-
#340 by JEF_300 on 25 Aug, 2020 18:39
-
Solids are not obsolete. SLS will use them, Vulcan will use them, Ariene 6 will use them and I'm sure I'm missing another. Thats a use case for the next 20-30 years that is not tied to the military.
I believe the 'other' is the Japanese H3. Also, another Japanese company, Space One, is using solids for a smallsat launcher. -
#341 by ncb1397 on 25 Aug, 2020 18:51
-
Solids are not obsolete. SLS will use them, Vulcan will use them, Ariene 6 will use them and I'm sure I'm missing another. Thats a use case for the next 20-30 years that is not tied to the military.
I believe the 'other' is the Japanese H3. Also, another Japanese company, Space One, is using solids for a smallsat launcher.
Vega,Epsilon, GSLV, PSLV, SSLV, Antares is still going to fly deep into the 2020s, Minotaur IV, LM-11...
did I miss any?
Maybe in an airplane like rocket world this wouldn't exist, but on the other hand various military airplanes use solid rocket motors for extra cargo capability...so... -
#342 by meberbs on 25 Aug, 2020 18:52
-
Solids are not obsolete. SLS will use them, Vulcan will use them, Ariene 6 will use them and I'm sure I'm missing another. Thats a use case for the next 20-30 years that is not tied to the military.
The SLS is obsolete, it uses old tech in a worse way than it's original use. Those other mentions are small boosters, not large ones, significant difference, and your claim of 20-30 years is a baseless assertion. Ariane has already started looking towards an actual next gen rocket with reuse.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-reusable-falcon-rockets-europe-response/amp/
Vulcan potentially can do some reuse, but the architecture they have with solid boosters prevents them from effectively using the proven reuse techniques. -
#343 by JEF_300 on 25 Aug, 2020 19:15
-
I think the real key to making a modern, profitable solid launch vehicle would be economies of scale. If you set up a production line to produce a thousand solid motors (as happens when the government orders a new missile), they can become relatively inexpensive, and their simplicity (at least when compared to liquid rockets), begins to shine through.
So for example, a solid smallsat launcher being used to launch an entire smallsat mega constellation might manage to be competitively priced. Not that I expect to see that even attempted. -
#344 by ncb1397 on 25 Aug, 2020 19:21
-
Honestly, re-use of solid rocket boosters has barely been tried and only on large segmented steal cases. Various factors in that case complicated the re-use including not being able to catch it by boat/helicopter (due to size), having to tow it to shore rather than on board, etc.
Honestly, recovery of small modern composite SRBs wouldn't be that different than composite payload fairing recovery. -
#345 by jbenton on 25 Aug, 2020 19:49
-
I think the real key to making a modern, profitable solid launch vehicle would be economies of scale. If you set up a production line to produce a thousand solid motors (as happens when the government orders a new missile), they can become relatively inexpensive, and their simplicity (at least when compared to liquid rockets), begins to shine through.
So for example, a solid smallsat launcher being used to launch an entire smallsat mega constellation might manage to be competitively priced. Not that I expect to see that even attempted.
If the USAF/USSF were to build a smallsat mega constellation for some purpose, (I seem to remember this being discussed a few years back) they could do as you say without even incurring any significant development costs:
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-ending-ban-on-retired-icbms-would-allow-u-s-companies-to-reclaim-small-satellite-launch-market/ -
#346 by TrevorMonty on 25 Aug, 2020 21:03
-
Omega wasn't total waste of time, hydrolox US systems will most likely be used on Transfer Element and castor 300 segments on SLS and maybe their ballistic missiles.
https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-weighing-exit-options-for-omega-rocket/
"Northrop Grumman’s biggest contract for solid rocket motors will be for the Air Force’s Ground Base Strategic Deterrent, a new intercontinental ballistic missile. The Air Force plans to award the GBSD contract this fall."
-
#347 by toren on 26 Aug, 2020 00:43
-
...
Would have been the biggest composite case motors, I think. More than 2 Mlbf liftoff thrust on a single motor. Old tech not. But apparently gone now regardless. SLS on borrowed time too it seems. In the old days Air Force made up its mind about launch technology and NASA followed.
- Ed Kyle
Now Elon makes up his mind, and NASA and then the Air Force follow, or so it seems... </snark>
More seriously, this may be an opportunity for NG to focus its ongoing investment on orbital (and beyond) projects. MEV is well positioned and seems well received. This, a presence within NASA's lunar projects, and a portfolio of kick stages are a good start. They can still play the boost-phase solids for all they are worth, without taking on a heavy lifter project. Solids are an inherently lower value-add technology in the long run, and the parent company's strength (in its military portfolio) is on high technology value-adds. Putting focus on LEO and beyond propulsion and payloads is a better strategic fit.
JMHO, of course. -
#348 by Comga on 26 Aug, 2020 00:51
-
Solids vibrate too much, and are too heavy.
Castor 600 and 300 were shorter than five-segment SRB. Vibration not an issue.
As for "too heavy", you might be surprised to discover which weighs or would have weighed more at liftoff when comparing basic Omega with Falcon 9 v1.2. Substantial difference actually.
Would have been the biggest composite case motors, I think. More than 2 Mlbf liftoff thrust on a single motor. Old tech not. But apparently gone now regardless. SLS on borrowed time too it seems. In the old days Air Force made up its mind about launch technology and NASA followed.
- Ed Kyle
Mass (weight if you prefer) at launch is hardly the issue.
Mass during transport is a big operational issue.
Old tech yes.
“biggest” doesn’t mean new or advanced. Just bigger. -
#349 by ChrisWilson68 on 26 Aug, 2020 04:12
-
Honestly, recovery of small modern composite SRBs wouldn't be that different than composite payload fairing recovery.
I think there's a big difference. The fairing only has to be able to be strong enough to resist the aerodynamic pressure of launch. That's not too much of a requirement, so the fairing is very low-density.
The casings of SRBs have to be strong enough to contain the high pressure of the combustion going on in the SRB. That means that they have to be a lot denser than a fairing.
-
#350 by jadebenn on 26 Aug, 2020 06:06
-
1. Actually I'm not dancing on this project's graves, I'm saying this project shouldn't be funded in the first place, in which case it wouldn't exist and there would be no grave to dance on.
So: "Yes, I am dancing on this project's grave." At least be honest.
2. The fact that Omega is in the grave is 100% the result of Northrop Grumman's decision to shut it down, nobody forced them to do this, there's no external factor making it impossible to go on, they didn't have to do this. So I don't see why I should be sad about it, if NG doesn't value their own LV, why should I?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. The fact NG didn't feel their LV is competitive in the commercial market makes your claim that this is an "honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs" invalid, if they're building an affordable LV, they wouldn't need to cancel it since it would be able to survive on commercial launches.
It's almost like they're different market segments suited for different needs! Turns out that a vehicle optimized for Air Force payloads isn't going to be suited to the types of missions commercial customers may want. This isn't rocket science. Well, it is, but this part is actually just basic business sense.4. If NG is not building a commercially viable LV, then they're violating the intent - if not the letter - of the LSA, which is to fund LVs that can find non-AF launches so that AF wouldn't need to shoulder all the fixed cost, it's not supposed to be a niche LV. This is another reason this project shouldn't be funded in the first place.
OmegA was part of a competitive bid. They weren't competitive enough, so they lost. If a launch provider can use commercial demand to lower the costs they need to charge the USSF, good for them! But fundamentally all that matters is what proposal with the best value makes it through the NSSL, commercial business on the side, or not.
You're alleging without a shred of evidence that this was some sort of bad-faith attempt to defraud the USSF of taxpayer money. I think that says more about your biases than it does about OmegA.5. And what new technologies? Another wind turbine stabilizer? Omega would only be useful for one project: SLS, and this is why you're supporting it. You're not a neutral observer in this case, you yourself has advocated moving lunar lander launches from commercial LV to SLS, so don't tell me how I'm dismissive of other people's projects.
Composite SRBs are useful tech. They are advanced tech. They go beyond SLS, and they're useful ways to get lots of thrust that don't involve statistically risky clusters of liquid engines.
How on Earth is cheering for the death of a project at all equivalent to my opinions on HLS?6. Finally, I have been saying large segmented solid is obsolete for years, this has nothing to do with my liking of SpaceX.
Debatable.This thing is entirely an accident of history, if Shuttle funding hasn't be cut to the bones, it wouldn't even exist. NASA already learned the hard way that using single stick large segmented solid as LV is a bad idea, AF should know better, it's time to shutdown this zombie once and for all.
Ares I and OmegA were about as similar as Atlas V is to Delta IV. Don't see how that proves anything. -
#351 by jadebenn on 26 Aug, 2020 06:12
-
The SLS is obsolete, it uses old tech in a worse way than it's original use.
This again?Those other mentions are small boosters, not large ones, significant difference, and your claim of 20-30 years is a baseless assertion. Ariane has already started looking towards an actual next gen rocket with reuse.
Yes, let's cite Teslarati as a source. I'm sure Teslarati is an objective outlet with no biases whatsoever.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-reusable-falcon-rockets-europe-response/amp/
-
#352 by jbenton on 26 Aug, 2020 06:22
-
...
This thing is entirely an accident of history, if Shuttle funding hasn't be cut to the bones, it wouldn't even exist. NASA already learned the hard way that using single stick large segmented solid as LV is a bad idea, AF should know better, it's time to shutdown this zombie once and for all.
Ares I and OmegA were about as similar as Atlas V is to Delta IV. Don't see how that proves anything.
Can't speak for anything else here, but "accident of history" probably refers to Shuttle-Saturn, which was the predecessor design to the operational STS with the SRBs. -
#353 by jadebenn on 26 Aug, 2020 06:27
-
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.
What exactly is '1970s' about OmegA? I mean, such an intellectually dishonest attack can at least be taken at face value with SLS - disregarding the fact that's equivalent to saying a N700 Shinkansen trainset is '1800s tech' - but OmegA?
Solids "vibrate too much?" Yeah, gonna need a source on that. Ares I had unique harmonic issues. The design of OmegA didn't share them.
For that matter, what does the weight of the vehicle have to do with anything? The first stages are solid. They're boosters. They don't need good Isp, and the effects of dry mass are negligible. The ones that do? Where the dry mass matters? They're liquid. -
#354 by jadebenn on 26 Aug, 2020 06:32
-
Can't speak for anything else here, but "accident of history" probably refers to Shuttle-Saturn, which was the predecessor design to the operational STS with the SRBs.
Well that would be a very interesting read of Shuttle history, but the idea that Shuttle would've worked economically "if only the OMB didn't cut their funding" seems disturbingly common these days.
It's not-at-all supported by the business case Shuttle was sold on (the Mathematica study), which relied on patently unrealistic assumptions about flight rate and payloads and yet still barely showed an advantage to a fully-reusable STS over a partially-reusable one, but eh. That's off-topic. -
#355 by spacenut on 26 Aug, 2020 13:18
-
From what I understand. The composite solids cannot be reused. The steel cased solids can, as in shuttle solids.
I've never understood why the smaller strap on steel solids didn't allow for parachute recovery, like the larger shuttle solids. They are monolithic so no segments. They could have inflatable bladders on the sides to keep them afloat until recovered. Being monolithic they wouldn't have to be taken apart and new seals installed and re-assembled. Seems like it would only require a cleaning and reloading with propellant. They could also be recovered via helicopters.
I guess the amount of thrust for reuse cost just wasn't there.
As far as heavy goes, yes, the segmented solids that are 12' in diameter is the extreme transportation limit of solids unless they are built near the launch site. Even the new strap on composites being built for Vulcan are at the length limit of transportation on a railroad car or via tractor trailer over the interstate.
This is the reason solids are and will become obsolete. Rockets are getting larger and more powerful and reused is in it's infancy. Liquids are lighter before fueling up at the pads, and even large liquids being lighter are easier to transport. How much would a 5m, 7m, or 9m solid weigh? Also, where would it be built? How would it be transported? The weight alone might sink a barge, or only one very large segment at a time could be transported. What about vibration from a very large solid? Could the payload handle it?
NG lost the bid, I think because large solids have reached not only their weight limit with current infrastructure, the vibration issue, and the cost or a non-reusable booster. The ULA bid does allow for the smaller strap on solids, and at least 3- companies are involved with ULA. Solids, BE-4 engine, RL-10 engine, and tankage and avionics (ULA). Air force sees this as making everyone happy, except SpaceX. So SpaceX gets a bid also. -
#356 by su27k on 26 Aug, 2020 17:42
-
1. Actually I'm not dancing on this project's graves, I'm saying this project shouldn't be funded in the first place, in which case it wouldn't exist and there would be no grave to dance on.
So: "Yes, I am dancing on this project's grave." At least be honest.
2. The fact that Omega is in the grave is 100% the result of Northrop Grumman's decision to shut it down, nobody forced them to do this, there's no external factor making it impossible to go on, they didn't have to do this. So I don't see why I should be sad about it, if NG doesn't value their own LV, why should I?
I already stated my position, if you want to dramatize it, at least realize that I was talking about LSA, and Omega got killed after losing LSP, two different procurement processes.Quote3. 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. The fact NG didn't feel their LV is competitive in the commercial market makes your claim that this is an "honest attempt to develop an affordable vehicle for the Air Force's needs" invalid, if they're building an affordable LV, they wouldn't need to cancel it since it would be able to survive on commercial launches.
It's almost like they're different market segments suited for different needs! Turns out that a vehicle optimized for Air Force payloads isn't going to be suited to the types of missions commercial customers may want. This isn't rocket science. Well, it is, but this part is actually just basic business sense.
The market segments are not different enough to require a specifically designed LV. And I'm not seeing any so called "optimization" Omega has for AF payloads that other LVs don't have, the LSP result speaks for itself: There is no special optimization that only Omega possesses, if they have a secret sauce for AF, they wouldn't have lost.Quote4. If NG is not building a commercially viable LV, then they're violating the intent - if not the letter - of the LSA, which is to fund LVs that can find non-AF launches so that AF wouldn't need to shoulder all the fixed cost, it's not supposed to be a niche LV. This is another reason this project shouldn't be funded in the first place.
OmegA was part of a competitive bid. They weren't competitive enough, so they lost. If a launch provider can use commercial demand to lower the costs they need to charge the USSF, good for them! But fundamentally all that matters is what proposal with the best value makes it through the NSSL, commercial business on the side, or not.
You're alleging without a shred of evidence that this was some sort of bad-faith attempt to defraud the USSF of taxpayer money. I think that says more about your biases than it does about OmegA.
Of course I have evidence, it's in the LSA RFP: LSA_OTA_RFP.pdf
1. "The goal of the EELV acquisition strategy is to leverage commercial launch solutions in order to have at least two domestic, commercial launch service providers that also meet NSS requirements, including the launch of the heaviest and most complex payloads."
2. "The focus of this solicitation is to leverage industry’s commercial launch solutions and ensure they are modified to meet NSS requirements."
3. "These public-private agreements will be tailored to each launch service provider’s needs in order to enable commercial launch systems to meet all NSS requirements. Subsequent procurements will allow launch system fixed costs to be shared across more launches, including commercial and civil, and will reduce the overall cost to the Air Force."
This couldn't be clearer, the launch provider is supposed to provide a commercial launch vehicle used for commercial and civil launches, then modify it to meet NSS requirements. It never asked for a LV specifically designed for NSS, because as the RFP stated, they wanted to share the fixed cost.
Whether Omega is a bad-faith attempt to defraud the tax payers would be up to the lawyers, but it's pretty clear from the RFP text that Omega violates the intent - if not the letter - of the RFP.Quote5. And what new technologies? Another wind turbine stabilizer? Omega would only be useful for one project: SLS, and this is why you're supporting it. You're not a neutral observer in this case, you yourself has advocated moving lunar lander launches from commercial LV to SLS, so don't tell me how I'm dismissive of other people's projects.
Composite SRBs are useful tech. They are advanced tech. They go beyond SLS, and they're useful ways to get lots of thrust that don't involve statistically risky clusters of liquid engines.
Composite SRBs are nothing new, Atlas V has been using AJ-60A for decades, the GEM series was used on Delta-II.
And no, there is not statistically significant risk with clusters of liquid engines, this has already been proven by Falcon 9.QuoteHow on Earth is cheering for the death of a project at all equivalent to my opinions on HLS?
Again, I'm not cheering Omega's death, I'm saying tax payer money shouldn't be used to fund this monstrosity. If Northrop Grumman thinks this tech is revolutionary, they are free to develop it and compete on the open market. It's only dead now because NG thinks it's not competitive.
There's no difference between me advocating AF payloads to be launched on liquid (reusable) boosters and you advocating lunar lander to be launched on SLS, both are advocating a specific range of payloads to be launched on specific LVs. It's just if commercial LVs lost lunar landers to SLS, they wouldn't be dead because they're commercially competitive and can find other launches, unlike Omega where losing AF payloads alone is enough for NG to kill it.Quote6. Finally, I have been saying large segmented solid is obsolete for years, this has nothing to do with my liking of SpaceX.
Debatable.This thing is entirely an accident of history, if Shuttle funding hasn't be cut to the bones, it wouldn't even exist. NASA already learned the hard way that using single stick large segmented solid as LV is a bad idea, AF should know better, it's time to shutdown this zombie once and for all.
Ares I and OmegA were about as similar as Atlas V is to Delta IV. Don't see how that proves anything.
Actually there're commonalities between Atlas V and Delta IV in later versions, common avionics for example.
As for Ares I, there is a clear lineage from Ares I to Liberty to Omega, according to this NSF article:
"Despite the Constellation program’s cancellation, Orbital ATK, the predecessor of which would have built the five-segment SRB for Ares I and the company that is now building the five-segment dual SRBs for SLS, continued to see a usefulness for the overall Ares I design. This initially translated in 2011 to the Liberty rocket, a five-segment SRB first stage with an Ariane V core serving as the upper stage.
By May 2016, this overall design was incorporated into Orbital ATK’s participation and contract award from the U.S. Air Force as part of the Air Force’s Rocket Propulsion Systems Development project to replace the Russian-made RD-180 engine used on United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket and to also streamline the EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) program to reduce the overall cost and increase efficiency of U.S. rockets used for national security and government missions."
-
#357 by tmoesser on 26 Aug, 2020 17:54
-
All the speculation about why Northrop Grumman & OmegA lost the NSSL Phase 2 LSP contract, pointing to things like reusability, obsolescence, what the commercial market will support, and so forth, amuses me. The government defined very specific criteria in their RFP for evaluating the proposals, and it's all in the public domain. I direct your attention here, specifically Attachment 6, or read the full RFP if you'd like to familiarize yourself.
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/c3e7f1e342154e92a5779c5daa1b1db0/view
The Readers Digest version goes kinda like this:
* There are multiple criteria on which your proposal is evaluated, and in each primary technical areas you can get a color/score of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. For non-technical areas you get an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating. On Price, they look at the "Total Evaluated Price" (TEP) and you get a Reasonable/Not Reasonable rating and Balance/Unbalanced rating.
* In the Technical factor, there are four subfactors
1. System Capability, specifically Mass-To-Orbit, Orbital Accuracy, and Mission Assurance
2. Category A/B Missions, including two sample missions that reflect real-life missions in planning, plus System Readiness. These sample missions would be those that you would expect to fly on an Atlas V, Delta IV M/M+, Falcon 9, OmegA Intermediate, or an early Vulcan Centaur.
3. Category C Missions, including two sample missions that reflect real-life missions in planning, plus System Readiness. These sample mission would be expected to fly on Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy, OmegA Heavy, or a later Vulcan Centaur/ACES.
4. System Risks and Mitigations
* In addition to the combined technical color-code rating, the Technical subfactors have a level-deeper list where individual Strengths and Weaknesses can be identified, which are helpful in comparing two offerors who have the same summary rating.
* The non-technical areas are Past Performance and Small Business Participation. You might want to say "ah-ha!" and suspect that a fail rating in one of these areas can explain some outcome, but I will put that to rest. All four competitors received "Acceptable" ratings in both of these categories.
* For the Price evaluation, each offeror needs to supply a list of products and services and price for each year of the contract, and my understanding is that those prices are Firm Fixed Price. The government bounces that against their mission manifest scenarios, including mission acceleration, launch service support and fleet surveillance, anomaly resolution, special studies, and integration studies. That weighted sum is called the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).
* During the evaluation process, the government informs each supplier with an "Evaluation Notice" (EN) with the strengths and weaknesses that have been identified in their proposal. The contractor can then respond with some more polish on areas of the proposal in order to close an identified weakness, or firm up an identified strength or significant strength. There were 3 rounds of ENs during the proposal evaluation.
So it comes down to the Technical factor and Price, and in the Price evaluation all four entrants were deemed to have "Reasonable" and "Balanced" pricing.
At this point I can't say much more, because the evaluation is marked FOUO and subject to distribution statements.
But I will point out that the Technical evaluation of each proposal is singularly focused on the offerors' ability to achieve the government's mission objectives and execute the contract during its period of performance with a low risk, highly reliable launch solution. Price is an important consideration, but not as important as Technical merit. There's nothing in there directly about hardware reuse, synergies with other government customers/programs, spreading the work around as many suppliers as possible to keep everyone happy (except as a tick-the-box requirement about Small Business utilization, which has a specific definition in government procurement law), etc., except to the extent that those features/bugs influence your TEP or risk, or show up as strengths or a weaknesses in the level-deeper comparison evaluation.
If SpaceX scored any Strengths on hardware reusability, portions of the comparative evaluation that pertain to that were redacted. If hardware reuse influenced their price to the government, I saw no evidence of that.
One more point, the government had to balance Technical/Risk scoring on one hand and Price on the other. In that case, a Value determination had to be made, which add some subjectivity. It was the job of the source selection committee to determine the Best Value (60%) and Next Best Value (40%) offerings, in a one-choice-at-a-time method. It was not a unanimous determination, but it wasn't a close call either.
I'd like to say more about how the evaluation was scored, but shouldn't do so, because that's not public information. OmegA was very competitive, and I'm proud of what the team accomplished and proposed. My opinion based on what I read is that if the government could have awarded three contracts, they would have.
I'd also like to echo what Tory Bruno said on Twitter recently, that if you look at the values of the contract task orders (i.e. missions) that were awarded at the LSP announcement, "the identity of the lowest price provider might surprise you..."
-
#358 by LaunchedIn68 on 26 Aug, 2020 18:05
-
Quote "This is a classic "no true Scotsman" fallacy/insult. "
Years ago when Mike Meyers was on SNL, he performed a skit where he was a Scotsman who owned a gift shop/curio store called "If it ain't Scottish, it's Crap!" He would get angry and yell at all the patrons who would come in the shop, looking for 4 leaf clovers, leprechaun figures, Blarney stones etc.... "Scottish-Irish what's the difference?" "I'll tell ya Lassie!!!..." 
Today it would be "If it ain't SPACEX it's Crap!" -
#359 by Khadgars on 26 Aug, 2020 18:12
-
Quote "This is a classic "no true Scotsman" fallacy/insult. "
Years ago when Mike Meyers was on SNL, he performed a skit where he was a Scotsman who owned a gift shop/curio store called "If it ain't Scottish, it's Crap!" He would get angry and yell at all the patrons who would come in the shop, looking for 4 leaf clovers, leprechaun figures, Blarney stones etc.... "Scottish-Irish what's the difference?" "I'll tell ya Lassie!!!..."
Today it would be "If it ain't SPACEX it's Crap!"
Unfortunately thats all too true. I absolutely love SpaceX, watch almost every launch and hope they continue to kick butt. But they're not the only shinny object in town that matters.
Years ago when Mike Meyers was on SNL, he performed a skit where he was a Scotsman who owned a gift shop/curio store called "If it ain't Scottish, it's Crap!" He would get angry and yell at all the patrons who would come in the shop, looking for 4 leaf clovers, leprechaun figures, Blarney stones etc.... "Scottish-Irish what's the difference?" "I'll tell ya Lassie!!!..." 