This should be fun. Someone pass the popcorn.
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.
Quote from: fatjohn1408 on 11/07/2014 07:56 amWell 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.Do they have a fairing for Soyuz carrying Cygnus?
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.
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?
ULA can't sell to Orbital.
Quote from: MP99 on 11/08/2014 08:17 amULA can't sell to Orbital. I wonder if this is true anymore. Boeing and LM may have substantially revised the original ULA charter. A lot of the noises Bruno has been making are not compatible with it.
SC processing and checkout are managed by LM/Boeing according to the given contract instructions arranged by the customer.
while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company
Quote from: baldusi on 11/07/2014 07:55 pmwhile it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American companyWho are you and what did you do with the real baldusi, who I always find to be accurate and logical? RD-180 is 100% Russian designed and built. 70% of parts are common with 170.
Which I remember Jim stating it had been designed by an American company, but still produced by NPO Energomash. At least from the Intelsat-27 failure we know it's completely different TVC from the rD-171/M.
They're from Arsenal in St. Petersburg (not Florida).
“Arsenal -207” being headed by Mr.Vladimirov has upgraded steering gears for the RD170 liquid rocket engine in relation to a fundamental improvement of speed and dynamic characteristics required for development, certification and integration of the RD180 liquid rocket engine and has worked out the design documentation on a new steering gear for the RD180 liquid rocket engine that are used in the launch vehicle “Atlas” within the frame of an international collaboration of OJSC “NPO “Energomash” with Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed Martin (USA).
Quote from: zaitcev on 11/07/2014 04:07 pmQuote 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.Also, if I'm not mistaken, the RD-191 has the design requirement of throttling to 30% and was optimized for the center core of the A5. Also, it has a TVC. The RD-193 was designed as a replacement of the NK-33 on the Soyuz-2.1v, which lacks an integrated TVC (it uses the RD-0110R vernier engine) and doesn't needs to throttle (at least not so much). And since the RD-191 needs to work both as a booster and a sustainer, it might have an expansion ratio different than a pure core engine.From the POV of NPO Energomash, Americans like to use American designed TVC on Russian engines (while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company). And Aerojet had already modified the NK-33 TVC to move the whole engine (I believe). Thus, an RD-193 could be almost a drop in replacement for the NK-33, while an export version of the RD-191 would be unnecessary heavy and have excessive capabilities (i.e. more expensive than necessary).
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.
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.
Does anyone know if the replacement engines will be compatible with this and if not what effect that will have on available O2 capacity? Does sub cooling it significantly increase density?
В качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»;
NPO Energomash annual report for 2013QuoteВ качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»; http://e-disclosure.ru/portal/files.aspx?id=24614&type=2
Quote from: Stan Black on 11/12/2014 08:55 pmNPO Energomash annual report for 2013QuoteВ качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»; http://e-disclosure.ru/portal/files.aspx?id=24614&type=2That translates (usiong Google) to:QuoteAs the immediate prospects for 2014 are scheduled the following work:2. Issue a technical report on the design of the engine RD181 for RN "Antares" ;
As the immediate prospects for 2014 are scheduled the following work:2. Issue a technical report on the design of the engine RD181 for RN "Antares" ;