-
#240 by Ruaridhmc on 12 Dec, 2019 14:09
-
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.
You aren't quite right on a few points there. The solid components for OmegA will be new rocket segments built for this rocket, while a lot of work and research has been made into composite solid rocket motors, this will be the first rocket the large scale composite casings are used. The upper stage is also totally new, while it looks like a centaur, its a totally new design built in house. -
#241 by Hog on 12 Dec, 2019 15:27
-
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.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
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.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf -
#242 by edkyle99 on 12 Dec, 2019 16:02
-
The upper stage (called the "cryostage") looks more like a Delta Cryogenic Upper Stage than a Centaur. I've been told that part, if not all, of the stage is being built at Michoud.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.
You aren't quite right on a few points there. The solid components for OmegA will be new rocket segments built for this rocket, while a lot of work and research has been made into composite solid rocket motors, this will be the first rocket the large scale composite casings are used. The upper stage is also totally new, while it looks like a centaur, its a totally new design built in house.
The upper stage is the first big weakness of Northrop's proposal, because the company has no prior experience with liquid cryogenic orbital launch rocket stages to my knowledge.*
The second big weakness is the capitalized "a" at the end of the name Omega. It is beyond annoying. NSSL may dock them points just for that.
- Ed Kyle
* Then again, the same can be said for most of the NSSL competitors, i.e. the BE-4 staged combustion burning LNG for two of them and some yet to be demonstrated capabilities of Falcon Heavy, etc..
-
#243 by Firestorm76 on 12 Dec, 2019 16:25
-
...
The second big weakness is the capitalized "a" at the end of the name Omega. It is beyond annoying. NSSL may dock them points just for that. :)
- Ed Kyle
Of course, Mr. Kyle and most of us here know that OmegA is spelled that way in deference to it's designers, Orbital ATK, before they were merged into NG. They did display the name that way even before the merger. I thought/think it was a neat idea. But yes, from an English grammatical standpoint it is annoying.
What I want to know (1) is if they, in their press release said mentioned 'experience' and 'stability' in a subliminal jab at SpaceX or was it just normal PR. I personally think SpaceX has plenty of experience already even with their relatively short time in existence (lean and mean, as the old saying goes) compared to Old Space and SpaceX is stable as well (very high mission success rate and a deep mission backlog to work).
(2) Will the pricing of OmegA be in good competition to SpaceX for F9? I would assume it is close or else Saturn Satellite Networks wouldn't have been brow-beat (pure specualation here) into being the guinea pig for the first mission. As usual, the exact pricing SSN (bad name/abbreviation choice on their part) paid/will pay was not disclosed.
Thoughts?
-
#244 by ZachS09 on 12 Dec, 2019 16:28
-
I’m kind of worried about the maiden launch with the SSN sats onboard because if OmegA fails at any point, not only will NG lose the money put into that first rocket, but SSN will lose their sats too.
My point is that using a payload simulator for a rocket’s maiden launch would be the right choice so that expensive sats won’t be destroyed during a launch failure. -
#245 by gemmy0I on 12 Dec, 2019 17:23
-
I’m kind of worried about the maiden launch with the SSN sats onboard because if OmegA fails at any point, not only will NG lose the money put into that first rocket, but SSN will lose their sats too.
They likely got a substantial discount for agreeing to be on the test launch. Satellites are commonly insured against risks during launch (and post-launch), so they're likely prepared for the possibility it won't make it. Their insurance provider has no doubt estimated the risk and boiled it down to a dollar amount that they have to pay in higher premiums - which is primarily what the discount from the launch provider for accepting a risky flight is compensation for.
My point is that using a payload simulator for a rocket’s maiden launch would be the right choice so that expensive sats won’t be destroyed during a launch failure.
Ultimately it comes down to a) how much riskier the customer and the insurance provider expect the first flight to be, b) how much damage the "intangible" impacts of failing to get their satellites into orbit would do to the customer even after getting the insurance money, and c) whether, with all of that factored in, they expect to come out ahead on their bottom line.
The same principle has applied to SpaceX customers agreeing to fly on "pathfinder" flights pushing first-stage reuse to new levels. The most dramatic example of this was with SES-10, which flew on the first reused core. In that case, the risk was considered high enough that SES didn't consider the cash discount sufficient to cover it. They chose to accept the risk anyway because they occupy a large enough portion of the comsat market that they considered it in their interest to subsidize the development of reuse to improve the market for themselves in the future. Subsequent to that, we have seen commercial customers express reluctance about being the first to fly on a core that's pushing to a new "level of reuse" (e.g. the first third or fourth flight of a core). The first third flight was taken by Spaceflight Industries for a smallsat rideshare filled with customers desperate for a cheap launch and willing to take on quite a bit of risk - either because their business model is "lots of cheap satellites" (i.e. they can afford to lose a few) or because they're a startup that can barely afford their first launch and are betting the company on it anyway, often without insurance. It's notable that SpaceX took the first fourth flight itself with Starlink-1 (which fits the "can afford to lose a few" model) rather than finding a customer willing to do it.
I've never heard of Saturn Satellite Networks before so I'm guessing they're not a huge player in the satellite industry yet. They are likely agreeing to fly on OmegA's first flight because they're willing to bet their business (or at least this product line) on a high-risk flight in exchange for getting it cheap.
It's also worth noting that if OmegA doesn't win in NSSL Phase 2 (which is likely), it's going to get the unspent portion of its Phase 1 development funding pulled out from under it. The general expectation is that that'll lead to OmegA's cancellation without ever making it to the first flight. SSN undoubtedly knows that and is likely prepared to seek other arrangements in that case.
Although, personally, I suspect NG has a plan to finish OmegA and bring it to market anyway even if they lose NSSL Phase 2. Despite the tears they've shed in their Air Force bid about how NSSL is critical to OmegA's commercial viability, they've also leaned heavily on the claim that they only need a few launches a year to make it viable, thanks to its shared economies of scale with their other solid-fuel product lines (ICBMs, SLS boosters, Atlas/Vulcan boosters, kick stages, etc.) They seem to be quite close to the finish line on OmegA's development, at least for the solid stages; they've already static-fired the first stage (which is essentially the same as the second stage), as well as the side boosters which are shared with Atlas/Vulcan. All that's left is the upper stage, which is basically a DCSS clone that seems to be utilizing existing production infrastructure at Michoud. There's honestly not much left to do at this point except build the thing and fly it. (Undoubtedly there are still engineering challenges to address but they're likely far less than those remaining for their competitors at this stage, like Blue Origin or even ULA with Vulcan. Neither New Glenn nor Vulcan has had a first stage fired yet; BE-4's had engine firings but still seems to be a work in progress. OmegA's first stage hot fire was much closer to a full vehicle test than just an engine firing.)
I think they can get there on their own without NSSL if they're willing to put a bit of private capital in the game (which they've demonstrated they are - they were already well underway on OmegA's development before they got NSSL funding). It might be delayed by a year or two* but I think it'll happen. And while OmegA will have a hard time competing in the long run against fully reusable rockets, they seem to have figured out how to make the business case close for competitive pricing in today's commercial market against Falcon/Vulcan/New Glenn. If they can muster 3-4 launches a year - some of which they can provide as their own customer for cislunar Cygnus and Gateway modules for Artemis - they'll have a viable product. I've said before that I'm convinced the only reason they keep flying Antares is because it's an excuse to sell a Castor SRB (nearly everything else in the rocket is outsourced), and OmegA will be that times ten. Ditto their other rockets like Pegasus and Minotaur which are laughably uncompetitive but somehow still turn a profit on de minimis launch manifests. I don't think they're so concerned about long-term competitiveness since most of the development and infrastructure costs have already been amortized across all their solid rocket programs.
*In fairness, delaying OmegA by a year or two could mean the difference between getting a few years of profitable business versus none at all before Starship comes in and steals everyone's lunch. I'm not sure how seriously NG is taking that but even if Starship is delayed and doesn't start launching basic commercial payloads until 2023-24, OmegA doesn't have any time to lose. Vulcan will likely be able to lean on NSSL to stay afloat despite Starship, and Blue is lining up a good manifest of customers to sustain them until they can develop something fully reusable, but OmegA doesn't have that upgrade path and will be fighting for the table scraps of the commercial market if they don't get NSSL, so those couple of years could make all the difference. -
#246 by TrevorMonty on 12 Dec, 2019 17:23
-
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.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.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
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.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
-
#247 by Calphor on 13 Dec, 2019 04:49
-
Not exactly the same strap on boosters. OmegA will use the GEM 63XLT rather than the GEM 63XL. Similar, but not the same.
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.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.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
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.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
#248 by ZachS09 on 13 Dec, 2019 14:06
-
Not exactly the same strap on boosters. OmegA will use the GEM 63XLT rather than the GEM 63XL. Similar, but not the same.
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.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.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
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.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Does the "T" mean increased dry mass? Or is there a different meaning? -
#249 by TrevorMonty on 13 Dec, 2019 17:46
-
Close enough to share the same production line whichs helps with cost savings.
Not exactly the same strap on boosters. OmegA will use the GEM 63XLT rather than the GEM 63XL. Similar, but not the same.
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.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.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
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.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
#250 by russianhalo117 on 13 Dec, 2019 20:36
-
The GEM family is a sub family that was tied to the Orion series nomenclature.
Not exactly the same strap on boosters. OmegA will use the GEM 63XLT rather than the GEM 63XL. Similar, but not the same.
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.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.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
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.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Does the "T" mean increased dry mass? Or is there a different meaning?
NGSS has since standardized the nomenclature across the entire motor catalog (as per catalog page 12 June 2018 version)
Identification Key
Example Orion 50 S XL G T
SRM class
SRM diameter (in)
Stretch
• With “S” denotes Stage 1
• Without “S” denotes Stage 2
XL or Std motor length
• “XL” denotes extra length (otherwise standard length)
Nozzle configuration
• “G” denotes ground-launched (truncated exit cone)
Thicker skirt
• “T” denotes thicker skirt (increased structural capacity) -
#251 by tmoesser on 16 Dec, 2019 14:57
-
I wish the meaning behind the "T" in "GEM 63XLT" were as clear cut as the suffices in the Orion family of motors. I think it was originally supposed to be short for "TVC" because we identified early on that the vehicle would benefit from the additional roll control capability that a thrust vector control system on one of the strap-on boosters, and that was a change from the Atlas and Vulcan versions of the GEM 63/63XL, so an additional variant was created. There are more differences than just that, specifically the attach point locations to the core vehicle and that interface, and one or two minor things besides that.
The GEM family is a sub family that was tied to the Orion series nomenclature.
Not exactly the same strap on boosters. OmegA will use the GEM 63XLT rather than the GEM 63XL. Similar, but not the same.
Using same strap on boosters as Vulcan GEM63XL.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.
Both the OmegA rocket and the SLS boosters are based off of Common Boost Segments (CBS) by ATK/NGIS. Each segment will be fueled with approx. 300,000 pounds of propellant, 4 of these segments will compose the core stage of OmegA Heavy, with a single segment 2nd stage on top, with a hydrolox 3rd stage.
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.
Single CBS=Castor-300
Double CBS=C-600
Quad CBS=C-1200
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/OmegA/Documents/CBS_FactSheet.pdf
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Does the "T" mean increased dry mass? Or is there a different meaning?
NGSS has since standardized the nomenclature across the entire motor catalog (as per catalog page 12 June 2018 version)
Identification Key
Example Orion 50 S XL G T
SRM class
SRM diameter (in)
Stretch
• With “S” denotes Stage 1
• Without “S” denotes Stage 2
XL or Std motor length
• “XL” denotes extra length (otherwise standard length)
Nozzle configuration
• “G” denotes ground-launched (truncated exit cone)
Thicker skirt
• “T” denotes thicker skirt (increased structural capacity)
Technically we have two subtypes of 63XLT: "XLT-V" is the Vectorable version, and the first GEM is always a vectorable one. "XLT-F" is the Fixed version, which is used for the 2nd through 6th strap-ons.
I'd love to address more minor misunderstandings and assumptions (right or wrong) in this thread, but then would risk putting too much out there for public consumption that borders on proprietary and/or technical (ITAR). -
#252 by FutureSpaceTourist on 18 Dec, 2019 06:23
-
Quote
OmegA rocket’s first customer still needs customer of its own
by Caleb Henry — December 16, 2019
WASHINGTON — Startup satellite builder Saturn Satellite Networks says it doesn’t have a customer lined up for the small geostationary spacecraft it booked aboard the inaugural launch of Northrop Grumman’s OmegA rocket, but reserved the 2021 mission to save time down the road.
https://spacenews.com/omega-rockets-first-customer-still-needs-customer-of-its-own/ -
#253 by john smith 19 on 29 Dec, 2019 12:11
-
Until I checked this thread I had thought OmegA was as much a paper rocket as Liberty had been. But I see the USAF have forked over $791m to get it built so that suggests something will end up on the pad.
I agree that the LO2/LH2 US is probably the weak spot given NGL's history. OTOH keeping all major subsystems in house has been demonstrated as the way to control costs if you can.
It's been pointed out that the USG only really wants a main launch contractor and a spare in NSS terms NGL are pretty late to the party. ULA is clearly the first entrant in that list and SX look strong as the second.
I note NGL's only list capability to GTO or GEO and it's still about a third what an FH can supply. That suggests a ceiling price of about $91m but of course NSS is notorious for needing "extras" of various kind.
As for their launch customer all I could find was a 1 page placeholder website. It seems hard to believe that such a company will be needing most of OmegA's capacity to get an 8 tonne bird to geo (or swarm of them?)
BTW does anyone know if NGL will throw in free ride softening hardware? These systems were developed to stop USAF satellites being launched on repurposed ICBM's from being shaken to bits due to the high vibration levels of solids.
AFAIK this level is due to the combustion process itself. It cannot be removed by reformulating the propellant. -
#254 by GWH on 30 Dec, 2019 19:08
-
As for their launch customer all I could find was a 1 page placeholder website. It seems hard to believe that such a company will be needing most of OmegA's capacity to get an 8 tonne bird to geo (or swarm of them?)
The intermediate version of OmegA is 4.9 to 10.1 tonnes to GTO. I can't find an easy source but i believe this 1st customer launch is a GTO flight and not direct to GEO also. https://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/MediaKits/OmegARocket/pdf/OmegA_Factsheet.pdf -
#255 by john smith 19 on 01 Jan, 2020 14:25
-
That would be the usual choice for comm sats.As for their launch customer all I could find was a 1 page placeholder website. It seems hard to believe that such a company will be needing most of OmegA's capacity to get an 8 tonne bird to geo (or swarm of them?)
The intermediate version of OmegA is 4.9 to 10.1 tonnes to GTO. I can't find an easy source but i believe this 1st customer launch is a GTO flight and not direct to GEO also. https://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/MediaKits/OmegARocket/pdf/OmegA_Factsheet.pdf
Obvious question is how close is the design to any existing rocket whether Bayesian statistics apply. My instinct is not, so it's got a 50/50 of taking off without a hitch.
Of course if you ditch the liquid stage you've got a bang up ICBM for multiple warhead delivery, with the issue no US silo could hold it. -
#256 by jadebenn on 02 Jan, 2020 01:23
-
Until I checked this thread I had thought OmegA was as much a paper rocket as Liberty had been.
Don't worry, you're not unique. A lot of really smart people have failed to foresee OATK/NGIS's business choices here.
Case in point:Or lease usage of KSC, as NASA says they want multi users there anyway? Infrastructure for handling large solids is already there, so that seems like it'd be the more likely choice. Does DoD require on-pad changeout? How would that be accomodated on a MLP at 39B if so? Or can it roll back to the VAB and still conform to DoD requirements?
Not really, the infrastructure is for handling shuttle SRM's and not just any old SRM. There are no advantages to use it. The motor can go straight from the factory to the pad.
Just forget about any commercial customer using an MLP or the VAB [emphasis mine]
Anyway;I agree that the LO2/LH2 US is probably the weak spot given NGL's history. OTOH keeping all major subsystems in house has been demonstrated as the way to control costs if you can.
It would be quite an upset, but I wouldn't count NGIS out. They have a decently strong proposal, and the experience to back it up.
It's been pointed out that the USG only really wants a main launch contractor and a spare in NSS terms NGL are pretty late to the party. ULA is clearly the first entrant in that list and SX look strong as the second.I note NGL's only list capability to GTO or GEO and it's still about a third what an FH can supply. That suggests a ceiling price of about $91m but of course NSS is notorious for needing "extras" of various kind.
They almost certainly got a substantial discount on the launch.
As for their launch customer all I could find was a 1 page placeholder website. It seems hard to believe that such a company will be needing most of OmegA's capacity to get an 8 tonne bird to geo (or swarm of them?)BTW does anyone know if NGL will throw in free ride softening hardware? These systems were developed to stop USAF satellites being launched on repurposed ICBM's from being shaken to bits due to the high vibration levels of solids.
Supposedly OmegA's not actually that much of a rougher ride than other EELVs. Wish I could find the figures behind that...
AFAIK this level is due to the combustion process itself. It cannot be removed by reformulating the propellant. -
#257 by Bubbinski on 27 Feb, 2020 16:13
-
I’ve arrived at NGC for the OmegA CBS-300 2nd stage test today.
-
#258 by Bubbinski on 27 Feb, 2020 17:09
-
Here’s the CBS-300 on the test stand. A bunch of dummy segments are in front so the short CBS-300 will fit on the test stand.
-
#259 by Bubbinski on 27 Feb, 2020 18:57
-
T-8 min and counting!
