Author Topic: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2  (Read 32821 times)

Thread 2:

Thread 1:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42663.0

Pre-announcement overview on the rocket:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/orbital-atk-next-phase-ngl-rocket-development/

--

Quote
We are thrilled to announce the name of our new large-class rocket: OmegA #OmegaRocket

The OmegA name represents the book-end of our rocket lineup from small-class Pegasus & Minotaur to medium-class Antares and now large-class OmegA

https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986029298195759105

« Last Edit: 04/17/2018 12:21 AM by Chris Bergin »

Quote
As work continues on #OmegaRocket, we are also excited to announce that we have selected @AerojetRdyne’s RL10C engine to support the vehicle’s upper stage flight

https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986029516337373184

Quote
-#OmegaRocket is a three-stage rocket with the option to add up to 6 strap-on boosters – 1st and 2nd stage are solid propellant motors & 3rd stage is cryogenic powered by @AerojetRdyne RL10C

https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986030002213879808
« Last Edit: 04/17/2018 12:16 AM by tvg98 »

Quote
This heavy-class rocket will have a payload capacity of up to 10,100 kg to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) and up to 7,800 kg to Geostationary Equatorial Orbit (GEO) #OmegaRocket

https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986031910504796161

Quote
To date, we have completed 4 large composite cases and will begin casting propellant in the first inert motor next week #OmegaRocket

https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986031070398345216

Online Chris Bergin

New thread for the rocket now we have a name and an overview.

OmegA: Orbital ATK’s New Large-Class Rocket

« Last Edit: 04/17/2018 12:27 AM by tvg98 »

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • California
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 2400
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2018 12:29 AM by Lars-J »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3814
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2461
  • Likes Given: 3194
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3814
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2461
  • Likes Given: 3194
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

Not that I think it's likely it will actually make it to that stage -- I think they'll take the Air Force money if they can get it, but they won't actually end up fielding an operational system.  It's just too impractical compared to SpaceX and Blue Origin and by the time they get close to flying it will be so clear that it's far too expensive that nobody will be able to steer National Security launches to it.
 

Offline IanThePineapple

I find it interesting they went with RL-10s for the upper stage. Don't they cost about $19m apiece?

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • California
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 2400
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

Not that I think it's likely it will actually make it to that stage -- I think they'll take the Air Force money if they can get it, but they won't actually end up fielding an operational system.  It's just too impractical compared to SpaceX and Blue Origin and by the time they get close to flying it will be so clear that it's far too expensive that nobody will be able to steer National Security launches to it.

Perhaps. But OrbitalATK is not gunning for SpaceX or Blue Origin. What they want to replace is ULA.

One positive thing that Omega has in its favor is that Orbital ATK appears to be investing some real resources into it. They won't go it all alone, but I think they might go further than you think.

Offline ZachS09

I knew it! RL-10 is such a reliable upper stage engine that I predicted correctly that a cluster would be used in the OmegA’s third stage.
Because the Falcon Heavy Test Flight was successful, it has inspired thousands of people to consider changing the future of space travel.

Online JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1387
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 704
The only way this can make sense economically is if they have been raking in huge profits on their SRB businesses.  Combine that with vertical integration and you might get somewhat close.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3814
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2461
  • Likes Given: 3194
Perhaps. But OrbitalATK is not gunning for SpaceX or Blue Origin. What they want to replace is ULA.

Yeah, they're not gunning for SpaceX or Blue Origin, but I think they'll be gunned down by the massive firepower of SpaceX and Blue Origin.  ULA can last a little while clinging to the "more dependable" mantra, but OmegA doesn't have that.

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 122
https://www.rt.com/politics/424010-russia-sanctions-nuclear-us/ {RT}
Quote
Russia to suspend nuclear, rocket cooperation with America, ban US tobacco & alcohol – draft law
Russian lawmakers have drafted a bill suspending cooperation with US companies in the nuclear, missile and aircraft-building spheres, as well as introducing restrictions on imports of alcohol and tobacco produced in the US.
“The bill is about alcohol and tobacco products and about ceasing or suspending international cooperation in the nuclear sphere, rocket engine building and aircraft building between Russian companies and organizations under US jurisdiction,” one of the bill’s sponsors, MP Ivan Melnikov (Communist Party), was quoted as saying in the State Duma’s Twitter message.

This could put pressure on Atlas before Vulcan is ready to fly.   Also, F9 and FH haven't been certified for all USAF, NRO and NASA flights. Options?

Online rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 236
Also, F9 and FH haven't been certified for all USAF, NRO and NASA flights. Options?

Are you suggesting OmegA will be certified before F9 and FH? What do you think is the time frame for certifying OmegA?

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 122
Also, F9 and FH haven't been certified for all USAF, NRO and NASA flights. Options?

Are you suggesting OmegA will be certified before F9 and FH? What do you think is the time frame for certifying OmegA?
No wondering how it will effect all the players including the certification people in different programs.   Also, wasn't ATK, at one point making a possible replacement engine for the Atlas? 

Online cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Liked: 363
  • Likes Given: 3
Also, F9 and FH haven't been certified for all USAF, NRO and NASA flights. Options?

Are you suggesting OmegA will be certified before F9 and FH? What do you think is the time frame for certifying OmegA?
No wondering how it will effect all the players including the certification people in different programs.   Also, wasn't ATK, at one point making a possible replacement engine for the Atlas?
Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR)

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 122
Also, F9 and FH haven't been certified for all USAF, NRO and NASA flights. Options?

Are you suggesting OmegA will be certified before F9 and FH? What do you think is the time frame for certifying OmegA?
No wondering how it will effect all the players including the certification people in different programs.   Also, wasn't ATK, at one point making a possible replacement engine for the Atlas?
Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR)
Thanks! Various tax filings of mine are killing all my brain cells. Only one more day to finish all of them.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2907
  • Likes Given: 2249
Omega is the last letter in the greek alphabet. Often this implies the last in a series. "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end".

Why do the upper stage nozzles appear to be underexpanded? Solids are poor on iSP, they need all the help they can get. And even RL-10's can support drop down nozzles.

The graphic suggests monolithic stages, but the first stage is too large for rail transport, so it must be segmented. Which requires assembly as part of the flow and readiness time, as well as a time limit on pad and in the VAB.

Where are the fairing dimensions? Are they similar the RUAG's? Are they RUAG?

Online Prettz

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 17
Does "RL10C" imply these engines will not be the modernized RL10 variant AJR is working on?

Offline TrevorMonty

Does "RL10C" imply these engines will not be the modernized RL10 variant AJR is working on?
There is good shot of RL10C at 0:25 in video. Looks like a few 3D printed parts.
Expect price of RL10C be low $Ms. AJR have spent lot of money modernising it reducing build cost. Between Omega, Vulcan and odd SLS, AJR stand to sell 20-30 engines a year as all these LVs use 2-4 per US.

At 7800kg direct to GEO the heavy is a powerful LV, if its US can last a few days it would be capable of delivering significant payloads eg fully loaded Cygnus direct to lunar orbits. Given latest announcements about SLS 1A and 1B trades, NASA may need commercial HLVs like this to deliver LOP-G modules.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2018 05:28 AM by TrevorMonty »

Online GWH

AJR calls the variant for Omega the RL10C-5-1, and that it has a 3D printed injector assembly. It's a derivative of the RL10-C1 but no specs are given.
http://www.rocket.com/article/rl10-selected-omega%E2%84%A2-rocket


Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4828
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1446
Omega is the last letter in the greek alphabet. Often this implies the last in a series. "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end".

Why do the upper stage nozzles appear to be underexpanded? Solids are poor on iSP, they need all the help they can get. And even RL-10's can support drop down nozzles.

The graphic suggests monolithic stages, but the first stage is too large for rail transport, so it must be segmented. Which requires assembly as part of the flow and readiness time, as well as a time limit on pad and in the VAB.

Where are the fairing dimensions? Are they similar the RUAG's? Are they RUAG?

ATK is making the fairing themselves.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4334
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2563
  • Likes Given: 531

The graphic suggests monolithic stages, but the first stage is too large for rail transport, so it must be segmented. Which requires assembly as part of the flow and readiness time, as well as a time limit on pad and in the VAB.


According to this earlier SFN report, Stage 1 is indeed segmented. The graphic is poor, but it does seem to show vague joint lines at intervals equal to the length of Stage 2, which is one segment long.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/27/details-of-orbital-atks-proposed-heavy-launcher-revealed/

(Obviously written before OATK opted for RL-10 vs. BE-3U, but the details of the solids seem current).

Ed Kyle has put some estimated numbers on the SRM segments here, for reference:

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ngl.html
« Last Edit: 04/17/2018 02:19 PM by Kabloona »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
  • USA
  • Liked: 1317
  • Likes Given: 580
What needs would this rocket fulfill in world where you'll have F9, FH, Vulcan & New Glenn? I mean sure, if they want to build, test and then offer this up for a competitive price then that's fine. But I see no reason the AF should spend precious resources on this effort besides certifying it, if it comes to that.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2018 02:29 PM by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4334
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2563
  • Likes Given: 531
What needs would this rocket fulfill in world where you'll have F9, FH, Vulcan & New Glenn?

The Air Force's desire to keep the solid propellant industry busy.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
  • USA
  • Liked: 1317
  • Likes Given: 580
What needs would this rocket fulfill in world where you'll have F9, FH, Vulcan & New Glenn?

The Air Force's desire to keep the solid propellant industry busy.
I would think there are better, more efficient ways to do that than propping up an unnecessary, unneeded launcher and associated expenses, some of which would have nothing to do with solid propellants.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2018 02:33 PM by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4334
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2563
  • Likes Given: 531
What needs would this rocket fulfill in world where you'll have F9, FH, Vulcan & New Glenn?

The Air Force's desire to keep the solid propellant industry busy.
I would think there are better, more efficient ways to do that than propping up an unnecessary, unneeded launcher and associated expenses, some of which would have nothing to do with solid propellants.

That discussion has already been had, over here:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42663.msg1810534#msg1810534

But don't fret, OmegA won't survive if its business case doesn't close. OATK does actually have a board to answer to, unlike SpaceX and Blue.

As of 2 years ago, OATK was saying they would need 5-6 launches of OmegA for the case to close. The following SFN article has some interesting discussion of the financials, ending with OATK's blunt admission that OmegA needs gov't funding help for development and won't survive unless the numbers add up.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/27/details-of-orbital-atks-proposed-heavy-launcher-revealed/
« Last Edit: 04/17/2018 02:50 PM by Kabloona »

Offline TrevorMonty


The graphic suggests monolithic stages, but the first stage is too large for rail transport, so it must be segmented. Which requires assembly as part of the flow and readiness time, as well as a time limit on pad and in the VAB.


According to this earlier SFN report, Stage 1 is indeed segmented. The graphic is poor, but it does seem to show vague joint lines at intervals equal to the length of Stage 2, which is one segment long.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/27/details-of-orbital-atks-proposed-heavy-launcher-revealed/

(Obviously written before OATK opted for RL-10 vs. BE-3U, but the details of the solids seem current).

Ed Kyle has put some estimated numbers on the SRM segments here, for reference:

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ngl.html
The single-segment Castor 300 motor would serve as the second stage of all variants.  A two-segment Castor 600 motor would power the intermediate NGL 500-series first stage.  A four-segment Castor 1200 motor would serve as the first stage of the heavy-class NGL 500XL variant. 


Offline The_Ronin

  • Master of Servers, Big and Small
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • *nix engineer & space geek
  • Nashville, TN
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 147
The heavy class looks like a vibration nightmare.  Wonder how they will solve that...

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 228

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4334
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2563
  • Likes Given: 531
The heavy class looks like a vibration nightmare.  Wonder how they will solve that...

Orbital does have some experience with the dynamics of large solids, ie Stage 0 (Castor 120) on Taurus. Because that stage was so big compared to the Pegasus stages on top, they had to implement active control of the first bending moment into the Taurus GNC software.

But yes, the Castor 1200 stack is going to be a much bigger beast to tame.

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 158
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)

Yes it is. Omega just lends itself to jokes about coming in last.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
Quote
To date, we have completed 4 large composite cases and will begin casting propellant in the first inert motor next week #OmegaRocket

https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK/status/986031070398345216
AFAIA: the inert motors will also be used for battleship testing (processing, transport, lifting, stacking tests et cetera.) at KSC's VAB for OmegA and evaluation for SLS Block-II under the guise of the Advanced Booster Competition programme.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2018 11:36 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2907
  • Likes Given: 2249
There is another point for the use of the name "Omega". If you were going to compartmentalize certain specific parts of NSS that might never be economically bid by any commercial, the "last" option might be to have a minimum footprint means of supplying that need.

Such a means would likely be a vehicle like NGL (or, for the Europeans, an uprated Vega-C). Such a vehicle might also be a way of handling funding/development/continued flight of solids based vehicles. It would subsidize both needs at the same time.

The difficulty with that approach would be in the cost escalation as well as the tendency to under- or over-commit missions based solely on keeping alive a narrow need that might imply single-sourcing. This might be difficult for the AF procurement processes.

Online GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 533
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)

Yes it is. Omega just lends itself to jokes about coming in last.

I like how they not-so-subtly emphasized the Orbital 'O' and ATK 'A' in the name OmegA. I wonder how much it influenced the name selection?

Gonna be an upward slog getting people actually using the mixed case for Omega, though.* :-)

Edit -- Heh, especially when even the Omega factsheet PDF on OATK's site doesn't bother.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2018 04:16 PM by GreenShrike »
TriOptimum Corporation            Science
                                      Military /_\ Consumer

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4334
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2563
  • Likes Given: 531
There is another point for the use of the name "Omega". If you were going to compartmentalize certain specific parts of NSS that might never be economically bid by any commercial, the "last" option might be to have a minimum footprint means of supplying that need.

Not sure what you mean by "minimum footprint." Would you please elaborate?

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 134
Let's start with a link to the OmegA page on OATK website.
I think there could be a lot of similarity between the 5-segment SRB and the Castor 1200. I also think some members of the Orion 50, Castor 30/120, GEM40-63 stages could be smaler versions of the Castor 300, 600 and 1200. AFAIK solids scale very easily.
I think GreenShrike nailed the reasoning behind the OmegA name. OA mega; the largest possible launcher from Orbital ATK. 

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 41
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9805
  • UK
  • Liked: 1891
  • Likes Given: 183
The idea of ‘package deals’ seems an interesting proposition from a business prospective where they build your satellite and provide their own launcher as well.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4828
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1446
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?

A solid can pretty much have as much thrust as they need by changing the casting composition and shape.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
There is another point for the use of the name "Omega". If you were going to compartmentalize certain specific parts of NSS that might never be economically bid by any commercial, the "last" option might be to have a minimum footprint means of supplying that need.

Such a means would likely be a vehicle like NGL (or, for the Europeans, an uprated Vega-C). Such a vehicle might also be a way of handling funding/development/continued flight of solids based vehicles. It would subsidize both needs at the same time.

The difficulty with that approach would be in the cost escalation as well as the tendency to under- or over-commit missions based solely on keeping alive a narrow need that might imply single-sourcing. This might be difficult for the AF procurement processes.

Mike Griffin has repeatedly called for the USAF to have its own launch capability.  Could be that NGL/Omega is the perfect vehicle for this... warehouse a dozen solid boosters plus second stages (kinda like NRO is doing with Delta Heavies, or Atlas V did with stockpiling RD-180s) and you have a level of launch redundancy that can fill in for temporary disruptions of NSS launch services.

Having NG-O-ATK as one of the two NSS vendors keeps such an option viable, while rotating the warehoused stock. 
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Kasponaut

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Denmark
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 64
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.

Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?

A little strange that OATK isn’t more specific about this - among other details.

Offline Aurora

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • USA
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 29
0,1,2,3,4,5,6 SRMs

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4828
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1446
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.

Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?

A little strange that OATK isn’t more specific about this - among other details.

They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.

Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?

A little strange that OATK isn’t more specific about this - among other details.

They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.
It has been said a while ago in the past that if the MLP's launch mount was changed to allow SRM's all the way around the Castor motor it is capable of flying that way. That is a future growth path if more payload to orbit is required for both versions.

Offline dlapine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • University of Illinois
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 76
Any price or price range mentioned?

Online rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 236
Any price or price range mentioned?

10 million less than a Vulcan/Centaur?  :P

Offline Kasponaut

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Denmark
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 64
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.

Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?

A little strange that OATK isn’t more specific about this - among other details.

They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.

Okay. Where did they specify that?

Online ethan829


They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.

Okay. Where did they specify that?

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/12/orbital-atk-confident-new-rocket-will-win-air-force-support/
Quote
The intermediate and heavy configurations could get an additional boost from up to six strap-on boosters, the same 63-inch diameter augmentation motors Orbital ATK is currently qualifying for use on ULA’s Atlas 5 and Vulcan rockets. The number of strap-on boosters on each NGL flight could be tailored based on mission requirements, allowing for odd numbers boosters to fly on the rocket, similar to the Atlas 5’s design, Laidley said.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 134
How I understood it, the OmegA can launch in the following configurations:
OmegA 500; 0 ; 2 or 4 GEM63XL boosters
OmegA 500XL; 0, 2, 3, 4, 6 GEM63XL Boosters.

I wonder if Orbital ATK is also going to develop a OmegA 400 (4m fairing), possibly a smaller version with a Castor 300 instead of 600 as first stage.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2831
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 452
Let's start with a link to the OmegA page on OATK website.
I think there could be a lot of similarity between the 5-segment SRB and the Castor 1200. I also think some members of the Orion 50, Castor 30/120, GEM40-63 stages could be smaler versions of the Castor 300, 600 and 1200. AFAIK solids scale very easily.
I think GreenShrike nailed the reasoning behind the OmegA name. OA mega; the largest possible launcher from Orbital ATK.

My understanding is that scaling a solid is a bit of a black art. If these were simple end burning grains like an Estes motor it would be fine- just pay by the foot- but in the real world you need to test out different grain shapes and all the thermal and vibrational considerations that go with that.
Waiting for joy and raptor

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 0
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • California
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 2400
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?

Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 336
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?

Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.

Would that not be Delta IV pad at Vandenberg since it was originally built for the Shuttle?

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • California
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 2400
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?

Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.

Would that not be Delta IV pad at Vandenberg since it was originally built for the Shuttle?

I'm not sure what you mean, but Delta II and Delta IV uses different pads, and both should be available in the near future. The Delta II pad seems more right-sized, though, the Delta IV pad has a lot of expensive infrastructure.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
How I understood it, the OmegA can launch in the following configurations:
OmegA 500; 0 ; 2 or 4 GEM63XL boosters
OmegA 500XL; 0, 2, 3, 4, 6 GEM63XL Boosters.

I wonder if Orbital ATK is also going to develop a OmegA 400 (4m fairing), possibly a smaller version with a Castor 300 instead of 600 as first stage.
GEM-63XL on Vulcan
GEM-63XLT on OmegA

4m fairing is currently not proposed. Also currently developed is Castor-900 and a few other configurations per their latest motor catalog.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • California
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 2400
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter.  (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter.  (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
There is nothing stated publicly however they have facilities in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, Arkansas River Valley and elsewhere in several regions with river access. The stage they show looks quite like a DCSS but there are no indication that ULA will build the stage. We ought to know more in the coming months and 2019. I guess OATK (NG) will need an OmegA Mariner ship as I down know how else they can transport it unless they build the stage at both launch sites.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2018 12:24 AM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 336

There is nothing stated publicly however they have facilities in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, Arkansas River Valley and elsewhere in several regions with river access. The stage they show looks quite like a DCSS but there are no indication that ULA will build the stage. We ought to know more in the coming months and 2019. I guess OATK (NG) will need an OmegA Mariner ship as I down know how else they can transport it unless they build the stage at both launch sites.

Would about barging another mobile crawler & tower from KSC to West Coast?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598

There is nothing stated publicly however they have facilities in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, Arkansas River Valley and elsewhere in several regions with river access. The stage they show looks quite like a DCSS but there are no indication that ULA will build the stage. We ought to know more in the coming months and 2019. I guess OATK (NG) will need an OmegA Mariner ship as I down know how else they can transport it unless they build the stage at both launch sites.

Would about barging another mobile crawler & tower from KSC to West Coast?
There is not a causeway and infrastructure at VAFB. Fixed pads are used where vertical inteintegration is required. This would be a case where VI is required.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4483
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1229
  • Likes Given: 2371
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter.  (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
If the third stage is 5 meters in diameter; is it essentially a twin-engined version of the Delta IV upper stage?
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8049
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 503
  • Likes Given: 21

There is nothing stated publicly however they have facilities in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, Arkansas River Valley and elsewhere in several regions with river access. The stage they show looks quite like a DCSS but there are no indication that ULA will build the stage. We ought to know more in the coming months and 2019. I guess OATK (NG) will need an OmegA Mariner ship as I down know how else they can transport it unless they build the stage at both launch sites.

Would about barging another mobile crawler & tower from KSC to West Coast?
There is not a causeway and infrastructure at VAFB. Fixed pads are used where vertical inteintegration is required. This would be a case where VI is required.
And there's only two crawlers in existance, both owned by NASA. And they have no interest in selling either one, especially not CT-2 which has been upgraded to be able to handle SLS. Another hurdle is the sheer massive weight of a crawler, 6.6 million lbs or 2.98 million metric tons. They can only move on a specially built gravel road called a Crawlerway which is way wider than any normal road. Not a simple project at the very hilly South Base of Vandenberg.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • California
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 2400
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter.  (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
If the third stage is 5 meters in diameter; is it essentially a twin-engined version of the Delta IV upper stage?

Pretty much, the artwork makes it look very similar, although that may be artistic vagueness at this point. But it does bring into focus that this rocket will be very large (the DCSS is huge!), and they must be cutting some interesting deals if they can keep the cost down.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2018 01:37 AM by Lars-J »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2357
  • California
  • Liked: 1898
  • Likes Given: 4455
My guess for how the name was chosen:

The Northrop guys told the Orbital guys, "This is the last damn time you all are gonna get to design one of these."  ---> Omega
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8686
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5458
  • Likes Given: 1789
The Delta II pad seems more right-sized, though, the Delta IV pad has a lot of expensive infrastructure.

That big core SRM is going to require a substantial flame trench. Substantially bigger than the one that is currently underneath SLC-2W.

Online ethan829

I'm not sure what you mean, but Delta II and Delta IV uses different pads, and both should be available in the near future. The Delta II pad seems more right-sized, though, the Delta IV pad has a lot of expensive infrastructure.

Both options are reportedly being considered:

Quote
For a West Coast launch site to support polar orbit missions, Orbital ATK is considering at least two options: Upgrading the Delta 2 launch pad at Space Launch Complex 2-West once that rocket is retired later this year, or moving into Space Launch Complex-6 when the Delta 4-Heavy flies its last mission in the 2020s.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 640
  • Likes Given: 148
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter.  (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)

The upper stage looks an awful lot like the Delta IV US/ ICPS.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 640
  • Likes Given: 148
Another hurdle is the sheer massive weight of a crawler, 6.6 million lbs or 2.98 million metric tons.

I think you're off a little bit... 2.98 million tonnes is equal to 30 aircraft carriers. ;P
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8049
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 503
  • Likes Given: 21
Another hurdle is the sheer massive weight of a crawler, 6.6 million lbs or 2.98 million metric tons.

I think you're off a little bit... 2.98 million tonnes is equal to 30 aircraft carriers. ;P
Yes, I converted things wrong. I of course meant 2, 980 metric tons.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 134
GEM-63XL on Vulcan
GEM-63XLT on OmegA

4m fairing is currently not proposed. Also currently developed is Castor-900 and a few other configurations per their latest motor catalog.
Thanks for correcting me, by sharing new info.
I can only find the 2016 motor catalog. Could you share a link to the most resent version? Thanks in advance.
(There are two versions on OATKs website a May 2016 and a October 20168 version.)
« Last Edit: 04/22/2018 05:54 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
GEM-63XL on Vulcan
GEM-63XLT on OmegA

4m fairing is currently not proposed. Also currently developed is Castor-900 and a few other configurations per their latest motor catalog.
Thanks for correcting me, by sharing new info.
I can only find the 2016 motor catalog. Could you share a link to the most resent version? Thanks in advance.
(There are two versions on OATKs website a May 2016 and a October 2018 version.)
The 2016 is most recent on the site however there a wrong file that is supposed to be the 2017 update. 2018 is not out yet thus GEM-63XLT is not listed yet. As for Castor-900. The Castor designations are actively replacing the steel case RSRM series. There will be new composite versions offered in the future. Composite segments are longer than their steel predecessors. SLS SRB is 5 segments whereas the composite Castor-1200 is 4 segments. Castor-900 will be 3 , Castor-600 is 2 and Castor 300 is 1. It is yet to be foreseen if they will introduce half segments to replace the rest of the existing RSRM series.
« Last Edit: 04/21/2018 05:58 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline TrevorMonty

The Omega Heavy at 7800kg to GEO is slightly more powerful than Vulcan 7000.

Whether it can manage 36t to LEO it not clear as OA don't publish LEO performance.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter.  (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
If the third stage is 5 meters in diameter; is it essentially a twin-engined version of the Delta IV upper stage?

Pretty much, the artwork makes it look very similar, although that may be artistic vagueness at this point. But it does bring into focus that this rocket will be very large (the DCSS is huge!), and they must be cutting some interesting deals if they can keep the cost down.
One possibility is OATK is buying the IP rights and such for DCSS 5 meter so that they can create a modern 2 RL-10C-1 engine derivative. OmegA I dont believe hasn't yet gone through CDR so the stage design might change into a more efficient design.

Offline TrevorMonty



https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/23/jefferies-orbital-atk-could-upset-spacex-ula-for-air-force-launches.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

With NG buying OA, build and launch deals for Orbital satellites can also be extended to NG built satellites.

Offline ranger84

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
I remember reading years ago about the Air Force wanting the ability to rapidly launch large payloads to orbit, I’m wondering if this LV wouldn’t lend itself to be able to go from cold storage to launch quickly, kind of like when they went from Titan II’s to Minutemen ICBM’s.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 04:25 AM by ranger84 »

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • California
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 2400
I remember reading years ago about the Air Force wanting the ability to rapidly launch large payloads to orbit, I’m wondering if this LV wouldn’t lend itself to be able to go from cold storage to launch quickly, kind of like when they went from Titan II’s to Minutemen ICBM’s.

For solid LVs of this scale, nothing is quick though. The munitions analogue doesn't quite hold here, unless you store your LVs on launch pads ready to go. (and pads are not that plentiful nor cheap) ;)

You could likely put liquid stages in storage and use them up just as fast. Also remember that OmegA has a liquid third stage which it cannot launch without.


Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • California
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 2400
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6.  Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments.  I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure.  Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?

 - Ed Kyle

It certainly adds a schedule question as well. ULA is not letting go of SLC-6 until their last Delta IV heavy flies. Which could be later than 2021.

Offline Aurora

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • USA
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 29
Orbital ATK successfully cast the first inert motor segment for CBS.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4828
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1446
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6.  Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments.  I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure.  Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?

 - Ed Kyle

It certainly adds a schedule question as well. ULA is not letting go of SLC-6 until their last Delta IV heavy flies. Which could be later than 2021.

I thought west coast launches weren't required until 2024?
« Last Edit: 05/02/2018 08:24 PM by envy887 »

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • California
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 2400
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6.  Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments.  I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure.  Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?

 - Ed Kyle

It certainly adds a schedule question as well. ULA is not letting go of SLC-6 until their last Delta IV heavy flies. Which could be later than 2021.

I thought west coast launches weren't required until 2024?

But without a west coast pad and the capability that gives, they might have to win *ALL* DoD contracts to be viable. Without the capability of polar and high inclination launches they would be limiting the missions they can bid on.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6.  Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments.  I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure.  Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?

 - Ed Kyle

It certainly adds a schedule question as well. ULA is not letting go of SLC-6 until their last Delta IV heavy flies. Which could be later than 2021.
Ed. The FST and main (original) MST were designed for the taller Titan-IIIM. They were shortened and modified for West Coast Shuttle.

Lars-J: A VAFB pad is not needed by 2021. They are pressing East Coast startup first. I wouldnt expect ULA to be ready to hand over SLC-6 until at least 2025.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • USA
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 17
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6.  Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments.  I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure.  Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?

 - Ed Kyle

OmegA has AFTS doesn't it? It might be able to use the same polar corridor from the Cape that was recently announced. Blue seems to have no plans for a west coast New Glenn pad, and SpaceX has shown no indication of upgrading their west pad for FH or building one for BFR. Seems like thats the direction everyone else is going, except maybe ULA

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
All new rockets must have an AFTS system. All existing rockets (including sounding and meteorological rockets) must also eventually implement AFTS.

SpaceX also has taken steps to implement West Coast FH. The reaction frame and launch mount requires substantial standardisation work or replacement to support FH launches.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2018 11:17 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
A 4m fairing makes little sense if their third stage is 5m in diameter.  (BTW, are they building that stage in house or contracting it out?)
If the third stage is 5 meters in diameter; is it essentially a twin-engined version of the Delta IV upper stage?

Pretty much, the artwork makes it look very similar, although that may be artistic vagueness at this point. But it does bring into focus that this rocket will be very large (the DCSS is huge!), and they must be cutting some interesting deals if they can keep the cost down.
Upper Stage Update: US will use 2 RL10C-5-1's per http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/omega.htm

via ARH: http://rocket.com/article/rl10-selected-omega%E2%84%A2-rocket

Quote
RL10 Selected for OmegA™ Rocket
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., April 16, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Orbital ATK has selected the RL10 rocket engine to provide propulsion for the third stage of the company's OmegA rocket which includes a lineup of intermediate- and large-class space launch vehicles.

"The RL10 has provided reliable upper stage propulsion for more than five decades and we look forward to continuing that legacy with Orbital ATK and its OmegA rocket," said Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and President Eileen Drake. "By selecting the RL10, Orbital ATK is able to leverage investments made by the U.S. Air Force and others to build resilient space launch capabilities for our nation."

"The RL10 has an extensive flight history and provides a low-risk, affordable engine with outstanding performance," said Mike Pinkston, Deputy General Manager of Orbital ATK's Launch Vehicles Division. "OmegA is a robust all-American launch system with its entire design based on flight-proven technologies and common components from Orbital ATK's diversified lineup of rockets and propulsion systems."

The RL10 burns cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants using a highly-efficient expander engine cycle. With nearly 500 engines flown in space, the RL10 has helped place hundreds of satellites into orbit, sent spacecraft to explore every planet in our solar system and propelled the first human-made object, the Voyager I spacecraft, into interstellar space.

The RL10C-5-1 model that will support the OmegA system is derived from the RL10C-1 that made its inaugural flight in December 2014. This new variant of the RL10 will feature an injector assembly that is built using additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing.

"Having our RL10 engine selected to provide upper stage propulsion for a fourth launch vehicle reflects the confidence industry places in our product," said Space Business Unit Senior Vice President Jerry Tarnacki. "It also confirms that the steps Aerojet Rocketdyne has been taking to make our products more competitive—such as incorporating 3-D printing to reduce production costs—are being welcomed in the marketplace."

Aerojet Rocketdyne, a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), is an innovative company delivering solutions that create value for its customers in the aerospace and defense markets. The company is a world-recognized aerospace and defense leader that provides propulsion and energetics to the space, missile defense and strategic systems, tactical systems and armaments areas, in support of domestic and international markets. Additional information about Aerojet Rocketdyne can be obtained by visiting our websites at www.Rocket.com and www.AerojetRocketdyne.com.

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 890
Since Firefly has been "given" SLC 2W, it seems likely that Omega, if developed, would default to SLC 6.  Makes sense since SLC 6 was created to handle SRB-diameter motor segments.  I'm guessing, though, that the "Omega Heavy" variant would be too tall to fit inside the SLC 6 mobile structure.  Does anyone have any thoughts about that question?

 - Ed Kyle

It certainly adds a schedule question as well. ULA is not letting go of SLC-6 until their last Delta IV heavy flies. Which could be later than 2021.

The last scheduled Delta IV Heavy:
Year: 2023   
Payload: NROL-91
Launchpad: Vandenberg SLC-6

source: http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-plans-to-buy-2-delta-4-heavy-rockets-for-nro-missions/

So I don't expect anyone else to be able to use SLC-6 until at least 2025

Online soltasto

They have also 2 other possibilities:

1) Upgrade one of the pads that were used for Minotaur/Taurus launches
2) Build a new pad from scratch on unused land or on unused pads (SLC-1/SLC-5/SLC-10)

Either way the work would be extensive and require a big investment.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
They have also 2 other possibilities:

1) Upgrade one of the pads that were used for Minotaur/Taurus launches
2) Build a new pad from scratch on unused land or on unused pads (SLC-1/SLC-5/SLC-10)

Either way the work would be extensive and require a big investment.
SLC-10's pads are not available as it is a National Historic Site and cannot be modified.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 228
They have also 2 other possibilities:

1) Upgrade one of the pads that were used for Minotaur/Taurus launches
2) Build a new pad from scratch on unused land or on unused pads (SLC-1/SLC-5/SLC-10)

Either way the work would be extensive and require a big investment.
SLC-10's pads are not available as it is a National Historic Site and cannot be modified.
LC-39 is as well. Historic designations only carry so much weight.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
They have also 2 other possibilities:

1) Upgrade one of the pads that were used for Minotaur/Taurus launches
2) Build a new pad from scratch on unused land or on unused pads (SLC-1/SLC-5/SLC-10)

Either way the work would be extensive and require a big investment.
SLC-10's pads are not available as it is a National Historic Site and cannot be modified.
LC-39 is as well. Historic designations only carry so much weight.
It is explained a while back in L2. SLC-10 (LE-6, LE-7, and LE-8) is home to VAFB's Space and Missile Heritage Center (http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/338395/space-and-missile-heritage-center/) also https://www.nps.gov/articles/space-launch-complex-10.htm


Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4018
  • US
  • Liked: 3455
  • Likes Given: 1989
Tweets from Jeff Foust:
Quote
Michael Laidley, Orbital ATK: we have about 500 people working on our OmegA rocket right now; expect that to ramp up to about 1,000. Ground testing of first stage to begin next year. #SpaceTechExpo

Laidley: on schedule for first flight of intermediate version of OmegA in 2021, with USAF certification in 2022. Heavy version first launch 2024. #SpaceTechExpo

Laidley: if we don’t win Launch Services Award from USAF for OmegA, we would not proceed with the vehicle as currently defined. It would be some other design that doesn’t address all EELV requirements. #SpaceTechExpo
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 08:17 PM by gongora »

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5642
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 2201
  • Likes Given: 1555
OmegA: Northrop Grumman’s New Large-Class Rocket

Northrop Grumman
Published on Jun 13, 2018
Modified on June 18, 2018

Northrop Grumman has announced the name of the company's new large-class rocket: OmegA. This all-American rocket, designed for the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, will have a capacity of up to 10,100 kg to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) and up to 7,800 kg to Geostationary Equatorial Orbit (GEO). Aerojet Rocketdyne's RL10C engine will be the vehicle’s upper stage propulsion system.

Learn more: bit.ly/OmegaRocket

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZc8SktOz7E?t=001




Updated: Jue 18, 2018  Tony De La Rosa
« Last Edit: 06/18/2018 09:38 PM by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa

Offline TrevorMonty

Good article on OmegA.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3539/1

They've proposed it as backup to Antares for Cygnus ISS launches. Don't how costs compare to Antares but a couple extra flights a year for OmegA could make the difference to its financial viability.


Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
Good article on OmegA.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3539/1

They've proposed it as backup to Antares for Cygnus ISS launches. Don't how costs compare to Antares but a couple extra flights a year for OmegA could make the difference to its financial viability.
So going internal and I guessing they will be shedding Atlas V/Vulcan launch options as a result of that decision.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4018
  • US
  • Liked: 3455
  • Likes Given: 1989
and I guessing they will be shedding Atlas V/Vulcan launch options as a result of that decision.

... if Omega actually goes into service, which may not really be decided for a couple more years.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4334
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2563
  • Likes Given: 531
Good article on OmegA.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3539/1

They've proposed it as backup to Antares for Cygnus ISS launches. Don't how costs compare to Antares but a couple extra flights a year for OmegA could make the difference to its financial viability.

Thanks for the link. That's an uncommonly excellent article, both in terms of technical depth and clarity for the layperson. Written by an engineer, no less! Someone should hire that guy to do technical writing for a living.

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1733
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1046
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #100 on: 08/02/2018 04:20 PM »
It is very well written, however it is also clearly from someone who is very pro-OmegA and seems to have some insight into the program beyond what's generally known.  It could be used as a PR piece supporting OmegA, honestly.  The stuff about how OrbATK is great with security and working with contractors in that environment, and the implication the post-Zuma back-and-forth wouldn't have happened - and in fact, maybe the presumed loss of the satellite might not have happened with them - is really weak sauce.

I'm not saying this to dismiss the content - it's very good! - but there's clearly a bias as well.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2018 04:26 PM by abaddon »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4334
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2563
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #101 on: 08/02/2018 08:09 PM »
It is very well written, however it is also clearly from someone who is very pro-OmegA and seems to have some insight into the program beyond what's generally known.  It could be used as a PR piece supporting OmegA, honestly.  The stuff about how OrbATK is great with security and working with contractors in that environment, and the implication the post-Zuma back-and-forth wouldn't have happened - and in fact, maybe the presumed loss of the satellite might not have happened with them - is really weak sauce.

I'm not saying this to dismiss the content - it's very good! - but there's clearly a bias as well.

Agreed, and the description of the solid propellant formulation and grain design is so detailed that it wouldn't surprise me if this guy is/was an ATK solid propulsion engineer.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #102 on: 08/02/2018 09:20 PM »
I'd just like to point out that if they renamed the rocket Onega they could capitalize the letters of Orbital, ATK, and Northrop Grumman. ONeGA.

I'll let myself out.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2562
  • Canada
  • Liked: 401
  • Likes Given: 600
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #103 on: 08/03/2018 07:24 AM »
I'd just like to point out that if they renamed the rocket Onega they could capitalize the letters of Orbital, ATK, and Northrop Grumman. ONeGA.

I'll let myself out.

You do realize that the most common web search result for Onega is a lake near Saint Petersburg Russia?

Somehow renaming the OmegA for a Russian lake seems far fetch. However with the current POTUS that is not totally impossible.  ::)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12986
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4090
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #104 on: 08/03/2018 05:58 PM »
Northrop Grumman Omega is how I write it.  We'll find out shortly if we have to keep writing the name, at least for awhile longer.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #105 on: 08/03/2018 06:26 PM »
The dual capitalization is used on its page on the Northrop Grumman website:

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/omega/Pages/default.aspx

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12986
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4090
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #106 on: 08/03/2018 06:38 PM »
The dual capitalization is used on its page on the Northrop Grumman website:

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/omega/Pages/default.aspx
Yes, I know, but it (the capitalization of the last letter) is an abomination.  I refuse!

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 08/03/2018 06:39 PM by edkyle99 »

Online GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #107 on: 08/03/2018 06:56 PM »
Agreed, and the description of the solid propellant formulation and grain design is so detailed that it wouldn't surprise me if this guy is/was an ATK solid propulsion engineer.

I sent him a note about an error in one of his links, plus a couple thoughts of my own.

In his response, he stated that he wasn't "an Orbital ATK person or with Northrop, so I have no horse in this race."

Doesn't rule out past association, of course. The fact that he wrote "OmegA" even in private correspondence leads me to think at least a little koolaid has been sipped. Capital "abomination" is right. ;-)

TriOptimum Corporation            Science
                                      Military /_\ Consumer

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #108 on: 08/03/2018 09:04 PM »
Yes, I know, but it (the capitalization of the last letter) is an abomination.  I refuse!

Eh, I'm still grateful that we don't have to refer to the ULA "GalaxyOne"...

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4334
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2563
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #109 on: 08/04/2018 02:13 AM »
Agreed, and the description of the solid propellant formulation and grain design is so detailed that it wouldn't surprise me if this guy is/was an ATK solid propulsion engineer.

I sent him a note about an error in one of his links, plus a couple thoughts of my own.

In his response, he stated that he wasn't "an Orbital ATK person or with Northrop, so I have no horse in this race."

Doesn't rule out past association, of course. The fact that he wrote "OmegA" even in private correspondence leads me to think at least a little koolaid has been sipped. Capital "abomination" is right. ;-)

Well, for someone with no horse in the race, he does seem unusually well acquainted with at least one of the horses.

Thanks for reporting his reply.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2018 02:14 AM by Kabloona »

Offline jbenton

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 214
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #110 on: 08/05/2018 05:52 PM »
The OmegA uses a shuttle derived booster that should have some commonality with that used on SLS. I was wondering though: is it going to be more similar to the current 5-segment boosters, or the more powerful 4-segment "Dark Night" advanced boosters? I'm assuming that the composite casing is the same as on the Dark Nights, but are they using the propellant mixture from the Block I boosters or the type that they developed for the Dark Nights?
Thanks.

I read this thread and the previous thread as well as the speculation thread. I saw a bunch of references to the SLS but not a determinate answer to this question.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12986
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4090
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #111 on: 08/05/2018 06:22 PM »
The OmegA uses a shuttle derived booster that should have some commonality with that used on SLS. I was wondering though: is it going to be more similar to the current 5-segment boosters, or the more powerful 4-segment "Dark Night" advanced boosters? I'm assuming that the composite casing is the same as on the Dark Nights, but are they using the propellant mixture from the Block I boosters or the type that they developed for the Dark Nights?
Thanks.

I read this thread and the previous thread as well as the speculation thread. I saw a bunch of references to the SLS but not a determinate answer to this question.
The new Common Booster Segment is just that - new.  It shares the same general diameter with the STS/SLS booster, but most everything else differs.  It uses a composite case rather than steel.  It is longer than an STS/SLS segment.  It is HTPB rather than PBAN.  Etc.

The general assumption is that the Common Booster Segment development effort would eventually spill over to be shared with SLS, but there's no guarantee that will happen.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 08/05/2018 06:23 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #112 on: 08/05/2018 06:25 PM »

The fact that he wrote "OmegA" even in private correspondence leads me to think at least a little koolaid has been sipped. Capital "abomination" is right. ;-)


Still not as bad as "SpaceShipTwo"!

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22509
  • Liked: 839
  • Likes Given: 300
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #113 on: 10/10/2018 09:38 PM »
NGIS OmegA launch vehicle wins USAF launch services contract

Quote
Orbital Sciences Corp., Chandler, Arizona, has been awarded a $791,601,015 other-transaction agreement for the development of a Launch System Prototype for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program

https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1658771/
And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • California
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 2400
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #114 on: 10/10/2018 09:52 PM »
NGIS OmegA launch vehicle wins USAF launch services contract

Quote
Orbital Sciences Corp., Chandler, Arizona, has been awarded a $791,601,015 other-transaction agreement for the development of a Launch System Prototype for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program

https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1658771/

Interesting. They are really heading their bets here with juicy contracts...
$1 billion for Vulcan
$800 million for OmegA
$500 million for New Glenn.

Looks like Xmas came early. :)

Online Chris Bergin

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/10/ngis-highlights-air-force-contract-win-omega/ - by Chris Gebhardt who visited their base and interviewed the officials face to face. Another article to come from it.


https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1050853823303090177

Creating a standalone thread for specific discussion in this section.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7654
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 8220
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #116 on: 10/12/2018 09:26 PM »
Big solids make great weapon systems.

As long as they are not segmented, or have any requirement to be shut down in an emergency (the smallish ones on Atlas V can be jettisoned relatively easily).

So my question would be what will be powering the successor to Trident? Could this be it?

If you didn't have a skills base in solids that you wanted to preserve (or wanted to acquire) what good are they?

And note that once NASA walked away from actually funding Liberty for CCC all promises of company funded development would continue blew away like leaves in the wind.

Let's see if this goes anywhere other than the bottom line of NGL's company report.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #117 on: 10/12/2018 10:33 PM »

So my question would be what will be powering the successor to Trident? Could this be it?


Some of the technology likely, but the motor is far too large for a submarine.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #118 on: 10/12/2018 11:06 PM »
Big solids make great weapon systems.

As long as they are not segmented, or have any requirement to be shut down in an emergency (the smallish ones on Atlas V can be jettisoned relatively easily).

So my question would be what will be powering the successor to Trident? Could this be it?

If you didn't have a skills base in solids that you wanted to preserve (or wanted to acquire) what good are they?

And note that once NASA walked away from actually funding Liberty for CCC all promises of company funded development would continue blew away like leaves in the wind.

Let's see if this goes anywhere other than the bottom line of NGL's company report.
CBS is a cross and combination of Castor-120 heritage and modern experiments done under the AFRL/NRL Large Class Stage programme (LCS-1 through LCS-III stage motors equal an ICBM of Peacekeeper class (civilian versions of LCS motors Castor-120XL and Castor-30XL are now about to/already flying on NGIS rockets) and other motor programmes (STS SRB et cetera).

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7001
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 5840
  • Likes Given: 725
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #119 on: 10/13/2018 02:48 AM »

And note that once NASA walked away from actually funding Liberty for CCC all promises of company funded development would continue blew away like leaves in the wind.

Let's see if this goes anywhere other than the bottom line of NGL's company report.

Comparing a paper rocket (Liberty) to one that is physical (OmegA) is a quick way to try to connect two things that have nothing to do with each other.   As the article states, NGL has already poured a significant amount of money into this rocket.  So your assertion of "let's see if they self-fund it" is already moot. 

I would also say that you should listen/read the full interview on L2.  OmegA is not a paper rocket.  And, as the article also reported, even if they don't continue to Phase 2 of the contract, OmegA will still exist in some capacity.

Offline Propylox

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #120 on: 10/21/2018 03:29 AM »
The heavy class looks like a vibration nightmare.  Wonder how they will solve that...
I'm more interested/concerned with them air lighting a 12ft solid upper stage.
That thing better have wheelibars. Can't wait to see the test flight.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #121 on: 10/21/2018 01:31 PM »
The heavy class looks like a vibration nightmare.  Wonder how they will solve that...
I'm more interested/concerned with them air lighting a 12ft solid upper stage.
That thing better have wheelibars. Can't wait to see the test flight.

They have plenty of experience with air lit motors (Anatares, Minotaur, Peacekeeper, Minuteman, etc.) and the initial burn can be controlled with the casting pattern.

Offline Propylox

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #122 on: 10/23/2018 01:32 AM »
They have plenty of experience with air lit motors (Anatares, Minotaur, Peacekeeper, Minuteman, etc.) and the initial burn can be controlled with the casting pattern.
Agreed, but I also know they'll have their hands full due to the solid's size. Diameter increases combustion instability-producing yaw, especially upon ignition. An obvious solution is to retard ignition, giving time for combustion to equalize, but that's a performance killer for upper stages. An alternative is to cast a longer throat, giving room for higher-pressure to reflect into the plume's center. Not sure what they'll do, but I'm looking forward to seeing them test it.

    ----------------------------
Ever since OmegA and it's ginormous solid US was revealed I've questioned the design, especially since a liquid US like Ares-1 or Liberty would be so capable. On Oct 22 a meeting and several announcements came out of Yuzhnoe. They've kept a few lights on producing tankage for Antares, built a few other tanks (1st and 2nd) to show investors and may soon have access to the RD-120 needed for uppers.
RussianSpaceWeb article, cut to avoid linking: ht tp://ww w.russiansp aceweb.com/sea-lau nch-2018.html#1018

Considering Orbital's working relation with them and history developing versions of the stick, a Castor 900 topped by Zenit's 2nd-stage is doable, just about perfect flight profile, eliminates the DeltaIV cryo-stage and offers performance about equal to the Heavy OmegA. A downside; the RD-8 currently can't be re-fired so Orbital would need to offer their hypergolic BTS or other 3rd-stage for GEO or crazy maneuvers.
edit: clean up.
« Last Edit: 10/23/2018 01:38 AM by Propylox »

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1295
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 349
  • Likes Given: 1082
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #123 on: 10/29/2018 03:03 PM »
This post is a continuation of a thread in L2, I'm placing it here as there is nothing revolutionary in its contents.

For clarity, is this NGL  technology for the core stage Solid Rocket Motors, which are approx. the same size as STS/SLS Solid Rocket Boosters, going to be directly applicable to the future "Black Knights" Solid Rocket Boosters that will be required once the current stock of 1/2" thick steel casings have been exhausted via SLS launches?

I'd think that most of this development would be a "wrap" considering there was a set of flight Filament Wound Case Solid Rocket Boosters (FWC-SRB) stacked at the West Coast shuttle launch facility that was chosen back in 1972 which was Vandenberg AFB, more precisely Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6 or "slick-Six")awaiting final stacking with ET-(sorry couldnt quickly find a tank number) and OV-103 Discovery in preparation for the imminent due South launch of the polar mission STS-62-A crewed by:   
Robert L. Crippen
Guy S. Gardner
Richard M. Mullane
Jerry L. Ross
Dale A. Gardner
Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.
Brett Watterson

One added bonus of using such a Solid Rocket Motor in a "stick" configuration is that there would be no "twang" motion for the joints to account for during launch.

pics
1) Filament Wound Case prior to test firing
2) SLC-6 in Shuttle Operations mode
3) Mission patch for STS-62-A
Paul

Offline Calphor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #124 on: 10/29/2018 07:57 PM »
This post is a continuation of a thread in L2, I'm placing it here as there is nothing revolutionary in its contents.

For clarity, is this NGL  technology for the core stage Solid Rocket Motors, which are approx. the same size as STS/SLS Solid Rocket Boosters, going to be directly applicable to the future "Black Knights" Solid Rocket Boosters that will be required once the current stock of 1/2" thick steel casings have been exhausted via SLS launches?

I'd think that most of this development would be a "wrap" considering there was a set of flight Filament Wound Case Solid Rocket Boosters (FWC-SRB) stacked at the West Coast shuttle launch facility that was chosen back in 1972 which was Vandenberg AFB, more precisely Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6 or "slick-Six")awaiting final stacking with ET-(sorry couldnt quickly find a tank number) and OV-103 Discovery in preparation for the imminent due South launch of the polar mission STS-62-A crewed by:   
Robert L. Crippen
Guy S. Gardner
Richard M. Mullane
Jerry L. Ross
Dale A. Gardner
Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.
Brett Watterson

One added bonus of using such a Solid Rocket Motor in a "stick" configuration is that there would be no "twang" motion for the joints to account for during launch.

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that the NGL/OmegA solids will incorporate lessons learned from both the FWC effort as well as the Titan SRMU, however, the length of time that has elapsed from those programs means that there are lessons that will need to be relearned as well as new materials to incorporate. The "Black Knights" will utilize that expertise along with the infrastructure investments that were made for NGL/OmegA.

Online GWH

While its obviously not its intended purpose, has anyone tried to take a stab at what Omega & Omega Heavy could place in LEO?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4828
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1446
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #126 on: 11/14/2018 02:56 PM »
While its obviously not its intended purpose, has anyone tried to take a stab at what Omega & Omega Heavy could place in LEO?

Assuming the composites reduce dry mass by 40%, and the upper stage is basically a 2-engine DCSS, I get about 12.5 t to ISS from the Cape for the base version.

Interestingly, they could eliminate the solid 2nd stage and still get about 8 tonnes to ISS, roughly the performance of Atlas V 401 with just a 2-seg solid booster and the LH2 upper stage. The second engine on the upper stage helps a lot here.

The 6-solid XL should get around 25-30 t to very low orbit or 22-26 t to ISS, similar to DIVH performance.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #127 on: 11/14/2018 03:03 PM »
This post is a continuation of a thread in L2, I'm placing it here as there is nothing revolutionary in its contents.

For clarity, is this NGL  technology for the core stage Solid Rocket Motors, which are approx. the same size as STS/SLS Solid Rocket Boosters, going to be directly applicable to the future "Black Knights" Solid Rocket Boosters that will be required once the current stock of 1/2" thick steel casings have been exhausted via SLS launches?

I'd think that most of this development would be a "wrap" considering there was a set of flight Filament Wound Case Solid Rocket Boosters (FWC-SRB) stacked at the West Coast shuttle launch facility that was chosen back in 1972 which was Vandenberg AFB, more precisely Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6 or "slick-Six")awaiting final stacking with ET-(sorry couldnt quickly find a tank number) and OV-103 Discovery in preparation for the imminent due South launch of the polar mission STS-62-A crewed by:   
Robert L. Crippen
Guy S. Gardner
Richard M. Mullane
Jerry L. Ross
Dale A. Gardner
Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.
Brett Watterson

One added bonus of using such a Solid Rocket Motor in a "stick" configuration is that there would be no "twang" motion for the joints to account for during launch.

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that the NGL/OmegA solids will incorporate lessons learned from both the FWC effort as well as the Titan SRMU, however, the length of time that has elapsed from those programs means that there are lessons that will need to be relearned as well as new materials to incorporate. The "Black Knights" will utilize that expertise along with the infrastructure investments that were made for NGL/OmegA.
Your view is to narrow: they just completed several next gen development programmes (Castor-120XL, LCS et cetera). In terms of casing material and construction they are going with next gen design used on LCS ICBM stage development programme and civilian equivalent Castor 120, 30 Star 92. Lessons learned from the previous shuttle/Titan motor programmes are also being incorporated too.

Online obi-wan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #128 on: 11/14/2018 05:19 PM »
This post is a continuation of a thread in L2, I'm placing it here as there is nothing revolutionary in its contents.

For clarity, is this NGL  technology for the core stage Solid Rocket Motors, which are approx. the same size as STS/SLS Solid Rocket Boosters, going to be directly applicable to the future "Black Knights" Solid Rocket Boosters that will be required once the current stock of 1/2" thick steel casings have been exhausted via SLS launches?

I'd think that most of this development would be a "wrap" considering there was a set of flight Filament Wound Case Solid Rocket Boosters (FWC-SRB) stacked at the West Coast shuttle launch facility that was chosen back in 1972 which was Vandenberg AFB, more precisely Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6 or "slick-Six")awaiting final stacking with ET-(sorry couldnt quickly find a tank number) and OV-103 Discovery in preparation for the imminent due South launch of the polar mission STS-62-A crewed by:   
Robert L. Crippen
Guy S. Gardner
Richard M. Mullane
Jerry L. Ross
Dale A. Gardner
Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.
Brett Watterson

One added bonus of using such a Solid Rocket Motor in a "stick" configuration is that there would be no "twang" motion for the joints to account for during launch.

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that the NGL/OmegA solids will incorporate lessons learned from both the FWC effort as well as the Titan SRMU, however, the length of time that has elapsed from those programs means that there are lessons that will need to be relearned as well as new materials to incorporate. The "Black Knights" will utilize that expertise along with the infrastructure investments that were made for NGL/OmegA.
Your view is to narrow: they just completed several next gen development programmes (Castor-120XL, LCS et cetera). In terms of casing material and construction they are going with next gen design used on LCS ICBM stage development programme and civilian equivalent Castor 120, 30 Star 92. Lessons learned from the previous shuttle/Titan motor programmes are also being incorporated too.
It should be noted that the filament-wound case (FWC) for the shuttle program failed in a hydrostatic test. While it exceeded the expected flight loads, it failed before reaching the required factor of safety. A classic problem with composite materials is that there is a much wider variation in failure loads across multiple samples than would be true for metallic samples. Reaching the required factor of safety with high confidence across the range of expected variations of individual parts would have added more weight and reduced the advantage of using a FWC. In the end, since the Challenger accident caused NASA to cancel flying from Vandenberg (which was the real driver for FWC) they just canceled the program.

Tags: updates