-
OmegA Light (LEGO rocketry and Speculation) by JEF_300 on 04 Jun, 2019 02:19
-
This is not based on anything NGIS are actually planning to do. By all accounts, they will continue to fly Antares even after OmegA is flying. I'm just sharing an idea I had. Partially inspired by the proposed Delta IV Small.
The general idea of OmegA Light would be a replacement for Antares consisting of an OmegA intermediate first and second stage (Castor 600 & 300) with an Antares upper stage (Castor 30XL) and Antares fairing, integrated and launched using the Antares architecture at Wallops.
I ran the number for such a vehicle on such a vehicle using this site: http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html
It estimated OmegA Light from Wallops could launch 9.1 tons into the ISS's orbit, about a ton more than Antares.
Ok, so it can launch an extra ton into orbit. So? Why should NGIS spend the money required to switch wallops from Antares to this new, mostly equivalent design?
I believe that such a vehicle would be significantly cheaper to operate than Antares. This belief relies on two main assumptions.
1. A Castor 600 and Castor 300 combined are cheaper than an Antares first stage, by economics if not by pure production cost. AKA, that two solid stages produced in the country by the company will be cheaper than buying a stage from Ukraine's Yuzhnoye SDO and expensive liquid engines from Russia's Energomash.
I don't think this is unreasonable.
2. The HIF and pad at Wallops are significantly cheaper to operate than the VAB and 39b at Kennedy. Over the last several year dozens of companies have emerged with the goal of reducing the cost of accessing orbit, and almost every single one uses horizontal integration. How much does it cost to roll a rocket (and it's pad) out to the launch site on a crawler? How much cheaper than that is a rail line?
I don't think this is unreasonable either.
NGIS is already working on a new 3-meter first stage and already has the infrastructure for horizontally integrating 3-meter stages and a fairing and upper stage that fit. I suspect they would get something much more competitive if they put these things together.
Thoughts?
-
#1 by edkyle99 on 04 Jun, 2019 02:29
-
1. A Castor 600 and Castor 300 combined are cheaper than an Antares first stage, by economics if not by pure production cost. AKA, that two solid stages produced in the country by the company will be cheaper than buying a stage from Ukraine and expensive liquid engines from Aerojet Rocketdyne.
The Antares RD-181 first stage engines come from Russia's Energomash.Quote2. The HIF and pad at Wallops are significantly cheaper to operate than the VAB and 39b at Kennedy. Over the last several year dozens of companies have emerged with the goal of reducing the cost of accessing orbit, and almost every single one uses horizontal integration. How much does it cost to roll a rocket (and it's pad) out to the launch site on a crawler? How much cheaper than that is a rail line?
Omega will launch from LC 39. I don't see it being compatible with Wallops. The infrastructure to transfer such heavy solid motors by rail exists at KSC, not at Wallops. I'm also not sure that Launch Area 0A would be able to handle 2 million pounds of thrust.
- Ed Kyle -
#2 by WindnWar on 04 Jun, 2019 02:53
-
If I'm not mistaken, I don't think they would be allowed to use such a large all solid vehicle there. I seem to recall there being a limit due to blast radius.
Secondly I'm not entirely sure it would be much less if any cheaper than Antares is now. The site infrastructure would need serious upgrades to be able to lift the new stages and stack them. -
#3 by JEF_300 on 04 Jun, 2019 03:02
-
2. The HIF and pad at Wallops are significantly cheaper to operate than the VAB and 39b at Kennedy. Over the last several year dozens of companies have emerged with the goal of reducing the cost of accessing orbit, and almost every single one uses horizontal integration. How much does it cost to roll a rocket (and it's pad) out to the launch site on a crawler? How much cheaper than that is a rail line?
Omega will launch from LC 39. I don't see it being compatible with Wallops. The infrastructure to transfer such heavy solid motors by rail exists at KSC, not at Wallops. I'm also not sure that Launch Area 0A would be able to handle 2 million pounds of thrust.
- Ed Kyle
I'll edit the RD-181 thing.
I know that the existing forms of OmegA will launch from 39b; that's why I mentioned it. While Wallops would obviously require modification to handle OmegA stages, I don't think those would be too great, and it certainly would be surmountable. The exception is whether or not LP-0A can handle 2 million pounds of thrust, which would make or break the idea.
I hadn't thought about rail to Wallops. How does Antares get to Wallops now? -
#4 by Lars-J on 04 Jun, 2019 03:20
-
I believe that such a vehicle would be significantly cheaper to operate than Antares. This belief relies on two main assumptions.
1. A Castor 600 and Castor 300 combined are cheaper than an Antares first stage, by economics if not by pure production cost. AKA, that two solid stages produced in the country by the company will be cheaper than buying a stage from Ukraine's Yuzhnoye SDO and expensive liquid engines from Russia's Energomash.
No, that assumption does not hold. If that were true, Chinese imports would always be more expensive than american products, since they have to ship them here. But this is not the case. The first stage and engines from Ukraine are CHEAP. (relatively speaking) Their labor costs over there are MUCH lower than here.
And that doesn't even begin to deal with the "solids are cheaper" assumption, which is not backed up by real world experience at all. (the difference is a wash at BEST) Plus you are dealing with two stages instead of one. -
#5 by WindnWar on 04 Jun, 2019 03:22
-
Antares is trucked in after unloading it from the ship, but it's a very tight fit, however also quite light in comparison. Given the weight of an Omega solid I'm not sure the roads would be able to handle it. 600,000 pounds would need a platform with dozens of wheels to spread the load. The Castor 30XL is 56,000 pounds so it's fine to transport by road but still needs special permits.
-
#6 by JEF_300 on 04 Jun, 2019 03:45
-
I believe that such a vehicle would be significantly cheaper to operate than Antares. This belief relies on two main assumptions.
1. A Castor 600 and Castor 300 combined are cheaper than an Antares first stage, by economics if not by pure production cost. AKA, that two solid stages produced in the country by the company will be cheaper than buying a stage from Ukraine's Yuzhnoye SDO and expensive liquid engines from Russia's Energomash.
No, that assumption does not hold. If that were true, Chinese imports would always be more expensive than american products, since they have to ship them here. But this is not the case. The first stage and engines from Ukraine are CHEAP. (relatively speaking) Their labor costs over there are MUCH lower than here.
And that doesn't even begin to deal with the "solids are cheaper" assumption, which is not backed up by real world experience at all. (the difference is a wash at BEST) Plus you are dealing with two stages instead of one.
While cheaper foreign production often eclipses it, there is a cost to buying overseas. Regardless, the more important part is the vertical integration of production, similar to what SpaceX has done. Producing all of the rocket within the company helps to reduce costs. -
#7 by JEF_300 on 04 Jun, 2019 03:59
-
Antares is trucked in after unloading it from the ship, but it's a very tight fit, however also quite light in comparison. Given the weight of an Omega solid I'm not sure the roads would be able to handle it. 600,000 pounds would need a platform with dozens of wheels to spread the load. The Castor 30XL is 56,000 pounds so it's fine to transport by road but still needs special permits.
Well, that does seem pretty disqualifying. -
#8 by envy887 on 04 Jun, 2019 12:06
-
I believe that such a vehicle would be significantly cheaper to operate than Antares. This belief relies on two main assumptions.
1. A Castor 600 and Castor 300 combined are cheaper than an Antares first stage, by economics if not by pure production cost. AKA, that two solid stages produced in the country by the company will be cheaper than buying a stage from Ukraine's Yuzhnoye SDO and expensive liquid engines from Russia's Energomash.
No, that assumption does not hold. If that were true, Chinese imports would always be more expensive than american products, since they have to ship them here. But this is not the case. The first stage and engines from Ukraine are CHEAP. (relatively speaking) Their labor costs over there are MUCH lower than here.
And that doesn't even begin to deal with the "solids are cheaper" assumption, which is not backed up by real world experience at all. (the difference is a wash at BEST) Plus you are dealing with two stages instead of one.
The engines come from Russia; the 1st stage tanks come from Ukraine. A pair of RD-181 is essentially a RD-180 with an extra turbopump. ULA is paying about $24M per RD-180, so NGIS is probably somewhere around that for RD-181. That's relatively expensive even compared to American engines. -
#9 by edkyle99 on 04 Jun, 2019 12:50
-
Now, as to the idea that Northrop Grumman could fly an all-solid version of Omega, that could be possible (from KSC and VAFB at least). Back in 2007 or so, ATK proposed an "Athena 3" concept that was around the same size and was topped by a Castor 30 and an OAM (atop a 2.5 segment SRB and a Castor 120, if I'm remembering correctly). An all-solid Omega would give up a lot of performance to the LH2 upper stage version (it would end up Antares class or slightly less*), but could presumably fly sooner to prove the concept and *might* cost a bit less to fly. It would not handle most of the NSSL missions, however, for which Omega is being competed.
- Ed Kyle
* FWIW, my guesstimate for Castor 600/Castor 300/Castor 30XL would be 8.5 tonnes LEO/28.5 deg, 7.5-ish tonnes LEO/ISS and possibly nearly 7 tonnes LEO/Polar (close to the NSSL Polar 1 requirement). -
#10 by TrevorMonty on 04 Jun, 2019 21:42
-
Now, as to the idea that Northrop Grumman could fly an all-solid version of Omega, that could be possible (from KSC and VAFB at least). Back in 2007 or so, ATK proposed an "Athena 3" concept that was around the same size and was topped by a Castor 30 and an OAM (atop a 2.5 segment SRB and a Castor 120, if I'm remembering correctly). An all-solid Omega would give up a lot of performance to the LH2 upper stage version (it would end up Antares class or slightly less*), but could presumably fly sooner to prove the concept and *might* cost a bit less to fly. It would not handle most of the NSSL missions, however, for which Omega is being competed.
For Cygnus ISS missions solid US is all that is needed. If they can find way to sell extra capacity then Omega Medium may work out cheaper, eg drop off Cygnus then send a lunar lander secondary payload to GTO or TLI.
- Ed Kyle
* FWIW, my guesstimate for Castor 600/Castor 300/Castor 30XL would be 8.5 tonnes LEO/28.5 deg, 7.5-ish tonnes LEO/ISS and possibly nearly 7 tonnes LEO/Polar (close to the NSSL Polar 1 requirement). -
#11 by rayleighscatter on 08 Jun, 2019 12:42
-
The engines come from Russia; the 1st stage tanks come from Ukraine. A pair of RD-181 is essentially a RD-180 with an extra turbopump. ULA is paying about $24M per RD-180, so NGIS is probably somewhere around that for RD-181. That's relatively expensive even compared to American engines.
The RD-181 isn't that similar to the RD-180, being that it isn't derived from it. -
#12 by blaze79 on 18 Jul, 2019 09:20
-
RD-181 is a RD-191 for foreign customers and RD-191 derived from RD-180 (looks like halfed RD-180), so RD-181 is derived from RD-180
-
#13 by russianhalo117 on 18 Jul, 2019 14:43
-
RD-181 is a RD-191 for foreign customers and RD-191 derived from RD-180 (looks like halfed RD-180), so RD-181 is derived from RD-180
NK-15 then NK-33 rival predecessors that formed basis of successor family RD-170.
RD-170>RD-171>RD-171M>RD-180>RD-191
RD-170: RD-171, RD-171M, RD-171MV (development)
RD-180: RD-180M (proposed), RD-180MV (proposed)
RD-190 (designed): RD-191, RD-191M (testing), RD-191MV (design), RD-151, RD-181, RD-183 (reserved), RD-185 (reserved), RD-193 (tested), RD-195 (design: ground lit hybrid high altitude compensating nozzle), RD-197 (reserved: vacuum)
If I'm forgetting any please reply. -
#14 by tmoesser on 18 Jul, 2019 23:07
-
This is not based on anything NGIS are actually planning to do. By all accounts, they will continue to fly Antares even after OmegA is flying. I'm just sharing an idea I had. Partially inspired by the proposed Delta IV Small.
You betcha this configuration has been studied, even before the OSC/ATK merger. Was referred to as the NGL 400-series (referencing the ~4 meter fairing) before the change away from Atlas-style numbering, but also could have been an "Antares 330", the first digit for the 3rd generation "booster" stage, also conveniently the number of CBS segments. That would have been my preferred way to number OmegA configurations too.
The general idea of OmegA Light would be a replacement for Antares consisting of an OmegA intermediate first and second stage (Castor 600 & 300) with an Antares upper stage (Castor 30XL) and Antares fairing, integrated and launched using the Antares architecture at Wallops.
WFF would be very challenging for this concept, especially trying to use Antares facilities, for all the reasons cited above. Vertical vs horizontal stacking, replacing the TEL, IOP, bridge capacities, Q-D limits. But KSC and VAFB are viable.
Its application as an EELV/NSSL vehicle are almost none, but it could do CRS. It's not under "active" development, but the concept is still there as a possible fall-back, albeit a disappointing one. As with Antares, a STAR kick motor would give it greater versatility, as would a biprop 4th stage tug, but it would still be in the middling Delta II class of performance that most potential customers appear to have grown out of.
I am not aware of any plans to retire Antares, lest my comments be interpreted as such. I cannot speak for the company, and my remarks are nothing that this well-informed and sharp crowd of industry experts and enthusiasts doesn't already know or can reasonably assume.
Aside, I like the reference to LEGO rocketry. Anyone who has followed Orbital and ATK for any reasonable amount of time and are familiar with their fleets of vehicles (and not just the space launchers) based on the same basic collection of rocket motors knows that analogies to Tinker Toys and LEGOs are totally appropriate. The folks in Chandler can Frankenrocket like nobody else in the industry.