New Domestic Stage 1 for Antares

[Antares JS]

Looks like my NDA is no longer in effect.

https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-and-firefly-to-partner-on-upgraded-antares/

 

[bad_idea]

Glad to hear this, both for Antares and for Firefly.

 

[Peartree]

But how long with it take to get a new stage certified for use?

 

[WillMarchant]

I was also interested to see that, in the interim, Antares payloads will be flying on SpaceX Falcon9! There's a significant mismatch in diameters. I wonder if there will be an adapter to allow the use of the Antares shroud, or if the Payloads will go inside a large Falcon9 shroud...

 

[techrat]

I was also interested to see that, in the interim, Antares payloads will be flying on SpaceX Falcon9! There's a significant mismatch in diameters. I wonder if there will be an adapter to allow the use of the Antares shroud, or if the Payloads will go inside a large Falcon9 shroud...

Ah, they just need some centering rings....

 

[techrat]

My only concern is that Firefly doesn't have much of a track record. Their Reaver engine has so far, not been the cause of any issues (as far as I can tell), but their first launch was, how you say, not exactly successful. That said, SpaceX fared no better on their first few launch attempts, and now they seem poised to kick Boeing's butt for manned missions. So, I should probably keep my mouth shut and see how this pans out.

 

[techrat]

And if they are anything like their namesake, just put Kaylee on the problem and it'll all be fixed in a jiffy!

 

[Antares JS]

But how long with it take to get a new stage certified for use?

The first mission scheduled to use the new stage is NG-23, which flies in early 2025.

I wonder if there will be an adapter to allow the use of the Antares shroud, or if the Payloads will go inside a large Falcon9 shroud...

More than likely, we will be putting it in a SpaceX fairing.

My only concern is that Firefly doesn't have much of a track record. Their Reaver engine has so far, not been the cause of any issues (as far as I can tell), but their first launch was, how you say, not exactly successful.

I have similar misgivings, but it's an understandable choice. Aerojet's AR-1 would be too expensive and too time-consuming to resume a dead project, ULA doesn't have capacity to manufacture tankage for us with these giant contracts Vulcan is pulling in, SpaceX does not sell their hardware to other users, and many of the other new engines under development use methalox while our pad infrastructure is set up for kerolox.

That said, SpaceX fared no better on their first few launch attempts, and now they seem poised to kick are kicking Boeing's butt for manned missions.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Funkworks]

Saw the same in my EV news feed:

https://www.teslarati.com/northrop-grumman-firefly-next-gen-antares-rocket/

 

[mikec]

I was also interested to see that, in the interim, Antares payloads will be flying on SpaceX Falcon9! There's a significant mismatch in diameters. I wonder if there will be an adapter to allow the use of the Antares shroud, or if the Payloads will go inside a large Falcon9 shroud...

Certainly they will use the standard Falcon fairing, just as they used the standard Atlas V fairing on Cygnus OA-4,6, and 7.

 

[heada]

 

[Sandy H.]

@Antares JS : Cool to have some level of involvement in these types of programs, I'm sure - but also stressful at times. If you have not already posted it somewhere else, can you elaborate on what a typical day looks like at your job? Obviously, I know you have various things that can't be said publicly, but anything you think a bunch of rocket geeks might find interesting sounds interesting to me.

My day job involves supplying machinery that is used in various aerospace companies and the company I work for has machinery in most (. . .all???) companies that make airplanes and their various tier suppliers that deal with the stuff we do, so I've had the privilege of visiting many sites and getting some extra tours of places that Joe Public would never see, including a few places that do rockets, not just planes. The youtube videos Tory Bruno did with Smarter Everyday is the kind of tour I've been luck to have - not with a CEO necessarily and not as long, but getting to see things that are really neat for sure.

I love seeing and hearing about this kind of stuff from the manufacturing and support level, not just pretty flight pictures!

Sandy.

 

[Antares JS]

@Antares JS : Cool to have some level of involvement in these types of programs, I'm sure - but also stressful at times. If you have not already posted it somewhere else, can you elaborate on what a typical day looks like at your job? Obviously, I know you have various things that can't be said publicly, but anything you think a bunch of rocket geeks might find interesting sounds interesting to me.

What I have going on varies from day to day. I spend most of my time reviewing and updating the assembly procedures for the rocket, supervising certain types of operations, and dealing with problems, i.e. a lot of what I do is on the practical side. The theoretical side is done at the big NG/former OATK facility in Chandler, AZ.

I have found that there are almost always ways to improve procedures, whether it's to rewrite a step so that it's more clear, put things in a more logical order, or do something in an entirely different way that makes it much easier. I don't want to say too much more than that.

As for problems, like I said, I deal with the practical side of things, and there are always things that should work in theory that end up failing in practice. When that happens, I have to evaluate what went wrong, and figure out how to fix it and how to avoid the issue in the future.

Oh, and my main responsibilities deal with the upper stage, big primary structure mates, the payload, and the entire building of the fairing.

 

[Antares JS]

Update: Firefly's Alpha rocket made it to orbit early this morning, on their second launch attempt. I breathed a sigh of relief, and I'm sure a lot of my co-workers did too.

https://www.space.com/firefly-aerospace-alpha-rocket-launch-success

 

[Scott_650]

What I have going on varies from day to day. I spend most of my time reviewing and updating the assembly procedures for the rocket, supervising certain types of operations, and dealing with problems, i.e. a lot of what I do is on the practical side. The theoretical side is done at the big NG/former OATK facility in Chandler, AZ.

I have found that there are almost always ways to improve procedures, whether it's to rewrite a step so that it's more clear, put things in a more logical order, or do something in an entirely different way that makes it much easier. I don't want to say too much more than that.

Funny how, regardless of the industry involved, there’s always SOMEBODY who has to be able to write clear, straightforward and usable procedures. Outside of training and financial administrivia I spent most of my military career writing usable procedures derived from rather obtuse directives. My bosses couldn’t quite grasp why it was necessary and why it took as much time as it did - until someone goofed something up because they didn’t understand what they were doing or why it needed done.

 

[Scott_650]

Update: Firefly's Alpha rocket made it to orbit early this morning, on their second launch attempt. I breathed a sigh of relief, and I'm sure a lot of my co-workers did too.

https://www.space.com/firefly-aerospace-alpha-rocket-launch-success

Too bad Firefly’s Alpha doesn’t look like a real Alpha!

 

[cvanc]

Estes should suggest 'sponsoring' a flight as a marketing stunt, these folks just might go for it!

 

[mjennings]

What I have going on varies from day to day. I spend most of my time reviewing and updating the assembly procedures for the rocket, supervising certain types of operations, and dealing with problems, i.e. a lot of what I do is on the practical side. The theoretical side is done at the big NG/former OATK facility in Chandler, AZ.

I have found that there are almost always ways to improve procedures, whether it's to rewrite a step so that it's more clear, put things in a more logical order, or do something in an entirely different way that makes it much easier. I don't want to say too much more than that.

As for problems, like I said, I deal with the practical side of things, and there are always things that should work in theory that end up failing in practice. When that happens, I have to evaluate what went wrong, and figure out how to fix it and how to avoid the issue in the future.

Oh, and my main responsibilities deal with the upper stage, big primary structure mates, the payload, and the entire building of the fairing.

Sounds a lot like what I did at KSC for ISS many years ago. Fortunately one of the major things is gone walking miles to get signatures on paper work orders!