Author Topic: Orbital's Antares Development Update Thread  (Read 1065150 times)

Online Salo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11338
  • Odessa, Ukraine
  • Liked: 4236
  • Likes Given: 3529
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #640 on: 10/24/2010 05:13 pm »
http://www.spacenews.com/contracts/102210orbital-warns-investors-prolonged-budget-battle-will-harm-2011-earnings.html
Quote
Fri, 22 October, 2010
Orbital Warns Investors Prolonged U.S. Budget Battle Will Harm 2011 Earnings
By Peter B. de Selding

    PARIS — Satellite and launch-vehicle manufacturer Orbital Sciences Corp. on Oct. 21 reported double-digit increases in revenue, operating income and net profit but said its 2011 financial performance could drop by 6 percent to 8 percent from expected levels if the U.S. government does not conclude a final 2011 budget before spring.

    The Dulles, Va.-based company said its biggest ongoing investment — development of the Taurus 2 medium-lift rocket and the Cygnus cargo vehicle it will launch to the international space station — has encountered more delays. Its inaugural launch from Wallops Island, Va., is now set for between July and September.

    Whether that flight serves only to demonstrate Taurus 2’s abilities or also carries the Cygnus freighter will depend on whether the U.S. Congress appropriates the money for a rocket-only flight when it finally enacts NASA’s budget for 2011. If that money, which would come out of the additional $300 million NASA has requested for its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, is forthcoming, a successful Taurus 2-only demonstration could be followed, about three months later, with a Taurus 2 Cygnus launch to the space station.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2010 05:19 pm by Salo »

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #641 on: 10/25/2010 03:26 am »
some of use can still manage to figure out English units.  ;)

Whaddya mean, "English"?  The United Kindom of England, Scotland etc.  is officially a METRIC country... It's down to Liberia, Myanmar and... U.S.... ;)
« Last Edit: 10/25/2010 06:03 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #642 on: 10/25/2010 03:29 am »
Frank C., Ron Grabe and I flew to Wallops for an Executive Meeting with our Ukrainian partners at our new Dasha just west of the base.  Just before landing WFF tower cleared us for a low (> 500 ft, please) pass over the island and back before landing in spite of a rather low ceiling (legal VFR at WFF, though...) Frank took some pics of the construction underway while I put the airplane on a slip - compare with the previous ones.

Note the large LOX tank on the first pad picture... that was THE tank of road travel fame...

« Last Edit: 10/25/2010 03:33 am by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #643 on: 10/25/2010 03:41 am »
I have to wonder if that is the correct structural effect of over pressurization. It almost looks like it crumped inwards from low internal pressure. Strange effect, but I'll take your sources word on the cause.

Ahem... well, if you pressure-test a tank to destruction with a gas (say, air) most of the energy that is release when the tank fails is stored in the compressed gas.  When this energy is released, it tends to distort the pieces of the tank outwards, and accelerate them to very large velocities with rather nasty consequences for the immediate surrounding.

That is why people burst-test tanks with rather incompressible WATER.  In that case, most of the energy stored pre-rupture is in the tank material, which is tensed taut like a balloon.  When it fails, the water has little energy stored (it has not compressed a lot, even under high pressure), and the energy stored in the metal tends to drive the metal back to its original position: inwards.  The resulting shape looks as if it "imploded" - but it's the opposite!
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #644 on: 10/25/2010 11:23 am »
Quote
"Deinde Advenimus Pontem Transierimus" - M. Antonius Eliseum

 ;D
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #645 on: 10/25/2010 01:09 pm »
I have to wonder if that is the correct structural effect of over pressurization. It almost looks like it crumped inwards from low internal pressure. Strange effect, but I'll take your sources word on the cause.

Ahem... well, if you pressure-test a tank to destruction with a gas (say, air) most of the energy that is release when the tank fails is stored in the compressed gas.  When this energy is released, it tends to distort the pieces of the tank outwards, and accelerate them to very large velocities with rather nasty consequences for the immediate surrounding.

That is why people burst-test tanks with rather incompressible WATER.  In that case, most of the energy stored pre-rupture is in the tank material, which is tensed taut like a balloon.  When it fails, the water has little energy stored (it has not compressed a lot, even under high pressure), and the energy stored in the metal tends to drive the metal back to its original position: inwards.  The resulting shape looks as if it "imploded" - but it's the opposite!

There is simpler explanation why the tank looks "imploded" - workers did it to fit ruptured and deformed tank on the transport platform.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #646 on: 10/25/2010 03:29 pm »
I have to wonder if that is the correct structural effect of over pressurization. It almost looks like it crumped inwards from low internal pressure. Strange effect, but I'll take your sources word on the cause.

Ahem... well, if you pressure-test a tank to destruction with a gas (say, air) most of the energy that is release when the tank fails is stored in the compressed gas.  When this energy is released, it tends to distort the pieces of the tank outwards, and accelerate them to very large velocities with rather nasty consequences for the immediate surrounding.

That is why people burst-test tanks with rather incompressible WATER.  In that case, most of the energy stored pre-rupture is in the tank material, which is tensed taut like a balloon.  When it fails, the water has little energy stored (it has not compressed a lot, even under high pressure), and the energy stored in the metal tends to drive the metal back to its original position: inwards.  The resulting shape looks as if it "imploded" - but it's the opposite!

Hmm. We do hydrotesting in our NF office using water, I have just never seen (or witnessed) the effects of a failure (edit to add: knowing you are referring to a burst test) to know what it would look like. Impressive. Thanks for the explanation.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2010 03:30 pm by robertross »

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #647 on: 10/25/2010 06:02 pm »
There is simpler explanation why the tank looks "imploded" - workers did it to fit ruptured and deformed tank on the transport platform.

Probably both: I have a picture of the burst as it happens - you can see the water gushing out of the lower half of the tank (it was tested in a vertical position) while the top simply implodes.  I can't post that picture, it comes too close for comfort to the ITAR "don't cross" line...

I will try to find a non-ITAR sensitive picture - e.g. a SCUBA tank - to illustrate my (basic physics, O.K.?...) point.
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #648 on: 10/25/2010 06:14 pm »
you can see the water gushing out of the lower half of the tank (it was tested in a vertical position) while the top simply implodes.

Would sombody care to elaborate why this is also very logical (that the failure starts at the bottom)?
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #649 on: 10/25/2010 06:42 pm »
you can see the water gushing out of the lower half of the tank (it was tested in a vertical position) while the top simply implodes.

Would sombody care to elaborate why this is also very logical (that the failure starts at the bottom)?

Mass of the water in the tank, leading to higher pressures in the bottom of the tank?

What about pictures of the high pressure bursting of a soda can? Doesn't take much to burst them anymore, as one of my wet coworkers can attest.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #650 on: 10/25/2010 06:48 pm »

Thinking about it, since the pressures in the bottom of the tank (Due to the mass of the fluid above it)  should be made stronger (more material) than the top of the tank. So the Top of the tank was made stronger than it needs to be, thus the top of your tank is mass inefficient. Antonioe, I am not impressed ;)
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #651 on: 10/25/2010 07:29 pm »

Thinking about it, since the pressures in the bottom of the tank (Due to the mass of the fluid above it)  should be made stronger (more material) than the top of the tank. So the Top of the tank was made stronger than it needs to be, thus the top of your tank is mass inefficient. Antonioe, I am not impressed ;)

Hah!  But the densities of LOX and kerosene are lower than that of water!!!
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #652 on: 10/25/2010 07:33 pm »
What about pictures of the high pressure bursting of a soda can? Doesn't take much to burst them anymore, as one of my wet coworkers can attest.
(Shooting from the hip, as usual) in the case of a soda can, most of the energy is in the compressed or dissolved CO2, not in the metal, so it's more like a gas-filled test than a liquid-filled test.

Actually, I don't know if only the Kero part or both were pressurized, so I can't really answer my own question!

As the Italians say, "Se non è vero, è ben trovato" ::)
« Last Edit: 10/25/2010 07:40 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #653 on: 10/25/2010 09:12 pm »

Thinking about it, since the pressures in the bottom of the tank (Due to the mass of the fluid above it)  should be made stronger (more material) than the top of the tank. So the Top of the tank was made stronger than it needs to be, thus the top of your tank is mass inefficient. Antonioe, I am not impressed ;)

Hah!  But the densities of LOX and kerosene are lower than that of water!!!
LOx is heavier than water, as are the weighted averages of LOx and Kerosene. Only Kerosene is less dense than water. ;)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #654 on: 10/26/2010 03:54 am »
LOx is heavier than water,

Ooops... 1.141 Kg/m3... my bad...

Quote
as are the weighted averages of LOx and Kerosene.

.. right again... I'll guess I'll turn in my Junior Rocket Scientist badge...
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #655 on: 10/26/2010 04:33 am »
LOx is heavier than water,
Oops... 1.141 Kg/m3... my bad...

Of course you meant
"Liquid oxygen has a density of 1.141 g/cm3, 1.141 kg/L, 1.141 mT/m3"
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #656 on: 10/26/2010 06:33 am »
Perhaps Antonio can comment on (and hopefully retire) a rumor I heard a few months ago that has recently resurfaced.  The story is there is an issue with the AJ26 (NK33) engine being used for the first time in a gimbaled mode.  (Rocket historians will recall the NK was not moved for TVC in the N1 installation, but differentially throttled.)  Apparently, the motion causes problems with the turbopump, type of problem unspecified but inferred to be binding or rubbing between rotating parts and the case.

Any truth to this, and if so, is there a fix?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #657 on: 10/26/2010 03:26 pm »
Note that although the NK-33 was never flown in an system that required gimbaling, the earlier NK-19 and NK-15 were used in systems where gimbaling was required for steering (N1 Block G/GR-1). The earlier engines were well tested, and any problems with the basic design stemming from gimbaling requirements would have been discovered in the early 1960s. Whether these lessons learned were transferred to NK-33 design is another question.

As another data point, the Russian Air Launch project uses a gimbaled NK-43 for its first stage. How much technical due diligence was used to develop this design is TBD.

A contradictory indicator is that the Soyuz-1 launch vehicle that uses the NK-33 in the first stage also has a large steering engine (RD-110), with 30 tons of thrust and 4 thrust chambers. What is unknown is whether this added set of verniers exists to make the system compliant with the existing Soyuz LV avionics flight algorithms, as Soyuz today does not utilize gimbaling, and Soyuz-1 has been designed to be as close as possible to current Soyuz LV standards.





« Last Edit: 10/26/2010 04:21 pm by Danderman »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #658 on: 10/26/2010 03:32 pm »
Perhaps Antonio can comment on (and hopefully retire) a rumor I heard a few months ago that has recently resurfaced.  The story is there is an issue with the AJ26 (NK33) engine being used for the first time in a gimbaled mode.  (Rocket historians will recall the NK was not moved for TVC in the N1 installation, but differentially throttled.)  Apparently, the motion causes problems with the turbopump, type of problem unspecified but inferred to be binding or rubbing between rotating parts and the case.

Any truth to this, and if so, is there a fix?

If that's true, then like a gyroscope, the torques are sufficient to cause warping of the housing at the bearing points, or the bearings can't handle the torque.

Interesting, and obviously problematic.

Offline kollapsderwellenfunktion

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #659 on: 10/27/2010 08:53 am »
it seems to me that first the russians wanted to build the soyuz-1 with a gimbaled nk-33, but than switched to the rd-0110r steering engine. if you look at scale models before 2010 you can't see the steering engine, but suddenly they introduced it.

i don't believe this has anything to do with software - it's much cheaper to change your software than introducing a new engine, i would guess.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0