-
#20
by
edkyle99
on 08 Aug, 2022 21:04
-
Still need a new pad and upperstage. Wallops was a big mistake
Could you clarify? My interpretation was that Antares 330 will use the existing Antares launch pad.
- Ed Kyle
-
#21
by
freddo411
on 08 Aug, 2022 21:11
-
Consider the list of boosters that Cygnus has launched on :
* Antares 100
* Antares 200
* Atlas V
In the future we can add Falcon 9 and Antares 300
The list of spacecraft that have rode 3, 4 or 5 different boosters to orbit is very, very small.
What spacecraft have done that?
-
#22
by
gongora
on 08 Aug, 2022 21:14
-
Consider the list of boosters that Cygnus has launched on :
* Antares 100
* Antares 200
* Atlas V
In the future we can add Falcon 9 and Antares 300
The list of spacecraft that have rode 3, 4 or 5 different boosters to orbit is very, very small.
What spacecraft have done that?
Some of the commercial satellite buses have flown on a lot more LVs than that
-
#23
by
Jim
on 08 Aug, 2022 21:20
-
Still need a new pad and upperstage. Wallops was a big mistake
Could you clarify? My interpretation was that Antares 330 will use the existing Antares launch pad.
- Ed Kyle
KSC pad and non solid upper stage to be really useful
-
#24
by
Rik ISS-fan
on 08 Aug, 2022 21:20
-
Is there a plan for the Q4 2023 launch?
Other options?
NG ordered 3 Falcon 9 launches. Another option would have been the Ariane 62. I would have preferred that.
A nice development Firefly Beta and Antares merging into a single development.
Can we expect Firefly Beta to get nicknamed Antares 340?
Could Firefly Beta benefit from the upperstages/kick-stages proposed for Antares?
What is the relation between the Firefly Miranda / Viranda Engines and the Ukranian RD-801 engines. Or is it more related to the RS-27(A)? How far along is firefly with the engine development?
It's clear there is a very tight dateline, but I think this is a nice development.
It doesn't have to be reusable, but it could become reusable, if launch demand is high enough.
-
#25
by
ugordan
on 08 Aug, 2022 21:35
-
NG ordered 3 Falcon 9 launches. Another option would have been the Ariane 62. I would have preferred that.
Buying time until an unflown rocket flies by booking an unflown rocket? Sounds like a plan.
-
#26
by
vaporcobra
on 09 Aug, 2022 00:18
-
Still need a new pad and upperstage. Wallops was a big mistake
Could you clarify? My interpretation was that Antares 330 will use the existing Antares launch pad.
- Ed Kyle
KSC pad and non solid upper stage to be really useful
You're not wrong, and that's actually almost exactly what Firefly's full Beta rocket is, just with a pad at CCSFS instead of KSC. Beta will have a full-diameter liquid upper stage with a turbopump-powered kerolox engine with about the same thrust as MVac.
That said, it's undeniably strange that NG didn't just buy Beta launch contracts. They're seemingly clinging to the outdated Antares model of buying lots of different stages/subassemblies from third parties and integrating them into a rocket they call their own. I would bet money that Beta will be significantly cheaper, have a bigger fairing, and offer better performance than Antares 330.
-
#27
by
sdsds
on 09 Aug, 2022 00:29
-
They're seemingly clinging to the outdated Antares model of buying lots of different stages/subassemblies from third parties and integrating them into a rocket they call their own. I would bet money that Beta will be significantly cheaper, have a bigger fairing, and offer better performance than Antares 330.
They seemingly really like their own avionics and flight software. Can they really be blamed for that?
-
#28
by
butters
on 09 Aug, 2022 00:47
-
They're seemingly clinging to the outdated Antares model of buying lots of different stages/subassemblies from third parties and integrating them into a rocket they call their own. I would bet money that Beta will be significantly cheaper, have a bigger fairing, and offer better performance than Antares 330.
They seemingly really like their own avionics and flight software. Can they really be blamed for that?
Ah, yes. Remember when Northrop acquired Orbital-ATK, and Pegasus suddenly had a problem with position data from the first-stage rudder actuator, because Northrop wanted to use their own avionics, causing a two-year delay to NASA's ICON? Fun times.
-
#29
by
TrevorMonty
on 09 Aug, 2022 00:57
-
They're seemingly clinging to the outdated Antares model of buying lots of different stages/subassemblies from third parties and integrating them into a rocket they call their own. I would bet money that Beta will be significantly cheaper, have a bigger fairing, and offer better performance than Antares 330.
They seemingly really like their own avionics and flight software. Can they really be blamed for that?
Plus NG own pad so must be cheaper keep it inhouse even with low flightrate. The other advantage is they keep a foot in launch market.
NG are still working with Firefly on Beta, not sure how partnership will workout. NG bring alot launch experience to partnership especially with government customers, they also have flight proven avionics and SRBs. Firefly has only launched 1 Alpha so they've a lot to learn.
-
#30
by
Jim
on 09 Aug, 2022 01:40
-
Ah, yes. Remember when Northrop acquired Orbital-ATK, and Pegasus suddenly had a problem with position data from the first-stage rudder actuator, because Northrop wanted to use their own avionics, causing a two-year delay to NASA's ICON? Fun times.
It was the standard Orbital MACH avionics. Nothing was changed when NG bought them. All NG rockets and launch vehicles use Orbital heritage avionics still.
-
#31
by
Zed_Noir
on 09 Aug, 2022 02:10
-
Northrop Grumman have the Falcon 9 as backup in case the various Antares replacement schemes doesn't bring fruit or become too expensive. As long as the Dragon is flying for NASA.
Also the number of future non Cygnus flights matters. There is no point in replacing the current version of the Antares for only the Cygnus flights to the ISS. IMO.
-
#32
by
DanClemmensen
on 09 Aug, 2022 02:43
-
Northrop Grumman have the Falcon 9 as backup in case the various Antares replacement schemes doesn't bring fruit or become too expensive. As long as the Dragon is flying for NASA.
Also the number of future non Cygnus flights matters. There is no point in replacing the current version of the Antares for only the Cygnus flights to the ISS. IMO.
There are some types of CRS cargo that can be carried by Cygnus but not by Cargo Dragon. In addition, Cygnus has been demonstrated to provide reboost to ISS, but Cargo Dragon has not. I'm no sure about desat. With all of this, I think is reassuring that there are now multiple potential alternate launchers starting in Q4 2023.
We discussed alternatives much earlier (March?) on the Antares thread. Jim pointed out two problems with Cygnus-on-F9:
--Cygnus uses vertical integration
--F9 fairings do not provide for late-loading cargo.
Do we have any insight into how these problems will be solved?
-
#33
by
Zed_Noir
on 09 Aug, 2022 03:44
-
<snip>
We discussed alternatives much earlier (March?) on the Antares thread. Jim pointed out two problems with Cygnus-on-F9:
--Cygnus uses vertical integration
--F9 fairings do not provide for late-loading cargo.
Do we have any insight into how these problems will be solved?
The NRO spooks have kindly pay SpaceX to be able to vertically integrated payload on the Falcon Heavy at pad LC-39A with a mobile gantry tower.
However if I am not mistaken. The Antares with the Cygnus travels to the pad from the integration building horizontally on a transporter erector.
AFAIK late-loading cargo for the Cygnus can only be loaded before encapsulation. Since the only way to access the pressurized cargo compartment is through the CBM hatch in the nose of the Cygnus.
-
#34
by
king1999
on 09 Aug, 2022 04:31
-
-
#35
by
oldAtlas_Eguy
on 09 Aug, 2022 04:49
-
Northrop Grumman have the Falcon 9 as backup in case the various Antares replacement schemes doesn't bring fruit or become too expensive. As long as the Dragon is flying for NASA.
Also the number of future non Cygnus flights matters. There is no point in replacing the current version of the Antares for only the Cygnus flights to the ISS. IMO.
From the standpoint of purchasing more than the 3 F9 flights. At Cygnus current flight rate of 2 / yr the 3 F9's will get them all the way to Spring 2025 where either they have to have bought another F9 or the Firefly stage is ready. 1 F9 in Fall 2023 and 2 F9's in 2024 (Spring and Fall). They can wait probably as late as summer of 2024 to decide if they need another F9. So they are good now for awhile.
Also they could start implementing those Cygnus upgrades even before flying on Firefly.
A very useful upgrade would be increased prop load to increase ISS boost capability available on every flight. Higher total volume and cargo mass as well in the 1 to 3t amounts.
-
#36
by
DanClemmensen
on 09 Aug, 2022 05:30
-
-
#37
by
trimeta
on 09 Aug, 2022 05:34
-
AFAIK late-loading cargo for the Cygnus can only be loaded before encapsulation. Since the only way to access the pressurized cargo compartment is through the CBM hatch in the nose of the Cygnus.
Not true.
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/features/northrop-grummans-antares-team-demonstrates-new-capability-to-load-cargo-just-before-launch
According to Jim, this would require a hatch in the F9 fairing. (Jim, did I remember this correctly?) Since there are only a very few Cygnus-on-F9 flights, I infer that it is not cost-effective to design a recoverable fairing with a hatch: just design a non-recoverable fairing with a hatch.
For that matter, is late-load done on
every Cygnus launch? They could just have three without it (and if the station needs some late-load supplies during that time, carry them up on Dragon). It's only a problem if you've got late-load supplies which also need Cygnus's larger berthing port (rather than Dragon 2's docking port), but I have no idea if that's a real issue.
-
#38
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 09 Aug, 2022 06:14
-
-
#39
by
DreamyPickle
on 09 Aug, 2022 06:45
-
This is the first time I'm hearing about the firefly "Miranda" engine. Do we know for how long it has been in development, or any technical details?
Launching in 2024 with a brand-new engine seems very ambitious.