Antares/Cygnus Launch Delayed Until This Summer
Orbital Blames Spaceport for Another COTS Delay, SpaceNews
“As was the case with the previous schedule slip, Dulles, Va.-based Orbital placed the blame for the delays squarely on the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority, which is responsible for preparing the launch pad for Orbital’s Antares rocket — formerly named Taurus 2 — and its Cygnus space station cargo module.”
Launch pad rework pushes Antares launch to summer, SpaceflightNow
“Unfortunately, the first flight of our new Antares medium-capacity launch vehicle, the rocket we formerly referred to as Taurus 2, was delayed again in the quarter,” Thompson said in a quarterly conference call with investment analysts. “This was caused by problems of completing construction work on the launch pad’s propellant handling and pressurization systems.”
What’s wrong with this picture? These’s a military and commerical launch facility that’s 50 miles east of Orlando, FL that’s been launching for years. Did someone make a big mistake?
PS: I can see launches from my back yard … or, at least I used to be able to.
No, no mistake, but what is 50 miles east of Orlando wasn’t built overnight.
Yup, and there’s no reason that facility east of Orlando should have a lock on launches. It’s entirely possible that Orbital’s business model is optimized financially with launches at Wallops.
Robin
Some context here: EVERY scheduled mission to ISS in the coming months, except the March 9 European ATV launch, has been delayed . The Europeans do know how to make the trains run on time.
Crewed Soyuz needs a replacement descent capsule-delayed 2 months to late May , but the next Progress freighter launch has actually been moved up a week to April 20. SpaceX Dragon needs software verification – delayed two months to April 20—coincidentally the same target launch date as Progress …hmmm . Antares needs the Viriginia Spaceport dockworkers to get their stuff together ( hire some cryo- plumbers ! ) – delayed a couple months and followon flight(s) about the same . The Japanese ATV freighter set for a mid-July launch suddenly finds itself embroiled in a scandal at prime contractor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries over some deceptive insider bidding practices- length of delay to be decided , but it looks like at least 1-2 months minimum .
So—what was going to be a logjam at ISS with incoming ships docked at nearly every available berth in a very short time, has now stretched out to a more comfortable manifest and timeline. I just hope the crew swaps are current with the training needed to handle all these different incoming freighters.
Folks:
This is like watching a horse race in reverse with these delays. I’m sure there is kind of competition (friendly or not) between Spacex and Orbital.
First one out the gate wins.
tinker
Folks:
This is like watching a horse race in reverse with these delays. I’m
sure there is a kind of competition (friendly or not) between Spacex and
Orbital.
First one out the gate wins.
tinker
Orbital’s business model appears to make it more vulnerable than SpaceX to delays caused by third parties. Also, SpaceX appears to be making better use of existing infrastructure at the Cape and Vandenberg–not that there isn’t a lot of remodeling to do, but at least they aren’t depending on a relatively inexperienced state agency for construction.
I expect more delays for Orbital, and that Orbital will drop out of commercial flight to LEO at the conclusion of its resupply SAA(s). Its business plan is fragile and its margins are too small. Orbital will be much more comfortable in a cost-plus environment, and will stay there in future.
Its a mixed bag. If you chart from time of conception to launch, Antares is much faster than Falcon 9 hands down even considering current delays. This is because of the outsource model can be faster than the vertical model.
So the bet here was a hedge on SpaceX succeeding. Note than Orbital succeeds either way.
Orbital’s business covers 60% of a mission in services/products, and if SpaceX is successful, they’ll still get 45% of a mission anyways, possibly 50%. So the risk isn’t that great.
The weakest link for them has always been Wallops. Some think they’d be flying by now if they did CCAFS.
Realize that CCAFS isn’t an easy trade though. SpaceX wants another launch site and range because they don’t feel they can get what they need long term out of CCAFS. One can get locked out by too many competing interests.
Another consideration here is that all you are seeing is the entry plays with Falcon 9 and Antares – do not become conclusatory.
Apart from the COTS contracts, in which both companies will look for validation of LV/SC as a system (both of which for different reasons will start out with narrow profitability), both of these companies can take these further into different follow-on business opportunities of even greater worth. These also will be differently competitive from each and or other legacy providers.
For Orbital the key is to out develop and out fly its rivals. And while Wallops is unfortunate, far greater an issue is the loss of missions due to payload-fairing separations that creates doubt.