Author Topic: Antares General Discussion Thread  (Read 363171 times)

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #600 on: 06/12/2015 03:27 am »
First two flight engines complete. First engine has gone through 7 test firings in 2 months completing acceptance testing, second engine starts testing this week.

Pad work expected to be complete in September

First stage modifications on existing cores on schedule

March 2016 expected date of first launch with one month existing schedule margin.

Are they going to test fire these engines themselves at Stennis? Or simply accept then as-is?

Energomash is doing the acceptance test firings, after which the engines will be shipped to the States and integrated with the vehicle.



At one point they were talking about doing a hot fire on the pad. Don't know if that's still planned.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #601 on: 06/12/2015 03:56 am »
Talk of a January hot-fire on the pad still turns up.

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #602 on: 06/25/2015 03:10 am »
Copy the nk-33 engine, and use the copy on several flights of the Antares rocket, before using it on an 'Atlas VI' rocket. The nk-33's predecessor, the nk-15, recieved lots of development for the N-1 moon rocket. The Antares supply missions to the ISS are a good way to flight test a rocket engine. If an engine fails, the cost of failure is low. The Antares launch pad is cheap to fix. The first stage tanks are cheap. The ATK solid upper stage is cheap. The supplies to the ISS are cheap.

The uprated nk-33s, will produce ~333 tons of thrust sl, versus the ~400 tons of thrust of the rd-180. It will also have a lower isp, 297 nk-33, vs 311 rd-180. But, solid rocket boosters can compensate for lower performance.

I argue that the nk-33 engine is easier to build, for a nation inexperienced in oxygen rich hydrocarbon staged combustion engines, than the rd-180. The upgraded nk-33 has a lower chamber pressure around ~155 bar, versus the ~250 bar of the rd-180. The rd-170 also took a decade for the Soviet Union to develop, in spite of already having the experience of developing the nk-33.

Aerojet has looked at the nk-33 for over a decade, with 4 successful flights, and analyzing the Antares failure will reveal even more about the nk-33. The United States still has over 20 nk-33s in stock. Even more engines remain in Russian hands. Gradually, different nk-33 parts could be developed, and flown, until an engine made entirely from American parts is flown. Saddam followed that strategy in copying the s2.720 engine.

I don't know how much of a copy the AR-1 is of the NK-33.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #603 on: 06/25/2015 07:01 pm »
Copy the nk-33 engine, and use the copy on several flights of the Antares rocket, before using it on an 'Atlas VI' rocket. The nk-33's predecessor, the nk-15, recieved lots of development for the N-1 moon rocket. The Antares supply missions to the ISS are a good way to flight test a rocket engine. If an engine fails, the cost of failure is low. The Antares launch pad is cheap to fix. The first stage tanks are cheap. The ATK solid upper stage is cheap. The supplies to the ISS are cheap.

The uprated nk-33s, will produce ~333 tons of thrust sl, versus the ~400 tons of thrust of the rd-180. It will also have a lower isp, 297 nk-33, vs 311 rd-180. But, solid rocket boosters can compensate for lower performance.

I argue that the nk-33 engine is easier to build, for a nation inexperienced in oxygen rich hydrocarbon staged combustion engines, than the rd-180. The upgraded nk-33 has a lower chamber pressure around ~155 bar, versus the ~250 bar of the rd-180. The rd-170 also took a decade for the Soviet Union to develop, in spite of already having the experience of developing the nk-33.

Aerojet has looked at the nk-33 for over a decade, with 4 successful flights, and analyzing the Antares failure will reveal even more about the nk-33. The United States still has over 20 nk-33s in stock. Even more engines remain in Russian hands. Gradually, different nk-33 parts could be developed, and flown, until an engine made entirely from American parts is flown. Saddam followed that strategy in copying the s2.720 engine.

I don't know how much of a copy the AR-1 is of the NK-33.

I think any proposal to take an NK engine and run it closer to the margins is going to be a tough sell these days.

OrbATK maintains that the NK designs have been shown to be fundamentally unreliable.

Don't know exactly how AR-1 is setup, but I think it's actually closer to the RD series than the NK engines.

Interesting point about chamber pressures though, I don't know what the targets are for AR-1, BE-4, etc.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #604 on: 06/25/2015 07:19 pm »
Copy the nk-33 engine ...
Unlicensed copy invites giant international lawsuit.  Gencorp won't.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #605 on: 06/26/2015 04:06 am »

I think any proposal to take an NK engine and run it closer to the margins is going to be a tough sell these days.

OrbATK maintains that the NK designs have been shown to be fundamentally unreliable.

Don't know exactly how AR-1 is setup, but I think it's actually closer to the RD series than the NK engines.

Interesting point about chamber pressures though, I don't know what the targets are for AR-1, BE-4, etc.

I figure nk-33 copy would gradually have its chamber pressure, and thrust, increased, like the Merlin 1 engine has been.

Some stories have mentioned cracking from age. In fact: 
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/05/antares-aj-26-engine-fails-stennis-testing/
I figured it was age of the engines, and maybe Soviet workmanship...

I wonder if the N-1 rocket could have become a reliable rocket if the Soviet Union had put in more time and money.

As for lawsuits, how is Russia going to collect money from a refusing United States? I could see a royalty of a few million dollars per engine negotiated. Besides, the war in the Ukraine probably costs millions of dollars a day. All those Ukrainians and Russians, whom could be building rockets instead...

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #606 on: 06/26/2015 04:52 am »

I think any proposal to take an NK engine and run it closer to the margins is going to be a tough sell these days.

OrbATK maintains that the NK designs have been shown to be fundamentally unreliable.

Don't know exactly how AR-1 is setup, but I think it's actually closer to the RD series than the NK engines.

Interesting point about chamber pressures though, I don't know what the targets are for AR-1, BE-4, etc.

I figure nk-33 copy would gradually have its chamber pressure, and thrust, increased, like the Merlin 1 engine has been.


Merlin 1 was built with huger margins, the starting point was a very low-performance engine.

NK-33 was built with much smaller margins, the starting point was a high-performance engine.

Or actually, the starting point was the NK-15 and NK-33 is the version with the thrust and pressure already increased.

Quote
Some stories have mentioned cracking from age. In fact: 
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/05/antares-aj-26-engine-fails-stennis-testing/
I figured it was age of the engines, and maybe Soviet workmanship...

What about juts because of the margins whre thin to make it worlds highest-performance kerosine engine?

Quote
I wonder if the N-1 rocket could have become a reliable rocket if the Soviet Union had put in more time and money.

No, Steering by throttling and the complexity of the piping made it unreliable by design.

Steering by throttling prevented effective engine-out capasity, and with such huge number of engines the reliability would have to based on engine-out capasity.

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #607 on: 06/26/2015 08:42 am »
late night message.

There was talk to build an rd-180 factory in the United States. Someone has said the rd-180 is labor intensive to manufacture, something that is acceptable in Russia, but the US has high wages. If having expertise in staged combustion kerolox engines is not important to the US govt. Why not build a rd-191 factory in Mexico? Mexican wages are lower than the United States, and Mexico has some high skilled workers. I imagine the Mexican workers will get paid significantly more than the Russians, and many United States workers, but less than an equivalent United States rd-191 factory employee. Russia will provide the intellectual knowledge on to keep the factory working properly. The United States will not have to maintain expertise on how a staged combustion kerolox engine is manufactured. This would go against John McCain trying to hurt Russian rocket industry.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #608 on: 06/27/2015 09:25 pm »
From the 6/26/15 HASC hearing: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS29/20150626/103668/HHRG-114-AS29-Wstate-CulbertsonF-20150626.pdf

Quote from: Frank Culbertson
As both a launch vehicle builder and a propulsion system supplier, Orbital ATK is uniquely positioned to support the Air Force RPS Prototype Program. Orbital ATK has proposed both solid and liquid propulsion developments that will support a new all-American launch vehicle family that meets all the specified national security launch needs. Our new systems will be developed in a public/private partnership with significant private investment supplementing government funding. We are confident that our alternatives will be ready to support first flights by early 2019. For our vehicles and propulsion systems, we will combine advanced solid rocket motor and liquid engine technologies to create a modular family of highly affordable and commercially competitive launch vehicles. Beyond their contribution to assured and affordable access to space, these new systems will also strengthen our country's technology base and increase its industrial utilization to benefit the U.S. Navy and Air Force's strategic missile, MDA's missile defense and NASA's human space flight programs as well.
Quote
While the United States is the world's undisputed leader in development and production of solid rocket motors, the same cannot be said for our current position related to large liquid rocket engines. Fortunately, this deficiency is now being addressed by the progress being made by Blue Origin in its BE-3 and BE-4 liquid hydrogen and methane engine programs which are being developed with private investment. Based on the progress thus far, the BE-3/BE-4 engines have the potential to advance United States liquid rocket engines far ahead of what is currently being produced overseas. And like the solid propulsion technology we are developing internally, we believe the BE engines can be available for operational use by 2019 and will be offered at commercially attractive prices.
Quote
[recommendation 3] Encourage the Air Force to expand its EELV Phase 2 program to include consideration of medium-lift vehicles in addition to intermediate- and heavy-lift launchers.

So... a modular vehicle family including advanced solid motors and some kind of liquid engine technology. Starts at medium-class vehicle. Hints of Blue Origin Engines being involved? Intended for DOD operations, so no engines designed or built in Russia...

Any guesses? Something that looks like Titan? Or the abandoned Ariane 6 PPH proposals? Return of "the stick"?

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #609 on: 06/28/2015 12:05 am »
A couple dates that popped up in a public power point presentation:
Pad Hotfire- 2/1/2016
ORB 5- 4/1/2016
ORB 6- 9/25/2014 (I suspect they meant 2016).

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #610 on: 06/28/2015 06:33 am »
From the 6/26/15 HASC hearing: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS29/20150626/103668/HHRG-114-AS29-Wstate-CulbertsonF-20150626.pdf

Quote from: Frank Culbertson
As both a launch vehicle builder and a propulsion system supplier, Orbital ATK is uniquely positioned to support the Air Force RPS Prototype Program. Orbital ATK has proposed both solid and liquid propulsion developments that will support a new all-American launch vehicle family that meets all the specified national security launch needs. Our new systems will be developed in a public/private partnership with significant private investment supplementing government funding. We are confident that our alternatives will be ready to support first flights by early 2019. For our vehicles and propulsion systems, we will combine advanced solid rocket motor and liquid engine technologies to create a modular family of highly affordable and commercially competitive launch vehicles. Beyond their contribution to assured and affordable access to space, these new systems will also strengthen our country's technology base and increase its industrial utilization to benefit the U.S. Navy and Air Force's strategic missile, MDA's missile defense and NASA's human space flight programs as well.
Quote
While the United States is the world's undisputed leader in development and production of solid rocket motors, the same cannot be said for our current position related to large liquid rocket engines. Fortunately, this deficiency is now being addressed by the progress being made by Blue Origin in its BE-3 and BE-4 liquid hydrogen and methane engine programs which are being developed with private investment. Based on the progress thus far, the BE-3/BE-4 engines have the potential to advance United States liquid rocket engines far ahead of what is currently being produced overseas. And like the solid propulsion technology we are developing internally, we believe the BE engines can be available for operational use by 2019 and will be offered at commercially attractive prices.
Quote
[recommendation 3] Encourage the Air Force to expand its EELV Phase 2 program to include consideration of medium-lift vehicles in addition to intermediate- and heavy-lift launchers.

So... a modular vehicle family including advanced solid motors and some kind of liquid engine technology. Starts at medium-class vehicle. Hints of Blue Origin Engines being involved? Intended for DOD operations, so no engines designed or built in Russia...

Any guesses? Something that looks like Titan? Or the abandoned Ariane 6 PPH proposals? Return of "the stick"?

I'm picking solid booster and BE3 upper stage. The upper stage may happen sooner as RD181 Antares and BE3 upper would allow Orbital to go after commercial and NASA GEO missions. A RD181 Antares with BE3 upper would be ideal for SNC crewed DC.




Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #611 on: 06/28/2015 06:50 am »
I don't believe Culbertson's comments pertain to a future Antares. He wants Congress to focus on "merchant" rather than "captive" propulsion systems providers. That's just what the USAF wants, too. Coercing USAF to support AR-1 specifically for use under AV doesn't fit that picture. (And is certainly not in the interests of Orbital/ATK.)
« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 06:51 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #612 on: 06/28/2015 06:00 pm »


I'm picking solid booster and BE3 upper stage. The upper stage may happen sooner as RD181 Antares and BE3 upper would allow Orbital to go after commercial and NASA GEO missions. A RD181 Antares with BE3 upper would be ideal for SNC crewed DC.



I figure you'd need two solid stages to do a drop in replacement of the kerolox stage.
Probably a 3 segment first stage and a 1 or 1.5 segment second stage.

But the problem with that is handling of the heavy segments at Wallops not a show stopper but would be a significant added cost.
They'd likely would have to go from horizontal to vertical integration.
But the ATK part probably does want to market the solids they're building for SLS in other markets since the R&D is mostly paid for and it means one less thing to buy from an outside contractor.
Having vertical integration and mostly domestically produce LV would allow them to go after some DOD payloads.
« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 06:02 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #613 on: 06/28/2015 06:05 pm »


I'm picking solid booster and BE3 upper stage. The upper stage may happen sooner as RD181 Antares and BE3 upper would allow Orbital to go after commercial and NASA GEO missions. A RD181 Antares with BE3 upper would be ideal for SNC crewed DC.



I figure you'd need two solid stages to do a drop in replacement of the kerolox stage.
Probably a 3 segment first stage and a 1 or 1.5 segment second stage.

But the problem with that is handling of the heavy segments at Wallops not a show stopper but would be a significant added cost.
But the ATK part probably does want to market the solids they're building for SLS in other markets since the R&D is mostly paid for and it means one less thing to buy from an outside contractor.

If you are thinking STS SRBs, than the only current pad capable of handling it would be LC-39B plus you will need a new MLP.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #614 on: 06/28/2015 11:45 pm »

If you are thinking STS SRBs, than the only current pad capable of handling it would be LC-39B plus you will need a new MLP.

Those are the only kind that have the performance to replace the Antares first stage.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #615 on: 06/29/2015 03:24 am »
For commercial and DOD GEO missions, launching from cape makes more sense than Wallops due to lower DV.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4672
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #616 on: 06/29/2015 11:27 pm »
These discussions belong in a different thread.

Offline DanseMacabre

Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #617 on: 08/06/2015 02:28 pm »
http://www.richmond.com/article_bd8a0f94-597b-580d-9d56-ae3b469075ca.html

Some information on renegotiation of Orbital ATK's usage of Wallops.

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21709
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 8562
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #618 on: 08/12/2015 07:02 pm »
Two RD-181 Engines
 
Two RD-181 engines that arrived in July are being integrated with the Antares first stage air frame at the Wallops Island, Virginia Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF). A “hot fire” test on Pad 0A is scheduled for late 2015 or early 2016. Photo credit: NASA/ Terry Zaperach
Jacques :-)

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #619 on: 08/12/2015 08:06 pm »
I've noticed that the article did mentioned the 230 and 330 cores. I understand that the 230 are the old cores, retrofitted with an under throttled RD-181. And the 330 are the full thrust cores. I would hazard a guess and assume that the 230 do use sub-cooled LOX to keep the propellant capacity, but the 330 will do away with it completely.
For those not informed, the N-1 used sub-cooled LOX as a propellant densification technique. Thus, the NK-33 requires sub-cooled LOX for lubrication purposes. OrbitalATK's Dr. Elias has stated that he would love to go back to normal LOX.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1