Replace Pegasus with Minotaur 1?

[fredinno]

Should Orbital ATK replace Pegasus with Minotaur I?

http://spacenews.com/demise-gems-may-cost-orbital-150-jobs-doom-pegasus

http://innerspace.net/current-launch-vehicles/pegasus-launch-cost-soars-to-55-million/

http://spaceflightnow.com/minotaur/ors3/131119launch/#.Vmu8aUZxSrk

One thing that I wondered about is why Orbital kept using the air-launched Pegasus once it gained the ability to use Minuteman rockets for space launches in 2000. Though air-launch has its advantages, such as being able to launch to any orbit much more easily, Pegasus has become FAR more expensive (55 MILLION per launch), as its launch rate has shrunk to once a year, compared to Minotaur 1's $28.8 million (including the rocket AND the payload), and can launch about 100 kg less than its ICBM-derived counterpart.

 

Currently, both are incredibly expensive, but if operating costs are kept down by eliminating Pegasus infrastructure, and increasing the launch rate for the Minotaur (which should already be theoretically very low since 1. Uses mainly already-built stages  2. Uses ICBM stages that have large leftover stockpiles (Minuteman II)  3. USAF will dump about a good number of very similar Minuteman III ICBM (apparently 830 of these things were built, with about 100 or so launched). OrbitalATK would probably actually have a good thumb in the future cubesat market if it made the right choices with Minotaur I.

 

One would wonder why Orbital hasn't replaced Pegasus already.

 

There is one rebuttal I've found: According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_%28rocket%29#Related_projects

"Due to the use of surplus military rocket motors, it is only used for US Government and government-sponsored payloads."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_IV#STP-S26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr-1

I would think this is just something the author might have just made up, since Minotaur IV launched things like FASTRAC-A (granted, it is a nanosatellite) and the also ICBM-derived Denpr-1 launches commercial satellites (granted, it's foreign).

If this is the case, it really begs the question of how launching commercial satellites on ICBMs is a bad idea. How would the use of surplus ICBM motors be bad for defense? Does the DOD expect a spy payload to hitchhike a ride on a commercial satellite, and determine the properties of the rocket it is riding on (while still being useful for the enemy)?

 

One last note is that OrbitalATK considered retiring Pegasus, but decided to hold out. Let's hope they do it sooner than later- Pegasus seems like a bad asset at this point to keep hold onto.

[CaelumEtAstra]

If you think about it, the Pegasus is better for commercial payloads simply because it doesn't have the stigma of an ICBM attached to it. Seriously, would you want your satellite launching in place of a nuclear warhead?

Also, Pegasus has a quick turnaround, as it doesn't have a launchpad that needs maintaining. Look at all the launch dates, you'll find they are pretty close together, with a month or two, at least with the earlier flights.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Mrsupersonic8

[fredinno]

5 minutes ago, Mrsupersonic8 said:

If you think about it, the Pegasus is better for commercial payloads simply because it doesn't have the stigma of an ICBM attached to it. Seriously, would you want your satellite launching in place of a nuclear warhead?

Also, Pegasus has a quick turnaround, as it doesn't have a launchpad that needs maintaining. Look at all the launch dates, you'll find they are pretty close together, with a month or two, at least with the earlier flights.

Quick turnaround matters little when your rocket launches once a year. Not really an argument at this point, at least for OrbitalATK.

 

If I was a satellite operator, I wouldn't really care what my satellite would be launching on- especially when the alternative is over a factor of 2 more expensive. Also, the Soyuz and Proton are both ICBM derived, and satellite operators have no problem launching on Russian ICBMs.

[Kryten]

The only remaining payloads for Pegasus are NASA small science payloads which need specialised orbits, Minotaur couldn't launch most of them from existing ranges.

[Nibb31]

Isn't Pegasus pretty much dead? They haven't launched since 2013 and their L1011 seems to be in dry storage.

[Kryten]

16 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Isn't Pegasus pretty much dead? They haven't launched since 2013 and their L1011 seems to be in dry storage.

They have the CYGNSS mission next year and ICON the year after. They also have what's basically a wingless Pegasus flying for MDA as the Orbital Boost Vehicle.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Kryten

[PB666]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Isn't Pegasus pretty much dead? They haven't launched since 2013 and their L1011 seems to be in dry storage.

L1011 is old lockheed passenger,  a/c hasn't really seen much service since 1990 since most liveries aren't going to waste much time to maintain certifications, the are prolly alot of them in mothballs. Of the original 250 only 8 or so are still in service, excluding this one, with one being essentially a museum piece. 

If Southwest hasnt taught the industry anything, its dont have a crazy diverse livery, like american used to have and emphasize machines that you can get fast repair turnaround times.

[fredinno]

What I think would be beneficial would be for OrbitalATK to put an 'expiration date' for Pegaus in 2018, after all of its contracted NASA launches end, and consolidate the rest of the future launches with Minotaur.

 

And yes, Pegasus is dead- almost, but the fact they keep selling it (there are the exceptions of the Orbital Boost Vehicle and Minotaur-C/Taurus, which will probably last for longer, assuming Taurus doen't suffer ANOTHER failure, which would probably cause it to be put in the dump heap and replaced with a higher- capacity Minotaur IV) really makes little sense at this point. It should be like Delta II right now- barely active, and dead once the parts designated for it are all used up.

10 hours ago, Kryten said:

The only remaining payloads for Pegasus are NASA small science payloads which need specialised orbits, Minotaur couldn't launch most of them from existing ranges.

What kind? Cape and Vandeberg can reach pretty much all inclinations.

[Kryten]

Not with Minotaur; it's dropping stages like nobody's business, so it can't just do a little dogleg at the end of first stage burn like Atlas does.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, Kryten said:

Not with Minotaur; it's dropping stages like nobody's business, so it can't just do a little dogleg at the end of first stage burn like Atlas does.

I don't get it. Care to explain further please?

Edited December 12, 2015 by fredinno

[Kryten]

It's much harder to arrange safe drop zones when you've got loads of stages and they're all short-lived.

[fredinno]

8 hours ago, Kryten said:

It's much harder to arrange safe drop zones when you've got loads of stages and they're all short-lived.

But they are all dropping in the ocean...

[Delta_8930]

We do have the Taurus (Minotaur-C). It's the only Orbital LV (besides pegasus) that is offered for commercial launches. It's basically a pegasus stacked on a Castor 120 with a much larger fairing. 

Also, I visited the Wallops Flight Facility, and I got to speak with some engineers there, and they said that there are currently no Minotaur 1 launches planned, only Minotaur 4

Edited December 18, 2015 by Delta_8930

[fredinno]

35 minutes ago, Delta_8930 said:

We do have the Taurus (Minotaur-C). It's the only Orbital LV (besides pegasus) that is offered for commercial launches. It's basically a pegasus stacked on a Castor 120 with a much larger fairing. 

Also, I visited the Wallops Flight Facility, and I got to speak with some engineers there, and they said that there are currently no Minotaur 1 launches planned, only Minotaur 4

Cool. Minotaur 1 launches so far depend on the DOD's want for it- it's not offered commercially yet, I don't think.

 

Pegasus as rocket stages would still exist after this, just not Pegasus itself, as a rocket.