-
#80
by
Robotbeat
on 29 Mar, 2022 13:57
-
From start of a contract awarded to ULA for launch and integration on a Atlas V. ULA launched Cygnus 1 year later. So getting Cygnus onto Vulcan should be able to be done in about the same timeline, especially since ULA has already done integration of Cygnus before but on a Atlas V. The question would be is when available Vulcan Flight hardware would be available?
So yes it is likely that a Vulcan launch of Cygnus could happen as early as Summer of 2023. As long as it gets on contract by this summer 2022 and there are engines to do the flight. But since there are 2 sets of LV hardware already in NG's hands. That gives time to do the swap without a hiccup in any of the planned flights of Cygnus.
But if we expect Vulcan to launch towards Q4 '22, I don't see it doing more than 3 launches in 2023. which means I can hardly see NG getting a slot before Q4 2024. If they need to keep the cadence (which I'm not sure since Dram Chaser would be flying on the second Vulcan and covers most of Cygnus needs), they could get one or two F9 launches to keep the ISS running. Seeing how the situation is affecting ESA and obviously Roscosmos, I think NASA should ask for as much redundancy as possible for the next four years.
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
Unless that’s the year it actually launches.
-
#81
by
baldusi
on 29 Mar, 2022 17:26
-
[...]
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
ULA has not stopped anything that they could do without the flight engines. And I'm pretty sure they have been studying how to accelerate everything else after they receive them, too. I now that they are now NET Q4 2022, which is just a NET. But I've not lost all hope. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they switch payloads so they launch as fast as they can. The market is currently supply limited.
-
#82
by
DanClemmensen
on 29 Mar, 2022 17:44
-
[...]
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
ULA has not stopped anything that they could do without the flight engines. And I'm pretty sure they have been studying how to accelerate everything else after they receive them, too. I now that they are now NET Q4 2022, which is just a NET. But I've not lost all hope. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they switch payloads so they launch as fast as they can. The market is currently supply limited.
The market may be LV supply limited, but I think that at least the first two launches will remain "test" launches, where loss of payload is not catastrophic. As of now, I think those two launches are Peregrine and Dream Chaser Demo-1.
-
#83
by
baldusi
on 29 Mar, 2022 20:57
-
[...]
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
ULA has not stopped anything that they could do without the flight engines. And I'm pretty sure they have been studying how to accelerate everything else after they receive them, too. I now that they are now NET Q4 2022, which is just a NET. But I've not lost all hope. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they switch payloads so they launch as fast as they can. The market is currently supply limited.
The market may be LV supply limited, but I think that at least the first two launches will remain "test" launches, where loss of payload is not catastrophic. As of now, I think those two launches are Peregrine and Dream Chaser Demo-1.
My point is that those payloads will probably be late. And something cheap, like a Kuiper or some small GEO sat can probably take the risk and be ready pretty fast.
-
#84
by
DanClemmensen
on 29 Mar, 2022 21:40
-
[...]
We don't actually expect it to launch at the end of this year. ANY rocket company that says "by the end of the year" actually means "some time next year". Like ALL of rocket history pretty much proves that.
ULA has not stopped anything that they could do without the flight engines. And I'm pretty sure they have been studying how to accelerate everything else after they receive them, too. I now that they are now NET Q4 2022, which is just a NET. But I've not lost all hope. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they switch payloads so they launch as fast as they can. The market is currently supply limited.
The market may be LV supply limited, but I think that at least the first two launches will remain "test" launches, where loss of payload is not catastrophic. As of now, I think those two launches are Peregrine and Dream Chaser Demo-1.
My point is that those payloads will probably be late. And something cheap, like a Kuiper or some small GEO sat can probably take the risk and be ready pretty fast.
Or if nobody wants to take a risk, just fly a Tesla Roadster.
-
#85
by
deadman1204
on 29 Mar, 2022 22:02
-
I think its fun that this same thread happens every 6-12 months about vulcan and be-4. Every time the same people mock anyone who doesn't believe the unrealistic timeline. Then they forget and move on to the next one
-
#86
by
Jim
on 29 Mar, 2022 22:33
-
I think its fun that this same thread happens every 6-12 months about vulcan and be-4. Every time the same people mock anyone who doesn't believe the unrealistic timeline. Then they forget and move on to the next one
What unrealistic timeline?
-
#87
by
JEF_300
on 31 Mar, 2022 21:51
-
I think its fun that this same thread happens every 6-12 months about vulcan and be-4. Every time the same people mock anyone who doesn't believe the unrealistic timeline. Then they forget and move on to the next one
That would be because the timelines are not unrealistic, merely wrong.
-
#88
by
JEF_300
on 31 Mar, 2022 21:53
-
-
#89
by
ZachS09
on 12 May, 2022 11:01
-
-
#90
by
TrevorMonty
on 12 May, 2022 17:17
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
#91
by
DanClemmensen
on 12 May, 2022 18:01
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
-
#92
by
Zed_Noir
on 12 May, 2022 18:54
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
My thinking is that for the limited number of Cygnus flights left. Northrop Grumman and NASA should just launch them on the Falcon 9 for less cost and launcher availability. Probably less paperwork than for a new launcher that might done only a few flights by mid 2023.
-
#93
by
DanClemmensen
on 12 May, 2022 19:30
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
My thinking is that for the limited number of Cygnus flights left. Northrop Grumman and NASA should just launch them on the Falcon 9 for less cost and launcher availability. Probably less paperwork than for a new launcher that might done only a few flights by mid 2023.
But now you have two problems. Will NASA permit an operational Cygnus-on-F9 without an initial test flight, and loss of launcher redundancy. Probably better to plan for Cygnus-on-Vulcan long-term, with Cargo Dragon as the contingency for one or two extra CRS flights if Cygnus-on-Vulcan slips.
-
#94
by
Robotbeat
on 12 May, 2022 19:42
-
If there’s a problem with F9, could just switch to Vulcan.
-
#95
by
Zed_Noir
on 12 May, 2022 19:56
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
My thinking is that for the limited number of Cygnus flights left. Northrop Grumman and NASA should just launch them on the Falcon 9 for less cost and launcher availability. Probably less paperwork than for a new launcher that might done only a few flights by mid 2023.
But now you have two problems. Will NASA permit an operational Cygnus-on-F9 without an initial test flight, and loss of launcher redundancy. Probably better to plan for Cygnus-on-Vulcan long-term, with Cargo Dragon as the contingency for one or two extra CRS flights if Cygnus-on-Vulcan slips.
The only thing new with the Cygnus on a Falcon 9 is the Cygnus itself. There was no test flight of the Cygnus on the Atlas V previously.
Also one of the Falcon 9 booster has refly multiple times with NRO payloads. A much more demanding customer than NASA.
Loss of launcher redundancy have to weighted against the time and cost in qualifying a new and more expensive launcher for a limited number of Cygnus flights.
-
#96
by
Coastal Ron
on 12 May, 2022 20:06
-
My thinking is that for the limited number of Cygnus flights left. Northrop Grumman and NASA should just launch them on the Falcon 9 for less cost and launcher availability. Probably less paperwork than for a new launcher that might done only a few flights by mid 2023.
But now you have two problems. Will NASA permit an operational Cygnus-on-F9 without an initial test flight, and loss of launcher redundancy.
I think Falcon 9/H has arrived at the point in its operational history that a single loss of a launch vehicle (1st or 2nd stage) won't result in a long stand down period. If any.
Certainly for the reusable 1st stage, the beauty of reusability is that SpaceX can inspect the 1st stage for any signs of wear and tear, but if a Falcon 9 1st stage fails after it has flown multiple times, I don't think NASA will be worried with the fleet as a whole.
Probably better to plan for Cygnus-on-Vulcan long-term, with Cargo Dragon as the contingency for one or two extra CRS flights if Cygnus-on-Vulcan slips.
And to be clear, I support supplier redundancy, so I'm not advocating Northrop Grumman choose the Falcon 9, just that the Falcon 9 is probably past the point where a launch failure results in a significant impact on launch schedules.
-
#97
by
deadman1204
on 12 May, 2022 20:12
-
Most likely a Vulcan.
It's needed in August 2023 if they intend to stick to the established Cygnus launch cadence. Will NASA allow an actual CRS-2 operational Cygnus-on-Vulcan flight first, or will they require some sort of demo flight?
I suspect Falcon 9. Its not like they is a pile of extra vulcans laying around in the next 12-15 months.
Especially if NASA wants a test fligt. Though I suppose ULA loves the paperwork route, but can that even be completed by next summer when the rocket hasn't ever flown yet?
-
#98
by
DanClemmensen
on 12 May, 2022 20:27
-
I'm not a rocket scientist or even a rocket engineer. How hard is it to move Cygnus to another launcher as measured in time and money? My guess it that it's a bit harder in the real world than it is in Kerbal. Is NASA likely to require a demonstration launch or not? Cygnus has flown on Atlas. Does this mean it's easier to fly it on Vulcan or not?
-
#99
by
SweetWater
on 12 May, 2022 20:54
-
I'm not a rocket scientist or even a rocket engineer. How hard is it to move Cygnus to another launcher as measured in time and money? My guess it that it's a bit harder in the real world than it is in Kerbal. Is NASA likely to require a demonstration launch or not? Cygnus has flown on Atlas. Does this mean it's easier to fly it on Vulcan or not?
Cygnus Orb-3 (which failed) was launched on 28 October 2014; the next Cygnus mission (OA-4) launched on an Atlas V on 6 December 2015, so Orbital was able to switch launchers in just over 13 months. AFAIK Atlas V was not in the cards as a Cygnus launcher prior to the Orb-3 failure - Orbital had already been looking to upgrade the engines on Antares before the accident.
The OA-4 mission was also the first enhanced Cygnus vehicle to be launched; NASA didn't require a demonstration mission due to launching on an Atlas V or due to an upgraded Cygnus being used. Presumably there would be some sort of oversight required but this precedent does not suggest that they would require a demonstration for a Cygnus launched on Vulcan.
I would assume it would be easier/more straightforward, from an integration standpoint, for ULA to launch a Cygnus on a Vulcan than it would be for a different provider with a different rocket, if only because Cygnus has already flown on Atlas V and ULA has presumably already done some work on what kinds of payload adaptors would be needed to fly customers who have traditionally flown on Atlas V on Vulcan.
Caveat: I am not a rocket scientist or engineer, either.
Or if nobody wants to take a risk, just fly a Tesla Roadster.