-
NG buys F9 flights for Cygnus
by
freddo411
on 08 Aug, 2022 20:30
-
https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1556736426485731330Northrop Grumman has purchased three Falcon 9 launches from @spacex to deliver Cygnus cargo ships to @Space_Station, filling the gap between last Antares rocket with Russian engines (early-mid '23) and first launch of new Antares in late '24 with engines made by @Firefly_Space.
-
#1
by
freddo411
on 08 Aug, 2022 20:32
-
2023 is looking to be the year that all the other rockets forgot.
Falcon 9 for the save.
-
#2
by
oldAtlas_Eguy
on 08 Aug, 2022 21:49
-
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1556718378370359296
New: Northrop Grumman has bought three Falcon 9 missions from SpaceX to launch its Cygnus cargo spacecraft, a spokeswoman says, as the company looks to replace Antares' Russian-made RD-181 engines with Firefly's Miranda engines.
At their normal mission rate of 2 /yr that gets Cygnus through till the H1 2025 mission time. By that time other options are Neutron out of Wallops. Even if they get a viable replacement engine for RD-181 they are still currently dependent on the 1st stage tank/structure from Ukraine. To replace that in a period of 2 years may be a little more of a problem than most think. How many total missions are still on contract yet to fly for Cygnus?
-
#3
by
Robert_the_Doll
on 09 Aug, 2022 00:08
-
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1556718378370359296
New: Northrop Grumman has bought three Falcon 9 missions from SpaceX to launch its Cygnus cargo spacecraft, a spokeswoman says, as the company looks to replace Antares' Russian-made RD-181 engines with Firefly's Miranda engines.
At their normal mission rate of 2 /yr that gets Cygnus through till the H1 2025 mission time. By that time other options are Neutron out of Wallops. Even if they get a viable replacement engine for RD-181 they are still currently dependent on the 1st stage tank/structure from Ukraine. To replace that in a period of 2 years may be a little more of a problem than most think. How many total missions are still on contract yet to fly for Cygnus?
It seems according to some sources that the tank structure as well as engines may come from Firefly Aerospace itself while the older Castor 120 upper stage, avionics, interstage structure, and fairings will be brought over from the 230 Antares to the 300.
-
#4
by
wannamoonbase
on 09 Aug, 2022 00:26
-
2023 is looking to be the year that all the other rockets forgot.
Falcon 9 for the save.
Falcon 9 is literally dancing on the grave of the Russian space industry.
NG made some bold moves here. Nice to see at least one domestic RP1 engine being developed.
-
#5
by
trimeta
on 09 Aug, 2022 04:45
-
It seems according to some sources that the tank structure as well as engines may come from Firefly Aerospace itself while the older Castor 120 upper stage, avionics, interstage structure, and fairings will be brought over from the 230 Antares to the 300.
Those "sources" being Northrop Grumman and Firefly themselves, in a big splashy press release from earlier today...
-
#6
by
DreamyPickle
on 09 Aug, 2022 07:11
-
Any speculation as to why they didn't choose Vulcan? It could be just that SpaceX offered a lower price but maybe Vulcan just doesn't have slots on the manifest.
-
#7
by
Hauerg
on 09 Aug, 2022 07:52
-
They need launch dates they can RELY ON because they have a contract with NASA to fulfill.
They cannot bet on Vulcan going 100% to plan from now on.
-
#8
by
DanClemmensen
on 09 Aug, 2022 13:21
-
Any speculation as to why they didn't choose Vulcan? It could be just that SpaceX offered a lower price but maybe Vulcan just doesn't have slots on the manifest.
They need to launch in September 2023 on a tested and proven rocket. Vulcan's first flight is now NET H1 2023, which does not leave enough time for additional flights for testing. What they really needed was a way to grab at least one and preferably three of the remaining Atlas Vs.
Three F9s is probably the best they could do. I doubt SpaceX would have been interested in a deal for less than three since they will need to do at least a little bit of custom engineering, and the three launches allow for a realistic schedule for the Firefly-Antares 330 with a first operational flight in Q1 2025, although I hope NG retained an option for further F9 flights if needed. Having chosen Firefly for the long-term solution, they would really not like to switch between multiple interim solutions.
-
#9
by
deadman1204
on 09 Aug, 2022 13:29
-
Any speculation as to why they didn't choose Vulcan? It could be just that SpaceX offered a lower price but maybe Vulcan just doesn't have slots on the manifest.
The first few Vulcan flights are already spoken for (putting aside questions of timing). There probably isn't one available for a couple years.
-
#10
by
DreamyPickle
on 10 Aug, 2022 06:38
-
Any speculation as to why they didn't choose Vulcan? It could be just that SpaceX offered a lower price but maybe Vulcan just doesn't have slots on the manifest.
They need to launch in September 2023 on a tested and proven rocket. Vulcan's first flight is now NET H1 2023, which does not leave enough time for additional flights for testing. What they really needed was a way to grab at least one and preferably three of the remaining Atlas Vs.
If anything Cygnus is one of the payloads with the highest failure tolerance. The military payloads that Vulcan is planning to launch are more expensive and difficult to replace.
If an ISS resupply is missed then NASA can just wait a few months.
-
#11
by
DanClemmensen
on 10 Aug, 2022 13:17
-
Any speculation as to why they didn't choose Vulcan? It could be just that SpaceX offered a lower price but maybe Vulcan just doesn't have slots on the manifest.
They need to launch in September 2023 on a tested and proven rocket. Vulcan's first flight is now NET H1 2023, which does not leave enough time for additional flights for testing. What they really needed was a way to grab at least one and preferably three of the remaining Atlas Vs.
If anything Cygnus is one of the payloads with the highest failure tolerance. The military payloads that Vulcan is planning to launch are more expensive and difficult to replace.
If an ISS resupply is missed then NASA can just wait a few months.
Vulcan's first two launches are supposed to be Peregrine and Dream Chaser Demo-1, both picked because they are risk-tolerant missions.
NASA may or may not be willing to take the risk on Cygnus, but NG is contractually obligated by CRS-2, so I doubt NG would take an unnecessary risk here (personal opinion/guess, no actual information).
NASA already has a CRS backup, namely Cargo Dragon. No need to wait a few months.
-
#12
by
edkyle99
on 10 Aug, 2022 13:26
-
It seems according to some sources that the tank structure as well as engines may come from Firefly Aerospace itself while the older Castor 120 upper stage, avionics, interstage structure, and fairings will be brought over from the 230 Antares to the 300.
Castor 30XL is the current Antares upper stage. Same diameter as Castor 120, but shorter.
- Ed Kyle
-
#13
by
libra
on 10 Aug, 2022 14:12
-
15 years ago Orbital gots the second COTS contract, along SpaceX Dragon 1.
And now Cygnus and Dragon (2 !) will kind of sleep with the same rocket.
Time is flying. And this is a little triumph for SpaceX: they have kind of seized their COTS competitor for ISS cargo delivery.
-
#14
by
DanClemmensen
on 10 Aug, 2022 15:01
-
15 years ago Orbital gots the second COTS contract, along SpaceX Dragon 1.
And now Cygnus and Dragon (2 !) will kind of sleep with the same rocket.
Time is flying. And this is a little triumph for SpaceX: they have kind of seized their COTS competitor for ISS cargo delivery.
SpaceX is a for-profit launch company. NGIS is a paying customer. I'm sure SpaceX will make a nice profit on these three launches. Any gloating will be secondary, and I hope will be private.
From a strategic perspective, SpaceX has a vested interest in demonstrating that the space industry as a whole is reliable even in the face of major disruptions. The same thing happened with the OneWeb F9 contract, and the root cause is the same in both cases: Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
SpaceX has an additional incentive for launching Cygnus: SpaceX is making money on its CCP and CRS contracts, and these depend on ISS, which needs to remain viable. Also, being perceived as helping NGIS/Cygnus out of a jam may make their NASA customer happy.
-
#15
by
freddo411
on 10 Aug, 2022 19:08
-
I can't help but wonder if there is a bit too much "fat" in the CRS contracts.
NGIS has enough money to pay full retail launch prices on Atlas V and Falcon 9, and pay to develop Antares 100, 200, and 300. Note that Antares hasn't launched any other payloads; so all launch pad costs are fully on CRS.
Some might say that CRS over funding SpaceX and NGIS has been an investment in competitive commercial services, which may be a worthy goal. I don't disagree with that.
It might be nice for NASA (and the ISS budget in general) if upmass costs were driven down
-
#16
by
Jim
on 10 Aug, 2022 19:11
-
I can't help but wonder if there is a bit too much "fat" in the CRS contracts.
NGIS has enough money to pay full retail launch prices on Atlas V and Falcon 9, and pay to develop Antares 100, 200, and 300. Note that Antares hasn't launched any other payloads; so all launch pad costs are fully on CRS.
You don't if they are making money on it
-
#17
by
DanClemmensen
on 10 Aug, 2022 22:56
-
I can't help but wonder if there is a bit too much "fat" in the CRS contracts.
NGIS has enough money to pay full retail launch prices on Atlas V and Falcon 9, and pay to develop Antares 100, 200, and 300. Note that Antares hasn't launched any other payloads; so all launch pad costs are fully on CRS.
I don't see it. NGIS had to react to a "force majure" event that killed their Antares supply. They were able to recover because they are big enough and had enough resources, but it probably cut into their profits.
-
#18
by
Zed_Noir
on 11 Aug, 2022 02:27
-
15 years ago Orbital gots the second COTS contract, along SpaceX Dragon 1.
And now Cygnus and Dragon (2 !) will kind of sleep with the same rocket.
Time is flying. And this is a little triumph for SpaceX: they have kind of seized their COTS competitor for ISS cargo delivery.
SpaceX is a for-profit launch company. NGIS is a paying customer. I'm sure SpaceX will make a nice profit on these three launches. Any gloating will be secondary, and I hope will be private.
From a strategic perspective, SpaceX has a vested interest in demonstrating that the space industry as a whole is reliable even in the face of major disruptions. The same thing happened with the OneWeb F9 contract, and the root cause is the same in both cases: Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
SpaceX has an additional incentive for launching Cygnus: SpaceX is making money on its CCP and CRS contracts, and these depend on ISS, which needs to remain viable. Also, being perceived as helping NGIS/Cygnus out of a jam may make their NASA customer happy.
One should be magnanimous after clearing the playing field of lesser opponents.
.
-
#19
by
deadman1204
on 12 Aug, 2022 14:18
-
I can't help but wonder if there is a bit too much "fat" in the CRS contracts.
NGIS has enough money to pay full retail launch prices on Atlas V and Falcon 9, and pay to develop Antares 100, 200, and 300. Note that Antares hasn't launched any other payloads; so all launch pad costs are fully on CRS.
Some might say that CRS over funding SpaceX and NGIS has been an investment in competitive commercial services, which may be a worthy goal. I don't disagree with that.
It might be nice for NASA (and the ISS budget in general) if upmass costs were driven down
I think the companies look at the contracts over the full term, not simply the individual launch. When Orbital ATK was forced to launch on an Atlas, they might've made negligible profit (or even possibly a loss) for the 3? launches. However, the CRS contract as a whole was still profitable. If they were unable to launch for some time, they might've lost the contract as a whole.
The companies certainly need to make enough profit to make the risks worthwhile. Consider that both providers (Dragon and Cygnus) have experienced a launch failure related to the CRS contract. NASA always knew this was a possibility, so the contracts needed to provide enough money so that a big investigation and grounding wouldn't force the company to simply drop the contract. If margins were razor thin, both companies would've walked away because CRS would've become a net money drain on them.
Recent events support this - NG is supporting the design of a brand new first stage for Antares. They aren't getting a new design contract from NASA to pay for new CRS hardware either. Again, thin profit margins would've made NG cancel the contract instead if they were gonna lose money over the lifetime of the contract.
