Why doesn't Antares fly with payloads other than Cygnus?

[_Augustus_]

I'm just curious, why is Cygnus the only major payload ever flown on an Antares rocket? I would think that as the Delta II is retired there would be demand for a medium-lift LV like it.

[Bill Phil]

Configuring rockets for other payloads isn't a simple thing to do, and the rockets themselves don't fly very often. Plus they have a contract to launch Cygnus to the ISS. They were in the process of re engine-ing the rocket since 2014, so it hasn't flown since then (here's to hoping that changes). I think the next flight is later this month, though I'm not sure. I think they did have a secondary payload during the 2014 incident, Arkyd 3 (a cubesat).

Mainly it's just because it's unproven and hasn't flown often enough.

[passinglurker]

They want to launch more than just cygnus that much is clear by thier reports to thier shareholders, but the Orb-3 failure threw a monkey wrench in the works puting antares out of commision for 2 years and since they don't have the "to cheap to say no" prices of spacex so they need a few more successful ISS runs under thier belts to build confidence in thier launcher before people will start buying or so they hope. Fortunately for OATK the iss contract is enough revenue coming in to maintain production and infrastructure with a small profit until the customers come knocking.

[Kryten]

There are two separate issues here. One is that Delta II replacement isn't really a big niche. Sure, Delta flew a lot, but that was because it was in the range of most commercial comsats at the time, and it was building the GPS constellation. Now not only is the average comsat much too large for such a vehicle, but so are the new block 3 GPS sats.

The other issue is Falcon 9 is cheaper than Antares for the few Delta II class missions that still remain.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Kryten

[_Augustus_]

4 hours ago, Kryten said:

There are two separate issues here. One is that Delta II replacement isn't really a big niche. Sure, Delta flew a lot, but that was because it was in the range of most commercial comsats at the time, and it was building the GPS constellation. Now not only is the average comsat much too large for such a vehicle, but so are the new block 3 GPS sats.

The other issue is Falcon 9 is cheaper than Antares for the few Delta II class missions that still remain.

Sounds like Orbital needs to figure out a better way to compete in the market. What if they gave Antares a proper upper stage?

[passinglurker]

7 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

Sounds like Orbital needs to figure out a better way to compete in the market. What if they gave Antares a proper upper stage?

One could argue that thier way to compete using antares is to survive off the scraps. The vehicle's "development" was essentially just integrating existing components from around the industry (i.e. the best value kerolox engine they could get at the time combined with a zenith fueltank from an eager for business ukrainian company, and one of the kick stages from the recently merged ATK's catalog.)

The the initial nasa COTS contract then foots some of the already low development costs and provides the minimal launch candice and then they cut a deal with the state of virginia who'd want to bring business to the wallops island missile range for a launch site

It was quick, simple, and judging by orb-3 maybe a little dirty. The ISS flights meet thier needs and any other light to medium payload that doesn't want to wait for spaceX's/arianespace's backlog, pay the premium for ULA, mess with Chinese and Indian red tape, or wait for Russia to recover from its almost yearly Proton launch failure are now gravy money to OATK.

There won't be a lot of customers but antares is designed so that there doesn't need to be. low risk and opportunistic is how Orbital-ATK rolls.

Edited October 9, 2016 by passinglurker

[Bill Phil]

8 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

Sounds like Orbital needs to figure out a better way to compete in the market. What if they gave Antares a proper upper stage?

That would cost money to do. Really they just haven't launched often enough, and the rocket isn't that trustworthy, too.

[passinglurker]

On 10/8/2016 at 8:36 AM, Kryten said:

There are two separate issues here. One is that Delta II replacement isn't really a big niche. Sure, Delta flew a lot, but that was because it was in the range of most commercial comsats at the time, and it was building the GPS constellation. Now not only is the average comsat much too large for such a vehicle, but so are the new block 3 GPS sats.

The other issue is Falcon 9 is cheaper than Antares for the few Delta II class missions that still remain.

That's where Orbital's plans for "mission extension" service satellites comes in. Would you pay over 260million for a brand new 4-8 ton GEO comm sat to launch on the cheapest launcher on the market 2-3 years from now? Or would you pay around 180million for a smaller cheaper 2-3 ton sat that can clamp on to and add life to your old GEO comm sat, and can launch in the next 6-12months? For a cutthroat businessman answering to shareholders that care about short term gains this could be an appealing option.


 

[Kryten]

24 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

That's where Orbital's plans for "mission extension" service satellites comes in. Would you pay over 260million for a brand new 4-8 ton GEO comm sat to launch on the cheapest launcher on the market 2-3 years from now? Or would you pay around 180million for a smaller cheaper 2-3 ton sat that can clamp on to and add life to your old GEO comm sat, and can launch in the next 6-12months? For a cutthroat businessman answering to shareholders that care about short term gains this could be an appealing option.

That doesn't really work, because your old sat is going to have much less capability. It only really makes sense for big suppliers that can use the servicing sat to add small increments to the life of a lot of sats.

[passinglurker]

1 hour ago, Kryten said:

That doesn't really work, because your old sat is going to have much less capability. It only really makes sense for big suppliers that can use the servicing sat to add small increments to the life of a lot of sats.

Oh sure it doesn't work if you are banking on this to be some sort of big spaceX scale game changer, but again Antares is essentially made to feed off scraps. Lots of business is nice to have but they don't particularly need it the CRS-1 and CRS-2 contracts can maintain the launch vehicle into the next decade at least (assuming there is no commercial station follow ups) during which time they are bound to coax in a commercial launch or two and get some big constellation operators to buy a few mission extension vehicles to try out just like how those same operators are so willing to try out reusable spacex boosters, and if none of that translates into sustainable business past the mid 2020's it's no skin off Orbital-ATK's nose because antares would have already paid for itself.

In my honest opinion people are too quick to write off other older launch companies because they aren't spaceX and can't break 10,000/kg when really there are a lot of alternate niches, business plans, and technology paths spaceX just isn't following leaving plenty of room for other companies to get by.

[DerekL1963]

38 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

get some big constellation operators to buy a few mission extension vehicles to try out

Kryten's point went over your head - the big constellation operators are unlikely to be interested in mission extension, because by the time the birds are ready for mission extension they're obsolescent.  A cheap mission extension "saves" money, but it also means they make a lot less money because the new capacity they don't launch.   Spending 180 million sounds cheaper than spending 260 million, but you're failing to take into account the difference in income between the two cases.  (It's all about market share as well - demand for satellite communications is still growing, and not launching a newer more capable bird also means loosing out on new business.)  The result isn't a short term gain in profit - it's a short (and long) term loss of profit.

[passinglurker]

1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said:

Kryten's point went over your head - the big constellation operators are unlikely to be interested in mission extension, because by the time the birds are ready for mission extension they're obsolescent.  A cheap mission extension "saves" money, but it also means they make a lot less money because the new capacity they don't launch.   Spending 180 million sounds cheaper than spending 260 million, but you're failing to take into account the difference in income between the two cases.  (It's all about market share as well - demand for satellite communications is still growing, and not launching a newer more capable bird also means loosing out on new business.)  The result isn't a short term gain in profit - it's a short (and long) term loss of profit.

No I understand that in most cases a mission extension is simply a bandaid over a more preferable option of replacing an ageing asset with something newer and more capable, but that isn't always an option. Accidents on the ground and in orbit could throw off plans for steady continuous replacement and a replacement for a replacement could take years to be produced and find another launch slot for another shot, as a result some businesses would be interested in alternative contingencies. On orbit servicing certainly is not a rule of thumb best choice in all situations but there is certainly a case for it.

[DerekL1963]

1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

On orbit servicing certainly is not a rule of thumb best choice in all situations but there is certainly a case for it.

Well, now you're moving the goalposts, this is yet another new claim (and one that makes even less sense) when the holes are revealed in your previous one.

3 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Accidents on the ground and in orbit could throw off plans for steady continuous replacement and a replacement for a replacement could take years to be produced and find another launch slot for another shot, as a result some businesses would be interested in alternative contingencies.

That makes the presumption that a) the target bird is equipped for life extension (none are AFIAK), and B) that it doesn't take significant time to acquire a life extension bird, and c) doesn't take significant time to launch said bird.

Take a look at Orbital ATK's current launch schedule and get back to me.

[Kryten]

35 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

That makes the presumption that a) the target bird is equipped for life extension (none are AFIAK), and B) that it doesn't take significant time to acquire a life extension bird, and c) doesn't take significant time to launch said bird.

MEV doesn't need specialised equipment, it grapples to standard apogee motor nozzles.

[passinglurker]

59 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Well, now you're moving the goalposts, this is yet another new claim (and one that makes even less sense) when the holes are revealed in your previous one.

Well excuse me but as I made perfectly clear that the antares was made to make due with very few launches the goal posts have not moved an inch from where I posted them to begin with, but not for the lack of trying by others to move the posts down to the "market capturing game changer" end of the field so they can point and go "look look! this'll never work it's not ambitious enough where's the methane, and reusable first stage? they won't last a year after our lord and savior elon starts launching used falcons".

19 hours ago, passinglurker said:

One could argue that thier way to compete using antares is to survive off the scraps.

19 hours ago, passinglurker said:

There won't be a lot of customers but antares is designed so that there doesn't need to be. low risk and opportunistic is how Orbital-ATK rolls.

3 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Oh sure it doesn't work if you are banking on this to be some sort of big spaceX scale game changer, but again Antares is essentially made to feed off scraps. Lots of business is nice to have but they don't particularly need it

Someone said there aren't a lot of delta II class missions I gave ways they could potentially get more even if just a few and if it doesn't work it doesn't matter to Orbital-ATK because the antares would have already been a sufficiently profitable vehicle by the time it could possibly be retired at the end of the ISS's life span almost a decade from now.

59 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

That makes the presumption that a) the target bird is equipped for life extension (none are AFIAK), and B) that it doesn't take significant time to acquire a life extension bird, and c) doesn't take significant time to launch said bird.

Take a look at Orbital ATK's current launch schedule and get back to me.

A) Orbital-ATK are designing thier MEV around structural features that are present on the majority of potential targets. B) Orbital-ATK's MEV like cygnus is built around a standard satellite bus they can make it as fast as they can cygnus's if not faster considering they don't have to be constrained by the ISS's and thier cargo's schedules C) with only roughly two launches a year for station cargo launches from the uncrowded wallops range Orbital-ATK has plenty of open slots to accommodate a more urgent payload.

Edited October 9, 2016 by passinglurker

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, passinglurker said:

C) with only roughly two launches a year for station cargo launches from the uncrowded wallops range Orbital-ATK has plenty of open slots to accommodate a more urgent payload.

That presumes the launch vehicles are available, just sitting around for an urgent launch, which I highly doubt.