Lets see.For D IVH equivalent performance...S0 2-6 GEM-63XL SRMSS1 4 or 5 segment SRBS2 2-4 BE-3UEN hydrolox stage.Its something like Liberty with SRMs attached?
I don't expect a many-segment SRB-like booster for this one. It should be possible to use a couple of single-SRB segment-sized ~200 tonne serial motor/stages, topped by a 50-70 tonne BE3U LH2 stage, to get EELV Medium performance. This assumes composite case motors with better than SRB performance. Adding multiple GEM63XL strap-ons, or making the first stage a two-segment motor, might get Heavy capabilities. A Medium rocket might weigh 500 tonnes. Only a Heavy would need to gross 900 tonnes or more. - Ed Kyle
SLC-2, SLC-8, LP-0B, LC-39B, LC-36, LC-46, Kwajalean, Kodiak...There's really not a lack of big concrete slabs for rent.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 01/17/2016 08:00 pmSLC-2, SLC-8, LP-0B, LC-39B, LC-36, LC-46, Kwajalean, Kodiak...There's really not a lack of big concrete slabs for rent.Blue Origin has taken SLC 36.
From purely a market share standpoint, it is really difficult to imagine how both ULA and Orbital ATK can survive on such a low launch rate per year. Back in May of 2015 the CEO of ULA said that in future years he expects the launch rate to decline to about 5 or 6 per year. And he said that he expects ULA to win only 2 or 3 per year of that reduced launch rate. Therefore ULA must lower costs and enter the commercial launch market because they cannot survive on 2 or 3 government launches per year. (his quote)So how would there be enough launches per year for hypothetically three players (ULA, SpaceX and Orbital) going after a total of 5 or 6 Air Force EELV launches per year? SX has a broad mix of customers, they don't care.
Launch is only a part of Orbital ATK business so a low launch rate is not big issue. Having a LV allows them to offer a complete build and launch package for their commercial satellites.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 01/18/2016 04:01 amLaunch is only a part of Orbital ATK business so a low launch rate is not big issue. Having a LV allows them to offer a complete build and launch package for their commercial satellites.Does OrbitalATK build anything heavy enough to require a Delta IV equivalent, though? Seems like Antares-class should cover that pretty adequately, especially with a BE-3 upper stage.
The spacenews article suggests Delta Heavy class performance.That would require some huge solids.They might want to go for a core with BE-3Us instead of a solid second stage.
According to Gunter's page the Antares-232 can lift 2750kg to GTO which is less than some of the satellites OrbitalATK builds. SES-8 which is a an OrbitalATK GEOStar-2.4 satellite has a mass of 3,170kg. Assuming you mean Delta IV heavy then Cygnus might want to spread its wings beyond low Earth orbit one of these days. But aside from big spy satellites there are not many payloads that need the lift capacity of the Delta IV heavy.
Quote from: abaddon on 01/18/2016 03:48 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 01/18/2016 04:01 amLaunch is only a part of Orbital ATK business so a low launch rate is not big issue. Having a LV allows them to offer a complete build and launch package for their commercial satellites.Does OrbitalATK build anything heavy enough to require a Delta IV equivalent, though? Seems like Antares-class should cover that pretty adequately, especially with a BE-3 upper stage.According to Gunter's page the Antares-232 can lift 2750kg to GTO which is less than some of the satellites OrbitalATK builds. SES-8 which is a an OrbitalATK GEOStar-2.4 satellite has a mass of 3,170kg. Assuming you mean Delta IV heavy then Cygnus might want to spread its wings beyond low Earth orbit one of these days. But aside from big spy satellites there are not many payloads that need the lift capacity of the Delta IV heavy.
Quote from: notsorandom on 01/18/2016 06:59 pmAccording to Gunter's page the Antares-232 can lift 2750kg to GTO which is less than some of the satellites OrbitalATK builds. SES-8 which is a an OrbitalATK GEOStar-2.4 satellite has a mass of 3,170kg. Assuming you mean Delta IV heavy then Cygnus might want to spread its wings beyond low Earth orbit one of these days. But aside from big spy satellites there are not many payloads that need the lift capacity of the Delta IV heavy.Exactly, and I would assume that adding a BE-3 based upper stage to the Antares would allow it to easily cover the satellites you cite. Going after a very small heavy lift market seems odd to me. I don't really think there's much possibility in OrbitalATK actually doing that, personally.
Quote from: notsorandom on 01/18/2016 06:59 pmQuote from: abaddon on 01/18/2016 03:48 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 01/18/2016 04:01 amLaunch is only a part of Orbital ATK business so a low launch rate is not big issue. Having a LV allows them to offer a complete build and launch package for their commercial satellites.Does OrbitalATK build anything heavy enough to require a Delta IV equivalent, though? Seems like Antares-class should cover that pretty adequately, especially with a BE-3 upper stage.According to Gunter's page the Antares-232 can lift 2750kg to GTO which is less than some of the satellites OrbitalATK builds. SES-8 which is a an OrbitalATK GEOStar-2.4 satellite has a mass of 3,170kg. Assuming you mean Delta IV heavy then Cygnus might want to spread its wings beyond low Earth orbit one of these days. But aside from big spy satellites there are not many payloads that need the lift capacity of the Delta IV heavy.You have to consider that Antares launches from Wallops, which at 37.5 latitude has an extra 9 degrees of penalty to GSO than the Cape. If they are doing a new LV for EELV then they will have to launch from CCAF and VAFB. That's an EELV requirement.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/15/2016 04:33 pmSo, will it be like the solid motor Antares design Orbital-ATK was looking at last year, or something more like one of the Ariane 6 proposals? - Ed KyleSomething in between, perhaps? I'm thinking two solid stages topped by a 3rd HydroLox stage, powered by a BE-3U. The "intermediate to heavy class" part makes me think that this core could be flanked by two 1st stages as boosters for the "heavy" variant, thus making it similar to the Ariane 6 concept. But I could be off base.
So, will it be like the solid motor Antares design Orbital-ATK was looking at last year, or something more like one of the Ariane 6 proposals? - Ed Kyle
In a Jan. 14 press release, the company said it would develop a “solid rocket propulsion system.”“All the best features of solid motors, including operational reliability, high lift-off thrust, shorter development schedules and, importantly, affordability have improved over time with the advancement of new technologies,” Charlie Precourt, vice president and general manager of Orbital ATK’s propulsion systems division, said in the release. “This means we can offer the Air Force a low technical risk and very cost-competitive American-made propulsion alternative.”Specifically, Orbital ATK will combine the Air Force money with at least $31 million, and as much as $124 million, of its own to develop the GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor, the Common Booster Segment solid rocket motor, and an extendable nozzle for Blue Origin’s BE-3U upper stage engine.Blue Origin uses the BE-3 for its New Shepard suborbital rocket. The BE-3 also is one of three upper-stage engines United Launch Alliance is considering for Vulcan, the Denver company’s next-generation rocket.