Author Topic: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2  (Read 39916 times)

Offline TrevorMonty

A bit of extra detail and context for the photo. Not exactly sure what "Phase 1" consists of.

I believe that is the intermediate configuration shown below, possibly without any boosters.
Both Intermediate and Heavy support 0-6 Gem63XL SRBs, 4900kg GTO will be for 0x SRBs, 10,000kgs for 6xSRBs.

Online ZachS09

That is a lot of payload to GTO.

I wonder if Northrop Grumman would consider doing dual-satellite launches if OmegA does start flying.
Because the Falcon Heavy Test Flight was successful, it has inspired thousands of people to consider changing the future of space travel.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2688
  • Canada
  • Liked: 453
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #142 on: 02/14/2019 02:00 am »
That is a lot of payload to GTO.

I wonder if Northrop Grumman would consider doing dual-satellite launches if OmegA does start flying.

Not likely IMO. There is not that many commercial GEO satcom payloads for the next few years.

However the OmegA XL could be an alternative to the Falcon Heavy for direct injection to GEO as shown with the 7800 kg payload capacity to GEO in the performance table up thread. As Falcon Heavy launch slots at the LC-39A pad is constrained by commercial crew and CRS missions.

A shorter time for a GEO satcom bird to get to operational location might be worth a launch premium for some satcom operators along with launch slot availability. After all the LC-39B pad only got one SLS flight annually at best or more likely biennial for the foreseeable future.

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
  • Germany
  • Liked: 192
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #143 on: 02/14/2019 03:09 am »
However the OmegA XL could be an alternative to the Falcon Heavy for direct injection to GEO as shown with the 7800 kg payload capacity to GEO in the performance table up thread. As Falcon Heavy launch slots at the LC-39A pad is constrained by commercial crew and CRS missions.

SpaceX CRS missions are all assigned to SLC-40: https://www.spacex.com/missions
« Last Edit: 02/14/2019 03:11 am by PM3 »

Offline StarryKnight

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
  • Virginia
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #144 on: 02/15/2019 09:20 pm »
The NGIS MEV is made to be launched with another GEO bird. So there could be savings for NGIS by launching an MEV with a GEO satellite its building for someone else or by launching two MEVs.

As for direct inject to GEO, there is a time savings of several months to get to its final station for a satellite that has all electric propulsion system. But for a satellite using chemical for orbit raising, there could be a time savings or it could end up taking longer depending on how far it has to drift from the injection location to the final location. The biggest savings in either case is in mass, which could be used to add more fuel for longer orbital life and/or more payload.
In satellite operations, schedules are governed by the laws of physics and bounded by the limits of technology.

Offline TrevorMonty

The NGIS MEV is made to be launched with another GEO bird. So there could be savings for NGIS by launching an MEV with a GEO satellite its building for someone else or by launching two MEVs.

As for direct inject to GEO, there is a time savings of several months to get to its final station for a satellite that has all electric propulsion system. But for a satellite using chemical for orbit raising, there could be a time savings or it could end up taking longer depending on how far it has to drift from the injection location to the final location. The biggest savings in either case is in mass, which could be used to add more fuel for longer orbital life and/or more payload.
This is oneway for NG to add value to their Omega launches. Adding a few extra SRBs to make up for additional mass is cheap way to get MEVs into orbit. Most launch cost is already covered by GEO satellite.

NB NG will be offering a complete build and launch package for GEO satellites, I'd guess launch insurance is included.
This may mean profit from satellite build is subsidizing Omega launch costs. As long as they make OK 4profit on complete package it doesn't matter. Means Omega will be avaliable for high value DOD missions.





Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5930
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 2390
  • Likes Given: 1819
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #146 on: 02/22/2019 02:42 am »
Inside Look: OmegA Rocket

Northrop Grumman
Published on Feb 21, 2019

Katie Qian and Burke Williams, with Propulsion Systems, share about the exciting work being accomplished and progress made on the rocket motors for Northrop Grummanís new OmegA rocket. bit.ly/2LkKxpW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyaX83JLhj8?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19015
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6958
  • Likes Given: 955
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #147 on: 02/22/2019 05:15 am »
Summarising from the video, they are casting three segments this year. Two-segment test fire in April 2020 and single segment test fire in August 2020.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline blaze79

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Omsk, Siberia
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #148 on: 02/22/2019 06:06 am »
Are there any news about upper stage? Would somebody help them to design and produce it or NG has strong expertise to do it?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5004
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1359
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #149 on: 02/22/2019 02:18 pm »
Are there any news about upper stage? Would somebody help them to design and produce it or NG has strong expertise to do it?
NGIS has there sibling NGAS which used to be TRW. In terms of building rocket stages and engines it's been a while since they built any.

Offline TrevorMonty

Are there any news about upper stage? Would somebody help them to design and produce it or NG has strong expertise to do it?
NGIS has there sibling NGAS which used to be TRW. In terms of building rocket stages and engines it's been a while since they built any.
May need to hire a few hydrolox engineers. No shortage of experienced engineers in country ie   ULA, Blue, ARJ, Stratolauncher(PGA engine), Boeing (XS1 and SLS). If they go off shore lot more options.

NG did compete for XS1 competition plus the team from Antares, so some inhouse RP1 and LOX experience.

They already have flight proven avionics which came with OrbitalATK.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 482
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #151 on: 02/22/2019 02:55 pm »
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way.  However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch? 

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #152 on: 02/22/2019 03:38 pm »
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way.  However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?

The fueling process isn't what keeps a rocket from launching quickly, a Falcon doesn't get fueled until two hours before launch, similar for any deep cryo like hydrogen that will boil off over longer periods. If you're talking about quicker response times than that what you want isn't a rocket but a missile. The way to get response times down to days/hours is to have rockets in storage ready to be fueled, either through readiness contracts or by supporting enough business to always have a few reused cores lying around.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 482
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #153 on: 02/22/2019 03:43 pm »
So the NGL rocket wouldn't be stacked and ready to go quickly, but would have to be stacked and upper sage refueled?  Or would the first and second solid stages be stacked and waiting for the upper stage?

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 398
  • Likes Given: 431
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #154 on: 02/22/2019 04:17 pm »
Summarising from the video, they are casting three segments this year. Two-segment test fire in April 2020 and single segment test fire in August 2020.

He states, toward the end, that it would be April, 2019 and August. The video seems to be done in 2018. Maybe?

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 398
  • Likes Given: 431
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #155 on: 02/22/2019 04:25 pm »
I went to the NG web site and their fact sheet says April 2019 and August 2019.

First and second flight will be all solid (C600 1st stage and C300 second stage plus strap ons for the second flight).

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2688
  • Canada
  • Liked: 453
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #156 on: 02/22/2019 04:52 pm »
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way.  However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?

AIUI you can only stacked the the OmegA at the VAB and launch from LC-39B with current operational facilities. Using a Mobile Launch Platform on a Crawler-Transporter is not a quick standby way of launching anything.

As for hypergolic upper stages. AFAIK the only one in the US building large hypergolic motors in quantity is the folks from Hawthorne. Don't think AJR's AJ10 production line is building more than the occasional AJ10-190 motor for the Orion. Somehow don't see NGIS funding the development of a new low production run upper stage on their own.

Never mind that the AJ-10 engine uses Aerozine 50 as the fuel for non-HSF applications.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5004
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1359
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #157 on: 02/22/2019 05:52 pm »
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way.  However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quick launch?
Toxic hypergolics for main propulsion are off the table for EELV-2 entries yet is only not recommended for thrusters and ullage motors.

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1415
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #158 on: 02/22/2019 06:03 pm »
I went to the NG web site and their fact sheet says April 2019 and August 2019.

First and second flight will be all solid (C600 1st stage and C300 second stage plus strap ons for the second flight).

Nice catch. I too was under the impression they were talking about 2020.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5004
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1359
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: Orbital ATK OmegA (NGL) Rocket UPDATES/DISCUSSION - Thread 2
« Reply #159 on: 02/22/2019 06:06 pm »
If the US needs standby ready to go rockets to get a military satellite up quickly, the solids would be a good way.  However, why don't they build a hypergolic upper stage so it too can standby for a quickly launch?

AIUI you can only stacked the the OmegA at the VAB and launch from LC-39B with current operational facilities. Using a Mobile Launch Platform on a Crawler-Transporter is not a quick standby way of launching anything.

As for hypergolic upper stages. AFAIK the only one in the US building large hypergolic motors in quantity is the folks from Hawthorne. Don't think AJR's AJ10 production line is building more than the occasional AJ10-190 motor for the Orion. Somehow don't see NGIS funding the development of a new low production run upper stage on their own.

Never mind that the AJ-10 engine uses Aerozine 50 as the fuel for non-HSF applications.
AJ10-190 is retired with production ended during STS. NASA is holding a competition and AR is working on a new modernized (3D printing et  cetera (RL10C-X/RL10C-5-1) version with two proposed variants with downselect later: 1) traditional toxic hypergolic version and 2) new green hypergolic version.

Tags: updates