OmegA was a solid propellant, disposable rocket in a liquid propellant, reusable rocket world.
The market changed, and OmegA was the wrong product for the new market. Pretty simple.Only one company on the planet right now is partially reusing its rockets. All of the other launch companies around the world are using expendable rockets and some are even developing new expendables. One of those just won NSSL Phase 2 with a brand new expendable design.
Vulcan was no more the "wrong product" than Omega, it was just a better overall program proposal.
RD-180 could not be bid but why not RD-181?
It's also a Russian engine
True, but not banned. So worry was the reason for not bidding?
Then of course there's always the question of whether or not Orbital Sciences would have even considered an all liquid rocket at all. Their specialty was very much in dealing with solids, and that only became more true when they merged with ATK.Yes, an all-liquid Taurus-2/Antares was studied. RL10 was in the trade space. So was a PWR methane engine and a Russian kerosene engine. Castor 30 was picked to keep program costs low for the low-launch-rate COTS/Commercial Cargo program. An "Enhanced" liquid second stage upgrade was initially promoted as a future upgrade from that choice.
- Ed Kyle
If someone paid for the AR-1, then there would be a good first stage engine for someone to use. It could be a drop in replacement for the RD-181. Big IF. No one but SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing engines mostly on their own dime. Too bad. Aerojet can't do it alone. Boeing, NG, and Lockheed should pool their money to develop some new engines that could be shared, like the AR-1 and RL-60. And design them to have as many parts made with 3D printing to keep costs down, and design them to be reusable.
If someone paid for the AR-1, then there would be a good first stage engine for someone to use. It could be a drop in replacement for the RD-181. Big IF. No one but SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing engines mostly on their own dime. Too bad. Aerojet can't do it alone. Boeing, NG, and Lockheed should pool their money to develop some new engines that could be shared, like the AR-1 and RL-60. And design them to have as many parts made with 3D printing to keep costs down, and design them to be reusable.
Firefly is partnering with Aerojet Rocketdyne to develop the AR-1 for its Beta rocket.
If someone paid for the AR-1, then there would be a good first stage engine for someone to use. It could be a drop in replacement for the RD-181. Big IF. No one but SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing engines mostly on their own dime. Too bad. Aerojet can't do it alone. Boeing, NG, and Lockheed should pool their money to develop some new engines that could be shared, like the AR-1 and RL-60. And design them to have as many parts made with 3D printing to keep costs down, and design them to be reusable.
Firefly is partnering with Aerojet Rocketdyne to develop the AR-1 for its Beta rocket.This is big maybe.
Thinking back on it, all in hindsight, perhaps OSC/ATK/NG's misstep was made in 2007, when it made its Taurus 2 (Antares) decision. A forward-looking plan would have designed a core booster set up from the outset to be bid later for EELV-2, maybe leaving only a higher energy upper stage to develop when the time came. OSC did not, or could not, spend the bucks to develop the propulsion it really would have needed, choosing instead AJ-26/NK33, then when that failed having to revert to RD-181 which could not be bid, and finally having to start over altogether with Common Booster Segment.
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
They probably consider GBSD a bigger deal than space superiority. To that end, advancing solids could be worth the $491 million spent - about 1 and a half F-22s. At least they got real data from full duration static fires of Castor-300/600 composite solids.
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
They probably consider GBSD a bigger deal than space superiority. To that end, advancing solids could be worth the $491 million spent - about 1 and a half F-22s. At least they got real data from full duration static fires of Castor-300/600 composite solids.
If they wanted to fund solids for missiles, they should have been buying missiles. It's a more efficient use of resources because then 100% of the dollars spent go toward what they want.
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
They probably consider GBSD a bigger deal than space superiority. To that end, advancing solids could be worth the $491 million spent - about 1 and a half F-22s. At least they got real data from full duration static fires of Castor-300/600 composite solids.
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.You people call yourself 'space fans,' but you are so incredibly dismissive of anything that isn't you-know-what. You can't even help yourself from dancing on other project's graves. It honestly makes me sick.
OmegA was an honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs. Unfortunately, it appears to not have been flexible enough outside this niche, but it still developed new technologies and infrastructure that will be useful in future projects.
3. The other loser in the competition, Blue Origin, is still going forward with their LV, they can do this because they believe their LV is competitive enough that it can get enough commercial launches.
You people call yourself 'space fans,' but you are so incredibly dismissive of anything that isn't you-know-what. You can't even help yourself from dancing on other project's graves. It honestly makes me sick.
OmegA was an honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs. Unfortunately, it appears to not have been flexible enough outside this niche, but it still developed new technologies and infrastructure that will be useful in future projects.
The misstep is on AF to not seeing through this act and handed them hundreds of millions of dollars, which they could have invested in a futuristic system that would give them space superiority for decades to come.You people call yourself 'space fans,' but you are so incredibly dismissive of anything that isn't you-know-what. You can't even help yourself from dancing on other project's graves. It honestly makes me sick.
OmegA was an honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs. Unfortunately, it appears to not have been flexible enough outside this niche, but it still developed new technologies and infrastructure that will be useful in future projects.
All this said is not against you in any way. Liquids for NASA just make more sense. Solids vibrate too much, and are too heavy. Great for the military, but for a realistic launcher like OmegA not so much, neither are solids for SLS. SLS technology goes back to the 1970's and is obsolete in today's world. So is OmegA, even their board of directors see this.
All this said is not against you in any way. Liquids for NASA just make more sense. Solids vibrate too much, and are too heavy. Great for the military, but for a realistic launcher like OmegA not so much, neither are solids for SLS. SLS technology goes back to the 1970's and is obsolete in today's world. So is OmegA, even their board of directors see this.
Good points, but let's not forget the business case for OmegA. It was to leverage NG (Orbital ATK) existing solid rocket business into a orbital launch system. If your company is already making solids for the military and SLS it's an economical route to make a new rocket.