Content deleted Content added
→Is this just a concept asking for govt funding: new section |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Rocketry}}, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}}, {{WikiProject United States}}. Tag: |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Rocketry
{{WikiProject Spaceflight
{{WikiProject United States
}}
Line 14:
All the sources/ reports make it sound like a concept asking for US govt funding. Has anything been built or tested ? What funds have been allocated to the development ? - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 15:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Rod57|Rod57]], I've looked, and have not found any good sources that indicate this company wants to build this rocket like an ordinary private [[new product development|development]] project, where the company fronts the [[private capital|capital]] to develop the technology on its own to place into the [[Space launch market competition|market]] and then just [[competition|compete]] on economic grounds. All the sources seen look like the planned customer is paid-in-advance by-US-goevernment development, and then get operational contracts for launches to that same customer later. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 22:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
:: Thanks [[User:N2e|N2e]] - Perhaps all work to date is under the Jan 2016 contract with USAF - It would be nice if we could say how that contract worked out ( which options chosen by USAF ) and when that work (and funding) terminated. - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 12:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
:::Yes, agreed. Those are exactly the sorts of questions that ought to be explicated in a good encyclopedia. Pleased to know you will be watching for that sort of stuff as well. Maybe consider adding an <nowiki>{{update after}}</nowiki> template to the article where it is most in need of this info. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 13:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
{{outdent}}{{ping|Rod57}} Two years on: with the failure of NGIS OmegA to be selected by the DoD for the NSSL Phase 2 last week, and with explicit statements by the Dept. of the AF that they intend to claw back some of the yet-unearned bits of the large US$700+ million awarded to NGIS just to work on the design, I've not found any source that indicates NGIS is seriously pursuing commercial business for this dual-solid-rocket-stage expensive beast of a design. If anyone finds such a source, please list it here and we'll get it worked in. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 04:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
: {{ping|N2e}} Just a few minutes ago I read that Eric Berger tweeted : "Two days ago @northropgrumman informed its employees it was not moving forward with the Omega rocket, but there has still been no public announcement." [https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1296462155559186436 ] - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 15:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Rod57}}, yes, thanks. I used that source to update the article yesterday, indicating that NG would not continue the project.
::Now, today, right before I saw the notification of your ping, I made a fairly significant edit to add a paragraph to the history section to 1) address a mention of some things in the lede that were neither cited nor discussed in the article body, and 2) to put the OmegA rocket in it's broader context of a company (under multiple names, unfortunately, due to acquisitions) endeavoring to keet its solid rocket technology in the government-funded orbital space launch "market" for going on 16 years now. If you have a chance, would appreciate you reading it to proofread, and modify or improve. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 18:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|N2e}}, GEM-63 has long been on the market (no ironic quotes). [[User:Эрнест мл.|Эрнест мл.]] ([[User talk:Эрнест мл.|talk]]) 21:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Эрнест мл.}}, oh, no worries, the scare quotes weren't about that aspect. They were just intended to be "market" == "so-called market", simply because the game of competitive contracting for US government space technology, as with most military and defense technology also, is not anythink like an open and competitive private market. That is all that meant.
::::That phenomenon, in government-sponsored and government-funded space launch systems, is not merely an artifact of the US gvmt game, it is pretty much the same globally. No [[nation state]] has historically bought their launch services like they buy there Uber/Lyft services or air travel services: from competitive players in a much more open market. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 03:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
{{outdent}}{{ping|N2e}}, and yet you present very personal views to marginalise ATK. The market to offer services to the state is also a market without quotes. There are also those who do not want any SRB. My gut is keen on confrontation with Marxists, so I think I see your reception very well. It could be in journalism, but it could be superfluous on Wikipedia (my bad English). GEM-63 -- winning business offer. Similar solution is common in the world. [[User:Эрнест мл.|Эрнест мл.]] ([[User talk:Эрнест мл.|talk]]) 10:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
== NGIS ==
To clearify my edits:
The Innovation Systems division (NGIS) only existed in the 2nd half of 2018 and in 2019. In January 2020 OmegA became a project of Northrop Grumman’s new Space Systems division (NGSS). So statements made in 2020 could not be made by NGIS. [[User:Sidebart|Sidebart]] ([[User talk:Sidebart|talk]]) 23:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
| |||