I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the vehicle, but from looking around it doesn't appear that Orbital had much hand in the design of the vehicle.The engines are NK-33 from the old Soviet N1. The first stage was designed by Yuzhnoye SDO. The second stage is designed by ATK. So from what I'm seeing this is only 1/2 to 1/3 American (depending on how you count stages) and none of it is designed by Orbital? Did they build the avionics package for the first or second stage?
Systems engineering on a project like this is the most difficult, and critical, part of the whole effort, I would argue, and easily overlooked in the "who built what" discussion.
Forgot: fairing, telemetry, flight termination system, GN&C software, launch pad interface (hold-down, umbilicals, fuel/oxidizer/nitrogen/helium loading and pressurization system) thrust vector control, stage and payload separation systems, upper stage reaction (attitude) control systems, countdown sequencer and ground display/control consoles, propellant and gases loading control and display consoles... just to name a few.Oh! And the parts have to fit. Duck tape not allowed.
It turns out that #3 happens to be the most logical choice every time.
Oh! And the parts have to fit. Duck tape not allowed.
Quote from: antonioe on 04/17/2013 02:09 amOh! And the parts have to fit. Duck tape not allowed.What about aviation grade Speed Tape
The war of words continues...Can you spot at least four things wrong with the following sentence (from an <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-25/what-spacex-can-teach-us-about-cost-innovation.html> article "about" SpaceX[/url]):"Another similar space venture is still using fuel-inefficient surplus Russian rocket engines built in the 1960's that cost more to run and maintain over time. Due to their finite number, the company has a limited future unless like SpaceX it develops its own engine."I find the date the article was issued (April 25) interesting...
Can you spot at least four things wrong with the following sentence
Quote from: antonioe on 05/08/2013 02:43 pmThe war of words continues...Can you spot at least four things wrong with the following sentence (from an <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-25/what-spacex-can-teach-us-about-cost-innovation.html> article "about" SpaceX[/url]):"Another similar space venture is still using fuel-inefficient surplus Russian rocket engines built in the 1960's that cost more to run and maintain over time. Due to their finite number, the company has a limited future unless like SpaceX it develops its own engine."I find the date the article was issued (April 25) interesting...OK, I'll bite:1. Fuel ineffcient??2. Cost more to run??3. Finite number?? Umm, yes, until more are built...just like Merlins are finite in number...until more are built...4. Limited future unless own engine developed??Ah, the indignities.
3. I think the point is that no more are being built. No more have been built in nearly 40 years, which means the production line has to be created nearly from scratch, which is going to be a capital intensive process. Although IIRC either Aerojet or Orbital has a license to build NK-33's AJ-26's in the US.And one you missed: NK-33 were built in the 1970's.
Quote from: antonioe on 05/08/2013 02:43 pmThe war of words continues...Can you spot at least four things wrong with the following sentence (from an <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-25/what-spacex-can-teach-us-about-cost-innovation.html> article "about" SpaceX[/url]):"Another similar space venture is still using fuel-inefficient surplus Russian rocket engines built in the 1960's that cost more to run and maintain over time. Due to their finite number, the company has a limited future unless like SpaceX it develops its own engine."I find the date the article was issued (April 25) interesting...So much wrong there. The author, like so many, wants to write an Antares versus Falcon 9 fight to the death kind of story. But there is no story. Antares is in its own class. SpaceX has decided to battle United Launch Alliance. That's the story, but for some reason it seems so much less interesting. - Ed Kyle
Well, Luker Steve one error is they have not won, but are still winning
I usually don't respond to Elon's jabs, but that one just left me out of breath... the part that hurt me the most was the implication "Another similar space venture [Orbital, I guess - who else?] ... the company has a limited future unless like SpaceX it develops its own engine."*SIGH*... the company, not the rocket...Now, I don't think Mr. Agan came up with that one by himself. But why? Why is it necessary to sling mud at others to succeed in business?The whole thing reminds me of Salvor Hardin's favorite maxim...
I usually don't respond to Elon's jabs, but that one just left me out of breath... the part that hurt me the most was the implication "Another similar space venture [Orbital, I guess - who else?] ... the company has a limited future unless like SpaceX it develops its own engine."
"a incorrect in forestry"?
I'm sorry - you're right. I apologize. As a matter of fact, I saw Gwynne last night at the AIAA fellows dinner (she was just elected a fellow) and got up to her "gauntlet" (a long-standing tradition at the AIAA fellows dinner is an "attack" of each newly elected fellow by his/her friends and supporters as they come down from the stage after receiving the award - hence the "gauntlet")
Elon makes a much bigger deal about the Merlin's T/W than is justified IMHO. The reporter's mistaken fuel efficiency claim sounds like a distorted version of Merlin's record T/W, so Elon is in part responsible for that mistake.
Quote from: deltaV on 05/08/2013 11:45 pmElon makes a much bigger deal about the Merlin's T/W than is justified IMHO. The reporter's mistaken fuel efficiency claim sounds like a distorted version of Merlin's record T/W, so Elon is in part responsible for that mistake.The only measure of engine efficiency I know of is Isp, and SpaceX's engines suck big time in this. T/W has nothing to do with engine efficiency.
The Merlin 1D is rated at 310, which isn't bad for RP1/LOX. The RD-180 is 338 which is the best RP1/LOX engine that I'm aware of.
What REALLY matters is VEHICLE efficiency. As measured in dollars per pound to destination.
I was actually quite puzzled why SpaceX didn't choose SC approach for their engines as they are totally superior to other designs.
What REALLY matters is VEHICLE efficiency. As measured in dollars per pound to destination.I think both SpaceX and OSC are doing fine at that, so far.
Orbital is a up and coming challenge to that other rocket and company.
Sometimes I feel like I'm back in high school with how this is all being framed. Although I suppose everyone loves a good A VS. B narrative, even if not factually correct or besides the point.I think what OSC has and will continue to accomplish is most excellent. As well as SpaceX and ULA. Having all these capabilities will only be a net positive both today and in the future. I mean really, who cares how much of Antares OSC did or didn't build themselves. I use machines all day long I didn't design or build. But I use them to great effect and I have to integrate them into producing content for my clients.Others like SpaceX take a different approach. And it works for what they are trying to do. And that's great too. Rockets, like people...it takes all kinds.I say, the more the merrier!
Sometimes I feel like I'm back in high school with how this is all being framed. Although I suppose everyone loves a good A VS. B narrative, even if not factually correct or besides the point.