Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/12/2018 09:01 pmSpeaking of which, can anyone help decipher the Antares 23x+ characteristic energy versus payload chart? Where would GTO be, for example? - Ed KyleI've never done this for a bound orbit, but using the definition that c3 = 2x specific orbital energy, we getc3 = 2 * (v^2/2- u/r)For GTO, v = 1596 m/s at the top of the orbit (if a 250 km perigee), r = 42157 km, and u for Earth is 3.986e14, then plugging in we get -16.4 km^2/sec^2.
Speaking of which, can anyone help decipher the Antares 23x+ characteristic energy versus payload chart? Where would GTO be, for example? - Ed Kyle
Some additional pain from the higher latitude of the MARS launch site. Maybe enough performance to try for a GPS launch without direct injection, though?
but they must have been tempted to turn Antares into an EELV-2 contender at one point.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/13/2018 02:32 pmbut they must have been tempted to turn Antares into an EELV-2 contender at one point.Nonviable for political reasons. Russian engines, Ukrainian tanks.
Quote from: brickmack on 06/13/2018 05:59 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/13/2018 02:32 pmbut they must have been tempted to turn Antares into an EELV-2 contender at one point.Nonviable for political reasons. Russian engines, Ukrainian tanks. Agreed, at least for the current time-frame. I see Antares in a non-EELV niche that has potential. Just this year, I count four or five missions that Antares 230+ series could have handled: Paz, TESS, InSight, OA-9 (of course), and probably Zuma. The market among these was LEO/ISS, LEO/sun synchronous (commercial and government, but could be civil), and deep space civil. Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 handled four of these missions, so Antares 230+ has to compete with these on cost. I believe it can for these smaller payloads. Think about it. Antares should be able to compete with Atlas 5 simply due to the lower-cost of the rocket. That it can compete with Falcon 9 is hinted at by its lower bid for the CRS-2 program, though in that case the payloads obviously accounted for part of the cost. I think of it this way. The Russo-Ukrainian first stage is essentially "free", certainly lower cost than it would be if built in the U.S. That leaves the upper stage or stages, which should cost less than the Falcon 9 or Atlas 5 upper stages (which are also expended). - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/14/2018 02:22 pmQuote from: brickmack on 06/13/2018 05:59 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/13/2018 02:32 pmbut they must have been tempted to turn Antares into an EELV-2 contender at one point.Nonviable for political reasons. Russian engines, Ukrainian tanks. Agreed, at least for the current time-frame. I see Antares in a non-EELV niche that has potential. Just this year, I count four or five missions that Antares 230+ series could have handled: Paz, TESS, InSight, OA-9 (of course), and probably Zuma. The market among these was LEO/ISS, LEO/sun synchronous (commercial and government, but could be civil), and deep space civil. Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 handled four of these missions, so Antares 230+ has to compete with these on cost. I believe it can for these smaller payloads. Think about it. Antares should be able to compete with Atlas 5 simply due to the lower-cost of the rocket. That it can compete with Falcon 9 is hinted at by its lower bid for the CRS-2 program, though in that case the payloads obviously accounted for part of the cost. I think of it this way. The Russo-Ukrainian first stage is essentially "free", certainly lower cost than it would be if built in the U.S. That leaves the upper stage or stages, which should cost less than the Falcon 9 or Atlas 5 upper stages (which are also expended). - Ed Kyle The GAO puts the price of Antares at 80-85 million dollars, which is competitive with Atlas and Vulcan, but not with Falcon 9. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf
Quote from: envy887 on 06/14/2018 02:39 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/14/2018 02:22 pmQuote from: brickmack on 06/13/2018 05:59 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/13/2018 02:32 pmbut they must have been tempted to turn Antares into an EELV-2 contender at one point.Nonviable for political reasons. Russian engines, Ukrainian tanks. Agreed, at least for the current time-frame. I see Antares in a non-EELV niche that has potential. Just this year, I count four or five missions that Antares 230+ series could have handled: Paz, TESS, InSight, OA-9 (of course), and probably Zuma. The market among these was LEO/ISS, LEO/sun synchronous (commercial and government, but could be civil), and deep space civil. Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 handled four of these missions, so Antares 230+ has to compete with these on cost. I believe it can for these smaller payloads. Think about it. Antares should be able to compete with Atlas 5 simply due to the lower-cost of the rocket. That it can compete with Falcon 9 is hinted at by its lower bid for the CRS-2 program, though in that case the payloads obviously accounted for part of the cost. I think of it this way. The Russo-Ukrainian first stage is essentially "free", certainly lower cost than it would be if built in the U.S. That leaves the upper stage or stages, which should cost less than the Falcon 9 or Atlas 5 upper stages (which are also expended). - Ed Kyle The GAO puts the price of Antares at 80-85 million dollars, which is competitive with Atlas and Vulcan, but not with Falcon 9. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdfBut this well-known OIG report suggests that Falcon 9 prices may have, or will be, increasing. https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-18-016.pdf#biEither way, it is clear that Northrop Grumman will have to tightly control Antares costs to compete with Falcon 9. I believe that the apparent decision not to stretch the first stage or to quickly build a West Coast launch pad are signs of such cost-control, while SpaceX continues to announce big new spending, like the KSC control center and the BFR project. We'll have to see an actual launch contract win for a mission like those I listed earlier to see evidence of competitiveness. - Ed Kyle
Antares' lack of non-NASA commercial contracts is already good evidence for it's competitiveness, or rather, lack of competitiveness. Why would a customer pay 30% more for 1/2 the performance of F9R. Atlas V offers unique services, and so is able to sustain higher prices, but Antares doesn't offer anything customers can't get cheaper on F9R.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/14/2018 04:33 pmAntares' lack of non-NASA commercial contracts is already good evidence for it's competitiveness, or rather, lack of competitiveness. Why would a customer pay 30% more for 1/2 the performance of F9R. Atlas V offers unique services, and so is able to sustain higher prices, but Antares doesn't offer anything customers can't get cheaper on F9R.Obviously, customers won't pay more, certainly not 30% more. The key will be for Northrop Grumman to exploit the smaller size of this rocket, its largely outsourced first stage, its low-cost solid upper stage motors, its smaller launch site footprint, etc.. It should cost less than the much larger and more capable Falcon 9. It will have to cost less, ultimately, or it won't have work. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/14/2018 05:50 pmQuote from: envy887 on 06/14/2018 04:33 pmAntares' lack of non-NASA commercial contracts is already good evidence for it's competitiveness, or rather, lack of competitiveness. Why would a customer pay 30% more for 1/2 the performance of F9R. Atlas V offers unique services, and so is able to sustain higher prices, but Antares doesn't offer anything customers can't get cheaper on F9R.Obviously, customers won't pay more, certainly not 30% more. The key will be for Northrop Grumman to exploit the smaller size of this rocket, its largely outsourced first stage, its low-cost solid upper stage motors, its smaller launch site footprint, etc.. It should cost less than the much larger and more capable Falcon 9. It will have to cost less, ultimately, or it won't have work. - Ed KyleThe problem is the largely outsourced first stage. Part of SpaceX's price advantage is building most of the parts in-house. NG needs to look at reducing costs of the first stage so they can be competitive. Anyone have ideas on how NG can do that?
The problem is the largely outsourced first stage. Part of SpaceX's price advantage is building most of the parts in-house. NG needs to look at reducing costs of the first stage so they can be competitive. Anyone have ideas on how NG can do that?
Quote from: RonM on 06/14/2018 06:00 pmThe problem is the largely outsourced first stage. Part of SpaceX's price advantage is building most of the parts in-house. NG needs to look at reducing costs of the first stage so they can be competitive. Anyone have ideas on how NG can do that?The standard method used to control subcontractor pricing is competitive bidding! - Ed Kyle
Quote from: envy887 on 06/14/2018 04:33 pmAntares' lack of non-NASA commercial contracts is already good evidence for it's competitiveness, or rather, lack of competitiveness. Why would a customer pay 30% more for 1/2 the performance of F9R. Atlas V offers unique services, and so is able to sustain higher prices, but Antares doesn't offer anything customers can't get cheaper on F9R.Obviously, customers won't pay more, certainly not 30% more. The key will be for Northrop Grumman to exploit the smaller size of this rocket, its largely outsourced first stage, its low-cost solid upper stage motors, its smaller launch site footprint, etc.. It should cost less than the much larger and more capable Falcon 9. It is roughly half the weight and thrust. It will have to cost less, ultimately, or it won't have work. - Ed Kyle
The avionics probably aren't smaller,or cheaper than F9 since AIUI they don't use off-the-shelf hardware. Nor the booster airframe, as it's purchased rather than built. Nor the engines - ULA pays ~24 million dollars for a single RD-180, and I doubt a pair of RD-181's is much if any, cheaper.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/14/2018 06:57 pmThe avionics probably aren't smaller,or cheaper than F9 since AIUI they don't use off-the-shelf hardware. Nor the booster airframe, as it's purchased rather than built. Nor the engines - ULA pays ~24 million dollars for a single RD-180, and I doubt a pair of RD-181's is much if any, cheaper.The +/-$24 million for the engines is probably not that far off the cost of an entire F9 lower stage. The lower stage is probably ~$40 million for the Antares and ~$30m for the F9 if I had to guess.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/14/2018 06:57 pmThe avionics probably aren't smaller,or cheaper than F9 since AIUI they don't use off-the-shelf hardware. Nor the booster airframe, as it's purchased rather than built. Nor the engines - ULA pays ~24 million dollars for a single RD-180, and I doubt a pair of RD-181's is much if any, cheaper.I could easily see RD-181 being cheaper for NG than RD-180 is for ULA. Aside from being a different and less complex engine NG also isn't a captive customer. They can always move on to another engine, another launcher, or exit the launch business altogether. ULA doesn't(didn't) really have that option with Atlas V. For national security it was the only game in town so any price could be asked. It's like Soyuz. We've seen what a privately purchased Soyuz seat costs, and what a NASA purchased Soyuz seat costs. A private customer can always walk away, NASA is captive.So it comes down to business. If Energomash wants to sell engines, they can't price themselves out of the market. Even Antares isn't a free lunch, NG has already shown they'll switch launchers on CRS.
The +/-$24 million for the engines is probably not that far off the cost of an entire F9 lower stage. The lower stage is probably ~$40 million for the Antares and ~$30m for the F9 if I had to guess.
Falcon 9 first stage almost certainly costs more then $24 million. If it only cost that much, SpaceX wouldn't bother trying to recover the stage! Musk has said that the first stage accounts for 60-75% of the total Falcon 9 cost (varying amounts depending on when he was asked). Gwynn Shotwell also once said that it cost less than half the cost of a new first stage to refurbish and refly a stage.