Your question is predicated on badly confused geography and geopolitics. Taurus II first stage is designed and built in Ukraine, which is not Russia. Ukraine does not have any designs for geopolitical parity with U.S. Ukraine and Lybia are the only two countries that voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Russia just put a new ICBM RS-24 on combat alert.-- Pete
Quote from: zaitcev on 07/24/2010 10:44 pmYour question is predicated on badly confused geography and geopolitics. Taurus II first stage is designed and built in Ukraine, which is not Russia. Ukraine does not have any designs for geopolitical parity with U.S. Ukraine and Lybia are the only two countries that voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Russia just put a new ICBM RS-24 on combat alert.-- PeteSorry for bumping this old thread for such a small reply, but also Argentina voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. We had the Condor II launcher, too. But the latest uranium enrichment plant that we've built has been designed with an embedded IAEA precesence.
Quote from: baldusi on 12/16/2010 11:30 amQuote from: zaitcev on 07/24/2010 10:44 pmYour question is predicated on badly confused geography and geopolitics. Taurus II first stage is designed and built in Ukraine, which is not Russia. Ukraine does not have any designs for geopolitical parity with U.S. Ukraine and Lybia are the only two countries that voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Russia just put a new ICBM RS-24 on combat alert.-- PeteSorry for bumping this old thread for such a small reply, but also Argentina voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. We had the Condor II launcher, too. But the latest uranium enrichment plant that we've built has been designed with an embedded IAEA precesence.So did South Africa.
Quote from: Downix on 01/18/2011 04:44 amQuote from: baldusi on 12/16/2010 11:30 amQuote from: zaitcev on 07/24/2010 10:44 pmYour question is predicated on badly confused geography and geopolitics. Taurus II first stage is designed and built in Ukraine, which is not Russia. Ukraine does not have any designs for geopolitical parity with U.S. Ukraine and Lybia are the only two countries that voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Russia just put a new ICBM RS-24 on combat alert.-- PeteSorry for bumping this old thread for such a small reply, but also Argentina voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. We had the Condor II launcher, too. But the latest uranium enrichment plant that we've built has been designed with an embedded IAEA precesence.So did South Africa.India gave them up in the mid-1970s, although of course it re-acquired them in the 1990s.
Interestingly OSC has chosen a space plane type vehicle not sure if this would rule out Taurus II as crewed LV since a high energy upper stage is planned.
The Taurus II first stage is not an issue for this. It's the lack of a high-energy upper stage which is. Not that one cannot be built, Aerojet does supply two such engines, but that the cost is more than Orbital is currently willing to pay for it at the flight rates they are assuming.
Quote from: Downix on 01/18/2011 05:32 pmThe Taurus II first stage is not an issue for this. It's the lack of a high-energy upper stage which is. Not that one cannot be built, Aerojet does supply two such engines, but that the cost is more than Orbital is currently willing to pay for it at the flight rates they are assuming.Please remind me what Aerojet engines we are talking about here. By my rough estimate, 6 AJ10-118K engines are necessary to replace one RD-0124 on Taurus II. Not impossible, certainly, but not amazingly sensible either.
The whole issue is: is there space for a third launcher in the middle category? We have ULA (I'll treat it as a single offer), and SpaceX is very much there, and most importantly, only playing in the launcher+capsule business. Orbital has the smaller size market, the satellite division and the defense division. So I don't see them interested in that market. I think they got an "offer they couldn't refuse" in the COTS program. Besides, the NK-33 has an amazing T/W, but has less than half the thrust and lower ISP than the RD-180. But the worst part is that Aerojet rebuilds them into the A26. So I doubt it's as cheap as a "pure Russian" engine.I regret that the Taurus II is going to be a one off vehicle. Unless the Soyuz-2.1v is a total success. In that case the NK-33 might get manufactured again. But even there, is Orbital willing to compete with ULA's corporation and SpaceX energy? Not with their other good businesses.
It would, however, work as a backup should a fault be found with the Atlas booster. If you use the Atlas Centaur US, you could be a "drop-in" replacement in cases of necessity. ULA is not as likely to agree to SpaceX over Orbital, simply because Orbital works with them on many other projects.
Quote from: Downix on 01/19/2011 08:25 pmIt would, however, work as a backup should a fault be found with the Atlas booster. If you use the Atlas Centaur US, you could be a "drop-in" replacement in cases of necessity. ULA is not as likely to agree to SpaceX over Orbital, simply because Orbital works with them on many other projects.The fault would be fixed long before the Taurus stage could be adapted.
Orbital is being quite smart in not developing the high-energy upper stage for now, as it could endanger their standing with ULA. They have the potential for it, should one be needed, but without it, they remain a Delta II class vehicle. It's playing smart.
Quote from: Downix on 01/20/2011 09:11 pmOrbital is being quite smart in not developing the high-energy upper stage for now, as it could endanger their standing with ULA. They have the potential for it, should one be needed, but without it, they remain a Delta II class vehicle. It's playing smart.It already has one in the works and it uses a Russian engine. The solid is only going to be used a few times. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15457.msg622401#msg622401
Color me impressed. The 14D23 is a very solid engine.