Author Topic: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias  (Read 281204 times)

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #360 on: 10/16/2007 03:09 pm »
Quote
Skyrocket - 16/10/2007  2:33 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.

This was a Chandler design.  Performance was something like 100 lbs to LEO.  Ironically, this vehicle became the GMD booster.

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 #361 on: 10/16/2007 07:18 pm »
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 15/10/2007 6:28 PM

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

Early (1987) Pegasus simulation runs said YES in a BIG WAY!!! By the way, this is not obvious.  My first concept used rocket thrust instead of aero lift.  But lift wins even with pretty miserable L/D's like the Pegasus wing's.  Also, including the mass of the wing and wing attachments (partially offset if you need some form of attachments anyway, such as for an external mount).

If anyone has run simulations that show the opposite trade result, I'd be interested in seeing them.

The advantages of wing lift over rocket thrust are more pronounced for relatively low T/W configurations (e.g., liquid stage 1), less for higher T/W cofigs, such as Pegasus.  It is worth noting that the wing won even in a Pegasus-style, high T/W configuration!

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 #362 on: 10/16/2007 07:30 pm »
Quote
aero313 - 16/10/2007 10:09 AM

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.

This was a Chandler design. Performance was something like 100 lbs to LEO. Ironically, this vehicle became the GMD booster.

Thanks, Joe.  Yes, Chandler in the the early 90's, under Steve F.'s leadership, indeed "marched to the beat of a different drummer" than the rest of Orbital... 

Quote
Skyrocket - 16/10/2007 2:33 AM 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

Actually, that 1990 (!) thread exposes a unique and nowadays rarely-seen view of Orbital's history.  Those that follow so-called "new space" would be very well advised to read that fascinating thread... they may find some striking paralells with what Musk and others are trying to do today; what happened to Orbital after those days is a lesson for all of us (including those of us at Orbital that lived it - we tend to forget our own lessons...)

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #363 on: 10/16/2007 08:12 pm »
In that thread, it mentions "Prometheus", a solar-electric LEO-to-GEO transfer stage; did anything ever come of that?

Would it even work in practice?

Simon ;)

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 #364 on: 10/16/2007 08:37 pm »

Quote
simonbp - 16/10/2007 3:12 PM In that thread, it mentions "Prometheus", a solar-electric LEO-to-GEO transfer stage; did anything ever come of that?

I'm afraid not.  But we ended up building DAWN, which has a pretty sizeable JPL -designed and -supplied electric propulsion system!!!

Quote
 Would it even work in practice? Simon ;)

Technically, yes; for commercial GEOs, the economic trade (recurring cost vs. extra life on station for the same launch mass, vs. increased radiation exposure in the belts, vs. longer time to be placed in service, &tc, &tc) does not work out.

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Seer

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #365 on: 10/16/2007 09:16 pm »
Quote
antonioe - 16/10/2007  3:37 PM

Quote
simonbp - 16/10/2007 3:12 PM In that thread, it mentions "Prometheus", a solar-electric LEO-to-GEO transfer stage; did anything ever come of that?

I'm afraid not.  But we ended up building DAWN, which has a pretty sizeable JPL -designed and -supplied electric propulsion system!!!

Quote
Would it even work in practice? Simon ;)

Technically, yes; for commercial GEOs, the economic trade (recurring cost vs. extra life on station for the same launch mass, vs. increased radiation exposure in the belts, vs. longer time to be placed in service, &tc, &tc) does not work out.


If you had a reusable LV , say a Kistler K1, would the business case for a Prometheus type system close?
Or would it still make more sense to use an Orbital Transfer Stage? I.e, an expendible?

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 #366 on: 10/17/2007 12:41 am »

Quote
Seer - 16/10/2007 4:16 PM If you had a reusable LV , say a Kistler K1, would the business case for a Prometheus type system close? Or would it still make more sense to use an Orbital Transfer Stage? I.e, an expendible?

I suspect that from an economic standpoint, the advantages of a high-performance electric transfer stage would still be overcome by the disadvantages I mentioned earlier, irregardless of the type of LV used to place it in parking or near-parking orbit.

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • V
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #367 on: 10/18/2007 01:50 am »
Quote
antonioe - 16/10/2007  3:30 PM

Quote
aero313 - 16/10/2007 10:09 AM

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.

This was a Chandler design. Performance was something like 100 lbs to LEO. Ironically, this vehicle became the GMD booster.

Thanks, Joe.  Yes, Chandler in the the early 90's, under Steve F.'s leadership, indeed "marched to the beat of a different drummer" than the rest of Orbital... 


Chandler?

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #368 on: 10/18/2007 01:56 am »
Quote
antonioe - 11/10/2007  10:29 PM

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.


Land Launch can lift much larger payloads (over 16 metric tons) if the third stage is deleted.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #369 on: 10/18/2007 11:45 am »
Quote
GncDude - 17/10/2007  9:50 PM


Chandler?

OSC has a production facility in Chandler, AZ.  It was from the acquisition of Space Vector Corp, I believe

  • Guest
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #370 on: 10/18/2007 04:44 pm »
Quote
antonioe - 16/10/2007  2:18 PM  
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 15/10/2007 6:28 PM

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

Early (1987) Pegasus simulation runs said YES in a BIG WAY!!! By the way, this is not obvious....

I quite agree. Wings on boosters are a peculiar concept. Pegasus is in a very exclusive category. What's ironic about it is that most add wings for recovery ... yet its expendable.

But getting back to my first question - you didn't have the AirLaunch drop method in your list of alternatives - what about it?

-NofC


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #371 on: 10/18/2007 06:20 pm »
Quote
antonioe - 13/9/2007  7:25 PM

O.K., gang, here we go:

Ron Grabe, who heads our Launch Systems Group (LSG) was conned into participating in an panel at the AIAA Space 2007 meeting next week in Long Beach ...
I gave Ron a couple of VUGraphs ... The picture shows T II next to the lineup of Orbital's space and large subspace rockets, approximately at the same relative scale.  ...


Seeing drawings of the 1990s-era "Taurus II" proposal, over at:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10279&posts=13&mid=198249#M198249

has me wondering.  Have any Taurus II/Cygnus sketches made public appearances to date?

 - Ed Kyle

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 #372 on: 10/19/2007 03:07 am »

Quote
edkyle99 - 18/10/2007 1:20 PMHave any Taurus II/Cygnus sketches made public appearances to date? - Ed Kyle

Not yet; among other things, part of the configuration (stage 2/3 details, the all-important ;)  fairing shape) have not been settled yet. Lots of details on Stage 1 guts.  Steffy's team is so focused on hard-core engineering that we are not spending any time of fancy graphics, 3-D renditions, etc.

We have detailed Stage 1 propellant, valving and pneumatic schematics, but only a very crude configuration sketch!  Brian Winters, the Stage 1 lead (formely the X-34 propulsion lead) must be in pig heaven!  Topic of the day: how to unload all the Stage 1 propellant in less than 40 minutes...

 

 

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 #373 on: 10/19/2007 03:11 am »
Why would that be needed? Emergency?

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 #374 on: 10/19/2007 03:21 am »

The fast unloading?  No, the idea is not to have access to the upper part of the vehicle when erected (access only at the level of the base).  So if you have to, say, fool around with the payload, you must lower the vehicle and roll it back into the final assembly shed.  Zenit does it in less than three hours.  Payloaders love it: you can work on the satellite at ground level, indoors, without having to worry about "thunderstorms in the vicinity of the launch pad" stuff...

But to do it, the vehicle must be designed to accomodate those operations... things such as unloading props in 40 minutes (you can't lower the vehicle loaded...)

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Cretan126

  • Pointy end up? Check.
  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #375 on: 10/25/2007 01:46 am »

Jim,

Actually, about 90% of Orbital's Launch Systems Group is based in Chandler - it is a bit more than just a production facility.  It was part of the acquisition, circa 1990, of Space Data Corporation by Orbital (not Space Vector) that Antonio referred to earlier.  Other than Pegasus and Taurus (and Taurus II, apparently), all other launch vehicle programs are run out of Chandler


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 #376 on: 10/25/2007 02:56 am »
Quote
Cretan126 - 24/10/2007 8:46 PM

Jim,

Actually, about 90% of Orbital's Launch Systems Group is based in Chandler - it is a bit more than just a production facility.  It was part of the acquisition, circa 1990, of Space Data Corporation by Orbital (not Space Vector) that Antonio referred to earlier.  Other than Pegasus and Taurus (and Taurus II, apparently), all other launch vehicle programs are run out of Chandler

Right you are - 40%-45% of the Orbital staff work in Chandler - half of them (more or less) "engineers" and "scientists" (the latter being more of a rank or title that a job description - mostly they do what we would call engineering...) about 45%-50% at Dulles, the rest in various other locations, including Maryland (Greenbelt and Wallops I.) and California (VAFB).

Taurus II/Cygnus (alas! the T II monicker is starting to gell... when General Susan Helms call it "Taurus II" you start wondering...) is being designed by a combined Dulles/Chandler team.

Program Director Dave Steffy, Chief Engineer Mike Dorsch, Deputy PM Kurt Eberly, Stage 1 Manager Brian Winters and about 10-15 more people are at Dulles (actually at a luxurious off-site location dubbed "COSTCO View Estates" by Dave Steffy).

Deputy PM Mike Laidley (former Minotaur PM) and his staff of about 10 are at Chandler, responsible for the Upper Stage, Avionics, Structures (including fairing), Ordnance, specialty engineering (e.g., aero) and EGSE.  Needless to say, these numbers will swell to about 50-60 after December.

MGSE, contracts, sales (Bob Richards, who "owns" the product) and vehicle integration is based at Dulles.  For the first 5 or so flights, the program is managed out of Advanced Programs Group (yours truly), after that, from Launch Systems Group (Ron Grabe).  Similar to what we did with Pegasus 20 years ago.

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #377 on: 10/25/2007 09:23 pm »
Quote
GncDude - 17/10/2007  9:50 PM

Quote
antonioe - 16/10/2007  3:30 PM

Quote
aero313 - 16/10/2007 10:09 AM

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.

This was a Chandler design. Performance was something like 100 lbs to LEO. Ironically, this vehicle became the GMD booster.

Thanks, Joe.  Yes, Chandler in the the early 90's, under Steve F.'s leadership, indeed "marched to the beat of a different drummer" than the rest of Orbital...


Chandler?

Arizona

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
« Reply #378 on: 10/25/2007 09:31 pm »
Quote
antonioe - 24/10/2007  10:56 PM

Taurus II/Cygnus (alas! the T II monicker is starting to gell... )


I though Orbital had finally learned the trick of reusing the name of an existing program to simplify the range approval process.  Ask your new Lockmart friends why every Martin Marietta launch vehicle was named "Titan".  For that matter, even the Chandler folks learned that trick when the demo GMD booster was named "Taurus Lite".

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 #379 on: 10/25/2007 10:51 pm »
Quote
aero313 - 25/10/2007  11:31 PM
Ask your new Lockmart friends why every Martin Marietta launch vehicle was named "Titan".  

Just nitpicking: this launch vehicle must be a "Titan-2AS" (take a look at the company name)


Tags:
 

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