-
#60 by yg1968 on 18 Aug, 2020 21:09
-
Quote from: Eric Berger
Hearing that Northrop Grumman will cancel the Omega rocket after it failed to win the recent Air Force contest.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1295826841853403139 -
#61 by yg1968 on 18 Aug, 2020 22:00
-
Joey Roulette added this:Quote from: Joey Roulette
Hardly surprising - Northrop CEO Kathy Warden, during a recent earnings call, said NG would redirect OmegA investments “into other propulsion activities” if not successful on the NSSL competition
Quote from: Joey RoulettePrivate and LSA investments into R&D for OmegA, a national security-tailored rocket, are set up such that they can be shared "across a product line that we can now utilize for other endeavors." (not specific but shows they anticipated failure by having dual-use investments)
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1295838257004064768 -
#62 by ChrisWilson68 on 18 Aug, 2020 23:02
-
Quote from: Joey Roulette
Private and LSA investments into R&D for OmegA, a national security-tailored rocket, are set up such that they can be shared "across a product line that we can now utilize for other endeavors." (not specific but shows they anticipated failure by having dual-use investments)
In other words, their LSA bid was set up to make money whether they won NSSL or not. No wonder they bid even though nobody thought they'd win. Sounds a lot like a scam to me.
-
#63 by ChrisWilson68 on 18 Aug, 2020 23:19
-
If this was a "scam", then so were all of the other LSAs awarded to all of the other companies.Quote from: Joey RoulettePrivate and LSA investments into R&D for OmegA, a national security-tailored rocket, are set up such that they can be shared "across a product line that we can now utilize for other endeavors." (not specific but shows they anticipated failure by having dual-use investments)
In other words, their LSA bid was set up to make money whether they won NSSL or not. No wonder they bid even though nobody thought they'd win. Sounds a lot like a scam to me.
You think that the money being spent on Vulcan through LSA was being spent in a way that would benefit ULA whether they cancelled Vulcan or not? I don't.
-
#64 by JEF_300 on 18 Aug, 2020 23:51
-
If this was a "scam", then so were all of the other LSAs awarded to all of the other companies.Quote from: Joey RoulettePrivate and LSA investments into R&D for OmegA, a national security-tailored rocket, are set up such that they can be shared "across a product line that we can now utilize for other endeavors." (not specific but shows they anticipated failure by having dual-use investments)
In other words, their LSA bid was set up to make money whether they won NSSL or not. No wonder they bid even though nobody thought they'd win. Sounds a lot like a scam to me.
You think that the money being spent on Vulcan through LSA was being spent in a way that would benefit ULA whether they cancelled Vulcan or not? I don't.
I'm mean, the fairing, GEMs, and (don't quote me on this one) avionics for Vulcan all work and will be flown on Atlas first. So actually, yes. -
#65 by JEF_300 on 19 Aug, 2020 00:13
-
It seems to me that if NGSS wants to stay in the launch market, or at least maintain the capability, their focus should be on Antares.
I've heard that the combined cost of Antares and Cygnus comes out better than Falcon and Dragon, so there may be a market for them in commercial station resupply. And with a kick stage, Antares is actually capable of throwing a MEV (Mission Extension Vehicle) straight into GTO, so that's another few launches they could secure for themselves, even after CRS-2 is gone. And of course, there's the old all-in-one 'we'll build and launch your satellite' idea, which could maybe get them a few more launches.
Antares clearly doesn't need many launches a year to be viable, so any one or two of those things should keep it flying for the immediate future. Of course, that all assumes that NGSS does want to keep launching. -
#66 by butters on 19 Aug, 2020 00:13
-
From depending on RD-180/RS-68/Merlin, the Pentagon has trimmed it down to Merlin/BE-4. BE-4 has to work.
The whole point of NSSL/EELV is to have multiple providers and minimize/eliminate common mode failures. The riskiest period for national security launch capability was before SpaceX sued the Air Force, when certain issues with the RL-10 or ULA's common avionics suite could have grounded both Atlas V and Delta IV. We're in a much better place now with dissimilar redundancy.
- Ed Kyle
If BE-4 has another setback, ULA has plenty of "patriated" RD-180s, and SpaceX can also pick up the slack. We all know that, when push comes to shove, nothing is going to stop Atlas V from launching national security missions using RD-180 engines if that's the best option. I really doubt it will come to that, but the Air Force wouldn't have been so happy with ULA's bid if they thought there was a realistic chance that Vulcan wouldn't materialize and ULA would be unable to fulfill NSSL requirement without it.
So BE-4 doesn't have to work. ULA and SpaceX can deliver the required services even if some spectacular calamity were to doom the BE-4 program. -
#67 by ChrisWilson68 on 19 Aug, 2020 00:37
-
I've heard that the combined cost of Antares and Cygnus comes out better than Falcon and Dragon, so there may be a market for them in commercial station resupply.
It seems unlikely to me that there will be a commercial station before there will be a Starship, and Starship will be an order of magnitude cheaper than Antares+Cygnus for much more cargo.
Even without that, there's Dragon XL. Dragon XL doesn't have re-entry capability, so it can carry much more cargo on the same Falcon 9 launch.
Also, SpaceX bid for CRS knowing that they could only get a split of the business. They didn't want to bid any lower a price than necessary to be one of the two providers. It doesn't mean they couldn't bid lower for a commercial station that only cares about cost.
-
#68 by whitelancer64 on 19 Aug, 2020 02:05
-
Quote from: Joey Roulette
Private and LSA investments into R&D for OmegA, a national security-tailored rocket, are set up such that they can be shared "across a product line that we can now utilize for other endeavors." (not specific but shows they anticipated failure by having dual-use investments)
In other words, their LSA bid was set up to make money whether they won NSSL or not. No wonder they bid even though nobody thought they'd win. Sounds a lot like a scam to me.
Does anyone have an idea how much they had invested into VAB High Bay and MLP modifications prior to this point??
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/04/northrop-grumman-progress-omega/ -
#69 by tmoesser on 19 Aug, 2020 23:50
-
The rumors of layoffs are greatly exaggerated.*If you guys are anything like me, you've already begun wondering what will be next for all the launch vehicle engineers at NGSS. This thread is for speculating about what that may be.
My guess is layoffs. Some people will likely move to other areas within NG, but the other NG programs are likely fully-staffed already or close to it, and some of the specialties needed for OmegA just won't be needed on other programs.
There's a lot of good, seasoned engineers who are working on OmegA. If we do see layoffs at NGSS, I wonder if we'll also see a related increase in the number of smallsat companies since that seems to be the standard retirement plan of rocket scientist nowadays.
If/when/as the OmegA program winds down (see asterisk, we have not heard the government outbrief yet, no decisions yet on contesting the award, no announcement of off-ramp plans, etc.), it's important to remember that OmegA was always recognized as a dark horse candidate in this competition. I've read a lot of "to no one's surprise" comments regarding this outcome, just quibbling over right way the 60/40 split should have been allocated -- and of course SpaceX-or-bust fanatics who want 100/0. We put in a very compelling offering to the government, but inertia and incumbency are the dominating forces in this universe. "No one's surprise" in this context also includes company leadership, from whom we've heard words like "disappointed" but not "surprised."
Also, losing NSSL is not an existential threat to NGSS as it is for ULA. SpaceX would continue flying F9, FH and developing SH/SS; Blue would continue developing at their own pace; but for ULA this was a must-win contract. For NGSS, Space Launch is a fairly small part of the portfolio; albeit would have gotten much, much larger with an NSSL award. At Launch Vehicles, the bread and butter is in military suborbital contracts: targets (e.g. Coyote SSST) and interceptors (GMD/GBI/OBV, with NGI competition ramping up). Launch Vehicles also has the booster integration role on GBSD which is also ramping up. I also hear of programs that sound like cover names, probably in the hypersonics or counter-hypersonics realm. They would not have built a new giant, beautiful HQ facility in Chandler contingent on winning NSSL/LSP. It might be mostly vacant today, but it's been that way for 5 months due to COVID, not OmegA and LSP. At Dulles, Launch Vehicles has a fairly small presence -- most of the work there is in satellites and spacecraft. I hope my colleagues there are able to transition into current programs or new developments without personal disruption. Pegasus, Minotaur in its many varieties, even Antares have a role to play.
Similar story at Propulsion Systems -- SLS, D5 Trident II, GBSD, Orion motors, GEM 63/63XL, hypersonics, flares & decoys... I'm just talking about two business units, not even half of heritage Orbital ATK, in a megacorp that's more than an order of magnitude larger. A lot of work to go around, most of it though not in the limelight of space launch. If SLS is cancelled, there will probably be layoffs and reorgs here, but I kinda doubt there will be Yet Another Resurrection Of The Stick originating from Utah.
For some people, orbital space launch is where they want to be -- and we've lost a lot of good talent to Blue and other places (or divisions within NG) especially from the Launch Vehicles unit over time... and we've picked up some great talent too. It's an exciting time to be in this industry. The more "Space," the merrier. And although much of the work on the Liquid Upper Stage has been outsourced -- not quite to the extent that Antares first stage is outsourced --, NGSS has developed a lot of expertise in liquid engines and stages over these years. If there's an opportunity to develop a new liquid LV or stage, NGSS/LV has some very good and mature foundations to build on.
Having said all that, the company is responsible to earth-based stockholders, not space-colonist billionaires. Decisions on staffing, etc., are made with realistic forecasts... and some would say the pain of having to staff up after an NSSL win is easier to bear than the pain of downsizing after a loss. In other words, I (see asterisk) do not expect to hear of layoffs anytime soon.
For NGSS, the future may include OmegA-derived LVs, Omega/Antares hybrids, Antares upgrades/evolutions... or maybe it won't. Maybe there's something completely different on the horizon. Maybe heritage Northrop/TRW has something from the back of their catalog that will see new light. Maybe it's an exit to this segment of the market. There are also white-tail assets whose future is unknown.
Personally, I recognize that participating in the development of a Heavy-Lift launch system such as OmegA is very likely a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and I'm glad to have been a part of it from Day 0. Go OmegA!
*Opinions are my own, not authorized to speak on behalf of the company.
Edit:Finished an incomplete sentence and changed up a repetitive word or two to keep my HS Junior English teacher from marking off points on my essay. -
#70 by sdsds on 20 Aug, 2020 02:04
-
The rumors of layoffs are greatly exaggerated.*
Thanks very much for sharing your perspective here; the thoughtfulness of your entire post it is greatly appreciated.QuoteAlso, losing NSSL is not an existential threat to NGSS as it is for ULA. SpaceX would continue flying F9, FH and developing SH/SS; Blue would continue developing at their own pace; but for ULA this was a must-win contract.
Excellent summary. It precisely addresses a major concern of those who feel e.g. SpaceX (but also NGSS) should have received more support. The legacy of the Arsenal Act lives on.... (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42062.pdf)
A minor point though: like for NGSS, losing NSSL would not have been an existential threat to either of the ULA parent companies.Quotecounter-hypersonics
Ew. Just personally I find that thought frightening in the extreme. -
#71 by Proponent on 20 Aug, 2020 17:20
-
Tweet from Eric Berger of Ars Technica.
-
#72 by TrevorMonty on 21 Aug, 2020 03:55
-
Getting to orbit is only part of story it is what you do in space that counts.NGSS are still pushing ahead with in space technologies eg MEV MRV MEP and Transfer Element. In space transport, robotics and assembly is where future is with NGSS being one of leaders.
-
#73 by ChrisWilson68 on 21 Aug, 2020 04:13
-
Getting to orbit is only part of story it is what you do in space that counts.NGSS are still pushing ahead with in space technologies eg MEV MRV MEP and Transfer Element. In space transport, robotics and assembly is where future is with NGSS being one of leaders.
I do suspect their future is in space, not launch. But I think it's more in terms of weapons than these other applications. Missiles are where solids really shine. I think in the long run solids for other propulsion will be out-competed by liquids, ion drives, solar sails, nuclear propulsion, etc.
Where people go, there will be weapons, so NGSS has a future in space.
-
#74 by groundbound on 21 Aug, 2020 04:38
-
Getting to orbit is only part of story it is what you do in space that counts.NGSS are still pushing ahead with in space technologies eg MEV MRV MEP and Transfer Element. In space transport, robotics and assembly is where future is with NGSS being one of leaders.
Absolutely. Orbital launch has always had the biggest mindshare, yet been a relatively small portion of space revenue. It doesn't take much to extrapolate the current industry changes to conclude that a few years from now, launch-to-orbit will be almost a fool's errand as a business. Spacecraft along with the proliferation of space missions will be the pot of gold. -
#75 by Proponent on 25 Aug, 2020 12:24
-
SpaceNews takes a not-so-categorical tack on OmegA's future: Northrop Grumman statement: “We will determine next steps once the debriefing process concludes."
-
#76 by Proponent on 10 Sep, 2020 18:11
-
Northrop Grumman Wins $13.3 Billion ICBM Contract.
Not particularly topical question: if OmegA really is dead, will any system aside from SLS be using segmented SRM's following Ariane 5's retirement? -
#77 by Solarsail on 10 Sep, 2020 20:19
-
Not particularly topical question: if OmegA really is dead, will any system aside from SLS be using segmented SRM's following Ariane 5's retirement?
Well, there's ISRO's GSLV Mk3, which uses 3 segment SRMs as their ground lit stage, kind of analogous to the Titan family of rockets. I'm not sure if the S125 or S139 motors of PSLV and earlier GSLV are single or multi-segment. -
#78 by Steven Pietrobon on 11 Sep, 2020 10:45
-
Well, there's ISRO's GSLV Mk3, which uses 3 segment SRMs as their ground lit stage, kind of analogous to the Titan family of rockets. I'm not sure if the S125 or S139 motors of PSLV and earlier GSLV are single or multi-segment.
The PSLV and GSLV Mk.II core solid motors are multi segment. You can see this in the various press kits.
https://www.isro.gov.in/brochures-0
-
#79 by Proponent on 11 Sep, 2020 14:37
-
And it's official: Northrop Grumman to terminate OmegA rocket program.
EDIT: It's hard to believe the Stick might actually be dead, after an agonizing 15-year demise.
