Author Topic: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2  (Read 37263 times)

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 41
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10071
  • UK
  • Liked: 1983
  • Likes Given: 197
The idea of Ďpackage dealsí seems an interesting proposition from a business prospective where they build your satellite and provide their own launcher as well.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Liked: 3075
  • Likes Given: 1549
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?

A solid can pretty much have as much thrust as they need by changing the casting composition and shape.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4933
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 598
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6250
  • Liked: 4116
  • Likes Given: 5628
There is another point for the use of the name "Omega". If you were going to compartmentalize certain specific parts of NSS that might never be economically bid by any commercial, the "last" option might be to have a minimum footprint means of supplying that need.

Such a means would likely be a vehicle like NGL (or, for the Europeans, an uprated Vega-C). Such a vehicle might also be a way of handling funding/development/continued flight of solids based vehicles. It would subsidize both needs at the same time.

The difficulty with that approach would be in the cost escalation as well as the tendency to under- or over-commit missions based solely on keeping alive a narrow need that might imply single-sourcing. This might be difficult for the AF procurement processes.

Mike Griffin has repeatedly called for the USAF to have its own launch capability.  Could be that NGL/Omega is the perfect vehicle for this... warehouse a dozen solid boosters plus second stages (kinda like NRO is doing with Delta Heavies, or Atlas V did with stockpiling RD-180s) and you have a level of launch redundancy that can fill in for temporary disruptions of NSS launch services.

Having NG-O-ATK as one of the two NSS vendors keeps such an option viable, while rotating the warehoused stock. 
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Kasponaut

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Denmark
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 64
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.

Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?

A little strange that OATK isnít more specific about this - among other details.

Offline Aurora

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • USA
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 29
0,1,2,3,4,5,6 SRMs

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Liked: 3075
  • Likes Given: 1549
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.

Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?

A little strange that OATK isnít more specific about this - among other details.

They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4933
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 598
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.

Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?

A little strange that OATK isnít more specific about this - among other details.

They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.
It has been said a while ago in the past that if the MLP's launch mount was changed to allow SRM's all the way around the Castor motor it is capable of flying that way. That is a future growth path if more payload to orbit is required for both versions.

Offline dlapine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • University of Illinois
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 84
Any price or price range mentioned?

Online rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 257
Any price or price range mentioned?

10 million less than a Vulcan/Centaur?  :P

Offline Kasponaut

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Denmark
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 64
There doesn't appear to be a version without strapons? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is the weight of that big solid second stage so high it needs the extra oomph just to get off the pad?
AFAIU it can fly with 0 to 6 SRM's.

Thats right. But does that mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 solids or 2, 4 or 6 in pairs?

A little strange that OATK isnít more specific about this - among other details.

They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.

Okay. Where did they specify that?

Offline ethan829


They specified that it can fly with odd numbers of SRMs, and with no SRMs at all. Any number up to 6.

Okay. Where did they specify that?

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/12/orbital-atk-confident-new-rocket-will-win-air-force-support/
Quote
The intermediate and heavy configurations could get an additional boost from up to six strap-on boosters, the same 63-inch diameter augmentation motors Orbital ATK is currently qualifying for use on ULAís Atlas 5 and Vulcan rockets. The number of strap-on boosters on each NGL flight could be tailored based on mission requirements, allowing for odd numbers boosters to fly on the rocket, similar to the Atlas 5ís design, Laidley said.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 141
How I understood it, the OmegA can launch in the following configurations:
OmegA 500; 0 ; 2 or 4 GEM63XL boosters
OmegA 500XL; 0, 2, 3, 4, 6 GEM63XL Boosters.

I wonder if Orbital ATK is also going to develop a OmegA 400 (4m fairing), possibly a smaller version with a Castor 300 instead of 600 as first stage.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 461
Let's start with a link to the OmegA page on OATK website.
I think there could be a lot of similarity between the 5-segment SRB and the Castor 1200. I also think some members of the Orion 50, Castor 30/120, GEM40-63 stages could be smaler versions of the Castor 300, 600 and 1200. AFAIK solids scale very easily.
I think GreenShrike nailed the reasoning behind the OmegA name. OA mega; the largest possible launcher from Orbital ATK.

My understanding is that scaling a solid is a bit of a black art. If these were simple end burning grains like an Estes motor it would be fine- just pay by the foot- but in the real world you need to test out different grain shapes and all the thermal and vibrational considerations that go with that.
Waiting for joy and raptor

Online rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 0
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • California
  • Liked: 4419
  • Likes Given: 2682
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?

Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 382
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?

Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.

Would that not be Delta IV pad at Vandenberg since it was originally built for the Shuttle?

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • California
  • Liked: 4419
  • Likes Given: 2682
Very interesting! Not a bad name :)  Two RL-10s.

I'm not sure how cheap the infrastructure will be for a rocket with two models with such a massive height difference, though. Because this thing will be necessity by vertically integrated.

They're going to use the VAB for integration.  So the infrastructure won't be cheap at all.  But NASA will likely be paying most or all of the costs of the VAB, so they can kind of ride along for free.

VAB works on the east coast, but is there a similar facility they could use at Vandenberg?

Their best bet might be to try to take over the Delta II launch pad from ULA.

Would that not be Delta IV pad at Vandenberg since it was originally built for the Shuttle?

I'm not sure what you mean, but Delta II and Delta IV uses different pads, and both should be available in the near future. The Delta II pad seems more right-sized, though, the Delta IV pad has a lot of expensive infrastructure.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4933
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 598
How I understood it, the OmegA can launch in the following configurations:
OmegA 500; 0 ; 2 or 4 GEM63XL boosters
OmegA 500XL; 0, 2, 3, 4, 6 GEM63XL Boosters.

I wonder if Orbital ATK is also going to develop a OmegA 400 (4m fairing), possibly a smaller version with a Castor 300 instead of 600 as first stage.
GEM-63XL on Vulcan
GEM-63XLT on OmegA

4m fairing is currently not proposed. Also currently developed is Castor-900 and a few other configurations per their latest motor catalog.

Tags: updates