Author Topic: Orbital's Antares Development Update Thread  (Read 1065066 times)

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #380 on: 04/03/2010 07:05 am »
(warning: contains hearsay): materials and labor, I'm told.  Like the P&W RL-10, the Aerojet AJ-10 was designed during a period of time when labor was cheap and complex machine tools expensive and unreliable (i.e.before digital computers).  In the case of the RL-10, I know that PWR has been desperately trying to get somebody to pay for a major upgrade of the that, among other things, does away with the painstakingly beautiful but high-cost hand-molded and hand-brazen tube-formed nozzle and early bell...

(Before somebody asks the question "why don't they pay for that improvement out of their own - or mother United Technologies' - pocket?" I will answer it :)  Very simple: there is no credible business case for PWR to do so without major customer financial support or committment...)

There's also the OME variant of the AJ-10 used on the shuttle it's regeneratively cooled.
It should be possible to uprate it's thrust if using it as a single use engine.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/ome.htm

Or resurrect the old Apollo SPS engine another AJ-10 variant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module

It had 20,000lbs of thrust.
It seems working examples for study do exist.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eecue/444019347/
« Last Edit: 04/03/2010 07:07 am by Patchouli »

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #381 on: 04/03/2010 07:50 am »
While everybody else is guessing, I might as well try one.

How about the GX engine?  Fairly far along in development last I read (I am willing to be proven embarrassingly wrong).

I am also willing to admit that I don't know about its' dimensions or mass.

Offline Dmitry_V_home

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • City of Toglliatti, Samara region, Russia
  • Liked: 666
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #382 on: 04/03/2010 08:22 am »
How about the GX engine? 

How about two 11D58M?

Offline Salo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11329
  • Odessa, Ukraine
  • Liked: 4227
  • Likes Given: 3524
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #383 on: 04/03/2010 10:26 am »
May be NK-31 with TVC?

(*Sniff*...) Brings me back memories of the X-34... :'( (somebody get me a Kleenex, please)
Isp 310 s? :-\
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/tech_ops/Fastrac_Engine.pdf

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #384 on: 04/03/2010 10:43 am »
I guess all of these differences reduced the thermal radiative load of the nozzle enough to allow the side-by-side installation on the transtage (how they got two 1.53m nozzles within a 3.05m OUTSIDE DIAMETER airframe I cannot explain, but the Titan transtage was one bizarre bird, with asymmetrical N2O2 and Fuel tanks...)  Now, I didn't make up the concern about radiational re-heating of the side-by-side -118K nozzles... we actually analyzed it (no hearsay.)

Probably the reported 1.53m diameter for the -138 nozzle is not correct as the simply do not fit with this diameter.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #385 on: 04/03/2010 02:07 pm »
Just a brief question: Would it be practical to have a three-stage configuration with something similar to the DIIUS mounted on top of the Castor-30? If that would need more power to get off the pad, what sort of level of enhancement are we talking about? Simple SRM strap-ons or a 'heavy' tri-core?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #386 on: 04/03/2010 05:36 pm »

http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/tech_ops/Fastrac_Engine.pdf


O.K., O.K.,... now you really want me to break out sobbing... :(

Although I'm told that some Fastrac elements (turbopump?) are alive and well in the design of the SpaceX Merlin.
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #387 on: 04/03/2010 05:53 pm »
I guess all of these differences reduced the thermal radiative load of the nozzle enough to allow the side-by-side installation on the transtage (how they got two 1.53m nozzles within a 3.05m OUTSIDE DIAMETER airframe I cannot explain, but the Titan transtage was one bizarre bird, with asymmetrical N2O2 and Fuel tanks...)  Now, I didn't make up the concern about radiational re-heating of the side-by-side -118K nozzles... we actually analyzed it (no hearsay.)

Probably the reported 1.53m diameter for the -138 nozzle is not correct as the simply do not fit with this diameter.

The "1.53m" and "3.05m" dimensions are, IIRC, two-decimal-place metric approximations of the actual dimensions (5.00 feet and 10.00 feet, respectively, which would be 1.524m and 3.048m).  Still wouldn't quite fit, though.

Two possibilities come to mind:

(1) the interstage might have been just enough larger diameter than the stages to permit the nozzles to fit;

(2) the nozzle exits might have been slightly elliptical, rather than round (the minor axis probably wouldn't have to be much smaller to "make it fit").

All speculation, of course ... ;)

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #388 on: 04/03/2010 06:00 pm »
Just a brief question: Would it be practical to have a three-stage configuration with something similar to the DIIUS mounted on top of the Castor-30?

Well, it depends on what type of performance increase you are looking for: increasing the payload to LEO ("High-mass, Low-DV") does indeed require significantly higher liftoff thrust, and about the only thing you can do to Taurus II is add solids, which we most definitely don't want to do.  It not only requires "scarring" the first stage to withstand the additional loads, it requires a boatful of additional ground infrastructure that we can hardly afford - eyes on the objective, boys, we haven't flown Taurus II yet!!!

On the other hand, three stages is a good approach to increasing the payload to GTO and/or escape ("Low-mass, High-DV"), and can be achieved without major liftoff thrust increases.  It also does not require major ground infrastructure improvement, unless you go full cryo.

In terms of a particular three-stage configuration, it depends on the $$$-to-performance ratio you want (or need) to achieve, and I don't think we're smart enough today to know what may be required - so, until we see the first mission(s) approaching, go ahead and propose alternatives!  They all are, in one way or another, good! (just keep the DV's as balanced as you can...)

Quote
If that would need more power to get off the pad, what sort of level of enhancement are we talking about? Simple SRM strap-ons or a 'heavy' tri-core?

Either of these would require substantial $$$'s and would put us squarely in the EELV market, which we do not contemplate in the foreseeable future.  We would like to steer the government's interest into more medium-class missions vs. few large-class missions, and not just for Orbital's benefit, but to help the U.S. space industrial base,  spacecraft and launchers alike (including the second-tier suppliers!)

Our devious plan for world domination is, in order of priorities:

1,2,3 - Deliver what we promised on COTS/CRS
4 - Sell Taurus II as an MLV to DoD and NASA (launching as many Orbital-made medium-class spacecraft as possible  ;D )
5 - Sell the first polar mission and enable West Coast (VAFB or Kodiak, whichever is cheaper) launch capability.

In the meanwhile, we are following the current Commercial Crew initiatives at NASA with considerable interest...
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Dmitry_V_home

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • City of Toglliatti, Samara region, Russia
  • Liked: 666
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #389 on: 04/03/2010 06:15 pm »

O.K., O.K.,... now you really want me to break out sobbing... :(

Although I'm told that some Fastrac elements (turbopump?) are alive and well in the design of the SpaceX Merlin.

And why then not to use vacuum Merlin? Or you are not ready to co-operate with SpaceX?



Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #390 on: 04/03/2010 06:20 pm »
Either of these would require substantial $$$'s and would put us squarely in the EELV market, which we do not contemplate in the foreseeable future.  We would like to steer the government's interest into more medium-class missions vs. few large-class missions, and not just for Orbital's benefit, but to help the U.S. space industrial base,  spacecraft and launchers alike (including the second-tier suppliers!)


I seem to be having this reoccurring thought of Cygnus providing cargo launched on a Taurus II, While having an Atlas V lofting a commercial Orion with a stretched Cygnus service module and already proven (by then) Cygnus rendezvous system .... take advantage of the Cygnus work done by OSC and the capsule work done by Lockheed, but perhaps OSC wants a more inhouse design.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2010 07:41 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #391 on: 04/03/2010 06:25 pm »

O.K., O.K.,... now you really want me to break out sobbing... :(

Although I'm told that some Fastrac elements (turbopump?) are alive and well in the design of the SpaceX Merlin.

And why then not to use vacuum Merlin? Or you are not ready to co-operate with SpaceX?

Considering they are competing in the same market, I doubt OSC would either ask for or SpaceX would supply the engine, that would be like Toyota asking to buy engines from GM.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #392 on: 04/03/2010 08:00 pm »
Quote
If that would need more power to get off the pad, what sort of level of enhancement are we talking about? Simple SRM strap-ons or a 'heavy' tri-core?

Either of these would require substantial $$$'s and would put us squarely in the EELV market, which we do not contemplate in the foreseeable future.  We would like to steer the government's interest into more medium-class missions vs. few large-class missions, and not just for Orbital's benefit, but to help the U.S. space industrial base,  spacecraft and launchers alike (including the second-tier suppliers!)

Our devious plan for world domination is, in order of priorities:

1,2,3 - Deliver what we promised on COTS/CRS
4 - Sell Taurus II as an MLV to DoD and NASA (launching as many Orbital-made medium-class spacecraft as possible  ;D )
5 - Sell the first polar mission and enable West Coast (VAFB or Kodiak, whichever is cheaper) launch capability.

In the meanwhile, we are following the current Commercial Crew initiatives at NASA with considerable interest...
Keep your eyes on the prize.  If you guys ever need computer or electronics work, let me know.  8)
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #393 on: 04/03/2010 08:43 pm »
Considering they are competing in the same market, I doubt OSC would either ask for or SpaceX would supply the engine, that would be like Toyota asking to buy engines from GM.

It's not likely, but possible.  Mazda and Ford share motors, Isuzu and Chevy share almost everything, Hyundai and Mazda share, Porsche and Volkswagen share....

Just because two companies compete in the same market does not mean they will not share resources.  IF both SpaceX and Oribital feel it's to their benefit they will share whatever.

ULA has referenced SpaceX in papers as a launcher of fuel for their depot.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2010 08:44 pm by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #394 on: 04/03/2010 10:47 pm »
It's not likely, but possible.  Mazda and Ford share motors, Isuzu and Chevy share almost everything, Hyundai and Mazda share, Porsche and Volkswagen share....
Ummm. Mazda is partly owned by Ford, Isuzu and Porsche are fully owned by GM and VW respectively (OK, the VW/Porsche relationship precedes that date but the two companies have the same founder and the CEO of VW was the biggest shareholder of Porsche at the time...)

Bad examples. Although your message was correct, there are LOTS of engines being shared by competitors in the automotive world (know about Mercedes using VW engines and BMW using PSA ones but there'll definitely be more).

Offline just-nick

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #395 on: 04/04/2010 04:02 am »
It's not likely, but possible.  Mazda and Ford share motors, Isuzu and Chevy share almost everything, Hyundai and Mazda share, Porsche and Volkswagen share....
Ummm. Mazda is partly owned by Ford, Isuzu and Porsche are fully owned by GM and VW respectively (OK, the VW/Porsche relationship precedes that date but the two companies have the same founder and the CEO of VW was the biggest shareholder of Porsche at the time...)

Bad examples. Although your message was correct, there are LOTS of engines being shared by competitors in the automotive world (know about Mercedes using VW engines and BMW using PSA ones but there'll definitely be more).
I think the economics of launch vehicle and motorcar development are very different.  Cars have enormous development costs but huge production runs over which they can be paid off.  There are also lots of non price/performance based things going on (image, style, etc.).

Us space flight amateurs may tend to flip through Jane's Spaceflight Directory like it is the Sears catalog, building up dream boosters ("Hm...I'll strap six Atlas V SRM's around a Zenit core and put a Delta IV-H 2nd stage on it but using a Vinci engine...").  The reality is that negotiating multi-million dollar contracts is a very strange place.  Example: buying lots of hardware (that you have no intention of using) from a vendor offering a better price (but inferior performance) for the sole purpose of spooking your preferred vendor into giving a better response to your next RFP.  More mindgames than the final hand at a WPT tournament...

  --N

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #396 on: 04/05/2010 03:00 pm »

Us space flight amateurs may tend to flip through Jane's Spaceflight Directory like it is the Sears catalog,


Us professionals flip Gunter's and Mark's web pages... ;) ;) ;)
« Last Edit: 04/05/2010 03:17 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #397 on: 04/05/2010 04:20 pm »

Us space flight amateurs may tend to flip through Jane's Spaceflight Directory like it is the Sears catalog,


Us professionals flip Gunter's and Mark's web pages... ;) ;) ;)
Hey, I read both, what does that make me, a Proteur?
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Freddie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #398 on: 04/05/2010 04:40 pm »

Us space flight amateurs may tend to flip through Jane's Spaceflight Directory like it is the Sears catalog,


Us professionals flip Gunter's and Mark's web pages... ;) ;) ;)

Ready reference bookmarks for readers:

Gunter's Space Page - http://space.skyrocket.de/

Mark Wade's Encyclopedia of Spaceflight - http://www.astronautix.com/

Offline heroineworshiper

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #399 on: 04/05/2010 06:00 pm »
Quite an achievement for Ukraine to produce not only the Zenit but the Taurus II for the "US" space program.

Tags:
 

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