Im a little lost on this. Is this just a case of swapping to a new engine, with minor changes to allow that, or is there significant redesign needed for the change? A year seems like a pretty fast turnaround.
The RD-170 design may be an improvement, but is there any evidence the NK-33 design is bad?
Hard to believe that the new engines are nearly on their way, set to arrive in just a few months if the announced schedule is right, and yet Orbital still has not announced which engines or who will manufacture/deliver them. Meanwhile, ULA has already announced its engine choice for something that won't fly until 2019!I wonder why. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/10/2014 03:50 pmAtlas V, the most expensive option but also likely the most reliable option. I wonder why Falcon 9 didn't make the cut. Maybe it can't lift as much as claimed, or costs more than claimed?There could also have been pressure (internal & external) to not put all CRS eggs on one launcher.
Atlas V, the most expensive option but also likely the most reliable option. I wonder why Falcon 9 didn't make the cut. Maybe it can't lift as much as claimed, or costs more than claimed?
Quote from: Lars-J on 12/10/2014 04:04 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/10/2014 03:50 pmAtlas V, the most expensive option but also likely the most reliable option. I wonder why Falcon 9 didn't make the cut. Maybe it can't lift as much as claimed, or costs more than claimed?There could also have been pressure (internal & external) to not put all CRS eggs on one launcher.Or SpaceX could not fit it in their busy schedule.Or any combination of above with any degree.
Atlas V, the most expensive option but also likely the most reliable option. I wonder why Falcon 9 didn't make the cut. Maybe it can't lift as much as claimed, or costs more than claimed? - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/10/2014 03:50 pmAtlas V, the most expensive option but also likely the most reliable option. I wonder why Falcon 9 didn't make the cut. Maybe it can't lift as much as claimed, or costs more than claimed? - Ed KyleThere could also have been pressure (internal & external) to not put all CRS eggs on one launcher.
It could also be that Atlas V's lift capacity allowed them to drop the final flight, whereas Falcon 9 would have come up short and required that final flight.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 12/10/2014 11:20 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 12/10/2014 04:04 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/10/2014 03:50 pmAtlas V, the most expensive option but also likely the most reliable option. I wonder why Falcon 9 didn't make the cut. Maybe it can't lift as much as claimed, or costs more than claimed?There could also have been pressure (internal & external) to not put all CRS eggs on one launcher.Or SpaceX could not fit it in their busy schedule.Or any combination of above with any degree.I suspect that the tight SpaceX manifest was a factor, and a disinclination of SpaceX to assist a company they are competing with directly.
Quote from: Will on 12/11/2014 01:31 amQuote from: Mader Levap on 12/10/2014 11:20 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 12/10/2014 04:04 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/10/2014 03:50 pmAtlas V, the most expensive option but also likely the most reliable option. I wonder why Falcon 9 didn't make the cut. Maybe it can't lift as much as claimed, or costs more than claimed?There could also have been pressure (internal & external) to not put all CRS eggs on one launcher.Or SpaceX could not fit it in their busy schedule.Or any combination of above with any degree.I suspect that the tight SpaceX manifest was a factor, and a disinclination of SpaceX to assist a company they are competing with directly.Competitor?Spacex ensures OSC make a profit for gap filler launches, while Atlas V costs more than Antares and OSC will hardly make a profit.
Quote from: nimbostratus on 12/11/2014 03:12 amQuote from: Will on 12/11/2014 01:31 amQuote from: Mader Levap on 12/10/2014 11:20 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 12/10/2014 04:04 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/10/2014 03:50 pmAtlas V, the most expensive option but also likely the most reliable option. I wonder why Falcon 9 didn't make the cut. Maybe it can't lift as much as claimed, or costs more than claimed?There could also have been pressure (internal & external) to not put all CRS eggs on one launcher.Or SpaceX could not fit it in their busy schedule.Or any combination of above with any degree.I suspect that the tight SpaceX manifest was a factor, and a disinclination of SpaceX to assist a company they are competing with directly.Competitor?Spacex ensures OSC make a profit for gap filler launches, while Atlas V costs more than Antares and OSC will hardly make a profit.But SpaceX has no reason to keep OSC alive. The best outcome for SpaceX is for OSC to go bankrupt ASAP.
Hi guys, how about New LV adopts BE-4 too, sharing engines with ULA and BO, to further reduce to cost?One BE-4 offers a lower thrust than 2 NK-33, but has higher Isp, so seems to offer a similar delivery capacity with current Antares with verniers(to be developed too).
It is my understanding that both enigines are being sent to USA for final Evaluation testing and flight engines will also be fired at Stennis for hotfire testing. Not sure if AJ-26 stands will be used for this.
Quote from: nimbostratus on 12/11/2014 03:37 amHi guys, how about New LV adopts BE-4 too, sharing engines with ULA and BO, to further reduce to cost?One BE-4 offers a lower thrust than 2 NK-33, but has higher Isp, so seems to offer a similar delivery capacity with current Antares with verniers(to be developed too).Goldilocks problem: 1x BE-4 is too little thrust, 2x BE-4 is too much. Either way means big first stage changes.OSC needs a new engine yesterday. BE-4 won't be ready in time.