Great updates! So is that tank the eqivilant of the big white LOX spheres at the shuttle pads?
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.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/27/2010 02:07 pm...Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability...... More importantly, what capability exactly are we losing here? There is no American equivalent of RD-0124, so we're losing nothing!..
...Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability...
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$$!!!
Is this a direct purchase, or via P&W,
and is there any chance of manufacture in the USA?
Also, since TII has a greater diameter than Soyuz, any chance that the RD-0124 nozzles will have greater expansion?
Once we get enough threads, we can set up a specific section on the forum for Orbital, like we did with the SpaceX section.
similar capacity to the LOX tank of a single Taurus II?
How long of a tank is that???
... drive through MD and then park it on the side of the road just south of Pocomoke City ...
Quote and is there any chance of manufacture in the USA?I don't know, but given the price the Russians are willling to sell it for, I doubt very much that it makes economic sense, given the necessary non-recurring it would take. And before anbody cries "then we are at the mercy..." let me reply: how much are you willing to pay for independence?
Quote from: antonioe on 07/28/2010 02:21 pmQuote and is there any chance of manufacture in the USA?I don't know, but given the price the Russians are willling to sell it for, I doubt very much that it makes economic sense, given the necessary non-recurring it would take. And before anbody cries "then we are at the mercy..." let me reply: how much are you willing to pay for independence?I am assuming Orbital is making necessary contingency plans, for example buying an excess amount of engines ahead of time and stockpiling them, and the cost of these measures is reflected in the trade study. Even if Russians aren't malicious, there may be, for instance, a criminal raid on the factory like the one that PAX suffered (makers of Soyuz mobile gantry for Kourou).-- PeteP.S. Certain people (e.g. TsSKB Progress) are salivating at the prospect of Orbital paying for the restart capability of RD-0124. It would allow them to give NPO Lavochkin a boot for certain missions of Soyuz. They may be willing to chip in a bit.P.P.S. AFAIK RD-0124 does not burn RG-1 that NK-33 burns (which itself is not the same as RP-1, although perhaps Aeroject reconditioned AJ-26 for RP-1), and there was some unobvious American substitute (maybe JP-7 ?). I am wondering here how much does the fuel issue adds to the costs and hassle.
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!
Quote from: MP99 on 07/27/2010 07:57 pmsimilar capacity to the LOX tank of a single Taurus II?Quote from: charlieb on 07/28/2010 01:21 amHow long of a tank is that???This just in from Tim Fackler (GSE Chief Engineer):Tank in 125 ft long (vs about 90 ft for Stage 1) weight 210,000 lb empty (wow! vs. about 29,000 lb for the Stage 1 core) and holds about 80,000 gals of LOX (Stage 1 needs about 43,000 gals. - yes, I hate imperial units too.)Quote... drive through MD and then park it on the side of the road just south of Pocomoke City ...Did you say Pocomoke City?... what a coincidence!The first picture shows a demo of a special rig taking a sharp corner somewhere in Ohio. We like them so much we hired them to move S1 form Wilmigton DE to WFF.The second picture shows the same rig with a PVC-tube mockup of the outline of the Stage 1 transportation container taking a sharp corner in... POCOMOKE MD!!!
Wow! April Fools' jokes come true?!http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15457.345
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/27/2010 02:07 pmThis 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.Typical argument of jobs program versus space program, how disgusting. That's how we ended with Constellation.More importantly, what capability exactly are we losing here? There is no American equivalent of RD-0124, so we're losing nothing!Cancelling Constellation allows to work on basic propulsion so that things like that were not necessary. That is acquiring the capability that we haven't got and thus cannot lose at present.-- Pete