-
#140
by
trimeta
on 27 Dec, 2022 03:20
-
<snip>
This close and continued collaboration between the two companies is part of why I have a hard time imagining them still being separate in five years.
Who will be still be around after the next 5 years as a launch provider? Northrop Grumman could let Firefly take over the launch business and concentrated on the more profitable payload side of the business.
My general speculation is that Northrop will purchase Firefly and then use their successor organization (perhaps merged with parts of Northrop Grumman Space Systems) for all launch services. Although come to think of it, Northrop could also spin out NGSS (which is presumably what will be working on MLV along with Firefly) and sell that to Firefly. I don't know if Firefly will be in a position to make such a purchase, though, hence my belief that merger is more likely.
-
#141
by
TrevorMonty
on 27 Dec, 2022 18:20
-
Booster needs to be reuseable if they want a competitive LV which means liquid US. Add few Gem63XL SRBs that NG make and they have heavy ELV.
-
#142
by
sdsds
on 27 Dec, 2022 21:09
-
Booster needs to be reuseable if they want a competitive LV which means liquid US. Add few Gem63XL SRBs that NG make and they have heavy ELV.
Hmm, there's certainly some allure to the notion of a reusable booster with solids strapped on. Maybe it could make sense for some subset of launch missions. What would the strap-ons do to the downrange location and velocity of stage 1 / stage 2 separation, or put differently, what's the stage 1 "recovery penalty" they incur?
If the subset of missions for which the solution makes sense gets small enough, then the per-mission cost associated with developing the solution gets larger, and that spirals towards a potential mission subset almost indistinguishable from the empty set.
-
#143
by
edkyle99
on 28 Dec, 2022 02:23
-
Booster needs to be reuseable if they want a competitive LV which means liquid US. Add few Gem63XL SRBs that NG make and they have heavy ELV.
If they are only flying twice a year for ISS missions, reuse won't pay.
- Ed Kyle
-
#144
by
trimeta
on 28 Dec, 2022 03:56
-
Booster needs to be reuseable if they want a competitive LV which means liquid US. Add few Gem63XL SRBs that NG make and they have heavy ELV.
If they are only flying twice a year for ISS missions, reuse won't pay.
- Ed Kyle
It seems to me like Antares 330 will only fly twice a year for ISS missions, but the exact same first stage from that will be used on the MLV, which
will (hopefully) compete for commercial missions as well as Cygnus cargo. Thus work on first-stage reuse will pay off eventually.
I do have questions about whether expendable SRBs push the first stage past the envelope for reusability, but IANARS, so I'll defer to the calculations of those who are. Plus, having the option to pay extra to expend the first stage and also get a massive payload boost with SRBs may be attractive enough (at least to the military) to justify building it out.
-
#145
by
Zed_Noir
on 28 Dec, 2022 04:08
-
Booster needs to be reuseable if they want a competitive LV which means liquid US. Add few Gem63XL SRBs that NG make and they have heavy ELV.
If they are only flying twice a year for ISS missions, reuse won't pay.
- Ed Kyle
However Firefly could have more launches with the Beta booster with possibly different upper stage(s).
Also using the GEM 63XL or any strapped-on boosters requires the vehicle be stacked at a vertical integration facility on a launch platform. AIUI.
-
#146
by
TrevorMonty
on 28 Dec, 2022 05:42
-
Booster needs to be reuseable if they want a competitive LV which means liquid US. Add few Gem63XL SRBs that NG make and they have heavy ELV.
If they are only flying twice a year for ISS missions, reuse won't pay.
- Ed Kyle
It seems to me like Antares 330 will only fly twice a year for ISS missions, but the exact same first stage from that will be used on the MLV, which will (hopefully) compete for commercial missions as well as Cygnus cargo. Thus work on first-stage reuse will pay off eventually.
I do have questions about whether expendable SRBs push the first stage past the envelope for reusability, but IANARS, so I'll defer to the calculations of those who are. Plus, having the option to pay extra to expend the first stage and also get a massive payload boost with SRBs may be attractive enough (at least to the military) to justify building it out.
I was thinking expendable with SRBs but maybe able recover booster downrange if not too many SRBs used. FH core is recovered in some situations.
The booster may be basis of quite few variations.
Solid US for Cygnus
Liquid US and RTL or downrange recovery.
Downrange recovery with 2x SRBs.
Expendable with 4-6 SRBs.
-
#147
by
Zed_Noir
on 28 Dec, 2022 09:45
-
<snip>
I was thinking expendable with SRBs but maybe able recover booster downrange if not too many SRBs used. FH core is recovered in some situations.
The booster may be basis of quite few variations.
Solid US for Cygnus
Liquid US and RTL or downrange recovery.
Downrange recovery with 2x SRBs.
Expendable with 4-6 SRBs.
For high energy launches. Maybe a Titanized 3 stage expendable version with a pair of strapped-on Castor 120 SRB and air lite core stage with a hammerhead upper stage powered by either MethoLox or HydroLox engines.
-
#148
by
edkyle99
on 28 Dec, 2022 21:09
-
Or, just build the rocket to handle its payloads from the outset (as Northrop Grumman plans) so no augmentation is needed. Augmentation only increases costs. If this launch vehicle needs an upgrade in the future, there is plenty of capability-gain available in upper stage improvements.
- Ed Kyle
-
#149
by
sdsds
on 29 Dec, 2022 02:00
-
Mechanical loads and load paths: the engineers always seem highly concerned about them. (As if the propulsion thrust were going to crush the vehicle, or rip it apart, or something.) My hunch? The engineers' concern is why they get paid to design launch systems, and those of us with LEGO sets don't.
Still, if someone had an appropriately scaled LEGO set, or the CAD equivalent, it would be interesting to see where an optional inter-tank thrust beam (like in the STS/SLS design) would be located on the Neutron first stage.
-
#150
by
Robotbeat
on 29 Dec, 2022 14:34
-
Booster needs to be reuseable if they want a competitive LV which means liquid US. Add few Gem63XL SRBs that NG make and they have heavy ELV.
If they are only flying twice a year for ISS missions, reuse won't pay.
- Ed Kyle
It’s quite possible NG wants more launches per year than just 2. Launch pads are expensive infrastructure, both capital costs and upkeep. NG also makes satellites and offers satellite reboost/refuel/augmentation services which presumably they’d want to expand (and ability to do launch in-house is presumably partially what they were hoping to get out of buying OrbitalATK). If they want 10-20 launches per year, reuse does make sense. If nothing else, having such a capability would increase their bargaining power with SpaceX and Blue Origin and others.
If they had such a capability right now, I guarantee they’d get plenty of business from folks like Kuiper, OneWeb, and anyone else who wanted to diversify from just Falcon 9.
NG bought Orbital’s satellite business, too, remember… which included Leostar (JPSS-2,3,4, etc) and Geostar buses (SES 18,19, etc), plus NG’s own military satcoms.
I agree adding side boosters probably doesn’t make sense. Reuse makes sense if Firefly wants to develop it anyway for Beta. Side boosters means an expensive redesign. Upperstage improvements make more sense, but would require some other vendor to supply the engine, probably at least methalox, if not hydrolox, to be worth it. Otherwise just optimize their own solid upper stage or add a third stage.
-
#151
by
TrevorMonty
on 29 Dec, 2022 16:38
-
Upperstage improvements make more sense, but would require some other vendor to supply the engine, probably at least methalox, if not hydrolox, to be worth it. Otherwise just optimize their own solid upper stage or add a third stage.
Firefly have RP1 US engine called Virandax in development.
-
#152
by
starchasercowboy
on 29 Dec, 2022 16:45
-
Cargo transport to the moon should be the goal for a reusable beta. Next 20 years, the moon stations will require a lot of support. How to develop a lander into a Cygnus type Cargo transport should be designed into the second stage.
-
#153
by
TrevorMonty
on 29 Dec, 2022 17:49
-
Cargo transport to the moon should be the goal for a reusable beta. Next 20 years, the moon stations will require a lot of support. How to develop a lander into a Cygnus type Cargo transport should be designed into the second stage.
NG are supporting Dynetics with their lander plus Firefly are doing CLPS lander so no need to duplicate their efforts. In space transport is missing at present so maybe where NG invests. NB were supplying Transfer Element for original National Team proposal, I suspect they will use that work to help Dynetics.
-
#154
by
Redclaws
on 29 Dec, 2022 18:12
-
Booster needs to be reuseable if they want a competitive LV which means liquid US. Add few Gem63XL SRBs that NG make and they have heavy ELV.
If they are only flying twice a year for ISS missions, reuse won't pay.
- Ed Kyle
It’s quite possible NG wants more launches per year than just 2. Launch pads are expensive infrastructure, both capital costs and upkeep. NG also makes satellites and offers satellite reboost/refuel/augmentation services which presumably they’d want to expand (and ability to do launch in-house is presumably partially what they were hoping to get out of buying OrbitalATK). If they want 10-20 launches per year, reuse does make sense. If nothing else, having such a capability would increase their bargaining power with SpaceX and Blue Origin and others.
If they had such a capability right now, I guarantee they’d get plenty of business from folks like Kuiper, OneWeb, and anyone else who wanted to diversify from just Falcon 9.
NG bought Orbital’s satellite business, too, remember… which included Leostar (JPSS-2,3,4, etc) and Geostar buses (SES 18,19, etc), plus NG’s own military satcoms.
I agree adding side boosters probably doesn’t make sense. Reuse makes sense if Firefly wants to develop it anyway for Beta. Side boosters means an expensive redesign. Upperstage improvements make more sense, but would require some other vendor to supply the engine, probably at least methalox, if not hydrolox, to be worth it. Otherwise just optimize their own solid upper stage or add a third stage.
Third stages are pretty scary from a reliability perspective, I think. Not that they couldn’t…
But the entire thing NG ‘thing’ seems like such an odd and specialized cul-de-sac of vehicle development and expenditure. I guess hence cooperation with Firefly.
-
#155
by
Robotbeat
on 29 Dec, 2022 21:02
-
Upperstage improvements make more sense, but would require some other vendor to supply the engine, probably at least methalox, if not hydrolox, to be worth it. Otherwise just optimize their own solid upper stage or add a third stage.
Firefly have RP1 US engine called Virandax in development.
Yeah, but not a huge improvement over an optimized NG-developed solid stage.
-
#156
by
edzieba
on 30 Dec, 2022 10:28
-
Third stages are pretty scary from a reliability perspective, I think. Not that they couldn’t…
With the resurgence of bus-stages (upper stages that also act as intra-orbit tugs as well as hosting payloads) a hybrid Cygnus-stage - Cygnus service module mated to enlarged propellant tankage rather than the cargo module - may be an attractive development option for NG to produce a versatile upper stage from a flight proven platform.
-
#157
by
Robotbeat
on 30 Dec, 2022 13:14
-
Yeah, analogous to Rocketlab’s Photon which acts like a precision third stage. Or the fourth stage of Pegasus, the Hydrazine monoprop 3 axis controlled final stage that bulls out all the errors caused by the fact that solids don’t have a thrust tail off that is as controllable as a liquid rocket.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_stage/haps.htmI can see them using like a Super-Duper-HAPS stage. Or maybe a Mega-Photon bus derived from Cygnus or their servicing vehicles.
-
#158
by
JEF_300
on 30 Dec, 2022 15:24
-
Upperstage improvements make more sense, but would require some other vendor to supply the engine, probably at least methalox, if not hydrolox, to be worth it. Otherwise just optimize their own solid upper stage or add a third stage.
Firefly have RP1 US engine called Virandax in development.
Yeah, but not a huge improvement over an optimized NG-developed solid stage.
Even if we presuppose that 30-ish seconds of isp is not on its own enough to make a switch from solids to RP1 worthwhile, and that's far from clear to me, the increase in final orbit accuracy of switching to a liquid upper stage would probably still make the change worthwhile for everything but Cygnus flights.
-
#159
by
Robotbeat
on 30 Dec, 2022 15:52
-
Upperstage improvements make more sense, but would require some other vendor to supply the engine, probably at least methalox, if not hydrolox, to be worth it. Otherwise just optimize their own solid upper stage or add a third stage.
Firefly have RP1 US engine called Virandax in development.
Yeah, but not a huge improvement over an optimized NG-developed solid stage.
Even if we presuppose that 30-ish seconds of isp is not on its own enough to make a switch from solids to RP1 worthwhile, and that's far from clear to me, the increase in final orbit accuracy of switching to a liquid upper stage would probably still make the change worthwhile for everything but Cygnus flights.
Agreed… with the caveat that, at that point, it’s literally just Firefly’s Beta without any changes.
