-
#220
by
JEF_300
on 24 Oct, 2019 05:30
-
That's a very good point. Choosing Pad 39B could prove to be short-sighted on their part. Even if they (as is likely) don't win in the block buy and end up only doing a few launches per year for Artemis, scheduling could get tricky because Artemis support launches will have explicit schedule dependencies with the few SLS launches that will be competing for the pad. SLS is certainly not designed for rapid pad workflow and will be sitting on the pad for likely months prior to launch, which could force any Artemis components launching on OmegA to support that SLS crew flight to be ready for launch substantially earlier than if they were on a different rocket.
I do wonder how much work it would take to make a separate pad for OmegA (e.g. retrofitting some other idle pad at the Cape), considering that it launches from a "clean pad" using a mobile launcher that could (in theory) be rolled to some other location at the Cape. Obviously GSE is needed beyond the mobile launcher, but with the upper stage being the only liquid part, they should only need a fraction of what 39B is designed to support. (Building a pad at Wallops for OmegA is probably not an attractive option since they are relying on the VAB for integration, and the mobile launcher can't exactly be rolled to Virginia. 
I suppose they could barge it though.)
The fact that SLS and OmegA use mobile launchers may be their saving grace here, since it is
possible that a lot of the pad work could be done off of the actual launch site.
It also helps that both vehicles should have at least a couple flights under their belt by the time of the Artemis missions where such conflicts would actually arrise, so they'll have some time to refine pad workflow.
I started a thread talking about
launching a mini OmegA from Wallops, and the conclusion there was that the infastructure (specifically the lack of rail or harbor) at Wallops wouldn't be able to handle the heavy OmegA SRB segments.
-
#221
by
ncb1397
on 24 Oct, 2019 18:49
-
AFAIU Upper stage is being built at MAF with Boeing as a contractor.
I've read about Michoud assembly, but I've not seen anything specifically mentioning Boeing. For that matter, I've seen no images of or read any news about upper stage assembly work at all, except for photos of a couple of RL10 engines on hand. This for a rocket that is supposed to fly in 2021. Omega's upper stage will likely be the pacing item for this launch vehicle.
- Ed Kyle
Northrop Grumman posted this a few days ago:
Shows upper stage work briefly.
-
#222
by
edkyle99
on 25 Oct, 2019 13:37
-
This structure looks second stage related, and the background does look Michoud-like. Still, this isn't a tank wall. It looks like one of the skirts - most likely the upper skirt on the LH2 tank.
Another shot in the video shows what appear to be a payload adapter and an avionics bay, which would both go on top of the second stage.
- Ed Kyle
-
#223
by
edkyle99
on 27 Oct, 2019 13:47
-
Omega to launch from VAFB SLC-6. Makes sense. The place was built for big solid motors from its outset. Interesting how Northrop Grumman is going to elbow its way in there while ULA is still using the place for Delta 4 Heavy. (I wonder if SLC-6 will handle Omega Heavy while KSC will only see the Intermediate version. That would simplify launch infrastructure. I'm probably wrong.)
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-to-launch-omega-rocket-from-ulas-delta-4-pad-at-vandenberg/This story also includes the news that "Northrop Grumman “postponed the OmegA second stage static fire test to early next year to provide time to incorporate lessons learned from the first stage test.”"
- Ed Kyle
-
#224
by
ZachS09
on 27 Oct, 2019 16:16
-
Why would each of the variants launch from a set-in-stone pad (Heavy from SLC-6 and Intermediate from LC-39B)?
I thought both pads can be configured for both variants.
-
#225
by
JEF_300
on 27 Oct, 2019 18:10
-
Do you guys remember when NGIS invited the press for the mobile launcher sign over ceremony at Kennedy? I'm pretty they said during the Q&A of that event that the mobile launcher would have to accomodate both the intermediate and heavy.
-
#226
by
jstrotha0975
on 27 Oct, 2019 19:15
-
Omega to launch from VAFB SLC-6. Makes sense. The place was built for big solid motors from its outset. Interesting how Northrop Grumman is going to elbow its way in there while ULA is still using the place for Delta 4 Heavy. (I wonder if SLC-6 will handle Omega Heavy while KSC will only see the Intermediate version. That would simplify launch infrastructure. I'm probably wrong.)
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-to-launch-omega-rocket-from-ulas-delta-4-pad-at-vandenberg/
This story also includes the news that "Northrop Grumman “postponed the OmegA second stage static fire test to early next year to provide time to incorporate lessons learned from the first stage test.”"
- Ed Kyle
Blue Origin is looking to share SLC-6 with NG.
-
#227
by
edkyle99
on 27 Oct, 2019 20:13
-
Why would each of the variants launch from a set-in-stone pad (Heavy from SLC-6 and Intermediate from LC-39B)?
I thought both pads can be configured for both variants.
Unlike other NSSL entrants, Omega's Heavy and "Medium" versions have substantial height differences. Why build a full-height umbilical tower if its not needed? Then again, it might be needed. I'm really not certain. My guess is that Heavies will be needed on the West Coast for those spysat LEO missions, but as I write this I am reminded of the small difference in announced LEO performance between Heavy and Medium. Whether it will be needed at KSC depends on the GEO missions requirements, which I haven't looked at closely for awhile.
- Ed Kyle
-
#228
by
russianhalo117
on 28 Oct, 2019 20:53
-
Omega to launch from VAFB SLC-6. Makes sense. The place was built for big solid motors from its outset. Interesting how Northrop Grumman is going to elbow its way in there while ULA is still using the place for Delta 4 Heavy. (I wonder if SLC-6 will handle Omega Heavy while KSC will only see the Intermediate version. That would simplify launch infrastructure. I'm probably wrong.)
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-to-launch-omega-rocket-from-ulas-delta-4-pad-at-vandenberg/
This story also includes the news that "Northrop Grumman “postponed the OmegA second stage static fire test to early next year to provide time to incorporate lessons learned from the first stage test.”"
- Ed Kyle
Blue Origin is looking to share SLC-6 with NG.
Provide proof to your statement.
-
#229
by
jadebenn
on 17 Nov, 2019 07:23
-
-
#230
by
jadebenn
on 03 Dec, 2019 00:45
-
That's a very good point. Choosing Pad 39B could prove to be short-sighted on their part. Even if they (as is likely) don't win in the block buy and end up only doing a few launches per year for Artemis, scheduling could get tricky because Artemis support launches will have explicit schedule dependencies with the few SLS launches that will be competing for the pad. SLS is certainly not designed for rapid pad workflow and will be sitting on the pad for likely months prior to launch, which could force any Artemis components launching on OmegA to support that SLS crew flight to be ready for launch substantially earlier than if they were on a different rocket.
This is categorically false.
The SLS is not Saturn or Shuttle. There are no huge service structures to be used to service the rocket on the pad. Payloads will be encapsulated in the MPPF or PHSF and shipped to the VAB where they will be stacked on the rocket. Pyrotechnics will also be installed in the VAB.
There is very little to be done at the pad besides hooking up the ML to pad utilities, checking everything's functional, filling up the rocket, and launching it. There will be no need for multi-month-long pad stays.
-
#231
by
Mondagun
on 03 Dec, 2019 22:35
-
-
#232
by
Mondagun
on 03 Dec, 2019 23:08
-
The SpaceNews article states: "OmegA is an underdog in the NSSL competition that pits Northrop Grumman against SpaceX, United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin." It doesn't elaborate further though and I don't know all the ins and outs of the US launch industry.
For what reasons is the OmegA rocket considered to be the underdog?
-
#233
by
russianhalo117
on 04 Dec, 2019 00:28
-
The SpaceNews article states: "OmegA is an underdog in the NSSL competition that pits Northrop Grumman against SpaceX, United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin." It doesn't elaborate further though and I don't know all the ins and outs of the US launch industry.
For what reasons is the OmegA rocket considered to be the underdog?
It has never self designed and built a rocket family that serves the entire medium to heavy spacecraft/mission ranges nor has it as it's former self OATK launched a government EELV class payload.
-
#234
by
Stan-1967
on 04 Dec, 2019 00:29
-
For what reasons is the OmegA rocket considered to be the underdog?
Why would they be a favorite over ULA, SpaceX or Blue? At best & most generous they are at parity in their preparedness with Blue Origen, & there is no prize for 3rd place.
-
#235
by
russianhalo117
on 04 Dec, 2019 00:36
-
For what reasons is the OmegA rocket considered to be the underdog?
Why would they be a favorite over ULA, SpaceX or Blue? At best & most generous they are at parity in their preparedness with Blue Origen, & there is no prize for 3rd place.
There is the NASA equivalent and the on ramp process later on.
-
#236
by
jadebenn
on 04 Dec, 2019 02:03
-
I'd give NGIS better odds than Blue, personally. Not because I believe in dumb theories about Blue "not being serious," but because NGIS has a longer track record in the industry (back when they were Orbital).
That being said, I give even better odds to SpaceX and ULA, though I do think people tend to underrate NGIS' competitiveness.
-
#237
by
TorenAltair
on 04 Dec, 2019 02:29
-
They are a major defense supplier, they are using big solids and the contract isn‘t for NASA but the „military“, so imo they are not an underdog at all. I think they have good chances to get launches for their capable and scalable rocket. And as they have stated several times that they don‘t need a lot of launches to be financially viable, they even have a bonus point over ULA.
-
#238
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 12 Dec, 2019 11:18
-
OmegA rocket will launch up to two NationSats for Saturn Satellite Networks on certification flight for the US Air Force NSSL program in spring 2021
Space • OmegA • Rocket December 12, 2019
DULLES, Va. – Dec. 12, 2019 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) announced that Saturn Satellite Networks has selected the OmegA space launch vehicle to launch up to two satellites on the rocket’s inaugural flight scheduled for spring 2021. OmegA will launch from Kennedy Space Center’s Pad 39B and insert the SSN satellites into a geosynchronous transfer orbit.
“The OmegA rocket expands Northrop Grumman’s launch capabilities beyond our small and medium class rockets, which have successfully launched nearly 80 missions,” said Scott Lehr, vice president and general manager, flight systems, Northrop Grumman. “Expanding the company’s launch capabilities to the intermediate/heavy class with OmegA complements our national security satellite portfolio and enables us to better support our customers.”
Jim Simpson, CEO of Saturn, said, “We are excited to launch Saturn’s NationSat on Northrop Grumman’s OmegA launch vehicle’s inaugural mission. OmegA’s performance, payload accommodations, and rigorous certification program assures us it is a great fit for NationSats and our customers.”
Last October, the U.S. Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $792 million Launch Services Agreement to complete detailed design and verification of the OmegA launch vehicle and launch sites.
“The first flight of OmegA is a key step in our certification process for the U.S. Air Force National Security Space Launch program,” said Charlie Precourt, vice president, propulsion systems, Northrop Grumman. “Having Saturn’s NationSat on board for this mission further demonstrates the versatility of OmegA to serve other markets including commercial and civil government.”
Precourt continued, “Our customer’s mission comes first, whether OmegA is launching a commercial satellite or a national security payload. At the end of the day, we deliver the customer’s spacecraft where it needs to go.”
“Northrop Grumman designed OmegA to use the most reliable propulsion available—solid propulsion for the boost stages and flight proven RL10 engines for the upper stage—to ensure exceptional mission assurance for our customers,” Precourt added. “Northrop Grumman’s technical expertise is both broad and deep, and we bring unmatched experience, stability and a strong customer focus to every partnership.”
Northrop Grumman has a distinguished heritage in space launch. In 1990, the company developed Pegasus™, the world’s first privately developed space launch system. The company’s Minotaur launch vehicle has achieved 100 percent success on its 18 space missions and nine suborbital missions. Northrop Grumman’s AntaresTM rocket has launched more than 70,000 pounds of food, equipment and supplies to the astronauts aboard the International Space Station.
Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in autonomous systems, cyber, C4ISR, space, strike, and logistics and modernization to customers worldwide. Please visit news.northropgrumman.com and follow us on Twitter, @NGCNews, for more information.
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-signs-customer-for-first-flight-of-omegaTM
-
#239
by
spacenut
on 12 Dec, 2019 13:46
-
Is the OmegA going to use existing solid components made for other rockets? If so stacking into a new rocket shouldn't be a big problem.
And, are these components currently being manufactured? Again, stacking components already being manufactured shouldn't be a problem.
Also, they are supposed to use the existing Centaur upper stage aren't they? Again, already being manufactured.
I suppose they could barge it though.)