Taurus II Development News

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 42 Next
Author Topic: Taurus II Development News  (Read 98938 times)
edkyle99
Expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 4792



WWW
« on: 01/05/2009 04:18 PM »

Here is a link to Dave Steffy's AIAA 2008 conference paper on Taurus II.

http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/conferences/Steffy_NRO-AIAA_Conference_Paper--Steffy.pdf

This paper includes a schedule that shows the following significant milestones occurring during 2009.
Advertisement
« on: 01/05/2009 04:18 PM »

 
bad_astra
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1331



WWW
« Reply #1 on: 01/06/2009 07:03 PM »

Thanks for these updates.
Jose
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #2 on: 01/07/2009 08:10 PM »

Your Internets-fu is strong.  Thanks!
simonbp
Science Guy
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3175



« Reply #3 on: 01/09/2009 04:36 AM »

Here is a link to Dave Steffy's AIAA 2008 conference paper on Taurus II.

http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/conferences/Steffy_NRO-AIAA_Conference_Paper--Steffy.pdf

This paper includes a schedule that shows the following significant milestones occurring during 2009.

...and has a great set of model-making-ready drawings. Thanks Ed!

Simon ;)
antonioe
PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 780
Location: Slummin' in Dulles



« Reply #4 on: 01/09/2009 04:39 PM »

Here is a link to Dave Steffy's AIAA 2008 conference paper on Taurus II.

http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/conferences/Steffy_NRO-AIAA_Conference_Paper--Steffy.pdf

This paper includes a schedule that shows the following significant milestones occurring during 2009.

...and has a great set of model-making-ready drawings. Thanks Ed!

Simon ;)

Note: the location of the Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF) has been moved about a mile to the right (North) of the picture in page 9 of the presentation.
ugordan
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2432



WWW
« Reply #5 on: 01/09/2009 05:02 PM »

Any chance we'll get to see some videos of those AJ-26 qualification firings? ;)
zaitcev
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 237


WWW
« Reply #6 on: 01/10/2009 04:00 AM »

Far it be for me to challenge design and engineering at OSC, this is just my curiosity: why does Taurus II use Castor-30 after all? At best as I can discern by reading the presentation linked in the "news" thread, this is done to leverage heritage hardware with a track record. Is that correct, or there's more to it? It's difficult to imagine that nobody in the industry can build an upper stage engine, so the stage would restart. Moreover, the flight history of Falcon 1 suggests that Kestrel is unproblematic, so perhaps the heritage issues are overblown.
-- Pete

{Edit: as Jose pointed out below, Dr. Elias has outlined the "High Energy Second Stage" at forum previously.}
Jose
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #7 on: 01/10/2009 05:00 AM »

Read these:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11980.msg309609#msg309609
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11980.msg309648#msg309648

And also these:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11980.msg309891#msg309891
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11980.msg309745#msg309745

madscientist197
Regular
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 698


« Reply #8 on: 01/10/2009 08:32 AM »

In general, solids are cheap and reliable -- I don't think you can get a much better argument for a commercial contractor. I don't think OSC wants to invest any more money than they have to, because it is a particularly risky enterprise after all. It's not like there is a truely viable non-government/commercial market for small launchers.
simonbp
Science Guy
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3175



« Reply #9 on: 01/10/2009 05:54 PM »

The presentation mentions performance with a third stage; is that with the Orbit Raising Kit (which is a Cygnus SM, right?) or a Star 48/similar?

Would it make any sense to stack two Castor 30's on top on each other (as a third stage)?

Is the High-Energy Second Stage in the works at all?

Simon ;)
antonioe
PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 780
Location: Slummin' in Dulles



« Reply #10 on: 01/10/2009 09:11 PM »

1.- Yes (Star 48)  The ORK and Cygnus SM have a lot in common (mostly in the propulsion system), but are NOT identical; for starters, the SM has a quad-redundant avionics system - the ORK uses the basic LV avionics.  The SM has solar panels - the ORK only the LV batteries; etc. etc.

2.- Yes

3.- Yes

antonioe
PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 780
Location: Slummin' in Dulles



« Reply #11 on: 01/12/2009 04:56 AM »


Was use of a high energy second stage presented to the CRS SEB?

I'm afraid you would have to ask NASA for any SEB questions...
pippin
Regular
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 964


« Reply #12 on: 01/12/2009 12:51 PM »

SEB? Isn't that a Swedish Bank?
AnalogMan
Member
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1071
Location: Cambridge, UK


« Reply #13 on: 05/06/2009 06:08 PM »

Came across this in my web travels (from a document dated April 16, 2009) - thought it might be of interest.
Ronsmytheiii
Moderator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 12553



« Reply #14 on: 05/06/2009 06:43 PM »

Looking to the launch pads yesterday from the Wallops Visitor's Center, though I saw a few buildings near the pad that I did not recognize, is there any way we could get some pictures of any new buidlings (I couldnt take any pictures as I cold only see the pad through high powered binoculars!)

Also I would suggest Orbital ask Wallops to make an observation deck at the visitor's center that extends over the marsh a little bit with a few permanent spyglasses or toll binoculars:

Tags:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 42 Next
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2009 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.039 seconds with 20 queries.