The Wall Street Journal
By Andy Pasztor
Updated Nov. 5, 2014 11:01 a.m. ET
Orbital
Sciences Corp. said it would temporarily pay for rockets provided by
another company to launch cargo into orbit for NASA, in the wake of last
month’s launch failure of its own Antares booster.
In unveiling
its contingency plans Wednesday, the Dulles, Va.,-based company said it
plans to pay for up to two such launches through 2016 to fulfill its
commitments to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, though
Orbital Sciences didn’t disclose which rockets would be used.
The
plans call for Orbital’s Cygnus spacecraft to be placed atop these
rockets with more cargo than previously anticipated, Chief Executive
David Thompson told analysts on a conference call.
He also said
the company intends to return its Antares rocket to service with new
engines sometime in 2016, but didn’t indicate which engines would
replace the 1970’s-vintage, Russian-built AJ26 engines suspected of
causing last month’s fiery explosion shortly after liftoff. Industry
sources have said Orbital Sciences is leaning toward a newer
Russian-designed engine as a replacement.
Indicating the extent
of the problems created by last month’s launch failure--which destroyed
the rocket and some 5,000 pounds of supplies headed for the orbiting
laboratory—Mr. Thompson revealed the Wallops Island, Va., launchpad used
by Antares won’t be ready to resume service until early or mid-2016.
Initially, NASA and Orbital Sciences officials estimated repairs might
be completed more quickly.
Taken together, the steps announced by
Orbital Sciences demonstrate its determination to live up to its
agreement with NASA to deliver cargo along with the hit to the company’s
reputation stemming from the Antares failure. Mr. Thompson said
negotiations were under way with two U.S. launch providers and another
from Europe for possible missions in 2015 and 2016.
Mr. Thompson
said Orbital Sciences would carry out its contingency plans with “no
cost increase to NASA” and without a significant impact on the company’s
finances. He said Orbital Sciences is “committed to do everything
possible” to meet its cargo delivery targets under an ongoing
$1.9-billion contract with NASA. Space Exploration Technologies Corp.,
or SpaceX as the company is called, has a separate cargo-delivery
contract with NASA.
The agency shortly plans to request bids for
another round of cargo-transportation services to the international
space station starting later this decade, and Orbital Sciences plans to
compete for that business with the upgraded Antares rocket.
Potentially
relying on a competitor’s rockets—even as a temporary gap-filler as Mr.
Thompson described it—is a highly unusual strategy in an industry that
prizes reliability above all. But the prospect of taking two more years
to replace the main engines powering Antares seemingly left Orbital
Sciences no other choice.
The company said it would accelerate
earlier replacement plans that initially envisioned swapping out the
AJ26 engines by 2017. After the teleconference, some Wall Street
analysts said they expect Orbital to choose a solid-fuel engine provided
by its prospective merger partner Alliant Techsystems Inc.
Mr. Thompson declined to discuss the impact of the latest developments on the pending merger.
Switching
to a solid rocket motor would require extensive modification to the
damaged Wallops Island launch complex, according to industry officials,
because the facility currently is set up to handle primarily
liquid-fueled rockets.
Choosing another liquid-fueled Russian
main engine system for Antares might be technically simpler. Yet even if
the engineering work proceeds smoothly, Orbital Sciences could face
criticism from lawmakers and others for continuing to rely o Russian
hardware.
Efforts to wean Antares off decades-old Russian engines
comes as a joint rocket venture between Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin
Corp. --which launches satellites for the Pentagon—is looking for
domestic propulsion alternatives for its family of Atlas heavy-lift
rockets.
- Source: http://online.wsj.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.