Author Topic: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?  (Read 21513 times)

Offline jpfulton314

  • Life Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 55
Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« on: 04/22/2013 07:35 PM »
I'm just curious about any news relating to any improvements or follow-on's to the Orbital Antares Launcher. 

Any plan for engine upgrades?
Any plan for multiple engines?
Any plans for a Antares Heavy?

It seems that Orbital is pursuing a much more conservative strategy than SpaceX.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
  • Liked: 466
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #1 on: 04/22/2013 07:51 PM »
They are very different companies. Not everyone is out to colonise another planet, you know.

An upper stage upgrade (Castol 30XL) is in the works to loft the planned enlarged Cygnus.

As an aside, and purely thinking out loud here, the majestically slow lift-off of Antares did make me wonder if there would be a case for gaining performance through small strap-on SRMs. The gravity losses in early flight must be pretty large in this vehicle.
Waiting for joy and raptor

Offline Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 486
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #2 on: 04/22/2013 07:56 PM »
As an aside, and purely thinking out loud here, the majestically slow lift-off of Antares did make me wonder if there would be a case for gaining performance through small strap-on SRMs. The gravity losses in early flight must be pretty large in this vehicle.

Which would kinda negate the horizontal rollout procedures, not something you want to do.

Also, the Pad is not equipped for a Antares-heavy. So you'd need a new pad - not gonna happen, imho.

The only "easy" upgrade would be some sort of upper stage. A good liquid might be a worthwhile 2nd stage.

Other then that - Dont forget, Orbital is not SpaceX.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #3 on: 04/22/2013 08:30 PM »
if there would be a case for gaining performance through small strap-on SRMs.

Eastern Bloc launch vehicles are not designed for SRM acoustics.  My educated guess is that it would lose a lot of the Zenit heritage.  The NK-33 nozzles would probably not like the radiative heating from the SRM plumes either.
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 arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 461
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #4 on: 04/22/2013 08:39 PM »
They are very different companies. Not everyone is out to colonise another planet, you know.

An upper stage upgrade (Castol 30XL) is in the works to loft the planned enlarged Cygnus.

As an aside, and purely thinking out loud here, the majestically slow lift-off of Antares did make me wonder if there would be a case for gaining performance through small strap-on SRMs. The gravity losses in early flight must be pretty large in this vehicle.

The future for Antares is more about increasing flexibility, rather than increasing performance (although the former implies the latter).

In addition to the 30XL upgrade, there's also a pair of third stages being offered: a "bipropellant third stage" (for fine tuning orbits and a little extra oompf) and a STAR48 based stage (more oompf for GTO or earth escape).

I don't see Orbital throwing much more money at Antares unless it starts to attract a bunch of contracts.

If that does happen, they might look into swapping out the current AJ's for higher thrust versions from Aerojet, or maybe RD-191's. There's only so many NK-33s; they'd have to make a switch anyway.

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #5 on: 04/22/2013 08:45 PM »
How about qualifying the NK... I mean, AJ-26 for a few more % max thrust???  That would do wonders for performance, given the low initial T/W...
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Online HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Liked: 1036
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #6 on: 04/22/2013 08:50 PM »
How about qualifying the NK... I mean, AJ-26 for a few more % max thrust???  That would do wonders for performance, given the low initial T/W...

Make the stage one tank lighter; that would help a great deal, too.

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #7 on: 04/22/2013 08:51 PM »
Tank?  You mean, chilled He tank?
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1442
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #8 on: 04/22/2013 09:01 PM »
I think an AJ-1-E6 would do wonders. So would a dual RD-191. But they already use subchilled LOX. And I wonder if using a common bulkhead would save much.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12505
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3375
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #9 on: 04/22/2013 09:11 PM »
How about qualifying the NK... I mean, AJ-26 for a few more % max thrust???  That would do wonders for performance, given the low initial T/W...
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/nk33.html
"In mid-2012, a chief designer of OAO Kuznetsov said that the company had planned to boost the performance of the NK-33A engine by 10 percent before 2018 and also considered the possibility of a 20 percent increase in its thrust."

Even in 1995 Aerojet tested an NK-33 to 113% thrust (it only ran at 108% yesterday I believe).

Which opens all manner of possibilities for future upper stage upgrades.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/22/2013 09:20 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12505
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3375
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #10 on: 04/22/2013 09:35 PM »
I'm just curious about any news relating to any improvements or follow-on's to the Orbital Antares Launcher. 

Any plan for engine upgrades?
Any plan for multiple engines?
Any plans for a Antares Heavy?

It seems that Orbital is pursuing a much more conservative strategy than SpaceX.
Orbital is evaluating development of a west coast launch site for Antares. 

It will begin flying the larger, more efficient Castor 30XL second stage after a few flights. 

It has baselined versions with a small bipropellant or Star 48V third stage to handle higher energy missions.

A few years ago it studied advanced LOX/RP and LOX/Methane second stage options, though those seem to be on the back-burner now.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/22/2013 09:35 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 480
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #11 on: 04/22/2013 10:26 PM »
Orbital is evaluating development of a west coast launch site for Antares.
Wallops can apparently launch to polar and sun-synchronous orbits with a dog-leg: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/about/launchrange.html . Are they considering the west coast site because the dog-leg costs too much performance?

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #12 on: 04/23/2013 12:30 AM »
How about qualifying the NK... I mean, AJ-26 for a few more % max thrust???  That would do wonders for performance, given the low initial T/W...
I guess ask Russians to improve it - I'm sure they would be able to come up with a trick or two to extract more performance. And if you add NK-43 (hmm AJ26-60? ;D) in the second stage I think performance will be even better - I couldn't find Castor's specs but I'm pretty sure NK-43 has better Isp...
« Last Edit: 04/23/2013 12:35 AM by asmi »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32061
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10700
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #13 on: 04/23/2013 12:46 AM »
I guess ask Russians to improve it - I'm sure they would be able to come up with a trick or two to extract more performance.

Huh? what makes you think that is possible?
« Last Edit: 04/23/2013 12:47 AM by Jim »

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #14 on: 04/23/2013 01:25 AM »
Huh? what makes you think that is possible?
Well they are the ones that were working with KeroLOX SC engines for decades, plus they have a successful history of iterative improvements with other engines. For one, NK-33 has much lower chamber pressure than RD-1xx family, so maybe this can be increased to raise Isp and thrust. I'm not a rocket engines designer to be more specific, I'm just saying that if anyone can improve these engines, it would be the Russians... And their design philosophy has always been to build a baseline engine, and then gradually improve on that. NK-33 did not have a chance to go through this improvement process, so I'm fairly certain there is a room for improvements. Also they could use improved materials that are lighter/stronger, as there have been improvements in materials as well during all these years.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2013 01:28 AM by asmi »

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 217
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #15 on: 04/23/2013 01:49 AM »
And if you add NK-43 (hmm AJ26-60? ;D) in the second stage I think performance will be even better - I couldn't find Castor's specs but I'm pretty sure NK-43 has better Isp...

It does have a very nice Isp. However, it would be a little like putting a V10 in a motorcycle. It'd be a fun ride, but you're unlikely to survive it. If you dig back, Antonio mentions the work done on a high energy liquid upper stage powered by an RD-0124. That's a 70,000lbf engine (which is pretty close to the thrust output of a Castor 30) Contrast that with about 400,000 lbf for the NK-43. The Antares first stage won't lift an upper stage large enough to justify that, so if you were silly enough to build such a thing, you'd have a small-ish upper stage with a big honking engine, topped by what would rapidly become a very flat payload.

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #16 on: 04/23/2013 02:59 AM »
It does have a very nice Isp. However, it would be a little like putting a V10 in a motorcycle. It'd be a fun ride, but you're unlikely to survive it. If you dig back, Antonio mentions the work done on a high energy liquid upper stage powered by an RD-0124. That's a 70,000lbf engine (which is pretty close to the thrust output of a Castor 30) Contrast that with about 400,000 lbf for the NK-43. The Antares first stage won't lift an upper stage large enough to justify that, so if you were silly enough to build such a thing, you'd have a small-ish upper stage with a big honking engine, topped by what would rapidly become a very flat payload.
Oops I admit I didn't check the numbers very well - I forgot that 8 NK-43s were meant to complement 30 NK-33s. I didn't know NK-43 was that powerful. Although Antares Heavy (yea I'm thinkin F9H's competitor) could use that extra thrust ::)
Hmm I did some googling now and it looks like NK-33 and -43 is the same thing, just with different nozzles... Is it so, or I'm missing something (again)?
Honestly I'm still amazed by these engines and by the genius of people who designed and built them 40 years ago!
« Last Edit: 04/23/2013 03:07 AM by asmi »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4230
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 914
  • Likes Given: 514
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #17 on: 04/23/2013 03:07 AM »
Huh? what makes you think that is possible?
Well they are the ones that were working with KeroLOX SC engines for decades, plus they have a successful history of iterative improvements with other engines. For one, NK-33 has much lower chamber pressure than RD-1xx family, so maybe this can be increased to raise Isp and thrust. I'm not a rocket engines designer to be more specific, I'm just saying that if anyone can improve these engines, it would be the Russians... And their design philosophy has always been to build a baseline engine, and then gradually improve on that. NK-33 did not have a chance to go through this improvement process, so I'm fairly certain there is a room for improvements. Also they could use improved materials that are lighter/stronger, as there have been improvements in materials as well during all these years.
Try stating that and proving your claims to ОАО «Кузнецов» and Aerojet which are jointly responsible for the NK-33 to AJ-26-62 engine modernization programme which is the direct result of Sunday's launch. You need to re check some of your statements which are incorrect. NK-33A and AJ-26-62 and its newer siblings currently in work and testing are a major leap in modernization compared to NK-33 in its original form. ОАО «Кузнецов» and Aerojet have said before that future upgrades to the NK-33 series beyond the latest NK-33A and AJ-26-62 versions are due to be implemented in phases and following testing for a particular phase will be introduced first to the current batches of engines as needed and if approval for production restart is obtained then new updated designed version using modern latest generation production will occur. It is up to Orbital to approve each phase ОАО «Кузнецов» and Aerojet jointly put before them for implementation into Antares. If ОАО «Кузнецов» and Aerojet do not gain Russian approval for restart, the general plan at least for Soyuz-2-1V is to switch first to RD-191 then more powerful RD-193 following its final stages of development that are currently underway by NPO Energomash. As for Antares NPO Energomash is offering to Aerojet via RD AMROSS current RD-180, RD-191 and their respective derivatives RD-181 and RD-193 with version of RD-191/RD-193 containing gimbal design similar to that on AJ-26-62.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12505
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3375
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #18 on: 04/23/2013 04:24 AM »
Aerojet's purchase of PWR (P&W was the original U.S. participant in RD AMROSS) will in part determine how NK-33, etc., plays out. 

Will Aerojet-PWR ever actually build kerosene rocket engines?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7103
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #19 on: 04/23/2013 09:34 AM »
Would a stretched core + 2 x AJ-26-500 be viable?

Regarding possible GTO ambitions, I think that this would require boosting Antares to a three stage vehicle with a further stage for the insertion to GTO.  Would Core>Castor-30XL>Castor-30 be viable?

Here's a big challenge though: Can ATK crew-rate the Castor? That way, Orbital can possibly fly their space-plane on their own LV.  I'm sure the MARS guys would love to be a crew launch facility!
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #20 on: 04/23/2013 09:58 AM »
Would a stretched core + 2 x AJ-26-500 be viable?

Regarding possible GTO ambitions, I think that this would require boosting Antares to a three stage vehicle with a further stage for the insertion to GTO.  Would Core>Castor-30XL>Castor-30 be viable?


OSC already offers an optional third stage for BLEO launches - though it is a Star-48 motor (essentially the Delta-3000/II third stage, among its many flight histories), not the bigger Castor-30. Although at only 1.8 tonnes to GTO, most of today's communication satellites would be too big for the Antares. On the other hand, this may be the perfect launcher for NASA's Discovery class planetary missions and similar sized scientific spacecrafts.....

Quote
Here's a big challenge though: Can ATK crew-rate the Castor? That way, Orbital can possibly fly their space-plane on their own LV.  I'm sure the MARS guys would love to be a crew launch facility!

Only if your space-plane or spacecraft is less than 6 tonnes.  ;)
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Liked: 536
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #21 on: 04/23/2013 10:39 AM »
if there would be a case for gaining performance through small strap-on SRMs.

Eastern Bloc launch vehicles are not designed for SRM acoustics.  My educated guess is that it would lose a lot of the Zenit heritage.  The NK-33 nozzles would probably not like the radiative heating from the SRM plumes either.

I think the key word here is "small". Meaning they burn for about 20-30 seconds. With such short burn, they can even be made reusable (they will fall within ~1mile of the shore).

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 948
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #22 on: 04/23/2013 10:41 AM »
9 x NK-33 + NK-43 = Antares 9 ? :)
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #23 on: 04/23/2013 02:41 PM »
And if you add NK-43 (hmm AJ26-60? ;D ) in the second stage I think performance will be even better - I couldn't find Castor's specs but I'm pretty sure NK-43 has better Isp...

It does have a very nice Isp. However, it would be a little like putting a V10 in a motorcycle. It'd be a fun ride, but you're unlikely to survive it. If you dig back, Antonio mentions the work done on a high energy liquid upper stage powered by an RD-0124. That's a 70,000lbf engine (which is pretty close to the thrust output of a Castor 30) Contrast that with about 400,000 lbf for the NK-43. The Antares first stage won't lift an upper stage large enough to justify that, so if you were silly enough to build such a thing, you'd have a small-ish upper stage with a big honking engine, topped by what would rapidly become a very flat payload.

The A-One launch impressed me as being very balanced in its design for the job.  This can be seen by the launch itself.
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #24 on: 04/23/2013 02:52 PM »
Aerojet's purchase of PWR (P&W was the original U.S. participant in RD AMROSS) will in part determine how NK-33, etc., plays out. 

Will Aerojet-PWR ever actually build kerosene rocket engines?

 - Ed Kyle

Well maybe Aerojet needs to pass around a copy of that "came in from the cold" video to management.  Sometimes an issue is so close that you can't see what you have.
 
If Russia wants to slap Mr. Kuznetsov around again, then it's their loss. Let's not forget the history.  Mr. Kuznetsov hid those engines at a risk I'm sure to himself and others.
 
I for one would enjoy having Mr. Kuznetsov and some of the dev team at one of the Orbital launches
 
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7103
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #25 on: 04/23/2013 04:51 PM »
Would a stretched core + 2 x AJ-26-500 be viable?

Any comments about this?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #26 on: 04/23/2013 06:48 PM »
Would a stretched core + 2 x AJ-26-500 be viable?

Any comments about this?

Sounds like too much.
When time permits; was planning on pulling out the first Kistler stuff using 3 AJ-26's and lay them out next to the Antares as a comparison.
 
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 217
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #27 on: 04/24/2013 05:21 AM »
Aerojet's purchase of PWR (P&W was the original U.S. participant in RD AMROSS) will in part determine how NK-33, etc., plays out. 

Will Aerojet-PWR ever actually build kerosene rocket engines?

 - Ed Kyle

Well maybe Aerojet needs to pass around a copy of that "came in from the cold" video to management.  Sometimes an issue is so close that you can't see what you have.
 
If Russia wants to slap Mr. Kuznetsov around again, then it's their loss. Let's not forget the history.  Mr. Kuznetsov hid those engines at a risk I'm sure to himself and others.
 
I for one would enjoy having Mr. Kuznetsov and some of the dev team at one of the Orbital launches
 
 

Unfortunately, he's been deceased for nearly two decades. It's a real shame he never got to see his engines fly. A brave and brilliant man.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7103
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #28 on: 04/24/2013 09:49 AM »
Aerojet's purchase of PWR (P&W was the original U.S. participant in RD AMROSS) will in part determine how NK-33, etc., plays out. 

Will Aerojet-PWR ever actually build kerosene rocket engines?

 - Ed Kyle

Well maybe Aerojet needs to pass around a copy of that "came in from the cold" video to management.  Sometimes an issue is so close that you can't see what you have.
 
If Russia wants to slap Mr. Kuznetsov around again, then it's their loss. Let's not forget the history.  Mr. Kuznetsov hid those engines at a risk I'm sure to himself and others.
 
I for one would enjoy having Mr. Kuznetsov and some of the dev team at one of the Orbital launches
 
 

Unfortunately, he's been deceased for nearly two decades. It's a real shame he never got to see his engines fly. A brave and brilliant man.

At the risk of going OT, it's never easy being utterly overshadowed by out-and-out geniuses like Glushko and Korolev and, worst of all, having your work caught up in the political tornado of the clash of their egos.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #29 on: 04/24/2013 01:01 PM »
9 x NK-33 + NK-43 = Antares 9 ? :)
Well in N-1 they were supposed to be 30:8 = 3.75, so for one NK-43 you would need 4 NK-33.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #30 on: 04/24/2013 03:13 PM »
Aerojet's purchase of PWR (P&W was the original U.S. participant in RD AMROSS) will in part determine how NK-33, etc., plays out. 

Will Aerojet-PWR ever actually build kerosene rocket engines?

 - Ed Kyle

Well maybe Aerojet needs to pass around a copy of that "came in from the cold" video to management.  Sometimes an issue is so close that you can't see what you have.
 
If Russia wants to slap Mr. Kuznetsov around again, then it's their loss. Let's not forget the history.  Mr. Kuznetsov hid those engines at a risk I'm sure to himself and others.
 
I for one would enjoy having Mr. Kuznetsov and some of the dev team at one of the Orbital launches
 
 

Unfortunately, he's been deceased for nearly two decades. It's a real shame he never got to see his engines fly. A brave and brilliant man.

Agreed, "In from the cold" had a reference to meeting.  Must be they met leaders of the company with his name on it.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 948
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #31 on: 04/24/2013 08:47 PM »
9 x NK-33 + NK-43 = Antares 9 ? :)
Well in N-1 they were supposed to be 30:8 = 3.75, so for one NK-43 you would need 4 NK-33.

N-1 was 3-stage to orbit.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #32 on: 04/24/2013 10:49 PM »
If that does happen, they might look into swapping out the current AJ's for higher thrust versions from Aerojet, or maybe RD-191's. There's only so many NK-33s; they'd have to make a switch anyway.

The infamous Energomash preso solicited RD-181: the 2xRD-193. The 191 is far too expensive and heavy for what it is. Its main purpose is to provide the excessively deep throttling, without which Angara cannot meet its performance. Not a problem at Antares and Soyuz, where simpler, cheaper, lighter engine is more appropriate.

Offline CardBoardBoxProcessor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #33 on: 04/24/2013 10:52 PM »
Yeah what exactly is Orbitals plan for that? They bought like 30 Nk-33s? They are now down 2. Eight resupply missions puts them at minus 16. so there is 18. Then the next demo is 2 more so that leaves them with 5 flights worth. Will they even bother launching more with Antares or just shelve the program at that point?

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #34 on: 04/24/2013 11:26 PM »
Yeah what exactly is Orbitals plan for that? They bought like 30 Nk-33s? They are now down 2. Eight resupply missions puts them at minus 16. so there is 18. Then the next demo is 2 more so that leaves them with 5 flights worth. Will they even bother launching more with Antares or just shelve the program at that point?

not much of a problem building them.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/nk33.html    The beauty is how simple and clean the design is.  As long as you keep that, you should be able to manufacture it cheaply.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline CardBoardBoxProcessor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #35 on: 04/24/2013 11:33 PM »
I am sure they would want to simplify them a bit. But it is a good design that's for sure. Is there a thread somewhere comparing it to the Merlin 1D?

also, that starter cartridge on the bottom. They would not beable to use the NK-34 as a second stage engine for GEO orbits due to lack of restart capability? Then again they looking at Castor as a GEo upper stage so...
« Last Edit: 04/24/2013 11:35 PM by CardBoardBoxProcessor »

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #36 on: 04/25/2013 12:56 AM »
It's either AJ-500 or RD-181, or close down the program. But as the frustration with RD-0124 demonstrates, dealing with Russians is somewhat unpredictable. So, it all depends on Antares picking up after Delta II. If that succeeds, Aerojet may be able to deliver. Otherwise, pray Elon does not screw it up, because that's your only rocket.

Offline Dmitry_V_home

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • City of Toglliatti, Samara region, Russia
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #37 on: 05/01/2013 03:22 PM »
May be, it is possible to order single-chamber RD809 in Ukraine? Or to try to buy the license for production RD0110 (it is the simple engine with a cycle of the gas generator) in Russia. But in any case, loading capacity growth only at the expense of the second stage is limited by 8 metric tons on LEO.

PS. I mean kerolox engines.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2013 04:17 PM by Dmitry_V_home »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4230
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 914
  • Likes Given: 514
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #38 on: 05/01/2013 03:31 PM »
May be, it is possible to order single-chamber RD809 in Ukraine? Or to try to buy the license for production RD0110 (it is the simple engine with a cycle of the gas generator) in Russia. But in any case, loading capacity growth only at the expense of the second stage is limited by 8 metric tons on LEO.
RD-809 is a maybe, but I thought officials and industry planned to phaseout RD-0110 engine around 2020 in favor of switching production fully to RD-0124 (RD-0124S and RD-0124A).
« Last Edit: 05/01/2013 04:38 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Dmitry_V_home

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • City of Toglliatti, Samara region, Russia
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #39 on: 05/01/2013 04:15 PM »
In my opinion, planned cessation of production of RD0110 in Russia - a good reason for license purchase.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #40 on: 05/01/2013 04:58 PM »
In my opinion, planned cessation of production of RD0110 in Russia - a good reason for license purchase.

good thinking Dmitry.  ;)
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4230
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 914
  • Likes Given: 514
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #41 on: 05/01/2013 05:02 PM »
In my opinion, planned cessation of production of RD0110 in Russia - a good reason for license purchase.

good thinking Dmitry.  ;)
I agree, but would Russia allow and agree to license purchase of RD-0110 engine and would their be issues raised regarding ITAR.

Offline Dmitry_V_home

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • City of Toglliatti, Samara region, Russia
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #42 on: 05/01/2013 05:07 PM »
I agree, but would Russia allow and agree to license purchase of RD-0110 engine and would their be issues raised regarding ITAR.

Well, Russia already sold NK-33 and RD-180 engines in the USA. Why to it also not to sell RD0110, having money from its license production? ::)

Offline Dmitry_V_home

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • City of Toglliatti, Samara region, Russia
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #43 on: 05/03/2013 07:21 PM »
 ;)

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1442
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #44 on: 05/03/2013 09:01 PM »
You really should get L2. There's some amazing info directly from senior officials from OSC regarding the Stratolauncher and how it could help the Antares.

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #45 on: 05/11/2013 02:47 AM »
You really should get L2. There's some amazing info directly from senior officials from OSC regarding the Stratolauncher and how it could help the Antares.
Oh shiny God in the Sky please no solid boosters

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #46 on: 06/29/2013 03:54 PM »
How about adding a third nk 33 on the first stage and a reusable upper stage with an inflatable heat shield.What shut down Kistler was  lack of money not technical problems.

Offline Dmitry_V_home

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • City of Toglliatti, Samara region, Russia
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #47 on: 07/01/2013 05:09 PM »
How about adding a third nk 33 on the first stage and a reusable upper stage with an inflatable heat shield.What shut down Kistler was  lack of money not technical problems.

In my opinion, such change in a design of the rocket won't pay off because of high expenses and low rate of starts.
Let's ask about it doctor Antonio Elias ;)

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #48 on: 07/02/2013 12:18 PM »
I am not talking about a fast modification  a slow evolution one step at a time . I honestly thing orbital have scored an ace with that rocket .See how slow it rose off the pad nice smooth launch with low G,s .

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32061
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10700
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #49 on: 07/02/2013 12:28 PM »
I am not talking about a fast modification  a slow evolution one step at a time . I honestly thing orbital have scored an ace with that rocket .See how slow it rose off the pad nice smooth launch with low G,s .

I am sure the max G's were over 5

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #50 on: 07/02/2013 12:48 PM »
Well within human tolerances .No shaky solids this launcher should find plenty of work .All that is needed is to replace the Caster with a liquid stage to man rate it .
As I said they have scored an ace :)

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #51 on: 07/05/2013 05:40 PM »
Well within human tolerances .No shaky solids this launcher should find plenty of work .All that is needed is to replace the Caster with a liquid stage to man rate it .
As I said they have scored an ace :)
If my memory serves me, Russian man-rating requirement is that G-load shall not exceed 4Gs during nominal ascent. I'm sure NASA's requirements are even more restrictive (or maybe not since they seem to be perfectly fine with flying astronauts onboard rocket certified to Russian man-rating standards).

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #52 on: 07/05/2013 05:42 PM »
I am sure the max G's were over 5
I remember I've asked this question here, and got response that it was around 5Gs near end of first stage flight.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4229
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2452
  • Likes Given: 507
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #53 on: 07/07/2013 08:48 PM »
I am sure the max G's were over 5
I remember I've asked this question here, and got response that it was around 5Gs near end of first stage flight.

Straight from the good doctor's mouth, 5.3 g's near t=205 sec:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31704.msg1045903#msg1045903

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4229
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2452
  • Likes Given: 507
Re: Future Orbital Launchers - What's After Antares?
« Reply #54 on: 07/08/2013 05:19 PM »
How about adding a third nk 33 on the first stage and a reusable upper stage with an inflatable heat shield.What shut down Kistler was  lack of money not technical problems.

In my opinion, such change in a design of the rocket won't pay off because of high expenses and low rate of starts.
Let's ask about it doctor Antonio Elias ;)

Dmitry is correct; Antonio has said that Antares was designed to be profitable at a low launch rate. Making it more expensive (and reducing payload) at a low launch rate won't help.

Tags: