Author Topic: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias  (Read 281195 times)

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #340 on: 10/05/2007 02:55 pm »

Quote
Skyrocket - 5/10/2007 9:09 AM BTW, a Pegasus-like supersonic-capable wing would not have been making sense for this vehicle, as the Wing in this concept would have been dropped before going supersonic.

Good catch!

Quote
A high lift subsonic wing would have been the wing of choice

Agree 

Quote
Aditionally the X-37 payload might have produced some additional aerodynamic trouble.

Yeah, shades of X-43... I probably would end up encapsulating it in a fairing... of course the graphic would not have looked as cool...

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #341 on: 10/05/2007 08:57 pm »
Quote
Lee Jay - 4/10/2007 11:08 AM
Quote
antonioe - 4/10/2007 8:54 AM I know of three alternatives to the wing (there may be others):

 

  1. Drop vertically (with a 'chute). You loose a lot of altitude and most, if not all, of the productive, horizontal velocity of the carrier aircraft.
  2. Have the carrier aircraft have sufficient excess thrust to pull up to a high flight path angle before release. My trade studies show to me that you're better off using the mass that that excess thrust costs you on a heavier rocket.
  3. Fly at scary flight path angles. Lossy and risky.

The original (pre-wing) design for Pegasus did (3)

Is a "zoom launch" not possible with the carrier aircraft?

Well... in a way that's a form of "excess thrust"... in any case, the flight performance that allows you to do that is better spent on making the rocket bigger, INPE ("In My Professional Experience")

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Propforce

  • Sky is NOT the limit !!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #342 on: 10/06/2007 06:51 am »
Quote
antonioe - 5/10/2007 6:38 AM

Dan Raymer, of AIAA design book fame, had just left (or was in the process of leaving) Lockheed Commercial and steered us towards the L-1011,

Antonio,

Dan is teaching a course on how to design rockets now.  He's also designing a rocket (FAST) for Jess @ AFRL.

 


Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #343 on: 10/06/2007 06:54 pm »
Quote
antonioe - 5/10/2007  8:55 AM

Quote
Skyrocket - 5/10/2007 9:09 AM BTW, a Pegasus-like supersonic-capable wing would not have been making sense for this vehicle, as the Wing in this concept would have been dropped before going supersonic.

Good catch!

Quote
A high lift subsonic wing would have been the wing of choice

Agree

Quote
Aditionally the X-37 payload might have produced some additional aerodynamic trouble.

Yeah, shades of X-43... I probably would end up encapsulating it in a fairing... of course the graphic would not have looked as cool...


The air-launched Athena 2 concept actually had a page on the Boeing website in the 2002 time frame.  I've got every reason to believe that Boeing studied the concept, but the comments make me suspect that the pictures were generated by Boeing's art department with little consulting of the engineering staff.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #344 on: 10/06/2007 10:49 pm »
Quote
Propforce - 6/10/2007 1:51 AM
Quote
antonioe - 5/10/2007 6:38 AM

Dan Raymer, of AIAA design book fame, had just left (or was in the process of leaving) Lockheed Commercial and steered us towards the L-1011,

Antonio,

Dan is teaching a course on how to design rockets now.  He's also designing a rocket (FAST) for Jess @ AFRL.

 

DAN designing a ROCKET???!!! Gee, perhaps I should start designing aircraft... ;)

(If you see him, tell him I said "hi")

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #345 on: 10/11/2007 09:59 pm »
Are you considering a cryogenic upper stage for Taurus 2? It would allow EELV-class payloads to be lifted.

This would replace the solid and storable upper stages.

Also, would the first stage be SSTO capable?

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #346 on: 10/12/2007 02:29 am »

Quote
tnphysics - 11/10/2007 4:59 PM Are you considering a cryogenic upper stage for Taurus 2?

I would LOVE to!  A nice, "mini-centaur" based on a single RL-10... yummy! Unfortunately, my peers think it's asking too much for us to go to a large LOX-kerosene CORE AND a cryo US in one step... they are probably right.  So we are currently keeping this idea in the freezer (freezer... cryo.. get it?  get it?) as a "planned (ahem!) product improvement".

Quote
It would allow EELV-class payloads to be lifted

Well... not quite... but it will allow us to launch our own mid-class GeoComs (the so-called "StarBus" class).  Now, whether it would be cost-competitive with Soyuz or Land Launch is another matter...

Quote
Also, would the first stage be SSTO capable?

Not even close.

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #347 on: 10/13/2007 10:57 pm »
Thanks for answering my questions Antonio!

Will the Taurus 2/Cygnus first stage be reusable?

Would that be an upgrade?

Could it launch from CCAFS and land at a airport across the Atlantic; e.g. a TAL site?

And why did you (OSC) go with a solid upper stage? I would assume it is due to experiance, but I am not sure of that.

I assume the third stage will use a single AJ-10 engine.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #348 on: 10/13/2007 11:38 pm »
no, no, no and no to AJ-10

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #349 on: 10/13/2007 11:43 pm »

Quote
Jim - 13/10/2007 6:38 PM no, no, no and no to AJ-10

Correct.  F=1.0 ma (on the first two no's)

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #350 on: 10/14/2007 05:21 am »
My biggest concern about Orbital's Cygnus is the pricing strategy.  Assuming that the EELV's ramp up production to meet the demand for launches in the Delta II class, there will likely be a decrease in the EELV prices.  Can Orbital still compete on the basis of cost?

I believe that Orbital can go toe-to-toe with the EELV's, but it will require Orbital to eat the development costs of Cygnus.  Orbital doesn't have a level playing field here, because the American taxpayers played a big role in subsidizing EELV development.  Cygnus will likely be developed solely on Orbital's own dime.  There's also the risk of the ULA monopoly selling EELV's at a loss, just to keep Cygnus off the market.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #351 on: 10/14/2007 01:00 pm »
Quote
CFE - 14/10/2007  1:21 AM

.  There's also the risk of the ULA monopoly selling EELV's at a loss, just to keep Cygnus off the market.

This won't happen

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #352 on: 10/14/2007 05:29 pm »

Quote
CFE - 14/10/2007 12:21 AM My biggest concern about Orbital's Cygnus is the pricing strategy.

Well, yes, that's my concern, too... that is why we are working so hard to control the program's fixed cost - so that a couple of years at two launches each doesn't kill us.  We could probably sell 7920-class Cygnuses around $75M and still be a very interesting alternative to the $125M A-V 401, but I consider that our "insurance policy"... better aim for $55-$60M at this point... things always end up costing more than you predict...

Quote
Assuming that the EELV's ramp up production to meet the demand for launches in the Delta II class, there will likely be a decrease in the EELV prices.

That increase would have to be substantial - and if it happens, it would also allow Orbital to decrease its prices - so we all move in parallel.  Now, if Delta II's could still be had for $85m-$90M in the 2011-2012 time frame, Orbital would be ordering Delta II's, not developing Cygnus!!!

Quote
Can Orbital still compete on the basis of cost?

I think that ceteris paribus (i.e., reliability, customer handholding, etc.) we can be a good 20% lower cost than ULA for the same work contents based on our small industrial footprint and sharing of program office, GSE and key suppliers with Orbital's other orbital and suborbital products (even spacecraft - the Orbital Raising Kit - or "ORK" Hey!  I just gave out a new piece of Cygnus data! - is based on the StarBus Apogee Propulsion System).  ULA, in constrast, appears to me to be more of a business "closed control volume".  Also, being able to manufacture EELV-class vehicles (not as trivial as Musk makes it sound) does come at a cost. 

Quote
it will require Orbital to eat the development costs of Cygnus.

Well, hopefully the customers will end up paying it over a number of flights... Orbital is FINANCING the development... although it is true that thanks to the crazyness of GAAP ("Generaly Acceptable Accounting Principles") development costs cannot be capitalized, so they are expensed the year they are incurred... so, as far as our financials are concerned, yes, this cost will show as lower earnings per share in 2007, 2008 and 2009... when the tide turns, every penny of profit is reported as "earnings" by GAAP, even though, in reality, some of it is just making up for your prior investment.  that is why Pegasus appears to be so profitable now.

It's like "Net Operating Losses" carryover - since we lost our shirts in 1999 and 2000, we haven't been paying a cent (well almost...) in corporate income taxes recently - yet, according to GAAP, we sitll have to pretend that we pay 40% taxes... that's why we seem to have so much cash and so little Retained Earnings...

To summarize - I can design a rocket - that's easy!  But I cannot understand Generally Acceptable Accounting Principles...

Quote
 Orbital doesn't have a level playing field here

-I HOPE SO!... 

Quote
because the American taxpayers played a big role in subsidizing EELV development.

Yes but we are NOT competing with EELV... the $125M that NASA is paying for an A-V 401 is net of that subsidy - it would be very hard for a 401 to go much below this price in the future, or else NASA would be manifesting all of their future Mid-size launches on 401's (a very fine LV, if I may say so!  Mike Gass, John Karas and their team are to be admired and congratulated.)

Quote
There's also the risk of the ULA monopoly selling EELV's at a loss, just to keep Cygnus off the market.

No - that would require ULA to take an enormous risk - once you lower the price to the USG, you're stuck with it even if Orbital/Cygnus goes away.  LM and Boeing already gave A LOT at the EELV blood drive.  I don't think JoAnn and Roger are paid their outrageous salaries to take that kind of risks.  If anybody would benefit from keeping Cygnus "off the market" it would be the poor USAF EELV Program Element Monitors, that have to keep coming back for more...

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #353 on: 10/15/2007 07:35 am »
How about a switch to IFRS?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #354 on: 10/15/2007 11:43 am »
Quote
pippin - 15/10/2007  3:35 AM

How about a switch to IFRS?

I thought GAAP was a SEC requirement for public companies.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #355 on: 10/15/2007 12:29 pm »
I thought you have the choice, these days? Or is this one of these "Rest of World except US" things?

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #356 on: 10/15/2007 10:36 pm »

AFAIK if you are publicly traded in the US the SEC requires you to report annually (Form 10K) and quarterly (form 10K) following the stardards set up by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), as codified in the General Aceptable Accounting Principles (GAAP)

I'm out of my league here, though... anybody out there knows the real answer?

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

  • Guest
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #357 on: 10/15/2007 11:28 pm »
Quote
antonioe - 4/10/2007  9:54 AM ... the wing is there for one thing and one thing only; LIFT.  As a matter of fact, as I mentioned earlier, the original design did NOT have one; it earned its way into the design!  That lift does two inordinately important things for Pegasus:

It rotates the flight path angle up (or, conversely, it prevents it from going further negative after drop).  Otherwise, you would have to use rocket thrust to do that, and that would both consume a lot of precious ΔV ("turning loss") and would require a scary (over 45 degrees at significant dynamic pressure) angle of attack to accomplish it.

... 

What about AirLaunch LLC's drop method with a strategically placed/sized drogue chute?

Does the net lift of the wing  generate that much advantage over the vertical thrust necessary to make up for the drop?

-NofC


  • Guest
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #358 on: 10/16/2007 12:11 am »
Quote
antonioe - 15/10/2007  5:36 PM  

AFAIK if you are publicly traded in the US the SEC requires you to report annually (Form 10K) and quarterly (form 10K) following the stardards set up by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), as codified in the General Aceptable Accounting Principles (GAAP)

I'm out of my league here, though... anybody out there knows the real answer?

FASB is the requirement, SOX is the letter of the law, and GAAP is the rhetoric that attempts to explain it.

Accounting works by peculiar definitions and classifications. In the 70's, so-called "creative accounting"  practices allowed substantial reinterpretation of prior rigid terms. Most top execs decide deals based on how the accounting can be interpreted - they ask their CFO's to "tell the story" of the deal in various acceptable ways, til they find one that works best.

What you outlined in your prior post depends on how contracts and commitments actually read, just what needs to be capitalized / expensed.  Often the trouble is that you need to know too much of the future to accurately explain the appropriate accounting structures appropriately, which is one of the hallmarks of a great CFO.

Another observation is that with government incentives (or "subsidies") one has a much wider field of accounting treatments/strategies. The penalty, however, is you are *locked* to said government programs - which may make life difficult for a mid-sized firm (e.g. something smaller than a Lockheed or Boeing). From what I see, Orbital is an excellent performer in its sector, so most of this is at the noise level.

Wouldn't characterize Orbital's LV business as anything near EELV.  Nor would it be smart to compete with SpaceX F9 - which is a desperation play - either they win or they die. You can't take that kind of risk and be prudent with public shareholders. Yet upgrading LV capabilities is necessary to being competitive, and one can incrementally execute on a long term roadmap  that leads one in the direction of F9/EELV - that's extremely prudent and responsible. Since F1 is being stretched out over years, F9 likely will also, so perhaps in the end by incrementally improving competitively, Orbital does as well in the end while not pissing off the Street.

Not as sexy as Elon's "frontal attack", but much more attractive to an institutional investor.


Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #359 on: 10/16/2007 06:33 am »
Quote
Skyrocket - 29/9/2007  12:44 AM

Quote
antonioe - 28/9/2007  9:18 PM

Quote
Skyrocket - 28/9/2007 11:11 AM

If i remember correctly, in the early 90ies 'Cygnus' was also the name of a proposed ground launched, wingless Pegasus.

From Orbital???!!!

I remember reading a report in (i think) Flight International at this time about OSC planning a wingless Pegasus version. Unfortunately i do not have a copy of it. Never heared about it again, but the report mentioned about half of the Pegasus payload performance and the Name Cygnus.


Concerning this earlier incarnation of the Cygnus name for a ground launched Pegasus version, i found a usenet posting citing from a Orbital prospectus from 1992
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space/browse_thread/thread/2cdb6ec133f1e90d/4eae6420a7be501f?hl=en&lnk=st&q=osc+pegasus+cygnus#4eae6420a7be501f

Quote
During 1989, OSC conducted design and analysis work on another Pegasus-derived
ground-launched vehicle called Cygnus.  The Company currently expects that
the Cygnus vehicle will be similar to the Pegasus vehicle, except for the
elimination of the Pegasus vehicle's wing and certain other minor
modifications relating to ground-launched capability.  Cygnus is expected
to use the ground-transportable pad and support equipment being developed
for Taurus or the Starbird suborbital launch vehicle's permanent ground
support equipment.  Lacking the air-launched and aerodynamic lift-assisted
characteristics of Pegasus, Cygnus would provide approximately one-half
the payload capacity of Pegasus.  However, Cygnus is intended to meet
requirements of certain scientific and international users whose special
needs dictate ground-launched vehicle.  Cygnus is in the early design stage,
no prototype exists and no contracts for Cygnus launch services have
been obtained to date.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0