Here's my guess for a composite solid motor Antares, including a growth version for CRS-2 missions. Replacing the Castor 30XL third stage of the growth version with an equal mass liquid hydrogen stage gets 4.8 tonnes to GTO (GEO-1,500 m/s) or 3.1 tonnes to escape velocity, or maybe more than 12 tonnes to LEO.For the growth version, I assumed essentially equal motors for the first two stages, similar to Athena 2, Minotaur 6, Shavit-3, etc. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Prober on 05/01/2014 08:11 pmLet me correct you right there.......I'm talking a clone engine, not a reverse engineered engine. Its a whole different ball game, that I'm sure many don't understand as yet.No, you don't understand that ATK isn't going into liquid engine
Let me correct you right there.......I'm talking a clone engine, not a reverse engineered engine. Its a whole different ball game, that I'm sure many don't understand as yet.
Quote from: Prober on 05/01/2014 02:28 amSorry ,Ed don't think you thinking big enough .....this is the direction they might be going with Antares as the Center core.Huh? That is an SLS competitor and not EELV competitor. They aren't going in that direction
Sorry ,Ed don't think you thinking big enough .....this is the direction they might be going with Antares as the Center core.
So, they operate two Delta II class LV's...which doesn't seem to make too much sense unless there's enough payloads to keep them both busy. Or they keep one and perhaps try to broaden their fleet?ATK was trying to get the government to pay for Liberty, but they seemed to want an LV in that class and thought they could get some market share if they could keep their investment to a minimum.
2) An Ariane 6 configuration. 3 1-seg boosters in parallel for a 1st stage. A 1-seg solid booster as a 2nd stage. And a NK-43 powered, Antares-derived 3rd stage. (I assume it can be restarted? Useful for GTO orbits?)
Quote from: Jim on 05/02/2014 01:09 amQuote from: Prober on 05/01/2014 08:11 pmLet me correct you right there.......I'm talking a clone engine, not a reverse engineered engine. Its a whole different ball game, that I'm sure many don't understand as yet.No, you don't understand that ATK isn't going into liquid enginetoo bad, would be good for the bottom line and their stockholders would enjoy that.
Wouldn't be the first time one company's stage flew atop a rival's booster... i.e., Titan-Centaur pre-LockMart.)
Quote from: Lobo on 05/02/2014 01:13 am2) An Ariane 6 configuration. 3 1-seg boosters in parallel for a 1st stage. A 1-seg solid booster as a 2nd stage. And a NK-43 powered, Antares-derived 3rd stage. (I assume it can be restarted? Useful for GTO orbits?)What about the RL-10 powered stage that is being developed for Pegasus II? Or for that matter, a Centaur (would ULA or LockMart turn away a paying customer? Wouldn't be the first time one company's stage flew atop a rival's booster... i.e., Titan-Centaur pre-LockMart.)
The thing is, they already have this class of LV with Antares and will have with Pegasus II. So not sure they'd develop another LV in that class, which the two solid concepts LV's would be.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/30/2014 08:50 pmQuote from: Lobo on 04/30/2014 06:01 pmAnd given that ATK has been wanting to have an EELV class LV commercial vehicle visa vi Liberty and Liberty 2, could this mean something along that lines to compete with SpaceX, ULA, and ArianeSpace?ATK has shown zero interest in actually spending their own money on Liberty. What they wanted was to convince the government to pay for development of Liberty.There's nothing about the merger with Orbital that changes this calculus. If developing Liberty on their own dime makes sense after the merger, it would have made sense before the merger and ATK would already be doing it, which they're not.SpaceX is putting tremendous price pressure on this market right now. Why would a new entrant want to invest a huge amount to get into a business that is overcrowded and unattractive?Antares is different because the investment level is much less, the government paid much of that investment, and the government is willing to pay far more to keep Antares in the commercial cargo business than SpaceX charges just for the sake of having a second player. None of that applies to the heavier EELV-class market.It may or may not change the calculus. That's why I posed the question. The merger would give each better access to hardware than they had before. And as it looks, Antares and Pegasus II will have similar performance. (Can someone let me know if that's correct? It seems that from Chris's article.So, they operate two Delta II class LV's...which doesn't seem to make too much sense unless there's enough payloads to keep them both busy. Or they keep one and perhaps try to broaden their fleet?ATK was trying to get the government to pay for Liberty, but they seemed to want an LV in that class and thought they could get some market share if they could keep their investment to a minimum.And I don't know that the commercial market is all that over crowded. ULA doesn't really play in it. And SpaceX seems to be gobbling it up with a manifest they are having to build new pads to fill.There's Arianespace and the Russians, but working with the Russians presents it's own set of challenges aside from price. As does/will the Chinese. There could be room for a low coast solid based EELV-class LV perhaps? Maybe they could beat ArianeSpace to a US version of Ariane 6.The composite SRB segments of the STS/SLS diameter they are going to use for Pegasus II creates some interesting possibilities. Not to mention so SLS were to somehow go with ATK solid boosters. There'd be synergy there. ATK could probably make a pretty good offer if they were already tooled up to make those SRB segments for other LV's. (setting aside the performance shortfalls with advanced solids and the EUS for a moment).
Quote from: Lobo on 04/30/2014 06:01 pmAnd given that ATK has been wanting to have an EELV class LV commercial vehicle visa vi Liberty and Liberty 2, could this mean something along that lines to compete with SpaceX, ULA, and ArianeSpace?ATK has shown zero interest in actually spending their own money on Liberty. What they wanted was to convince the government to pay for development of Liberty.There's nothing about the merger with Orbital that changes this calculus. If developing Liberty on their own dime makes sense after the merger, it would have made sense before the merger and ATK would already be doing it, which they're not.SpaceX is putting tremendous price pressure on this market right now. Why would a new entrant want to invest a huge amount to get into a business that is overcrowded and unattractive?Antares is different because the investment level is much less, the government paid much of that investment, and the government is willing to pay far more to keep Antares in the commercial cargo business than SpaceX charges just for the sake of having a second player. None of that applies to the heavier EELV-class market.
And given that ATK has been wanting to have an EELV class LV commercial vehicle visa vi Liberty and Liberty 2, could this mean something along that lines to compete with SpaceX, ULA, and ArianeSpace?
Over all it looks like Pegasus should out perform Antares in all areas.
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 05/02/2014 03:46 amOver all it looks like Pegasus should out perform Antares in all areas.The problem is that even Antares is going to have to be upgraded for CRS-2 performance, and Stratolaunch, even with a liquid hydrogen upper stage, doesn't get there. There's more growth in an Antares-type ground based rocket than there is in an air-launched rocket. - Ed Kyle
Anyway could Pegasus qualify as an EELV and or for DoD?
They would be better of negotiating the use of Cygnus on Pegasus. Would mean more flights per year however better for ISS ( more late loads if needed ).
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 05/02/2014 04:27 amAnyway could Pegasus qualify as an EELV and or for DoD?At least some of DOD's payloads require that the payload be kept upright at all times (vertical integration). This is not compatible with air launch.
Quote from: Lobo on 05/02/2014 01:13 amThe thing is, they already have this class of LV with Antares and will have with Pegasus II. So not sure they'd develop another LV in that class, which the two solid concepts LV's would be.My premise is that Orbital ATK already must develop something to replace the existing Antares first stage, simply due to the limited number of NK-33 engines. Until just a few weeks ago, a new Russian engine seemed a likely option, but that was before Maidan Nezalezhnosti and the events that followed. Now it is not just about the engines. Even the production of the first stage sits in a zone of uncertainty. That doesn't rule out continued production of a liquid first stage elsewhere, powered by new engines built elsewhere, but that is a new rocket. Meanwhile, Orbital has gained, or soon will gain, access to a catalog of solid motor expertise, at essentially discount prices. The company will be developing a new class of 3.7-ish meter composite solids, perfect for the Antares replacement. That very same effort can dovetail with new high performance SLS solids. There might be a path to EELV class work, but that would be down the road, and would not depend on whether Antares used a liquid hydrocarbon or a solid booster stage. In either case, development of a high energy liquid upper stage would be required. - Ed Kyle
My premise is that Orbital ATK already must develop something to replace the existing Antares first stage, simply due to the limited number of NK-33 engines. Until just a few weeks ago, a new Russian engine seemed a likely option, but that was before Maidan Nezalezhnosti and the events that followed. Now it is not just about the engines. Even the production of the first stage sits in a zone of uncertainty.
That doesn't rule out continued production of a liquid first stage elsewhere, powered by new engines built elsewhere, but that is a new rocket. Meanwhile, Orbital has gained, or soon will gain, access to a catalog of solid motor expertise, at essentially discount prices. The company will be developing a new class of 3.7-ish meter composite solids, perfect for the Antares replacement. That very same effort can dovetail with new high performance SLS solids.
There might be a path to EELV class work, but that would be down the road, and would not depend on whether Antares used a liquid hydrocarbon or a solid booster stage. In either case, development of a high energy liquid upper stage would be required. - Ed Kyle
I know Pegasus II is intended to be developed for StratoLaunch. Is there a chance they'll now develop it as Antares replacement (perhaps with a larger 2nd stage), then have a mature LV ready to integrate with the carrier plane when it's ready? Cheers, Martin
Quote from: Jim on 05/02/2014 01:09 amQuote from: Prober on 05/01/2014 08:11 pmLet me correct you right there.......I'm talking a clone engine, not a reverse engineered engine. Its a whole different ball game, that I'm sure many don't understand as yet.No, you don't understand that ATK isn't going into liquid engineOh they could, it would just be extremely expensive and take a heck of a lot longer than Prober seems to think. The barrier to entry isn't insurmountable, just really, really high.~Jon