orbital Sciences, LLC.
1) Redesignated License No. LLO 01-058 (Rev 2) to LLO 01-058 (Rev 3).
2) Changed “Rev 2 Effective: March 18, 2016” to “Rev 3 Effective: March 18 2021”.
3) Changed “Orbital Sciences Corporation” to “Orbital Sciences, LLC”.
4) Changed Division title of signee from “Manager, Licensing and Evaluation Division” to “Manager, Safety Authorization Division”.
Same for LLO 01-059.
Updated FAA licenses, reflecting an incorporation change: Orbital Sciences Corporation has become Orbital Sciences, LLC.
1) Redesignated License No. LLO 01-058 (Rev 2) to LLO 01-058 (Rev 3).
2) Changed “Rev 2 Effective: March 18, 2016” to “Rev 3 Effective: March 18 2021”.
3) Changed “Orbital Sciences Corporation” to “Orbital Sciences, LLC”.
4) Changed Division title of signee from “Manager, Licensing and Evaluation Division” to “Manager, Safety Authorization Division”.
Same for LLO 01-059.
Added note:
Purpose is a renewal of the Pegaus XL launch license, which would have expired on March 18.
How many spare Pegasus rockets are left? Is it just the two that were taken back from Stratolaunch (including this upcoming mission)?
How many spare Pegasus rockets are left? Is it just the two that were taken back from Stratolaunch (including this upcoming mission)?
Just two. NG doesn't maintain an inventory, just the ability to produce.
One Pegasus remaining in Northrop Grumman's
current inventory.
How many spare Pegasus rockets are left? Is it just the two that were taken back from Stratolaunch (including this upcoming mission)?
Just two. NG doesn't maintain an inventory, just the ability to produce.
TacRL-2 launch threadBelated quote from
SFN re: Pegasus, dated June 15:
NRO satellites launched by Minotaur rocket with surplus missile partsNorthrop Grumman has no more Pegasus launches in its backlog...
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
[zubenelgenubi: Split/merged posts to more relevant thread.]
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Can't park it without inerting the stages. The rocket family has suborbital configurations and that is what they are pushing towards hypersonic research projects and other research programmes. The orbital capability will remain for the random missions that might pop up.
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Can't park it without inerting the stages. The rocket family has suborbital configurations and that is what they are pushing towards hypersonic research projects and other research programmes. The orbital capability will remain for the random missions that might pop up.
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.
- Ed Kyle
Doesn't NG have one Pegasus left that they can't sell? They should park it in a museum and cancel the program.
Can't park it without inerting the stages. The rocket family has suborbital configurations and that is what they are pushing towards hypersonic research projects and other research programmes. The orbital capability will remain for the random missions that might pop up.
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.
- Ed Kyle
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.