Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/19/2015 05:20 pm...It could be that Orbital wasn't interested in losing money. It might be that there's little, or no, profit to be gained launching commercial satellites, given the Non-laissez-faire market at work in that business segment. Going after that handful of payloads are SpaceX, Arianespace, and ILS/Proton, and soon others. (Arianespace recently beat SpaceX in winning two payloads, after it slashed its prices.) All are supported or outright subsidized in some way by government funds, overtly or otherwise....I agree with you until that point. Launching government payloads doesn't automatically mean you're "supported" by government funds (the implication being that it's a kind of subsidy). By that argument, just about every business is gov't supported because the govt buys products from them.
...It could be that Orbital wasn't interested in losing money. It might be that there's little, or no, profit to be gained launching commercial satellites, given the Non-laissez-faire market at work in that business segment. Going after that handful of payloads are SpaceX, Arianespace, and ILS/Proton, and soon others. (Arianespace recently beat SpaceX in winning two payloads, after it slashed its prices.) All are supported or outright subsidized in some way by government funds, overtly or otherwise....
So what is the orbital LEO payload ability of two stacked composite solid sections for first stage, with the existing solid upper stage to replace Antares? I know it might not happen unless the infrastructure is built, but anything can happen. Just wondering if the capability would be good enough to go head to head with ULA and SpaceX.
I liked the idea of the Antares rocket using less proven and reliable rocket engines, like the nk-33, to send cheap payloads to the ISS. The rd-181 comes from a well established rocket engine family. I'd like to see Antares use the new kerosene staged combustion engine from China, an early BE-4 engine, Ukrainian rd-120k, a South Korean, or an Iranian rocket engine. Yes, the Indian Vikas engine is now too proven.
Yes, the Indian Vikas engine is now too proven.
So Spaceflight Now added Orb-5 to the launch schedule, and it says the launch site is Baikonur. I'd assume that's a typo?
The rocket will fly in the Antares 230 configuration, with two RD-181 first stage engines and a Castor 30XL second stage.
This has probably previously been discussed somewhere, but what if OrbATK were to design attachment points for solids on the Antares first stage? Say, six of them, and say, about the size of the Atlas V solids...would the Antares first stage be about as capable as an Atlas V first stage, or approach Vulcan first stage numbers?OrbATK could probably find some personnel who knew a thing or two about solids.If SpaceX is pushing Dragons, Dragons, Everywhere as landers, then it seems OrbitalATK would like to push Cygnus, Cygnus Everywhere as in-space habitation and exploration and delivery modules. And beyond LEO, it would be nice if Antares had more heft. Even in LEO, it would be nice if Antares could support some beefier Cygnus variants.Antares' upper stage doesn't really have the Isp for higher energy destinations, but it seems likely that if ULA down-selects between Aerojet Rocketdyne, Xcor, and Blue Origin for Vulcan's upper stage engine, that leaves two upper stage engine designs looking for a home...
The original concept design for Antares had one AJ-26 with SRBs but the two engine design offered better performance and cost.
Quote from: notsorandom on 05/18/2015 03:12 pmThe original concept design for Antares had one AJ-26 with SRBs but the two engine design offered better performance and cost. I've never heard that. Antonio told us it was two NK-33 type engines from the outset, although I'm sure that Orbital evaluated many alternatives before making that choice. - Ed Kyle
That is currently the plan. Yes, 0B will require a lot of mods, but so will any pad at CCASF or VAFB... we checked them all! Liquid propellant sotrage tanks being the simgle biggest mod everywhere.While, yes, Taurus II has more thrust than anything that has been launched from it (by the way, the Ray Crough picture I posted in the posting above is precisely at pad 0B!!!) the mods are less violent that the ones that would have been required had we gone with the original T II "single NK-33/at least two SRB's" configuration due to a) the wider "stance" of the 2-SRB configuration and b) the more energetic and damaging plume of the solids. However, adapting the transporter-erector to the 01B geometry is actually harder than is the case for the CCAFS and VAFB pads. You can't win everything...
The first pair of RD-181 rocket engines set to launch on Orbital ATK’s redesigned Antares rocket are in the final stages of acceptance testing in Russia ahead of their export to the United States in early July, officials said.The RD-181 engine completed its certification program May 7 with the last of seven hotfire tests in Russia, according to NPO Energomash of Khimki, Russia, the engine’s manufacturer.[...]
First two flight engines complete. First engine has gone through 7 test firings in 2 months completing acceptance testing, second engine starts testing this week.Pad work expected to be complete in SeptemberFirst stage modifications on existing cores on scheduleMarch 2016 expected date of first launch with one month existing schedule margin.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 06/01/2015 04:46 pmFirst two flight engines complete. First engine has gone through 7 test firings in 2 months completing acceptance testing, second engine starts testing this week.Pad work expected to be complete in SeptemberFirst stage modifications on existing cores on scheduleMarch 2016 expected date of first launch with one month existing schedule margin.Are they going to test fire these engines themselves at Stennis? Or simply accept then as-is?