Some discussions in the Russian press about Orbital using the NPO Energomash RD-193 for a new Antares engine.http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/757591
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
Quote from: Prober on 10/31/2014 05:48 pmnot enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.Huh? Launch history is not a requirement. The AJ-26 had no launch history before Antares flew for the first time. The RD-180 didn't have launch history before the first Atlas III launch.
Quote from: LOXRP1 on 10/31/2014 03:59 pmSome discussions in the Russian press about Orbital using the NPO Energomash RD-193 for a new Antares engine.http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/757591not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
Quote from: Prober on 10/31/2014 05:48 pmQuote from: LOXRP1 on 10/31/2014 03:59 pmSome discussions in the Russian press about Orbital using the NPO Energomash RD-193 for a new Antares engine.http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/757591not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.It seems to be happening, if the quote of Orbital Sciences Vice-President for Public Relations Barron Beneski is correct. There really is no other choice besides something from Energomash unless Orbital decides to fund its own engine. RD-193 is designed to replace NK-33, while being based on existing RD-170/180 technology and know how. It will also eventually power Soyuz 2-1v. Energomash has been test firing RD-193 since 2012. - Ed Kyle
You made my point Jim....don't think Orbital management wants another low launch history engine. Orbital is not ULA, IMHO they would prefer the RD-180 if they must upgrade.
something has changed last two days then. Frank was talking the other direction.
Quote from: Prober on 10/31/2014 06:23 pmYou made my point Jim....don't think Orbital management wants another low launch history engine. Orbital is not ULA, IMHO they would prefer the RD-180 if they must upgrade.No, I did not. Again, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. There are not flight ready engines available. Who the heck do you think picked this engine? It was Orbital management.
I suspect that integrating RD-180 with Antares would be more difficult than RD-193, due to the one engine vs two engines issue.
Why is the RD-193 "questionable"? It's a new engine by the same company that makes the very reliable RD-180, it's designed specifically to replace the current engine on Antares, and it's derived from an existing line of engines. Not really the same situation as AJ-26.
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
big differences who does Orbital go for support?AJ-26 ARRD-180 RD AMROSSRD-193
Or Orbital could obtain staged combustion engines RD-120 from Ukraine.Ukraine has serial production of the engine and also had plans for its own launcher using it.The US state Dept. had issued help for Ukraine so no issues there, maybe even some funding help.Its a fine engine even China purchased some and tweeked it for the CZ-5.Only problem might be the need for 4 engines (haven't run the numbers)The mounting hw for 4 has been designed and/or manufactured
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 10/31/2014 07:36 pmBesides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?How much would flying on Atlas cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so.
Quote from: Prober on 10/31/2014 11:30 pmOr Orbital could obtain staged combustion engines RD-120 from Ukraine.Ukraine has serial production of the engine and also had plans for its own launcher using it.The US state Dept. had issued help for Ukraine so no issues there, maybe even some funding help.Its a fine engine even China purchased some and tweeked it for the CZ-5.Only problem might be the need for 4 engines (haven't run the numbers)The mounting hw for 4 has been designed and/or manufacturedUkraine has the RD-120 production line, the first stage version was the RD-120K, which is NPO Energomash. And the thrust of the RD-120K is just 784kN at sea level they would lose 4% of thrust, 1second of isp, have worst T/W, need new control logic and all piping, structure and TVC should weight less than 230kg or they will have a heavier Main Propulsion System.
IMO they'd be better off killing antares and just buying flights on Atlas. But this just seems silly. One Russian design with questionable history fails, so we opt to use another Russian design with questionable history? I don't see this being viable or happening.
Let me clarify that. Yuzmash has a license to build RD-120 as a second stage engine for Zenit. I am not if they are contractually allowed to build the engine for any other purpose.Also, the sea level variant of RD-120, the "K" indeed does not exist in the Ukraine, although the modification to provide for sea level operation has been "marketed" by Yuzhnoye for many years, as part of their efforts to "sell" paper rockets.The technical issues indeed are real - RD-120 is half the thrust of RD-191, and so four would be required. And it is not as advanced an engine as RD-191/193.Orbital would have to significantly upgrade the 2nd stage to use RD-120 on the first stage.
How about this?ESA is ending ATV production, so they are about to run afoul of the IGA in their contributions to ISS resources. So, how about launching Cygnus on Ariane for a bit?
But I doubt very much launching on Atlas makes any financial sense for Orbital in the long run, certainly not for CRS2. The whole point of Antares was that the lower-cost segment of the Delta II market was poorly served by extremely expensive EELV launches.
Quote from: baldusi on 11/01/2014 12:52 amQuote from: Prober on 10/31/2014 11:30 pmOr Orbital could obtain staged combustion engines RD-120 from Ukraine.Ukraine has serial production of the engine and also had plans for its own launcher using it.The US state Dept. had issued help for Ukraine so no issues there, maybe even some funding help.Its a fine engine even China purchased some and tweeked it for the CZ-5.Only problem might be the need for 4 engines (haven't run the numbers)The mounting hw for 4 has been designed and/or manufacturedUkraine has the RD-120 production line, the first stage version was the RD-120K, which is NPO Energomash. And the thrust of the RD-120K is just 784kN at sea level they would lose 4% of thrust, 1second of isp, have worst T/W, need new control logic and all piping, structure and TVC should weight less than 230kg or they will have a heavier Main Propulsion System.Let me clarify that. Yuzmash has a license to build RD-120 as a second stage engine for Zenit. I am not if they are contractually allowed to build the engine for any other purpose.
Posters on NK calculated that the swap would increase payload capability by 800-1000 kg. And replacing existing second stage with liquid one would add another massive increase, almost doubling payload to orbit (they used Antares w/RD-193 + 3rd stage of Soyuz 2.1b instead of existing second for calculations) to 10 mT.No wonder Orbital were attempting to get their hands on RD-0124...
With Ukraine (RD-120K) as an engine partner; ATK/Orbital has surplus manufacturing ability to cast, and produce their own staged combustion engine in the USA. If the company wishes to add very advanced manufacturing to the mix, they know where to find me.ATK/Orbital could even tap into this funding to do the job.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.0
I apologize for being so far behind the times, but I'd thought until last week that the eventual path forward was the AJ-500. I haven't been able to find much solid information on AJ-500/AJ-1000/AR-1??? this past year, so is that all just paper?
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 10/31/2014 07:36 pmBesides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlasfalcon 9 and save themselves the trouble?How much would flying on atlasfalcon 9 cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so.
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlasfalcon 9 and save themselves the trouble?
Wouldn't it just be easier to go with a solid ATK first stage? They are already using or will use a ATK 30XL for the second. ATK has a good track record.
How is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180? Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?
Here you go, now it makes sense.They can even use the super enhanced cygnus on a F9 (can they?) for crs1 and do less missions (4 instead of 5) for less $ each (compared to Atlas, I don't know the price of Antares). It's not like spacex won't work with orbital.Of course that's for the short term only.
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.
Quote from: Prober on 11/01/2014 03:27 pmWith Ukraine (RD-120K) as an engine partner; ATK/Orbital has surplus manufacturing ability to cast, and produce their own staged combustion engine in the USA. If the company wishes to add very advanced manufacturing to the mix, they know where to find me.ATK/Orbital could even tap into this funding to do the job.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.01) No, the Ukraine does not control the IP of the RD-120K and therefore cannot partner with others. 2) And no, they can not tap into that funding unless it is for the USAF.
150 family is derated 190 family. Ones digit are variants for each application or which design improvements have been rolled in.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 11/01/2014 06:58 pmHow is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180? Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?Believe the two nozzles gimbal independently. Should work on Antares.
Patents are for 20 years. the RD-120 was 1980's technology. Any patents would become open and no longer protected.the internal IP owned by, and developed by the Ukrainian company is theirs to do with as they please.
Quote from: arachnitect on 11/01/2014 07:14 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 11/01/2014 06:58 pmHow is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180? Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?Believe the two nozzles gimbal independently. Should work on Antares.I learn something new every day here.I just sort of implicitly assumed that they were locked together with one TVC set which, in retrospect, is a stupid assumption.Thanks!
The RD193 would be most compatible with Antares, but to make most of it the Antares would need larger fuel tanks ie . Pad and infrastructure wouldn't need to many modifications. There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.
Quote from: Prober on 11/01/2014 07:52 pmPatents are for 20 years. the RD-120 was 1980's technology. Any patents would become open and no longer protected.the internal IP owned by, and developed by the Ukrainian company is theirs to do with as they please.This is something I've been saying for a long time and you are't understanding it.US patent laws are not applicable. US companies just can't pair up with another foreign company and produce an engine. There are ITAR and EAR considerations.You don't know anything about IP or agreements wrt this engineJust because one company can build an engine doesn't mean it knows how to modify the engine or design another.
Quote from: gongora on 10/31/2014 08:00 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 10/31/2014 07:36 pmBesides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?How much would flying on Atlas cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so. Exactly. Go to Atlas, and lose money each flight on the contract, all so they could avoid issues with Russian engines, which are also present on Atlas? FF, you need to take your logic back to the garage and tinker on it a bit more.IF they were planning to try using the RD-180 (and thus needed some negotiating power with ULA), and IF they wanted to hedge their return-to-flight bets, I could see them possibly launching one or two Cygnus on Atlas in the short term. Or even offering the super-sized Cygnus on an Atlas if there were interest in putting the larger Cygnus in a farther orbit (L1/2 maybe?) than Antares 130 could handle. That would be a nice business incentive for ULA to be accommodating, and it might provide a nice "assured access" second source LV for Cygnus customers, and it might open up one or two more opportunities for enhanced Cygnus customers. (Big IF on the last one...lots of people talk, but few write checks from a bank account with that kind of money.)But I doubt very much launching on Atlas makes any financial sense for Orbital in the long run, certainly not for CRS2. The whole point of Antares was that the lower-cost segment of the Delta II market was poorly served by extremely expensive EELV launches.
...IMHO events of the last 3 years to me seem to have a common teaching, and that is get off reliance on foreign engines if you want to save money long term.
Quote from: SIEP on 11/01/2014 12:45 amIt isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.
There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.
Quote from: gospacex on 11/01/2014 07:45 pmQuote from: SIEP on 11/01/2014 12:45 amIt isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?
Quote from: MP99 on 11/02/2014 05:48 pmQuote from: gospacex on 11/01/2014 07:45 pmQuote from: SIEP on 11/01/2014 12:45 amIt isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?Can anyone predict how much more silly Putin can become?
From what I've been reading in these forums, even before the current issues in eastern Europe, Americans felt really uneasy using Russian hardware and/or Russian services, whilst at the same time having no trouble buying TVs, clothing, cellphones, computers, etc. from communist China and defense components from Europe.
Quote from: gospacex on 11/03/2014 02:56 pmQuote from: MP99 on 11/02/2014 05:48 pmQuote from: gospacex on 11/01/2014 07:45 pmQuote from: SIEP on 11/01/2014 12:45 amIt isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?Can anyone predict how much more silly Putin can become?lets please keep the geopolitical ramblings down to a minimum here since we other similar threads for that.
If they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.
Quote from: Lobo on 11/04/2014 06:38 amIf they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.This would defeat the whole purpose of keeping two separate systems for redundancy. And we right now see how wise that actually was. Imagine what would happen if F9 would become the only LV for COTS and then fail.
Besides, a long time stand down of Falcon 9 is not impossible but with their launch record and their proven ability to identify and rectify problems fast a long time stand down is now very unlikely.
What you and so many other people are missing is the fact that having two dissimilar launch systems increases the chance of a failure in the first place. What we see right now isn't that it was wise to have two separate systems but that it was unwise from the point of view of reliability.
Guyz we are drifting off the topic of a changeover to another engine "On October 19, 2012, NPO Energomash announced that three days earlier, an experimental RD-193 engine completed its fifth live firing without leaving test bench No. 2 at the company's NIK-751 test facility. During five tests, the engine burned for a total of 678 seconds. Following the tests, the engine was to be disassembled and checked for any defects to clear it for further tests, NPO Energomash said."http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd193.htmlmaybe someone can focus on the history and see if this engine has a flight history?
I'll just leave this here for your RD-191 and RD-193 comparing needs: http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/dejatelnost/engines/models/
I'll just leave this here for your RD-181 and RD-193 comparing needs: http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/dejatelnost/engines/models/
Doubt there is much difference in shape between 181 and 191.
I was saying I doubt the RD-191 and RD-181 are much different.
At one point didn't we have a big "Antares Engines" thread?Did that get merged into something else or am I misremembering? There was stuff in there about the RD series engines, theoretical solid boosters, etc. A whole bunch of stuff.
Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.Of course I'd be surprised if SpaceX wanted to be an engine supplier, especially to a competitor, but to me it would be a better choice that being dependent yet again on Putin's Russia.
Quote from: CardBoardBoxProcessor on 11/04/2014 03:23 pmI was saying I doubt the RD-191 and RD-181 are much different. Really? I thought the 18X series had two combustion chambers, whereas the 19X/15X series has one combustion chamber. Or am I mistaken?
Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.
Announcement tomorrow on going forward plans for Antares:http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1985588
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/04/2014 07:37 pmDon't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.Different O/F, different isp, different cycle (you have to deal with the gas generator output), different TVC, different diameters... etc. Save for the thrust nothing similar.
NASA wouldn't like it as both ISS suppliers would dependent on same engine. A failure of either LV would instantly ground the other LV until engine was eliminated or longer if engine was at fault.
maybe someone can focus on the history and see if this engine has a flight history?
Quote from: baldusi on 11/04/2014 08:21 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 11/04/2014 07:37 pmDon't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.Different O/F, different isp, different cycle (you have to deal with the gas generator output), different TVC, different diameters... etc. Save for the thrust nothing similar.Same oxidizer and fuel - LOX/RP-1 - otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it as a possibility.
Quote from: asmi on 11/04/2014 06:48 amQuote from: Lobo on 11/04/2014 06:38 amIf they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.This would defeat the whole purpose of keeping two separate systems for redundancy. And we right now see how wise that actually was. Imagine what would happen if F9 would become the only LV for COTS and then fail.Launching Cygnus on Falcon9 certainly beats not launching Cygnus at all. It may not be a long term solution but it would be a solution.Besides, a long time stand down of Falcon 9 is not impossible but with their launch record and their proven ability to identify and rectify problems fast a long time stand down is now very unlikely.
SpaceX already has pad facilities for support ISS payloads so launching Cygnus on F9 has some pluses. Not sure how ULA a setup for this if Cygnus was to fly on a Atlas. I suspect Jim would have some knowledge on this.
I am not an expert on rockets or foreign policy, but I think the fact that these engines are Russian is over-blown. It certainly makes some sense to have an all US fall-back for DoD payloads, but the fact of the matter is that the Russians make some good engines.I personally prefer to have some mutually beneficial economic ties for lower impact vehicles like Antares. It may give governments leverage but it also serves to add some pressure to play nice.
Quote from: DanielW on 11/05/2014 01:17 amI am not an expert on rockets or foreign policy, but I think the fact that these engines are Russian is over-blown. It certainly makes some sense to have an all US fall-back for DoD payloads, but the fact of the matter is that the Russians make some good engines.I personally prefer to have some mutually beneficial economic ties for lower impact vehicles like Antares. It may give governments leverage but it also serves to add some pressure to play nice.If (heaven forbid) we were to have a major invasion overseas, or a war, precipitated by Russia then the sanctions we have seen so far will ultimately lead to a total ban by one side, then the other, on imports & exports. That's a worst case scenario, and leverage would not be the biggest factor on the world stage. In this case, the spaceflight companies (and American Government/military) have the most to lose by not gaining access to a necessary part to their rocket or putting a payload to orbit. For Russia, it's only money that they can disperse for compensation.
I think he means Oxidiser/Fuel ratio, i.e. the AJ-26 runs oxidiser-rich, while the Merlin 1D runs fuel-rich. As a result, they'd have to move the bulkhead so as to carry more fuel and less oxidiser.
Quote from: Prober on 11/04/2014 01:10 pmGuyz we are drifting off the topic of a changeover to another engine "On October 19, 2012, NPO Energomash announced that three days earlier, an experimental RD-193 engine completed its fifth live firing without leaving test bench No. 2 at the company's NIK-751 test facility. During five tests, the engine burned for a total of 678 seconds. Following the tests, the engine was to be disassembled and checked for any defects to clear it for further tests, NPO Energomash said."http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd193.htmlmaybe someone can focus on the history and see if this engine has a flight history?RD-193 is the youngest sibling from the RD-191 Subfamily. RD-191 is gimbaled variant and RD-193,intended for Soyuz core stage, is fixed variant and is surround by the four nozzles of the Soyuz core stage steering engine. RD-193 has not been flown to date as it was in development cycles.
Dont' the 4 steering nozzles share the same turbopump with the main nozzles, which means the steering nozzles are part of the main engine?
Quote from: nimbostratus on 11/05/2014 03:00 amDont' the 4 steering nozzles share the same turbopump with the main nozzles, which means the steering nozzles are part of the main engine?No. It's a separate engine with four nozzles, RD-0110IIRC Soyuz-2-1v doesn't even have enough thrust to leave the ground without it (using NK-33)
Are you sure?
Cygnus is also meant to supply the ISS. If the state of affairs with Russia deteriorates to a degree where Russia no longer supplies engines for this purpose me somehow thinks the purpose itself will fall away, too.If it happened now, after all, the US could not even send astronauts to ISS anymore, after all.This is an international project depending heavily on Russia. You no longer want to play with Russia? No need for CRS/Cygnus anymore so no need to secure any "all US" (nonsense anyway, you always have _some_ stuff coming from abroad) supply of engines.
And it occurs to me that RD-0110 was an upper stage engine for early soyuz LV. Perhas some modification has been made for use in atmosphere.
RD151 is developed for Naro use only?Why bother develope so many new engines?
Quote from: nimbostratus on 11/05/2014 05:24 amRD151 is developed for Naro use only?Why bother develope so many new engines?AIUI, RD-151 was developed in such a way as to comply with MTCR.For info on KSLV/Naro, see:http://russianspaceweb.com/kslv.html
Quote from: mr. mark on 11/01/2014 06:41 pmWouldn't it just be easier to go with a solid ATK first stage? They are already using or will use a ATK 30XL for the second. ATK has a good track record.The launch safety criteria for solids violate overpressure in case of failure at the MARS pad IIRC, and would most likely never be given a waiver by FAA, NASA or anyone else. That means a new pad, probably not at MARS.
-snips-Athena 2cS with six boosters would lift 4.19 tonnes to a 500 km x 28.5 deg LEO ...It is a number that bumps up close to Delta 2 and Antares capability. ...
Quote from: a_langwich on 11/01/2014 07:03 pmQuote from: mr. mark on 11/01/2014 06:41 pmWouldn't it just be easier to go with a solid ATK first stage? They are already using or will use a ATK 30XL for the second. ATK has a good track record.The launch safety criteria for solids violate overpressure in case of failure at the MARS pad IIRC, and would most likely never be given a waiver by FAA, NASA or anyone else. That means a new pad, probably not at MARS.Minotaur V already launches next to the Antares pad. What makes you think a Castor 120-based rocket, like AthernaII or an Orbital/ATK equivalent, wouldn't be allowed? If a RSRM Castor 900 or single-segment Dark Knight was proposed (AthenaIII) I could see an argument, but not these.Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/27/2013 04:12 am -snips-Athena 2cS with six boosters would lift 4.19 tonnes to a 500 km x 28.5 deg LEO ...It is a number that bumps up close to Delta 2 and Antares capability. ...
How about as a short term solution. Use a recovered F9 first stage (provided SpaceX gets one back soon).Use the Antares second stage. Let Orbital provide any adapter and they could process all their stuff elsewhere at the cape then shortly before flight integrate both sections at LC40.SpaceX could have an anchor user for used F9 boosters and by just selling the booster and launch they could give Orbital some great pricing.
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
Minotaur family excluding Minotaur-C versions are not subject to FAA because they are government launchers (managed through USAF; DoD, not FAA/NASA; DoC) . Since Antares is a civilian launcher it is subject to stricter criteria to ensure enforced safety. I will let other people like Jim provide the details as I'm at work right now.
I think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191.
This topic is about RD-193, a very interesting engine, and I look forward to getting information about RD-193.Discussions about other engines, and your personal design for a new launcher should go elsewhere.
I have an idea.. clean sheet design for Antares 2 1st stage: 1 RS272nd stage: 1 AJ-10
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 11/02/2014 07:09 pmI think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191.It is somewhat offtopic here, because we focus on Antares, but Angara will not migrate to 193. They need the performance of 191 to hit the payload targets of the A5, which is the only thing their main customer (MoD) cares about. Do keep in mind that the transfer of production of RD-191 into Khrunichev is not officially cancelled. That is why 191 is kept separate from the rest of the "family". It is a package deal that can be moved between major organizations, while 193 and 181 are intended for continuation of in-house production at Energomash.
Well since this article came out: http://spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42460orbital-to-accelerate-upgraded-antares-use-other-vehicles-for-cygnusWe know they are in talks with three companies.Two in the US and one in Europe. Since Athena and Rockot don't have the capability or cant upgrade on time I think it is safe to say that those companies are SpaceX (Falcon 9), ULA (Atlas V 401) and Arianespace (Soyuz ST).Any arguments against this reasoning?All would enable larger capacity than Antares and pricewise Falcon 9 would win just ahead of Soyuz and lagging quite far behind would be Atlas V 401. A though nut to crack, I don't know how eager they are to launch with F9 and if they go with Soyuz they should know that the Soyuz only has a limited amount of years that it will be flown from CSG. So they can't choose it as the default back-up for the remainder of the ISS cargo program, namely CRS-2.My 50 cents, its going to be Soyuz nonetheless.
(while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company).
Along with its use on the Soyuz-2.1v and other upgrades of the Soyuz family, the experimental engine could serve as a basis for the yet-to-be developed RD-181 engine intended for "foreign" launch vehicles [and] the final configuration of RD-193 would not include gimbal suspension.
Quote from: baldusi on 11/07/2014 07:55 pm (while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company). which company?
Quote from: CT Space Guy on 11/07/2014 01:16 amAre you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?Jim was being very nice. You should let it go.
Quote from: abaddon on 11/07/2014 03:28 pmQuote from: CT Space Guy on 11/07/2014 01:16 amAre you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?Jim was being very nice. You should let it go.I've spent my entire career running circles around guys like Jim...If he responds to my posts, I will respond to him.I never run away from people like him...In the end they all go thump thump. Every one of them.
This should be fun. Someone pass the popcorn.
I've spent my entire career running circles around guys like Jim...If he responds to my posts, I will respond to him.I never run away from people like him...In the end they all go thump thump. Every one of them.
Quote from: fatjohn1408 on 11/07/2014 07:56 amWell since this article came out: http://spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42460orbital-to-accelerate-upgraded-antares-use-other-vehicles-for-cygnusWe know they are in talks with three companies.Two in the US and one in Europe. Since Athena and Rockot don't have the capability or cant upgrade on time I think it is safe to say that those companies are SpaceX (Falcon 9), ULA (Atlas V 401) and Arianespace (Soyuz ST).Any arguments against this reasoning?All would enable larger capacity than Antares and pricewise Falcon 9 would win just ahead of Soyuz and lagging quite far behind would be Atlas V 401. A though nut to crack, I don't know how eager they are to launch with F9 and if they go with Soyuz they should know that the Soyuz only has a limited amount of years that it will be flown from CSG. So they can't choose it as the default back-up for the remainder of the ISS cargo program, namely CRS-2.My 50 cents, its going to be Soyuz nonetheless.Do they have a fairing for Soyuz carrying Cygnus?
Well since this article came out: http://spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42460orbital-to-accelerate-upgraded-antares-use-other-vehicles-for-cygnusWe know they are in talks with three companies.Two in the US and one in Europe. Since Athena and Rockot don't have the capability or cant upgrade on time I think it is safe to say that those companies are SpaceX (Falcon 9), ULA (Atlas V 401) and Arianespace (Soyuz ST).Any arguments against this reasoning?
ULA can't sell to Orbital.
Quote from: MP99 on 11/08/2014 08:17 amULA can't sell to Orbital. I wonder if this is true anymore. Boeing and LM may have substantially revised the original ULA charter. A lot of the noises Bruno has been making are not compatible with it.
SC processing and checkout are managed by LM/Boeing according to the given contract instructions arranged by the customer.
while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company
Quote from: baldusi on 11/07/2014 07:55 pmwhile it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American companyWho are you and what did you do with the real baldusi, who I always find to be accurate and logical? RD-180 is 100% Russian designed and built. 70% of parts are common with 170.
Which I remember Jim stating it had been designed by an American company, but still produced by NPO Energomash. At least from the Intelsat-27 failure we know it's completely different TVC from the rD-171/M.
They're from Arsenal in St. Petersburg (not Florida).
“Arsenal -207” being headed by Mr.Vladimirov has upgraded steering gears for the RD170 liquid rocket engine in relation to a fundamental improvement of speed and dynamic characteristics required for development, certification and integration of the RD180 liquid rocket engine and has worked out the design documentation on a new steering gear for the RD180 liquid rocket engine that are used in the launch vehicle “Atlas” within the frame of an international collaboration of OJSC “NPO “Energomash” with Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed Martin (USA).
Quote from: zaitcev on 11/07/2014 04:07 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 11/02/2014 07:09 pmI think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191.It is somewhat offtopic here, because we focus on Antares, but Angara will not migrate to 193. They need the performance of 191 to hit the payload targets of the A5, which is the only thing their main customer (MoD) cares about. Do keep in mind that the transfer of production of RD-191 into Khrunichev is not officially cancelled. That is why 191 is kept separate from the rest of the "family". It is a package deal that can be moved between major organizations, while 193 and 181 are intended for continuation of in-house production at Energomash.Also, if I'm not mistaken, the RD-191 has the design requirement of throttling to 30% and was optimized for the center core of the A5. Also, it has a TVC. The RD-193 was designed as a replacement of the NK-33 on the Soyuz-2.1v, which lacks an integrated TVC (it uses the RD-0110R vernier engine) and doesn't needs to throttle (at least not so much). And since the RD-191 needs to work both as a booster and a sustainer, it might have an expansion ratio different than a pure core engine.From the POV of NPO Energomash, Americans like to use American designed TVC on Russian engines (while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company). And Aerojet had already modified the NK-33 TVC to move the whole engine (I believe). Thus, an RD-193 could be almost a drop in replacement for the NK-33, while an export version of the RD-191 would be unnecessary heavy and have excessive capabilities (i.e. more expensive than necessary).
Does anyone know if the replacement engines will be compatible with this and if not what effect that will have on available O2 capacity? Does sub cooling it significantly increase density?
В качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»;
NPO Energomash annual report for 2013QuoteВ качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»; http://e-disclosure.ru/portal/files.aspx?id=24614&type=2
Quote from: Stan Black on 11/12/2014 08:55 pmNPO Energomash annual report for 2013QuoteВ качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»; http://e-disclosure.ru/portal/files.aspx?id=24614&type=2That translates (usiong Google) to:QuoteAs the immediate prospects for 2014 are scheduled the following work:2. Issue a technical report on the design of the engine RD181 for RN "Antares" ;
As the immediate prospects for 2014 are scheduled the following work:2. Issue a technical report on the design of the engine RD181 for RN "Antares" ;
New Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.
Quote from: Razvan on 01/21/2015 04:25 amNew Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.Why is there a contract being signed with Energia? It is NPO Energomash who is producing the engines - or are they owned by Energia?
Orbital Sciences: 'If/when US alternative available, we'll consider it for Antares. Till then, the RD-181 is the only viable engine option.'
Orbital: Russian estimates of $1B for our RD-181 contract include all options that are way beyond our commitment, & rounds up value too.
Quote from: Lars-J on 01/21/2015 07:10 pmQuote from: Razvan on 01/21/2015 04:25 amNew Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.Why is there a contract being signed with Energia? It is NPO Energomash who is producing the engines - or are they owned by Energia?RSC "Energia" through its subsidiary ZEM RKK "Energy" became the owner of 13.98% of the shares of NGOs "Energomash" - the leading Russian manufacturer of liquid rocket engines (the remaining shares of the company - owned by the state).https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fizvestia.ru%2Fnews%2F553886&edit-text=&act=url
I dunno, feels weak. If Orbital really wants to refute the $1B number, I think they're going to have to make the actual price per engine public.
Quote from: arachnitect on 01/23/2015 05:55 pmI dunno, feels weak. If Orbital really wants to refute the $1B number, I think they're going to have to make the actual price per engine public.The only people they have to refute it to is customers. And that won't be public.
>...the value, even when all options are included, is well shy of $1 billion .
Orbital ATK: 'We have completed full-duration hot-fire certification testing of the new main engine for the Antares rocket.'
Quote from: Antares on 01/22/2015 09:59 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 01/21/2015 07:10 pmQuote from: Razvan on 01/21/2015 04:25 amNew Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.Why is there a contract being signed with Energia? It is NPO Energomash who is producing the engines - or are they owned by Energia?RSC "Energia" through its subsidiary ZEM RKK "Energy" became the owner of 13.98% of the shares of NGOs "Energomash" - the leading Russian manufacturer of liquid rocket engines (the remaining shares of the company - owned by the state).https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fizvestia.ru%2Fnews%2F553886&edit-text=&act=urlBad translation, the contract was signed by EnergoMASH, not Energia:http://rt.com/news/223383-rd181-antares-rocket-engine/
Quote from: Danderman on 01/23/2015 06:05 pmQuote from: Antares on 01/22/2015 09:59 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 01/21/2015 07:10 pmQuote from: Razvan on 01/21/2015 04:25 amNew Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.Why is there a contract being signed with Energia? It is NPO Energomash who is producing the engines - or are they owned by Energia?RSC "Energia" through its subsidiary ZEM RKK "Energy" became the owner of 13.98% of the shares of NGOs "Energomash" - the leading Russian manufacturer of liquid rocket engines (the remaining shares of the company - owned by the state).https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fizvestia.ru%2Fnews%2F553886&edit-text=&act=urlBad translation, the contract was signed by EnergoMASH, not Energia:http://rt.com/news/223383-rd181-antares-rocket-engine/Wooo boy. Well I am glad they settled on something but disappointed they went with another Russian motor. Still think they would have been better off going to Blue Origin or a similar concern for a new motor. Would have been more expensive in the short term but something tells me they may live to regret not doing it in the long term. Oh well. I wonder if they release images/video of the hot firing?
NPO Energomash will produce and deliver to USA another four #RD181 engines for Antares launch vehicles. https://ria.ru/20200302/1566466276.html
There are some confusing reports about "US ban" on Russian rockets and/or engines and/or space cooperation more generally (ISS notwithstanding, as usual): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52681.0ULA is mandated to stop using Russian engines, at least for government (only DoD or also NASA?) payloads. ULA is anyway moving entirely to Vulcan without Russian engines.What's the situation with Antares? Can NG continue to purchase engines from Russia?
If I'm not mistaken the Russian engine ban was for "national security" payloads. So NASA and commercial clients can still use it.
JSC Central Research Institute of Machine Building (JSC TsNIIMash);JSC Rocket and Space Centre—Progress;