Author Topic: Antares General Discussion Thread  (Read 363127 times)

Offline John-H

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #580 on: 03/01/2015 04:29 am »
...
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.

In any business where your costs go down with volume, having more customers can decrease your prices and "support" the business. This doesn't even consider the case where one customer provides a lot of the volume, or where one customer pays higher prices.

John

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #581 on: 03/03/2015 08:45 pm »
Testing of the RD-181 next month. First engines expected to be delivered for assembly in June.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #582 on: 03/10/2015 06:36 pm »
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. 
« Last Edit: 03/10/2015 06:44 pm by spacenut »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #583 on: 03/10/2015 08:57 pm »
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.

Ed Kyle ran some numbers here:

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/santares.html

And here back up thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32903.msg1191231#msg1191231

He did another somewhere that I think has info for two identical SLS composite segments stacked on top of each other as individual motors, but I can't find where it is at the moment.


Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #584 on: 03/11/2015 01:33 am »
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.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #585 on: 03/11/2015 06:01 am »
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.

That would be good for China, Blue Origin, Ukraine, South Korea, Iran, and India, respectively, but not good for OrbitalATK.  I'm also really curious why you would like to see supplies to the ISS get less reliable in order for Iran get better at making rocket engines.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #586 on: 03/11/2015 12:10 pm »
Yes, the Indian Vikas engine is now too proven.
Certainly, and it has heritage from the very successful Viking engines of the Ariane 1-4. Likely the most relyable engine you listed. However it is a gas generator engine using the hypergolic combination of  N2O4/UH 25. Were Antares to be modified to use it would need four of the engines, and suffer a large performance loss. The whole first stage would need a significant redesign to use the different fuel and oxidizer. At this point it would basically be a new rocket. There would also be the issue of using toxic propellants, especially now since the last one blew up right over the pad.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #587 on: 03/11/2015 01:00 pm »
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.
RD-120K is an NPO Energomash development (the same designer of the RD-170/180). The RD-120 is also designed by NPO Energomash but built under license by the Ukranian Yuzhmash. They did had a project to develop a new engines based on that same technology, the RD-801 and RD-810 projects.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #588 on: 05/04/2015 10:03 pm »
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?

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #589 on: 05/04/2015 10:41 pm »
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?

Must be a cut/paste error. The rest of the info seems correct.

Quote
The rocket will fly in the Antares 230 configuration, with two RD-181 first stage engines and a Castor 30XL second stage.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 10:42 pm by Kabloona »

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #590 on: 05/17/2015 05:17 am »
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...

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #591 on: 05/17/2015 02:27 pm »
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...

Since OrbitalATK get their Zenit heritage cores from Ukraine. AIUI the Antares core is not design for any attached solid boosters. You need to redesign and re-certified a new core with strapped-on solid boosters option along with new manufacturing processes and vertical vehicle integration.
 

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #592 on: 05/18/2015 03:12 pm »
The original concept design for Antares had one AJ-26 with SRBs but the two engine design offered better performance and cost. The core doesn't have the ability to mount boosters and I am not sure if the pad can handle them. There is a little bit of uncertainty with the Ukrainian built tanks. The Zenit programs and other rockets the factory produced have been canceled leaving an uncertain financial outlook. OrbATK has stated that they have a domestically produced backup plan. If that ends up being used then they might do a bit of a redesign to include SRBs. However nothing is known about the back up plan other than that it exists. It may never be needed either.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #593 on: 05/18/2015 03:29 pm »
The 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

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #594 on: 05/18/2015 04:25 pm »
The 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
Let me put my OrbitalATK hat for a while. They have this running line for GEM-60. And they didn't had any reason to go with solids before, but now this means an extra revenue source. So it does looks nice. But here comes the kicker: current Antares pad flow (and pad!) are incompatible with solids. So, if they ever plan for a new LV, they will have the incentives to go that route. But for now, RD-181 is the only first stage propulsion. What I would expect them to do is a Castor 30XLB. That should enable them to squeeze a bit more performance out of the enlarged first stage. And they might move the fairing production in house.
The only issue I see is that apparently, NASA is thinking of trying to keep cargo missions "small", rather than big. The logistic pains of a failure of a big cargo shipment is apparently quite high. And in that sense, it hits Cygnus (and Jupiter) hardest. The nice thing of Cygnus is its very ample volume, and with the right vehicle, it could handle a lot of cargo. A SuperCygnus on a 401 should be able to do 4 tonnes of cargo easily, if not 5. But such a loss whould entail one third of the yearly USOS shipment.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #595 on: 05/18/2015 05:09 pm »
The 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
Found it! I remember reading this way back when. Also speaks to the viability pad wise.

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...

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #596 on: 06/01/2015 04:46 pm »
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 September

First stage modifications on existing cores on schedule

March 2016 expected date of first launch with one month existing schedule margin.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48136
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81615
  • Likes Given: 36928
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #597 on: 06/02/2015 03:31 pm »
Spaceflightnow write up of the current status of RD-181 development:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/01/rd-181-engines-prepared-for-shipment-to-u-s/

Quote
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.

[...]
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 03:32 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #598 on: 06/11/2015 11:55 pm »
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 September

First stage modifications on existing cores on schedule

March 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?

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Antares General Discussion Thread
« Reply #599 on: 06/12/2015 12:05 am »
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 September

First stage modifications on existing cores on schedule

March 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?

Energomash is doing the acceptance test firings, after which the engines will be shipped to the States and integrated with the vehicle.

« Last Edit: 06/12/2015 12:06 am by Kabloona »

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1