Quote from: notsorandom on 01/18/2016 06:59 pmQuote from: abaddon on 01/18/2016 03:48 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 01/18/2016 04:01 amLaunch 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.
Quote from: abaddon on 01/18/2016 03:48 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 01/18/2016 04:01 amLaunch 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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 01/18/2016 04:01 amLaunch 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Rummy on 01/19/2016 04:29 pmWhy 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...
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.
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.
Quote from: Rummy on 01/20/2016 05:38 pmDo 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.
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.
Quote from: abaddon on 01/20/2016 06:36 pmQuote from: Rummy on 01/20/2016 05:38 pmDo 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".QuoteSo, 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?"QuoteI 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.
Quote from: abaddon on 01/19/2016 10:01 pmQuote from: Rummy on 01/19/2016 04:29 pmWhy 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.
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.
Quote from: Rummy on 01/20/2016 05:38 pmDo 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.
Quote from: abaddon on 01/20/2016 06:36 pmQuote from: Rummy on 01/20/2016 05:38 pmDo 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"
Quote from: Lars-J on 01/15/2016 05:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 01/15/2016 04:33 pmSo, 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 KyleSomething 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.QuoteIn 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: 12,000kNBE-4 methalox: 2,400kNBE-3U hydrolox: 490kN
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/15/2016 04:33 pmSo, 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 KyleSomething 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.
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
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.