How about as a short term solution. Use a recovered F9 first stage (provided SpaceX gets one back soon).Use the Antares second stage. Let Orbital provide any adapter and they could process all their stuff elsewhere at the cape then shortly before flight integrate both sections at LC40.SpaceX could have an anchor user for used F9 boosters and by just selling the booster and launch they could give Orbital some great pricing.
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
Minotaur family excluding Minotaur-C versions are not subject to FAA because they are government launchers (managed through USAF; DoD, not FAA/NASA; DoC) . Since Antares is a civilian launcher it is subject to stricter criteria to ensure enforced safety. I will let other people like Jim provide the details as I'm at work right now.
I think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191.
This topic is about RD-193, a very interesting engine, and I look forward to getting information about RD-193.Discussions about other engines, and your personal design for a new launcher should go elsewhere.
I have an idea.. clean sheet design for Antares 2 1st stage: 1 RS272nd stage: 1 AJ-10
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 11/02/2014 07:09 pmI think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191.It is somewhat offtopic here, because we focus on Antares, but Angara will not migrate to 193. They need the performance of 191 to hit the payload targets of the A5, which is the only thing their main customer (MoD) cares about. Do keep in mind that the transfer of production of RD-191 into Khrunichev is not officially cancelled. That is why 191 is kept separate from the rest of the "family". It is a package deal that can be moved between major organizations, while 193 and 181 are intended for continuation of in-house production at Energomash.
Well since this article came out: http://spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42460orbital-to-accelerate-upgraded-antares-use-other-vehicles-for-cygnusWe know they are in talks with three companies.Two in the US and one in Europe. Since Athena and Rockot don't have the capability or cant upgrade on time I think it is safe to say that those companies are SpaceX (Falcon 9), ULA (Atlas V 401) and Arianespace (Soyuz ST).Any arguments against this reasoning?All would enable larger capacity than Antares and pricewise Falcon 9 would win just ahead of Soyuz and lagging quite far behind would be Atlas V 401. A though nut to crack, I don't know how eager they are to launch with F9 and if they go with Soyuz they should know that the Soyuz only has a limited amount of years that it will be flown from CSG. So they can't choose it as the default back-up for the remainder of the ISS cargo program, namely CRS-2.My 50 cents, its going to be Soyuz nonetheless.
(while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company).
Along with its use on the Soyuz-2.1v and other upgrades of the Soyuz family, the experimental engine could serve as a basis for the yet-to-be developed RD-181 engine intended for "foreign" launch vehicles [and] the final configuration of RD-193 would not include gimbal suspension.
Quote from: baldusi on 11/07/2014 07:55 pm (while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company). which company?
Quote from: CT Space Guy on 11/07/2014 01:16 amAre you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?Jim was being very nice. You should let it go.
Quote from: abaddon on 11/07/2014 03:28 pmQuote from: CT Space Guy on 11/07/2014 01:16 amAre you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?Jim was being very nice. You should let it go.I've spent my entire career running circles around guys like Jim...If he responds to my posts, I will respond to him.I never run away from people like him...In the end they all go thump thump. Every one of them.