-
#80 by Redclaws on 12 Aug, 2022 23:03
-
Theyve long considered upgrading the upper stage to high energy liquid. Your question is like “why would NG want more money?”Without reusability to lower costs, Antares will only ever launch Cygnus.
The question ultimately becomes "does Northrop Grumman want Antares to launch things other than Cygnus (and maybe occasional high-energy government launches)?" Because if Northrop buys Firefly (as many believe is on the agenda), they'll have MLV (née Firefly Beta) for the commercial market.
Antares isn’t very high energy, at least not the old version - why would it do a high energy launch?
I guess I meant “why would it *win* one”, but I see your point. -
#81 by trimeta on 12 Aug, 2022 23:23
-
Theyve long considered upgrading the upper stage to high energy liquid. Your question is like “why would NG want more money?”Without reusability to lower costs, Antares will only ever launch Cygnus.
The question ultimately becomes "does Northrop Grumman want Antares to launch things other than Cygnus (and maybe occasional high-energy government launches)?" Because if Northrop buys Firefly (as many believe is on the agenda), they'll have MLV (née Firefly Beta) for the commercial market.
Antares isn’t very high energy, at least not the old version - why would it do a high energy launch?
I guess I meant “why would it *win* one”, but I see your point.
I was also thinking back to earlier speculation that they may build an "Antares 330 Heavy" variant with strap-on SRBs to further increase performance. Obviously, such boosters would basically make first-stage reuse impossible, but if they only did it for occasional launches, perhaps even using MLV first stages that have flown a few times already... -
#82 by Zed_Noir on 13 Aug, 2022 02:03
-
<snip>
Not necessary impossible. But adding strapped-on solid booster probably requires a new launch pad in Florida and recovering the core on a floating platform much further out at sea.
I was also thinking back to earlier speculation that they may build an "Antares 330 Heavy" variant with strap-on SRBs to further increase performance. Obviously, such boosters would basically make first-stage reuse impossible, but if they only did it for occasional launches, perhaps even using MLV first stages that have flown a few times already...
Also what solid boosters as strapped-on booster. Medium size ones like the GEM-63XL or large ones like the Castor-120.
However the easiest way to increase performance is upgrading to a restartable upper stage with liquid rocket motor(s) without changing the ground support equipement much.. -
#83 by edkyle99 on 13 Aug, 2022 03:15
-
This new first stage is a big thrust upgrade. 730 tonnes thrust versus 392 or 372 or whatever they let the RD-181s throttle up to at launch. That's significant growth opportunity. No strap-on motors needed!
- Ed Kyle -
#84 by TrevorMonty on 13 Aug, 2022 05:39
-
This new first stage is a big thrust upgrade. 730 tonnes thrust versus 392 or 372 or whatever they let the RD-181s throttle up to at launch. That's significant growth opportunity. No strap-on motors needed!
If they use Miranda engine for US then F9 is closes comparison as they are usingvsame furl and similar engines. F9 booster is 7600kn while Beta is 7100. Firefly say Beta LEO performance is 13t, no mention of reuse but I'm assuming it is as F9R is 16t downrange recovery. If this is case expendable Beta would be about 18-20t. Add 6xGem63 and should be close to 30t.
- Ed Kyle -
#85 by starchasercowboy on 13 Aug, 2022 16:28
-
How bout a Pegasus 2 with Reaver engines, is it possible? L1011 has alot of service left in it. Probably reduce the rocket price in half and increase performance. Maybe move to the 747 later, redo the aft skirt with 4 fins and no vertical.
-
#86 by TrevorMonty on 13 Aug, 2022 19:44
-
How bout a Pegasus 2 with Reaver engines, is it possible? L1011 has alot of service left in it. Probably reduce the rocket price in half and increase performance. Maybe move to the 747 later, redo the aft skirt with 4 fins and no vertical.
Would just be another 1000kg class LV which Alpha is. This class will have 3 LVs servicing within next year.
-
#87 by Jim on 13 Aug, 2022 22:38
-
How bout a Pegasus 2 with Reaver engines, is it possible? L1011 has alot of service left in it. Probably reduce the rocket price in half and increase performance. Maybe move to the 747 later, redo the aft skirt with 4 fins and no vertical.
No, the development costs would be high. And Pegasus motor thrust is much higher. -
#88 by trimeta on 13 Aug, 2022 23:59
-
How bout a Pegasus 2 with Reaver engines, is it possible? L1011 has alot of service left in it. Probably reduce the rocket price in half and increase performance. Maybe move to the 747 later, redo the aft skirt with 4 fins and no vertical.
If you cut Pegasus's price in half and increase the payload, it's still more expensive and probably less payload than LauncherOne. Which is itself too expensive and unlikely to survive in the launch market. Trying to make a worse version seems unwise. -
#89 by Redclaws on 14 Aug, 2022 00:16
-
How bout a Pegasus 2 with Reaver engines, is it possible? L1011 has alot of service left in it. Probably reduce the rocket price in half and increase performance. Maybe move to the 747 later, redo the aft skirt with 4 fins and no vertical.
Also, Pegasus is all solid, so now you’ve got to add cryogenic capacity to the carrier. That can be done but it’s going to be a lot of work and sort of invalidates using the existing L1011 (since you might not want to put money in to it). -
#90 by trimeta on 14 Aug, 2022 00:28
-
How bout a Pegasus 2 with Reaver engines, is it possible? L1011 has alot of service left in it. Probably reduce the rocket price in half and increase performance. Maybe move to the 747 later, redo the aft skirt with 4 fins and no vertical.
Also, Pegasus is all solid, so now you’ve got to add cryogenic capacity to the carrier. That can be done but it’s going to be a lot of work and sort of invalidates using the existing L1011 (since you might not want to put money in to it).
I kind of assumed that LauncherOne is filled with subchilled LOX on the runway, and then is simply allowed to come up to its boiling point during travel to the drop site. Or maybe they just accept boil-off and recognize that the tanks won't be full at launch. Either way, no cryogenic top-off from the carrier aircraft.
Of course, even having gaseous (but extremely cold) oxygen venting under the plane's wing might not be great... -
#91 by su27k on 14 Aug, 2022 05:31
-
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1557013557312720897Quote
Northrop and Firefly's "50/50 cost-share" plan:
Mid-to-late 2024: Launch the Antares 330, which replaces the 230+ series with Firefly-produced first stage & engines.
Late 2025: Launch the "MLV," which replaces Firefly's Beta rocket.
https://cnbc.com/2022/08/09/northrop-grumman-moves-rocket-work-from-russia-ukraine-with-firefly.html -
#92 by Robotbeat on 15 Aug, 2022 17:08
-
Or just strap on two more liquid boosters instead. Could reuse all 3.
Theyve long considered upgrading the upper stage to high energy liquid. Your question is like “why would NG want more money?”Without reusability to lower costs, Antares will only ever launch Cygnus.
The question ultimately becomes "does Northrop Grumman want Antares to launch things other than Cygnus (and maybe occasional high-energy government launches)?" Because if Northrop buys Firefly (as many believe is on the agenda), they'll have MLV (née Firefly Beta) for the commercial market.
Antares isn’t very high energy, at least not the old version - why would it do a high energy launch?
I guess I meant “why would it *win* one”, but I see your point.
I was also thinking back to earlier speculation that they may build an "Antares 330 Heavy" variant with strap-on SRBs to further increase performance. Obviously, such boosters would basically make first-stage reuse impossible, but if they only did it for occasional launches, perhaps even using MLV first stages that have flown a few times already... -
#93 by Robotbeat on 15 Aug, 2022 17:11
-
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1557013557312720897
Okay, that makes sense. Ukraine and Russia are both out of the picture for Firefly and Antares, so each company has a big gaping hole, on the funding side for Firefly and on the first stage side for Antares. The holes fit together.QuoteNorthrop and Firefly's "50/50 cost-share" plan:
Mid-to-late 2024: Launch the Antares 330, which replaces the 230+ series with Firefly-produced first stage & engines.
Late 2025: Launch the "MLV," which replaces Firefly's Beta rocket.
https://cnbc.com/2022/08/09/northrop-grumman-moves-rocket-work-from-russia-ukraine-with-firefly.html -
#94 by TrevorMonty on 15 Aug, 2022 18:56
-
Given how many times FH has flown not worth extra R&D. SRBs are off the shelf.
Or just strap on two more liquid boosters instead. Could reuse all 3.
Theyve long considered upgrading the upper stage to high energy liquid. Your question is like “why would NG want more money?”Without reusability to lower costs, Antares will only ever launch Cygnus.
The question ultimately becomes "does Northrop Grumman want Antares to launch things other than Cygnus (and maybe occasional high-energy government launches)?" Because if Northrop buys Firefly (as many believe is on the agenda), they'll have MLV (née Firefly Beta) for the commercial market.
Antares isn’t very high energy, at least not the old version - why would it do a high energy launch?
I guess I meant “why would it *win* one”, but I see your point.
I was also thinking back to earlier speculation that they may build an "Antares 330 Heavy" variant with strap-on SRBs to further increase performance. Obviously, such boosters would basically make first-stage reuse impossible, but if they only did it for occasional launches, perhaps even using MLV first stages that have flown a few times already... -
#95 by starchasercowboy on 15 Aug, 2022 19:10
-
How bout a Pegasus 2 with Reaver engines, is it possible? L1011 has alot of service left in it. Probably reduce the rocket price in half and increase performance. Maybe move to the 747 later, redo the aft skirt with 4 fins and no vertical.
Also, Pegasus is all solid, so now you’ve got to add cryogenic capacity to the carrier. That can be done but it’s going to be a lot of work and sort of invalidates using the existing L1011 (since you might not want to put money in to it).
I kind of assumed that LauncherOne is filled with subchilled LOX on the runway, and then is simply allowed to come up to its boiling point during travel to the drop site. Or maybe they just accept boil-off and recognize that the tanks won't be full at launch. Either way, no cryogenic top-off from the carrier aircraft.
Of course, even having gaseous (but extremely cold) oxygen venting under the plane's wing might not be great...
L1011 already plumbed and wiring installed for X-34 LOX/RP1 back in 2000 for Lox top off. Just need to add more tanks in cargo hold. The First, second stage could be substantially lighter being liquid than chemical and the wing could be removed and even the aft skirt, maybe even the third stage could be eliminated. This should offset the lower ISP Reaver. Development costs could be saved by having an airlaunch platform already, in house avionics, operations experience, some GSE engineers already staffed, already have facilities. Yeah, I think it's very doable for the future of small responsive launch under $20M per launch. -
#96 by trimeta on 15 Aug, 2022 20:04
-
L1011 already plumbed and wiring installed for X-34 LOX/RP1 back in 2000 for Lox top off. Just need to add more tanks in cargo hold. The First, second stage could be substantially lighter being liquid than chemical and the wing could be removed and even the aft skirt, maybe even the third stage could be eliminated. This should offset the lower ISP Reaver. Development costs could be saved by having an airlaunch platform already, in house avionics, operations experience, some GSE engineers already staffed, already have facilities. Yeah, I think it's very doable for the future of small responsive launch under $20M per launch.
I don't think there's enough "not just responsive launch, but actual air launch" demand to sustain even one air-launch system (LauncherOne). And a system using Reaver engines and the L1011 would almost certainly carry less than (or at least, not substantially more than) 500kg to orbit while costing more than $12 million. So there definitely isn't demand for a second, worse air-launch system (even if it's somewhat more competitive than Pegasus). -
#97 by gemmy0I on 25 Aug, 2022 02:42
-
You bring up a very interesting point here. I've mentioned before that I think the "real" reason Northrop has continued to fly Antares up to this point, despite it being absurdly uncompetitive on the open market, is that every Antares they fly is an opportunity to sell a Castor 30XL upper stage to themselves.Without reusability to lower costs, Antares will only ever launch Cygnus.
The question ultimately becomes "does Northrop Grumman want Antares to launch things other than Cygnus (and maybe occasional high-energy government launches)?" Because if Northrop buys Firefly (as many believe is on the agenda), they'll have MLV (née Firefly Beta) for the commercial market.
We can deduce that the overall profit margin on Antares is relatively low (i.e., the actual cost of building and flying it is close to its published market price), because if it weren't, Northrop could be making more money by cutting its price to try to capture some of the commercial market. (Yes, the current Antares is a bit small to compete against Falcon 9, but it could take some of the low-end F9 payloads, as well as some of Soyuz's, which until recently was doing a brisk commercial business.) So if very little of Antares's price is actually profit for Northrop, what's in it for them to keep flying it? Why not just spend the same money buying Falcon 9s to launch Cygnus? (F9's list price may be in some cases higher than Antares's, but they could likely negotiate a discount to close that gap since the alternative would be SpaceX not getting any business at all.)
It only really makes sense when you realize that the Castor is the one part of Antares that actually matters from Northrop's business perspective. It doesn't matter that they could probably buy themselves a Falcon 9 for the same price as their internal cost to build and fly an Antares. What matters to Northrop is that a portion of those dollars spent on every Antares are being spent in-house, versus to a third party.
We've heard before that there's a lot of economics-of-scale synergy between Northrop's various solid-rocket lines (they pitched this as a major selling point for OmegA). This means the marginal cost of cranking out a few extra solid motors is probably quite low, relative to the high fixed costs of maintaining the necessary production infrastructure (most of which is likely already paid for by other programs). By "selling" even just a few Castors to the Antares program each year - even at-cost - they can amortize those fixed costs over a larger customer base, raising their profit margin across their whole solid rocket business.
If increasing their solid rocket production cadence by even this small amount can unlock better economics of scale, it's worthwhile for them to pursue, even if the entire rest of each Antares's cost is pure pass-through to the subcontractors they're buying it from. And it likely is pretty close to pure pass-through, since the Antares 230 first stage is basically a kitbash of the old Zenit design: Ukrainian tankage mated to 2x Russian RD-181 engines. There's very little actual value-add by Northrop as integrator, besides the political edge of being able to sell an "American rocket" to win contracts that a Zenit-as-such wouldn't be able to compete for. (They like to sell up Northrop's avionics as a value-add, but Zenit had its own avionics that could have been - and maybe were - used as a starting point. Same situation Firefly will be in.)
This is different from, say, the situation ULA was in with Atlas V. Yes, they were buying engines from the Russians, but the Atlas V tankage, structure, and plumbing were all theirs. There was a clear value-add. Not so much with the Antares first stage.
What's fascinating is that whatever economics-of-scale boost Northrop is getting for its SRB business by making those couple extra Castors a year is evidently enough to outweigh the costs that Northrop has already spent significantly redesigning the Antares first stage. (Going from NK-33s to RD-181s was surely not a trivial change.) It feels like they "should" have given up on Antares several times by now, but they haven't. Instead they're going to invest in a new, even more radical re-design of the first stage with Firefly, merely to support ~2 Cygnus launches per year for a few years.
In light of this, it makes sense that they are pursuing two parallel paths with Antares 330 vs. Firefly Beta/MLV. A330 is designed to meet the needs of the existing Castor upper stage - no more, no less. It will be utterly uncompetitive on the open market, but that's fine, because the ~2 Cygnus launches it'll get each year are (evidently) enough to make the business case close for Northrop.
If this were not so, then Northrop surely wouldn't be doing this. They'd just go all-in on Firefly Beta/MLV and launch Cygnus on that from the get-go. I don't completely buy the argument that Antares 330 will be a "stop-gap" to hold Cygnus over until Beta is available. Getting Antares 330 to fly will require maybe 90%+ of the effort to get the real Beta flying. The only significant difference is the upper stage, and that's not really the hard part compared to the first stage. Surely Firefly could hack together a "minimum viable product" kerolox upper stage for Beta in the same time it'll take them to develop two distinct first stage variants. It's not like it needs to be amazingly efficient; even a low-Isp, overweight kerolox stage will blow away a solid Castor in performance. I just don't see the liquid upper stage being the long pole in Beta's tent.
I would not be surprised if Northrop wants to keep flying Cygnus on Antares 330 even after Beta is successfully flying. Beta will be great for capturing the commercial market (the profits of which Northrop will share in through their "50/50" partnership, and perhaps even as outright owner by then). But continuing to make a "special version" of the Beta first stage for Antares may remain worthwhile simply as an excuse to keep selling Castors to themselves.
-
#98 by Asteroza on 25 Aug, 2022 03:52
-
It only really makes sense when you realize that the Castor is the one part of Antares that actually matters from Northrop's business perspective. It doesn't matter that they could probably buy themselves a Falcon 9 for the same price as their internal cost to build and fly an Antares. What matters to Northrop is that a portion of those dollars spent on every Antares are being spent in-house, versus to a third party.
We've heard before that there's a lot of economics-of-scale synergy between Northrop's various solid-rocket lines (they pitched this as a major selling point for OmegA). This means the marginal cost of cranking out a few extra solid motors is probably quite low, relative to the high fixed costs of maintaining the necessary production infrastructure (most of which is likely already paid for by other programs). By "selling" even just a few Castors to the Antares program each year - even at-cost - they can amortize those fixed costs over a larger customer base, raising their profit margin across their whole solid rocket business.
Is keeping the large SRM production infrastructure "hot" (never mind any efforts at keeping the industrial base alive zombie style for the purposes of military procurement) all that necessary now though, in the sense of what other products/projects utilize that infrastructure? There was a downtrend in the previous decades that may have made that cross-pollinating business model work, but perhaps the business environment changed in the last year or two, such that the effort to continue Antares made sense then, but is increasingly less so only recently? -
#99 by gemmy0I on 25 Aug, 2022 06:37
-
Is keeping the large SRM production infrastructure "hot" (never mind any efforts at keeping the industrial base alive zombie style for the purposes of military procurement) all that necessary now though, in the sense of what other products/projects utilize that infrastructure? There was a downtrend in the previous decades that may have made that cross-pollinating business model work, but perhaps the business environment changed in the last year or two, such that the effort to continue Antares made sense then, but is increasingly less so only recently?
I suspect it's less a matter of "we need Antares as an anchor customer to keep the lines running" than it is "since we already have the lines running for other programs, we can pop out a few extra SRMs at a laughably low internal cost".
Depending on how the accountants want to book things, then, the Castors "purchased" by the Antares program could be considered nearly "pure profit" for the SRM program. Or alternately, the fixed costs could be treated as amortized evenly across all "customers". Either way, the overall profit margin across the SRM division is increased, which boosts the company's financial health in a key metric that investors pay attention to.
In other words, two extra Castors each year are not going to make or break Northrop's SRM business (especially not with ULA and the GBSD ballistic missile program now committed as massive anchor customers), but it's a nice way for them to take some of the money they're getting paid for Cygnus CRS flights and fold it back into the company to make their books look better overall. It beats sending that same money "out of the family" for a Falcon 9 or Vulcan, even though it's probably more or less a wash from the perspective of the Cygnus and Antares programs.
This seems to be a recurring strategy that Northrop/Orbital has used across its various "niche" solid rocket programs. Pegasus is even more laughably uncompetitive than Antares, with an almost completely nonexistent flight rate nowadays, but they still have it on offer because they figure they can crank another one out for peanuts without putting a real dent in the programs that are actually covering their fixed costs. This was also part of their sales pitch for OmegA when they bid it to the Space Force for NSSL: IIRC, they expressly made the point in their bid that unlike other competitors (*cough* ULA *cough*), they did not need to be selected for the primary slot (to receive 60% of the block buy missions) since they could make the program financially self-sustaining with only a couple flights a year.
This tidy little arrangement, however, only remains viable so long as the all-up internal cost of building and launching Antares doesn't truly exceed the cost of the next best alternative (internal or external). Right now, with Falcon 9's publicly-quoted prices in the ballpark of $50M (roughly the same as Antares'), it's close enough that they can continue to justify using Antares for Cygnus.
That could change very quickly when other companies like Rocket Lab and Relativity (and of course Firefly) enter the medium-lift space and force SpaceX to cut their prices closer to their internal costs. At that point, Northrop would face a choice between (for example) sending $30M out of the company versus spending $40M internally on the non-Castor parts of Antares. That's probably not worthwhile for them any more, as "buying" the rocket internally would no longer boost their overall profit margin (any improvements to the SRM division's margins would be offset by reductions in the Cygnus program's margins).
The pivot to a Firefly-produced first stage should help extend Antares' lease on life, since they can likely build it much more cheaply than what Northrop would've had to pay its foreign contractors to build the legacy Antares first stage. (The Russian RD-181s in particular wouldn't have come cheap, especially since they had no other good options at the time and wouldn't have been able to negotiate a good bargain.) If whatever first-stage reuse design Firefly cooks up for Beta can be readily applied to the closely related Antares 330, that'll help even more, as it should bring them roughly in line with their first-stage-reusing competitors' costs. I suspect, though, that they'll prefer to stick with the Castor upper stage as long as possible (i.e. until the market forces them to pivot to full reusability), since as long as other programs are covering the fixed costs, it should still be cheaper internally than buying Firefly Beta's liquid upper stage.
