-
#140
by
TrevorMonty
on 13 Feb, 2019 07:54
-
A bit of extra detail and context for the photo. Not exactly sure what "Phase 1" consists of.
I believe that is the intermediate configuration shown below, possibly without any boosters.
Both Intermediate and Heavy support 0-6 Gem63XL SRBs, 4900kg GTO will be for 0x SRBs, 10,000kgs for 6xSRBs.
-
#141
by
ZachS09
on 13 Feb, 2019 18:45
-
That is a lot of payload to GTO.
I wonder if Northrop Grumman would consider doing dual-satellite launches if OmegA does start flying.
-
#142
by
Zed_Noir
on 14 Feb, 2019 02:00
-
That is a lot of payload to GTO.
I wonder if Northrop Grumman would consider doing dual-satellite launches if OmegA does start flying.
Not likely IMO. There is not that many commercial GEO satcom payloads for the next few years.
However the OmegA XL could be an alternative to the Falcon Heavy for direct injection to GEO as shown with the 7800 kg payload capacity to GEO in the performance table up thread. As Falcon Heavy launch slots at the LC-39A pad is constrained by commercial crew and CRS missions.
A shorter time for a GEO satcom bird to get to operational location might be worth a launch premium for some satcom operators along with launch slot availability. After all the LC-39B pad only got one SLS flight annually at best or more likely biennial for the foreseeable future.
-
#143
by
PM3
on 14 Feb, 2019 03:09
-
However the OmegA XL could be an alternative to the Falcon Heavy for direct injection to GEO as shown with the 7800 kg payload capacity to GEO in the performance table up thread. As Falcon Heavy launch slots at the LC-39A pad is constrained by commercial crew and CRS missions.
SpaceX CRS missions are all assigned to SLC-40:
https://www.spacex.com/missions
-
#144
by
StarryKnight
on 15 Feb, 2019 21:20
-
The NGIS MEV is made to be launched with another GEO bird. So there could be savings for NGIS by launching an MEV with a GEO satellite its building for someone else or by launching two MEVs.
As for direct inject to GEO, there is a time savings of several months to get to its final station for a satellite that has all electric propulsion system. But for a satellite using chemical for orbit raising, there could be a time savings or it could end up taking longer depending on how far it has to drift from the injection location to the final location. The biggest savings in either case is in mass, which could be used to add more fuel for longer orbital life and/or more payload.
-
#145
by
TrevorMonty
on 16 Feb, 2019 03:09
-
The NGIS MEV is made to be launched with another GEO bird. So there could be savings for NGIS by launching an MEV with a GEO satellite its building for someone else or by launching two MEVs.
As for direct inject to GEO, there is a time savings of several months to get to its final station for a satellite that has all electric propulsion system. But for a satellite using chemical for orbit raising, there could be a time savings or it could end up taking longer depending on how far it has to drift from the injection location to the final location. The biggest savings in either case is in mass, which could be used to add more fuel for longer orbital life and/or more payload.
This is oneway for NG to add value to their Omega launches. Adding a few extra SRBs to make up for additional mass is cheap way to get MEVs into orbit. Most launch cost is already covered by GEO satellite.
NB NG will be offering a complete build and launch package for GEO satellites, I'd guess launch insurance is included.
This may mean profit from satellite build is subsidizing Omega launch costs. As long as they make OK 4profit on complete package it doesn't matter. Means Omega will be avaliable for high value DOD missions.
-
#146
by
catdlr
on 22 Feb, 2019 02:42
-
Inside Look: OmegA Rocket
Northrop Grumman
Published on Feb 21, 2019
Katie Qian and Burke Williams, with Propulsion Systems, share about the exciting work being accomplished and progress made on the rocket motors for Northrop Grumman’s new OmegA rocket. bit.ly/2LkKxpW
-
#147
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 22 Feb, 2019 05:15
-
Summarising from the video, they are casting three segments this year. Two-segment test fire in April 2020 and single segment test fire in August 2020.
-
#148
by
blaze79
on 22 Feb, 2019 06:06
-
Are there any news about upper stage? Would somebody help them to design and produce it or NG has strong expertise to do it?
-
#149
by
russianhalo117
on 22 Feb, 2019 14:18
-
Are there any news about upper stage? Would somebody help them to design and produce it or NG has strong expertise to do it?
NGIS has there sibling NGAS which used to be TRW. In terms of building rocket stages and engines it's been a while since they built any.
-
#150
by
TrevorMonty
on 22 Feb, 2019 14:46
-
Are there any news about upper stage? Would somebody help them to design and produce it or NG has strong expertise to do it?
NGIS has there sibling NGAS which used to be TRW. In terms of building rocket stages and engines it's been a while since they built any.
May need to hire a few hydrolox engineers. No shortage of experienced engineers in country ie ULA, Blue, ARJ, Stratolauncher(PGA engine), Boeing (XS1 and SLS). If they go off shore lot more options.
NG did compete for XS1 competition plus the team from Antares, so some inhouse RP1 and LOX experience.
They already have flight proven avionics which came with OrbitalATK.
-
#151
by
spacenut
on 22 Feb, 2019 14:55
-
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way. However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?
-
#152
by
niwax
on 22 Feb, 2019 15:38
-
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way. However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?
The fueling process isn't what keeps a rocket from launching quickly, a Falcon doesn't get fueled until two hours before launch, similar for any deep cryo like hydrogen that will boil off over longer periods. If you're talking about quicker response times than that what you want isn't a rocket but a missile. The way to get response times down to days/hours is to have rockets in storage ready to be fueled, either through readiness contracts or by supporting enough business to always have a few reused cores lying around.
-
#153
by
spacenut
on 22 Feb, 2019 15:43
-
So the NGL rocket wouldn't be stacked and ready to go quickly, but would have to be stacked and upper sage refueled? Or would the first and second solid stages be stacked and waiting for the upper stage?
-
#154
by
Kansan52
on 22 Feb, 2019 16:17
-
Summarising from the video, they are casting three segments this year. Two-segment test fire in April 2020 and single segment test fire in August 2020.
He states, toward the end, that it would be April, 2019 and August. The video seems to be done in 2018. Maybe?
-
#155
by
Kansan52
on 22 Feb, 2019 16:25
-
I went to the NG web site and their fact sheet says April 2019 and August 2019.
First and second flight will be all solid (C600 1st stage and C300 second stage plus strap ons for the second flight).
-
#156
by
Zed_Noir
on 22 Feb, 2019 16:52
-
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way. However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?
AIUI you can only stacked the the OmegA at the VAB and launch from LC-39B with current operational facilities. Using a Mobile Launch Platform on a Crawler-Transporter is not a quick standby way of launching anything.
As for hypergolic upper stages. AFAIK the only one in the US building large hypergolic motors in quantity is the folks from Hawthorne. Don't think AJR's AJ10 production line is building more than the occasional AJ10-190 motor for the Orion. Somehow don't see NGIS funding the development of a new low production run upper stage on their own.
Never mind that the AJ-10 engine uses Aerozine 50 as the fuel for non-HSF applications.
-
#157
by
russianhalo117
on 22 Feb, 2019 17:52
-
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way. However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?
Toxic hypergolics for main propulsion are off the table for EELV-2 entries yet is only not recommended for thrusters and ullage motors.
-
#158
by
ncb1397
on 22 Feb, 2019 18:03
-
I went to the NG web site and their fact sheet says April 2019 and August 2019.
First and second flight will be all solid (C600 1st stage and C300 second stage plus strap ons for the second flight).
Nice catch. I too was under the impression they were talking about 2020.
-
#159
by
russianhalo117
on 22 Feb, 2019 18:06
-
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way. However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quickly launch?
AIUI you can only stacked the the OmegA at the VAB and launch from LC-39B with current operational facilities. Using a Mobile Launch Platform on a Crawler-Transporter is not a quick standby way of launching anything.
As for hypergolic upper stages. AFAIK the only one in the US building large hypergolic motors in quantity is the folks from Hawthorne. Don't think AJR's AJ10 production line is building more than the occasional AJ10-190 motor for the Orion. Somehow don't see NGIS funding the development of a new low production run upper stage on their own.
Never mind that the AJ-10 engine uses Aerozine 50 as the fuel for non-HSF applications.
AJ10-190 is retired with production ended during STS. NASA is holding a competition and AR is working on a new modernized (3D printing et cetera (RL10C-X/RL10C-5-1) version with two proposed variants with downselect later: 1) traditional toxic hypergolic version and 2) new green hypergolic version.