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.
if there would be a case for gaining performance through small strap-on SRMs.
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.
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'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.
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?
And if you add NK-43 (hmm AJ26-60? ) 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.
Quote from: Jim on 04/23/2013 12:46 amHuh? 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.
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!
Quote from: Kaputnik on 04/22/2013 07:51 pmif 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.
Quote from: asmi on 04/23/2013 12:30 amAnd if you add NK-43 (hmm AJ26-60? ) 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.
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
Would a stretched core + 2 x AJ-26-500 be viable?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/23/2013 09:34 amWould a stretched core + 2 x AJ-26-500 be viable?Any comments about this?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/23/2013 04:24 amAerojet'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
Quote from: Prober on 04/23/2013 02:52 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 04/23/2013 04:24 amAerojet'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.
9 x NK-33 + NK-43 = Antares 9 ?
Quote from: R7 on 04/23/2013 10:41 am9 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.
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.
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?
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.
In my opinion, planned cessation of production of RD0110 in Russia - a good reason for license purchase.
Quote from: Dmitry_V_home on 05/01/2013 04:15 pmIn 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.
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.
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.
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 .
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
I am sure the max G's were over 5
Quote from: Jim on 07/02/2013 12:28 pmI am sure the max G's were over 5I remember I've asked this question here, and got response that it was around 5Gs near end of first stage flight.
Quote from: floss on 06/29/2013 03:54 pmHow 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