|
strangequark
|
|
« Reply #1500 on: 04/19/2012 12:17 AM » |
|
What happened with the IPD and the NGE? Didn't AeroJet had some demonstration hardware? Or is that in the 2020s timeframe?
They did, but someone will have to pay for dev through qual. NGE would probably be a good fit, but an IPD-derived production engine would be overkill (250 klbf full flow staged combustion is a little much).
Is it public the isp of the IPD?
But yep, 1,1MN is sort of overkill. That would be a good match for a 100ton US... so... why the J-2X?!?!?!? But I digress. Back to the Antares. I only see an US if they get to a manifest of something like 4 launches per year, commercial.
I couldn't find anything but thrust level. I could swear I've seen an Isp value, but there's nothing public as far as I could see. Since it's sea level, and who knows what kind of AR the test nozzle had, I don't know how useful it would be. However, I was hoping that there was something on chamber pressure, since that lets you do a more apples to apples comparison wrt current engines. Incidentally, I did answer an older question of yours on the Staged Combustion Q&A thread. Google search on IPD brought it up, funnily enough. That might be a better forum, since IPD isn't terribly related to Antares (as we said earlier, overkill).
|
|
|
|
Salo Ukr
|
|
« Reply #1501 on: 04/20/2012 07:29 PM » |
|
http://www.orbital.com/Antares/Updated COTS & CRS Schedules
April 2012
Orbital updated its COTS and CRS operational schedules, with plans to achieve four major milestones over the next year. They are as listed below:
Third quarter 2012 - Antares First-Stage Static Fire Test at Wallops
Third quarter 2012 - Antares Test Flight for COTS
Fourth quarter 2012 - COTS Demonstration Mission to ISS
First quarter 2013 - CRS Mission #1 to ISS
Orbital's operational dates are subject to coordination with NASA's ISS cargo delivery schedule
|
|
|
|
|
|
beancounter
|
|
« Reply #1503 on: 04/23/2012 03:26 AM » |
|
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120420-orbital-launcher-encounters-delays.htmlA test firing of the Antares rocket’s first stage on the launch pad is now scheduled for early July. The rocket will make its inaugural flight, without the Cygnus cargo carrier, in August under the new schedule. The Antares/Cygnus launch would then occur in October or November. Well this is not unexpected. I would think further delays are likely due to the complexities required for berthing with the ISS which will IMO be related to software certification. Certainly that appears to be where SpaceX needed to spend more time. Therefore I'm not expecting Orbital to finish up their COTS program until second quarter 2013.
|
|
|
|
Jason1701
|
|
« Reply #1504 on: 04/23/2012 03:55 AM » |
|
The delays actually seem to be from pad construction.
|
|
|
|
Antares
|
|
« Reply #1505 on: 04/23/2012 01:11 PM » |
|
The first launch is just a mass simulator. No verifications for Cygnus or ISS interfaces are required prior to that flight. This is probably why Orbital lobbied for it as its supplemental for FY10.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #1506 on: 04/23/2012 06:41 PM » |
|
Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive? There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
Some interesting link:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/8395/525260/11585339.pdf
Don't forget the AJ-26, which they already are using in it's "62" configuration for the first stage has a "59" configuration for upper stage work.
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #1507 on: 04/23/2012 08:44 PM » |
|
Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive? There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
Some interesting link:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/8395/525260/11585339.pdf
Don't forget the AJ-26, which they already are using in it's "62" configuration for the first stage has a "59" configuration for upper stage work.
good point, but it would be too much power me thinks.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #1508 on: 04/23/2012 09:27 PM » |
|
Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive? There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
Some interesting link:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/8395/525260/11585339.pdf
Don't forget the AJ-26, which they already are using in it's "62" configuration for the first stage has a "59" configuration for upper stage work.
good point, but it would be too much power me thinks.
If you ran it at 100%, sure. But it throttles. Drop it down to about 60% (no idea if it can throttle that low, mind you) and it becomes a quite good upper stage, although it would be staging earlier than the Castor does by my estimate.
|
|
|
|
Lurker Steve
|
|
« Reply #1509 on: 04/24/2012 03:44 AM » |
|
Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive? There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
Some interesting link:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/8395/525260/11585339.pdf
Don't forget the AJ-26, which they already are using in it's "62" configuration for the first stage has a "59" configuration for upper stage work.
good point, but it would be too much power me thinks.
If you ran it at 100%, sure. But it throttles. Drop it down to about 60% (no idea if it can throttle that low, mind you) and it becomes a quite good upper stage, although it would be staging earlier than the Castor does by my estimate.
Any of these alternative upper stages would cost more than the Castor, right ? How many more launches are going to find their way onto the manifest with an upgraded second stage ? Perhaps the Castor is the most cost-effective second stage for their target market.
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #1510 on: 04/24/2012 04:51 AM » |
|
Yeah, I bet the Castor upper stage is pretty cheap.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #1511 on: 04/24/2012 05:25 AM » |
|
Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive? There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
Some interesting link:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/8395/525260/11585339.pdf
Don't forget the AJ-26, which they already are using in it's "62" configuration for the first stage has a "59" configuration for upper stage work.
good point, but it would be too much power me thinks.
If you ran it at 100%, sure. But it throttles. Drop it down to about 60% (no idea if it can throttle that low, mind you) and it becomes a quite good upper stage, although it would be staging earlier than the Castor does by my estimate.
Any of these alternative upper stages would cost more than the Castor, right ? How many more launches are going to find their way onto the manifest with an upgraded second stage ? Perhaps the Castor is the most cost-effective second stage for their target market.
*dingdingding* You sir win the cupie doll!
|
|
|
|
Lurker Steve
|
|
« Reply #1512 on: 04/24/2012 01:26 PM » |
|
Are there any payloads they are scheduled for the F9 that couldn't fit on an Antares ?
I'm thinking that by the end of the year, Orbital has successfully launched this bird at least twice, and has proven their payload fairing works.
SpaceX has a bunch of payloads on their manifest, just waiting for a F9 with a proven fairing. Eventually, those customers get tired of waiting and take their payloads elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #1513 on: 04/24/2012 01:31 PM » |
|
Are there any payloads they are scheduled for the F9 that couldn't fit on an Antares ?
Antares launch site limits which missions it can do. Also, it needs a 3rd stage for GTO missions.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #1514 on: 04/24/2012 07:52 PM » |
|
Are there any payloads they are scheduled for the F9 that couldn't fit on an Antares ?
Antares launch site limits which missions it can do. Also, it needs a 3rd stage for GTO missions.
Not that limited, as the Russians demonstrate from a similar latitude. As for the GTO missions needing a third stage, I point you again to the Russian launchers, such as Proton which similarly needs an extra stage for GTO. For commercial operations, neither of these issues are a deal breaker, for they are already present.
|
|
|
|
