|
antonioe
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 08/20/2006 02:07 AM » |
|
I would like to say that I'm impressed with what Orbital has accomplished. They were the first people to make commercial space work.
Thanks for the kudos, but the first people that made commercial space work were the Geocom guys. They are still the only serious commrcial business in space. “Surely the Pegasus wing patent has expired by now?”
Hmm... lemme look at my copy…. Pat No. 4,901,949… Feb. 20, 1990… how long do patents last? 17 years for design patents applied for before June 8, 1995 (or something like that?) “how much flight rate affects ELV pricing?”
As I mentioned in an early posting, I think you could launch 12-18 EELV’s a year for little more than the present 3.5/year. To be conservative, say that launching 12 EELVs/year can easily half the cost per launch (not the total bill!) “Would we come out ahead if we doubled/tripled the EELV flight rate by moving all Delta II size payloads onto it and ditching Delta II entirely?”
Ouch! Argh! “Vade retro, Satana!”… if you do that, you will kill most of NASA science, DoD experiments such as MiTEx, etc. etc. You will cause grave damage to the aerospace community by “condemning” missions to start their life at the EELV size… plus, if magically you could put all 3-4 Delta II missions a year in the same orbit, you would only add ONE EELV flight…, so PLEASE DON’T EVEN SUGGEST IT!!! ”laws preventing the use of surplus ICBM hardware for space launch are wise?”
First, I believe it’s not a law, it’s a policy, and, Second, it DOES allow their use for US government-sponsored launches (including DoD, NASA and educational/research uses; all you need is a nod from the Dep of Defense). “With 50 Peacekeepers left over, it seems like the payload side of the low-cost space problem could get a big boost from those being made available”
Actually, there are over 60 useable PK shipsets… I think we add something like $12-$15M per launch to turn a PK motorset into a Minotaur (including new avionics, fairing, payload interface, launch ops, range, etc.) So far, I believe we may have only one firm and one tentative taker… shows how inelastic the market is.
|
|
|
|
antonioe
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 08/20/2006 02:11 AM » |
|
Actually, not much of the forward velocity is lost. Keep in mind that the AirLaunch LLC (not t/Space) system does not use the parachutes and pallet the way SRALT/LRALT do. Ignition takes place when the rocket has pitched up to nearly vertical, but there is still significant forward velocity. Of course, the low thrust to weight of a liquid results in the vehicle continuing to fall for several seconds and the 90 deg AOA is not a normal launch vehicle design case. How long does a rocket flying at 90 deg AOA take to slow down? I don't think there would be much groundspeed left... also, how do you maneuver a non-thrusting rocket to 90 deg AOA???
|
|
|
|
antonioe
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 08/20/2006 02:32 AM » |
|
OK, guys... my fingers (and my brain) are starting to ache... I'm on my way to a Naval Studies Board meeting in... Honolulu (last year it was Norfolk, VA, so no snickering!) and will be there all week, with NO LAPTOP AND NO CELL PHONE!!!!!!!!!
SO, I will not check this excellent forum until then.
And until them, happy liftoffs!
- ae
|
|
|
|
braddock
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 08/20/2006 02:42 AM » |
|
Pegasus DV spreadsheet, with some minor rounding errors...
Oh...and I forgot to update the DV Losses field in the Pegasus w/o wings. Should read 2,001.
|
|
|
|
antonioe
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 08/20/2006 02:50 AM » |
|
Wow! that was fast!!! By the way, up from beginning to end of burn and right from first to last stage is the spreadsheet format I used when I gave a course on LV design at U of MD a few years ago (except I have a gazillion VBasic Excel macros to do hohman transfers, Vcirc, rocket equation in seven languages, etc.)
A reminder that the numbers in the example are for a high-inclination orbit (85 deg, I believe) where you don't get much assist from earth rotation rate.
Speaking of the rocket equation: why is it that we call the airplane equivalent the "Breguet equation", but we don't call the rocket one by it's creator name? Is it because it's hard to pronounce (and spell) "Tsiolkovsky", or is it because when rocketry was flourishing in the good 'ol US of A all Russkys were bad dubbies?
I propose that we call DV=g0 Isp Ln(Finit/Ffinal) the "Tsiolkovsky equation", or, if you think it's a mouthful, "The T-equation"
|
|
|
|
yinzer
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 08/20/2006 04:25 AM » |
|
antonioe - 19/8/2006 6:54 PM
“how much flight rate affects ELV pricing?”
As I mentioned in an early posting, I think you could launch 12-18 EELV’s a year for little more than the present 3.5/year. To be conservative, say that launching 12 EELVs/year can easily half the cost per launch (not the total bill!)
Wow. That's a fairly big difference. Which leads to... “Would we come out ahead if we doubled/tripled the EELV flight rate by moving all Delta II size payloads onto it and ditching Delta II entirely?”
Ouch! Argh! “Vade retro, Satana!”… if you do that, you will kill most of NASA science, DoD experiments such as MiTEx, etc. etc. You will cause grave damage to the aerospace community by “condemning” missions to start their life at the EELV size… plus, if magically you could put all 3-4 Delta II missions a year in the same orbit, you would only add ONE EELV flight…, so PLEASE DON’T EVEN SUGGEST IT!!!
Sorry... I was unclear. If Delta IIs at their current flight rate now cost about $80-90M a pop, and if adding an Atlas 401 to the manifest in any given year costs $50M... consider an Atlas 401 Economy Special. Remove the nozzle extension from the Centaur, replace the fancy integrally machined payload adapter with one made out of mild steel that weighs 2,000 pounds more and has a Delta II style interface on it, add ballast, whatever you need to do to get the payload down to that of the Delta 7925. Then take your satellite off of the Delta II and put it on top of the Atlas 401-ES. Lockheed charges you $60M, pockets $10, and you come out $20M ahead. This is more or less what Boeing did with the Med-Lite Delta IIs, as near as I can tell - removing 5 solid boosters reduced the cost (to Boeing) by maybe 10% and halved the payload.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seattle Dave
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 08/21/2006 05:43 AM » |
|
One for when you return....ST-5 was a good example of the potential of the Pegasus launch system being used for micro satellite delievery. Should this industry become an increasing area of the satellite market, what advantages do you feel Orbital has over competitors?
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 08/21/2006 12:16 PM » |
|
yinzer - 20/8/2006 12:12 AM
Ouch! Argh! “Vade retro, Satana!”… if you do that, you will kill most of NASA science, DoD experiments such as MiTEx, etc. etc. You will cause grave damage to the aerospace community by “condemning” missions to start their life at the EELV size… plus, if magically you could put all 3-4 Delta II missions a year in the same orbit, you would only add ONE EELV flight…, so PLEASE DON’T EVEN SUGGEST IT!!!
Sorry... I was unclear. If Delta IIs at their current flight rate now cost about $80-90M a pop, and if adding an Atlas 401 to the manifest in any given year costs $50M... consider an Atlas 401 Economy Special. Remove the nozzle extension from the Centaur, replace the fancy integrally machined payload adapter with one made out of mild steel that weighs 2,000 pounds more and has a Delta II style interface on it, add ballast, whatever you need to do to get the payload down to that of the Delta 7925. Then take your satellite off of the Delta II and put it on top of the Atlas 401-ES. Lockheed charges you $60M, pockets $10, and you come out $20M ahead. This is more or less what Boeing did with the Med-Lite Delta IIs, as near as I can tell - removing 5 solid boosters reduced the cost (to Boeing) by maybe 10% and halved the payload.[/QUOTE] Delta II's are less than that. Delta-lites were cheaper than 10% and it made the payload cheaper.
|
|
|
|
braddock
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 08/24/2006 01:58 PM » |
|
Antonio,
How did the Pegasus project get started? Sitting in a diner, sketching on napkins?
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 08/24/2006 02:06 PM » |
|
Jim - 21/8/2006 8:03 AM
yinzer - 20/8/2006 12:12 AM
Ouch! Argh! “Vade retro, Satana!”… if you do that, you will kill most of NASA science, DoD experiments such as MiTEx, etc. etc. You will cause grave damage to the aerospace community by “condemning” missions to start their life at the EELV size… plus, if magically you could put all 3-4 Delta II missions a year in the same orbit, you would only add ONE EELV flight…, so PLEASE DON’T EVEN SUGGEST IT!!!
Sorry... I was unclear. If Delta IIs at their current flight rate now cost about $80-90M a pop, and if adding an Atlas 401 to the manifest in any given year costs $50M... consider an Atlas 401 Economy Special. Remove the nozzle extension from the Centaur, replace the fancy integrally machined payload adapter with one made out of mild steel that weighs 2,000 pounds more and has a Delta II style interface on it, add ballast, whatever you need to do to get the payload down to that of the Delta 7925. Then take your satellite off of the Delta II and put it on top of the Atlas 401-ES. Lockheed charges you $60M, pockets $10, and you come out $20M ahead.
This is more or less what Boeing did with the Med-Lite Delta IIs, as near as I can tell - removing 5 solid boosters reduced the cost (to Boeing) by maybe 10% and halved the payload. [/QUOTE] Delta II's are less than that. Delta-lites were cheaper than 10% and it made the payload cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Mark Max Q
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 08/28/2006 04:34 PM » |
|
I have a question, which might be so simple anyone could answer it, but given the weather problems with the Shuttle. What are the restrictive issues with Orbital's scheduled launches? Is there a specific drop area for the Pegasus to launch away from the aircraft? If there's a Hurricane etc. Do you fly over it, thus not a problem, or do you have other alternative areas you could fly to for continuing with the scheduled mission?
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 08/28/2006 04:57 PM » |
|
I am going to answer for the good Dr. For each mission, there is a specific drop zone, which means they are affected by weather both at the aircraft runway and the drop zone.
|
|
|
|
yinzer
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 08/28/2006 05:53 PM » |
|
Delta II isn't less than that anymore, at least as near as I could tell by looking at the Discovery Program document library. If you poke around for the launch services information, you'll see that they're looking at slightly over $100M for a Delta 7925-H or whatever it is. I also thought that Delta-Lite never came to be after it looked like the number of payloads wasn't going to be big enough, so they did the 7300/7400 series instead.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 08/28/2006 06:02 PM » |
|
That is a Delta II Heavy. Also Launch service costs include the processing facility, mission unique mods, telemetry, etc
|
|
|
|
