Author Topic: Orbital's Antares Development Update Thread  (Read 730750 times)

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #500 on: 07/26/2010 07:05 PM »
After the last meeting at Wallops (Frank C. and I flew on the 310) Frank took some pictures of the launch pad under construction, with yours truly beaming.  Also, the incredible water tower we put up for the water deluge system.  According to Frank, who has done some research, at 299.5 feet from base to top of tank THIS MAY BE THE TALLEST WATER TANK IN THE WORLD!!!

As you can see, it's still unpainted.  With Bill W.'s permisison, we are running a contest for the best paint scheme.  Any ideas?...


Practical idea:  Paint it white, then put an OSC Logo and the Cygnus logo on the tank.

Purely fantastical: half the height burnt orange and the other Chicago Maroon instead of the white.  and add a VT logo in there somewhere
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #501 on: 07/26/2010 07:50 PM »
Please paint the Eye of Sauron on it.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline bolun

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2580
  • Europe
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #502 on: 07/26/2010 08:31 PM »
Very nice photos. I can guess what colors Antonio would prefer, a certain La Liga team, possibly ;)

Why, white and red , of course!


http://www.athletic-club.net/web/main.asp?a=0&b=0&c=0&d=0&idi=2

Of course!  ;)
« Last Edit: 07/26/2010 08:34 PM by bolun »

Offline Freddie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #503 on: 07/26/2010 09:39 PM »
Are you concerned at all about hurricane storm surges, being so close to shore? Any sort of steps you're taking to mitigate that, that you can talk about?

Yes, please review http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/shoreline_eis.html for steps that NASA is taking.

Offline Freddie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #504 on: 07/26/2010 09:45 PM »
Orbital has further information regarding "Updated Taurus II and COTS/CRS Development & Flight Milestones"  for July 2010 that can be viewed at http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/.

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #505 on: 07/27/2010 01:58 AM »
... According to Frank, who has done some research, at 299.5 feet from base to top of tank ...
Oh, and BTW, what engineer thought "let's make this just slightly under 300ft tall"....

Stop the presses!!!... Brent Collins reports that the height form the base to the top of the something-or-other (tank dome?  flashing light? dilithium crystal?) is 303 feet!!! ;D

He also reports that it holds some 250,000 gal of water, and I believe we can dump all that water in about 40 seconds...

I will report verified values for all the above numbers as soon as I can get them.

« Last Edit: 07/27/2010 01:59 AM by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #506 on: 07/27/2010 02:14 AM »
Quote from: several posters
...After looking at this, I'm believing that the Enhanced stage does not use RL10 or liquid hydrogen.  The performance described seems to mesh better with an upper stage working at 330-340 sec specific impulse and 10 to 20 tonnes thrust.  Something like half of an RD-0110 (LOX/kerosene), or some type of pump-fed hypergolic engine.  In other words, no existing U.S. engine - though it would make sense for Aerojet to be involved in this somehow...

...May be two RD-58M or two 11D33?...

...How about AJ-10, it is an engine with substantial flight history and powers the delta II upper stage right now plus it is an artojet engine...

...Here's an idea: LR-91...

There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage.  Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine.  The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler).  The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented.  With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
« Last Edit: 07/27/2010 02:16 AM by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #507 on: 07/27/2010 02:52 AM »
Not Merlin 1C vacuum?  :)
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Liked: 174
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #508 on: 07/27/2010 03:07 AM »
Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

Wow that is a very interesting turn of events...

An all liquid launcher, man ratable, GEO capable, from Wallops...

Now, can we please get those next two Minotaur off the ground, please... pretty please...

:-)

« Last Edit: 07/27/2010 03:07 AM by jimvela »

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1732
  • Liked: 467
  • Likes Given: 8362
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #509 on: 07/27/2010 03:25 AM »
Please paint the Eye of Sauron on it.

You do realize, I hope, that two or more such towers (with said paint-job) would make Wallops a "site for Saur-Eyes" ... ;)

Offline MP99

Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #510 on: 07/27/2010 07:56 AM »
My first thought had been just the torch...

But with a little more effort...

cheers, Martin

(Wikipedia image. Larger version here).



Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8515
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1026
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #511 on: 07/27/2010 12:28 PM »
He also reports that it holds some 250,000 gal of water, and I believe we can dump all that water in about 40 seconds...


Well, if the Taurus II doesn't work out, you have all the makings for an awesome water park ride ;)
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • Mojave, CA
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #512 on: 07/27/2010 12:40 PM »

There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage.  Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine.  The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler).  The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented.  With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?
Don't flippantly discount the old rules of this industry. Behind each one lies a painful lesson learned from broken, twisted hardware. Learn those lessons, and respect the knowledge gained from them. Only then, see if you can write new rules that will meet those challenges.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12782
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3549
  • Likes Given: 610
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #513 on: 07/27/2010 02:07 PM »
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage.  Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine.  The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler).  The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented.  With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

This rocket, powered by two Russian rocket engines with a Ukrainian-built first stage, will be bought, for ISS missions, with U.S. taxpayer funding.  Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability. 

Given that Congress is pushing to save U.S. space jobs in the current NASA budget fight, how can this outsourced rocket maintain political support?  Or, perhaps, cuts in commercial crew funding in both bills is a sign that it already has lost the fight?

 - Ed Kyle

Online pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2538
  • Liked: 278
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #514 on: 07/27/2010 02:08 PM »
Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?
$$$?
« Last Edit: 07/27/2010 02:09 PM by pippin »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #515 on: 07/27/2010 03:04 PM »
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage.  Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine.  The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler).  The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented.  With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

This rocket, powered by two Russian rocket engines with a Ukrainian-built first stage, will be bought, for ISS missions, with U.S. taxpayer funding.  Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability. 

Given that Congress is pushing to save U.S. space jobs in the current NASA budget fight, how can this outsourced rocket maintain political support?  Or, perhaps, cuts in commercial crew funding in both bills is a sign that it already has lost the fight?

 - Ed Kyle

My guess is that they have to reduce costs as much as possible in order to be able to compete with SpaceX and ULA/Boeing, etc. in order to obtain some of the reduced commercial crew development funds. Orbital was initially asking $3B to manrate the Taurus II. They are not going to get $3B.  So reducing the cost of the upper stage is a big factor for them.
« Last Edit: 07/27/2010 03:20 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 342
  • Likes Given: 214
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #516 on: 07/27/2010 03:17 PM »
Given that Congress is pushing to save U.S. space jobs in the current NASA budget fight, how can this outsourced rocket maintain political support?  Or, perhaps, cuts in commercial crew funding in both bills is a sign that it already has lost the fight?

It seems that the voters and the companies only want to maintain Shuttle jobs.  If they were willing to adapt, they should not have sent signals that they aren't in railing against commercialization.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • Mojave, CA
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #517 on: 07/27/2010 03:20 PM »

$$$?

RL-10 is pretty cheap. Maybe the RD0124 is a steal of a deal though.
Don't flippantly discount the old rules of this industry. Behind each one lies a painful lesson learned from broken, twisted hardware. Learn those lessons, and respect the knowledge gained from them. Only then, see if you can write new rules that will meet those challenges.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #518 on: 07/27/2010 03:45 PM »

There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage.  Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine.  The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler).  The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented.  With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?
RL-10 lacks the thrust, simple as that.  The RD-0120 will be a fine engine. Of course you realize that this now means that the Taurus II will run main engines from both russian super heavy lift rockets.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 854
  • Likes Given: 270
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #519 on: 07/27/2010 03:56 PM »

There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage.  Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine.  The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler).  The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented.  With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?
RL-10 lacks the thrust, simple as that.  The RD-0120 will be a fine engine. Of course you realize that this now means that the Taurus II will run main engines from both russian super heavy lift rockets.

0124, not 0120...big difference. ;)

Tags: