Author Topic: All Solid Motor Antares  (Read 42256 times)

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #60 on: 01/19/2016 08:58 pm »
Launch is only a part of Orbital ATK business so a low launch rate is not big issue. Having a LV allows them to offer a complete build and launch package for their commercial satellites.
Does OrbitalATK build anything heavy enough to require a Delta IV equivalent, though?  Seems like Antares-class should cover that pretty adequately, especially with a BE-3 upper stage.
According to Gunter's page the Antares-232 can lift 2750kg to GTO which is less than some of the satellites OrbitalATK builds. SES-8 which is a an OrbitalATK GEOStar-2.4 satellite has a mass of 3,170kg. Assuming you mean Delta IV heavy then Cygnus might want to spread its wings beyond low Earth orbit one of these days. But aside from big spy satellites there are not many payloads that need the lift capacity of the Delta IV heavy.
You have to consider that Antares launches from Wallops, which at 37.5 latitude has an extra 9 degrees of penalty to GSO than the Cape. If they are doing a new LV for EELV then they will have to launch from CCAF and VAFB. That's an EELV requirement.

As well as a requirement for the processing of the required payloads, not just launch azimuths.

The reason for Antares/Wallops was for cost/convenience. Paying for CCAFS/VAFB is one significant stopper.

Another is the crowded market competing for few govt/NSS launch ops, including Antares competition itself.

It's understandable where the funds would come from if, say, SX or ULA suddenly ... stopped. But apart from that, all you are left with is "more capable Antares" - as a rather costly proposition to self fund.

It's understandable cutting another Russian engine deal to keep up COTS commitment. But taking the big step into "Atlas/Ariane territory" is not one that OA's shareholders might wish to stomach quite so easily.

In house propulsion makes sense when you are able to offset development/support of an existing product, especially one currently to be used by another vendor. That way you are in effect increasing flight frequency by in house use.

Alternatively, grabbing for significant market share is the other move as a provider you can do - that's what ULA is claiming to be headed for with Vulcan. But in this market with much potential (reuse) hanging in the air, that's a risky proposition. Again, more would depend on the US competition than the first stage to begin with.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #61 on: 01/19/2016 10:01 pm »
Why not?  It sure seems like they could be competitive in the EELV market.  Especially when you consider that the AF will pay premium for at least two launch providers.
I'm talking about the Delta IV Heavy market.  We're talking well under one payload a year, here...

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #62 on: 01/19/2016 10:46 pm »
Why not?  It sure seems like they could be competitive in the EELV market.  Especially when you consider that the AF will pay premium for at least two launch providers.
I'm talking about the Delta IV Heavy market.  We're talking well under one payload a year, here...
With flexibility of strap on SRBs, the one LV could cover Cygnus ISS missions right through to D4H payloads. They may even be able to keep Castor 30XL US for Cygnus ISS missions, instead of externally sourced BE3 US.


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #63 on: 01/20/2016 01:50 am »
The big cost challenge of EELV is covering both "Medium" and "Heavy" categories.  The difference between 3.7 tonnes to GTO and  6+ tonnes directly to GEO is huge.  Two completely different challenges, which should by all rights call for two completely different rockets.  The "common core" idea seems less like a good idea when actually implemented.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/20/2016 01:54 am by edkyle99 »

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Liked: 346
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #64 on: 01/20/2016 02:52 am »
Why not?  It sure seems like they could be competitive in the EELV market.  Especially when you consider that the AF will pay premium for at least two launch providers.
I'm talking about the Delta IV Heavy market.  We're talking well under one payload a year, here...

If the price comes down, maybe the demand will increase.  It's not that different a model from the Falcon Heavy, and I'd expect them to have done a pretty thorough market survey.  Besides, development costs shouldn't be too bad at all.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #65 on: 01/20/2016 06:54 am »
You maybe right Dave in that development could be a lot less than normal for new LV. Government is helping fund some of R&D, while GEM63XL costs are covered by ULA orders.
Blue will most likely base the US on New Shepard plus they need a US for their Orbital LV, tank sizes might change but rest of stage should stay same. This would help keep price of US development and build costs low.

Only core stage would need significant development and that maybe heavily based on SLS SRBs.

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Liked: 346
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #66 on: 01/20/2016 02:52 pm »
You maybe right Dave in that development could be a lot less than normal for new LV. Government is helping fund some of R&D, while GEM63XL costs are covered by ULA orders.
Blue will most likely base the US on New Shepard plus they need a US for their Orbital LV, tank sizes might change but rest of stage should stay same. This would help keep price of US development and build costs low.

Only core stage would need significant development and that maybe heavily based on SLS SRBs.

That's my take on it.  They're just taking advantage of a nice opportunity to plug together pieces that are being funded by other efforts.  We'll find out whether that's correct when more details are released, I guess.

Offline Rummy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • CA
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #67 on: 01/20/2016 05:38 pm »
Why not?  It sure seems like they could be competitive in the EELV market.  Especially when you consider that the AF will pay premium for at least two launch providers.
I'm talking about the Delta IV Heavy market.  We're talking well under one payload a year, here...

Do you have any idea how much those launches cost?  Nabbing a few of them and a few smaller launches seems to be a reasonable and potentially profitable business plan.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #68 on: 01/20/2016 06:36 pm »
Do you have any idea how much those launches cost?  Nabbing a few of them and a few smaller launches seems to be a reasonable and potentially profitable business plan.
I assume a bit north of the $130 million or SpaceX has quoted to launch on an equivalently capable Falcon Heavy.  That's (probably) assuming a fully expendable FH as well, with the booster RTLS center core landing downrange option likely to still be very performant and much cheaper to boot.  Doesn't seem like a lot of margin there to me.

So, yeah, I pretty much disagree completely with anyone who can understand how OrbitalATK could ever think it might be a good idea to try and get into that market.  I am not so sure they are really trying to get into that market, myself.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2016 06:38 pm by abaddon »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #69 on: 01/20/2016 06:57 pm »
Do you have any idea how much those launches cost?  Nabbing a few of them and a few smaller launches seems to be a reasonable and potentially profitable business plan.
I assume a bit north of the $133 million or so it would cost for SpaceX to launch on an equivalently capable Falcon Heavy.  Doesn't seem like a lot of margin there to me.

Unless you consider the combination of SC+launch. Then lots. Seems to be where the industry is heading. Never underestimate the draw of "we can build it and launch it ourselves".

Quote
So, yeah, I pretty much disagree completely with anyone who can understand how OrbitalATK could ever think it might be a good idea to try and get into that market.

Tend to agree. Was similarly skeptical about Taurus II / Antares. Not for NK-33/AJ-26 (although we'd been warned) but for payload diversity - "COTS only, really?" Please note also at the moment they can't "build it and launch it themselves". ;)

Its a risky idea to get into that market. Eastwood/"Harry":"Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Quote
I am not so sure they are really trying to get into that market, myself.

Yes they desire it. Ask them. You'll hear it.

Look to Antares ("E" ticket ride), which is a "baby step" following Minotaur/Pegasus steps. Next one is a dozy!

So ask yourself the question - "why?". Only one to suggest - that they'd think ULA/SX in some way "can't" where they "can". Don't see it.

Sort of like the "Atlas first stage solid replacement" they mooted at the start of the RD-180 "crisis".

New form of "old thing"? Wonder.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #70 on: 01/20/2016 07:10 pm »
Do you have any idea how much those launches cost?  Nabbing a few of them and a few smaller launches seems to be a reasonable and potentially profitable business plan.
I assume a bit north of the $133 million or so it would cost for SpaceX to launch on an equivalently capable Falcon Heavy.  Doesn't seem like a lot of margin there to me.

Unless you consider the combination of SC+launch. Then lots. Seems to be where the industry is heading. Never underestimate the draw of "we can build it and launch it ourselves".

Quote
So, yeah, I pretty much disagree completely with anyone who can understand how OrbitalATK could ever think it might be a good idea to try and get into that market.

Tend to agree. Was similarly skeptical about Taurus II / Antares. Not for NK-33/AJ-26 (although we'd been warned) but for payload diversity - "COTS only, really?" Please note also at the moment they can't "build it and launch it themselves". ;)

Its a risky idea to get into that market. Eastwood/"Harry":"Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Quote
I am not so sure they are really trying to get into that market, myself.

Yes they desire it. Ask them. You'll hear it.

Look to Antares ("E" ticket ride), which is a "baby step" following Minotaur/Pegasus steps. Next one is a dozy!

So ask yourself the question - "why?". Only one to suggest - that they'd think ULA/SX in some way "can't" where they "can". Don't see it.

Sort of like the "Atlas first stage solid replacement" they mooted at the start of the RD-180 "crisis".

New form of "old thing"? Wonder.
A larger more capable BE3 US and most likely cheaper (than Centuar). Is most likely critical component to making this LV viable.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #71 on: 01/20/2016 07:11 pm »
Launch is only a part of Orbital ATK business so a low launch rate is not big issue. Having a LV allows them to offer a complete build and launch package for their commercial satellites.




No. 

A low launch rate increases the cost of the vehicle unavoidably.  Higher priced launches are not competitive.  Orbital does not make an issue out of bundling launch services for their LVs with their satellites, because that's a liability not a benefit, to the satellite sales.  They want to be competing on all the other launch vehicles, indeed NEED to be competing mostly on other LVs because they have and will have for the next decade a miniscule slice of the commercial LV market.  Nor can you bid such fat prices in the satellite sale to cover an under-used LV and siphon profit off to it (and why would you develop an LV to do that?  just take the profit from the satellite and stop there, without trying to subsidize an unprofitable launcher).

It simply doesn't work that way.  Even in situations where the same company or group wins both satellite and launch vehicle bids, it's almost invariably because national/proto-national interests drove both bids to domestic manufacturers, not because of some imagined economy within a company.  (eg, Airbus and Ariane because of a desire to buy European; LM or Boeing and ULA for US national security payloads)

For that matter, the satellite business unit and the launch business unit are roughly the same size inside Orbital, or were.  Neither one is large enough to "wag the dog" so to speak.  And both markets are so competitive O-ATK cannot afford to pad a bid to include extra profit for a weak partner in the other business unit.

So either this all-solid launch vehicle stands on its own, or it does not stand at all, and becomes another Liberty, another Agena II, another whatever-the-solid-EELV-candidate-was-called.  Which is what I expect, at about 90% probability from where I sit. 

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #72 on: 01/20/2016 07:35 pm »
Was talking to a major SC provider exec sales vp last week. Those opinions, not mine!

Oh, and he poo-poo'd the launch business as "tiny" in comparison to the SC business. While lamenting the effects of %40 lower launch costs on his industry(!).

Yeah, didn't quite get it either.

The world is "a changing". To what?

add:

Keep thinking of "kevin rf's" spot-on comment about a half year ago about LV's - that every LV seems start out to be designed to over dominate the payload space, then garners only a fraction and holds onto that as it otherwise starves for launches.

Perhaps SC bus's follow a similar pattern. And the real killer here is that margins in SC shrink before any volume/frequency rise due to substantially lowered launch costs (or, in NSS case, more certain cadence/cost for both SC+launch). E.g. they aren't structured as businesses to adapt to such change.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2016 07:43 pm by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #73 on: 01/20/2016 08:08 pm »
I don't see a place for this rocket if Vulcan is successful.

So sell it to ULA's board.

ULA stops working on Vulcan booster. Keeps working on ACES if they want. Atlas survives on a diet of Commercial Crew/Cargo flights, NASA science, and a few commercial payloads.

OrbATK's latest version of "The Stick" becomes reality and replaces Delta IV. Flies a few times a year as "assured access." NASA and DOD are happy because it keeps the solid motor lines running.

Antares goes away.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #74 on: 01/20/2016 08:09 pm »
Why not?  It sure seems like they could be competitive in the EELV market.  Especially when you consider that the AF will pay premium for at least two launch providers.
I'm talking about the Delta IV Heavy market.  We're talking well under one payload a year, here...

Do you have any idea how much those launches cost?  Nabbing a few of them and a few smaller launches seems to be a reasonable and potentially profitable business plan.

No, it's not and has not been.  The D4H's were north of $300-350 million, but it's likely at the miniscule launch rate that would not have been enough to keep the Delta assembly facilities going, without ALSO adding in Delta IV Medium launches AND the EELV ELC payments.  I believe Boeing/ULA told the Air Force as much, both in discussions leading up to the creation of ULA, in discussions about the ELC, in decisions about co-locating Atlas assembly in the Delta assembly plant, and in discussions about shifting some payloads to Delta IV Medium.

Whether or not it was profitable (of course it was AFTER adding in the other two very significant supplemental payments, and taking lots of steps to increase commonality with high production stable mates), those prices will not be available for much longer.  Both Falcon Heavy and Vulcan will offer the same capability for very sharply reduced prices, as abaddon indicated in his reply.

The "premium" the AF is willing to pay is likely to be sharply reduced in the coming years, and it does NOT seem likely the AF is going to pay a subsistence payment to any one of three LV manufacturers just because it hasn't won a contract.  To make development of a future LV pay off, that LV will have to essentially completely beat out one of the two current companies.  I find that unlikely.  But USAF was giving away money, so perhaps less likely things get pursued, and perhaps the underpants gnomes "? ? ? ?" step magically gets cleared up by future events.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #75 on: 01/20/2016 08:16 pm »
So, yeah, I pretty much disagree completely with anyone who can understand how OrbitalATK could ever think it might be a good idea to try and get into that market.  I am not so sure they are really trying to get into that market, myself.

Does the ATK part of Orbital-ATK think it can get into that market?  Yes, I can believe they do, given their past pronouncements about Liberty, et al (the many other solids-based LVs they have fervently touted).  Robert Zubrins of the solid rocket LV goal, perhaps.

I'm a little more skeptical that the Orbital and LV guys (like AntinioE and David Thompson, for example) are true believers.  I would guess they saw the chance to get free USAF money, and put their design engineers to work without using IR&D funds, and decided to give the solids guys a chance to make another case.  But of course they would not make any mental reservations public.

Again, a likely outcome is that Congress, in next year's appropriations process, will be somewhat peeved that its RD-180 replacement money has been peed out all over to support general fertilization of launch ideas.  And will snap the purse shut, and thus all these contracts will NOT be funded to 2018, and prototypes and test firings and all the rest will not happen.  For this contract.  Obviously, SpaceX and ULA and Blue Origin will continue on, as they were doing before the Air Force decided to "make it rain" with Congress's supplemental funds, just a little farther down the road perhaps.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #76 on: 01/20/2016 09:05 pm »
Do you have any idea how much those launches cost?  Nabbing a few of them and a few smaller launches seems to be a reasonable and potentially profitable business plan.
I assume a bit north of the $130 million or SpaceX has quoted to launch on an equivalently capable Falcon Heavy.  That's (probably) assuming a fully expendable FH as well, with the booster RTLS center core landing downrange option likely to still be very performant and much cheaper to boot.  Doesn't seem like a lot of margin there to me.

So, yeah, I pretty much disagree completely with anyone who can understand how OrbitalATK could ever think it might be a good idea to try and get into that market.  I am not so sure they are really trying to get into that market, myself.
That whole argument is based on it being impossible to beat the current paradigm. If SpaceX thinks the same way then they've successfully made the jump to "old space"

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #77 on: 01/20/2016 09:55 pm »
Do you have any idea how much those launches cost?  Nabbing a few of them and a few smaller launches seems to be a reasonable and potentially profitable business plan.
I assume a bit north of the $130 million or SpaceX has quoted to launch on an equivalently capable Falcon Heavy.  That's (probably) assuming a fully expendable FH as well, with the booster RTLS center core landing downrange option likely to still be very performant and much cheaper to boot.  Doesn't seem like a lot of margin there to me.

So, yeah, I pretty much disagree completely with anyone who can understand how OrbitalATK could ever think it might be a good idea to try and get into that market.  I am not so sure they are really trying to get into that market, myself.
That whole argument is based on it being impossible to beat the current paradigm. If SpaceX thinks the same way then they've successfully made the jump to "old space"

Huh?  I'm not sure you've followed "that whole argument."  The question is if Orbital-ATK can produce a "heavy" EELV significantly cheaper than SpaceX's Falcon Heavy, which it will have to do in order to win a competitively bid contract.  abaddon is pointing out that not only is the currently discussed price of Falcon Heavy cheap, MUCH cheaper than the Delta IV Heavy, it seems reasonable SpaceX may be able to reduce prices further.

The Air Force has not felt the need to pay for assured access out at the "EELV Heavy" payload range, so that's pretty much the price target any new contender for heavy lift has to aim for.  But if you ignore that and still shoot for second place, ULA's Vulcan will be a single stick and likely not that far off Falcon Heavy's price, if they are successful in hitting their price targets.

Whether or not it's impossible to beat SpaceX's prices is irrelevant; the question is, can Orbital-ATK do it, with a rocket like this?  At that, I'm dubious.  Though of course I'd be pleased if they figured out a way to dramatically lower the cost of launch using solids, or anything else.  It just seems like they've had ample opportunity to do this in the past, and haven't produced.

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Liked: 360
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #78 on: 01/21/2016 05:56 am »
So, will it be like the solid motor Antares design Orbital-ATK was looking at last year, or something more like one of the Ariane 6 proposals?

 - Ed Kyle

Something in between, perhaps? I'm thinking two solid stages topped by a 3rd HydroLox stage, powered by a BE-3U. The "intermediate to heavy class" part makes me think that this core could be flanked by two 1st stages as boosters for the "heavy" variant, thus making it similar to the Ariane 6 concept. But I could be off base.

Quote
In a Jan. 14 press release, the company said it would develop a “solid rocket propulsion system.”

“All the best features of solid motors, including operational reliability, high lift-off thrust, shorter development schedules and, importantly, affordability have improved over time with the advancement of new technologies,” Charlie Precourt, vice president and general manager of Orbital ATK’s propulsion systems division, said in the release. “This means we can offer the Air Force a low technical risk and very cost-competitive American-made propulsion alternative.”

Specifically, Orbital ATK will combine the Air Force money with at least $31 million, and as much as $124 million, of its own to develop the GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor, the Common Booster Segment solid rocket motor, and an extendable nozzle for Blue Origin’s BE-3U upper stage engine.

Blue Origin uses the BE-3 for its New Shepard suborbital rocket. The BE-3 also is one of three upper-stage engines United Launch Alliance is considering for Vulcan, the Denver company’s next-generation rocket.

The SSRB seems a little heavy (91t structural mass in the 4-seg) to bring it all the way up with a light hydrogen stage, and putting a lot of dV in the hydrogen stage in turn would make for a very large tank.

How about a three-stager combining three propellants:
SSRB: 12,000kN
BE-4 methalox: 2,400kN
BE-3U hydrolox: 490kN
Following up on this, I'll sketch out the rest of the system for the sake of argument

Most of these numbers are made up, intended to be conservative estimates or assertions;  The Isp in particular is sandbagging other people's idle speculation:

Stage 1:
4-segment SSRB (don't have numbers for 5-seg)
12,000kN thrust
590t gross mass
91t structural mass
255s Isp

Stage 2:
BE-4
2400kn thrust
200t gross mass
14t structural mass (7%)
355s Isp

Stage 3:
BE-3U
490kN thrust
50t gross mass
3.5t structural mass  (7%)
440s Isp

Payload to a 9.5km/s LEO: 34529kg
Payload to a 12km/s GTO: 15398kg

Acceleration Ranges with max payload & max rated thrust:
LEO1: 12.4 - 32m/s^2
LEO2: 8.4 - 24.4m/s^2
LEO3: 5.8 - 12.9m/s^2
GTO1: 12.7 - 33.7m/s^2
GTO2: 9 - 30.2m/s^2
GTO3: 7.5 - 25.9m/s^2
« Last Edit: 01/21/2016 05:58 am by Burninate »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #79 on: 01/21/2016 09:22 am »
Burninate your 3 stage LV would be very tall. Better to have Ariane 5 design with two large strap on SRBs attached to BE4 stage.
The only issue with using BE4 is that it is one more external cost for Orbital. There is no way around BE3 US but ideally everything else is SRB and built internally.

Tags:
 

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