Skyrocket - 5/10/2007 9:09 AM BTW, a Pegasus-like supersonic-capable wing would not have been making sense for this vehicle, as the Wing in this concept would have been dropped before going supersonic.
Good catch!
A high lift subsonic wing would have been the wing of choice
Agree
Aditionally the X-37 payload might have produced some additional aerodynamic trouble.
Yeah, shades of X-43... I probably would end up encapsulating it in a fairing... of course the graphic would not have looked as cool...
Lee Jay - 4/10/2007 11:08 AM Quoteantonioe - 4/10/2007 8:54 AM I know of three alternatives to the wing (there may be others): Drop vertically (with a 'chute). You loose a lot of altitude and most, if not all, of the productive, horizontal velocity of the carrier aircraft.Have the carrier aircraft have sufficient excess thrust to pull up to a high flight path angle before release. My trade studies show to me that you're better off using the mass that that excess thrust costs you on a heavier rocket.Fly at scary flight path angles. Lossy and risky.The original (pre-wing) design for Pegasus did (3) Is a "zoom launch" not possible with the carrier aircraft?
antonioe - 4/10/2007 8:54 AM I know of three alternatives to the wing (there may be others): Drop vertically (with a 'chute). You loose a lot of altitude and most, if not all, of the productive, horizontal velocity of the carrier aircraft.Have the carrier aircraft have sufficient excess thrust to pull up to a high flight path angle before release. My trade studies show to me that you're better off using the mass that that excess thrust costs you on a heavier rocket.Fly at scary flight path angles. Lossy and risky.The original (pre-wing) design for Pegasus did (3)
The original (pre-wing) design for Pegasus did (3)
Well... in a way that's a form of "excess thrust"... in any case, the flight performance that allows you to do that is better spent on making the rocket bigger, INPE ("In My Professional Experience")
antonioe - 5/10/2007 6:38 AM Dan Raymer, of AIAA design book fame, had just left (or was in the process of leaving) Lockheed Commercial and steered us towards the L-1011,
Dan Raymer, of AIAA design book fame, had just left (or was in the process of leaving) Lockheed Commercial and steered us towards the L-1011,
Antonio,
Dan is teaching a course on how to design rockets now. He's also designing a rocket (FAST) for Jess @ AFRL.
antonioe - 5/10/2007 8:55 AMQuoteSkyrocket - 5/10/2007 9:09 AM BTW, a Pegasus-like supersonic-capable wing would not have been making sense for this vehicle, as the Wing in this concept would have been dropped before going supersonic.Good catch!QuoteA high lift subsonic wing would have been the wing of choiceAgree QuoteAditionally the X-37 payload might have produced some additional aerodynamic trouble.Yeah, shades of X-43... I probably would end up encapsulating it in a fairing... of course the graphic would not have looked as cool...
Propforce - 6/10/2007 1:51 AM Quoteantonioe - 5/10/2007 6:38 AM Dan Raymer, of AIAA design book fame, had just left (or was in the process of leaving) Lockheed Commercial and steered us towards the L-1011, Antonio,Dan is teaching a course on how to design rockets now. He's also designing a rocket (FAST) for Jess @ AFRL.
DAN designing a ROCKET???!!! Gee, perhaps I should start designing aircraft...
(If you see him, tell him I said "hi")
tnphysics - 11/10/2007 4:59 PM Are you considering a cryogenic upper stage for Taurus 2?
I would LOVE to! A nice, "mini-centaur" based on a single RL-10... yummy! Unfortunately, my peers think it's asking too much for us to go to a large LOX-kerosene CORE AND a cryo US in one step... they are probably right. So we are currently keeping this idea in the freezer (freezer... cryo.. get it? get it?) as a "planned (ahem!) product improvement".
It would allow EELV-class payloads to be lifted
Well... not quite... but it will allow us to launch our own mid-class GeoComs (the so-called "StarBus" class). Now, whether it would be cost-competitive with Soyuz or Land Launch is another matter...
Also, would the first stage be SSTO capable?
Not even close.
Jim - 13/10/2007 6:38 PM no, no, no and no to AJ-10
Correct. F=1.0 ma (on the first two no's)
CFE - 14/10/2007 1:21 AM. There's also the risk of the ULA monopoly selling EELV's at a loss, just to keep Cygnus off the market.
CFE - 14/10/2007 12:21 AM My biggest concern about Orbital's Cygnus is the pricing strategy.
Well, yes, that's my concern, too... that is why we are working so hard to control the program's fixed cost - so that a couple of years at two launches each doesn't kill us. We could probably sell 7920-class Cygnuses around $75M and still be a very interesting alternative to the $125M A-V 401, but I consider that our "insurance policy"... better aim for $55-$60M at this point... things always end up costing more than you predict...
Assuming that the EELV's ramp up production to meet the demand for launches in the Delta II class, there will likely be a decrease in the EELV prices.
That increase would have to be substantial - and if it happens, it would also allow Orbital to decrease its prices - so we all move in parallel. Now, if Delta II's could still be had for $85m-$90M in the 2011-2012 time frame, Orbital would be ordering Delta II's, not developing Cygnus!!!
Can Orbital still compete on the basis of cost?
I think that ceteris paribus (i.e., reliability, customer handholding, etc.) we can be a good 20% lower cost than ULA for the same work contents based on our small industrial footprint and sharing of program office, GSE and key suppliers with Orbital's other orbital and suborbital products (even spacecraft - the Orbital Raising Kit - or "ORK" Hey! I just gave out a new piece of Cygnus data! - is based on the StarBus Apogee Propulsion System). ULA, in constrast, appears to me to be more of a business "closed control volume". Also, being able to manufacture EELV-class vehicles (not as trivial as Musk makes it sound) does come at a cost.
it will require Orbital to eat the development costs of Cygnus.
Well, hopefully the customers will end up paying it over a number of flights... Orbital is FINANCING the development... although it is true that thanks to the crazyness of GAAP ("Generaly Acceptable Accounting Principles") development costs cannot be capitalized, so they are expensed the year they are incurred... so, as far as our financials are concerned, yes, this cost will show as lower earnings per share in 2007, 2008 and 2009... when the tide turns, every penny of profit is reported as "earnings" by GAAP, even though, in reality, some of it is just making up for your prior investment. that is why Pegasus appears to be so profitable now.
It's like "Net Operating Losses" carryover - since we lost our shirts in 1999 and 2000, we haven't been paying a cent (well almost...) in corporate income taxes recently - yet, according to GAAP, we sitll have to pretend that we pay 40% taxes... that's why we seem to have so much cash and so little Retained Earnings...
To summarize - I can design a rocket - that's easy! But I cannot understand Generally Acceptable Accounting Principles...
Orbital doesn't have a level playing field here
-I HOPE SO!...
because the American taxpayers played a big role in subsidizing EELV development.
Yes but we are NOT competing with EELV... the $125M that NASA is paying for an A-V 401 is net of that subsidy - it would be very hard for a 401 to go much below this price in the future, or else NASA would be manifesting all of their future Mid-size launches on 401's (a very fine LV, if I may say so! Mike Gass, John Karas and their team are to be admired and congratulated.)
There's also the risk of the ULA monopoly selling EELV's at a loss, just to keep Cygnus off the market.
No - that would require ULA to take an enormous risk - once you lower the price to the USG, you're stuck with it even if Orbital/Cygnus goes away. LM and Boeing already gave A LOT at the EELV blood drive. I don't think JoAnn and Roger are paid their outrageous salaries to take that kind of risks. If anybody would benefit from keeping Cygnus "off the market" it would be the poor USAF EELV Program Element Monitors, that have to keep coming back for more...
pippin - 15/10/2007 3:35 AMHow about a switch to IFRS?
AFAIK if you are publicly traded in the US the SEC requires you to report annually (Form 10K) and quarterly (form 10K) following the stardards set up by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), as codified in the General Aceptable Accounting Principles (GAAP)
I'm out of my league here, though... anybody out there knows the real answer?
antonioe - 4/10/2007 9:54 AM ... the wing is there for one thing and one thing only; LIFT. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned earlier, the original design did NOT have one; it earned its way into the design! That lift does two inordinately important things for Pegasus:It rotates the flight path angle up (or, conversely, it prevents it from going further negative after drop). Otherwise, you would have to use rocket thrust to do that, and that would both consume a lot of precious ΔV ("turning loss") and would require a scary (over 45 degrees at significant dynamic pressure) angle of attack to accomplish it....
It rotates the flight path angle up (or, conversely, it prevents it from going further negative after drop). Otherwise, you would have to use rocket thrust to do that, and that would both consume a lot of precious ΔV ("turning loss") and would require a scary (over 45 degrees at significant dynamic pressure) angle of attack to accomplish it.
...
What about AirLaunch LLC's drop method with a strategically placed/sized drogue chute?
Does the net lift of the wing generate that much advantage over the vertical thrust necessary to make up for the drop?
-NofC
antonioe - 15/10/2007 5:36 PM AFAIK if you are publicly traded in the US the SEC requires you to report annually (Form 10K) and quarterly (form 10K) following the stardards set up by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), as codified in the General Aceptable Accounting Principles (GAAP)I'm out of my league here, though... anybody out there knows the real answer?
FASB is the requirement, SOX is the letter of the law, and GAAP is the rhetoric that attempts to explain it.
Accounting works by peculiar definitions and classifications. In the 70's, so-called "creative accounting" practices allowed substantial reinterpretation of prior rigid terms. Most top execs decide deals based on how the accounting can be interpreted - they ask their CFO's to "tell the story" of the deal in various acceptable ways, til they find one that works best.
What you outlined in your prior post depends on how contracts and commitments actually read, just what needs to be capitalized / expensed. Often the trouble is that you need to know too much of the future to accurately explain the appropriate accounting structures appropriately, which is one of the hallmarks of a great CFO.
Another observation is that with government incentives (or "subsidies") one has a much wider field of accounting treatments/strategies. The penalty, however, is you are *locked* to said government programs - which may make life difficult for a mid-sized firm (e.g. something smaller than a Lockheed or Boeing). From what I see, Orbital is an excellent performer in its sector, so most of this is at the noise level.
Wouldn't characterize Orbital's LV business as anything near EELV. Nor would it be smart to compete with SpaceX F9 - which is a desperation play - either they win or they die. You can't take that kind of risk and be prudent with public shareholders. Yet upgrading LV capabilities is necessary to being competitive, and one can incrementally execute on a long term roadmap that leads one in the direction of F9/EELV - that's extremely prudent and responsible. Since F1 is being stretched out over years, F9 likely will also, so perhaps in the end by incrementally improving competitively, Orbital does as well in the end while not pissing off the Street.
Not as sexy as Elon's "frontal attack", but much more attractive to an institutional investor.
Skyrocket - 29/9/2007 12:44 AMQuoteantonioe - 28/9/2007 9:18 PMQuoteSkyrocket - 28/9/2007 11:11 AM If i remember correctly, in the early 90ies 'Cygnus' was also the name of a proposed ground launched, wingless Pegasus. From Orbital???!!! I remember reading a report in (i think) Flight International at this time about OSC planning a wingless Pegasus version. Unfortunately i do not have a copy of it. Never heared about it again, but the report mentioned about half of the Pegasus payload performance and the Name Cygnus.
antonioe - 28/9/2007 9:18 PMQuoteSkyrocket - 28/9/2007 11:11 AM If i remember correctly, in the early 90ies 'Cygnus' was also the name of a proposed ground launched, wingless Pegasus. From Orbital???!!!
Skyrocket - 28/9/2007 11:11 AM If i remember correctly, in the early 90ies 'Cygnus' was also the name of a proposed ground launched, wingless Pegasus.
If i remember correctly, in the early 90ies 'Cygnus' was also the name of a proposed ground launched, wingless Pegasus.
From Orbital???!!!
During 1989, OSC conducted design and analysis work on another Pegasus-derivedground-launched vehicle called Cygnus. The Company currently expects thatthe Cygnus vehicle will be similar to the Pegasus vehicle, except for theelimination of the Pegasus vehicle's wing and certain other minormodifications relating to ground-launched capability. Cygnus is expectedto use the ground-transportable pad and support equipment being developedfor Taurus or the Starbird suborbital launch vehicle's permanent groundsupport equipment. Lacking the air-launched and aerodynamic lift-assistedcharacteristics of Pegasus, Cygnus would provide approximately one-halfthe payload capacity of Pegasus. However, Cygnus is intended to meetrequirements of certain scientific and international users whose specialneeds dictate ground-launched vehicle. Cygnus is in the early design stage,no prototype exists and no contracts for Cygnus launch services havebeen obtained to date.