Here is a link to Dave Steffy's AIAA 2008 conference paper on Taurus II.
http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/conferences/Steffy_NRO-AIAA_Conference_Paper--Steffy.pdf
This paper includes a schedule that shows the following significant milestones occurring during 2009.
Here is a link to Dave Steffy's AIAA 2008 conference paper on Taurus II.
http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/conferences/Steffy_NRO-AIAA_Conference_Paper--Steffy.pdf
This paper includes a schedule that shows the following significant milestones occurring during 2009.
...and has a great set of model-making-ready drawings. Thanks Ed!
Simon ;)
Was use of a high energy second stage presented to the CRS SEB?
Wow, first the GX .pdf showing up on the ULA website and now this Orbital .pdf. The Delta II payload class space is getting quite exciting.
With a LEO payload at 7.6 tonnes, the Taurus II with the "enhanced" 2nd stage would move beyond Delta II class - beyond even the Delta II Heavy class.
My question - what is the payload? Companies don't build rockets like this unless they're targeting a certain payload category.
- Ed Kyle
Anyone with any details about WHAT a PWR35M is, though?
I shouldn't guess which one is right, but if I were going to guess, I would guess 35,000 pounds thrust (15.88 metric tonnes thrust).
Anyone with any details about WHAT a PWR35M is, though?
I shouldn't guess which one is right, but if I were going to guess, I would guess 35,000 pounds thrust (15.88 metric tonnes thrust).
I think you're right on that. A few weeks ago, Google had a cached copy of something called the "TaurusII_Brochure.pdf" I suspect it was accidentally posted. Anyhow, I just realized I had the good sense to save a copy locally when I first saw it. A couple added facts: 147kN thrust for the PWR35M, 1818kg dry weight and aluminum tank structure for the enhanced 2nd stage. Since 1818 kg is 4000 lbs, I suspect that's an example of false precision caused by units conversion and we are definitely still dealing with round figure estimates.
Cheers,
--Nick
My question - what is the payload? Companies don't build rockets like this unless they're targeting a certain payload category.
BTW, I'm wondering if any "synergy" might exist between this PWR engine and the JAXA engine being worked on, for several years now, for the GX project.
BTW, I'm wondering if any "synergy" might exist between this PWR engine and the JAXA engine being worked on, for several years now, for the GX project.
Isn't the GX engine pressure fed? From OSC's brochure, that doesn't look so much like pressure fed to me (shape of tanks, size of pressurant bottles) as pump fed. What would happen if you took an RL10 and made a minimum change conversion to LCH4? Because Methane has the right physical characteristics to run an expander cycle, right?
--Nick
Original plans listed the GX second stage engine as strictly pressure fed, but a 2007 update listed use of a boost pump and showed increased thrust from original plans.
I think that Methane/LOX has been demonstrated in an RL10, but not at anything close to 35 Klbs thrust. Meanwhile, the GX engine thrust was shown as more than 26 Klbs thrust in the 2007 GX update.
- Ed Kyle
Can you imagine the reaction of the NRO/NASA people who had seen the first Corona images of the N-1 if you had told them that those engines would be used on American commercial rockets?
It's a pretty wild world we live in. From Cold War to globalized rocketry (Yuzhnoe, SNTK Kuznetsov, Aerojet, and OSC all cooperating together).
The T-2 brochure PDF is back on the Orbital site. It's worth looking at.Alright back home with an actual computer now. Here's the Taurus II brochure link:
I can't post the link directly cuz I'm on a mobile device, but it's riight there on the Taurus 2 page at www.orbital.com.
Cheers,
--Nick
That would lower performance, Merlins are lower performers and heavier for the same thrust. The real question is why would they want to get rid of such good engines?
Sounds like a very unlikely rumor to me.
Also SpaceX only has 6 Flight Merlin 1C.
Incorrect. They have 6 Merlins currently qualified for the first flight, 9 other which already fired for a full mission duration and are now sitting around and most likely a few more in production.
. Not giving any credence to this, I would like to ask, does anyone think it would be feasible to re-engine Taurus II with 6 Merlins, just thinking speculatively.
Finished means manufactured. Qualification is as I understand a short firing to verify the engine is healthy, without defects. In the above case, the 6 engines would be joined by the 9 already fired (and qualified), although those were already "used".
Not giving any credence to this, I would like to ask, does anyone think it would be feasible to re-engine Taurus II with 6 Merlins, just thinking speculatively.
No,
A. Spacex isn't going to help a competitor
B. OSC designed the vehicle around the AJ-26
C. OSC isn't going to ask help from a competitor
According to these sources, today the Director-general of TsKB "Progress" Alexander Kirilin promised to restart production of NK-33 in 2014. Series production will take place in Samara at the "Motorostroitel" plant.
According to these sources, today the Director-general of TsKB "Progress" Alexander Kirilin promised to restart production of NK-33 in 2014. Series production will take place in Samara at the "Motorostroitel" plant.
Those aren't AJ-26. Aerojet is going to take over production
Riiiigggght. And RD-180 is going to be built in the U.S. too.
- Ed Kyle
According to these sources, today the Director-general of TsKB "Progress" Alexander Kirilin promised to restart production of NK-33 in 2014. Series production will take place in Samara at the "Motorostroitel" plant.
Those aren't AJ-26. Aerojet is going to take over production
Riiiigggght. And RD-180 is going to be built in the U.S. too.
- Ed Kyle
The AJ-26 is not a stock NK-33, it is greatly modified.
I agree that Aerojet will have to have its "hands" on the engines, but I'll believe that Aerojet will build them from scratch (and that someone will be able to afford to pay them to do it) only when I see it.
They are significant mods, more than a rebuild.
Right. They're currently modifying existing engines (new engine controls, etc., as I understand it.) What I'm thinking about is the more-distant future, a few years distant, when the original NK supply runs out. Aerojet has the rights to build new, but can it/will it, really? That's the part I'll wait to see. I hope Aerojet gets there, but I suspect it could more likely turn out to be a partnership with NK Engines Company (former Kuznetsov), where Aerojet builds part, NK part, etc..
- Ed Kyle
In fact, I have argued it would be cheaper for ULA to convert Atlas 5 to twin NK-33s than to start RD-180 production up in the U.S. (And before anyone tells me the NK-33 doesn't have enough thrust, in fact it can be run at higher than advertised thrust levels and also is much lighter than the RD-180, as well.)
Compared to the RD-180, the NK-33 will be much easier to build in the U.S. The 180 has a number of expensive-to-replicate forgings that the NK-33 lacks.Another feature of RD-180 that strikes me is the flexible duct for hot oxygen (unless I confuse something), so that the chambers alone gimball, while the turbomachinery _and_ the preburner remain stationary. Of course I have no idea how expensive that element is, the thought of the gas at higher than chamber pressure being pumped through what amounts to my drier's vent hose scares me.
Compared to the RD-180, the NK-33 will be much easier to build in the U.S. The 180 has a number of expensive-to-replicate forgings that the NK-33 lacks.Another feature of RD-180 that strikes me is the flexible duct for hot oxygen (unless I confuse something), so that the chambers alone gimball, while the turbomachinery _and_ the preburner remain stationary. Of course I have no idea how expensive that element is, the thought of the gas at higher than chamber pressure being pumped through what amounts to my drier's vent hose scares me.
the thought of the gas at higher than chamber pressure being pumped through what amounts to my drier's vent hose scares me.
Engineers can design anything.cough, cough...
if you've designed something that cannot be made, then you have not designed a good part
the difference you state is not the difference between a senior and a green engineer its the difference between a good and a bad engineer
if you've designed something that cannot be made, then you have not designed a good part
the difference you state is not the difference between a senior and a green engineer its the difference between a good and a bad engineer
No between an an engineer and a marketing guy armed with powerpoint. I have seen several times in my career marketing say it needs to do powerpoint bullet point XYandZ and a good design gets subverted and stupid things get added onto the widget at additional cost/reduced reliability to meet perceived marketing demands that came out of how they felt over in marketing. A good engineer designs for the materials at hand, a bad one finds a material to do what he wants his design to do... cough Ares - I ... cough.
A brave engineer stands up and says marketing is full of it... Taking that tack actually reduces the amount of meetings you get invited/dragged too. So it is a win on all fronts :)
Not to talk up spaceX on an Orbital thread, but if you notice, the Merlin is a good, cheap easy to produce engine that does not push the limits anywhere. Other than the mistake of the albative version, which they have learned from, that mistake was also made on the Delta-IV, so we can not hold spaceX out to dry for trying the same thing.
Yes, Merlin is "good, cheap easy to produce engine"...according to the
SpaceX marketing guys/gals armed with Powerpoint charts - and fancy animations.
And, yes, they do have static fire history but do we really have enough indpendent facts to give credence to the claims you've reiterated?
WALLOPS ISLAND — Maryland and Virginia officials held a groundbreaking at a Monday ceremony marking the start of construction of a new launchpad and other facilities to support Orbital Science Corporation’s Taurus II rocket program.
Advertisement
The rocket will be used to carry cargo to the International Space Station. A demonstration flight is scheduled for late next year, followed by eight resupply missions to the International Space Station between 2011 and 2015.
U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said the groundbreaking marked “another era of discovery” similar to when Capt. John Smith first set foot on the Eastern Shore four centuries ago.
“Here on the Eastern Shore, people used to earn their living off the land or off the water...Now they are also going to earn their living off of space,” Mikulski said, calling the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops “a global center...an international center for research and discovery.”
The recent Sea Launch bankruptcy has me wondering about the Taurus II first stage. SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash is building the stage, but the economics were surely based on an assumption of synergy with Zenit production.
At the very least, the bankruptcy will reduce the numbers of Zenits built. At worst, it will shut the program down. What effect might this have on Taurus II?
WALLOPS ISLAND — Maryland and Virginia officials held a groundbreaking at a Monday ceremony marking the start of construction of a new launchpad and other facilities to support Orbital Science Corporation’s Taurus II rocket program.
Advertisement
WALLOPS ISLAND — Maryland and Virginia officials held a groundbreaking at a Monday ceremony marking the start of construction of a new launchpad and other facilities to support Orbital Science Corporation’s Taurus II rocket program.
Advertisement
OK, does anyone have pictures from the ceremony? That's one thing I wish Oribital did more like SpaceX. I so wish they had blogs and more pictures.
I have contacted congress and the senate 3 times for SpaceX (I have bugged FAA for Armadillo more than 3 times), but hard to get excited about Orbital without some good new fashioned fake openness.
does anyone have pictures from the ceremony?I'm trying to get some. I was there. Not much to see - a bunch of talking heads, a couple heavy machinery. The Senator WAS pretty excited, though... even if she mis-named the spacecraft a couple of times...
I so wish they had blogsI gues you'll have to do with poor little me... :)
...QuoteI so wish they had blogsI gues you'll have to do with poor little me... :)
OSC has yet to complete a COTS system-level PDR that had been scheduled for April.
OK, does anyone have pictures from the ceremony? That's one thing I wish Oribital did more like SpaceX.
Ask and ye shall receive:
Now if you had announced this in advance, and posted tickets on NSF I am sure your could have had quite the NSF crowd on hand to witness the events :D
What kind of upmass hit is Orbital taking by building at Wallops vs Kennedy/Canaveral?
What kind of upmass hit is Orbital taking by building at Wallops vs Kennedy/Canaveral?
What kind of upmass hit is Orbital taking by building at Wallops vs Kennedy/Canaveral?
Zero.
Well, i *JUST* happen to have two Visual Basic macros for Excel that help a bit. The first one estimates (geometrically) the launch azimuth required to hit a desired inclination from a certain latitude, given the target orbital altitude (it's an estimation - accurate results depend on the particulars of the trajectory, e.g., slow liquid Ariane 5 style vs. fast, solid, taurus style; but, hey, it's a lot better than guessing!)
The second function calculates - also geometrically - the inertial velocity due to earth rotation in the direction of the launch azimuth at a given latitude. Like the other function, this is an approximation to the performance impact, but, again, it's better than a guess...
And the results are:
WFF
CCAFS
Latitude, deg 37.83 28.5
Launch az. For i=51.6º, deg 50.1 42.8
Earth vel. In dir of launch az, m/s 282 278
Although these are approximations, I'd say the result is a tie. Downrange issues (stage imnpacts, overflights, etc) probably have more of an impact, and I can't evaluate them without a more detailed analysis, which we have not done yet. Even then I expect nearly a wash.
Well, from a northern latitude, you shoot closer to East to get to the desired inclination than from a southern latitude, and that helps in getting more of the Eastwards Earth Rotational Velocity (EERV) in the direction of launch, but on the other hand the amount of EERV up north is lower than further south. I guess one effect cancels the other.
Also note that the launch azimuth numbers I gave in the table are the ascending ones; you get the same results if you mirror image them w.r.t. East, i.e. 129.9 deg from WFF and 137.2 deg from CCAFS (the approximate rotational velocity help being the same for both the ascending and descending cases.) From CCAFS, range limits may preclude use of the the ascending azimuth (anybody knows for sure?)
BTW, from a latitude of 51.6 deg, my Excel calculations show a launch azimuth of 90 deg (duh...) and a net contribution of rotational velocity in the direction of launch of 289 m/s. Not a big difference from 278 (CCAFS) or 282 (WFF). What's at 51.6 deg north latitude?
The answer is not as simple as that; in addition to the obvious effect of the Earth's rotation, the location of the stage impact points and resulting probability of hitting somebody on the ground enter into the picture. For example, for high-acceleration vehicles with stage impact points close to the launch site, there is little practical performance difference to the ISS inclination (51.6 deg) from CCAFS (Florida) and from WFF (VA). However, you launch NORTH from CCAFS (ascending node) to avoid the islands, and SOUTH from WFF (descending node) to avoid Europe.
With low acceleration vehicles stage impact points move downrange, so a CCAFS launch north to ISS (you still can't launch south, I'm told) might drop a stage on Newfoundland; this may require a payload-reducing dogleg right our of the Cape, making the WFF performance higher even tough, from an Earth rotation standpoint it's an even match (Earth rotation is higher from FL, but the launch azimuth is more easterly from VA).
Oh by the way: the number of stages and the use of strapons makes a difference on this stage impact point analysis, too...
The bottom line is that it is non-intuitive and requires more than a simple calculation - you have to run a complete trajectory analysis.
The answer is not as simple as that; in addition to the obvious effect of the Earth's rotation, the location of the stage impact points and resulting probability of hitting somebody on the ground enter into the picture. For example, for high-acceleration vehicles with stage impact points close to the launch site, there is little practical performance difference to the ISS inclination (51.6 deg) from CCAFS (Florida) and from WFF (VA). However, you launch NORTH from CCAFS (ascending node) to avoid the islands, and SOUTH from WFF (descending node) to avoid Europe.
With low acceleration vehicles stage impact points move downrange, so a CCAFS launch north to ISS (you still can't launch south, I'm told) might drop a stage on Newfoundland; this may require a payload-reducing dogleg right our of the Cape, making the WFF performance higher even tough, from an Earth rotation standpoint it's an even match (Earth rotation is higher from FL, but the launch azimuth is more easterly from VA).
Oh by the way: the number of stages and the use of strapons makes a difference on this stage impact point analysis, too...
The bottom line is that it is non-intuitive and requires more than a simple calculation - you have to run a complete trajectory analysis.
Oh by the way: the number of stages and the use of strapons makes a difference on this stage impact point analysis, too...
By the way, from this it follows that it is desirable to have a minimum of stages.
As you can see from Slide 8 of the OSC presentation to the Augustine HSF committee and the Taurus II Fact Sheet, there is only a small difference in payload between 29 deg from CCAFS and 52 deg from WFF.
to antonioe.
Why in project Taurus II the Centaur-stage has not been provided?
Because it is a ULA stage. Taurus II is an OSC product.
It would be like flying a Centaur on a Titan ;)
It would be like flying a Centaur on a Titan ;)
Weren't the Vikings launched on Titan III/Centaurs?
Just to get on a soapbox here, whilst I understand the underlying commercial sense of not helping one's competitor (referencing both to Orbital using a Centaur US and earlier discussions about using Merlin-1c for Taurus-II), I have to say that this will not be an attitude that makes long-term sense. Eventually, there is only going to be room for so many high-energy upper stage engines or launch vehicles full stop. Whilst I understand the instinct not to "help the competition", ultimately, having other companies use products made by your company (say, engines) is another useful revenue stream.
Ford doesn't make engines for GM. Honda doesn't make engines for Nissan*Very bad example for a good point.
If spaceflight is ever going to be a "real" business there will have to be more specialization (which runs to the very contrary of SpaceX's strategy) and things like avionics will have to become modules purchased from specialized suppliers serving more than one customers.
I'm not talking parts. I'm talking systems.
What makes you think SpaceX doesn't purchase avionics parts like everyone else?
I'm not talking parts. I'm talking systems.
SpaceX made a big fuss about their avionics development (like all their other in-house developments).
You said avionics modules, not entire systems.No. I said avionics BECOMING modules. What I meant by that is that it becomes a dedicated subsystem that is being sourced from a specialist.
I don't think there's a complete, generic avionics package off the shelf to buy out there.That's not the point. There's also no complete, generic engine controller for cars out there.
It's very bad for the whole industry that it doesn't yet make sense to fit something like a Centaur on a Taurus II and be able to adapt it to meet whatever avionics spec OSC may have.
I bet there are GM vehicles with Ford engines.
I bet there are GM vehicles with Ford engines.
These are the types of statements I will not abide. Don't say things you have no basis for. Besides, there aren't.
Look at my post, that wasn't my point. Wings are also a bad example because it's a structure not a subsystem.
It's very bad for the whole industry that it doesn't yet make sense to fit something like a Centaur on a Taurus II and be able to adapt it to meet whatever avionics spec OSC may have.
No, it isn't. That isn't how the rest of industry works. Airbus avionics don't work in a Boeing plane. Airbus wings don't work in a Boeing plane.
An upper stage is an end unit and too high of level for interchangeability. Taurus II can have a LH2 stage using RL-10 engines and Honeywell gyros. Just like an Airbus and 747 can use the same GE engines and have some of the same Collins components.
Look at my post, that wasn't my point. Wings are also a bad example because it's a structure not a subsystem.
It's very bad for the whole industry that it doesn't yet make sense to fit something like a Centaur on a Taurus II and be able to adapt it to meet whatever avionics spec OSC may have.
No, it isn't. That isn't how the rest of industry works. Airbus avionics don't work in a Boeing plane. Airbus wings don't work in a Boeing plane.
The auto industry analogy would be: buy the structure, the engine and integrated avionics
I bet there are GM vehicles with Ford engines.
These are the types of statements I will not abide. Don't say things you have no basis for. Besides, there aren't.
None in America.Perhaps that is one of the reasons of the sorry state of USA's car manufacturers. ;)
Gee... I used to complain that the Elon "Musk Q&A - Updates SpaceX status on Falcon and Dragon" thread had become an all-purpose, multiple-subject flaming thread...
Now I see that the "T II Development" thread is addressing the problems of the U.S. automotive industry... probably a lot more relevant to this country's future than a poor little old MLV, I guess! :)
Gee... I used to complain that the Elon "Musk Q&A - Updates SpaceX status on Falcon and Dragon" thread had become an all-purpose, multiple-subject flaming thread...
Now I see that the "T II Development" thread is addressing the problems of the U.S. automotive industry... probably a lot more relevant to this country's future than a poor little old MLV, I guess! :)
You mean Taurus II isn't the next generation mid-sized Ford? Our bad..... ;-)
Was the GAO report too pessimistic?
Ford also had the Falcon.
An academic symposium will be held this fall to explore the potential of what officials are calling "Virginia's Spaceplex" in the Wallops Island area.
Accomack County and state officials met with representatives from several state universities Wednesday in Richmond to hear preliminary proposals for a concept study for the Wallops area, which would emphasize developing a vision for its potential and which eventually would lead to an economic impact analysis and concrete recommendations.
The county last week issued a request for proposals for the study, saying it will aid in marketing efforts for Wallops area enterprises. But by the end of yesterday's meeting at the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, the group decided to take a broader approach and to concentrate on three different aspects of planning for growth in the area: to plan for immediate needs related Orbital Sciences Corp.'s Taurus II project; to hold a symposium; and to do comprehensive long-range planning.
No offense, and I have nothing but respect and admiration for Antonio and Orbital, but these types of statements are just dissing SpaceX and Elon Musk. In the terms used hereabouts, this video shows a paper rocket launching a paper spacecraft. How is that "cooler" or "low spin information" compared to what SpaceX does? Orbital and SpaceX get to pass exactly the same test. When Falcon 9 and Taurus II launch Dragon and Cygnus respectively to ISS, then they have done what they claim they will do. Videos don't count, much as we enjoy seeing them. Personally, nothing will please me more than to see them both succeed gloriously and usher in a new era of commercial manned spaceflight. CRS and COTS-D could make a big difference for the CxP outcome if, as seems likely, ISS is extended to 2020 or beyond.
Is NASA expected to move Node 3 back to Node 2 nadir so all these simulations will be accurate?
It's great to have a real competition going. Too bad the Paypal guy doesn't have someone like Antonioe around to pass out a little low spin information.
No offense, and I have nothing but respect and admiration for Antonio and Orbital, but these types of statements are just dissing SpaceX and Elon Musk. In the terms used hereabouts, this video shows a paper rocket launching a paper spacecraft. How is that "cooler" or "low spin information" compared to what SpaceX does? Orbital and SpaceX get to pass exactly the same test. When Falcon 9 and Taurus II launch Dragon and Cygnus respectively to ISS, then they have done what they claim they will do. Videos don't count, much as we enjoy seeing them. Personally, nothing will please me more than to see them both succeed gloriously and usher in a new era of commercial manned spaceflight. CRS and COTS-D could make a big difference for the CxP outcome if, as seems likely, ISS is extended to 2020 or beyond.
Seems like both OSC and SpaceX videos were done by the same people.
Yes and if I were to guess, I'd say they were produced by Maas Digital (http://www.maasdigital.com/).
They ought to do a DIRECT video. :)
What are the two different spacecraft in the video?First is pressurized cargo; 2nd is unpressurized. But I think earlier in this thread Antonio reported that all Taurus II are now pressurized, per NASA COTS contract modification.
What are the two different spacecraft in the video?First is pressurized cargo; 2nd is unpressurized. But I think earlier in this thread Antonio reported that all Taurus II are now pressurized, per NASA COTS contract modification.
How would they handle any cargo that was going outside the pressurized station and didn't fit the airlock?
How would they handle any cargo that was going outside the pressurized station and didn't fit the airlock?
There isn't any
If ISS is extended to 2020+, will there be any chance of provision for outside replacement parts? Let's say they need a new solar array, or some such.
If ISS is extended to 2020+, will there be any chance of provision for outside replacement parts? Let's say they need a new solar array, or some such.
This looks more like a trunk to allow the 2.3 meter to be converted into a full lunar capable service module with a high expansion ratio main engine for lunar insertion/escape maneuvering, launched on the F9H, to mate with a lander/upper stage in LEO.
Are there any preliminary concept images online of how a crewed Cygnus capsule would look like?
Are there any preliminary concept images online of how a crewed Cygnus capsule would look like?
Why even bother with the solid upper stage? Just go for the methane/LOX!
If ISS is extended to 2020+, will there be any chance of provision for outside replacement parts? Let's say they need a new solar array, or some such.
If ISS is extended to 2020+, will there be any chance of provision for outside replacement parts? Let's say they need a new solar array, or some such.
If ISS is extended past 2020 (or even really past 2018), you'll need to bring up a giant roll of duck tape to patch the myriad micrometeorite holes in Node 1 and the Russian Segment. It's wishful thinking to imagine ISS can go much beyond 2016 without major repair/replacement work...
Ironically, the best long-term option to have a continued NASA presence in LEO may be to ditch ISS in 2015-2016, switch to HLV, and start from scratch on a better station, using ISS lessons-learned and ~70 tonne modules. But I digress...
Details while are not present. It is known only that explosion was not. At test there were Americans and representatives TsSKB-PROGRESS.It was also mentioned that it's the same engine that ran 200s previously. The aborted 160s run was subsequent to that. It's probably not that bad a deal, considering. Dunno if Merlin can work that long.
Details while are not present. It is known only that explosion was not. At test there were Americans and representatives TsSKB-PROGRESS.It was also mentioned that it's the same engine that ran 200s previously. The aborted 160s run was subsequent to that. It's probably not that bad a deal, considering. Dunno if Merlin can work that long.
If ISS is extended to 2020+, will there be any chance of provision for outside replacement parts? Let's say they need a new solar array, or some such.
If ISS is extended past 2020 (or even really past 2018), you'll need to bring up a giant roll of duck tape to patch the myriad micrometeorite holes in Node 1 and the Russian Segment. It's wishful thinking to imagine ISS can go much beyond 2016 without major repair/replacement work...
If ISS is extended past 2020 (or even really past 2018), you'll need to bring up a giant roll of duck tape to patch the myriad micrometeorite holes in Node 1 and the Russian Segment. It's wishful thinking to imagine ISS can go much beyond 2016 without major repair/replacement work...
some degree of rapid disassembly.LOL - I'll have to remember and reuse that euphemism.
Ironically, the best long-term option to have a continued NASA presence in LEO may be to ditch ISS in 2015-2016, switch to HLV, and start from scratch on a better station, using ISS lessons-learned and ~70 tonne modules. But I digress...
Ironically, the best long-term option to have a continued NASA presence in LEO may be to ditch ISS in 2015-2016, switch to HLV, and start from scratch on a better station, using ISS lessons-learned and ~70 tonne modules. But I digress...
Eh no. According to Sally Ride's figures HLV will ensure there isn't enough money to continue a presence in LEO. The best way would be an inflatable station launched on EELVs and shared with commercial players. If parts of ISS can be reused, even better. There was talk recently of even NASA considering making certain changes to node 3 to preserve the option of adding a Bigelow module later.
One can listen to the teleconference call
The transcript is now available at http://www.orbital.com/Investor/Transcript/ConfCall.pdf
Here are some highlights concerning Taurus II and Cygus.
Is the Taurus II Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL) ground support equipment misnamed? Pretty clearly it will transport and erect the LV at the pad. But then won't it back out of harm's way before launch?
Is the Taurus II Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL) ground support equipment misnamed? Pretty clearly it will transport and erect the LV at the pad. But then won't it back out of harm's way before launch?
An illustration of the Taurus II launch vehicle sitting atop the launch pad can be viewed at http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/TaurusII_Fact.pdf. Kindly note the transporter/erector/launcher is no longer present.What do you mean "no longer"? It never was a part of the Fact Sheet. Yes, I kept and checked the old revisions.
It could be the idea that ATK mentioned a couple of years ago for a smallsat launcher that would have used a Castor 120 topped by a Castor 30 and an "OAM" type third maneuvering stage. This rocket would be able to lift more than a Falcon 1 or Pegasus.
I'm not sure that it is correct to call Taurus 2 a "U.S. vehicle". Its first stage will be manufactured in Ukraine. Its first stage engines were developed and built in Russia. Aerojet representatives are actually watching the engines be tested in Moscow. Even its payload, the Cygnus, will largely come from Europe.I thought the NK-33 was tested in Samara, not Moscow, because that's where both SNTK Kuznetsov and the Motorostroitel' Plant are located.
http://www.spacenews.com/military/091231-launcher-issues-blamed-sbss-slip.html
Speaking of Minotaur IV, it sounds like troubles with it are delaying the U.S. Air Force’s Space Based Space Surveillance satellite for 14 months.
1) before the NK33 testing bait and switch occurred, moving it from Mississippi to Russia
2) and before it became apparent that future NK33 production, if any occurs, will almost certainly happen in Russia.
I'm not sure that it is correct to call Taurus 2 a "U.S. vehicle". Its first stage will be manufactured in Ukraine. Its first stage engines were developed and built in Russia. Aerojet representatives are actually watching the engines be tested in [Russia] (corrected). Major portions of its payload, the Cygnus, will come from Europe and it will be propelled by Japanese engines.
If Taurus 2 is a "U.S. vehicle", than KSLV-1 had to have been a "Korean vehicle".
- Ed Kyle
1) before the NK33 testing bait and switch occurred, moving it from Mississippi to Russia
2) and before it became apparent that future NK33 production, if any occurs, will almost certainly happen in Russia.
1) Do you have a link for this move? It's unknown to me.
2) Orbital signed up for 8 flights to Station, right? Plus the COTS flight. IIRC, Aerojet has over 30 NKs on hand. Unless something miraculous occurs with the T-II flight rate, that should be plenty without negating the OSTP ruling (which would have to be revisited in any configuration change).
You're right, though. How OSTP decides if something is American doesn't seem to be public.
Purely speculative, but has Orbital mentioned any possibility of a development path for Taurus-II to lead to heavier payload capacities? Perhaps outrigger SRMs or multi-core configurations?
The Taurus II User's manual publicly appeared on-line on or about December 28, 2009. It can be reviewed at http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Taurus_II_UG.pdf .
I wonder how difficult this would be to fix and would it impact the payload too badly?
Looking the users guide it seems the Castor 30 is not an issue to making this a crew vehicle.
It's max acceleration is only 3.7g with in the limits of acceptable which I believe is 4 - 4.5g.
Instead the problem is in the first stage acceleration profile with a max acceleration of of 6g well outside NASA limits.
Looking the users guide it seems the Castor 30 is not an issue to making this a crew vehicle.
It's max acceleration is only 3.7g with in the limits of acceptable which I believe is 4 - 4.5g.
Instead the problem is in the first stage acceleration profile with a max acceleration of of 6g well outside NASA limits.
What NASA limits?
I figure any new crew transport vehicle must meet the requirements set by the Saturn LV and the Shuttle.
These same rules also apply to amusement park rides so it's a perfectly reasonable and logical requirement.
That's some "interesting" velocity behavior at different milestones in the flight in "Figure 3.2-2. Taurus II Typical 3-Stage Mission Profile to LEO". Jumping up and down until payload separation at 2490 m/s? I should hope not! ;D
I'm even a little concerned about the timeline itself. Could they really be planning a 59 second coast between stage 1 MECO and stage 2 ignition?
I'm even a little concerned about the timeline itself. Could they really be planning a 59 second coast between stage 1 MECO and stage 2 ignition?
Note the table above the erroneous one has numbers that appear correct and it says 1st stage burns out at 4600 m/s. The coast costs them "only" 50 m/s.
I'm even a little concerned about the timeline itself. Could they really be planning a 59 second coast between stage 1 MECO and stage 2 ignition?
Note the table above the erroneous one has numbers that appear correct and it says 1st stage burns out at 4600 m/s. The coast costs them "only" 50 m/s.
It seems likely the interval between MECO and S2 ignition is only 3 or 4 seconds,
The Taurus II lifts off the pad approximately 2 seconds after Stage 1 ignition. Stage 1 burns for approximately 223 seconds, and separates after a brief post-burn coast. The upper stage stack continues to coast for approximately 50 seconds before the fairing is jettisoned. After fairing jettison, Stage 2 is ignited and boosts the upper stack to an altitude of approximately 153 km x 100 km before Stage 2 burnout and separation occurs, at 427 seconds into the flight.
Page 19: [...]
The Taurus II lifts off the pad approximately 2 seconds after Stage 1 ignition. Stage 1 burns for approximately 223 seconds, and separates after a brief post-burn coast. The upper stage stack continues to coast for approximately 50 seconds before the fairing is jettisoned. After fairing jettison, Stage 2 is ignited and boosts the upper stack to an altitude of approximately 153 km x 100 km before Stage 2 burnout and separation occurs, at 427 seconds into the flight.
The Taurus II ACS provides three-axis attitude control throughout boosted flight and coast phases. The ACS uses the two main engine configuration to provide yaw, pitch and roll control during Stage 1 flight. Stage 2 flight is controlled by the combination of the Stage 2 TVC and the onboard ACS system located on the avionics ring. The Stage 2 ACS employs a cold gas nitrogen system with heritage from all of Orbital’s space launch vehicles.
Rather than tailoring stage burn duration to hit a target orbit, it tailors the coast duration. Kinda cool, eh?
Orbital will start using the HESS on CRS flight 3 according to this:Well that's exciting.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361840main_13a%20-%20UPDATED%20Augustine%20CRS%20final.pdf
Orbital will start using the HESS on CRS flight 3 according to this:Well that's exciting.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361840main_13a%20-%20UPDATED%20Augustine%20CRS%20final.pdf
I'm still completely unable to find anything about this PWR35M engine the HESS would use. I keep thinking a methanized RL10?
The greater mass up top would also bring that 6g MECO load down a little bit.
The January 2010 edition of SatMagazine carries an article by Orbital Sciences Corporation that can be read at http://www.satmagazine.com/cgi-bin/display_article.cgi?number=1069851299. Within the article it states qualification and hot-fire acceptance tests of the liquid fuel first stage engines are to commence in March 2010 at NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.Is this exactly 1 year behind the schedule as laid out in Steffy's paper? Or are we talking about the whole stage tests?
The January 2010 edition of SatMagazine carries an article by Orbital Sciences Corporation that can be read at http://www.satmagazine.com/cgi-bin/display_article.cgi?number=1069851299. Within the article it states qualification and hot-fire acceptance tests of the liquid fuel first stage engines are to commence in March 2010 at NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.Is this exactly 1 year behind the schedule as laid out in Steffy's paper? Or are we talking about the whole stage tests?
-- Pete
The Taurus 2 would need a higher-energy upper stage to put satellites in geostationary orbit, Thompson said. Options include replacing the Castor 130 with something more powerful or adding a third stage to the rocket, he said. The rocket also would have to be launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., rather than Wallops, whose latitude is not ideally suited for missions to geostationary orbit, he said.I dunno, Russians launch from higher lattitude than Wallops, don't they? In fact, not just the big Proton, but even Soyuz when topped with what they call "Acceleration Block" can place useful satellites into GTO.
The Taurus II User's manual publicly appeared on-line on or about December 28, 2009. It can be reviewed at http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Taurus_II_UG.pdf .
The Castor 30 second stage motor is to be replaced with a new high-energy liquid-fueled stage on Orbital's third cargo delivery mission to the space station.
I am sorry, I should have thought this argument through a little better. Although it obviously helps the payload to relocate to the south, the difference between Wallops and Cape should be less than between Equator and Baikonur. This is balanced against strictures of operating from Florida. Right? My poorly expressed point was to challenge the magnitude of the improvement, although I did not bother to look real numbers, tsk tsk.http://www.spacenews.com/launch/100115-pegasus-fate-decided-next-year.htmlYes they can, but they would be able to lift far more to GTO from, say, Kourou, or even from Cape Canaveral. Look at Zenit 3SL/DMSL. From the equator it can (or could) lift more than 6 tonnes to GTO. From Baikonur, it can only lift 3.6 tonnes to an equivalent-energy orbit.
I dunno, Russians launch from higher lattitude than Wallops, don't they? In fact, not just the big Proton, but even Soyuz when topped with what they call "Acceleration Block" can place useful satellites into GTO.
-- Pete
Update on Taurus 2:So much for PWR35, huh.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/20taurus2/
Still, suppose we get an improvement of, say N% (where N is most likely 30 or less, in Zenit example it's 66%). I distinctly remember that someone from Florida (Space Florida perhaps) approached Orbital about building the initial launch complex for TII at the Cape. Orbital considered those proposals and went ahead with the plan to launch from MARS nonetheless.
Update on Taurus 2:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/20taurus2/
I forgot can you do a polar launch from wallops? I mean and have a reasonable payload ...
Update on Taurus 2:So much for PWR35, huh.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/20taurus2/
-- Pete
Update on Taurus 2:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/20taurus2/
Delays all around. There are starting to become on par with SpaceX.
"We're dealing with challenges in the avionics area, challenges in the launch site and test facility preparation, all of which is not unexpected, but we still have to keep our eye on it very closely," Culbertson said.
Update on Taurus 2:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/20taurus2/
Delays all around. There are starting to become on par with SpaceX.
NASA knew the risk when it went for the shiny new 'cheap' rocket option ... three times ! ;) Bit like a kid in a candy store stuffing his face before he's had a proper meal for that day, great high initially but soon wears off and you end up with a dull headache as your sugar level drops ;). Arctus (rejigged Centaur) would have been launching on a boringly reliable and already available Atlas V around now but that made far too much sense ;)
Update on Taurus 2:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/20taurus2/
Delays all around. They are starting to become on par with SpaceX.
Orbital:
Original Space Act Agreement Target Date for first (and only) COTS Demo flight: Dec 2010 (as of Feb 2008)
Amended in 2009: new target date: Mar 2011
Delay: 3 months (official)
Potential further delay to Q2/Q3 2011 as of today
SpaceX:
Original Space Act Agreement Target Date for first COTS Demo flight: Sept 2008 (as of June 2006)
Amended several times, last official date according to published amendments: June 2009
Potential further delay to Q4 2010/Q1 2011 as of today
That being said, OSC has a long way from being en par with SpaceX when it comes to delays. They would have to target a launch at the end of 2012, beginning of 2013 to be en par with them schedule wise.
MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates has received a $2.4M (USD) contract from Orbital Sciences to provide a critical interface that will enable capture and mating of the Cygnus cargo delivery spacecraft
to the International Space Station (ISS). The contract also contains an option to purchase additional units for follow-on operational missions worth at least $4.0M (USD).
$2.4 million far a couple of already designed and used SSRMS grapple fixtures. Does put things into perspective for people who quote dream prices for spacecraft and launch vehicles, be it Orion, Ares, Jupiter, Dragon ...
Analyst
Are there any specific problems with launching potential crewed Taurus II flights (with whatever vehicle on top) from Wallops compared to KSC? After all, OSC will likely bid for a commercial crew contract just as everyone else in the business will.
After all, OSC will likely bid for a commercial crew contract just as everyone else in the business will.
After all, OSC will likely bid for a commercial crew contract just as everyone else in the business will.
Disagree. Their lift is only borderline for small capsules. They now have experience with LAS from Orion. If they play, it's likely to be in that area.
Why bid a Gemini when the market sweet spot is bigger than Apollo CM?
Sure, there's no harm in it, except the physics say the LV can't lift much more than a Gemini. Why bid a Gemini when the market sweet spot is bigger than Apollo CM?
Sure, there's no harm in it, except the physics say the LV can't lift much more than a Gemini. Why bid a Gemini when the market sweet spot is bigger than Apollo CM?
Sure, there's no harm in it, except the physics say the LV can't lift much more than a Gemini. Why bid a Gemini when the market sweet spot is bigger than Apollo CM?
That is the Block one Taurus with the Solid upper stage. The high energy upper stage (HESS) will be able to lift much more and is already on the timeline for the cargo craft.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11980.msg309609#msg309609
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11939.msg250950#msg250950
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15374.msg347693#msg347693
Whatevs. My estimation is that T-II is undersized for crew.
I agree with the previous statements about launch mass, though; in order to provide three seats to ISS with a Taurus II we need the High Energy Second Stage (HESS) for performance (so it matches, say, a Soyuz LV); we also need a "50% Launch Abort System (i.e., a LAS which weighs about 50% of the capsule it separates), much like Apollo, rather than the "70% LAS" that the Orion/Ares combination requires (also, the lower acceleration, thrust-terminating Taurus II, much like the Saturn, supports the use of a passive LAS architecture...)
A 70% LAS+HESS (or a 50% LAS with the Castor-30) would probably only support two seats.
I also think that if all we wanted to do is carry three people to the ISS, we should be able to do it a bit more efficiently that the Soyuz spacecraft (one cabin body vs. two to begin with)
The following Taurus II update appeared as part of an article dated 18 February 2010 published by Spaceflight Now at http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/18orionlas/:Huh. I they can keep the costs down. I aj26 a kerolox? or hydrolox? i thought nk33 was staged combustion cycle kerolox. hm.....aj26 could be used on an hlv too..........
"Orbital's first mission of its Taurus 2 rocket and Cygnus spacecraft is scheduled for March 2011.
(Orbital CEO David W.) Thompson said Orbital's schedule for launch early next year is "busy and tight" due to a hectic pace of construction, manufacturing and testing of ground and flight infrastructure. There is essentially no remaining schedule slack, Thompson said.
Thales Alenia Space of Italy has already started constructing Cygnus pressurized cargo modules. Orbital will start manufacturing Cygnus service modules in Dulles, Va., this year.
First stage engine tests are scheduled in Russia next week to probe the propulsion system's abilities by taking the engine well beyond the Taurus 2's expected flight conditions.
"What we're really trying to do here is push the engine well beyond what we would expect it to produce on a regular launch, particularly in terms of its run time," Thompson said.
The Taurus 2 first stage is powered by two AJ26 engines provided by Aerojet. The AJ26 engines are based on the NK-33 power plant developed by Russia in the 1960s for the ill-fated N-1 moon rocket.
An earlier round of Russian engine tests in October was abruptly cut short after an undisclosed issue. Frank Culbertson, an Orbital senior vice president, said during a January interview the problems were in the engine's liquid oxygen turbopump.
Aerojet will deliver the first engines to the Stennis Space Center in southern Mississippi in April to begin acceptance testing before being shipped to the Taurus 2 launch site at Wallops Island, Va.
"Those tests will take four different engines through that test cycle between the end of April and July or August," Thompson said. "Two of those four engines will then be sent at the end of the summer to the Wallops Island launch site, where they will be used in full Stage 1 system level testing of the Taurus 2 rocket in the fall."
The Taurus 2's first stage tank will begin structural testing in Ukraine in March. Other portions of the booster's internal structure and payload fairing will also be tested this spring.
Orbital expects a ground test unit of the Taurus 2 to arrive at Wallops by the end of this summer for a series of fit checks and pathfinder demos."
Huh. I they can keep the costs down. I aj26 a kerolox? or hydrolox? i thought nk33 was staged combustion cycle kerolox. hm.....aj26 could be used on an hlv too..........Staged Combustion Cycle Kerolox, fuel-heavy.
I meant use the aj 26 as a SECOND stage engine on another hlv you are intametly familiar with.Huh. I they can keep the costs down. I aj26 a kerolox? or hydrolox? i thought nk33 was staged combustion cycle kerolox. hm.....aj26 could be used on an hlv too..........Staged Combustion Cycle Kerolox, fuel-heavy.
And I have been calculating, the Taurus II first stage would make an excellent booster design.
The following Taurus II update appeared as part of an article dated 18 February 2010 published by Spaceflight Now at http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/18orionlas/:
"Orbital's first mission of its Taurus 2 rocket and Cygnus spacecraft is scheduled for March 2011.
(Orbital CEO David W.) Thompson said Orbital's schedule for launch early next year is "busy and tight" due to a hectic pace of construction, manufacturing and testing of ground and flight infrastructure. There is essentially no remaining schedule slack, Thompson said.
Thales Alenia Space of Italy has already started constructing Cygnus pressurized cargo modules. Orbital will start manufacturing Cygnus service modules in Dulles, Va., this year.
First stage engine tests are scheduled in Russia next week to probe the propulsion system's abilities by taking the engine well beyond the Taurus 2's expected flight conditions.
"What we're really trying to do here is push the engine well beyond what we would expect it to produce on a regular launch, particularly in terms of its run time," Thompson said.
The Taurus 2 first stage is powered by two AJ26 engines provided by Aerojet. The AJ26 engines are based on the NK-33 power plant developed by Russia in the 1960s for the ill-fated N-1 moon rocket.
An earlier round of Russian engine tests in October was abruptly cut short after an undisclosed issue. Frank Culbertson, an Orbital senior vice president, said during a January interview the problems were in the engine's liquid oxygen turbopump.
Aerojet will deliver the first engines to the Stennis Space Center in southern Mississippi in April to begin acceptance testing before being shipped to the Taurus 2 launch site at Wallops Island, Va.
"Those tests will take four different engines through that test cycle between the end of April and July or August," Thompson said. "Two of those four engines will then be sent at the end of the summer to the Wallops Island launch site, where they will be used in full Stage 1 system level testing of the Taurus 2 rocket in the fall."
The Taurus 2's first stage tank will begin structural testing in Ukraine in March. Other portions of the booster's internal structure and payload fairing will also be tested this spring.
Orbital expects a ground test unit of the Taurus 2 to arrive at Wallops by the end of this summer for a series of fit checks and pathfinder demos."
aj26 could be used on an hlv too..........
Not due to any issues with the AJ26 however. Quality shortfalls in manufacturing can bring down the mightiest craft, as witnessed time and again.
aj26 could be used on an hlv too..........
It was. The HLV wasn't exactly a success.
Anyone heard anything regarding the advanced/high-energy 2nd stage?
Some of the original files from Orbital showed LOX/Methane, but rumblings of LOX/LH2? Orbital certainly designed the baseline vehicle to be "bottom heavy" so it'll be interesting to see how far it can stretch in a more balanced configuration (we've some idea obviously from Orbital's marketing stuff) and how what route they choose to take. It is interesting that later iterations of the T2 brochure have grown increasingly vague on the advanced 2nd stage.
Cheers,
--Nick
Apparently testing of modifying the AJ-26 for LH2 has been tried, so who knows.Anyone heard anything regarding the advanced/high-energy 2nd stage?
Some of the original files from Orbital showed LOX/Methane, but rumblings of LOX/LH2? Orbital certainly designed the baseline vehicle to be "bottom heavy" so it'll be interesting to see how far it can stretch in a more balanced configuration (we've some idea obviously from Orbital's marketing stuff) and how what route they choose to take. It is interesting that later iterations of the T2 brochure have grown increasingly vague on the advanced 2nd stage.
Cheers,
--Nick
With a matched upper stage I'd expect it's performance to revival LVs like F9 and Atlas V.
The following Taurus II update appeared as part of an article dated 18 February 2010 published by Spaceflight Now at http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/18orionlas/:
"Orbital's first mission of its Taurus 2 rocket and Cygnus spacecraft is scheduled for March 2011.
(Orbital CEO David W.) Thompson said Orbital's schedule for launch early next year is "busy and tight" due to a hectic pace of construction, manufacturing and testing of ground and flight infrastructure. There is essentially no remaining schedule slack, Thompson said.
Thales Alenia Space of Italy has already started constructing Cygnus pressurized cargo modules. Orbital will start manufacturing Cygnus service modules in Dulles, Va., this year.
First stage engine tests are scheduled in Russia next week to probe the propulsion system's abilities by taking the engine well beyond the Taurus 2's expected flight conditions.
"What we're really trying to do here is push the engine well beyond what we would expect it to produce on a regular launch, particularly in terms of its run time," Thompson said.
The Taurus 2 first stage is powered by two AJ26 engines provided by Aerojet. The AJ26 engines are based on the NK-33 power plant developed by Russia in the 1960s for the ill-fated N-1 moon rocket.
An earlier round of Russian engine tests in October was abruptly cut short after an undisclosed issue. Frank Culbertson, an Orbital senior vice president, said during a January interview the problems were in the engine's liquid oxygen turbopump.
Aerojet will deliver the first engines to the Stennis Space Center in southern Mississippi in April to begin acceptance testing before being shipped to the Taurus 2 launch site at Wallops Island, Va.
"Those tests will take four different engines through that test cycle between the end of April and July or August," Thompson said. "Two of those four engines will then be sent at the end of the summer to the Wallops Island launch site, where they will be used in full Stage 1 system level testing of the Taurus 2 rocket in the fall."
The Taurus 2's first stage tank will begin structural testing in Ukraine in March. Other portions of the booster's internal structure and payload fairing will also be tested this spring.
Orbital expects a ground test unit of the Taurus 2 to arrive at Wallops by the end of this summer for a series of fit checks and pathfinder demos."
What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26. The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant: I've not got the bumpf handy, but Kistler intended using it on the K-1. I would have thought that that configuration minus the reusable/flyback gear would have provided a greater payload than current. Certainly greater capacity for upgrading. The NK-33 was tested out to 450,000lbs st.th and proved capable of adaption to Hydrolox propellents, so the -43 should also: perfect! 8)
What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26. The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant:
Anyone heard anything regarding the advanced/high-energy 2nd stage?
Anyone heard anything regarding the advanced/high-energy 2nd stage?
I read a rumour that Aerojet offered the hypergolic AJ-10. Given that this worked so well on the Delta-II, it isn't a bad option. Would an AJ-26/AJ-10 Taurus-II be the first all-Aerojet-powered LV?
Why doesn't orbital have to do several test flights before actually berthing to ISS like Spacex?
Why doesn't orbital have to do several test flights before actually berthing to ISS like Spacex?Because that's what was agreed upon in their COTS agreements. IIUC, the number of fligths wasn't levied onto the company, but the company itself chose the number it felt was appropriate. Orbital felt they can do it all at once, like Japan with HTV.
Why doesn't orbital have to do several test flights before actually berthing to ISS like Spacex?Because that's what was agreed upon in their COTS agreements. IIUC, the number of fligths wasn't levied onto the company, but the company itself chose the number it felt was appropriate. Orbital felt they can do it all at once, like Japan with HTV.
Am I correct in understanding it won't quite be as "all up" as HIIB/HTV, but will have a test flight of Taurus II prior to a second Taurus II carrying the first Cygnus to ISS?
What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26. The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant:
The first stage tanks are not made in the U.S. Using a liquid 2nd stage with an airstart AJ-26 would require new tankage. Would Orbital be making it? Do they have much experience with large liquid prop systems? Would it make the vehicle less than 51% "american" if a foreign contractor made it instead? Would it stretch-out the schedule even further?
Questions, questions...
What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26. The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant:
The first stage tanks are not made in the U.S. Using a liquid 2nd stage with an airstart AJ-26 would require new tankage. Would Orbital be making it? Do they have much experience with large liquid prop systems? Would it make the vehicle less than 51% "american" if a foreign contractor made it instead? Would it stretch-out the schedule even further?
Questions, questions...
If Dave Thompson is calling the schedule "busy and tight" in public, the reality is probably more like "frantic." Using a solid on S2 probably gives them the shortest critical path and the lowest schedule risk, I would guess.
I'd keep that in the back of the mind, but not commit to it until after the full systems test is performed in the next 4 months. At this point, the engines are a known quality with hundreds of hours of testing under their belt.What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26. The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant:
The first stage tanks are not made in the U.S. Using a liquid 2nd stage with an airstart AJ-26 would require new tankage. Would Orbital be making it? Do they have much experience with large liquid prop systems? Would it make the vehicle less than 51% "american" if a foreign contractor made it instead? Would it stretch-out the schedule even further?
Questions, questions...
If Dave Thompson is calling the schedule "busy and tight" in public, the reality is probably more like "frantic." Using a solid on S2 probably gives them the shortest critical path and the lowest schedule risk, I would guess.
If I were making decisions at Orbital, I'd be looking to fly initial Cygnus flights on the remaining white-tail Delta IIs. While expensive, it is the low-risk approach to keeping on track and meeting COTS commitments. Later, if T-II comes on line, switch, otherwise continue to fly on Atlas 5 401.
I'd keep that in the back of the mind, but not commit to it until after the full systems test is performed in the next 4 months. At this point, the engines are a known quality with hundreds of hours of testing under their belt.What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26. The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant:
The first stage tanks are not made in the U.S. Using a liquid 2nd stage with an airstart AJ-26 would require new tankage. Would Orbital be making it? Do they have much experience with large liquid prop systems? Would it make the vehicle less than 51% "american" if a foreign contractor made it instead? Would it stretch-out the schedule even further?
Questions, questions...
If Dave Thompson is calling the schedule "busy and tight" in public, the reality is probably more like "frantic." Using a solid on S2 probably gives them the shortest critical path and the lowest schedule risk, I would guess.
If I were making decisions at Orbital, I'd be looking to fly initial Cygnus flights on the remaining white-tail Delta IIs. While expensive, it is the low-risk approach to keeping on track and meeting COTS commitments. Later, if T-II comes on line, switch, otherwise continue to fly on Atlas 5 401.
I'm not concerned about the engines; I think they are fine. But there is much more to a LV than propulsion alone.
I agree - I wouldn't say the engines are the hardest component, certainly not these engines - but they are, though, the newest component considering Orbital's previous launch vehicle experience. They just dissasembled the engine that was test-fired last week at flight thrust levels for two times mission duration+qual test (straight out of the box, after 30+ years in storage!!!) and the bearings and everything else look just fine.I'm not concerned about the engines; I think they are fine. But there is much more to a LV than propulsion alone.
Perhaps, but Orbital has experience with those systems and the engines are the single hardest component.
They'll be fine.
I would not necessarily assume that; DWT has this annoying habit of being uncharacteristically accurate in his public stements, at least uncharacteristically for this industry. While he is not above spining statements a bit - who isn't - in 23 years of working with him I still have to catch him making an official statement that after the fact proved to be inaccurate - even many years afterwards! That is not just "honesty", it's some kind of intuitive gift, and it has served him pretty well.What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26. The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant:
The first stage tanks are not made in the U.S. Using a liquid 2nd stage with an airstart AJ-26 would require new tankage. Would Orbital be making it? Do they have much experience with large liquid prop systems? Would it make the vehicle less than 51% "american" if a foreign contractor made it instead? Would it stretch-out the schedule even further?
Questions, questions...
If Dave Thompson is calling the schedule "busy and tight" in public, the reality is probably more like "frantic."
Using a solid on S2 probably gives them the shortest critical path and the lowest schedule risk, I would guess.Right on target. As for using the NK-43 for the second stage, it's a very good engine with great ISP (346 s) and great T/W (120+). Unfortunately, it's about 5 times too big (about 400,000 lbf thrust vs. 80,000 lbf for the Castor 30). There are better Lox-kerosene engines for the Taurus II second stage from the thrust matching standpoint with equal or better Isp and good enough T/W (e.g. RD-0124 at 66,000 lbf thrust, Isp = 359 s, T/W = 63 with TVC and controller)
I agree - I wouldn't say the engines are the hardest component, certainly not these engines - but they are, though, the newest component considering Orbital's previous launch vehicle experience. They just dissasembled the engine that was test-fired last week at flight thrust levels for two times mission duration+qual test (straight out of the box, after 30+ years in storage!!!) and the bearings and everything else look just fine.I'm not concerned about the engines; I think they are fine. But there is much more to a LV than propulsion alone.
Perhaps, but Orbital has experience with those systems and the engines are the single hardest component.
They'll be fine.
The single hardest component of the whole program, IMHO, is the integration of the entire LV. There's where previous experience, albeit with solids and smaller vehicles, helps.
Right on target. As for using the NK-43 for the second stage, it's a very good engine with great ISP (346 s) and great T/W (120+). Unfortunately, it's about 5 times too big (about 400,000 lbf thrust vs. 80,000 lbf for the Castor 30). There are better Lox-kerosene engines for the Taurus II second stage from the thrust matching standpoint with equal or better Isp and good enough T/W (e.g. RD-0124 at 66,000 lbf thrust, Isp = 359 s, T/W = 63 with TVC and controller)
Right on target. As for using the NK-43 for the second stage, it's a very good engine with great ISP (346 s) and great T/W (120+). Unfortunately, it's about 5 times too big (about 400,000 lbf thrust vs. 80,000 lbf for the Castor 30). There are better Lox-kerosene engines for the Taurus II second stage from the thrust matching standpoint with equal or better Isp and good enough T/W (e.g. RD-0124 at 66,000 lbf thrust, Isp = 359 s, T/W = 63 with TVC and controller)
NK-31/39. May be?
Dmitry, since you live in Samara, can you say if you work at the plant? I've been looking for an answer to how many NK-33 and 43 complete and partial engines are still available there. I have heard numbers from a "a few" to "dozens". Care to shed light on the true count?
Dmitry, since you live in Samara, can you say if you work at the plant? I've been looking for an answer to how many NK-33 and 43 complete and partial engines are still available there. I have heard numbers from a "a few" to "dozens". Care to shed light on the true count?
I do not live for a long time already in Samara and did not work in SNTK (I worked in Volga branch RKK "Energia"). But I can tell that now on SNTK 54 engines NK-33 from which 46 engines can be prepared for commodity deliveries remain.
The total of engines NK-33/43/39/31, including engines in Aerojet, does not exceed 150.
Dmitry, since you live in Samara, can you say if you work at the plant? I've been looking for an answer to how many NK-33 and 43 complete and partial engines are still available there. I have heard numbers from a "a few" to "dozens". Care to shed light on the true count?
I do not live for a long time already in Samara and did not work in SNTK (I worked in Volga branch RKK "Energia"). But I can tell that now on SNTK 54 engines NK-33 from which 46 engines can be prepared for commodity deliveries remain.
The total of engines NK-33/43/39/31, including engines in Aerojet, does not exceed 150.
With the discussion of using them on the Rus-M and Soyuz, I highly suspect that part of what Aerojet and Energia have been doing with the upgrades and tests has been to formulate a plan for production. With the low cost of the engines, for them to not have done this level of preliminary work would be surprising.Dmitry, since you live in Samara, can you say if you work at the plant? I've been looking for an answer to how many NK-33 and 43 complete and partial engines are still available there. I have heard numbers from a "a few" to "dozens". Care to shed light on the true count?
I do not live for a long time already in Samara and did not work in SNTK (I worked in Volga branch RKK "Energia"). But I can tell that now on SNTK 54 engines NK-33 from which 46 engines can be prepared for commodity deliveries remain.
The total of engines NK-33/43/39/31, including engines in Aerojet, does not exceed 150.
What are the plans for new production?
What are the plans for new production?
... at the Yuzhmash factory in Dniepro. Sorry for the crummy quality of the pictures, but that makes them easier to pass ITAR scrutiny...
"Second thoughts"? NOW? A year before the launch? Do you think for a minute that "this amount of construction" was a surprise? Hello?
We walked all over the (remains of) LC-36... not very useful, given the size and geometry of Taurus II. Then, there is the small question of where to assemble the vehicle.
But, above all, VA had assured bond money from the General Assembly ($26 in MARS's bank account, so far). Florida Space had "a financial plan" based on commercial Bank loans at a time commercial Banks weren't loaning a penny to Bill Gates himself...
End of story.
First, the last of the 2x duration test firings at Samara - start-up, flight throttle level and shutdown. Pretty amazing that a 40-year old engine is taken out of a container, dusted and checked, and then fired at flight throttle settings for 10 minutes, then dissasembled, and not a scratch!!!
We walked all over the (remains of) LC-36... not very useful, given the size and geometry of Taurus II. Then, there is the small question of where to assemble the vehicle.
But, above all, VA had assured bond money from the General Assembly ($26 in MARS's bank account, so far). Florida Space had "a financial plan" based on commercial Bank loans at a time commercial Banks weren't loaning a penny to Bill Gates himself...
OKB-276First, the last of the 2x duration test firings at Samara - start-up, flight throttle level and shutdown. Pretty amazing that a 40-year old engine is taken out of a container, dusted and checked, and then fired at flight throttle settings for 10 minutes, then dissasembled, and not a scratch!!!
Do you know which OKB this used to be? (or maybe still is, with a different name)
There has to be some advantage to getting out of the hurricane bulls eye as well. Having a second east coast launch site ads redundancy to US capability. If the KSC area was ever to take a Katrina level direct hit it is nice to know there may be another site up and running capable of launching cargo (and perhaps people down the line) to the space station.
Yeah, but it would be just our luck that a Cat 5 would wipe out KSC, head back out to sea, regain it's strength, and head up to the coast to have wallops for desert.
There has to be some advantage to getting out of the hurricane bulls eye as well. Having a second east coast launch site ads redundancy to US capability. If the KSC area was ever to take a Katrina level direct hit it is nice to know there may be another site up and running capable of launching cargo (and perhaps people down the line) to the space station.
OKB-276
Their website:
http://www.sntk-odk.ru/
with the NK-33/AJ-26 on the front page I may note.
But, above all, VA had assured bond money from the General Assembly ($26 in MARS's bank account, so far)
So what impact will opening up the Virginia coast to oil drilling have on Taurus/Wallops operations?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100331/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_drilling
I read a rumour that Aerojet offered the hypergolic AJ-10. Given that this worked so well on the Delta-II, it isn't a bad option.
Could even just buy them right from ULA/Boeing. An interesting proposal, you must admit. Same upper stage, but with a lower stage which has 4x the thrust and higher ISP.I read a rumour that Aerojet offered the hypergolic AJ-10. Given that this worked so well on the Delta-II, it isn't a bad option.
Heck, license the Delta II upper stage plans from ULA/Boeing and slap it on there. It's almost the right size, has almost zero risk, and would be 100% American (keeping the total vehicle >51%)...
So what impact will opening up the Virginia coast to oil drilling have on Taurus/Wallops operations?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100331/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_drilling
I congratulate Orbital with April, 1st!
Taurus-III:
I congratulate Orbital with April, 1st!
Taurus-III:
I congratulate Orbital with April, 1st!
Taurus-III:
The April 1st rumor I heard was they gained so much experience with the NK-33's that the Taurus-III-0 first stage was gonna have 30 NK-33's ;)
They are just waiting for enough stimulus money to relocate the VAB to Wallops.
Heck, license the Delta II upper stage plans from ULA/Boeing and slap it on there. It's almost the right size, has almost zero risk, and would be 100% American (keeping the total vehicle >51%)...
Rats! You found us out! But the problem is not moving the VAB, it's the Crawler/Transporter's ground pressure load... the ground at Wallops is so soft that the tracks sink 12 ft before the sand compacts enough to hold the weight of the silly thing...
I don't think that just popping a Delta-K stage on top of the Taurus II first would actually buy you an increased payload. More versatility to be sure, with the multiple ignitions, but less impulse.Could even just buy them right from ULA/Boeing. An interesting proposal, you must admit. Same upper stage, but with a lower stage which has 4x the thrust and higher ISP.I read a rumour that Aerojet offered the hypergolic AJ-10. Given that this worked so well on the Delta-II, it isn't a bad option.
Heck, license the Delta II upper stage plans from ULA/Boeing and slap it on there. It's almost the right size, has almost zero risk, and would be 100% American (keeping the total vehicle >51%)...
So what impact will opening up the Virginia coast to oil drilling have on Taurus/Wallops operations?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100331/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_drilling
The Daily Press of Hampton Roads, Virginia carried a news article this morning at http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_offshore-drilling_0401apr01,0,2214700.story.
A question that is a little of topic, but when you have to evac and oil rig for a launch who pays for it? The oil company or the launch customer? Will VA drilling have an impact on Orbital's launch prices?
A question that is a little of topic, but when you have to evac and oil rig for a launch who pays for it? The oil company or the launch customer? Will VA drilling have an impact on Orbital's launch prices?
I don't think that just popping a Delta-K stage on top of the Taurus II first would actually buy you an increased payload. More versatility to be sure, with the multiple ignitions, but less impulse.
--N
Antonioe, Every time you mention the Wallops soil I keep thinking about a mid 80's mag article that had a picture of a pile coming back up in a parking lot right next to the pile driver...
Thanks, Antonioe. That's the nice thing about fast burning motors, I guess: the low gravity losses.I don't think that just popping a Delta-K stage on top of the Taurus II first would actually buy you an increased payload. More versatility to be sure, with the multiple ignitions, but less impulse.
--N
You are correct; to come close to exceeding Castor-30 performance you have to almost double the stage fuel load (it's not just a matter of total impulse - thrust level makes the AJ-10 based stage much less DV-efficient so you actually need MORE total impulse than the Castor 30 to simply match the C-30 performance).
The problem with that is not as much bigger tanks, but that you also double the burn time. Being ablatively cooled, the AJ-10 would have to be modified and re-certified (with appropriate testing) for the much extended burn time. But even if the ablative material could be modified to handle this extended burn time, there is no guarantee that the unit itself could take the extended soakback thermal load. It was never designed for such a long burn duration.
Believe me, we looked into it!
Antonioe, Every time you mention the Wallops soil I keep thinking about a mid 80's mag article that had a picture of a pile coming back up in a parking lot right next to the pile driver...
Ooops!... I'd love to get my hands on that picture.
As I may have mentioned early, in some cases they had to go down to 150 feet before they hit suitable load-bearing strata. The way they do it is they "splice" three 50-foot sections as they drive each section in. I've been told (but not seen it myself) that in these cases, the first 50 ft section could almost be driven down with your thumb... ::)
The problem with that is not as much bigger tanks, but that you also double the burn time. Being ablatively cooled, the AJ-10 would have to be modified and re-certified (with appropriate testing) for the much extended burn time.
What's the latest word you can share on the enhanced 2nd stage? Based on this forum, it seems be the iPad of the spaceflight world, at least as far as speculation goes.
--N
Would it have been possible to use two AJ-10's?
Just one teasing hint: logic always, in the end, prevails...
Hmm, the engine choice is logical. Vulcans are logical. Vulcan sounds like Vulcain...
That would be illogical. RL-10 is logical.
So. How much logic would NK-43/AJ-26-60 have?
As for using the NK-43 for the second stage, it's a very good engine with great ISP (346 s) and great T/W (120+). Unfortunately, it's about 5 times too big (about 400,000 lbf thrust vs. 80,000 lbf for the Castor 30). There are better Lox-kerosene engines for the Taurus II second stage from the thrust matching standpoint with equal or better Isp and good enough T/W (e.g. RD-0124 at 66,000 lbf thrust, Isp = 359 s, T/W = 63 with TVC and controller)
So. How much logic would NK-43/AJ-26-60 have?
Antonio mentioned this a while back:As for using the NK-43 for the second stage, it's a very good engine with great ISP (346 s) and great T/W (120+). Unfortunately, it's about 5 times too big (about 400,000 lbf thrust vs. 80,000 lbf for the Castor 30). There are better Lox-kerosene engines for the Taurus II second stage from the thrust matching standpoint with equal or better Isp and good enough T/W (e.g. RD-0124 at 66,000 lbf thrust, Isp = 359 s, T/W = 63 with TVC and controller)
Apparently, it would be fairly illogical.
NK-43 It is not too optimum for a rocket of type Taurus II.
1) Its application conducts to "ugly" distribution of weights between stages by optimisation of key parametres of a rocket.
2) excessively high T/W negatively affects weight of the payload deduced into orbits in height more of 150 miles.
Propellants: Lox/Kerosene. Thrust(vac): 402.000 kN (90,373 lbf). Isp: 353 sec. Burn time: 1,200 sec. Mass Engine: 722 kg (1,591 lb). Diameter: 1.40 m (4.50 ft). Thrust to Weight Ratio: 56.78
Would it have been possible to use two AJ-10's?If you place two of them within the 3.7 m internal diameter of Taurus II, a significant part (about 20%) of the each bell's heat radiates towards the other bell. This may not seem a lot, but over the burn duration it is more than enough for the bell temperature to go way, way beyond the material limit.
Again, this is a big time thermal problem that would require extensive analysis, very probable modifications, and the ensuing verification and test.
We also looked at that. In addition to the cost (these are not exactly inexpensive engines, especially considering they are pressure-fed), their exit diameter (1.7m) would place them very, very close to each other.
Is this really such a problem? The Transtage of Titan III heritage featured two AJ10 side by side on a 3.05 m core
May be NK-31 with TVC?
(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...)
(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...)
How about the GX engine?
Isp 310 s? :-\May be NK-31 with TVC?
(*Sniff*...) Brings me back memories of the X-34... :'( (somebody get me a Kleenex, please)
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.)
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/tech_ops/Fastrac_Engine.pdf
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.
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?
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.
Either of these would require substantial $$$'s and would put us squarely in the EELV market, which we do not contemplate in the foreseeable future. We would like to steer the government's interest into more medium-class missions vs. few large-class missions, and not just for Orbital's benefit, but to help the U.S. space industrial base, spacecraft and launchers alike (including the second-tier suppliers!)
O.K., O.K.,... now you really want me to break out sobbing... :(
Although I'm told that some Fastrac elements (turbopump?) are alive and well in the design of the SpaceX Merlin.
And why then not to use vacuum Merlin? Or you are not ready to co-operate with SpaceX?
Keep your eyes on the prize. If you guys ever need computer or electronics work, let me know. 8)QuoteIf that would need more power to get off the pad, what sort of level of enhancement are we talking about? Simple SRM strap-ons or a 'heavy' tri-core?
Either of these would require substantial $$$'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...
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....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...)
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.).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).
Us space flight amateurs may tend to flip through Jane's Spaceflight Directory like it is the Sears catalog,
Hey, I read both, what does that make me, a Proteur?
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... ;) ;) ;)
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... ;) ;) ;)
Quite an achievement for Ukraine to produce not only the Zenit but the Taurus II for the "US" space program.
Quite an achievement for Ukraine to produce not only the Zenit but the Taurus II for the "US" space program.
Zenit is not produced for the "US" space program. It is produced for a multinational conglomerate that focuses on commercial spacecraft.
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 ... ;)
I picked up a five year old copy at a local used book store a few years back for forty bucks. By now it is olde enough that Kistler still has an entry. But you've gotta' love the nifty rocket engine flow diagrams.
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... ;) ;) ;)
How about: Performance increase through a beefed up first stage. Adding 1 or 2 engines to the first stage and stretching out the tank. ACES like modularity applied to the first stage. The Zenit 4 nozzle arrangement should be able to accommodate 2, 3 and 4 engine configurations. The tanks are made from metal spacers, so just add some more spacers. They are already procuring first stage engines, so increase the procurement. Consolidate further acquisition among existing suppliers. Might likely fit into Taurus 2 infrastructure.Right now, Orbital is focused on existing, proven contracts. Smart strategy. If and when the "crew module contract" comes along, they can then put in their bid with confidence by having an already existing, proven and reliable system. This is the sign of a smart and resourceful company, something sorely lacking from some firms in the aerospace industry. Build-to-need, then when more need comes, expand into that, and do not distract yourself in the interim. Keep your eyes on the prize at all times.
You could always build a liquid upper stage in relation to the crew program when that comes about.
It's nice to think about the Cygnus as a proto inspace crewed spaceship, something that can be evolved toward that.
They have a picture of the tank pieces at the Taurus 2 site:
http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/
Orbital is more of a satellite company than a launch vehicle company.
Satellites are more expensive than launch vehicles.
They could afford to basically give away launches if they built the payload.
If there is significant elasticity of demand in the satellite market when it comes to launch prices,
then they may make a lot of money this way, even if SpaceX costs less (heck, maybe even ESPECIALLY if SpaceX is able to lower costs like they claim they can... more money to be spent launching more satellites that Orbital can build!).
Orbital said that when they launched the Taurus II. They where building the vehicle fill the gap left by the retirement of the Delta II, it left them without a cost effective launcher for payloads they build in the Delta II class. COTS came after they started development work.
now if we could just convince you to post more often.
Simple! Just come here to Dulles and take up my job!
What is this 'retirement' thing you speak of?I've heard of this thing, it's when they put you in a box and bury you....
How about: Performance increase through a beefed up first stage.
How about: Performance increase through a beefed up first stage.
Another approach to this might be the use of the RD-180 as main engine for the Taurus 2. Ed Kyle's EELV lite concept through a roundabout fashion. Already in exportable production, offers a thrust increase, modest ISP increase. Do not know whether it offers a sufficient payload increase. If a larger first stage is a considered path, a factor to consider might be depletion of remaining NK-33 engines and the actual cost of them vs RD-180, whatever that may be.
That NASA domestic RD-180 equivalent proposal might have application across three booster families: the Falcon 9, the Atlas 5, the Taurus 2.
Quotetnphysics - 11/10/2007 4:59 PM Are you considering a cryogenic upper stage for Taurus 2?I would LOVE to! A nice, "mini-centaur" based on a single RL-10... yummy! Unfortunately, my peers think it's asking too much for us to go to a large LOX-kerosene CORE AND a cryo US in one step... they are probably right. So we are currently keeping this idea in the freezer (freezer... cryo.. get it? get it?) as a "planned (ahem!) product improvement".
As far as I'm concerned, this is a temporary upper stage until we get the experience, guts, market demand and revenue to buy a decent RL-10 based "mini centaur". On the other hand, ULA/Boeing/L-M may be interested in sharing a "mini-centaur" with us which we would use as the T 2/Cygnus Stage 2 (no need for a HAPS, then), and they could use as a Stage 3 for EELV high ΔV-low payload mass missions if the ever get one like that... (e.g. another JWST-like thingy or a lunar lander).</p><p>Everybody tells me that working with LH2, once you pay the basic penalties for vacuum-jacketed GSE lines, prechill, recirc, etc. it is actually a breeze. But that will be a PPI.
Based on what I understand, the NK-33 is a superior engine to the RD-191 for this application, and it would be cheaper to put back into production than to change to another engine design. Add to it that Energia is planning on dusting off the NK-33 for the next generation Soyuz, you have a very interesting situation happening.How about: Performance increase through a beefed up first stage.
Another approach to this might be the use of the RD-180 as main engine for the Taurus 2. Ed Kyle's EELV lite concept through a roundabout fashion. Already in exportable production, offers a thrust increase, modest ISP increase. Do not know whether it offers a sufficient payload increase. If a larger first stage is a considered path, a factor to consider might be depletion of remaining NK-33 engines and the actual cost of them vs RD-180, whatever that may be.
That NASA domestic RD-180 equivalent proposal might have application across three booster families: the Falcon 9, the Atlas 5, the Taurus 2.
Since Taurus II is plumbed for 2 engines, why not 2 RD-191 engines? No one else is using those, anyway.
Based on what I understand, the NK-33 is a superior engine to the RD-191 for this application, and it would be cheaper to put back into production than to change to another engine design. Add to it that Energia is planning on dusting off the NK-33 for the next generation Soyuz, you have a very interesting situation happening.
They were considering the NK33 on the Soyuz booster for the Kliper program but I'm not sure if that upgrade is stil officially planed.From what I understand, the Soyuz upgrade is still on the table, as a single NK-33 can replace all 20 of the engines currently used in Soyuz first stage + booster. The idea is also that you can then re-add four more in new boosters for a heavier lift, giving Energia an ability comparable to Proton for a lower price.
PPTS is supposed to ride Rus-M vs a upgraded Soyuz like Kliper.
The upgrades for Soyuz were pretty much because of the Kliper program which may or may not still be active.
Since NASA is abandoning constellation and instead is choosing to develop technology for an infrastructure the RSA may switch back to their pre CxP plans.
PPTS was a response to Orion.
How about: Performance increase through a beefed up first stage.
Do not know whether it[RD-180] offers a sufficient payload increase.
The fate of NK-33 production is very much on-track for Taurus II.They were considering the NK33 on the Soyuz booster for the Kliper program but I'm not sure if that upgrade is stil officially planed.From what I understand, the Soyuz upgrade is still on the table, as a single NK-33 can replace all 20 of the engines currently used in Soyuz first stage + booster. (. . . )
But this is getting off-track for Taurus II. I think it is safe to say that if the demand for the NK-33 does indeed pan out, that we shall see efforts to restart production, most likely of the AJ-26 version of the engine.
Pete, if I read it correctly the "Currently..." and "As the rocket..." paragraphs are not related to Taurus II. Is that accurate?Not accurate. Happenings with Russian users of NK-33 is a predictor for the restoration of production in Russia, albeit a shaky one. Thus a direct import into the future viability of Taurus II.
It'll be a nice test of system integration vs. in-house design. I'm not as confident as you are that the former is superior. Let's wait and see.For that comparison, remember that Taurus II was started a number of years after F9. For the time from conception to flight to be equal, Orbital would have to fly about 3 years after SpaceX by my count.
It'll be a nice test of system integration vs. in-house design. I'm not as confident as you are that the former is superior. Let's wait and see.For that comparison, remember that Taurus II was started a number of years after F9. For the time from conception to flight to be equal, Orbital would have to fly about 3 years after SpaceX by my count.
I wonder how long till SpaceX will insist on using in-house experience only.
Orbital Sciences has posted its April 2010 Taurus II progress update at http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/.
Hey, everyone's favorite Taurus II watcher here...
It looks like the new version of the TII brochure is showing a new version of the Enhanced upper stage. Twin engines, separated tank structure with lattices. Sort of Delta IV, sort of Russian.
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/TaurusII_Fact.pdf
And the User's Guide is offline.
Any news brewing?
Hey, everyone's favorite Taurus II watcher here...
It looks like the new version of the TII brochure is showing a new version of the Enhanced upper stage. Twin engines, separated tank structure with lattices. Sort of Delta IV, sort of Russian.
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/TaurusII_Fact.pdf
And the User's Guide is offline.
Any news brewing?
The user's guide, with a posting date of 6 April 2010, is still on-line.
The fact sheet to which Just-Nick referred carries a posting date of 8 April 2010.
How about AJ-10, it is an engine with substantial flight history and powers the delta II upper stage right now plus it is an artojet engine.
Motor: 1 x LR91-3. Thrust (vac): 355.863 kN (80,001 lbf). Isp: 308 sec. Burn time: 225 sec.http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan.htm
Titan I:What does Titan I have with anything? It's not like any of them are in storage anymore. For Titan II, same source that you quoted agrees with Kyle:QuoteMotor: 1 x LR91-3. Thrust (vac): 355.863 kN (80,001 lbf). Isp: 308 sec. Burn time: 225 sec.http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan.htm
Motor: 1 x LR91-7. Thrust (vac): 444.819 kN (99,999 lbf). Isp: 316 sec. Burn time: 180 sec.
What does Titan I have with anything?It's kerolox
I believe there is another NSF thread that pointed out that all* the Titan I's in storage where scrapped at some point in the 70's.What does Titan I have with anything?It's kerolox
Orbital is more of a satellite company than a launch vehicle company.
Yet, the first two products developed by Orbital were the Transfer Orbit Stage (development started in Dec 1986, first of only two flights 12 Sep 1992) and Pegasus (development started in summer of 1987, first flight April 5, 1990)QuoteSatellites are more expensive than launch vehicles.
... but a launch vehicle plus a satellite does not a space mission make! You are missing the satellite's payload (as distinct from the satellite bus) and, in most cases, the ground infrastructure required to use it, which in some cases may include thousands and thousands of user devices (GPS receivers, Iridium handsets, VSat terminals, etc, etc.)
In the National Security world, an approximate "rule of five" applies: 20% for the satellite bus, 20% for the satellite payload, 20% for the launch services, 20% for the ground system(s) and 20% for the Systems Engineering and other "glue" keeping the whole Shabang together (emphasis on the approximate nature of these 20%'s)
Note that Orbital does three out of those five things: buses, launch services (or rockets, for those customers that just buy the rocket) and "glue" (integration). We do not do payloads or ground systems.
Notice that some of this also applies to, say, ISS cargo resupply: arguably the SM is the bus and the PCM (or other cargo modules) is the "payload" (certainly it is when filled with cargo... :) ). We also build Taurus II and, last but not least, the ground infrastructure needed to properly store the cargo in the PCM and fly the darn thing to ISS and down to its fiery demise. Then we do the systems engineering to make the whole thing dance together, such as sizing Taurus II to match the smalles economically efficient spacecraft size
As I think I have said before, people tend to forget you do need tires when you buy a car...QuoteThey could afford to basically give away launches if they built the payload.
Not if it's 20% of the cost!!!QuoteIf there is significant elasticity of demand in the satellite market when it comes to launch prices,
Uhhh... I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, but let me give it a try:
Commercially, there is VERY LITTLE elasticity for space systems in general. Let me illustrate: the "killer app" in commercial space has always been communications, both phone and, increasingly, direct TV. Futron Corporation issued a report a few years ago (“How Much of An Impact Do Launch Prices Really Have on the Cost of Satellite Services?”
November 14th, 2002 - I have a copy but, sorry, I can't port it) where they showed that the percentage of the cost of VSat services (what say, gas stations use to process credit cards in the middle of nowhere) - due to the cost of launching the satellites that transmit the signal was something like 3%. So, if launch became free, the gas station's bill would lower by 3%. How many more subscribers do you think a 3% cost reduction will bring?
In the case of voice (phone) services, the percentage is 0.2%...Quotethen they may make a lot of money this way, even if SpaceX costs less (heck, maybe even ESPECIALLY if SpaceX is able to lower costs like they claim they can... more money to be spent launching more satellites that Orbital can build!).
You mean, would Orbital benefit if SpaceX manages to sell their launches for what they are advertising without going bankrupt? Absolutely yes!!! And if we were certain they would be able to do so, we would not waste our money on Taurus II (with emphasis on the economic, not the technical difficulty).
...Meabwhile, a little...
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/14orbital/
Culbertson, a former astronaut, said Orbital is still discussing opportunities to launch the Taurus 2 from several facilities at Cape Canaveral.
IIRC, LC-36 has space (acreage) issues vis-a-vis the Taurus II.
Just about any pad on ICBM row would work just as well, assuming the AF will let you at one of them.
LC-34, anyone?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/14orbital/Includes the quote "Orbital Sciences Corp. could reevaluate moving some of its Taurus 2 rocket missions from Virgina to Florida if the company wins a contract to launch astronauts"
Culbertson was doing a lunch talk to some Florida space group that had been planned for months. No coincidence.
IMO, it's an interesting juxtaposition where Elon has admitted Falcon 9 needs to walk before running versus this line of marketing. Mr Culbertson seems to be playing to the crowd - nevermind the comparatively small amount of lift of his rocket compared to that of Falcon 9. F9 may not be able to lift the Shuttle-sized crew in the animations, but T2 would have a real problem with any modern capsule containing crew on the way up.
SpaceX says that Falcon 9 can lift 6.8 tonnes and that anything heavier than that will require some type of engineering effort.
Culbertson was doing a lunch talk to some Florida space group that had been planned for months. No coincidence.
IMO, it's an interesting juxtaposition where Elon has admitted Falcon 9 needs to walk before running versus this line of marketing. Mr Culbertson seems to be playing to the crowd - nevermind the comparatively small amount of lift of his rocket compared to that of Falcon 9. F9 may not be able to lift the Shuttle-sized crew in the animations, but T2 would have a real problem with any modern capsule containing crew on the way up.
Taurus 2 with an enhanced stage could lift 7 tonnes to 200 km LEO (nearly Soyuz-class) - IF it was launched from the Cape. SpaceX says that Falcon 9 can lift 6.8 tonnes and that anything heavier than that will require some type of engineering effort. This would be for the Block 2 Falcon 9, which has yet to be developed.
Clearly both companies would have work to do to provide crewed options. Even then, the options would be substantially limited, mass-wise, compared to EELV Heavy or Ares I, etc.
Think about it this way - either option would leave the U.S. with a crew carrying spacecraft that would be less capable than those of Russia and China.
- Ed Kyle
SpaceX says that Falcon 9 can lift 6.8 tonnes and that anything heavier than that will require some type of engineering effort. This would be for the Block 2 Falcon 9, which has yet to be developed.
The lighter the launch vehicle, the lower its cost is likely to be...
The lighter the launch vehicle, the lower its cost is likely to be...
Not necessarily. It depends on why it's lighter. If exotic materials were used or exotic new processes were employed in manufacturing, these could be overall more costly.
My point is that you can't make a blanket statement like that without qualifications.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/14orbital/Includes the quote "Orbital Sciences Corp. could reevaluate moving some of its Taurus 2 rocket missions from Virgina to Florida if the company wins a contract to launch astronauts"
A big "if" indeed!
Interesting, isn't it, that this story is released just before Sen. Nelson's NASA budget plan vote?
Orbital made its launch site choice several years ago, snubbing Sen. Nelson's state in the process.
- Ed Kyle
SpaceX says that Falcon 9 can lift 6.8 tonnes and that anything heavier than that will require some type of engineering effort. This would be for the Block 2 Falcon 9, which has yet to be developed.
Where does that 6.8mT number come from?
I maintain this is the wrong way to think about the issue. Few would say a lighter aircraft is less capable than a heavier aircraft, if both performed the same mission, but one used advanced technology (modern avionics, composites) to reduce the weight. The lighter the launch vehicle, the lower its cost is likely to be, creating the potential for more frequent launches at lower overall expenditures or higher profits.
Section 4.1 of the 2009 Falcon 9 User's Guide. Full performance was listed at 10.45 tonnes in the same document.
Any ideas?...
After the last meeting at Wallops (Frank C. and I flew on the 310) Frank took some pictures of the launch pad under construction, with yours truly beaming. Also, the incredible water tower we put up for the water deluge system. According to Frank, who has done some research, at 299.5 feet from base to top of tank THIS MAY BE THE TALLEST WATER TANK IN THE WORLD!!!
After the last meeting at Wallops (Frank C. and I flew on the 310) Frank took some pictures of the launch pad under construction, with yours truly beaming. Also, the incredible water tower we put up for the water deluge system. According to Frank, who has done some research, at 299.5 feet from base to top of tank THIS MAY BE THE TALLEST WATER TANK IN THE WORLD!!!
As you can see, it's still unpainted. With Bill W.'s permisison, we are running a contest for the best paint scheme. Any ideas?...
There are two camera arms two-third of the way up the two legs of the water tower closest to the pad... I wonder if we could install a remote-control camera at the very top of the tower, looking down on the rocket and then panning up during liftoff... that would make for some really spectacular video...
Oh, and BTW, what engineer thought "let's make this just slightly under 300ft tall". Really, couldn't have found an excuse to add six inches to the height? ;D
Oh, and BTW, what engineer thought "let's make this just slightly under 300ft tall". Really, couldn't have found an excuse to add six inches to the height? ;D
Very nice photos. I can guess what colors Antonio would prefer, a certain La Liga team, possibly ;)
Gravity head.
After the last meeting at Wallops (Frank C. and I flew on the 310) Frank took some pictures of the launch pad under construction, with yours truly beaming. Also, the incredible water tower we put up for the water deluge system. According to Frank, who has done some research, at 299.5 feet from base to top of tank THIS MAY BE THE TALLEST WATER TANK IN THE WORLD!!!
As you can see, it's still unpainted. With Bill W.'s permisison, we are running a contest for the best paint scheme. Any ideas?...
Very nice photos. I can guess what colors Antonio would prefer, a certain La Liga team, possibly ;)
Why, white and red (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletic_Bilbao), of course!
Are you concerned at all about hurricane storm surges, being so close to shore? Any sort of steps you're taking to mitigate that, that you can talk about?
... According to Frank, who has done some research, at 299.5 feet from base to top of tank ...Oh, and BTW, what engineer thought "let's make this just slightly under 300ft tall"....
...After looking at this, I'm believing that the Enhanced stage does not use RL10 or liquid hydrogen. The performance described seems to mesh better with an upper stage working at 330-340 sec specific impulse and 10 to 20 tonnes thrust. Something like half of an RD-0110 (LOX/kerosene), or some type of pump-fed hypergolic engine. In other words, no existing U.S. engine - though it would make sense for Aerojet to be involved in this somehow...
...May be two RD-58M or two 11D33?...
...How about AJ-10, it is an engine with substantial flight history and powers the delta II upper stage right now plus it is an artojet engine...
...Here's an idea: LR-91...
Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
Please paint the Eye of Sauron on it.
He also reports that it holds some 250,000 gal of water, and I believe we can dump all that water in about 40 seconds...
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124 (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0124.htm), the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!
Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.
Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124 (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0124.htm), the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!
Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.
Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?$$$?
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124 (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0124.htm), the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!
Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.
Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
This rocket, powered by two Russian rocket engines with a Ukrainian-built first stage, will be bought, for ISS missions, with U.S. taxpayer funding. Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability.
Given that Congress is pushing to save U.S. space jobs in the current NASA budget fight, how can this outsourced rocket maintain political support? Or, perhaps, cuts in commercial crew funding in both bills is a sign that it already has lost the fight?
- Ed Kyle
Given that Congress is pushing to save U.S. space jobs in the current NASA budget fight, how can this outsourced rocket maintain political support? Or, perhaps, cuts in commercial crew funding in both bills is a sign that it already has lost the fight?
$$$?
RL-10 lacks the thrust, simple as that. The RD-0120 will be a fine engine. Of course you realize that this now means that the Taurus II will run main engines from both russian super heavy lift rockets.
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124 (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0124.htm), the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!
Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.
Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?
RL-10 lacks the thrust, simple as that. The RD-0120 will be a fine engine. Of course you realize that this now means that the Taurus II will run main engines from both russian super heavy lift rockets.
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124 (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0124.htm), the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!
Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.
Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?
RL-10 lacks the thrust, simple as that. The RD-0120 will be a fine engine. Of course you realize that this now means that the Taurus II will run main engines from both russian super heavy lift rockets.
My goof. But it is still cheaper to use 1 engine than 4. If the RL-60 had been completed, it likely would have been at least considered. But the RD-0124 is not fully cryogenic, and uses the same fuel as the AJ-26, so makes logistics simpler.RL-10 lacks the thrust, simple as that. The RD-0120 will be a fine engine. Of course you realize that this now means that the Taurus II will run main engines from both russian super heavy lift rockets.
RD-0124 is only a couple of RL-10's of thrust or so.
Orbital was initially asking $3B to manrate the Taurus II.
Orbital was initially asking $3B to manrate the Taurus II.
Uhhh... not quite an accurate quote. We said (rather, Frank and I have been saying - this is NOT the result of exhaustive planning and analysis) that developing a commercial crew transportation to ISS capability is likely to cost 5 times as much as develping a commercial cargo to ISS capability. Now, we (Orbital, NASA, Virginia) are spending about $600M in Taurus II, Cygnus, WFF, COTS demo flight etc. etc. so the possible price tag for the equivalent is about $3B, but that includes not only Taurus II mods, but LAS, spacecraft, crew-friendly launch pad and service tower somewhere - Florida? (the WFF Taurus II operations does not use a service structure at all), etc. etc. - see the "oh, so you want tires with that car?" message in another thread.
Taurus II "manrating" ("personrating"?) by itself may be one or two $100's of the $3B, mostly redundant avionics, added instrumentation and added structural design/testing both at Dnipropetrovsk (S1) and Chandler (S2). I don't think the NK-33's need much additional work, except perhaps added instrumentation. If you MUST add a dedicated, instrumented flight to acheive this rating, add another $80M - $100M or so.
Not Merlin 1C vacuum? :)
This begs the question: how can they cross the Virginia/Maryland border legally???
actually, it's a HUMONGOUS liquid oxygen tank.... Jeesh, you could fill a Taurus II from it...
This begs the question: how can they cross the Virginia/Maryland border legally???
How is the Taurus II first stage brought in to MARS?
How long of a tank is that???
how are you going to get it to the beach? - down Rt13 then make the left towards Wallops, or take the back-roads.
How is the Taurus II first stage brought in to MARS?
By rail from Dnepro to Oleksandrivka (the big commercial port just south of Odessa) then by ship to Wilmington DE then by road to the HIF. We've already driven a mock-up first stage from Wilmington to the island using a TWO-turntable trailer. Quite a show, some of the corners are QUITE tight!...
Trivial pursuit (Taurus II edition) question #17: the S1 passes through Odessa (Ukraine) on its way from Dnipropetrovsk to Oleksandrivka, and also through Odessa (Delaware) on its way from Wilmington to Wallops!
I believe the LOX tank in the picture is bigger and heavier than a Taurus II first stage (actually, what comes from Dnipropetrovsk it is not a complete first stage - just the tanks, so it is somewhat shorter and considerably lighter than the full stage)
Great updates!
So is that tank the eqivilant of the big white LOX spheres at the shuttle pads?
This rocket, powered by two Russian rocket engines with a Ukrainian-built first stage, will be bought, for ISS missions, with U.S. taxpayer funding. Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability.Typical argument of jobs program versus space program, how disgusting. That's how we ended with Constellation.
...Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability...
... More importantly, what capability exactly are we losing here? There is no American equivalent of RD-0124, so we're losing nothing!..
I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124 (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0124.htm), the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!
Is this a direct purchase, or via P&W,Direct, but PWR has a pretty substantial contract with us to supply engineering, logistics, etc.
and is there any chance of manufacture in the USA?I don't know, but given the price the Russians are willling to sell it for, I doubt very much that it makes economic sense, given the necessary non-recurring it would take. And before anbody cries "then we are at the mercy..." let me reply: how much are you willing to pay for independence?
Also, since TII has a greater diameter than Soyuz, any chance that the RD-0124 nozzles will have greater expansion?Not a chance. At those large expansion ratios, the Isp vs. size trade is rather flat. And the beaury of the RD-0124 is that it comes in a nice little, COMPLETE package. It would have to undergo a MAJOR redesign to gain a couple of seconds of Isp...
Once we get enough threads, we can set up a specific section on the forum for Orbital, like we did with the SpaceX section.Great! I was having some pangs of forum section envy... ;D
similar capacity to the LOX tank of a single Taurus II?
How long of a tank is that???
... drive through MD and then park it on the side of the road just south of Pocomoke City ...
I am assuming Orbital is making necessary contingency plans, for example buying an excess amount of engines ahead of time and stockpiling them, and the cost of these measures is reflected in the trade study. Even if Russians aren't malicious, there may be, for instance, a criminal raid on the factory like the one that PAX suffered (makers of Soyuz mobile gantry for Kourou).Quoteand is there any chance of manufacture in the USA?I don't know, but given the price the Russians are willling to sell it for, I doubt very much that it makes economic sense, given the necessary non-recurring it would take. And before anbody cries "then we are at the mercy..." let me reply: how much are you willing to pay for independence?
The AJ-26 can run on RP-1, all documents I have found points to that. I even found test runs on the original NK-33 where they tested it with LH2. It truly is a remarkably versitile engine.I am assuming Orbital is making necessary contingency plans, for example buying an excess amount of engines ahead of time and stockpiling them, and the cost of these measures is reflected in the trade study. Even if Russians aren't malicious, there may be, for instance, a criminal raid on the factory like the one that PAX suffered (makers of Soyuz mobile gantry for Kourou).Quoteand is there any chance of manufacture in the USA?I don't know, but given the price the Russians are willling to sell it for, I doubt very much that it makes economic sense, given the necessary non-recurring it would take. And before anbody cries "then we are at the mercy..." let me reply: how much are you willing to pay for independence?
-- Pete
P.S. Certain people (e.g. TsSKB Progress) are salivating at the prospect of Orbital paying for the restart capability of RD-0124. It would allow them to give NPO Lavochkin a boot for certain missions of Soyuz. They may be willing to chip in a bit.
P.P.S. AFAIK RD-0124 does not burn RG-1 that NK-33 burns (which itself is not the same as RP-1, although perhaps Aeroject reconditioned AJ-26 for RP-1), and there was some unobvious American substitute (maybe JP-7 ?). I am wondering here how much does the fuel issue adds to the costs and hassle.
I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124 (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0124.htm), the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!
Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.
Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
similar capacity to the LOX tank of a single Taurus II?How long of a tank is that???
This just in from Tim Fackler (GSE Chief Engineer):
Tank in 125 ft long (vs about 90 ft for Stage 1) weight 210,000 lb empty (wow! vs. about 29,000 lb for the Stage 1 core) and holds about 80,000 gals of LOX (Stage 1 needs about 43,000 gals. - yes, I hate imperial units too.)Quote... drive through MD and then park it on the side of the road just south of Pocomoke City ...
Did you say Pocomoke City?... what a coincidence!
The first picture shows a demo of a special rig taking a sharp corner somewhere in Ohio. We like them so much we hired them to move S1 form Wilmigton DE to WFF.
The second picture shows the same rig with a PVC-tube mockup of the outline of the Stage 1 transportation container taking a sharp corner in... POCOMOKE MD!!!
Wow! April Fools' jokes come true?!
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15457.345
Typical diversionary argument. Taurus 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with Constellation. Jobs are only part of the equation. Capability is the most important part.This rocket, powered by two Russian rocket engines with a Ukrainian-built first stage, will be bought, for ISS missions, with U.S. taxpayer funding. Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability.Typical argument of jobs program versus space program, how disgusting. That's how we ended with Constellation.
More importantly, what capability exactly are we losing here? There is no American equivalent of RD-0124, so we're losing nothing!
Cancelling Constellation allows to work on basic propulsion so that things like that were not necessary. That is acquiring the capability that we haven't got and thus cannot lose at present.
-- Pete
Hmmm ... everyone seems to have missed the real significance of the RD-0124, and that is that TII is now capable, to some degree, of putting up comsats, even out of Wallops. Of course, not the largest comsats could be flown, but perhaps some of the Starbus class payloads may be flown on the Enhanced Taurus II.I thought it wasn't possible before the multiply restart feature was added.
Dr Elias,
Why is that Stage 1 transporter in the middle of Pocomoke City anyway??? It would seem to me much easier to take 'circle' RT1 from Wilmington to Dover, and then merge with and take Rt 113 from there to Pocomoke, where 113 and RT13 intersect south of Pocomoke. Unless there some height/weight restrictions somewhere along 113 that kill my idea, it'd be much easier IMHO. 113 is a great drive with only 3-4 towns to go through - beats 13 any old day (or night).
CB
Uhhh... don't know... for me, going to Wallops is JYO STILL WOOLY V44 BAL V93 GRACO SBY WAL (58 minutes at 11,000 ft)
According to Tim, the tightest turn is at the corner between Rt 13 and Rt 175 (see picture) - does that make any sense to you? I need a guide to go from the Wallops gate to the sandwich shop (what is it called? Seaside Deli?)
Uhhh... don't know... for me, going to Wallops is JYO STILL WOOLY V44 BAL V93 GRACO SBY WAL (58 minutes at 11,000 ft)
According to Tim, the tightest turn is at the corner between Rt 13 and Rt 175 (see picture) - does that make any sense to you? I need a guide to go from the Wallops gate to the sandwich shop (what is it called? Seaside Deli?)
Uhhh... don't know... for me, going to Wallops is JYO STILL WOOLY V44 BAL V93 GRACO SBY WAL (58 minutes at 11,000 ft)
According to Tim, the tightest turn is at the corner between Rt 13 and Rt 175 (see picture) - does that make any sense to you? I need a guide to go from the Wallops gate to the sandwich shop (what is it called? Seaside Deli?)
Tell me about it, when I left the open house I tried to get a picture of the pad construction.... first I ended up in a mobile home park on Chincoteague, then I finally got to the beach on Assateague but the beach with the view of the range was closed for bird mating/hatching season, fortunately one of the park guys guided me to the old ferry landing, but the bridge to the range blocked the 0 pads, I tried a little further south but ended up at the gate and had to turn around at the chicken coop (who puts a chicken coop right at the entrance to a spaceport?)
WFF really needs to get a better viewing area for the range since there aren't any tours.
Dr Elias,
Why is that Stage 1 transporter in the middle of Pocomoke City anyway??? It would seem to me much easier to take 'circle' RT1 from Wilmington to Dover, and then merge with and take Rt 113 from there to Pocomoke, where 113 and RT13 intersect south of Pocomoke. Unless there some height/weight restrictions somewhere along 113 that kill my idea, it'd be much easier IMHO. 113 is a great drive with only 3-4 towns to go through - beats 13 any old day (or night).
CB
As substantiated by newspaper and television reports, the pathfinder conducted by Orbital Sciences and its heavy hauling subcontractor, Diamond Heavy Haul from Ohio, began on Wednesday night and concluded on Thursday afternoon, 8-9 July 2010.
The pathfinder originated at the Port of Wilmington, Delaware and concluded at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility main base.
The general main route of highway travel was (1) Delaware Route 1 to Dover, Delaware, (2) U. S. Route 113 to Pocomoke City, Maryland, (4) U. S. Route 13 to T's Corner, Virginia, and (4) Virginia Route 175 to Wallops.
I'm told they are tying to find a way through Maryland... no, it's just pure coincidence that it's stuck less than a mile from Orbital Headquarters... I'll try to find out more about it."
Uhhh... don't know... for me, going to Wallops is JYO STILL WOOLY V44 BAL V93 GRACO SBY WAL (58 minutes at 11,000 ft)
Wow! April Fools' jokes come true?!
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15457.345
Well, I *TOLD* you I liked it a lot!!!
I wonder if there is a market for a relatively inexpensive all-Orbital comsat/launcher system.
Well, I *TOLD* you I liked it a lot!!!
Dmitry is a rocket designer by trade, ...
¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ Pint ? ? ? ? ? Ugh, make it half a LITER!
Well, I *TOLD* you I liked it a lot!!!
O, yea! But all the same, you owe me a beer pint! :-)
Flash News - Dulles, August 02. After days of agonizing wait, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport main LOX tank has resumed its arduous treck towards Wallops Island after workmen welded two broken pieces in the aft turntable.Glad to hear that. Too bad I'm not familiar with the area and cannot relate to the scope of the difficulty.
Flash News - Dulles, August 02. After days of agonizing wait, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport main LOX tank has resumed its arduous treck towards Wallops Island after workmen welded two broken pieces in the aft turntable.
Film at 11.
¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ Pint ? ? ? ? ? Ugh, make it half a LITER!
Well, I *TOLD* you I liked it a lot!!!
O, yea! But all the same, you owe me a beer pint! :-)
What is the best beer in Stavropol... I mean, Òîëüÿòòè?
"Ukraine postpones delivery of Taurus-II launch vehicle's first stage to U.S."
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-08/04/c_13428726.htm
"Ukraine postpones delivery of Taurus-II launch vehicle's first stage to U.S."
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-08/04/c_13428726.htm
Where do I write a letter to the Chinese state news service? NASA is not funding Taurus II. Orbital likes their IP.
Eventually, Ed, you will learn I don't state facts that are incorrect.
Never mind that $0.312 billion of NASA funding has recently been proposed for a Taurus 2 "risk reduction flight" in 2011 ($0.312 billion for *one launch* with a dummy payload - which is obviously a government-funded launch vehicle development test).
The question to ask is, would Taurus 2 exist if NASA, or some other U.S. Government agency, wasn't buying it?
Aren't we changing stories now? First you said NASA was paying for T-II development via CRS, now it's "buying" it.I said that NASA was coughing up $1.9 billion, for starters, to point out that Taurus 2 is, like all other U.S. orbital launchers, essentially a government funded rocket. It may be "commercial" on paper, but the true source of its existence can be found via the usual method - by following the money! Tallying it all up when the program ends 5 or 10 or 20 years from now will provide the truth.
NASA also "buys" Atlas regularly yet they have contributed nothing to its development.NASA funded and directly managed the difficult development of RL-10 and Centaur during the 1960s, then ran the entire Atlas-Centaur program until the late 1980s. Atlas V development leveraged that NASA effort. Meanwhile, the U.S. government pours a billion-ish dollars per year into the EELV program (not counting the launches).
The question to ask is, would Taurus 2 exist if NASA, or some other U.S. Government agency, wasn't buying it?
The Falcons are being paid government funds the same as Orbital, for the same kinds of flights. It is the other COTS company, after all.The question to ask is, would Taurus 2 exist if NASA, or some other U.S. Government agency, wasn't buying it?
No, of course not. No US (paper) rocket closes its business case without government customers. I believe only the Falcons, once no longer paper, can close their business case without government customers.
But that's reality. We can't wish for another circumstance; only prescribing a higher launch rate - with or without payloads to go on top - can decrease average launch costs. We can foreclose these options, but then the US government would HAVE to buy foreign launchers.
Yes, but the Falcons would have been developed, albeit more slowly (and more sustainably?), if COTS would never have come along. The original plan of Falcon 1 to Falcon 5 to Falcon 9 would have been a natural progression through the industry and one that could have been sustained without government development funds.
Launching 5-6 tonnes to GTO is a tall order. Even Falcon 9 - a rocket that has taken years to get to flight and which cost who knows how much to develop - can't quote do that job.
Who is this "NASA guy" of whom you speak? What I'm saying there, BTW, is that Falcon 9 can't lift 5-6 tonnes to GTO. It can only lift 4 tonnes, and probably less.Launching 5-6 tonnes to GTO is a tall order. Even Falcon 9 - a rocket that has taken years to get to flight and which cost who knows how much to develop - can't quote do that job.Hearing this from a NASA guy is... hilarious? atrocious? I can't choose the right word.
F9 development certainly costs far less than any LV development NASA ever did. Had F9 R&D money been given to NASA, it'd spend all of them just building a launch tower.And who was talking about NASA LV development? NASA hasn't developed a satellite launch vehicle from scratch since - maybe ever. (Delta was derived from Thor and Vanguard. Atlas was an ICBM. Etc.) I've been saying during this string of messages that all orbital launch vehicles are largely government funded and would likely not exist otherwise. As it is for Orbital's Taurus 2, NASA *is* - essentially - paying for Falcon 9.
I believe that Ed's point is not that SpaceX or Orbital are doing a bad job, nor is he suggesting that NASA in-house development would be more efficient. The point is simply that building a full-size GTO launcher is a big undertaking, with fairly large capitol requirements and carrying high schedule and hence contractual risk. Even for an established company like Orbital.Launching 5-6 tonnes to GTO is a tall order. Even Falcon 9 - a rocket that has taken years to get to flight and which cost who knows how much to develop - can't quote do that job.Hearing this from a NASA guy is... hilarious? atrocious? I can't choose the right word.
I believe that Ed's point is not that SpaceX or Orbital are doing a bad job, nor is he suggesting that NASA in-house development would be more efficient.Launching 5-6 tonnes to GTO is a tall order. Even Falcon 9 - a rocket that has taken years to get to flight and which cost who knows how much to develop - can't quote do that job.Hearing this from a NASA guy is... hilarious? atrocious? I can't choose the right word.
I pick up the phone - Marcy Taylor is not there. Kurt Eberly doesn't answer. Finally I get Brent Collins: "yes, it's our tank, the one MARS bought from down south... it's been on the road for several weeks now... I'm told they are tying to find a way through Maryland... no, it's just pure coincidence that it's stuck less than a mile from Orbital Headquarters... I'll try to find out more about it."
I believe that Ed's point is not that SpaceX or Orbital are doing a bad job, nor is he suggesting that NASA in-house development would be more efficient.Launching 5-6 tonnes to GTO is a tall order. Even Falcon 9 - a rocket that has taken years to get to flight and which cost who knows how much to develop - can't quote do that job.Hearing this from a NASA guy is... hilarious? atrocious? I can't choose the right word.
Sorry. I had my feathers ruffled by the "F9 ... cost who knows how much to develop". We _do_ know how much F9 R&D required - less than $500m, which is _very small cost_ by aerospace standards.
Most of SpaceX's focus is on the F9 now. Vertically-integrated infrastructure capital costs aside, SpaceX has over 900 employees. What's the annual payroll and benefits for 900+ highly-skilled employees?
Today I was driving on I-81 north entering West Virgina and just had to stop at the Welcome Center rest stop. And what to I find...well...almost exactly the same sight as the images that Antonio posted back on July 27th, (but no camera with me). The tank also had the MARS banner and was parked in the truck parking zone, occupying at least 6 spots. Has Orbital got another tank stuck in transit?
Gentlemen, prompt please, mass of usable propellant and burnout (or separate) mass for the first stage of Taurus II?
I'm currently estimating 242.4 tonnes of usable propellant and 18.8 tonnes burnout mass for the first stage. Those numbers came from a document on NASA's COT/CRS web site, which means they may be dated. Here's a link: http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/expansion_ea/Appendix_A_MARS_Final_EA.pdf
Note that these masses require NK-33 (AJ-26) to be at 108% thrust.
- Ed Kyle
Hy, everybody!
I am Borys, it's my first mssg here.
My interest is in a system analysis, physical and cost effectiveness of launch vehicles,
Taurus 2 LV naturally, especially and specifically.
My question is: is it really no around worth-while ideas except for Musk and Soyuz ones?
Soyuz is not pure soluton of the Taurus problem...
Soluton of the problem, I beleive, must be inside Orbital, ATK, Yusmash intustrial group.
I think so.
Is let discuss this issue?
It is torn at check of the maximum superfluous inner pressure and then crumpled to place on a platform.
I don't really understand the question here. Taurus II is not a Soyuz based designed.The Soyuz reference could be due to the RD-0124 upper stage... which still doesn't make it clear what he's asking.
Is there still any chance of this going in 2011?
Seems doubtful to me at this point.
Saw a funny picture without an explanation in NK forum. Rumor mongering at its finest!
Theoristos from NK forum:
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=627466#627466QuoteIt is torn at check of the maximum superfluous inner pressure and then crumpled to place on a platform.
Today I was driving on I-81 north entering West Virgina and just had to stop at the Welcome Center rest stop. And what to I find...well...almost exactly the same sight as the images that Antonio posted back on July 27th, (but no camera with me). The tank also had the MARS banner and was parked in the truck parking zone, occupying at least 6 spots. Has Orbital got another tank stuck in transit?
Nope - same tank. I was told it DID go through West Virginia (!!!) and is now AT Wallops (hurrah!).
Saw a funny picture without an explanation in NK forum. Rumor mongering at its finest!Theoristos from NK forum:
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=627466#627466QuoteIt is torn at check of the maximum superfluous inner pressure and then crumpled to place on a platform.
I have it on good authority via a source that this was a successful static pressure test article of the Taurus II fuel tank. It burst just above the predicted pressure.
The photo was clearly taken without permission.
To me it also looks IMploded. But perhaps it was under some vertikal load and folded like a crushed softdrink can after EXploding.Saw a funny picture without an explanation in NK forum. Rumor mongering at its finest!Theoristos from NK forum:
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=627466#627466QuoteIt is torn at check of the maximum superfluous inner pressure and then crumpled to place on a platform.
I have it on good authority via a source that this was a successful static pressure test article of the Taurus II fuel tank. It burst just above the predicted pressure.
The photo was clearly taken without permission.
Thanks for that clarification Chris. Athough 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.
To me it also looks IMploded. But perhaps it was under some vertikal load and folded like a crushed softdrink can after EXploding.
http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20100821/ESN01/8210309
During the demonstration mission the Cygnus spacecraft will rendezvous and berth with the International Space Station...
http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20100821/ESN01/8210309
They got "berthing" right! (According to Jorge, things that need help from the robot arm do not "dock", they "berth.")QuoteDuring the demonstration mission the Cygnus spacecraft will rendezvous and berth with the International Space Station...
Is there still any chance of this going in 2011?
Seems doubtful to me at this point.
L2 has NASA notes showing SpaceX and Orbital have slipped, but only slightly. TII is still 2011 ans to assume otherwise would be baseless.
To me it also looks IMploded. But perhaps it was under some vertikal load and folded like a crushed softdrink can after EXploding.Saw a funny picture without an explanation in NK forum. Rumor mongering at its finest!Theoristos from NK forum:
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=627466#627466QuoteIt is torn at check of the maximum superfluous inner pressure and then crumpled to place on a platform.
I have it on good authority via a source that this was a successful static pressure test article of the Taurus II fuel tank. It burst just above the predicted pressure.
The photo was clearly taken without permission.
Thanks for that clarification Chris. Athough 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.
September Taurus II update. (http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/)
I apologize for the low-qual pics, but here's the first Taurus II Stage 1 core leaving the Yuzhmash plant in Dniepropetrovsk headed for Wallops via the Port of Wilmington.
Mr. Kyle's excellent reference site estimates it as 28.3m.
Mr. Kyle's excellent reference site estimates it as 28.3m.
Mr. Kyle's excellent reference site estimates it as 28.3m.
According to the manual its 27.6 m (90.6 ft) long.
I apologize for the low-qual pics, but here's the first Taurus II Stage 1 core leaving the Yuzhmash plant in Dniepropetrovsk headed for Wallops via the Port of Wilmington.
The Zenit's engine is almost twice the thrust it needs, due to it's origin as the booster for Energia. I'd call Taurus II more optimized for the engine capability.Mr. Kyle's excellent reference site estimates it as 28.3m.
About 4 meters shorter than a Zenit 3 first stage, guesstimating.
- Ed Kyle
I apologize for the low-qual pics, but here's the first Taurus II Stage 1 core leaving the Yuzhmash plant in Dniepropetrovsk headed for Wallops via the Port of Wilmington.Taurus II goes to the spaceport in the USA (http://www.yuzhnoye.com/index.php?idD=80&lang=en&id=124&path=News/News_e)
Didn't the NK-33 use subcooled LOX back in the day anyway?
Rankine? Oh man!
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.
some of use can still manage to figure out English units. ;)
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.
"Deinde Advenimus Pontem Transierimus" - M. Antonius Eliseum
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!
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.
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.
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)?
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 ;)
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.
LOx is heavier than water, as are the weighted averages of LOx and Kerosene. Only Kerosene is less dense than water. ;)
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.
LOx is heavier than water,Oops... 1.141 Kg/m3... my bad...
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?
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.
How is the Taurus II doing roll control?
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.
RD-0110R Has appeared because of desire to apply initial NK-33 with non-gimbaled chamber.
Excuse me for my English...
Roll control. Can't do roll control with a single-chamber engine. They would had to have added either roll thrusters or, as they apparently decided, stick with the proven steering engine.
- Ed Kyle
OK, I'll bite, how does Falcon 1 do roll control?
Yes, but where did this desire come from? Why does Samara want to use NK-33 without gimbaling?
Cleaned up the grammer a bit.
Yes, but where did this desire come from? Why does Samara want to use NK-33 without gimbaling?
Because it is cheaper and faster
Replacing the main engine but keeping the other systems the same, or at least with as minimal a change as possible, brings the new system online faster, for less R&D cost.
Because it is cheaper and fasterCleaned up the grammer a bit.
The question is moot. SNTK's director-general claimed in interviews in 2003 that they'll design and build NK-33-1 that included a Cardano joint AND ROLL CONTROL in the same way Merlin does it today. That was the plan. But in the event it turned out that nobody remaining at SNTK can carry out such project. At best you can count on them to break out an engine from storage. The company is basically a zombie. When the facts on the ground percolated to the management of TzSKB, they made a switch to unmodified NK-33 + RD-0110R. Also, free T/W and payload growth thanks to reduced gravity losses, win-win for everyone.Replacing the main engine but keeping the other systems the same, or at least with as minimal a change as possible, brings the new system online faster, for less R&D cost.But increases the per unit expense by keeping extra systems that could have been designed out.
Whaddya mean, "English"? The United Kindom of England, Scotland etc. is officially a METRIC country... It's down to Liberia, Myanmar and... U.S engineering.... ;)
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.
Factory Number 24 - construction of the turbopump, kick pumps, bellows, piping system, main valves, and engine assembly for first, second, and third stages [N-1].
На заводе Но. 24 – изготовление ТНА, преднасосов, сильфонов, турбопроводов системы обвязки, основных клапанов, и сборку двигателей 1й, 2й и 3й ступени.
Factory Number 525 - construction of the combustion chamber; gas generators; pressurization, frame, and Cardan-joints of the gas generator [the turbpump shaft for the NK-15 had a joint]
На заводе Но. 525 – изготовление камер сгорания, газогенераторов, газогенераторов системы наддува, рам и карданов.
Factory 305 - Construction of valves and regulation assembly.
На заводе но. 305 – изготовление клапанов и агрегатов регулироваиня.
Kuibyshev Steel Factory - construction of castings for factories 276, 24, 305.
на сталелитейном заводе Куйбышевского совнархоза – изготовление отливок для заводов 276, 24, 305 с обеспечением поставок в следующие сроки:
Gimbal System: The primary Aerojet modification done to support Kistler requirements is the addition of ±6 degree hydraulic gimbal system. This modification requires reconfiguring the existing engine thrust mount,the addition of a gimbal block as well as two hydraulic actuators that use high pressure kerosene tapped off downstream of the turbopump as a working fluid. The engine thrust mount is being developed in cooperation with NK Engines of Samara, Russia. The engine gimbal block is a shortened version of the current SSME gimbal block. lt is important to note that these engine modifications do not alter the design or function of the engine cycle or turbomachinery.
Therefore, the engines for all three launch vehicle stages were designed and developed without gimbal.
as far as i understand sntk is in the process of being integrated in a larger structure. they are servicing engines for the strategic bombers, and they get money for restoring production for them.
the nk-33-1 still seems to be an active project even if it's prospects seem to be bleak. but who would have thought in the nineties that a russian space program would still exist today.....so let's wait and see.
Modified NK-12 engines are also used in about 1/3 of Gazprom's natural gas pumping plants.
Modified NK-12 engines are also used in about 1/3 of Gazprom's natural gas pumping plants.
Modified NK-12 engines are also used in about 1/3 of Gazprom's natural gas pumping plants.
In what role?
Woot!
RELEASE: 10-296
NASA TEST FIRES NEW ROCKET ENGINE FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE VEHICLE
BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. -- NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in
Mississippi conducted a successful test firing Wednesday of the
liquid-fuel AJ26 engine that will power the first stage of Orbital
Sciences Corp.'s Taurus II space launch vehicle. Orbital and its
engine supplier, Aerojet, test-fired the engine on Stennis' E-1 test
stand. The test directly supports NASA's partnerships to enable
commercial cargo flights to the International Space Station.
Fantastic!
I'm someone who loves underdogs, and the AJ-26 is clearly an underdog engine in todays market. I still hold out hope to see it fly, and I've already let my wife know, I will be flying to VA to watch the Taurus II launch next year.
The pressurization system, with a maximum pressure of 220 atm, operates in a blow down mode and supplies gas through a manifold of valves that are cycled open to control propellant flow rate.
To meet the requirements to ensure the TNA work at low pressures at the pump inlet (in the TOR for NK-15/33 indicated inlet pressure oxidizer pump 1.5 kg/cm2) in the engine used by pumping up (booster) pumps. In this case, instead of individual booster pumps used embedded in the main turbopump prednasosy that simplifies the wiring of components and reduced the size and weight control.
The LOX and RP-1 tank bays consist primarily of their corresponding propellant tanks. Both propellant tanks include level sensors used during propellant loading and for measuring propellant levels in flight. This in-flight measurement is used by Stage 1 avionics for calculations to determine engine mixture ratio adjustments for minimizing residuals in the propellant tanks. The RP-1 tank incorporates a tunnel to ac- commodate the LOX feed line through the center of the RP-1 tank instead of routing around it for packag- ing efficiency. The LOX feed line runs down the center of the RP-1 tank to the aft end of the stage where the MES is mounted. Helium is used for pressurizing both the LOX and RP-1 tanks. Helium pressuriza- tion gas bottles are submerged within the LOX tank for gas storage efficiency. The pressurization sys- tem, with a maximum pressure of 220 atm, operates in a blow down mode and supplies gas through a manifold of valves that are cycled open to control propellant flow rate.
Orbital Sciences has a further Taurus II update at http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII regarding "Upper Stage Modal Survey Completed."
And a pretty graphic description of the size difference between the Castor 30 and the first stage...
TVC = gimbaling, I presume.
TVC = gimbaling, I presume.
TVC = Thrust Vector Control.
IIRC, the NK-33 was not gimbaled for N-1? Something spinning at several thousand RPM and then tilting leaves me skittish, especially when there's oxidizer involved. Is there another engine where a turbopump moves with the nozzle?
IIRC, the NK-33 was not gimbaled for N-1? Something spinning at several thousand RPM and then tilting leaves me skittish, especially when there's oxidizer involved. Is there another engine where a turbopump moves with the nozzle?
Off the top of my head, the only US one that doesn't move the turbopump is the Titan II.
RS-27 and RS-68 only move the chambers. RL10 moves the whole thing. SSME moves the high pressures. But those were designed for it. The N-1 steered with variable thrust.
Observe two thing:The TVC system for NK-33-1 was developed by Arsenal (Saint Petersburg) (http://www.mzarsenal.spb.ru/69) in USSR for RD-0120, although a long time ago.
- the TVC system for AJ-26 was developed by Aerojet in U.S., although a long time ago
- A project existed in 2006 to create a similar system at SNTK in Russia, called "NK-33-1", it failed
The reason SNTK failed to replicate what Aerojet have done was the lack of qualified personnel. The company is an empty shell of former self now.
Observe two thing:The lift-off mass of Soyuz-1 is 158t . SNTK refused to increase the thrust of NK-33 produced 40 years ago from 154 tf to 185-190 tf.
- the TVC system for AJ-26 was developed by Aerojet in U.S., although a long time ago
- A project existed in 2006 to create a similar system at SNTK in Russia, called "NK-33-1", it failed
The reason SNTK failed to replicate what Aerojet have done was the lack of qualified personnel. The company is an empty shell of former self now. When the situation became clear, TsSKB decided to use RD-0110R on what was renamed into Soyuz-2-1v (also, 7 tonne-force of extra thrust, win-win for everyone except SNTK).
So, I wonder if Aerojet would be able to do the same in 2010. If yes, it may be better to bet on them to restart the production by 2016, than on Kuznetsov or whatever government structure (an "FGUP") swallows their remnant by then.
(NK-33-1 was supposed to include roll control too, for use in Soyuz-1, which would make it a bit different from AJ-26, but that's a small detail.)
The lift-off mass of Soyuz-1 is 158t . SNTK refused to increase the thrust of NK-33 produced 40 years ago from 154 tf to 185-190 tf.Thanks for explaining that. I suppose 30 is nothing to sneeze at.
Then TsSKB decided to use RD-0110R (30tf + TVC) and stationary NK-33 (154 tf + 8% = 166 tf).
I'm still not clear on this, but the first two flights didn't have those vernier thrusters, so I assume they used attitude control thrusters for roll control.
Yes, I made a mistake. Sea level trust RD-0110 is near 24tf. But this is not significantly.The lift-off mass of Soyuz-1 is 158t . SNTK refused to increase the thrust of NK-33 produced 40 years ago from 154 tf to 185-190 tf.Thanks for explaining that. I suppose 30 is nothing to sneeze at.
Then TsSKB decided to use RD-0110R (30tf + TVC) and stationary NK-33 (154 tf + 8% = 166 tf).
Hot gaz from gaz-generator discharged through the steering nozzles used for roll control on N-1. There were six steering nozzles on the first stage N-1. Hot gaz also used for fuel tank pressurization.RS-27 and RS-68 only move the chambers. RL10 moves the whole thing. SSME moves the high pressures. But those were designed for it. The N-1 steered with variable thrust.
And on the later flights with vernier thrusters for roll control. I'm still not clear on this, but the first two flights didn't have those vernier thrusters, so I assume they used attitude control thrusters for roll control.
Hot gaz from gaz-generator discharged through the steering nozzles used for roll control on N-1. There were six steering nozzles on the first stage N-1. Hot gaz also used for fuel tank pressurization.
It is also telling of the changes which were done on the N1 from the NK-15 to the NK-33.Hot gaz from gaz-generator discharged through the steering nozzles used for roll control on N-1. There were six steering nozzles on the first stage N-1. Hot gaz also used for fuel tank pressurization.
Interesting!
So the gas used in the vernier steering nozzles came from the heat exchanger also used in tank pressurization?
So the question remains, if there were only six nozzles on the first stage (and those are very small!), which engines were connected to the six nozzles? Or were there tap-offs on each engine for the vernier nozzles?
Спасибо вам огромное за информацию. Я читал оригналние документы о НК-33 в архиве в самаре, но этот вопрос останился.
Interesting!Спасибо вам огромное за информацию. Я читал оригналние документы о НК-33 в архиве в самаре, но этот вопрос останился.Antipov Vladimir Nikolaevich (nick Vovan) posted this infomation on NK forum. (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=184695#184695)
Interesting!I don't know.
So the gas used in the vernier steering nozzles came from the heat exchanger also used in tank pressurization?
So the question remains, if there were only six nozzles on the first stage (and those are very small!), which engines were connected to the six nozzles? Or were there tap-offs on each engine for the vernier nozzles?я.
I just go this one:
You don't understand - we stopped at the Pawn shop to get some Ground Support Equipment items, not to pawn the stage!...
Amazing what you can pick up at a pawn shop these days.
You don't understand - we stopped at the Pawn shop to get some Ground Support Equipment items, not to pawn the stage!...I thought you'd be picking up the NK-33s there ;)
Let me guess. An old-west Colt .45 for security, a silver-plated lighter with extension to light the stage and a case of Billy Beer for the crew?
...we picked up the beer (120 minute IPA) in Milton...Dogfish Head, nice choice. Strong stuff, but appropriate!
(120 minute IPA)
Here is an album I threw together of some pictures that a co-worker took. There's some background on what you're seeing in the image captions.
http://imgur.com/a/omx1C/tP4mM (http://imgur.com/a/omx1C/tP4mM)
Enjoy!
Let me guess. An old-west Colt .45 for security, a silver-plated lighter with extension to light the stage and a case of Billy Beer for the crew?
Well, the stage came with some surplus Soviet-era AK47's, and we picked up the beer (120 minute IPA) in Milton on the way from Wilmington, but you're right about the lighter...
...we picked up the beer (120 minute IPA) in Milton...Dogfish Head, nice choice. Strong stuff, but appropriate!
Here is an album I threw together of some pictures that a co-worker took.Outstanding pics!
Here is an album I threw together of some pictures that a co-worker took. There's some background on what you're seeing in the image captions.
http://imgur.com/a/omx1C/tP4mM (http://imgur.com/a/omx1C/tP4mM)
Enjoy!
I believe this is right near the parking spots where I parked for the open house this summer, the building to the left at the turn is where the sounding rockets are constructed right?
Here is an album I threw together of some pictures that a co-worker took.Outstanding pics!
Let me guess. An old-west Colt .45 for security, a silver-plated lighter with extension to light the stage and a case of Billy Beer for the crew?
Well, the stage came with some surplus Soviet-era AK47's, and we picked up the beer (120 minute IPA) in Milton on the way from Wilmington, but you're right about the lighter...
Taurus II:
Agreed! Also seems to show how much performance growth this launcher has if it uses a bigger upper stage.Taurus II:
Nice, thanks!
By my estimate, with an ACES upper stage it could equal Atlas V with the same.Agreed! Also seems to show how much performance growth this launcher has if it uses a bigger upper stage.Taurus II:
Nice, thanks!
The HIF looks at least 4 times larger than SpaceX' assembly hangar (2 bays and each twice as tall). I am wondering if Orbital can sustain more launches per a period of time. Also, can't wait to see the transporter-erector-launcher.If they plan to, I have a related question (for someone more knowledgable than I). Do you think Orbital will face a greater challenge in system integration because their parts are coming from so many vendors (vs spacex who is making almost all the parts themselves)?
will [Orbital] face a greater challenge in system integration because their parts are coming from so many vendors
In house vs. integrated pose different challenges --The HIF looks at least 4 times larger than SpaceX' assembly hangar (2 bays and each twice as tall). I am wondering if Orbital can sustain more launches per a period of time. Also, can't wait to see the transporter-erector-launcher.If they plan to, I have a related question (for someone more knowledgable than I). Do you think Orbital will face a greater challenge in system integration because their parts are coming from so many vendors (vs spacex who is making almost all the parts themselves)?
Every time I've been on a project where we did everything ourselves, the conversations over beer focused on how we should have bought and integrated off the shelf solutions. Every time I've been on a project where we tried to integrate off the shelf solutions, the conversations over beer focused on how we should have done everything ourselves.
Does Orbital's new lifting-body proposal, atop Atlas V, mean that Orbital is less bullish on antonioe's plans for a follow-on RD-0124-based upper stage? Or that new-build, possibly domestic NK-33 looks less feasible?
. It makes a good business sense to off-load launch to some hapless ULA that is barred from building satellites by its agreement with FTC.
Does Orbital's new lifting-body proposal, atop Atlas V, mean that Orbital is less bullish on antonioe's plans for a follow-on RD-0124-based upper stage? Or that new-build, possibly domestic NK-33 looks less feasible?Enhanced Taurus II will have a payload only 7 ton.
Heck I even suspect Taurus II largely came about because under Griffin regime any talk about launching on Atlas was grounds for severe repressions.
Heck I even suspect Taurus II largely came about because under Griffin regime any talk about launching on Atlas was grounds for severe repressions.
Huh? Beside's the NOAA payloads how many NASA ELV contracts have gone to Delta IV?
And Taurus II wasn't a threat? Or was because it would be a "Delta II" replacement?
will [Orbital] face a greater challenge in system integration because their parts are coming from so many vendors
That is the nature of manufacturing today. Most (good) car companies no longer really even make cars, they buy parts from other vendors and then integrate it. It is called Toyotaism, and it is practically the world standard today. Boeing uses it to make airplanes ....
No ITAR stuff on this site. Regardless if it's on a Russian site.I don't see how this applies here. ITAR relates to U.S. persons providing foreign (non-U.S.) persons with access to ITAR protected information. ITAR itself only protects U.S. materials on the export side. The structure of the Taurus 2 first stage is not made or designed in the U.S.. It was imported.
No ITAR stuff on this site. Regardless if it's on a Russian site.I don't see how this applies here. ITAR relates to U.S. persons providing foreign (non-U.S.) persons with access to ITAR protected information. ITAR itself only protects U.S. materials on the export side. The structure of the Taurus 2 first stage is not made or designed in the U.S.. It was imported.
- Ed Kyle
ITAR relates to U.S. persons providing foreign (non-U.S.) persons with access to ITAR protected information. ITAR itself only protects U.S. materials on the export side. The structure of the Taurus 2 first stage is not made or designed in the U.S.. It was imported.
- Ed Kyle
Just so everyone knows, when I said "ITAR shmITAR," I was joking.
I only said that in response to the "offending" post. I didn't post anything besides "ITAR, SHMITAR ;)."Just so everyone knows, when I said "ITAR shmITAR," I was joking.
Tell it to the judge. ;)
ITAR prohibits the export of any unapproved data, regardless of the national origin of the data.I still don't think ITAR applies to this kind of data which is apparently (legitimately) in the public domain:
Heck I even suspect Taurus II largely came about because under Griffin regime any talk about launching on Atlas was grounds for severe repressions. Orbital would not be given any chance at COTS if they proposed Cygnus on top of Atlas.
Heck I even suspect Taurus II largely came about because under Griffin regime any talk about launching on Atlas was grounds for severe repressions. Orbital would not be given any chance at COTS if they proposed Cygnus on top of Atlas.
"Once again, the Orbital and Aerojet team have achieved a major milestone with the AJ26 engine," said Doug Cooke, associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "This success moves Orbital closer to its goal of providing NASA with commercial space transportation services to the space station."
As to Taurus II over Atlas, the potential of a cost/performance drop-in replacement for Delta II was pretty temping, and something that SMD may have really been pushing on them for...
Misreading it.
"It is expected to be preceded by a Taurus II “risk-reduction” mission, which is still awaiting funding approval from Congress."
clear as mud??
This isn't as smelly as, say, all of Constellation, but it doesn't fit any paradigm I know of.
This isn't as smelly as, say, all of Constellation, but it doesn't fit any paradigm I know of.
I think you're on to something. I'm catching a whiff all the way from Chicago.
- Ed Kyle
This isn't as smelly as, say, all of Constellation, but it doesn't fit any paradigm I know of.
I think you're on to something. I'm catching a whiff all the way from Chicago.
- Ed Kyle
Has there been any discussion that I missed on how this is fair or even legal?
How does Orbital get all of this Congressional plus up and SpaceX doesn't get any? Or even the CCDev contractors?
How does this work outside of normal procurement rules, even under the bizarre Space Act authorities?
This isn't as smelly as, say, all of Constellation, but it doesn't fit any paradigm I know of.
1 TITLE IV—DEVELOPMENT AND
2 USE OF COMMERCIAL CREW
3 AND CARGO TRANSPOR
4 TATION CAPABILITIES
5 SEC. 401. COMMERCIAL CARGO DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
6 The Administrator shall continue to support the ex
7 isting Commercial Orbital Transportation Services pro
8 gram, aimed at enabling the commercial space industry
9 in support of NASA to develop reliable means of launching
10 cargo and supplies to the ISS throughout the duration of
11 the facility’s operation. The Administrator may apply
12 funds towards the reduction of risk to the timely start of
13 these services, specifically—
14 (1) efforts to conduct a flight test;
15 (2) accelerate development; and
16 (3) develop the ground infrastructure needed
17 for commercial cargo capability.
Also if it seems unfair consider that SpaceX was awarded $278 million in seed money, while OSC only got $174.7 million due to RpK.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/bidding101907.xml&headline=NASA%20Reopens%20COTS%20Bidding&channel=space
Which also means that the prices per flight will have to change in the future or Orbital HAS to lose all business after the first phase of contract due to this being commercial?
Also if it seems unfair consider that SpaceX was awarded $278 million in seed money, while OSC only got $174.7 million due to RpK.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/bidding101907.xml&headline=NASA%20Reopens%20COTS%20Bidding&channel=space
Seeing how Spacex is getting about $130 million per resupply mission, and Orbital is getting around $230 million with no return capability, I don't know if there's much of a case there.
Which also means that the prices per flight will have to change in the future or Orbital HAS to lose all business after the first phase of contract due to this being commercial?
That's simple, SpaceX low balled it, and Orbital bid what they felt would give them a good return on investment.
Directly related to this discussion is this article:
NASA Has Boosted COTS Funding by Additional $40 Million Since October
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110107-nasa-boosted-cots-funding.html
Are the authorization and appropriation acts of Congress sufficient to effectively waive what is usually followed to a T lest there be a protest?In other words - do they have the "consent of Congress" for authorization(yes) and appropriation(maybe - in kind yes, as specific item - depends). Issue is about nature of specific items and how they matched "congressional understanding" last December's CR. Don't you love lawyers ...
Different. Orbital is trading on its experience/flight history. SpaceX is in the process of building it.That's simple, SpaceX low balled it, and Orbital bid what they felt would give them a good return on investment.
Do you have a reason for implying that Spacex didn't bid what they felt would give them a good return on their investment?
The suspicion has nothing to do with fairness or comparing the number of proposed Demo missions or mission costs.
It's 100% "how can this money be spent without following procurement law?" Are the authorization and appropriation acts of Congress sufficient to effectively waive what is usually followed to a T lest there be a protest? That's a serious question for one of our congressional contributors to answer.
That's simple, SpaceX low balled it, and Orbital bid what they felt would give them a good return on investment.
Do you have a reason for implying that Spacex didn't bid what they felt would give them a good return on their investment?
Personally, I am disappointed by this behavior on both NASA and the contractor's parts, since it undermines a key tenet of my original "pre-COTS" plan, i.e., live within your promised budget and don't go back asking for more. I don't mind it if circumstances change due to honest factors outside the contractors control (for example, NASA changes the requirements) but not simply because it took longer and cost more than you bid. Otherwise you end up cheating any other competitors who made honest bids.
The suspicion has nothing to do with fairness or comparing the number of proposed Demo missions or mission costs.
It's 100% "how can this money be spent without following procurement law?" Are the authorization and appropriation acts of Congress sufficient to effectively waive what is usually followed to a T lest there be a protest? That's a serious question for one of our congressional contributors to answer.
As I understand OTAs (or Space Act Agreements, the NASA version), they are very flexible and you can add funds pretty much as you wish.
They are not protestable in the normal FAR sense. Or at least, so counsel has advised me in the past, including a former OTA lawyer for DARPA. But in the end, I think the contracting agency can do pretty much whatever they want, since it is rare for a contractor to speak up.
Personally, I am disappointed by this behavior on both NASA and the contractor's parts, since it undermines a key tenet of my original "pre-COTS" plan, i.e., live within your promised budget and don't go back asking for more. I don't mind it if circumstances change due to honest factors outside the contractors control (for example, NASA changes the requirements) but not simply because it took longer and cost more than you bid. Otherwise you end up cheating any other competitors who made honest bids.
That's simple, SpaceX low balled it, and Orbital bid what they felt would give them a good return on investment.
Do you have a reason for implying that Spacex didn't bid what they felt would give them a good return on their investment?
Spacex get's their orbital vehicle back after a COTS mission so they can use it again for another customer.
Personally, I am disappointed by this behavior on both NASA and the contractor's parts, since it undermines a key tenet of my original "pre-COTS" plan, i.e., live within your promised budget and don't go back asking for more. I don't mind it if circumstances change due to honest factors outside the contractors control (for example, NASA changes the requirements) but not simply because it took longer and cost more than you bid. Otherwise you end up cheating any other competitors who made honest bids.
In my opinion, one of the mistakes of COTS is not to pay the full price for test missions. The prices of a test mission and of a real mission are esentially the same but NASA is only paying $10 million for the COTS test mission. The additionnal COTS funding helps in that respect.
In my opinion, one of the mistakes of COTS is not to pay the full price for test missions. The prices of a test mission and of a real mission are essentially the same but NASA is only paying $10 million for the COTS test mission. The additionnal COTS funding helps in that respect.
The milestones were proposed by SpaceX (and Orbital) and agreed to by NASA. They were front-loaded so there was very little money riding on the success of the Demo flights. I'm not sure who you mean to pin the mistake on.
Both companies are willing to do it since the CRS contract will eventually allow them to get some of this investment back.
Both companies are willing to do it since the CRS contract will eventually allow them to get some of this investment back.
They were not guaranteed CRS contracts
They would have needed test flights with ot without CRS. Why wouldn't they take COTS money for flights they would have needed anyhow. Spacex is a lot like the Shuttle program. Most of the money gets spent whether you fly or not.Both companies are willing to do it since the CRS contract will eventually allow them to get some of this investment back.
They were not guaranteed CRS contracts
Yes I know but had one of the company not gotten a CRS contract in 2008, I am not sure that they would have continued COTS past that time. There would be no point in losing money on test flights if there wasn't a CRS contract.
They would have needed test flights with ot without CRS. Why wouldn't they take COTS money for flights they would have needed anyhow. Spacex is a lot like the Shuttle program. Most of the money gets spent whether you fly or not.Both companies are willing to do it since the CRS contract will eventually allow them to get some of this investment back.
They were not guaranteed CRS contracts
Yes I know but had one of the company not gotten a CRS contract in 2008, I am not sure that they would have continued COTS past that time. There would be no point in losing money on test flights if there wasn't a CRS contract.
They'll still need to test the bus and the fairing for their commercial customers, but succesful F9 flights under their belt are sure the heck not pointless.
Hmm, View of the first stage at wallops:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/01/09/spacex-orbital-sciences-increase-nasa-cots-funding/comment-page-1/#comment-29051
Why wouldn't they take COTS money for flights they would have needed anyhow.
Here is a link to Dave Steffy's AIAA 2008 conference paper on Taurus II.
http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/conferences/Steffy_NRO-AIAA_Conference_Paper--Steffy.pdf
This paper includes a schedule that shows the following significant milestones occurring during 2009.
Guess what, Orbital seems to have a time stretch factor similar to spaceX according to http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/conferences/Steffy_NRO-AIAA_Conference_Paper--Steffy.pdf
;)
Also this year Americans increased the order in Ukraine in the framework of Taurus-II LV manufacture. First it was about Ukrainian companies to only design and produce the fuel compartment of the first stage. Now, Ukraine is working on a propulsion system for the 2-nd stage.
It is an interesting project because the customer - American corporation "Orbital Sciences”, as is known, won the tender for delivery of cargoes to the ISS after 2010, when flying the space shuttle must be ended.
Sorry, that was me (I was joking). I think "eye-tar" is a better term. :)Guess what, Orbital seems to have a time stretch factor similar to spaceX according to http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/conferences/Steffy_NRO-AIAA_Conference_Paper--Steffy.pdf
;)
Funny - this paper has the first stage diagram in it that was "outed" from this forum a few weeks ago when some one mentioned the acronym "ITAR"! :)
- Ed Kyle
The two tests were so successful that Orbital engineers decided a planned third test was unnecessary.
Would someone care to comment on how it could be that the third test was "unnecessary?"
The two tests were so successful that Orbital engineers decided a planned third test was unnecessary.
Kool-aid alert. It's all about the Benjamins. Thousands of Benjamins.
The two tests were so successful that Orbital engineers decided a planned third test was unnecessary.
Kool-aid alert. It's all about the Benjamins. Thousands of Benjamins.
Franklin. Yes, it does look that way. Would someone care to comment on how it could be that the third test was "unnecessary?" Wasn't it to be a full duration burn performed after the standard acceptance test burn?
Franklin. Yes, it does look that way. Would someone care to comment on how it could be that the third test was "unnecessary?" Wasn't it to be a full duration burn performed after the standard acceptance test burn?
Would someone care to comment on how it could be that the third test was "unnecessary?"Plan enough tests so you can find something wrong, make adjustments, and re-test. If the initial tests go perfectly, you drop the last one. This is a pretty common (and common sense) pattern in all sorts of development.
With regard to the third test, please see the NASA Stennis news release dated 12 November 2010 - http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/news/newsreleases/2010/CLT-10-246.html - which states in part:
[...]
A third hot-fire test at Stennis also is planned to verify tuning of engine control valves."
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and executives from Orbital and Aerojet will be at Stennis to witness the test
Did they ever dedicate the HIF, or is that still postponed?
News update with video from WDSU-TV, New Orleans, LA can be viewed at http://www.wdsu.com/r/26781326/detail.html
New Rocket Engine Tested At Stennis
Engine To Power Cargo Trip To Space Station
February 7, 2011
STENNIS SPACE CENTER, Miss. -- NASA put a new rocket engine to the test Monday at the John C. Stennis Space Center in south Mississippi.
After a short delay, the rocket engine test was 53 seconds of raw power.
It was very loud and powerful, generating huge plumes of flames and smoke. NASA said the testing of the Aerojet AJ26 engine went off without a hitch.
The AJ26 will power the Orbital Sciences Corporation's Taurus II rocket. The Taurus II, under construction right now in Virginia, will be used to provide cargo and essentials to astronauts aboard the International Space Station.
NASA administrator Charles Bolden said by having commercial companies supply the space station, NASA can focus on going deeper into space.
The International Space Station is 250 miles above the Earth, which is a low Earth orbit. That's as far as the space shuttle was designed to go, and now that the shuttle program is retiring, NASA hopes to eventually send humans to Mars.
News update with video from WDSU-TV, New Orleans, LA can be viewed at http://www.wdsu.com/r/26781326/detail.html
New Rocket Engine Tested At Stennis
Engine To Power Cargo Trip To Space Station
February 7, 2011
STENNIS SPACE CENTER, Miss. -- NASA put a new rocket engine to the test Monday at the John C. Stennis Space Center in south Mississippi.
After a short delay, the rocket engine test was 53 seconds of raw power.
It was very loud and powerful, generating huge plumes of flames and smoke. NASA said the testing of the Aerojet AJ26 engine went off without a hitch.
The AJ26 will power the Orbital Sciences Corporation's Taurus II rocket. The Taurus II, under construction right now in Virginia, will be used to provide cargo and essentials to astronauts aboard the International Space Station.
NASA administrator Charles Bolden said by having commercial companies supply the space station, NASA can focus on going deeper into space.
The International Space Station is 250 miles above the Earth, which is a low Earth orbit. That's as far as the space shuttle was designed to go, and now that the shuttle program is retiring, NASA hopes to eventually send humans to Mars.
Video weblink of test fire and comments by NASA Administrator Bolden - http://www.wlox.com/global/category.asp?c=194069&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5544502&flvUri=&partnerclipid=Wait, "New Engine?" "First Test Fire?"
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/about/stennis/index.html
February 11, 2011
WASHINGTON -- Bound by restrictions set in a temporary budget resolution, NASA has not yet committed full funding of a risk reduction test flight of the Taurus 2 rocket, one of the launch vehicles the agency hopes will be ready to resupply the International Space Station by the end of this year.
NASA and industry officials said Thursday the demonstration launch is a top priority, but the space agency is struggling to find money to pay for the flight.
"Officials previously said the Taurus 2 test launch will cost NASA between $100 million and $200 million."
That sounds like a good deal of money for a test launch of a Delta II class vehicle. Would this be because of extra instrumentation work on the vehicle or is it indicative of the actual cost of T-II?
No clustered test fire?
It's all about the Benjamins. Thousands of Benjamins.
IIRC, the NK-33 was not gimbaled for N-1? Something spinning at several thousand RPM and then tilting leaves me skittish, especially when there's oxidizer involved. Is there another engine where a turbopump moves with the nozzle?
The engine firing included Pitch and Yaw excursions to 4 degrees amplitude using the hydraulic Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system. A preliminary analysis of the engine and TVC data shows that all test objectives were met.
Somewhat surprised they didn't rent time on a bigger stand to do a clustered test, or even a full static test of the core.
When was the last time there was a long duration hot fire on a launch pad?
Somewhat surprised they didn't rent time on a bigger stand to do a clustered test, or even a full static test of the core.
It has been previously reported that the full static test fire at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops will be with the first stage core and occur on Launch Pad 0-A. The Orbital news update for February 2011 states that test fire will occur in the summer of 2011.
Somewhat surprised they didn't rent time on a bigger stand to do a clustered test, or even a full static test of the core.
It has been previously reported that the full static test fire at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops will be with the first stage core and occur on Launch Pad 0-A. The Orbital news update for February 2011 states that test fire will occur in the summer of 2011.
Orbital Sciences announced today in its 2010 4th quarter earnings webcast that a 20-sec test firing will take place at the MARS 0-A launch pad in July 2011.
NASA approved the risk reduction COTS flight at a contract value of $120 million with the flight anticipated to occur in August 2011.
The second COTS flight is anticipated for mid-November 2011.
Currently there are 5 Taurus II rockets in production.
Guess it is going to be a photo finish on who gets to ISS first ;)
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Which suggests that SpaceX should have received about $240M (in proportion to awarded amount). ($1.9B/1.6B)
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Orbital Sciences Corporation has updated its schedule and milestones for the Taurus II launch vehicle and the Cygnus spacecraft. The new information can be viewed at http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/.
Perhaps they'll fly some sort of Cygnus engineering test article on the risk reduction flight?
It would be interesting to know if the payload simulator would be launched into the same orbit as an ISS-bound Cygnus.
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Which suggests that SpaceX should have received about $240M (in proportion to awarded amount). ($1.9B/1.6B)
That puts a new light on how much NASA contribution has been made to SpaceX overall...a subject for further discussion in the SpaceX forum, I expect.
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Which suggests that SpaceX should have received about $240M (in proportion to awarded amount). ($1.9B/1.6B)
That puts a new light on how much NASA contribution has been made to SpaceX overall...a subject for further discussion in the SpaceX forum, I expect.
Then again, given the history of recent NASA programs, would you do any work for them without getting regular payments as you prepare?
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Which suggests that SpaceX should have received about $240M (in proportion to awarded amount). ($1.9B/1.6B)
That puts a new light on how much NASA contribution has been made to SpaceX overall...a subject for further discussion in the SpaceX forum, I expect.
Then again, given the history of recent NASA programs, would you do any work for them without getting regular payments as you prepare?
No, I wouldn't, and never have.
There is a reason why I proposed the use of fixed-price hardware milestones funded by an "other transactions" authority (also known as a "Space Act" Agreement) in 2004, as t/Space's contribution to the CE&R contracts. Our proposal created the momentum for what became COTS, and provided the opportunity for SpaceX and Orbital to develop their respective launchers. The history of this effort is not well known.
Unfortunately, COTS failed to follow a number of key provisions of our proposal, leading directly to some of the problems we are currently seeing, but that discussion is off topic for this thread.
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Which suggests that SpaceX should have received about $240M (in proportion to awarded amount). ($1.9B/1.6B)
That puts a new light on how much NASA contribution has been made to SpaceX overall...a subject for further discussion in the SpaceX forum, I expect.
Then again, given the history of recent NASA programs, would you do any work for them without getting regular payments as you prepare?
No, I wouldn't, and never have.
There is a reason why I proposed the use of fixed-price hardware milestones funded by an "other transactions" authority (also known as a "Space Act" Agreement) in 2004, as t/Space's contribution to the CE&R contracts. Our proposal created the momentum for what became COTS, and provided the opportunity for SpaceX and Orbital to develop their respective launchers. The history of this effort is not well known.
Unfortunately, COTS failed to follow a number of key provisions of our proposal, leading directly to some of the problems we are currently seeing, but that discussion is off topic for this thread.
Then start a new thread! :-)
I think I've heard bits of the story from time to time in our discussions over the years, but it would be great to have them in one place. If you don't want to do it here, I'd love to do it as a guestpost on SB.
~Jon
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Which suggests that SpaceX should have received about $240M (in proportion to awarded amount). ($1.9B/1.6B)
I would believe it is more since they are based on milestone payments and Spacex has more missions further in the integration cycle.
Maybe after my Space Access 2011 talk in April, which will recount the history. It's all water under the bridge these days, in any case.
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Which suggests that SpaceX should have received about $240M (in proportion to awarded amount). ($1.9B/1.6B)
I would believe it is more since they are based on milestone payments and Spacex has more missions further in the integration cycle.
However the per flight contract value for Orbital under CRS is much higher,
Wow. I'm listening to the ORB earnings web cast. I think I heard them say they made $278M on the CRS contract in CY10.
Which suggests that SpaceX should have received about $240M (in proportion to awarded amount). ($1.9B/1.6B)
I would believe it is more since they are based on milestone payments and Spacex has more missions further in the integration cycle.
However the per flight contract value for Orbital under CRS is much higher,
Cygnus can deliver more pressurized volume, so it receives more money.
The CCDev2 money is awaiting allocation at the moment.
There are rumours of a CCDev3, consequently its milestones have not been bid yet.
[...] InThat's from the 2012 Budget Estimate document (p. 396 of the pdf, labeled ESMD-3).
spring FY 2012, the CCDev Round 2 awards will be completed and NASA plans to further expand
commercial crew systems under CCDev Round 3 awards. Round 3 awards will support
development, testing, and demonstrations of multiple commercial crew systems for U.S. crew
access to LEO and the ISS.
Budget Authority, $ in millions
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Commercial Crew $850.0 $850.0 $850.0 $850.0 $850.0
That's from the 2012 Budget Estimate document (p. 396 of the pdf, labeled ESMD-3).
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516675main_NASA_FY12_Budget_Estimates.pdf
From the same document:Budget Authority, $ in millions
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Commercial Crew $850.0 $850.0 $850.0 $850.0 $850.0
That's from the 2012 Budget Estimate document (p. 396 of the pdf, labeled ESMD-3).
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516675main_NASA_FY12_Budget_Estimates.pdf
From the same document:Budget Authority, $ in millions
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Commercial Crew $850.0 $850.0 $850.0 $850.0 $850.0
Those amounts don't mean all that much though given that some key NASA players in Congress have already rejected the President's NASA 2012 budget.
Looks like you could fit an entire Pegasus in that faring, including the wings... :)Looks like it's composite, too! (EDIT:actually, I'm not sure about that, now...) What's it's mass (and what would a typical aluminum fairing of the same size weight)?
Orbital Sciences Corporation has posted an update, dated March 2011, at http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/.
I'm suprized how long it is taking to complete the new facility. The update says the concrete is finally complete, and they are working on the fuel farm.Really ? SpaceX broke ground for the F9 site in Nov '07 (http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=31) and flew in June '10. It's not clear to me when the pad facilities were ready to support a launch, but it couldn't be before the first on pad test in early '09.
aviationweek: Orbital Sees First Taurus II Flight In Sept. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/03/28/11.xml&headline=Orbital%20Sees%20First%20Taurus%20II%20Flight%20In%20Sept.)
“Since this is one of the first brand-new launch pads to be developed in quite a number of years, we wanted to be sure that we were benefitting from the experience that existed in NASA with respect to the whole ground-processing and pre-launch flow and the necessary equipment at the pad,” [Orbital's] Thompson says.
“It’s a first time for them, so we’re sending in people who’ve done this time and time again,” [NASA's] Bolden says. “I think we’re going to be okay.”
aviationweek: Orbital Sees First Taurus II Flight In Sept. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/03/28/11.xml&headline=Orbital%20Sees%20First%20Taurus%20II%20Flight%20In%20Sept.)
Wow, the spin on this is carefully polished!Quote“Since this is one of the first brand-new launch pads to be developed in quite a number of years, we wanted to be sure that we were benefitting from the experience that existed in NASA with respect to the whole ground-processing and pre-launch flow and the necessary equipment at the pad,” [Orbital's] Thompson says.
“It’s a first time for them, so we’re sending in people who’ve done this time and time again,” [NASA's] Bolden says. “I think we’re going to be okay.”
I think we're going to be okay.
Still based on SpaceX's know slip rate, will it fly before SpaceX's next flight? That would be an interesting wager. Who flies next.
My money is on the original new space startup...
You could also compare with the Soyuz pad at Kourou...Oh LOL that hurts. You can also compare it with the Angara pad at Plesetsk.
aviationweek: Orbital Sees First Taurus II Flight In Sept. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/03/28/11.xml&headline=Orbital%20Sees%20First%20Taurus%20II%20Flight%20In%20Sept.)
There are interesting items in that charter:
1.- Jim Maser is identified as a professional association (AIAA) executive, not as president of P&WR.
2.- The entire document is a defense of Constellation/Orion and an attack on COTS (Appendix 1 is a long list of Constellation/Orion acheivements, while Appendix 2 contains only graphical Schedules for SpaceX and Orbital highlighting the COTS program schedule delays.)
SpaceX's per-launch costs aren't necessarily going to be lower than Orbital's. I've noticed that SpaceX has, in the past, compensated for cost increases by increasing the payload capacity so the cost-per-kg stayed around the same.There are interesting items in that charter:
1.- Jim Maser is identified as a professional association (AIAA) executive, not as president of P&WR.
2.- The entire document is a defense of Constellation/Orion and an attack on COTS (Appendix 1 is a long list of Constellation/Orion acheivements, while Appendix 2 contains only graphical Schedules for SpaceX and Orbital highlighting the COTS program schedule delays.)
Dr. Elias returns!
I'd be wondering what thinking is going on at Orbital in light of today. For a while, it looked like Taurus II(e) meant that SpaceX and Orbital were playing approximately in the same ballgame -- and that Orbital had gotten pulled, by necessity (by NASA's begging?) into the medium launcher business. But recently we've seen the vision of Prometheus flying on Atlas V, not TII (for good reasons), and if Falcon can achieve anything like it's economic goals and gain the lead on obtaining NASA certification via flight history, TII might be destined for a short life as a pure-CRS launcher.
But Orbital must have lots of ideas for interesting mission hardware they'd like to compete for and fly, if NASA or other commercial customers were willing to try some new concepts. Space hardware much more interesting than launchers. ?
-Alex
But recently we've seen the vision of Prometheus flying on Atlas V, not TII (for good reasons), and if Falcon can achieve anything like it's economic goals and gain the lead on obtaining NASA certification via flight history, TII might be destined for a short life as a pure-CRS launcher.
Agreed.But recently we've seen the vision of Prometheus flying on Atlas V, not TII (for good reasons), and if Falcon can achieve anything like it's economic goals and gain the lead on obtaining NASA certification via flight history, TII might be destined for a short life as a pure-CRS launcher.
Pretty sure that as long as Cynus flies CRS flights Taurus 2 will be around.
Also orbital designed Taurus II to replace Delta II class LV's to ensure that their real bread and butter, spacecraft, can still get to orbit and Falcon 9 had not flown yet (and therefore still a big gamble) Atlas V is a much heavier lifter, so why reinvent the wheel (ie just buy flights)? Dont forget the EELV class field is already overcapacity in the commercial market, and with two govt sponsored lv's probably not a market case.
SpaceX's per-launch costs aren't necessarily going to be lower than Orbital's.
Taurus II is still just as important to Orbital and NASA. And I am very excited to see what else Orbital has in store for us!
...from Eastern Europe. Sometimes, subcontracting stuff makes a lot of sense, especially since the first stage is made by someone who does more things than just Taurus II first stages (I believe they make Zenit). This has real opportunities for cost reduction through taking advantage of capital investments (machine tools, etc) that have other customers (Zenit). Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply. They are incredibly high-performance (Isp and thrust/weight).SpaceX's per-launch costs aren't necessarily going to be lower than Orbital's.
SpaceX has a bit of a cost advantage, since they build their own engines. OSC has to purchase their first (and second?) stage engines, and they subcontract the entire first stage.
...
Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply.
When Atlas ordered the RD-180, the plan was to produce them domestically. Also, Atlas was the only customer. Now, the capability of Atlas has Rus-M under heavy development. If you look at it closely, you realize Rus-M is pretty much a Russian clone of Atlas. Same diameter, fuel tank size, engine, even the upper stage is close to what Common Centaur would be. This means less access to the engines.Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply.
I'm tempted to say the same was true for RD-180. Now apparently less so.
There are something like 70 NK-33s available. Should be good for a decade's worth of launches. It would be really interesting if Aerojet actually decides to produce them.Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply.
I'm tempted to say the same was true for RD-180. Now apparently less so.
Try over 400 NK-33's. Aerojet has bought over 100 of them.There are something like 70 NK-33s available. Should be good for a decade's worth of launches. It would be really interesting if Aerojet actually decides to produce them.Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply.
I'm tempted to say the same was true for RD-180. Now apparently less so.
Really? I thought Aerojet only had 37 of them in the US, with control over a bunch more in Russia.Try over 400 NK-33's. Aerojet has bought over 100 of them.There are something like 70 NK-33s available. Should be good for a decade's worth of launches. It would be really interesting if Aerojet actually decides to produce them.Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply.
I'm tempted to say the same was true for RD-180. Now apparently less so.
There are 37 in the US, but they purchased over 100 of them. Why move them until it is time to?Really? I thought Aerojet only had 37 of them in the US, with control over a bunch more in Russia.Try over 400 NK-33's. Aerojet has bought over 100 of them.There are something like 70 NK-33s available. Should be good for a decade's worth of launches. It would be really interesting if Aerojet actually decides to produce them.Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply.
I'm tempted to say the same was true for RD-180. Now apparently less so.
I agree with that, but there are really 400 of them? If so, as long as that new Soyuz doesn't use them, there should be plenty for Taurus II.There are 37 in the US, but they purchased over 100 of them. Why move them until it is time to?Really? I thought Aerojet only had 37 of them in the US, with control over a bunch more in Russia.Try over 400 NK-33's. Aerojet has bought over 100 of them.There are something like 70 NK-33s available. Should be good for a decade's worth of launches. It would be really interesting if Aerojet actually decides to produce them.Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply.
I'm tempted to say the same was true for RD-180. Now apparently less so.
Last I knew there were about that many, yes. I know there were over 100 in one warehouse alone, and there were several others. In addition, this does not count the NK-43's or NK-19's either.I agree with that, but there are really 400 of them? If so, as long as that new Soyuz doesn't use them, there should be plenty for Taurus II.There are 37 in the US, but they purchased over 100 of them. Why move them until it is time to?Really? I thought Aerojet only had 37 of them in the US, with control over a bunch more in Russia.Try over 400 NK-33's. Aerojet has bought over 100 of them.There are something like 70 NK-33s available. Should be good for a decade's worth of launches. It would be really interesting if Aerojet actually decides to produce them.Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply.
I'm tempted to say the same was true for RD-180. Now apparently less so.
When Atlas ordered the RD-180, the plan was to produce them domestically. Also, Atlas was the only customer. Now, the capability of Atlas has Rus-M under heavy development. If you look at it closely, you realize Rus-M is pretty much a Russian clone of Atlas. Same diameter, fuel tank size, engine, even the upper stage is close to what Common Centaur would be. This means less access to the engines.You forgot to mention RD-0146 that started as a technology transfer from P&W. It is an improved RL-10, only they did not have to pay anything for it.
Try over 400 NK-33's. Aerojet has bought over 100 of them.This sounds completely bogus to me. All I heard was roughly 70, with Aerojet having about half of those.
I went and double checked. One of the warehouses has over 150 engines on it's own. However, the total 400 included more than just the NK-33, also including NK-43 and NK-19's as well. So, error on my part. Total of 400 engines, but some of them are not NK-33's.Try over 400 NK-33's. Aerojet has bought over 100 of them.This sounds completely bogus to me. All I heard was roughly 70, with Aerojet having about half of those.
Also orbital designed Taurus II to replace Delta II class LV's to ensure that their real bread and butter, spacecraft, can still get to orbit and Falcon 9 had not flown yet (and therefore still a big gamble) Atlas V is a much heavier lifter, so why reinvent the wheel (ie just buy flights)? Dont forget the EELV class field is already overcapacity in the commercial market, and with two govt sponsored lv's probably not a market case.
Sometimes, subcontracting stuff makes a lot of sense...
Orbital is a player that has many years and has made a niche in filling niche markets and doing one offs from satellites to LV.the same could be said for SpaceX right now.
In Yuzhnoye case, they are the most likely victim (i.e. Zenit) if SpaceX is successful. And their Cyclone 4 doesn't seems to be going forward anytime soon. So they would be a nice candidate to squeeze for margins.
AeroJet is more difficult, specially since they have huge corporate structure that requires certain returns. On the other hand, they don't seem to have many other clients, and if Taurus is out of market, then they might get flexible.
The natural niche would be to fill Delta II space. But they lack a high energy US.
Which begs the question as to which Orbital satellite buses can fly on Taurus II.
My point was not about the "problem" of supply. But the problem of squeezing margins. And SpaceX is a threat to Zenit because both are positioned as the "cheap" alternative. I guess China and ILS are in the middle, with Arianespace and ULA as the "quality leaders". Zenit doesn't has a good reliability record, which SpaceX might develop. Zenit has a relatively low launch rate. The Russian govt wil probalby replace it with Angara (by 201/6). And let's not mention the problem between Sea Launch and Land Launch. SpaceX has it's ISS contract.Zenit has under a lot of threats. Their engine supplier is in a country which has poor relations with theirs. I've pondered why they sought out the Orbital partnership, and it struck me that should their supply prove too difficult, they now have a version of their first stage which now uses another engine with easier access. I know if I was in Yuzhnoye's shoes, I'd be keeping a close eye on it.
I'm not stating that SpaceX will put Zenit out of the international business. But it's a big threat.
My point was not about the "problem" of supply. But the problem of squeezing margins. And SpaceX is a threat to Zenit because both are positioned as the "cheap" alternative. I guess China and ILS are in the middle, with Arianespace and ULA as the "quality leaders". Zenit doesn't has a good reliability record, which SpaceX might develop. Zenit has a relatively low launch rate. The Russian govt wil probalby replace it with Angara (by 201/6). And let's not mention the problem between Sea Launch and Land Launch. SpaceX has it's ISS contract.Zenit has under a lot of threats. Their engine supplier is in a country which has poor relations with theirs. I've pondered why they sought out the Orbital partnership, and it struck me that should their supply prove too difficult, they now have a version of their first stage which now uses another engine with easier access. I know if I was in Yuzhnoye's shoes, I'd be keeping a close eye on it.
I'm not stating that SpaceX will put Zenit out of the international business. But it's a big threat.
Never know.My point was not about the "problem" of supply. But the problem of squeezing margins. And SpaceX is a threat to Zenit because both are positioned as the "cheap" alternative. I guess China and ILS are in the middle, with Arianespace and ULA as the "quality leaders". Zenit doesn't has a good reliability record, which SpaceX might develop. Zenit has a relatively low launch rate. The Russian govt wil probalby replace it with Angara (by 201/6). And let's not mention the problem between Sea Launch and Land Launch. SpaceX has it's ISS contract.Zenit has under a lot of threats. Their engine supplier is in a country which has poor relations with theirs. I've pondered why they sought out the Orbital partnership, and it struck me that should their supply prove too difficult, they now have a version of their first stage which now uses another engine with easier access. I know if I was in Yuzhnoye's shoes, I'd be keeping a close eye on it.
I'm not stating that SpaceX will put Zenit out of the international business. But it's a big threat.
Hmmm ... I wonder if we would see a merger of Yuhznoye and Orbital's efforts as a Taurus III with 4 NK engines in a Zenit.
My point was not about the "problem" of supply. But the problem of squeezing margins. And SpaceX is a threat to Zenit because both are positioned as the "cheap" alternative. I guess China and ILS are in the middle, with Arianespace and ULA as the "quality leaders". Zenit doesn't has a good reliability record, which SpaceX might develop. Zenit has a relatively low launch rate. The Russian govt wil probalby replace it with Angara (by 201/6). And let's not mention the problem between Sea Launch and Land Launch. SpaceX has it's ISS contract.Zenit has under a lot of threats. Their engine supplier is in a country which has poor relations with theirs. I've pondered why they sought out the Orbital partnership, and it struck me that should their supply prove too difficult, they now have a version of their first stage which now uses another engine with easier access. I know if I was in Yuzhnoye's shoes, I'd be keeping a close eye on it.
I'm not stating that SpaceX will put Zenit out of the international business. But it's a big threat.
Hmmm ... I wonder if we would see a merger of Yuhznoye and Orbital's efforts as a Taurus III with 4 NK engines in a Zenit.
More near term I wonder if Taurus II could be used for Discovery class missions and could it reduce their cost since it's to be a cheaper LV then the Delta II was.
Wouldn't it require a high energy US? I see that the Delta II US was around 300s. If I'm not mistaken methane is isp is in the ~360s (RD-171M modified) in the best case. so they should need a new US, but anything liquid should suffice.They have a high energy core option, classified as the Enhanced Stage 2.
Delta IIs were ~10% cheaper than EELV (before the recent NTE price spike) but lift half as much. T2 would have to be somewhere south of that if its lift is D2 class.
How much is Orbital getting for the test flight?I do not know the profit for the test flight at this moment, but it does roughly match the 7920 for performance based on the charts I've seen.
Does it make 7920 performance?
Profit? Are they *supposed* to profit on a risk-reduction test flight?
Was on my phone and the auto-correct grabbed the wrong word, sorry about that.Profit? Are they *supposed* to profit on a risk-reduction test flight?
I suspect he ment profile...
Was on my phone and the auto-correct grabbed the wrong word, sorry about that.
Nah, was in bed and was too lazy to walk into the living room to grab my laptop.Was on my phone and the auto-correct grabbed the wrong word, sorry about that.
Please tell us you where not also driving at the same time ;)
Taurus has already picked an engine for the high energy upperstage
RD-0124, kerolox.Taurus has already picked an engine for the high energy upperstage
What engine is it and what propellants are used?
I figured the high energy stage was still at a very early stage in development.
RD-0124, kerolox.
And from what I understand the solid US will only be used a few times before the high energy comes online.
The RD-118/117 is where the stress issue can be found, which is why they are preparing to replace them with the AJ-26/NK-33 for the Soyuz-2-1v. The RD-0124 is not in that situation, as there are several Soyuz upper stage options, not all of which use the RD-0124.
Will this engine be manufactured by Aerojet, or imported? I was under the impression the increase in demand for Soyuz was already stressing production capabilities (or perhaps that's just for RD-118/117)...
RD-0124, kerolox.
And from what I understand the solid US will only be used a few times before the high energy comes online.
The RD-118/117 is where the stress issue can be found, which is why they are preparing to replace them with the AJ-26/NK-33 for the Soyuz-2-1v. The RD-0124 is not in that situation, as there are several Soyuz upper stage options, not all of which use the RD-0124.I'm surprised the Russian didn't made an offer to Orbital to chip in the development of the KVRB. Or is the rd-0124 manufactured in Ukraine?
I am uncertain where it is Manufactured, but the company which produces it has facilities in the Ukraine.The RD-118/117 is where the stress issue can be found, which is why they are preparing to replace them with the AJ-26/NK-33 for the Soyuz-2-1v. The RD-0124 is not in that situation, as there are several Soyuz upper stage options, not all of which use the RD-0124.I'm surprised the Russian didn't made an offer to Orbital to chip in the development of the KVRB. Or is the rd-0124 manufactured in Ukraine?
I didn't know the high energy upper stage was that far along as I have not seen any mock ups or test articles yet unless that tank crush test was the US.RD-0124, kerolox.Taurus has already picked an engine for the high energy upperstage
What engine is it and what propellants are used?
I figured the high energy stage was still at a very early stage in development.
And from what I understand the solid US will only be used a few times before the high energy comes online.
Based on the source of the first stage, I'd wager Zenit.I didn't know the high energy upper stage was that far along as I have not seen any mock ups etc yet.RD-0124, kerolox.Taurus has already picked an engine for the high energy upperstage
What engine is it and what propellants are used?
I figured the high energy stage was still at a very early stage in development.
And from what I understand the solid US will only be used a few times before the high energy comes online.
I take it the RD-0124 was chosen because it burned the same fuel as the first stage engines thus simplifying pad operations.
So I wonder will the high energy upper stage be derived from the Zenit or Soyuz upper stage.
I take it the RD-0124 was chosen because it burned the same fuel as the first stage engines thus simplifying pad operations.
So I wonder will the high energy upper stage be derived from the Zenit or Soyuz upper stage.
RL-10 has gotten more expensive since then (correct me if I'm wrong).
There have been some rather confused and misleading posts here about Russian engines in the last few days.If it is built at Progress, that means it is built in Samara, Russia.
The RD-0124 is the new Taurus II high energy stage engine. It is designed by KBKhA, located in Voronezh, but where it is made is a bit of a mystery. Wikipedia claims that the Progress plant makes it for Soyuz under license.
Anyway, RD-0124 is pretty much the same engine as used by Soyuz-2.1b and by some Angara variants, which means that it doesn't fly a lot.
As for there being "stress" on production of RD-117/118, that's news to me.
Progress doesn't build engines, the Soyuz engines are built at OAO Motorstroitel, which is also in Samara. I'm not sure about the RD-0124 though.
There have been some rather confused and misleading posts here about Russian engines in the last few days.
The RD-0124 is the new Taurus II high energy stage engine. It is designed by KBKhA, located in Voronezh, but where it is made is a bit of a mystery.
In my opinion, the stage with two single-chamber engines RD-809 will be good approach to an ideal.
http://www.yuzhnoye.com/?id=143&path=Aerospace Technology/Rocket Propulsion/Liquid Engines/Sustainers/RD-809/RD-809
Taurus 2, once fitted with this new upper stage, will be a Ukranio-Russian rocket. Someone will have to ask if this is where NASA's U.S. taxpayer money should be going.
- Ed Kyle
It also depends on where the dollars are spent. For instance, the AJ-26 cost Aerojet $1 million, but they added to it turning it into a $5 million engine. That means of the AJ-26's cost, 4/5th of it is considered US. If similar Value-Added pieces are done throughout the process, it would remain a US rocket.Taurus 2, once fitted with this new upper stage, will be a Ukranio-Russian rocket. Someone will have to ask if this is where NASA's U.S. taxpayer money should be going.
- Ed Kyle
Why not? I'd say the US taxpayer deserves the most economic launcher, if that's what it is.
It also depends on where the dollars are spent. For instance, the AJ-26 cost Aerojet $1 million, but they added to it turning it into a $5 million engine. That means of the AJ-26's cost, 4/5th of it is considered US. If similar Value-Added pieces are done throughout the process, it would remain a US rocket.Taurus 2, once fitted with this new upper stage, will be a Ukranio-Russian rocket. Someone will have to ask if this is where NASA's U.S. taxpayer money should be going.
- Ed Kyle
Why not? I'd say the US taxpayer deserves the most economic launcher, if that's what it is.
You consider what Aeorjet did to those engines the same as "put a sticker on it" ?It also depends on where the dollars are spent. For instance, the AJ-26 cost Aerojet $1 million, but they added to it turning it into a $5 million engine. That means of the AJ-26's cost, 4/5th of it is considered US. If similar Value-Added pieces are done throughout the process, it would remain a US rocket.Taurus 2, once fitted with this new upper stage, will be a Ukranio-Russian rocket. Someone will have to ask if this is where NASA's U.S. taxpayer money should be going.
- Ed Kyle
Why not? I'd say the US taxpayer deserves the most economic launcher, if that's what it is.
That is just wrong. At the end of the day it matters who is building the engine, meaning who has the know how and facilities to actually bend the metal.
If you buy a computer in china for 100$, put a sticker on it and sell it on the US market for 500$, does that make the US a four times bigger computer maker than china?
Many americans seem to think that it does not matter anymore who is actually building stuff and who is just "adding value" with "innovative financial products". But it does. You will find out one way or another.
You consider what Aeorjet did to those engines the same as "put a sticker on it" ?It also depends on where the dollars are spent. For instance, the AJ-26 cost Aerojet $1 million, but they added to it turning it into a $5 million engine. That means of the AJ-26's cost, 4/5th of it is considered US. If similar Value-Added pieces are done throughout the process, it would remain a US rocket.Taurus 2, once fitted with this new upper stage, will be a Ukranio-Russian rocket. Someone will have to ask if this is where NASA's U.S. taxpayer money should be going.
- Ed Kyle
Why not? I'd say the US taxpayer deserves the most economic launcher, if that's what it is.
That is just wrong. At the end of the day it matters who is building the engine, meaning who has the know how and facilities to actually bend the metal.
If you buy a computer in china for 100$, put a sticker on it and sell it on the US market for 500$, does that make the US a four times bigger computer maker than china?
Many americans seem to think that it does not matter anymore who is actually building stuff and who is just "adding value" with "innovative financial products". But it does. You will find out one way or another.
Yes, with the result being that the AJ-26 has more performance than the NK-33 did.You consider what Aeorjet did to those engines the same as "put a sticker on it" ?It also depends on where the dollars are spent. For instance, the AJ-26 cost Aerojet $1 million, but they added to it turning it into a $5 million engine. That means of the AJ-26's cost, 4/5th of it is considered US. If similar Value-Added pieces are done throughout the process, it would remain a US rocket.Taurus 2, once fitted with this new upper stage, will be a Ukranio-Russian rocket. Someone will have to ask if this is where NASA's U.S. taxpayer money should be going.
- Ed Kyle
Why not? I'd say the US taxpayer deserves the most economic launcher, if that's what it is.
That is just wrong. At the end of the day it matters who is building the engine, meaning who has the know how and facilities to actually bend the metal.
If you buy a computer in china for 100$, put a sticker on it and sell it on the US market for 500$, does that make the US a four times bigger computer maker than china?
Many americans seem to think that it does not matter anymore who is actually building stuff and who is just "adding value" with "innovative financial products". But it does. You will find out one way or another.
Did they modify any core part of the engine (turbopump, injector, chamber, nozzle)?
...At the end of the day it matters who is building the engine, meaning who has the know how and facilities to actually bend the metal...
Yes, with the result being that the AJ-26 has more performance than the NK-33 did.
If you check with Aerojet and Orbital, they are listing more thrust and isp for their engines than the NK-33. Roughly, they're running it at 104% of the NK-33. Whatever they did, it worked well.Yes, with the result being that the AJ-26 has more performance than the NK-33 did.
More performance? As in more thrust or better Isp? I find that hard to believe. As far as I know they just "americanized" it by adding electromechanical actuators and engine computers. But the core of the engine is still the good old russian NK-33.
By the way: I think given the circumstances of the second COTS award, picking the NK-33 was a good decision by orbital. It is a remarkable engine. And it is true that aerojet is adding substantial value.
But no amount of rebranding will change the fact that this is a russian engine.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1716.html
(Never mind the cyrillic letters saying NK-33, this is an american engine with a few insignificant components (just 20% by cost) imported from russia ::) )
Roughly, they're running it at 104% of the NK-33. Whatever they did, it worked well.
If you check with Aerojet and Orbital, they are listing more thrust and isp for their engines than the NK-33. Roughly, they're running it at 104% of the NK-33. Whatever they did, it worked well.
If you check with Aerojet and Orbital, they are listing more thrust and isp for their engines than the NK-33. Roughly, they're running it at 104% of the NK-33. Whatever they did, it worked well.
Sounds like sacrificing margin for performance. Not sure if that is a good idea.
If we were just out for affordability, why are we paying OSC and Aerojet to be the middle men? Why not just contract directly from Yuzhnoye SDO and RKK Energia?Taurus 2, once fitted with this new upper stage, will be a Ukranio-Russian rocket. Someone will have to ask if this is where NASA's U.S. taxpayer money should be going.
- Ed Kyle
Why not? I'd say the US taxpayer deserves the most economic launcher, if that's what it is.
If you check with Aerojet and Orbital, they are listing more thrust and isp for their engines than the NK-33. Roughly, they're running it at 104% of the NK-33. Whatever they did, it worked well.
These are, or should be, terrific engines. But buying them means that terrific engines are not being engineered and manufactured in the U.S. If this was a purely commercial enterprise, I would have no complaint. But it isn't. This is U.S. government money at work in a way that harms U.S. capability in a critical field.You never tire of saying "critical" while ignoring that Merlin exists. Some critical capability that is.
And, in this case, the Russian engine looks like it is going to power a Russian stage.
These are, or should be, terrific engines. But buying them means that terrific engines are not being engineered and manufactured in the U.S. If this was a purely commercial enterprise, I would have no complaint. But it isn't. This is U.S. government money at work in a way that harms U.S. capability in a critical field.You never tire of saying "critical" while ignoring that Merlin exists. Some critical capability that is.
So what of their "own" does Orbital produce for the Taurus II? The flight electronics and the fairing?Orbital operates as a horizontal company, they source from multiple vendors into a single product. Your typical PC manufacturer works the same way.
So what of their "own" does Orbital produce for the Taurus II? The flight electronics and the fairing?
I'm not sure what you mean. The existence of Merlin does not change the fact that Taurus 2 engines are not manufactured in the U.S..The existence of Merlin means that we aren't losing any "critical" capability by buying NK-33s.
I'm not sure what you mean. The existence of Merlin does not change the fact that Taurus 2 engines are not manufactured in the U.S..The existence of Merlin means that we aren't losing any "critical" capability by buying NK-33s.
But no amount of rebranding will change the fact that this is a russian engine.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1716.html
(Never mind the cyrillic letters saying NK-33, this is an american engine with a few insignificant components (just 20% by cost) imported from russia ::) )
Some of the contractors are listed in this presentation. http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/images/stories/PSDS%20Steering%20Cmte%20Feb%202010%20Frick.pdfIn my opinion, the stage with two single-chamber engines RD-809 will be good approach to an ideal.Here's Dmitriy's link in English, for those of us that are language-challenged:
http://www.yuzhnoye.com/?id=143&path=Aerospace Technology/Rocket Propulsion/Liquid Engines/Sustainers/RD-809/RD-809
http://www.yuzhnoye.com/index.php?lang=en&id=143&path=Aerospace%20Technology/Rocket%20Propulsion/Liquid%20Engines/Sustainers/RD-809/RD-809_e
- Ed Kyle
Um... there's a *lot* different in that picture. For one, where's the original turbopump? This engine has a very different pump arrangement, I can see the original components in there, but this whole system is radically different. Much finer flow control.But no amount of rebranding will change the fact that this is a russian engine.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1716.html
(Never mind the cyrillic letters saying NK-33, this is an american engine with a few insignificant components (just 20% by cost) imported from russia ::) )
Your image is out of date. By the time the engines reach Wallops, the lettering is all roman.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heathermg/5562387657/in/set-72157626235123963
Now do you believe it's an American engine? ;D
Um... there's a *lot* different in that picture. For one, where's the original turbopump? This engine has a very different pump arrangement, I can see the original components in there, but this whole system is radically different. Much finer flow control.But no amount of rebranding will change the fact that this is a russian engine.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1716.html
(Never mind the cyrillic letters saying NK-33, this is an american engine with a few insignificant components (just 20% by cost) imported from russia ::) )
Your image is out of date. By the time the engines reach Wallops, the lettering is all roman.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heathermg/5562387657/in/set-72157626235123963
Now do you believe it's an American engine? ;D
Compare to the original NK-33 here:
http://www.starbase1.co.uk/n1/NK-33_engine.jpg
That angle would have been the bottom of the first picture. I am familiar with the NK-33 from all four sides. The pieces are there, but there are a lot more parts involved now. In addition, your picture itself has been modified from the NK-33, with new plumbing in evidence.Um... there's a *lot* different in that picture. For one, where's the original turbopump? This engine has a very different pump arrangement, I can see the original components in there, but this whole system is radically different. Much finer flow control.But no amount of rebranding will change the fact that this is a russian engine.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1716.html
(Never mind the cyrillic letters saying NK-33, this is an american engine with a few insignificant components (just 20% by cost) imported from russia ::) )
Your image is out of date. By the time the engines reach Wallops, the lettering is all roman.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heathermg/5562387657/in/set-72157626235123963
Now do you believe it's an American engine? ;D
Compare to the original NK-33 here:
http://www.starbase1.co.uk/n1/NK-33_engine.jpg
Need to look at the other side of the AJ-26!
http://www.americaspace.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AJ26_Test_Small.png
- Ed Kyle
...And, in this case, the Russian engine looks like it is going to power a Russian stage...
The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler).
So what of their "own" does Orbital produce for the Taurus II? The flight electronics and the fairing?
Orbital provides avionics and acts as a systems integrator.
Applied Aerospace Structures Corporation of Stockton, California was contracted to build composite structures for Taurus II, including the payload fairing, fairing adapter, interstage, Stage 2 motor adapter, payload fairing adapter, and avionics cylinder. Another California company (Process Fab) was contracted to make the first stage thrust frame.
Some of the contractors are listed in this presentation. http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/images/stories/PSDS%20Steering%20Cmte%20Feb%202010%20Frick.pdf
- Ed Kyle
Samara is not listed here. :(
Subterfuge in a way, isn't it, to hide the origin of these engines? I find it distasteful too that the engines were "rebranded" for the Congressional/dignitary "dog and pony show" shown in the Flickr photos. I've never seen that done with RD-180.It's ok, they'll switch to RD-120K (4 apiece) in a few years, when they run out of NK-33s. Then "russian" problem will disappear, right? :roll:
Because they've done a lot of work on these engines. I've been researching it more, and the changes made are a lot more than just changing the letters on the engine nozzles.Samara is not listed here. :(
The reason is probably because Aerojet is the engine contractor working for Orbital. From Orbital's point of view, UEC/NDK are subcontractors working for/with Aerojet.
Subterfuge in a way, isn't it, to hide the origin of these engines? I find it distasteful too that the engines were "rebranded" for the Congressional/dignitary "dog and pony show" shown in the Flickr photos. I've never seen that done with RD-180.
- Ed Kyle
Only Russian:I went and double checked. One of the warehouses has over 150 engines on it's own. However, the total 400 included more than just the NK-33, also including NK-43 and NK-19's as well. So, error on my part. Total of 400 engines, but some of them are not NK-33's.Try over 400 NK-33's. Aerojet has bought over 100 of them.This sounds completely bogus to me. All I heard was roughly 70, with Aerojet having about half of those.
I did find out that Aerojet bought over 100 engines, the majority were NK-33's, but a few NK-43's as well.
The engine NK-33, NK-43 up to April 1974 were in mass production in factories Kuibyshev industrial hive. There were manufactured more than 120 production engines.
Currently SNTK saved 54 of NK-33 engines of which 46 can be prepared to commodity supplies. SNTK considering the issue of possible return to Russia of the engines, previously purchased by Aerojet.
Thus, the number of engines NK-33 can make 90 pieces
May be NK-31 or NK-39?Taurus has already picked an engine for the high energy upperstage
I take it the RD-0124 was chosen because it burned the same fuel as the first stage engines thus simplifying pad operations.
So I wonder will the high energy upper stage be derived from the Zenit or Soyuz upper stage.
Neither
May be NK-31 or NK-39?Taurus has already picked an engine for the high energy upperstage
I take it the RD-0124 was chosen because it burned the same fuel as the first stage engines thus simplifying pad operations.
So I wonder will the high energy upper stage be derived from the Zenit or Soyuz upper stage.
Neither
Samara is not listed here. :(
This is a big deal.
Contrary to the article, this will not make "Taurus 2 more competitive in securing agreements to launch NASA unmanned science missions, U.S. military satellites and commercial spacecraft."
This, in fact, will limit the utility of the vehicle. Taurus II will require a 3rd stage for sun sync and GTO orbits. As it is, it requires the spacecraft to adjust for any velocity errors caused by the second stage/SRM. This would complicate the delivery of spacecraft with no velocity control (such as GLAST, SWIFT, etc) and would require a small insertion adjustment stage.
As it is, it requires the spacecraft to adjust for any velocity errors caused by the second stage/SRM.what are the velocity errors for a solid? +/- 20 m/s??
This is a big deal.
Contrary to the article, this will not make "Taurus 2 more competitive in securing agreements to launch NASA unmanned science missions, U.S. military satellites and commercial spacecraft."
This, in fact, will limit the utility of the vehicle. Taurus II will require a 3rd stage for sun sync and GTO orbits. As it is, it requires the spacecraft to adjust for any velocity errors caused by the second stage/SRM. This would complicate the delivery of spacecraft with no velocity control (such as GLAST, SWIFT, etc) and would require a small insertion adjustment stage.
This is a big deal.
Contrary to the article, this will not make "Taurus 2 more competitive in securing agreements to launch NASA unmanned science missions, U.S. military satellites and commercial spacecraft."
This, in fact, will limit the utility of the vehicle. Taurus II will require a 3rd stage for sun sync and GTO orbits. As it is, it requires the spacecraft to adjust for any velocity errors caused by the second stage/SRM. This would complicate the delivery of spacecraft with no velocity control (such as GLAST, SWIFT, etc) and would require a small insertion adjustment stage.
My thoughts exactly. Their contract for the Castors is incredibly cheap, under $5 mil per engine. That means their entire upper stage is cheaper than *just* the engine for the liquid stage.This is a big deal.
Contrary to the article, this will not make "Taurus 2 more competitive in securing agreements to launch NASA unmanned science missions, U.S. military satellites and commercial spacecraft."
This, in fact, will limit the utility of the vehicle. Taurus II will require a 3rd stage for sun sync and GTO orbits. As it is, it requires the spacecraft to adjust for any velocity errors caused by the second stage/SRM. This would complicate the delivery of spacecraft with no velocity control (such as GLAST, SWIFT, etc) and would require a small insertion adjustment stage.
Orbital projected development of a small Orbit Raising Kit (ORK) stage at one point, based on its already developed spacecraft bus systems. That would do for LEO missions, but GTO would need a Star 48 or some other type of third stage.
The Castor 30XL does look like it will provide a nice payload boost for LEO, for not much money invested. This is a bit of a sneak attack by Orbital. ;)
- Ed Kyle
Any info on the payload performance of the Castor-30B and Castor-30XL versions?Not directly, but if you know ATK lettering systems, XL denotes extra long, which means longer burn. A B letter typically means a formula upgrade, which means improved isp in every case I've studied in the ATK catalog.
This will improve their payload to the need without increasing their costs dramatically, a win-win for Orbital I must say.
Taurus I, Pegasus, and Minotaur have all used solid upper stages and NASA has not had any hesitations to use them.
I see optional 3rd and even a 4th stage option as well listed. (Using the Castor + the in-orbit maneuvering system + STAR kick motor, you get 4 stages)
Taurus I, Pegasus, and Minotaur have all used solid upper stages and NASA has not had any hesitations to use them.
They have more than two stages. They can time the burn of the last stage for sun sync or LEO orbits. Taurus II only has 2 stages.
I see optional 3rd and even a 4th stage option as well listed. (Using the Castor + the in-orbit maneuvering system + STAR kick motor, you get 4 stages)
Taurus I, Pegasus, and Minotaur have all used solid upper stages and NASA has not had any hesitations to use them.
They have more than two stages. They can time the burn of the last stage for sun sync or LEO orbits. Taurus II only has 2 stages.
Any info on the payload performance of the Castor-30B and Castor-30XL versions?Not directly, but if you know ATK lettering systems, XL denotes extra long, which means longer burn. A B letter typically means a formula upgrade, which means improved isp in every case I've studied in the ATK catalog.
The result would be a Taurus 2 able to lift more than 6 tonnes to LEO from the Cape, matching or bettering Delta 2 Heavy (7920H).To LEO. But Delta II was good at high energy orbits. Which Taurus 2 isn't so good at.
The result would be a Taurus 2 able to lift more than 6 tonnes to LEO from the Cape, matching or bettering Delta 2 Heavy (7920H).To LEO. But Delta II was good at high energy orbits. Which Taurus 2 isn't so good at.
Taurus 2 would not easily match the Delta 2 precision orbital maneuvering capabilities provided by the latter rocket's pressure-fed hypergolic liquid upper stage. For that, Orbital would need to add a small liquid maneuvering bus atop the Castor 30XL.As far as I can tell, Orbital has experience doing just that, going back to HAPS that flew on top of Pegasus.
Taurus 2 would not easily match the Delta 2 precision orbital maneuvering capabilities provided by the latter rocket's pressure-fed hypergolic liquid upper stage. For that, Orbital would need to add a small liquid maneuvering bus atop the Castor 30XL.As far as I can tell, Orbital has experience doing just that, going back to HAPS that flew on top of Pegasus.
This tells me commercial GTO missions are probably in the bottom of the freezer. I think that was a big part of the T2 business case. Looks like T2 is just a USG launcher now, maybe some commercial imaging sats like Worldview.
+ Orbital has confidence in its Taurus II first stage margins, thus allowing the "selected weight savings" mentioned by J.R. Thompson.Well duh. Antonio wrote at forums that lower stage should always be designed oversized when a new launcher family is put down. Elon is trying to prove him wrong by promising a stretch of F9, we'll see how well that works for him.
+ Orbital has confidence in its Taurus II first stage margins, thus allowing the "selected weight savings" mentioned by J.R. Thompson.Well duh. Antonio wrote at forums that lower stage should always be designed oversized when a new launcher family is put down. Elon is trying to prove him wrong by promising a stretch of F9, we'll see how well that works for him.
+ Orbital has confidence in its Taurus II first stage margins, thus allowing the "selected weight savings" mentioned by J.R. Thompson.Well duh. Antonio wrote at forums that lower stage should always be designed oversized when a new launcher family is put down. Elon is trying to prove him wrong by promising a stretch of F9, we'll see how well that works for him.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the upgraded F9 is stretched.
F9 has basically won the Delta II replacement sweepstakes.
Any info on the payload performance of the Castor-30B and Castor-30XL versions?Not directly, but if you know ATK lettering systems, XL denotes extra long, which means longer burn. A B letter typically means a formula upgrade, which means improved isp in every case I've studied in the ATK catalog.
F9 has basically won the Delta II replacement sweepstakes.
Formula upgrade. V denotes how it is stabilized (nozzle vector control system) while B is a formula upgrade. So, a BV would be a B which is not spin stabilized, having a vectored control system instead.Any info on the payload performance of the Castor-30B and Castor-30XL versions?Not directly, but if you know ATK lettering systems, XL denotes extra long, which means longer burn. A B letter typically means a formula upgrade, which means improved isp in every case I've studied in the ATK catalog.
On a similar note, does anyone know details (mass, thrust, burn time etc) for the Star 48BV? The 2008 version of ATK's catalog has 48B and 48V, but not 48BV. Is this just a renaming of the 48V or (per the above) a formula upgrade to it?
Formula upgrade. V denotes how it is stabilized (nozzle vector control system) while B is a formula upgrade. So, a BV would be a B which is not spin stabilized, having a vectored control system instead.Any info on the payload performance of the Castor-30B and Castor-30XL versions?Not directly, but if you know ATK lettering systems, XL denotes extra long, which means longer burn. A B letter typically means a formula upgrade, which means improved isp in every case I've studied in the ATK catalog.
On a similar note, does anyone know details (mass, thrust, burn time etc) for the Star 48BV? The 2008 version of ATK's catalog has 48B and 48V, but not 48BV. Is this just a renaming of the 48V or (per the above) a formula upgrade to it?
Here's a document with the BV listed:
http://www.atk.com/Products/documents/STAR%20Motors%20and%20Stages.pdf
It's stats, for those too lazy to load:
isp 292
Thrust 14,790 lbf
Burn time: 84.1 sec
Weight loaded: 4780 lbs
Compared to the normal 48V, slightly lower thrust, slightly higher isp.
F9 has basically won the Delta II replacement sweepstakes.
Just gotta hope that SpaceX doesn't price-gouge once they have the market all sewn up.
The result would be a Taurus 2 able to lift more than 6 tonnes to LEO from the Cape, matching or bettering Delta 2 Heavy (7920H).To LEO. But Delta II was good at high energy orbits. Which Taurus 2 isn't so good at.
Taurus 2 with an XL second stage and a Star 48V third stage would likely match or outperform Delta 2 Heavy (7920H/7925H) to any orbit, including GTO and escape. Note that Delta 2 also required a spinning solid upper stage motor to achieve its higher energy orbits.
Taurus 2 would not easily match the Delta 2 precision orbital maneuvering capabilities provided by the latter rocket's pressure-fed hypergolic liquid upper stage. For that, Orbital would need to add a small liquid maneuvering bus atop the Castor 30XL.
- Ed Kyle
A way to add some precision might be to add something similar to the Spacedev MoTV after the Castor 30XL.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/motv.htm
A way to add some precision might be to add something similar to the Spacedev MoTV after the Castor 30XL.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/motv.htm
Why? Orbital already makes HAPS.
A way to add some precision might be to add something similar to the Spacedev MoTV after the Castor 30XL.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/motv.htm
Why? Orbital already makes HAPS.
Orbital plans to use a bipropellant hypergolic pressure-fed propulsion system called "Orbit Raising Kit" (ORK). ORK is based on the apogee propulsion system of the Star-2 bus satellites. AFAIK, it will feature 3 BT-4 engines (500 N) manufactured by IHI.
You can imagine ORK as an extra-large HAPS stage.
I thought they chalked the AEHF-1 propulsions system failure to FOD (something clogging a line) and not the engine...Yah it was an anomaly due to workmanship they say vs anything wrong with the design.
– Taurus II: 5100 kg to 52° / 200 km or 3200 kg to 90° / 600 km
– Taurus IIe: 6000 kg to 52° / 200 km or 4200 kg to 90° / 600 km
– Taurus IIh: 1100 kg to C3 = 0 km2/sec2
Available or Planned Ground Infrastructure
– Wallops Island Site: ILC in 2011 – Mid to High Inclination Orbits
– West Coast Site: ILC in 2014 – High Inclination Orbits
Delivery Schedule
– Earliest Availability for New-Order Launch ~ Third Quarter 2013
– Normal Order-to-Launch Cycle ~21 Months (for 2014 or Later Launches)
Taurus II: CASTOR 30B / 2011 ILC
Taurus IIe: CASTOR 30XL / 2011 ILC
Taurus IIh: CASTOR 30XL with STAR 48BV Third Stage / 2014 ILC
The Castor 30XL does look like it will provide a nice payload boost for LEO, for not much money invested - about a 40% increase in second stage propellant it appears - not a minor stretch by any means. This is a bit of a sneak attack by Orbital. ;)
- Ed Kyle
I like how they answered Jim's fine orbital adjustment concern on page 3
still limits what they can do for planetary and multiple payload missions.
still limits what they can do for planetary and multiple payload missions.
But, are there any other options for planetary Delta II-class payloads?
It's really, really hard to fit an Atlas V in a Discovery-class cost cap, and I can't recall F9 having a third stage option.
It's really, really hard to fit an Atlas V in a Discovery-class cost cap, and I can't recall F9 having a third stage option.
The taxpayer still has to pay.It's really, really hard to fit an Atlas V in a Discovery-class cost cap, and I can't recall F9 having a third stage option.
I thought Discovery mission budgets did not include the launch vehicle, is that correct?
Looks, cosmetically, the same as the first stage next to it (center red thing, black thing with the squiggly white in it at same clock angle). Maybe there are two first stages there?
...The first flight first stage was recently reported to be en route, so it may have arrived.
- Ed Kyle
...The first flight first stage was recently reported to be en route, so it may have arrived.
- Ed Kyle
Do you have linkage to such reports?
...The first flight first stage was recently reported to be en route, so it may have arrived.
- Ed Kyle
Do you have linkage to such reports?
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/meeting_news/media/2011/may/Alexander.pptx
I noticed some strange things in those charts.
Milestone 10 "COTS System Preliminary Design Review" was scheduled to be completed in April of 2009. It still shows "N" complete, but with a delay of only one month.
Milestones 13-16 have similar problems.
Has anybody heard anything about the AJ26 test gone bad yesterday 6/9 in Stennis? (I hear some people talking about kaboom)
Has anybody heard anything about the AJ26 test gone bad yesterday 6/9 in Stennis? (I hear some people talking about kaboom)http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110610-aj26-shuts-down-early-testing.html
Has anybody heard anything about the AJ26 test gone bad yesterday 6/9 in Stennis? (I hear some people talking about kaboom)http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110610-aj26-shuts-down-early-testing.html
Edit, NASA Stennis release; not much in the way of details besides the early cutoff:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/news/newsreleases/2011/CLT-11-101.html
Has anybody heard anything about the AJ26 test gone bad yesterday 6/9 in Stennis? (I hear some people talking about kaboom)http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110610-aj26-shuts-down-early-testing.html
Edit, NASA Stennis release; not much in the way of details besides the early cutoff:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/news/newsreleases/2011/CLT-11-101.html
Has anybody heard anything about the AJ26 test gone bad yesterday 6/9 in Stennis? (I hear some people talking about kaboom)http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110610-aj26-shuts-down-early-testing.html
Edit, NASA Stennis release; not much in the way of details besides the early cutoff:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/news/newsreleases/2011/CLT-11-101.html
Since it was a shut down and it did not go boom hopefully it'll be something easily resolved.
Has anybody heard anything about the AJ26 test gone bad yesterday 6/9 in Stennis? (I hear some people talking about kaboom)
You sure you have the right engine number? Only engine i know of being tested is the J2-X.
Has anybody heard anything about the AJ26 test gone bad yesterday 6/9 in Stennis? (I hear some people talking about kaboom)http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110610-aj26-shuts-down-early-testing.html
Edit, NASA Stennis release; not much in the way of details besides the early cutoff:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/news/newsreleases/2011/CLT-11-101.html
Since it was a shut down and it did not go boom hopefully it'll be something easily resolved.
*GOSSIP DISCLAIMER - Not trusted source* I heard was that it was a bit more than that, but the source is not reliable.
Has anybody heard anything about the AJ26 test gone bad yesterday 6/9 in Stennis? (I hear some people talking about kaboom)http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110610-aj26-shuts-down-early-testing.html
Edit, NASA Stennis release; not much in the way of details besides the early cutoff:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/news/newsreleases/2011/CLT-11-101.html
Since it was a shut down and it did not go boom hopefully it'll be something easily resolved.
*GOSSIP DISCLAIMER - Not trusted source* I heard was that it was a bit more than that, but the source is not reliable.
Yeah, I wish I had had the presence of mind to post the link here. I'm curious to hear what happened.
~Jon
A reminder, this is *WHY* we use a test stand, so if an engine has a defect or an issue, these issues can be discovered beforehand. They are testing each one of these engines before flight, so identify any issues. I suspect the issue may be something as simple as age, the combustion chambers are almost 40 years old after all.
Not for me. I remind myself of how many engines they have tested so far. This is the first one I've heard of with any issue on the stand. That is a good ratio, better than many other engines I've seen tested.A reminder, this is *WHY* we use a test stand, so if an engine has a defect or an issue, these issues can be discovered beforehand. They are testing each one of these engines before flight, so identify any issues. I suspect the issue may be something as simple as age, the combustion chambers are almost 40 years old after all.
Think of that statement there, and consider that for the 'expectation' of fullfilling CRS for NASA. It gives one a moment for pause.
Not for me. I remind myself of how many engines they have tested so far. This is the first one I've heard of with any issue on the stand. That is a good ratio, better than many other engines I've seen tested.A reminder, this is *WHY* we use a test stand, so if an engine has a defect or an issue, these issues can be discovered beforehand. They are testing each one of these engines before flight, so identify any issues. I suspect the issue may be something as simple as age, the combustion chambers are almost 40 years old after all.
Think of that statement there, and consider that for the 'expectation' of fullfilling CRS for NASA. It gives one a moment for pause.
Should Orbital order a Atlas V. Just in case.
Should Orbital order a Atlas V. Just in case.
Should Orbital order a Atlas V. Just in case.
Maybe NASA should open up another round of Cots 1 funding quick.
This is absurd. All LV programs have setbacks. There is as yet no indication this is a major setback. Even if it is, NASA has *two* COTS providers, and plenty of margin for *both* of them to slip substantially, plus some flexibility with the manifests of other partner vehicles if things go bad.Should Orbital order a Atlas V. Just in case.
Maybe NASA should open up another round of Cots 1 funding quick.
Indeed, this is the beauty of developing an ecosystem of multiple suppliers fielding multiple, separate logistics vehicles and launch vehicles. If AJ-26, hypothetically, had some horrific delay, just adapt Cygnus for Delta 4M -- plenty of spare production capacity there. (Though, come to think of it, the lead time for RS-68A might be quite a hit. OTOH, we have plenty of RD-180 stockpiled.)No need. There are enough launch vehicles right now and with CCDev, there could be additional logistics vehicles availableShould Orbital order a Atlas V. Just in case.Maybe NASA should open up another round of Cots 1 funding quick.
This is absurd. All LV programs have setbacks. There is as yet no indication this is a major setback. Even if it is, NASA has *two* COTS providers, and plenty of margin for *both* of them to slip substantially, plus some flexibility with the manifests of other partner vehicles if things go bad.Should Orbital order a Atlas V. Just in case.
Maybe NASA should open up another round of Cots 1 funding quick.
Sorry, think your adding too much into my word "quick", poor choice on my part. I just like insurance for the future, if SpaceX and Orbital are good then two more might be better?
Should Orbital order a Atlas V. Just in case.
Should Orbital order a Atlas V. Just in case.
Delta II Heavy would be more appropriate and cheaper and there are 6 available in partially built state.
Quote from: marsavian
Delta II Heavy would be more appropriate and cheaper and there are 6 available in partially built state.
No fairing to fit it.
Sorry, think your adding too much into my word "quick", poor choice on my part. I just like insurance for the future, if SpaceX and Orbital are good then two more might be better?If you are going to pay for it out of your own pocket, absolutely, the more the merrier. Otherwise, no, thanks. If for some reason Taurus 2 became untenable (extremely unlikely IMO), there's plenty of options. Paying for more would be a waste of money.
Sorry, think your adding too much into my word "quick", poor choice on my part. I just like insurance for the future, if SpaceX and Orbital are good then two more might be better?If you are going to pay for it out of your own pocket, absolutely, the more the merrier. Otherwise, no, thanks. If for some reason Taurus 2 became untenable (extremely unlikely IMO), there's plenty of options. Paying for more would be a waste of money.
To all those saying or implying that this specific incident somehow casts a little doubt on Taurus II or CRS:
It's hearsay and uninformed speculation like this which is why companies tend to stay closed-lip on anything which they don't have to release. If we could all look at little blips like this with any kind of real perspective, then we'd be much more likely to hear more about the day-to-day difficulties and successes in this industry, things that a lot of us come to NSF for. So stop with jumping to conclusions or doubts.
In my view, it is the closed-lip approach that encourages hearsay and uninformed speculation. The companies involved could have been more informative, placing the test failure in proper context. Instead, they chose to say nothing for an entire day and then, when they did report, provided essentially no information.
If you think things/rhetoric would be different if instead of speculation we knew for a fact that the engine's flux capacitor (TM) blew up, I would beg to differ.
Shoot, the SSME's had the blowing-up Oxygen turbopump on the stand issue until the Block I upgrade.If you think things/rhetoric would be different if instead of speculation we knew for a fact that the engine's flux capacitor (TM) blew up, I would beg to differ.
I do believe that providing more information is a chance for Orbital and Aerojet to shape the discussion. They could have mentioned that all of the engines needed for the first flight have already been successfully tested without any issues (I think that is the case). They could have noted that engine test stand failures are not uncommon or unexpected or show stoppers. (SSMEs suffered numerous test stand failures right up until a few months before STS-1. SpaceX has shredded a Merlin or two along the way. Etc.)
This is their chance to tell the story. If they blow it, it doesn't matter what posters here say, it matters what Orlando Sentinel and Aviation Week and Washington Post and CBS News, etc., write and say. Media smell trouble when companies aren't forthright. They might wonder, for example, why that video disappeared so suddenly.
- Ed Kyle
I just marvel at the expectation of openness. Whatever happened to the notion of proprietary information and things being competition sensitive? You want every corporate decision and non-conformance to be made public? Where is the line drawn logically?When it is already public knowledge that some type of failure occurred, it shouldn't take 24 hours for the companies involved to even acknowledge it. When the failure appears serious to informed observers, on a program that the United State and other countries are depending on for ISS resupply, that minimal acknowledgment requires augmentation in short order. Three days have passed so far.
I'd like to think people have better things to do than speculate idly about items they have no cause to know about. If you invoke the tax-dollar argument, I refer you back to the previous paragraph.
Has anybody heard anything about the AJ26 test gone bad yesterday 6/9 in Stennis? (I hear some people talking about kaboom)http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110610-aj26-shuts-down-early-testing.html
Edit, NASA Stennis release; not much in the way of details besides the early cutoff:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/news/newsreleases/2011/CLT-11-101.html
Since it was a shut down and it did not go boom hopefully it'll be something easily resolved.
*GOSSIP DISCLAIMER - Not trusted source* I heard was that it was a bit more than that, but the source is not reliable.
A youtube of the test was up on the internet on Thursday (but has since been taken down), I saw the link on a friend's twitter feed and watched it. The youtube was claiming that there was actually an explosion, but it wasn't clear to me. The engine started, and a few seconds later there was a "bang", and a big ball of black smoke, but it wasn't clear if it was just a premature shutdown with an ugly shutdown transient (at Masten some of our shutdown transients were "burpy", and this is a much bigger, more complex engine). It was from far enough away that you couldn't tell how serious the damage was, but based on the reaction of the people in the movie (this was a video from back in a viewing area of sorts), my guess was that the youtube was overstating the case, so I didn't link to it here on NSF.com at the time.
~Jon
If you think things/rhetoric would be different if instead of speculation we knew for a fact that the engine's flux capacitor (TM) blew up, I would beg to differ.
I do believe that providing more information is a chance for Orbital and Aerojet to shape the discussion. They could have mentioned that all of the engines needed for the first flight have already been successfully tested without any issues (I think that is the case). They could have noted that engine test stand failures are not uncommon or unexpected or show stoppers. (SSMEs suffered numerous test stand failures right up until a few months before STS-1. SpaceX has shredded a Merlin or two along the way. Etc.)
This is their chance to tell the story. If they blow it, it doesn't matter what posters here say, it matters what Orlando Sentinel and Aviation Week and Washington Post and CBS News, etc., write and say. Media smell trouble when companies aren't forthright. They might wonder, for example, why that video disappeared so suddenly.
- Ed Kyle
The wise thing to do is to be upfront with this and put the video back out.
I saw the video. It looked like it was taken by a NASA employee or Stennis contractor. It's not theirs to release. Probably highly illegal to do so. They cannot put it back out.
“There was significant damage to the engine,” Orbital spokesman Baron Beneski said June 21.
Beneski and Glenn Mahone, a spokesman for Aerojet, say the AJ26 engine shut down prematurely after a fuel leak developed during a hot-fire acceptance test, and the leaking kerosene fuel ignited. While the engine was damaged, the test stand at Stennis Space Center suffered only minor damage, the spokesmen said in separate telephone interviews.
Aviation Week: Taurus II Engine Sustained Damage In Fire (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/06/22/02.xml&headline=Taurus%20II%20Engine%20Sustained%20Damage%20In%20Fire)Thanks for spotting that.
How many SSMEs or F-1s were blown up before they got them to become reliable engines?
How many SSMEs or F-1s were blown up before they got them to become reliable engines?
Can't speak to the SSME but I saw lots of F1's execute an unscheduled rapid disassembly.
In 1978 alone they had 8 unscheduled rapid dissassemblies.How many SSMEs or F-1s were blown up before they got them to become reliable engines?
Can't speak to the SSME but I saw lots of F1's execute an unscheduled rapid disassembly.
Other things I learned, the NK-33 has had over 700,000 seconds of testing in it's lifetime, not a record but still a lot. Out of those tests, I have only found four incidents, two of them since 2000. One in '06 or '07, and this one. That's a pretty darn good record in my book.
Did more digging, it was in '09, and was an oxidizer feed line from the test stand broke free. The other two tests were one in either 1971 or 1972 and one in 1976. The root cause for the earlier engine was corrosion within the LOX fuel line. The line was changed before the engine was officially accepted as ready in '72. The latter of these two was an endurance burn to see how far they could push the engine before it broke, and it hit chamber wall failure at around 120% over spec.Other things I learned, the NK-33 has had over 700,000 seconds of testing in it's lifetime, not a record but still a lot. Out of those tests, I have only found four incidents, two of them since 2000. One in '06 or '07, and this one. That's a pretty darn good record in my book.
Unless of course you start to ask certain questions:
1. When were the other two failures and what was determined to be the root cause?
2. When was the bulk of this firing time accumulated?Large block from 1972-1980 and then another large block from 95 until now.
3. What was the time frame between the two previous incidents and these latest ones?~30 years.
4. What has possibly changed since then?Engine age would be one guess.
5. What was the failure mode and the cause of the incident in '06 or '07?See above, was wrong and it was in '09.
6. Could this one and that one be related?Not likely, as the '09 incident was with the stand, not the engine itself, and was on a different stand. In addition, it was with the LOX delivery system, not the fuel.
Has this been posted yet?Above, yes. They still have not identified if it was the engine itself which leaked, or the fuel lines from the stand.
http://twitter.com/Berger_SN/status/83621034963644416
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2011/06/22/02.xml&headline=Taurus%20II%20Engine%20Sustained%20Damage%20In%20Fire
Large block from 1969-1977 - 96000 seconds.2. When was the bulk of this firing time accumulated?Large block from 1972-1980 and then another large block from 95 until now.
Much better and more detail, thank you.Large block from 1969-1977 - 96000 seconds.2. When was the bulk of this firing time accumulated?Large block from 1972-1980 and then another large block from 95 until now.
Block from 1995-1998 - 1200 seconds (14 firings).
http://www.ihst.ru/~akm/30t16.htm
Much better and more detail, thank you.Large block from 1969-1977 - 96000 seconds.2. When was the bulk of this firing time accumulated?Large block from 1972-1980 and then another large block from 95 until now.
Block from 1995-1998 - 1200 seconds (14 firings).
http://www.ihst.ru/~akm/30t16.htm
Prob a stupid question but does this include the real N-1 flight test time?
Prob a stupid question but does this include the real N-1 flight test time?
Those were NK-15s.
It was due to the N-1's issues that they ground tested the hell out of these things.Prob a stupid question but does this include the real N-1 flight test time?
Those were NK-15s.
Oh, right, 4 flights of NK-15's then the NK-33 was cancelled and never flew.
Oh, right, 4 flights of NK-15's then the NK-33 was cancelled and never flew.It was due to the N-1's issues that they ground tested the hell out of these things.
(even though they saved a lot of design and testing time by... "getting inspired" by the Shuttle).
(even though they saved a lot of design and testing time by... "getting inspired" by the Shuttle).
Such as?
What does fuel line leading into the engine mean? Not to add spin to this? The line between the turbo pump and the combustion chamber (engine), or the line that feeds the turbo pump leading into the whole thing.Not only that, but the fuel line is actually a very small part of the system, pretty isolated, which means simpler to track down the cause. The AJ-26, being an Oxygen-Rich Staged Combustion, has a *lot* more oxidixer lines running through the thing.
I have noticed they have been very specific to say fuel. So not as bad as if this had been a nasty oxidizer issue.
What does fuel line leading into the engine mean? Not to add spin to this? The line between the turbo pump and the combustion chamber (engine), or the line that feeds the turbo pump leading into the whole thing.Not only that, but the fuel line is actually a very small part of the system, pretty isolated, which means simpler to track down the cause. The AJ-26, being an Oxygen-Rich Staged Combustion, has a *lot* more oxidixer lines running through the thing.
I have noticed they have been very specific to say fuel. So not as bad as if this had been a nasty oxidizer issue.
While a good diagram, if you compare to the actual engine, there appears to be physically more LOX tubing than RP-1. (not counting the nozzle, mind you) That's all I was referring to.What does fuel line leading into the engine mean? Not to add spin to this? The line between the turbo pump and the combustion chamber (engine), or the line that feeds the turbo pump leading into the whole thing.Not only that, but the fuel line is actually a very small part of the system, pretty isolated, which means simpler to track down the cause. The AJ-26, being an Oxygen-Rich Staged Combustion, has a *lot* more oxidixer lines running through the thing.
I have noticed they have been very specific to say fuel. So not as bad as if this had been a nasty oxidizer issue.
Actually, it doesn't. The Aj26/NK33 has an inlet line to the pump, and outlet to the GG using full flow of the LOX pump, and that's about it.
http://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/nk-33/
Would these fuel lines be original Russian metal, or parts replaced by AeroJet? If original it makes one wonder about the reliability of any other legacy parts.
Would these fuel lines be original Russian metal, or parts replaced by AeroJet? If original it makes one wonder about the reliability of any other legacy parts.Don't know. There are both replaced and legacy portions of the fuel lines as far as I can tell from looking at the engine. Could even be one of the seals.
That is my theory as well, based on the location of it and the report of serious damage to the engine, it's a good candidate.Would these fuel lines be original Russian metal, or parts replaced by AeroJet? If original it makes one wonder about the reliability of any other legacy parts.
My speculation is that we are talking about a failure in the main fuel downcomer, which is procured by Aerojet and custom designed to the T-II installation. But we will have to wait until the failure report.
While a good diagram, if you compare to the actual engine, there appears to be physically more LOX tubing than RP-1. (not counting the nozzle, mind you) That's all I was referring to.What does fuel line leading into the engine mean? Not to add spin to this? The line between the turbo pump and the combustion chamber (engine), or the line that feeds the turbo pump leading into the whole thing.Not only that, but the fuel line is actually a very small part of the system, pretty isolated, which means simpler to track down the cause. The AJ-26, being an Oxygen-Rich Staged Combustion, has a *lot* more oxidixer lines running through the thing.
I have noticed they have been very specific to say fuel. So not as bad as if this had been a nasty oxidizer issue.
Actually, it doesn't. The Aj26/NK33 has an inlet line to the pump, and outlet to the GG using full flow of the LOX pump, and that's about it.
http://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/nk-33/
Would these fuel lines be original Russian metal, or parts replaced by AeroJet? If original it makes one wonder about the reliability of any other legacy parts.
Cool, good to know and I appreciate it. I don't know much beyond the basics of how the engines work, so this adds to my understanding.While a good diagram, if you compare to the actual engine, there appears to be physically more LOX tubing than RP-1. (not counting the nozzle, mind you) That's all I was referring to.What does fuel line leading into the engine mean? Not to add spin to this? The line between the turbo pump and the combustion chamber (engine), or the line that feeds the turbo pump leading into the whole thing.Not only that, but the fuel line is actually a very small part of the system, pretty isolated, which means simpler to track down the cause. The AJ-26, being an Oxygen-Rich Staged Combustion, has a *lot* more oxidixer lines running through the thing.
I have noticed they have been very specific to say fuel. So not as bad as if this had been a nasty oxidizer issue.
Actually, it doesn't. The Aj26/NK33 has an inlet line to the pump, and outlet to the GG using full flow of the LOX pump, and that's about it.
http://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/nk-33/
I've seen the engine many, many times, and designed it into four different launch vehicles, and have the full engineering package under NDA from Aerojet but have never seen more than the LOX feedline and GG output line shown. The fuel side has a lot of lines, to be sure.
While a good diagram, if you compare to the actual engine, there appears to be physically more LOX tubing than RP-1. (not counting the nozzle, mind you) That's all I was referring to.What does fuel line leading into the engine mean? Not to add spin to this? The line between the turbo pump and the combustion chamber (engine), or the line that feeds the turbo pump leading into the whole thing.Not only that, but the fuel line is actually a very small part of the system, pretty isolated, which means simpler to track down the cause. The AJ-26, being an Oxygen-Rich Staged Combustion, has a *lot* more oxidixer lines running through the thing.
I have noticed they have been very specific to say fuel. So not as bad as if this had been a nasty oxidizer issue.
Actually, it doesn't. The Aj26/NK33 has an inlet line to the pump, and outlet to the GG using full flow of the LOX pump, and that's about it.
http://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/nk-33/
I've seen the engine many, many times, and designed it into four different launch vehicles, and have the full engineering package under NDA from Aerojet but have never seen more than the LOX feedline and GG output line shown. The fuel side has a lot of lines, to be sure.
While a good diagram, if you compare to the actual engine, there appears to be physically more LOX tubing than RP-1. (not counting the nozzle, mind you) That's all I was referring to.What does fuel line leading into the engine mean? Not to add spin to this? The line between the turbo pump and the combustion chamber (engine), or the line that feeds the turbo pump leading into the whole thing.Not only that, but the fuel line is actually a very small part of the system, pretty isolated, which means simpler to track down the cause. The AJ-26, being an Oxygen-Rich Staged Combustion, has a *lot* more oxidixer lines running through the thing.
I have noticed they have been very specific to say fuel. So not as bad as if this had been a nasty oxidizer issue.
Actually, it doesn't. The Aj26/NK33 has an inlet line to the pump, and outlet to the GG using full flow of the LOX pump, and that's about it.
http://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/nk-33/
I've seen the engine many, many times, and designed it into four different launch vehicles, and have the full engineering package under NDA from Aerojet but have never seen more than the LOX feedline and GG output line shown. The fuel side has a lot of lines, to be sure.
Must be nice to have seen one close up! From the pic you put up the castings look really very rough (external) with little machining done. Does it look that way when you see the engine close up?
What kind of castings are used? Can't imagine ordinary sand casts. Maybe investment castings or die casts?
What kind of castings are used? Can't imagine ordinary sand casts. Maybe investment castings or die casts?I got curious about this myself. While I did not uncover any information about the NK-33's casting technique, I did find a nice article about the SSME's. Here it is:
What kind of castings are used? Can't imagine ordinary sand casts. Maybe investment castings or die casts?I got curious about this myself. While I did not uncover any information about the NK-33's casting technique, I did find a nice article about the SSME's. Here it is:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/58546461.html
4 minutes to extinguish sounds like a long time to do damage to that engine.
Would these fuel lines be original Russian metal, or parts replaced by AeroJet? If original it makes one wonder about the reliability of any other legacy parts.
Russian Metal is overbuilt to add margin. My guess is the AeroJet refirb doesn't have the same thinking.
What kind of castings are used? Can't imagine ordinary sand casts. Maybe investment castings or die casts?I got curious about this myself. While I did not uncover any information about the NK-33's casting technique, I did find a nice article about the SSME's. Here it is:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/58546461.html
thats a good find. I wondered about casts because of this video of SpaceX
http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=25
He talked about using Copper and I will bet he moved on this is an old video. But at that filming prob had Copper-Beryllium cast done. Pure copper I would think to be too soft for this application?
It was due to the N-1's issues that they ground tested the hell out of these things.Prob a stupid question but does this include the real N-1 flight test time?
Those were NK-15s.
Oh, right, 4 flights of NK-15's then the NK-33 was cancelled and never flew.
FWIW, lpre.de has some diagrams and pictures: http://www.lpre.de/sntk/NK-33/index.htm
Looks like this will definitely impact their schedule.
"The other engine already at Wallops was to have been paired with the now-damaged engine for the Taurus 2’s maiden launch, targeted for October.
That launch — a demonstration flight meant to help qualify the vehicle to launch cargo capsules bound for the international space station — now appears likely to slip at least a month since the next available engine still must undergo acceptance testing at Stennis, according to the source."
So they have successfully 3 tested engines so far.
2 engines are being installed into a first stage that will used for a hold-down test at the pad. After the hold-down test, is that first stage done ? How long are the engines going to be fired, that they need refurbishing ?
How long to repair the test stand, so they can mount and start testing another engine ?
Neither of which, one suspects, you regard as a synonym for "adequate". Or "thoroughly, over a sufficiently broad range of conditions" ;)It was due to the N-1's issues that they ground tested the hell out of these things.Ahh, one of my favorite technical terms for amount of testing... "the hell out of...", right up there with "a s**tload". :)
I've observed that there is a "look" – for want of a better term – to rocket engines that have been designed by aero-engine firms... But then again, have a look at an Aerojet Titan engine; they also have the same sort of "look and feel."
It's funny looking at old engines, you can tell immediately who developed which, some companies just have this style about them.I've observed that there is a "look" – for want of a better term – to rocket engines that have been designed by aero-engine firms... But then again, have a look at an Aerojet Titan engine; they also have the same sort of "look and feel."
Oh yeah. I remember once walking through the museum in Huntsville with a friend who fixed P&W F100s for a living, and he took one look at an Aerojet LR-87 and said "I could rebuild that engine". He had a very different reaction when we got to the SSME...
I've observed that there is a "look" – for want of a better term – to rocket engines that have been designed by aero-engine firms... But then again, have a look at an Aerojet Titan engine; they also have the same sort of "look and feel."
Oh yeah. I remember once walking through the museum in Huntsville with a friend who fixed P&W F100s for a living, and he took one look at an Aerojet LR-87 and said "I could rebuild that engine". He had a very different reaction when we got to the SSME...
Seen one of the ones modified for LH2?I've observed that there is a "look" – for want of a better term – to rocket engines that have been designed by aero-engine firms... But then again, have a look at an Aerojet Titan engine; they also have the same sort of "look and feel."
Oh yeah. I remember once walking through the museum in Huntsville with a friend who fixed P&W F100s for a living, and he took one look at an Aerojet LR-87 and said "I could rebuild that engine". He had a very different reaction when we got to the SSME...
LR-87's were sweet engines.
Seen one of the ones modified for LH2?I've observed that there is a "look" – for want of a better term – to rocket engines that have been designed by aero-engine firms... But then again, have a look at an Aerojet Titan engine; they also have the same sort of "look and feel."
Oh yeah. I remember once walking through the museum in Huntsville with a friend who fixed P&W F100s for a living, and he took one look at an Aerojet LR-87 and said "I could rebuild that engine". He had a very different reaction when we got to the SSME...
LR-87's were sweet engines.
I knew where one was at one time, but that was years ago.Seen one of the ones modified for LH2?I've observed that there is a "look" – for want of a better term – to rocket engines that have been designed by aero-engine firms... But then again, have a look at an Aerojet Titan engine; they also have the same sort of "look and feel."
Oh yeah. I remember once walking through the museum in Huntsville with a friend who fixed P&W F100s for a living, and he took one look at an Aerojet LR-87 and said "I could rebuild that engine". He had a very different reaction when we got to the SSME...
LR-87's were sweet engines.
No, have you?
And here's what the VAB... pardon me, the HIF (Horizontal Integration Facility) looks like:
And here's what the VAB... pardon me, the HIF (Horizontal Integration Facility) looks like:
Lunar, eeer Freudian slip ;)
but was able to see stages 2 and 3 from my front yard in McLEAN!!!)
but was able to see stages 2 and 3 from my front yard in McLEAN!!!)
Will the not-so-high-energy (solid) second stage for T-II put on a similar display?
Frank Culberson, Orbital: now planning Taurus 2 test firing on pad in November, demo launch late December, COTS flight next February.
Via @jeff_foust (http://twitter.com/#!/jeff_foust/status/94077263011778561):QuoteFrank Culberson, Orbital: now planning Taurus 2 test firing on pad in November, demo launch late December, COTS flight next February.
Via @jeff_foust (http://twitter.com/#!/jeff_foust/status/94077263011778561):QuoteFrank Culberson, Orbital: now planning Taurus 2 test firing on pad in November, demo launch late December, COTS flight next February.
Looking forward to this.
It's nice that Orbital leaves the schedule forecasts up on their microsites. Looking over the past few, the slips don't seem too bad -- Risk Reduction, COTS, and CRS 1 have each slipped about 1.5 quarters from this time a year ago. That's a much better time dilation factor than many other companies and government programs have. :)
Cygnus still hasn't flown or docked to the ISS yet, so any issues with the first demo flight could impact the COTS 1 flight.
Cygnus is also derived in part from an already operational unit, which limits the areas of concern.Cygnus still hasn't flown or docked to the ISS yet, so any issues with the first demo flight could impact the COTS 1 flight.
AFAIK, a functional Cygnus won't fly on the T-II demo flight so it won't be tested and thus can't impact the COTS demo by itself.
the Ukrainian-built AJ26 engine???
Quotethe Ukrainian-built AJ26 engine???
"Orbital will be submitting the Taurus 2 to NASA and the U.S. Air Force later this year for inclusion in the list of approved rockets used by these two agencies for missions beyond space station cargo-resupply."So, they will be adding the Taurus II to the NLS II program this year! Since this is a direct Delta II replacement, which missions could use it's services that will define the LV in 2012 throu 2013?
Thompson also said Orbital has completed a review of the March failure of its smaller Taurus XL rocket, whose fairing malfunctioned for the second consecutive time. In both cases the principal payloads were NASA science satellites whose combined cost is estimated at more than $600 million.
Orbital’s June 29 flight of a Minotaur rocket, a converted ICBM, used a fairing that had been redesigned to account for the two Taurus XL failures. The launch, carrying the U.S. Defense Department’s Operationally Responsive Space-1 satellite into low Earth orbit, was a success.
Quotethe Ukrainian-built AJ26 engine???
Show me Samara on this map: http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/Suppliers/
::)
The big question is why they didn't release the accident committee findings, and if the redesign did work. After all, the Minotaur never had a problem. And the wider Taurus XL did twice.
The big question is why they didn't release the accident committee findings, and if the redesign did work. After all, the Minotaur never had a problem. And the wider Taurus XL did twice.
Proprietary, eye-tar.
Subsequent analysis revealed that the leak came from a fuel manifold on the outside of the Soviet-era NK-33 rocket engine, which has been modified by Aerojet and redesignated the AJ-26.
QuoteSubsequent analysis revealed that the leak came from a fuel manifold on the outside of the Soviet-era NK-33 rocket engine, which has been modified by Aerojet and redesignated the AJ-26.
I would assume this sentence meant that Aerojet modified the engine and not that it also modified the manifold.
It sounds like a bit of a inspection / QC lapse on their part.
Or that it's not corrosion, since corrosion was not mentioned, but instead was a defect in the metal worksmanship which was not seen until put under load. Seen that before.
It sounds like a bit of a inspection / QC lapse on their part.
Or the corrosion has happened since they did this/these inspections.
It sounds like a bit of a inspection / QC lapse on their part.
Or the corrosion has happened since they did this/these inspections.
It sounds like a bit of a inspection / QC lapse on their part.
Or the corrosion has happened since they did this/these inspections.
Or it's something like SCC, which is very difficult to inspect for.
It sounds like a bit of a inspection / QC lapse on their part.
Or the corrosion has happened since they did this/these inspections.
Or it's something like SCC, which is very difficult to inspect for.
It just seems strange that they were able to identify this defect in the manifold, and then were somehow able to quickly identify the same defect in another third of the engines in their inventory. How could they find the same defect in the remaining engines so quickly ?
Or that it's not corrosion, since corrosion was not mentioned, but instead was a defect in the metal worksmanship which was not seen until put under load. Seen that before.
It sounds like a bit of a inspection / QC lapse on their part.
Or the corrosion has happened since they did this/these inspections.
...were somehow able to quickly identify the same defect in another third of the engines in their inventory. How could they find the same defect in the remaining engines so quickly ?
It sounds like a bit of a inspection / QC lapse on their part.
Or the corrosion has happened since they did this/these inspections.
Or it's something like SCC, which is very difficult to inspect for.
It just seems strange that they were able to identify this defect in the manifold, and then were somehow able to quickly identify the same defect in another third of the engines in their inventory. How could they find the same defect in the remaining engines so quickly ?
Or the corrosion has happened since they did this/these inspections.Or that it's not corrosion, since corrosion was not mentioned
As a result, Aerojet is evaluating all of the three dozen AJ-26s in its inventory to ensure that they are free of corrosion or some other flaw that might have caused the leak on the damaged engine, according to an Orbital spokesman.
“We’re screening the remaining inventory of AJ-26s to double-check to make sure none of the other ones have the problem,” says Barron Beneski
It seems like common sense (and good propulsion fun) to engage in a bit of conjecture on what Av Week called a "test stand fire".
The AJ-26 is left over from the Russian N1 which failed because of a 4 different scenarios, 3 of which can be summarize with the phrase 'engine fire'. You have to wonder how good a handle the Russians really had on the N-1 problem given that none of their fixes stopped the booster from blowing up.
We may be seeing the root cause of all those N1 failures. It's painful to Aerojet I am sure, but kind of cool.
It seems like common sense (and good propulsion fun) to engage in a bit of conjecture on what Av Week called a "test stand fire".Never thought about it like this but as Jim would say the engine is "unproven".
The AJ-26 is left over from the Russian N1 which failed because of a 4 different scenarios, 3 of which can be summarize with the phrase 'engine fire'. You have to wonder how good a handle the Russians really had on the N-1 problem given that none of their fixes stopped the booster from blowing up.
We may be seeing the root cause of all those N1 failures. It's painful to Aerojet I am sure, but kind of cool.
That's all fine and dandy, but the engine flown on N1 was NK-15, not NK-33.The N-1 not only lacked a test stand, but the Spherical tank design forced them to finish the tanks and plumbing at the pad, without a single test chamber! It's a wonder those didn't explode on ignition! But the engines were very well tested. Most of the problems where attributed at plumbing leaks.
That's all fine and dandy, but the engine flown on N-1 was NK-15, not NK-33.
That's all fine and dandy, but the engine flown on N-1 was NK-15, not NK-33.
That's kind of a weak attack on the conjecture. NK-33 (AJ-26) was derived from NK-15 and was in line to fly on N-1F.
They did install NK-33's in the N-1F, but sadly the N-1F never flew. So I understand it, one was ready to fly when it was scrapped.That's all fine and dandy, but the engine flown on N-1 was NK-15, not NK-33.
That's kind of a weak attack on the conjecture. NK-33 (AJ-26) was derived from NK-15 and was in line to fly on N-1F.
And the fact that AJ-26 has heritage to N-1 seems to me to be generally accepted. I have talked to Aerojet engineers about it.
Point taken though. This motor never flew.
I note some folks have posted data. Thanks.
It's not a weak attack, it's precisely to bring up the point NK-33 incorporated improvements and lessons learned from the NK-15. Which means problems with N1 should have nothing to do with it. Even that's ignoring the fact the N1 never had a static test firing performed for the first stage. Too many of the vehicle's issues seem to be thrown onto the engines themselves.Engine problems were not the issue with N-1, it had to do with plumbing and the complications for using over thirty engines in the first stage.
Just have to hope she doesn't Wallop Wallops. /rimshot
In interesting illustration of the advantage of launch site diversity. Odds are against hurricanes directly hitting two launch centers in the same year, taking out both COTS/CRS launch sites.If you want to talk about the impact of severe weather on construction and operations, hang out with some Navy folk. They'll tell you some horror stories. And today the cone of uncertainty says that the world's only shipyard capable of constructing nuclear-powered Supercarriers could take a direct hit, while an incomplete $14-billion carrier sits therein.
Remember the F5 that skirted ULA's Decatur plant this year, nearly ripping the heart out of the Pentagon's launch vehicle manufacturing capacity for all of its major launch vehicles?
- Ed Kyle
Nice to see hardware!
I'm assuming the 1st and 2nd stage to the left are for the inaugural test flight?
730 pm: Just received report of "severe flooding" on Wallops Island. The island is where we launch rockets, also home to the UAV runway.
Wallops island, including Pad 0B and the Horizontal integration building, is underwater right now:That is not good. Any confirmation of HIF flooding?Quote730 pm: Just received report of "severe flooding" on Wallops Island. The island is where we launch rockets, also home to the UAV runway.
http://twitter.com/#!/NASA_Wallops
Wallops island, including Pad 0B and the Horizontal integration building, is underwater right now:That is not good. Any confirmation of HIF flooding?Quote730 pm: Just received report of "severe flooding" on Wallops Island. The island is where we launch rockets, also home to the UAV runway.
http://twitter.com/#!/NASA_Wallops
Damage assessments find minimal damage to Wallops main base and island. We were fortunate.
Our team based at Wallops reports we "weathered" the Irene storm. No significant impact to facilities. Flight hardware unaffected.
So, about a year behind the original schedule, which is not bad when you consider.
They already had the engines for the first launch in place. Beyond that, unknown.So, about a year behind the original schedule, which is not bad when you consider.
Has the AJ-26 qualification testing resumed at Stennis yet ? Has Aerojet they delivered 4 or 6 engines requires for the 2 launches, plus the ground testing ? I know they were an engine or two short last update.
Has the AJ-26 qualification testing resumed at Stennis yet ? Has Aerojet they delivered 4 or 6 engines requires for the 2 launches, plus the ground testing ? I know they were an engine or two short last update.
They already had the engines for the first launch in place.
Feb 2011 status update earlier in this thread, which stated that engines #1 and #2 would be delivered after the engine test that month. Paired with the picture of the engines at the Wallops HIF (below, credit Heather Goss) I would have to say, the first two engines are already at Wallops.They already had the engines for the first launch in place.
Source?
Feb 2011 status update earlier in this thread, which stated that engines #1 and #2 would be delivered after the engine test that month. Paired with the picture of the engines at the Wallops HIF (below, credit Heather Goss) I would have to say, the first two engines are already at Wallops.They already had the engines for the first launch in place.
Source?
Dr. Bernard Harris of the Commercial Space Committee asked how serious the engine failure was and whether it might be a system problem. Mr. Lindenmoyer said it was serious. There was a detailed discussion of a mitigation plan, and NASA is confident that Orbital will conduct a full critical flaw site analysis on each engine. It will be at least the end of August before NASA knows if the mitigation techniques are acceptable. Mr. Seffredini explained that an experienced person from Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is working on the project. This individual says that the repair technique has been used on Apollo and other programs, and he believes it will work in this situation as well. It is likely to have a minor schedule impact. Aerojet will do the repairs.
A chart showing the integrated flow included the Orbital hot fire test in late November 2011 and the test flight scheduled for late February 2012. Preparations are being made for the mission readiness review and flight readiness review. Orbital is conducting Phase 3 in two segments. The company has a lot of testing yet to do. NASA has conducted its analysis to ensure the PCBM interfaces work, and there has been some integrated testing with the entire software suite. Avionics and PCBM testing are continuing. Mr. Suffredini provided status information for the Orbital Demo Cargo, Orb-1, and Orb-2 flights. On the Demo, the pressurized cargo manifest is 704 kg, though reserves might allow that to reach 800 kg if necessary. The Orb-1 launch date of May 11, 2012 may slip. The major milestones have been completed, however. On Orb-2, there will be a new radio vendor, as well as a new vendor for the lidar system.
Is the Taurus II test flight still scheduled for the end of the year sometime?
Why did they stop for so many months?
...the third stage(-)one core to be delivered from the Ukraine is due in port late in the week of October 3.
Stress corrosion is one of those things that sends chills up the spine. Insidious and usually unexpected.
I didn't see this article discussed here.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1109/30aj26/
Culbertson is pleasantly candid: "The root cause was stress corrosion cracking," Culbertson said. "These engines are 40 years old. They had been inspected, but I think there was some cracking that Aerojet didn't suspect and hadn't really tested for."
Stress corrosion is one of those things that sends chills up the spine. Insidious and usually unexpected.
Yes - that is a LIVE Castor 30.So, T2 inaugural and COTS are 30A, the CRS-1/2 30B and then 30XL, right?
Those NK-33s were waiting for their show time *way* too long.
I keep reading (in various places) that one of the major hold-ups is launch pad certification.
Can anyone elaborate on this (without violating any laws/NDAs, obviously) - what precisely is/are the problem(s)?
Updated Orbital flight schedule now released:
http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/files/Oct_Update.pdf
The Taurus II test flight has moved from December to late Feb/early March, and the COTS demo has moved from Feb to late May/early June.
CRS-1 will be late August/early September, and CRS-2 will be late November/early December.
We've seen some nice pics of the COTS Demo PCM but I don't think I've seen any of the Mass Simulator for the first launch (apart from that tiny corner of it a few pics up) - is there one around?
We've seen some nice pics of the COTS Demo PCM but I don't think I've seen any of the Mass Simulator for the first launch (apart from that tiny corner of it a few pics up) - is there one around?
available on l2
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27062.0
15 and 26 October at the ground test facility "Vintay" successfully tested a rocket engine NK-33A. Regular tests took place with the "reverse faults" of the particles in the feed line to the oxidizer and the fuel supply line, thus confirming the requirements of technical specifications for the engine. In both cases, the engine worked for 220 sec.
In the near future one last test with the engine working off mode in the final stage of the input conditions. After the final stage starts the engine on the test results will be prepared by the conclusion of his admission to the Interagency Testing.
News from Samara: http://motor-s.ru/motor_new/index.php?siteid=145
Google translation:Quote15 and 26 October at the ground test facility "Vintay" successfully tested a rocket engine NK-33A. Regular tests took place with the "reverse faults" of the particles in the feed line to the oxidizer and the fuel supply line, thus confirming the requirements of technical specifications for the engine. In both cases, the engine worked for 220 sec.
In the near future one last test with the engine working off mode in the final stage of the input conditions. After the final stage starts the engine on the test results will be prepared by the conclusion of his admission to the Interagency Testing.
News from Samara: http://motor-s.ru/motor_new/index.php?siteid=145
Google translation:Quote15 and 26 October at the ground test facility "Vintay" successfully tested a rocket engine NK-33A. Regular tests took place with the "reverse faults" of the particles in the feed line to the oxidizer and the fuel supply line, thus confirming the requirements of technical specifications for the engine. In both cases, the engine worked for 220 sec.
In the near future one last test with the engine working off mode in the final stage of the input conditions. After the final stage starts the engine on the test results will be prepared by the conclusion of his admission to the Interagency Testing.
That company is currently NK Engines, right? I think it related, since AeroJet appears to be trying to push this engine into the 500klbf range. It would be interesting in which direction they are trying to push their version, right?You can always do for better thrust/weight. That means you have extra mass to spare other places, or better stage performance. It can also mean you can stretch the stage a little more, giving you even better performance.
In particular, it already has a very healthy 1.48 T/W, so putting an even more powerful first stage engine, wouldn't really help. They could use a higher energy second stage, though. But the NK-43 seems kind of overpowered for that. On the other hand, if AeroJet has 40 engines available (rumor is they can have upto 100), it's more than the number i expect for the whole life of the Taurus II program.
That company is currently NK Engines, right?
You can always do for better thrust/weight. That means you have extra mass to spare other places, or better stage performance. It can also mean you can stretch the stage a little more, giving you even better performance.
The Design bureau (ND Kuznetsov Joint Stock Company Scientific-Technical Complex of Samara) and Motorostroitel are two parts of JSC KUZNETSOV now.
PS: All NK-33 engines were produced by Motorostreitel plant.
Yes, if you increased the thrust but kept the mass the same. I was sort of imagining it the other way... Decrease the mass but keep the thrust the same. I suppose in general improving T/W usually means to increase thrust for about the same mass than the other way.You can always do for better thrust/weight. That means you have extra mass to spare other places, or better stage performance. It can also mean you can stretch the stage a little more, giving you even better performance.
At some point the heavier structure required to take the higher load yields ( ::) ) less payload in the rocket equation, though.
...On the other hand, if AeroJet has 40 engines available...t's more than the number i expect for the whole life of the Taurus II program.
They've got 9 flights for COTS. And can do upto three per year, according to their presentation. I assumed that they will get another similar number of other launches, and that's it. Please note that the whole Minotaur family has done 22 launches. And the Taurus did 9. Granted, the Pegasus did some 40....On the other hand, if AeroJet has 40 engines available...t's more than the number i expect for the whole life of the Taurus II program.
You expect that there'll be no more than 20 Taurus II launches? Why?
They've got 9 flights for COTS. And can do upto three per year, according to their presentation. I assumed that they will get another similar number of other launches, and that's it. Please note that the whole Minotaur family has done 22 launches. And the Taurus did 9. Granted, the Pegasus did some 40....On the other hand, if AeroJet has 40 engines available...t's more than the number i expect for the whole life of the Taurus II program.
You expect that there'll be no more than 20 Taurus II launches? Why?
I'm sure Orbital has done the numbers so they can do only COTS with Taurus II and still earn money. If they get more than 20 launches, I expect them to evolve it a little to keep current with technology developments. In particular, I expect them to use the AJ-500, probably de-rated a bit. And may be try a new upper stage. In other words, I would expect something like a Taurus II+ or Taurus III. We are talking about 2020, at least.
So may be I shouldn't have said the Taurus II program, but the Taurus II block.
No one says the Taurus II needs two AJ-500's for all missions. The AJ-500 could be used as a single engine if needed.
From what I got from the 2010 Guide, the MER (both engiens) give 816klbf in vacuum. That's 1.035% according to Wikipedia. From the same source, SL is 85% of the vac performance. So it should have a total thrust of 694klbf. Given the 530klb of stack weight I've seen (again, in Wikipedia ::)) It would mean a T/W of 1.3.No one says the Taurus II needs two AJ-500's for all missions. The AJ-500 could be used as a single engine if needed.
Not without significant Taurus II changes, I would think. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to even lift off the pad.
(Unless the T-II has an initial T/W ration of 2+, which would be unusual)
From what I got from the 2010 Guide, the MER (both engiens) give 816klbf in vacuum. That's 1.035% according to Wikipedia. From the same source, SL is 85% of the vac performance. So it should have a total thrust of 694klbf. Given the 530klb of stack weight I've seen (again, in Wikipedia ::)) It would mean a T/W of 1.3.No one says the Taurus II needs two AJ-500's for all missions. The AJ-500 could be used as a single engine if needed.
Not without significant Taurus II changes, I would think. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to even lift off the pad.
(Unless the T-II has an initial T/W ration of 2+, which would be unusual)
An AJ-500 would give 429klbf SL. That would be 1.62 T/W. Seems a bit excessive. At the same time, it might allow for a bigger second stage. The Castor 30 seems diminutive alongside the rest of the rocket. The OD is just 2.34m, while it's encased in the 3.9m fairing.
A Castor 120 weights 86klb more. That would make it a 1.39 T/W with the AJ-500. But, it's also 4m longer. Seems like too much for the fairing. Something like a stubby Castor 120, with 135in wide would be perfect, though.
What is the size of the market (outside of ISS resupply) for Delta II-class vehicles ?
What is the size of the market (outside of ISS resupply) for Delta II-class vehicles ?
A big part of Delta II launches, have moved to EELV (everything DoD, basically). And, they still have to compete with Falcon 9. Which is sort of a match for LEO for Atlas V 401 and Delta 4,2. And they do seem to have been winning some payload. Taurus still haven't. In fact, they haven't even demonstrated a flight.
What is the size of the market (outside of ISS resupply) for Delta II-class vehicles ?
In 2009 there were about 6 Delta II launches and 5 in 2008. 2010 and 2011 saw few launches(1-2) but that might be because Delta was being phased out.
A big part of Delta II launches, have moved to EELV (everything DoD, basically). And, they still have to compete with Falcon 9. Which is sort of a match for LEO for Atlas V 401 and Delta 4,2. And they do seem to have been winning some payload. Taurus still haven't. In fact, they haven't even demonstrated a flight.
What is the size of the market (outside of ISS resupply) for Delta II-class vehicles ?
In 2009 there were about 6 Delta II launches and 5 in 2008. 2010 and 2011 saw few launches(1-2) but that might be because Delta was being phased out.
The big issue is that Delta II is great for science missions. But you've got to be certified. That's why I don't expect them to be given certification until 2013. From there, they would have to be selected. Those missions take what? five years to launch? So it has to be a mission too big for a Minotaur, yet too small for a Falcon 9. And GPS, WGS and such are all EELV now. May be I'm being to pessimist, but with the inclusion of the extra five Delta II in SLP, it seems like a tough market for Taurus II. Let's remember they have to sell for 50M or under. And I think they've got something like 260M (with Cygnus included) for each COTS launch.
But the CRS launches depend on the Cygnus, which is built using experienced, but expensive Italian labor costs.They asked 190M for the Risk Reduction Flight of Taurus II. It doesn't sounds very cheap. And the fact is that T2 can match a Delta II performance to LEO, but to higher energy orbits it starts getting less performance. For example, a Delta 7925H does 2.1tn to GTO and 1.5tn to escape. The T2h (available theoretically in 2014) will do 1.1tn to escape. I don't know how much would they get to GTO (around 1.5tn?), but I bet they won't be able to compete with GTO of either Falcon 9 nor Soyuz from ELS. And let's not get into the certification level of the Delta II against T2.
The Taurus II launcher is assembled with parts mostly built in Ukraine. I assume their labor rates are lower than anything in California. They have sized their production lines for low flight rates. I wonder if they will find some synergies with commerical companies that wish to launch their Orbital satellites on a Orbital launch vehicle.
But the CRS launches depend on the Cygnus, which is built using experienced, but expensive Italian labor costs.
But the CRS launches depend on the Cygnus, which is built using experienced, but expensive Italian labor costs.
Not expensive. That is why they were the ones to build SpaceHab modules, MPLM and Nodes
But the CRS launches depend on the Cygnus, which is built using experienced, but expensive Italian labor costs.
Not expensive. That is why they were the ones to build SpaceHab modules, MPLM and Nodes
Jim, labor costs in the north of Italy are high! But since these are high tech, low production rate/ one-off items, the cost of labor isn't that important.
They asked 190M for the Risk Reduction Flight of Taurus II
Sorry, bad memory. Here (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1104/21taurus2/) and here (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/22/orbital-receives-extra-100-million-taurus-ii-test-flight/) it say "approximately 100M". Still a significant amount for a 6tn to LEO LV. May be a lot extra testing and analysis was included? May be 190M was RRF plus the extended testing ordered?They asked 190M for the Risk Reduction Flight of Taurus II
That's interesting... where did you get that figure from and who is "they"?
~100 million is less than the cost of the smallest Atlas V, and this is the first launch ever of Taurus II.Sorry, bad memory. Here (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1104/21taurus2/) and here (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/22/orbital-receives-extra-100-million-taurus-ii-test-flight/) it say "approximately 100M". Still a significant amount for a 6tn to LEO LV. May be a lot extra testing and analysis was included? May be 190M was RRF plus the extended testing ordered?They asked 190M for the Risk Reduction Flight of Taurus II
That's interesting... where did you get that figure from and who is "they"?
~100 million is less than the cost of the smallest Atlas V, and this is the first launch ever of Taurus II.
I'm not saying that they took more than a nominal profit. I'm just worried that the LV costs are high. That's all.~100 million is less than the cost of the smallest Atlas V, and this is the first launch ever of Taurus II.
The cost of an Atlas v401 is the sale price, the test flight is the amount of money needed to pull off the test. They are not the same. I doubt that orbital is taking a profit on the test.
Though I wouldn't put it past Antonioe to figure out how to pocket that extra $90 million you just gave him ;)
Edit: Nor do we know what Orbital is going to charge customers!
Though I wouldn't put it past Antonioe to figure out how to pocket that extra $90 million you just gave him ;)
Though I wouldn't put it past Antonioe to figure out how to pocket that extra $90 million you just gave him ;)I can't seem to find those extra $90M you guys talk about. AFAIK we only got about $100M for the extra non-payload carrying Taurus II plus a few other things (not additional testing and analysis... NASA is not asking us for any.)
The total COTS funding we expect from NASA (not all paid yet) is $170M+$100M = $270M, for which we went from 1 launch and 1 ISS berthing to 2 launches and 1 berthing. Does that match your numbers?
I'd love to get my hands on those extra $90M!
If I'm not mistaken, the SAA paperwork has your name and signature on it.
Which shows $170M (original SAA) + $20M (amend 6) + $90.5M (amend 7) = $280.5M
I stated I had misremembered the number. If you got 90.5M for the TII Risk Reduction Flight, that's an interesting data point. Obviously you know your market way better than me. But I'm speculating on public available information. I might fail to research correctly, and I'm happy to be corrected about it.
If I'm not mistaken, the SAA paperwork has your name and signature on it.
That is NO guarantee whatsoever that I know what I'm doing (or saying...)QuoteWhich shows $170M (original SAA) + $20M (amend 6) + $90.5M (amend 7) = $280.5M
See? I rest my case...
T-II was developed to fill the gap with the retirement of the Delta II for OSC satellite market, especially after the spectacular failure of Kistler. COTS might not have been the reason for conception, but has provided the impetus for development.Yes, but looking that the Delta II manifest, the bulk was GPS/DoD payload that went into the EELV program. And it matches the Delta II (heavy) to polar, but higher than that, its lack of a high energy upper stage shows. Why is this an issue? Because the C3=0 performance for small NASA probes (one of the interesting prospective markets) is just a 74%. So it matches the capacity for the bulk of the Delta II (LEO to MEO), but that's what most have been moved to EELV.
T-II was developed to fill the gap with the retirement of the Delta II for OSC satellite market
Yes, but looking that the Delta II manifest, the bulk was GPS/DoD payload that went into the EELV program. [...] I'm thinking in particular for their own satellites.
BTW, rumors are that Roskosmos wants to include KBKhA into the holding that owns TsSKB, and perhaps even more significantly, KBKhA plans to start a series production on their own plant, Energomash-style. Not sure how this effects the availability of RD-0124 exactly, even if it happens, but it may significantly improve. Price is a question mark.
Another Successful AJ26 Engine Test
(http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/)
Another Successful AJ26 Engine Test
(http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/)
This is good news (both the test and the engine mount).
Speaking of, it appears the engines are mounted 180 degrees (clocking) "apart". Is this to cancel induced rotation of the vehicle due to turbines spinning (in effect they are counter-rotating)?
First Main Engine System Mated to Taurus II (http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/)
To be counter-rotating, one of the engines would have to mounted flamey side up, ie upside down.
It does look rather Titan II-ish (and with Aerojet engines too boot!)...
Aaaand cue yet another discussion on NK-33/AJ-26 and AJ-26-500 in 3... 2... 1... mark.
U.S.S.R's Kuznetsov Design Bureau built those engines. Aerojet hasn't built a high-thrust first stage liquid rocket engine in probably a decade or more.
Eastern bloc first stages are not designed for the acoustics of solids hanging off of them.Aren't they using the same tooling and construction of the Zenit? I.e. LBR compatible? Like in a Taurus II Heavy?
Eastern bloc first stages are not designed for the acoustics of solids hanging off of them.Aren't they using the same tooling and construction of the Zenit? I.e. LBR compatible? Like in a Taurus II Heavy?
To clear up any marketplace confusion and provide clear differentiation between this new launch vehicle and our Taurus XL rocket.
How can that be when the last launch using an Aerojet first stage liquid engine was only 6 years ago?It does look rather Titan II-ish (and with Aerojet engines too boot!)...
U.S.S.R's Kuznetsov Design Bureau built those engines. Aerojet hasn't built a high-thrust first stage liquid rocket engine in probably a decade or more.
- Ed Kyle
How can that be when the last launch using an Aerojet first stage liquid engine was only 6 years ago?It does look rather Titan II-ish (and with Aerojet engines too boot!)...
U.S.S.R's Kuznetsov Design Bureau built those engines. Aerojet hasn't built a high-thrust first stage liquid rocket engine in probably a decade or more.
- Ed Kyle
Name change!
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=798
Heh.
OT, I'm sure our Antares will love this. Going from anti-Ares to OSC amazing people by username in one fell swoop ;D
Name change!
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=798
A good change. Taurus II had little in common with the original Taurus launch vehicle.
- Ed Kyle
ROTFC&LMAO.
Proof that truth is stranger than fiction.
And that T-XL will probably never launch again.
I shoulda trademarked it.
Another Successful AJ26 Test (http://www.orbital.com/Antares/)
December 2011
Orbital conducted another successful AJ26 hot fire acceptance test at NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center. This latest test builds on a series of AJ26 tests conducted at Stennis since November 2010. After the engine undergoes a post test inspection, it will be shipped to our Wallops Island, Virginia facility. The successful tests means that we have now tested all of the engines to be used in the first three Antares operational milestones - the stage one hot fire test which will be conducted on the new Pad 0A, the Antares flight test and the COTS demonstration.
QuoteAnother Successful AJ26 Test (http://www.orbital.com/Antares/)
December 2011
Orbital conducted another successful AJ26 hot fire acceptance test at NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center. This latest test builds on a series of AJ26 tests conducted at Stennis since November 2010. After the engine undergoes a post test inspection, it will be shipped to our Wallops Island, Virginia facility. The successful tests means that we have now tested all of the engines to be used in the first three Antares operational milestones - the stage one hot fire test which will be conducted on the new Pad 0A, the Antares flight test and the COTS demonstration.
Have any tests been performed with a pair of engines, or is the stage one hot fire test going to be "it"?
From what I recall, the first set was for the hot fire test, then those are sent back for refurbishing. Then they are using a second set for the Test flight, and a third set for the COTS demonstration.QuoteThe successful tests means that we have now tested all of the engines to be used in the first three Antares operational milestones - the stage one hot fire test which will be conducted on the new Pad 0A, the Antares flight test and the COTS demonstration.
They've tested the engines individually. Have any tests been performed with a pair of engines, or is the stage one hot fire test going to be "it"?
- Ed Kyle
Updated Antares & COTS/CRS Development & Flight Milestones
http://www.orbital.com/CargoResupplyServices/files/Jan-milestones2012.pdf
. Antares test flight - toward end of Q1 2012
. COTS demo flight - toward end of Q2 2012
. CRS-1 - toward end of Q3 2012
. CRS-2 - end of Q4 2012
Nice.
Watching rockets being moved around and assembled from space...
Hard to say... Could well be aircraft, but I feel it'd be higher resolution than it is. Also, GeoEye is up to 41cm (as long as Uncle Sam doesn't mind), and with some post-processing, I can imagine it'd look like we see there.Nice.
Watching rockets being moved around and assembled from space...
I wonder if the zoom pic is actually from an aircraft as it looks much better then the half meter resolution of Geoeye.
A hold-down test of Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Antares rocket, a prerequisite for the launch vehicle’s maiden flight, likely will not be completed before April because of ongoing tests and certification work on the vehicle’s launch pad at Wallops Island, Va., a launch official said.
Sigh. http://spacenews.com/launch/120117-test-antares-rocket-april.htmlQuoteA hold-down test of Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Antares rocket, a prerequisite for the launch vehicle’s maiden flight, likely will not be completed before April because of ongoing tests and certification work on the vehicle’s launch pad at Wallops Island, Va., a launch official said.
This is becoming comical, almost like Orbital and SpaceX are playing a game. "I see your Dragon delay and raise you 3 months of Wallops pad delays. Your turn."
Oh well, at least there's a Delta IV coming up.
Sigh. http://spacenews.com/launch/120117-test-antares-rocket-april.htmlQuoteA hold-down test of Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Antares rocket, a prerequisite for the launch vehicle’s maiden flight, likely will not be completed before April because of ongoing tests and certification work on the vehicle’s launch pad at Wallops Island, Va., a launch official said.
This is becoming comical, almost like Orbital and SpaceX are playing a game. "I see your Dragon delay and raise you 3 months of Wallops pad delays. Your turn."
Oh well, at least there's a Delta IV coming up.
In retrospect, it is becoming increasingly clear that the selection of SpaceX and OSC as winners of CRS was a very risky one. No one doubts either company's fundamental competence (well, I don't anyway) but I, for one, am beginning to doubt their ability to deliver on a tight schedule.
Sigh. http://spacenews.com/launch/120117-test-antares-rocket-april.htmlQuoteA hold-down test of Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Antares rocket, a prerequisite for the launch vehicle’s maiden flight, likely will not be completed before April because of ongoing tests and certification work on the vehicle’s launch pad at Wallops Island, Va., a launch official said.
This is becoming comical, almost like Orbital and SpaceX are playing a game. "I see your Dragon delay and raise you 3 months of Wallops pad delays. Your turn."
Oh well, at least there's a Delta IV coming up.
In retrospect, it is becoming increasingly clear that the selection of SpaceX and OSC as winners of CRS was a very risky one. No one doubts either company's fundamental competence (well, I don't anyway) but I, for one, am beginning to doubt their ability to deliver on a tight schedule.
In retrospect, it is becoming increasingly clear that the selection of SpaceX and OSC as winners of CRS was a very risky one. No one doubts either company's fundamental competence (well, I don't anyway) but I, for one, am beginning to doubt their ability to deliver on a tight schedule.I highlighted "tight schedule" above, for reasons that should be obvious.
Sigh. http://spacenews.com/launch/120117-test-antares-rocket-april.htmlQuoteA hold-down test of Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Antares rocket, a prerequisite for the launch vehicle’s maiden flight, likely will not be completed before April because of ongoing tests and certification work on the vehicle’s launch pad at Wallops Island, Va., a launch official said.
This is becoming comical, almost like Orbital and SpaceX are playing a game. "I see your Dragon delay and raise you 3 months of Wallops pad delays. Your turn."
The expertise bestowed upon me by sitting in my armchair gives me the opinion that OSC and SpaceX are doing, at the very worst, just as good schedule wise than any other potential suppliers of CRS. I am more interested in seeing whether OSC or SpaceX can streamline their schedules beyond the development phase and into the production phase.
But it flew, and it worked, and it accomplished its goals. That's the part that the history books recall rather than the eight month delay.
QFT.Sigh. http://spacenews.com/launch/120117-test-antares-rocket-april.htmlQuoteA hold-down test of Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Antares rocket, a prerequisite for the launch vehicle’s maiden flight, likely will not be completed before April because of ongoing tests and certification work on the vehicle’s launch pad at Wallops Island, Va., a launch official said.
This is becoming comical, almost like Orbital and SpaceX are playing a game. "I see your Dragon delay and raise you 3 months of Wallops pad delays. Your turn."
Oh well, at least there's a Delta IV coming up.
In retrospect, it is becoming increasingly clear that the selection of SpaceX and OSC as winners of CRS was a very risky one. No one doubts either company's fundamental competence (well, I don't anyway) but I, for one, am beginning to doubt their ability to deliver on a tight schedule.
That is why many were appalled when ULA rockets were "selected". Only a spacecraft would have to be developed and not a vehicle and launch site.
There was some anti EELV bias in the selections as to "protect" Ares I.
Sigh. http://spacenews.com/launch/120117-test-antares-rocket-april.htmlQuoteA hold-down test of Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Antares rocket, a prerequisite for the launch vehicle’s maiden flight, likely will not be completed before April because of ongoing tests and certification work on the vehicle’s launch pad at Wallops Island, Va., a launch official said.
This is becoming comical, almost like Orbital and SpaceX are playing a game. "I see your Dragon delay and raise you 3 months of Wallops pad delays. Your turn."
I find this sad. Was hoping Orbital would have a chance to catch up to SpaceX.
It seems that the one thing Orbital has total control over (Cygnus module) is coming along on schedule.
Everything is already assembled in the HIF, just awaiting rollout, right ?
Beneski said that most of the Antare [sic] components needed for the hold down test are at Wallops awaiting integration.
In retrospect, it is becoming increasingly clear that the selection of SpaceX and OSC as winners of CRS was a very risky one.
NASA's Gemini-Titan program lost eight months on its scheduled first launch, despite being showered with money and despite using a rocket that already existed, essentially, and despite using launch pads and other test sites that already existed, essentially. The program ran incredibly over budget. I think that the final cost was roughly double the original estimate, or something like that.
But it flew, and it worked, and it accomplished its goals. That's the part that the history books recall rather than the eight month delay.
...the Virginia Commercial Spaceflight Authority, the state entity that manages operations at the spaceport from which Orbital will launch, is still completing certification of individual systems. These include more than 130 pressurized vessels needed to support the launch of the liquid-fueled Antares. The authority is also working on what Reed called “integrated system performance and functional testing,” the purpose of which is to ensure that the various launch support systems and software at Orbital’s pad are working harmoniously.
Isn't it Orbital's job to ensure that things are working "harmoniously"? They're on the hook for big bucks after all. Why would the Commonwealth care about anything beyond safety?
I could be wrong but maybe it is a matter of certifying Orbital's work - The Virginia state government needs verify Orbital's work meets state (and possibly Federal) regulations.
The pad is not an Antares pad, it is supposed to be able to support other users. OSC just happened to be the first user.
Wrong on all counts.
The pad is owned and construction contracted by the Virginia Commercial Spaceflight Authority...
Wrong on all counts.
The pad is owned and construction contracted by the Virginia Commercial Spaceflight Authority...
And this Virginia Commercial Spaceflight Authority is not a "state entity" as the article says?
Attaining full participation by the Board of Directors at quarterly meetings has been challenging.
VCSFA has committed to assisting Orbital develop launch capabilities at Wallops Island that are tailored to address their specific launch needs.
A multi-use facility that accommodates various launch providers would be more attractive to potential customers.
Orbital’s right of first refusal of use of the VCSFA Project facilities may be perceived as a deterrent to potential customers considering VCSFA for launches.
Orbital’s commitment includes:
– Capital investment of at least $45 million combined in the two locations (Dulles and MARS), by Dec 31, 2011
Wrong on all counts.
The pad is owned and construction contracted by the Virginia Commercial Spaceflight Authority, who is providing it to OSC. The systems have to working and validated before OSC can used them. OSC is not going to use them until they are.
The pad is not an Antares pad, it is supposed to be able to support other users. OSC just happened to be the first user.
Yes, it is. That wasn't being debated, it was yours and Ben's interpretation of the issues...
QuoteOrbital’s commitment includes:
– Capital investment of at least $45 million combined in the two locations (Dulles and MARS), by Dec 31, 2011
However, I agree that Orbital won't consider using it until and unless VCSFA certifies it as complete.
Edit: Maybe $45 million is not "big bucks" for spaceflight. It is big bucks to me, though.
That doesn't mean the money is for the pad. OSC put money into facilities for prepping the booster and spacecraft
Yes, it is. That wasn't being debated, it was yours and Ben's interpretation of the issues...
You conveniently ignored this bit "It implies that it's really the Commonwealth of Virginia that is holding things up."
That doesn't mean the money is for the pad. OSC put money into facilities for prepping the booster and spacecraft
Do you have a source for this?
It was your implication of OSC..
...FAA or NASA.
I think it is safe to suggest that Orbital is providing considerable guidance to VCSFA regarding the construction of the pad. Jeffrey K. Windland has been an appointed director of VCSFA, which is a not-for profit organization created in 1995 by the Virginia General Assembly. Windland has also served as Vice President & Assistant Treasurer of Orbital. (Other directors of note: John J. Stolte, ORBCOMM Executive Vice President of Technology and Operations, and ... drum-roll please ... Dr. Robert Farquhar. Yes, that Farquhar.)
http://www.marsspaceport.com/mid-atlantic-spaceport-directors
A view in the HIF. Two Antares first stage cores, AJ26 engine, upper stage. Photo from Dec. 2011.
Safety query: I'm presuming that the solid propellent upper stage is completely inert without its igniter charged/installed?Nope. Any time you have an oxidizer mixed with its fuel, you are definitely not considered "inert" from a safety standpoint. Even just with an oxidizer by itself, you're not "inert" from a safety standpoint. But as far as how un-inert (ert? ;)) it is, that really depends on the propellant type.
Safety query: I'm presuming that the solid propellent upper stage is completely inert without its igniter charged/installed?
Actually, there is still a chance of explosion and even detonation if the diameter of the fuel is big enough. Small amounts have no risk of detonation, but if the stage starts burning and the throat gets clogged, you can get quite the explosion.Safety query: I'm presuming that the solid propellent upper stage is completely inert without its igniter charged/installed?
They're fairly inert. Castor 30 is an HTPB/AP composite, similar to RSRM (the rubber binder is PBAN there, but still pretty close). I think RSRM propellant was DOT Class 1.4, which is "major fire hazard". It might have been Class 1.3. Basically, if you get it burning, it's nigh impossible to put out, but it is fairly difficult to get burning, and there's no chance of mass detonation or explosion. ESD is the biggest practical thing that you have to be concerned about for initiation, because the bulk propellant is an electrical insulator.
Actually, there is still a chance of explosion and even detonation if the diameter of the fuel is big enough. Small amounts have no risk of detonation, but if the stage starts burning and the throat gets clogged, you can get quite the explosion.
When you see a stage with big lettering that says "INERT" (which is what I think Ben is referring to), that means basically there's no propellant in there.
Actually, there is still a chance of explosion and even detonation if the diameter of the fuel is big enough. Small amounts have no risk of detonation, but if the stage starts burning and the throat gets clogged, you can get quite the explosion.
When you see a stage with big lettering that says "INERT" (which is what I think Ben is referring to), that means basically there's no propellant in there.
Source please? I'm sure in a lab you could force HTPB/AP to detonate, but I'm skeptical you could get it to occur under normal circumstances. And if you want to toss a clogged throat in there, then a high pressure nitrogen tank isn't "inert".
Can't remember, but I do remember that HTPB is generally less inert than PBAN. I'll look around, if I have time.Actually, there is still a chance of explosion and even detonation if the diameter of the fuel is big enough. Small amounts have no risk of detonation, but if the stage starts burning and the throat gets clogged, you can get quite the explosion.
When you see a stage with big lettering that says "INERT" (which is what I think Ben is referring to), that means basically there's no propellant in there.
Source please? I'm sure in a lab you could force HTPB/AP to detonate...
And if you want to toss a clogged throat in there, then a high pressure nitrogen tank isn't "inert".Precisely. Compressed gas storage on even cubesats represents extra safety precautions and cost. From a safety standpoint, it's most certainly not inert.
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-BGXB200503009.htm
Here's just one article that mentions HTPB/AP can sustain detonation (provided you have a large enough diameter... which I believe is more than 200mm).
"The results show that the HTPB/AP composite propellant can be detonated reliably by means of reasonably controlling the shock wave intensity."
Source please? I'm sure in a lab you could force HTPB/AP to detonate, but I'm skeptical you could get it to occur under normal circumstances.
Yes, you're right that you're not normally going to get it to detonate. However, it only takes one time.http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-BGXB200503009.htm
Here's just one article that mentions HTPB/AP can sustain detonation (provided you have a large enough diameter... which I believe is more than 200mm).
"The results show that the HTPB/AP composite propellant can be detonated reliably by means of reasonably controlling the shock wave intensity."Quote from: strangequarkSource please? I'm sure in a lab you could force HTPB/AP to detonate, but I'm skeptical you could get it to occur under normal circumstances.
:). In practical, normal circumstances HTPB/AP is about as safe as you can get with an energetic substance. You could shoot it. I suppose you're right, in that it isn't "completely inert" which was the original statement, but I also think it's reasonable for me to call it "fairly inert". Of course, at this point in my life it gets my ire up a little bit to hear hydrazine described as dangerous ;).
The Brazilian case was failure of adhering to the most basic security procedures. Here's (http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/49728/lax_space_program_management_contributed_to_rocket_explosion_that/) an article in English. Here is the Accident Report (http://www.defesanet.com.br/docs/VLS-1_V03_RelatorioFinal.pdf) (PDF in Portuguese).
NASA Chief Technologist Mason Peck, left, and Robin Heard, Manager of Antares Upper Stage Ground Operations, Orbital Sciences Corp., view the Antares rocket at Wallops on Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2012.
A better answer is, accidental ignitions of solid motors during processing have occurred and lives have been lost. So they should never be considered inert. It is part of the reason the VAB was not fully occupied during the shuttle era. Fear of an accidental ignition inside of it.
There is a list, a Delta upper stage in 1964, a Titan 4 solid segment in 1990, A Swedish sounding rocket in 1993, A Brazilian rocket in 2007.
And that list just came from doing a quick wiki search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents
NASA Chief Technologist Mason Peck, left, and Robin Heard, Manager of Antares Upper Stage Ground Operations, Orbital Sciences Corp., view the Antares rocket at Wallops on Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2012.
Am I the only one getting a chuckle out of the Manager of Antares Upper Stage Ground Operations standing in front of the first stage?
...and a big explosion in Iran late last year at what appears to have been a solid rocket motor facility.
Am I the only one getting a chuckle out of the Manager of Antares Upper Stage Ground Operations standing in front of the first stage?
...and a big explosion in Iran late last year at what appears to have been a solid rocket motor facility.
Not exactly accidental ;)
...and a big explosion in Iran late last year at what appears to have been a solid rocket motor facility.
Not exactly accidental ;)
Isp 310 s? :-\O.K., O.K.,... now you really want me to break out sobbing... :(
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/tech_ops/Fastrac_Engine.pdf
Although I'm told that some Fastrac elements (turbopump?) are alive and well in the design of the SpaceX Merlin.
(http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spacex-orbital-sciences-prepare-for-landmarks-368441/)
Orbital Sciences was forced to delay the first flight of its Antares launch vehicle due to construction delays with its Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) launch pad at Wallops Island, Virginia.
...
The hot-fire test is now scheduled for May, 2012, and the Antares flight scheduled for June.
Isp 310 s? :-\O.K., O.K.,... now you really want me to break out sobbing... :(
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/tech_ops/Fastrac_Engine.pdf
Although I'm told that some Fastrac elements (turbopump?) are alive and well in the design of the SpaceX Merlin.
Antonio, would the Fastrac engine have worked for the Antares 2nd stage? Since the contractors for the turbomachinery (Barber-Nichols) and Chamber/Nozzle assembly (ATK) are still alive and kicking, it seems like it could have been restarted if the desire existed.
Now, with the new name, how are called the different versions ?
Before, it was Taurus IIe and Taurus IIh. Is it "Antares E" and "Antares H" ?
Now, with the new name, how are called the different versions ?
Before, it was Taurus IIe and Taurus IIh. Is it "Antares E" and "Antares H" ?
Taurus IIe --> Antares-130
Taurus IIh --> Antares-132
for more versions see http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/antares_osc.htm
According to the Orbital PDF that Antares posted the link to, the first digit is always 1 (number of cores ??)
AeroJet has stated that the AJ-500 was a product for Antares. A dual AJ-500 Antares would have 4.45MN of thrust at lift off, vs the 3.22MN of current version. It could allow for a 40% first stage stretch, for example. An interesting point, is taking the height/width and the thrust of the Antares 1 first stage, and compare it with the Atlas V. Since both are 3.8m, the thrust to height relationship is exactly the same. So, if they were going to actually use an AJ-500, it would probably mean a bigger first stage than the Atlas V!According to the Orbital PDF that Antares posted the link to, the first digit is always 1 (number of cores ??)
Probably just first stage version, in that they may have a new version of the first stage (stretched, reengined, etc) latter on down the road and want to future-proof the designations.
The Antares brochure talks about a Castor 30XL motor.
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Antares_Brochure.pdf
The Antares brochure talks about a Castor 30XL motor.
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Antares_Brochure.pdf
The Antares brochure talks about a Castor 30XL motor.
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Antares_Brochure.pdf
Castor 30XL is still low-isp solid motor, just a bigger low-isp solid motor.
Looks like interim solution until liquid higher performance second stage can be developed/acquired?
There were some plans to use RD-0124 but were all those plans dropped?
Then there are also some rumors about PWR35M -engined methane-fueled second stage? Were also these plans dropped?
Orbital has an in house H2O2 engine design that was partly tested by NASA. The program was cancelled. It could be pulled and upgraded.
The low-isp solid second stage propably is the "worst bottleneck" in antares's performance?
Was it so that they originally planned to use some russian kerolox second stage but the russians refused to sell it to them?
Orbital has an in house H2O2 engine design that was partly tested by NASA. The program was cancelled. It could be pulled and upgraded.
What engine is that?
Orbital has an in house H2O2 engine design that was partly tested by NASA. The program was cancelled. It could be pulled and upgraded.
What engine is that?
Video of one of the tests....
Orbital Begins Antares First Stage Roll Out Pathfinder Operations
http://www.orbital.com/Antares/
As I understand things this is the pathfinder, which will not perform the first flight. After the static tests, it, or its engines, will be refurbished for use in a future flight.
This rollout doesn't appear to include the Castor 30 second stage or the payload fairing. I wonder if we'll see those added for a later test.
- Ed Kyle
Here's the latest from WFF:Where's the Like button when you need it?!?! :P
Video of one of the tests....
It was only a nozzle and chamber and more than 10 years ago. As for inhouse, doubt any of those people are around OSC.
ISP (vacuum) – 321 sec. Not even close to an RL-10 on a Centaur. May be with a nozzle extension they could get to 350s? May be. An that's with an extra 30% volume over RP-1.Video of one of the tests....
It was only a nozzle and chamber and more than 10 years ago. As for inhouse, doubt any of those people are around OSC.
This engine might be a good choice for a liquid upper stage it's a lox methane engine in the same thrust class as the RL-10 but it's a lot cheaper.
[
ISP (vacuum) – 321 sec. Not even close to an RL-10 on a Centaur. May be with a nozzle extension they could get to 350s? May be. An that's with an extra 30% volume over RP-1.
[
ISP (vacuum) – 321 sec. Not even close to an RL-10 on a Centaur. May be with a nozzle extension they could get to 350s? May be. An that's with an extra 30% volume over RP-1.
That's still maybe a 25 to 54s increase in ISP over the Castor-30 but the real savings would be in the dry mass fractions of the stage.
A methane stage of equivalent size would have a lower dry weight then a Centaur since it would have a smaller fuel tank due to the denser fuel.
I think at one point they were even considering the RD-0124 which is higher thrust but has similar ISP numbers 331 to 359 vac.
An improvement over the Castor, probably. The Castor 30A has a very respectable 91.30% fmp. To put that in perspective:[
ISP (vacuum) – 321 sec. Not even close to an RL-10 on a Centaur. May be with a nozzle extension they could get to 350s? May be. An that's with an extra 30% volume over RP-1.
That's still maybe a 25 to 54s increase in ISP over the Castor-30 but the real savings would be in the dry mass fractions of the stage.
A methane stage of equivalent size would have a lower dry weight then a Centaur due to the smaller tanks.
359 vac with kerosene is very different from methane at 321. Granted it's for an upper stage, but the density Isp is 366 and 264 respectively. Also, the pad is already equipped for kerosene. If you're going to invest in a third propellant, do hydrogen.Do you know any company that's developing an H2 upper stage US engine? I wish the RL10 had some competitor. ;)
359 vac with kerosene is very different from methane at 321. Granted it's for an upper stage, but the density Isp is 366 and 264 respectively. Also, the pad is already equipped for kerosene. If you're going to invest in a third propellant, do hydrogen.True hydrogen would offer the best performance though the engine I suggested is a very simple GG cycle design that seem to have been designed for reusable in space hardware like landers but it might be adaptable for other fuels like the LR-87 was.
Do you know any company that's developing an H2 upper stage US engine? I wish the RL10 had some competitor. ;)
On the other hand, a 200kN/350s RP-1/LOX engine would be ideal for an Antares US. They could let Youzhoe design it like the Zenit.
Do you know any company that's developing an H2 upper stage US engine? I wish the RL10 had some competitor. ;)
On the other hand, a 200kN/350s RP-1/LOX engine would be ideal for an Antares US. They could let Youzhoe design it like the Zenit.
Other than XCOR, can't say that I do. Based on their prior experience, and how they've sized their three cylinder piston pump, it'll be interesting to see if this ULA venture is a third-fluid piston expander. Pretty high thrust for a piston engine, but turbomachinery is expensive. As for RL-10, I'd just be happy if they still made them. Last I'd heard, the line is still shut down.
Problem with the imports of Russian engines that aren't already being imported is that the Kremlin won't let it happen. Are there any that are Ukrainian?
(Remember Antonioe said at one point they where also developing Antares to fill hole left by Delta II, if Falcon 9 fills that hole for less than they can, would orbital pursue a new upper stage? They still have to prove, debug, and recover the Antares sunk costs, they have plenty of time to improve the rocket with a new upper stage.)
That said, I wonder if the Chinese would export the CZ-3 upper stage engines... They are LH ;)
Personally I really hope XCOR brings a viable LH engine to market that Orbital can use.
What's Drama Chase?
(Remember Antonioe said at one point they where also developing Antares to fill hole left by Delta II, if Falcon 9 fills that hole for less than they can, would orbital pursue a new upper stage? They still have to prove, debug, and recover the Antares sunk costs, they have plenty of time to improve the rocket with a new upper stage.)
That said, I wonder if the Chinese would export the CZ-3 upper stage engines... They are LH ;)
Personally I really hope XCOR brings a viable LH engine to market that Orbital can use.
OK then let's play legos! ;) What if we replace the second stage with the third stage of the CZ-3A/B/C?
Here's the specification for the Chinese upper stage:
Length 12.375 m
Diameter 3.0 m
Propellant LOX / LH2
Mass of Propellant 18,200 kg
Engine YF-75
Thrust (at vacuum) 167.17 kN
Specific Impulse (in vacuum) 4,295 N·s/kg
IIRC, it could only make two burns as of today, and it only have been used exactly fifty times (with one in-flight failure in 2009), but it seems to be a decent engine......
So can someone calculate the performance of such a rocket?
Other than XCOR, can't say that I do. Based on their prior experience, and how they've sized their three cylinder piston pump, it'll be interesting to see if this ULA venture is a third-fluid piston expander. Pretty high thrust for a piston engine, but turbomachinery is expensive. As for RL-10, I'd just be happy if they still made them. Last I'd heard, the line is still shut down.
Last I check they are still in production but they're not cheap at current production rates which is why ULA is looking for an alternative.
That and the design has been taken as far as they could I guess ULA has some future plans that could not be met with the existing design.Problem with the imports of Russian engines that aren't already being imported is that the Kremlin won't let it happen. Are there any that are Ukrainian?
There is various Xcor engines and the Drama Chase series engines the ISP on the Chase-5 suggests the Chase-10 also should get 360+ seconds with a larger RL-10B style bell.
A lot of people discount methane in the case of Drama and existing Xcor offerings but but as listed in this link on a military RLV project called FAST there are some advantages.
Methane can power the RCS and APU as well allowing a single fuel to power the entire upper stage.
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA467945
Another engine I know of that is Ukrainian but it's not intended as a main engine is the RD-8 steering engine off Zenit.
On this one I know Jim will say rockets are not legos as it is sorta playing legos with rocket parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-8_%28rocket_engine%29
Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive?There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
What happened with the IPD and the NGE? Didn't AeroJet had some demonstration hardware? Or is that in the 2020s timeframe?
Is it public the isp of the IPD?What happened with the IPD and the NGE? Didn't AeroJet had some demonstration hardware? Or is that in the 2020s timeframe?
They did, but someone will have to pay for dev through qual. NGE would probably be a good fit, but an IPD-derived production engine would be overkill (250 klbf full flow staged combustion is a little much).
Is it public the isp of the IPD?What happened with the IPD and the NGE? Didn't AeroJet had some demonstration hardware? Or is that in the 2020s timeframe?
They did, but someone will have to pay for dev through qual. NGE would probably be a good fit, but an IPD-derived production engine would be overkill (250 klbf full flow staged combustion is a little much).
But yep, 1,1MN is sort of overkill. That would be a good match for a 100ton US... so... why the J-2X?!?!?!? But I digress. Back to the Antares. I only see an US if they get to a manifest of something like 4 launches per year, commercial.
Updated COTS & CRS Schedules
April 2012
Orbital updated its COTS and CRS operational schedules, with plans to achieve four major milestones over the next year. They are as listed below:
Third quarter 2012 - Antares First-Stage Static Fire Test at Wallops
Third quarter 2012 - Antares Test Flight for COTS
Fourth quarter 2012 - COTS Demonstration Mission to ISS
First quarter 2013 - CRS Mission #1 to ISS
Orbital's operational dates are subject to coordination with NASA's ISS cargo delivery schedule
A test firing of the Antares rocket’s first stage on the launch pad is now scheduled for early July. The rocket will make its inaugural flight, without the Cygnus cargo carrier, in August under the new schedule. The Antares/Cygnus launch would then occur in October or November.
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120420-orbital-launcher-encounters-delays.htmlQuoteA test firing of the Antares rocket’s first stage on the launch pad is now scheduled for early July. The rocket will make its inaugural flight, without the Cygnus cargo carrier, in August under the new schedule. The Antares/Cygnus launch would then occur in October or November.
Don't forget the AJ-26, which they already are using in it's "62" configuration for the first stage has a "59" configuration for upper stage work.Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive?There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
Some interesting link:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/8395/525260/11585339.pdf
Don't forget the AJ-26, which they already are using in it's "62" configuration for the first stage has a "59" configuration for upper stage work.Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive?There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
Some interesting link:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/8395/525260/11585339.pdf
If you ran it at 100%, sure. But it throttles. Drop it down to about 60% (no idea if it can throttle that low, mind you) and it becomes a quite good upper stage, although it would be staging earlier than the Castor does by my estimate.Don't forget the AJ-26, which they already are using in it's "62" configuration for the first stage has a "59" configuration for upper stage work.Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive?There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
Some interesting link:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/8395/525260/11585339.pdf
good point, but it would be too much power me thinks.
If you ran it at 100%, sure. But it throttles. Drop it down to about 60% (no idea if it can throttle that low, mind you) and it becomes a quite good upper stage, although it would be staging earlier than the Castor does by my estimate.Don't forget the AJ-26, which they already are using in it's "62" configuration for the first stage has a "59" configuration for upper stage work.Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive?There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
Some interesting link:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/8395/525260/11585339.pdf
good point, but it would be too much power me thinks.
*dingdingding* You sir win the cupie doll!If you ran it at 100%, sure. But it throttles. Drop it down to about 60% (no idea if it can throttle that low, mind you) and it becomes a quite good upper stage, although it would be staging earlier than the Castor does by my estimate.Don't forget the AJ-26, which they already are using in it's "62" configuration for the first stage has a "59" configuration for upper stage work.Have an idea Orbital had to get a "pure" made in the usa engine. They could have gotten another Ukrainian mfg engine but Russia would not be happy. The RL-10 might work, but be too expensive?There are NK-31, NK-39, KVD1, KVD1A, KVD1M3, S5.86.
Some interesting link:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/8395/525260/11585339.pdf
good point, but it would be too much power me thinks.
Any of these alternative upper stages would cost more than the Castor, right ? How many more launches are going to find their way onto the manifest with an upgraded second stage ? Perhaps the Castor is the most cost-effective second stage for their target market.
Are there any payloads they are scheduled for the F9 that couldn't fit on an Antares ?
Not that limited, as the Russians demonstrate from a similar latitude. As for the GTO missions needing a third stage, I point you again to the Russian launchers, such as Proton which similarly needs an extra stage for GTO. For commercial operations, neither of these issues are a deal breaker, for they are already present.Are there any payloads they are scheduled for the F9 that couldn't fit on an Antares ?
Antares launch site limits which missions it can do. Also, it needs a 3rd stage for GTO missions.
Not that limited, as the Russians demonstrate from a similar latitude. As for the GTO missions needing a third stage, I point you again to the Russian launchers, such as Proton which similarly needs an extra stage for GTO. For commercial operations, neither of these issues are a deal breaker, for they are already present.
Um, Jim, their 3rd Stage is a Star48, which has a long track history of use.
Not that limited, as the Russians demonstrate from a similar latitude. As for the GTO missions needing a third stage, I point you again to the Russian launchers, such as Proton which similarly needs an extra stage for GTO. For commercial operations, neither of these issues are a deal breaker, for they are already present.
The launch site limits are not related to GTO missions, they are for polar and SSO missions.
As for 3rd stage, it isn't developed, only proposed.
Um, Jim, their 3rd Stage is a Star48, which has a long track history of use.
Not that limited, as the Russians demonstrate from a similar latitude. As for the GTO missions needing a third stage, I point you again to the Russian launchers, such as Proton which similarly needs an extra stage for GTO. For commercial operations, neither of these issues are a deal breaker, for they are already present.
The launch site limits are not related to GTO missions, they are for polar and SSO missions.
As for 3rd stage, it isn't developed, only proposed.
Of course, maybe they could convert the Taurus XL facility over to an Antares pad easily. It doesn't sound like the XL is going to get much follow-on business.
Of course, maybe they could convert the Taurus XL facility over to an Antares pad easily. It doesn't sound like the XL is going to get much follow-on business.
Not possible. The Taurus I pad that Orbital uses at VAFB is basically a bare concrete pad for solid motor rockets only. They will have to convert one of the existing unused pads with at least a flame trench.
Its not only the pad, it's the HIF, the transport, etc.Of course, maybe they could convert the Taurus XL facility over to an Antares pad easily. It doesn't sound like the XL is going to get much follow-on business.
Not possible. The Taurus I pad that Orbital uses at VAFB is basically a bare concrete pad for solid motor rockets only. They will have to convert one of the existing unused pads with at least a flame trench.
Is there anything suitable that doesn't require them installing new RP-1/LOX tanks / lines and pouring Concrete ? I don't think they want a repeat of their experience with the Wallops pad.
Its not only the pad, it's the HIF, the transport, etc.Of course, maybe they could convert the Taurus XL facility over to an Antares pad easily. It doesn't sound like the XL is going to get much follow-on business.
Not possible. The Taurus I pad that Orbital uses at VAFB is basically a bare concrete pad for solid motor rockets only. They will have to convert one of the existing unused pads with at least a flame trench.
Is there anything suitable that doesn't require them installing new RP-1/LOX tanks / lines and pouring Concrete ? I don't think they want a repeat of their experience with the Wallops pad.
It's a lot of building needed. Integration, hypergolic loading, HIF. OSC makes a lot of integration work on the HIF. And wrt transport, sea is very cheap between main ports, but once you get to secondary ports, prices go up exponentially. Specially for a 3.9m core like the Antares. Those are even a problem on trucks. So my guess is that transport would be a quite a bit more than Wallops.Its not only the pad, it's the HIF, the transport, etc.Of course, maybe they could convert the Taurus XL facility over to an Antares pad easily. It doesn't sound like the XL is going to get much follow-on business.
Not possible. The Taurus I pad that Orbital uses at VAFB is basically a bare concrete pad for solid motor rockets only. They will have to convert one of the existing unused pads with at least a flame trench.
Is there anything suitable that doesn't require them installing new RP-1/LOX tanks / lines and pouring Concrete ? I don't think they want a repeat of their experience with the Wallops pad.
The HIF was the easy part.
The biggest issue I see is that all of the parts are currently shipped to Dulles or Wallops for assembly. I assume they would continue assembling on the east coast, and then load the completed vehicle back on a ship for the west coast.
Of course, maybe they could convert the Taurus XL facility over to an Antares pad easily. It doesn't sound like the XL is going to get much follow-on business.
Not possible. The Taurus I pad that Orbital uses at VAFB is basically a bare concrete pad for solid motor rockets only. They will have to convert one of the existing unused pads with at least a flame trench.
Is there anything suitable that doesn't require them installing new RP-1/LOX tanks / lines and pouring Concrete ? I don't think they want a repeat of their experience with the Wallops pad.
Of course, maybe they could convert the Taurus XL facility over to an Antares pad easily. It doesn't sound like the XL is going to get much follow-on business.
Not possible. The Taurus I pad that Orbital uses at VAFB is basically a bare concrete pad for solid motor rockets only. They will have to convert one of the existing unused pads with at least a flame trench.
Is there anything suitable that doesn't require them installing new RP-1/LOX tanks / lines and pouring Concrete ? I don't think they want a repeat of their experience with the Wallops pad.
sure, but happy to see Orbital focused on gettting the job done for the ISS missions.
Going from Yuzhmash to the U.S. Pacific Coast might most efficiently be done by a Volga-Dnepr An-124. Else, there's a canal and a Pacific Ocean crossing.
Original 2005 development plan had it opening in early 2013 actually. They've accelerated the development, delaying the upgrades to the vertical pad to make it happen.Going from Yuzhmash to the U.S. Pacific Coast might most efficiently be done by a Volga-Dnepr An-124. Else, there's a canal and a Pacific Ocean crossing.
I was almost thinking that it might be more efficient for the first stage to be shipped to the west coast directly from Ukraine, but that probably requires more duplication of assembly facilities between the east and west coast.
When was the Wallops pad originally scheduled for completion, last Spring ?
Original 2005 development plan had it opening in early 2013 actually. They've accelerated the development, delaying the upgrades to the vertical pad to make it happen.
When was the Wallops pad originally scheduled for completion, last Spring ?
It was a preliminary wallops development plan I'd read, and yes, it pre-dated COTS, being a study which began under O'Keefe. It was just a proposal for renovating and transitioning the launch facility to possible commercial operation, actually listing the Atlas III for operation. I can dig it out for you if you'd like, a historical footnote.Original 2005 development plan had it opening in early 2013 actually. They've accelerated the development, delaying the upgrades to the vertical pad to make it happen.
When was the Wallops pad originally scheduled for completion, last Spring ?
Which "original plan"? 2005 seems to predate the 2008 COTS award (and decision to fly from Wallops) by about 3 years... we would never have selected Wallops if the pad had an 8-year predicted development time...
Is there anything suitable that doesn't require them installing new RP-1/LOX tanks / lines and pouring Concrete ? I don't think they want a repeat of their experience with the Wallops pad.
Is there anything suitable that doesn't require them installing new RP-1/LOX tanks / lines and pouring Concrete ? I don't think they want a repeat of their experience with the Wallops pad.
There's an Atlas II pad right next to SpaceX pad. They used to belong to the same launch complex, but then only the eastern pad was converted to Titan. It even has a mobile tower still standing from the 80s.
Is there anything suitable that doesn't require them installing new RP-1/LOX tanks / lines and pouring Concrete ? I don't think they want a repeat of their experience with the Wallops pad.
There's an Atlas II pad right next to SpaceX pad. They used to belong to the same launch complex, but then only the eastern pad was converted to Titan. It even has a mobile tower still standing from the 80s.
It was never a Atlas II pad, it was Titan II and Titan III/34B before that.Indeed, thanks for the correction.
It was a preliminary wallops development plan I'd read, and yes, it pre-dated COTS, being a study which began under O'Keefe. It was just a proposal for renovating and transitioning the launch facility to possible commercial operation, actually listing the Atlas III for operation. I can dig it out for you if you'd like, a historical footnote.Original 2005 development plan had it opening in early 2013 actually. They've accelerated the development, delaying the upgrades to the vertical pad to make it happen.
When was the Wallops pad originally scheduled for completion, last Spring ?
Which "original plan"? 2005 seems to predate the 2008 COTS award (and decision to fly from Wallops) by about 3 years... we would never have selected Wallops if the pad had an 8-year predicted development time...
Wow!
Wow!
Wow indeed. But do Orbital people know that Energomash is preparing an engine for them? The original URL with full picture including RD-175 for SLS:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/news.htm
I consider it likely to be wishful thinking, but it may add options for Orbital once AJ-26 are expended.
I assume that there are enough left-over NK-33s for Aerojet to convert, where that decision doesn't need to happen for several years.There aren't any over the 36 or 38 that Aerojet already have. Soyuz has dibs on the remainder.
That's 18 to 19 Antares launches. CRS means just 8. And they stated they can do three launches per year just after the third year. So, it would be a problem by 2020. I guess a new equivalent engine would be available by then.I assume that there are enough left-over NK-33s for Aerojet to convert, where that decision doesn't need to happen for several years.There aren't any over the 36 or 38 that Aerojet already have. Soyuz has dibs on the remainder.
the Tau... Antares
Interesting numbering choice for the engine, given how RD-180 and 181 are nowhere near RD-170 and 171 in similarity.
Presumably, the RD-181 engine that Energia would like to use on Antares is some variant of the RD-180, a little large and expensive for Antares. Probably 2 RD-191 engines would be a direct replacement for NK-33.
Since there's no scale, it's hard to tell how big the engine actually is. If it uses the 1/4 of RD-175, which is a radical thrust upgrade, then ONE RD-191 may replace TWO AJ-26 on Antares.
Well, to be fair to Orbital, I gather the delays at Wallops are NASA's fault rather than theirs. So you have to compare on a level playing field.
on Zen... er... Antares 1st stage.
#1 - a large purple device that is attached to the turbopump assembly (the purple color is just a key to identify it, of course - it may be made from any material). RD-181 has no such, although RD-193 does! It may be a starter. Or it may have something with the way pressurization works on Zen... er... Antares 1st stage.
Hotfire scheduled for June 26th.
Hotfire scheduled for June 26th.
Hotfire scheduled for June 26th.
GREAT NEWS...
Hotfire scheduled for June 26th.
GREAT NEWS...
Excellent, does that mean the pad will be complete by then?
Great news! Hopefully they can get C1 moved into October.
One thing I just don't get is the lack of interest in the Antares launch vehicle on this board. Orbital's program of cargo resupply is a key component of NASA's near term ISS policy. SpaceX has no lack of interest. It's kind of puzzling that there are more people on the SpaceX Mars board than on the Orbital cargo resupply board.
One thing I just don't get is the lack of interest in the Antares launch vehicle on this board.
I'll second this. I follow everything.One thing I just don't get is the lack of interest in the Antares launch vehicle on this board.
Don't mistake lack of posting for lack of interest.
Noel
Pierce also said Orbital now plans to test-fire the first stage of its Antares rocket in late July or early August at the new Wallops Island, Va., spaceport — a month later than the schedule announced in late April.
A successful test-firing will be followed by a demonstration flight of the two-stage Antares vehicle, without the Cygnus cargo module, in August or September.
The first Antares-Cygnus flight, designed to carry cargo to the international space station, then would occur in November or December.
http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120615-orbital-books-order-sat-platform.html
One thing I just don't get is the lack of interest in the Antares launch vehicle on this board.
Don't mistake lack of posting for lack of interest.
Noel
I think the Orbital fans are just less inclined to post each and every crazy idea that comes into their head. They post when there is actual news, which unfortunately, doesn't always come often enough.
if Falcon 1 is an advantage for SpaceX, then Orbital should be having a Mardi Gras, flying the Pegasus, Minotaur and Taurus rockets already, with two decades of launch experience under their belt.I'll second this. I follow everything.One thing I just don't get is the lack of interest in the Antares launch vehicle on this board.
Don't mistake lack of posting for lack of interest.
Noel
Also, we've not seen any fire yet ( except engine tests ). SpaceX had the advantage of showing flame and liftoff ( through falcon 1 ) earlier, and the vehicle was connected very much to other efforts.
Orbital does a lot of stuff, but we've not seen such exciting "fluffy PR" stuff for Antares yet. Think static fire on the pad, or a completed cygnus.
Please note that i am not saying that one is better then the other; as I said, I follow this just as much. I am sure when we see some more "juicy" stuff, there'll be more interest and rampant speculation when Antares will reach mars and use it's 2nd stage solid shell as a habitat :D
if Falcon 1 is an advantage for SpaceX, then Orbital should be having a Mardi Gras, flying the Pegasus, Minotaur and Taurus rockets already, with two decades of launch experience under their belt.I'll second this. I follow everything.One thing I just don't get is the lack of interest in the Antares launch vehicle on this board.
Don't mistake lack of posting for lack of interest.
Noel
Also, we've not seen any fire yet ( except engine tests ). SpaceX had the advantage of showing flame and liftoff ( through falcon 1 ) earlier, and the vehicle was connected very much to other efforts.
Orbital does a lot of stuff, but we've not seen such exciting "fluffy PR" stuff for Antares yet. Think static fire on the pad, or a completed cygnus.
Please note that i am not saying that one is better then the other; as I said, I follow this just as much. I am sure when we see some more "juicy" stuff, there'll be more interest and rampant speculation when Antares will reach mars and use it's 2nd stage solid shell as a habitat :D
if Falcon 1 is an advantage for SpaceX, then Orbital should be having a Mardi Gras, flying the Pegasus, Minotaur and Taurus rockets already, with two decades of launch experience under their belt.
Pegasus is a 4-stage air-launched solidif Falcon 1 is an advantage for SpaceX, then Orbital should be having a Mardi Gras, flying the Pegasus, Minotaur and Taurus rockets already, with two decades of launch experience under their belt.
Liquid rockets and their associated pad systems are an entirely different beast.
One thing I just don't get is the lack of interest in the Antares launch vehicle on this board. Orbital's program of cargo resupply is a key component of NASA's near term ISS policy. SpaceX has no lack of interest. It's kind of puzzling that there are more people on the SpaceX Mars board than on the Orbital cargo resupply board.
A charismatic chairman can get you a lot of good and bad attention.
Notice no one in here talking about the Orbital multiplier effect?
Was this engine an actual factual "Aerojet" engine, or was it just another Kuznetov engine built in Soviet Russia and rewired and given a new nameplate?
Was this engine an actual factual "Aerojet" engine, or was it just another Kuznetov engine built in Soviet Russia and rewired and given a new nameplate?And at least repiped and given new trust structure and actuators and controller. Quite a bit of work there.
Was this engine an actual factual "Aerojet" engine, or was it just another Kuznetov engine built in Soviet Russia and rewired and given a new nameplate?There is not that much of the original NK-33 left so I understand.
Was this engine an actual factual "Aerojet" engine, or was it just another Kuznetov engine built in Soviet Russia and rewired and given a new nameplate?There is not that much of the original NK-33 left so I understand.
The original NK-33 had neither actuators (due to differential thrust steering) nor a controller (like all Russian engines).
I'd call it a computer dedicated to the control of engine power and mixture, like SSME and J2X. Most vehicles have a box (dedicated or just a relay) that controls the thrust vector of the engine(s).
I'd call it a computer dedicated to the control of engine power and mixture, like SSME and J2X. Most vehicles have a box (dedicated or just a relay) that controls the thrust vector of the engine(s).
I can understand a relay box, but why would a launch vehicle equipped with a complete avionics system require a separate computer for each engine?
So why don't Russian engines have dedicated controllers? Is that true for RD-180 too?The original control system for the NK-33's was designed in the 1960's. We've had a few years of technological progress since then. The use of modern controllers allows far more fine control over the system, which allows for more efficiency, and power.
Sen. Mikulski...was briefed on the progress being made toward completing the certification of the launch complex...
Meanwhile, the first Antares hold-down test at Pad 0-A is now scheduled for September. As part of its fight demonstration agreement with NASA, Orbital has to complete that test before it can launch Antares on its maiden flight, now scheduled for December. In the December flight, Antares will fly without its Cygnus cargo module.
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120706-nash-replaces-reed-vcsfa.html
Meanwhile, the first Antares hold-down test at Pad 0-A is now scheduled for September. As part of its fight demonstration agreement with NASA, Orbital has to complete that test before it can launch Antares on its maiden flight, now scheduled for December. In the December flight, Antares will fly without its Cygnus cargo module.
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120706-nash-replaces-reed-vcsfa.html
I think the Space News reporter confused the Antares test flight with the Demo flight. So far, (knock on wood!) we still have Orbital Demo-1 launch scheduled for 12 Dec.
Go Antares! I am so looking forward to see NK-33s finally showing what they can do! :)+42
(no need to refurb the static fire asset.)
Looks like the Wallops rocket garden is going to get a BIG addition!
Updated COTS and CRS Schedules
July 2012
Orbital updated its COTS and CRS operational schedules
From a new engine perspective, (Dr Elias) adds that growing signs of an uptick in demand for a medium-lift vehicle are creating “a number of healthy opportunities in the Delta 2 class or lower end of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). However, we have lost a bit of hope that the U.S. government will put a priority on developing new liquid rockets, so private industry will have to develop one,” he suggests.
QuoteFrom a new engine perspective, (Dr Elias) adds that growing signs of an uptick in demand for a medium-lift vehicle are creating “a number of healthy opportunities in the Delta 2 class or lower end of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). However, we have lost a bit of hope that the U.S. government will put a priority on developing new liquid rockets, so private industry will have to develop one,” he suggests.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_01_2012_p04-02-481972.xml
Call me crazy, but doesnt a new LV designed by a certain someone fit the bill (meaning see the title of the thread)? Certainly Antares + liquid upperstage should fit the requirement......
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_01_2012_p04-02-481972.xml
Call me crazy, but doesnt a new LV designed by a certain someone fit the bill (meaning see the title of the thread)? Certainly Antares + liquid upperstage should fit the requirement......
Note that Merlins are perfectly domestic, but perhaps something in Mr. Musk's demeanor prevents Dr. Elias from counting on a cluster of those for Antares.
Note that Merlins are perfectly domestic, but perhaps something in Mr. Musk's demeanor prevents Dr. Elias from counting on a cluster of those for Antares.
Note that Merlins are perfectly domestic, but perhaps something in Mr. Musk's demeanor prevents Dr. Elias from counting on a cluster of those for Antares.
Also SpaceX is already developing the Falcon Air (in effect a Falcon 4) for Stratolaunch. A direct competitor to the Antares in whatever engine configuration. Foresee a ground launch version of the Falcon Air after it became operational.
Note that Merlins are perfectly domestic, but perhaps something in Mr. Musk's demeanor prevents Dr. Elias from counting on a cluster of those for Antares.
Or maybe because a single Merlin has insufficient thrust and Dr. Elias would prefer to start off with 500 klbf from a single, unclustered unit.
Мы также разработали модификацию РД-193 для использования на легкой ракете «Союз 2.1В» и экспортный вариант, который предлагается для носителя Antares компании Orbital Sciences Corporation (OCS).
Another acceptance test at Stennis?
..." Finally, in the center of the photo, is the first stage of the Antares rocket that will carry out the COTS demonstration mission to the ISS. It is being readied for engine integration. The nozzle of an AJ26 engine can be seen in the left foreground."
http://www.orbital.com/Antares/
So the Antares stages are first backed into the building for engine integration, then are driven out, turned around, and driven back into the HIF for upper stage and payload integration?Legend has it that the first UR-500 was delivered to MIK backwards. So it had to be driven 50 km to the nearest place where railway formed a triangle, then back to the technical position. Probably it's not that big a deal for Antares. Maybe we'll have a photo-op like those that used to happen regularly whenever Shuttles were maneuvered.
AJ-26 test today in 1 hour.Awesome. How'd it go?
AJ-26 test today in 1 hour.Awesome. How'd it go?
Any idea of the schedule impact?AJ-26 test today in 1 hour.Awesome. How'd it go?
Initial performance looked good. For reasons unrelated to engine quality, it looks like they will need to redo ATP though.
Any idea of the schedule impact?
PS - How are you enjoying the crazy weather down in AZ this year?
+1. ;)Any idea of the schedule impact?
PS - How are you enjoying the crazy weather down in AZ this year?
I speak in no official capacity, but shouldn't be any. Plenty of engines to go around. Actually loving the weather. Wife and I are both Floridians, beats the heck out of 90% humidity.
Congrats
Known around here as antonioe... and who still occasionally answers questions from NSF members.)
..." Finally, in the center of the photo, is the first stage of the Antares rocket that will carry out the COTS demonstration mission to the ISS. It is being readied for engine integration. The nozzle of an AJ26 engine can be seen in the left foreground."
http://www.orbital.com/Antares/
So the Antares stages are first backed into the building for engine integration, then are driven out, turned around, and driven back into the HIF for upper stage and payload integration?
- Ed Kyle
In the picture you are looking at the FRONT of the first stage... those two round things you see are the dessicant cartridges, not the engines, so the airframe IS pointing in the right direction for rolling it out to the pad and erecting...
Some joker at Yushnoye thought it was funny to shape the dessicant cartridges to look like the rear end of two nozzles... then putting them on the TOP side of the stage...
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1728902&highlight=
ORBITAL ANNOUNCES SENIOR EXECUTIVE PROMOTIONS
•
Dr. Antonio L. Elias, currently Executive Vice President and General Manager of Orbital's Advanced Programs Group (APG), will become Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer, responsible for the company's overall technical operations. In this new corporate capacity, Dr. Elias will oversee a 2,600-person functional organization consisting of the company's engineering, production, supply chain, test and operations staff, as well as its safety and mission assurance professionals, in Virginia, Arizona and other locations.
¡Gracias, ché!
Since I have it in my Location data, is not that surprising. That he handles Spanish well enough to add the "che" like we do, is :P¡Gracias, ché!Even knows that you're Argentinian. Creepy.
Since I have it in my Location data, is not that surprising. That he handles Spanish well enough to add the "che" like we do, is :P
Actually, is like speaking like a Canadian, eh! Which, incidentally we also use the eh. But let's admire not only his well renowned design and management capability, but also he Photography Direction and Polyglotism skills :P
he handles Spanish well enough to add the "che"
Let me give you a tip: set your keyboard to US-International, and you will be able to write in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French and German in a very naturally way. In any case, you did it so well that I didn't get it.he handles Spanish well enough to add the "che"
That's nothing; you missed the hard part, which is how to get the opening "¡" for the "¡!" pair on a @%&! Microsoft Windows english keyboard.
But let's get back on topic...
he handles Spanish well enough to add the "che"
That's nothing; you missed the hard part, which is how to get the opening "¡" for the "¡!" pair on a @%&! Microsoft Windows english keyboard.
Do we a possible date yet for the static fire test?If we are able to roll out the vehicle this Friday, we should be able to do the static fire test in mid-October.
Do we a possible date yet for the static fire test?If we are able to roll out the vehicle this Friday, we should be able to do the static fire test in mid-October.
Do we a possible date yet for the static fire test?If we are able to roll out the vehicle this Friday, we should be able to do the static fire test in mid-October.
(P.S. what's the plural form of "Antares"? ::))
(P.S. what's the plural form of "Antares"? ::) )
Antares is Άντάρης in Greek, the plural for which is Άντάρες. Unfortunately, the closest English approximation would sound like "Antar-Ess", which is kinda hard to distinguish. I vote for Antaras, personally.
(P.S. what's the plural form of "Antares"? ::))
(P.S. what's the plural form of "Antares"? ::) )
Antares is Άντάρης in Greek, the plural for which is Άντάρες. Unfortunately, the closest English approximation would sound like "Antar-Ess", which is kinda hard to distinguish. I vote for Antaras, personally.
I vote Antarians
Are there any updates on the vehicle? Are we still on schedule or are their new delays?Do we a possible date yet for the static fire test?If we are able to roll out the vehicle this Friday, we should be able to do the static fire test in mid-October.
Are there any updates on the vehicle? Are we still on schedule or are their new delays?
Are there any updates on the vehicle? Are we still on schedule or are their new delays?
Rollout Saturday.
Hmm...
Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority and Orbital Sciences Corporation Reach New Agreement on Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=1425
That or the paperwork ;)
Are there any updates on the vehicle? Are we still on schedule or are their new delays?
Rollout Saturday.
Antares is Άντάρης in Greek, the plural for which is Άντάρες.
Are we talking Classical, Koine, or Modern Greek?Antares is Άντάρης in Greek, the plural for which is Άντάρες.
Heh, a "rocket scientist" who is enough of a classical scholar to add a breathing and an accent, and manages to do so on web forum software that's probably not designed for it! Wouldn't the plural be Antarai though?
Antares is Άντάρης in Greek, the plural for which is Άντάρες.
Heh, a "rocket scientist" who is enough of a classical scholar to add a breathing and an accent, and manages to do so on web forum software that's probably not designed for it! Wouldn't the plural be Antarai though?
I was basing my interpretation off of "Antares" as the rival of "Ares" or "άρης", which is an irregular noun, not taking the usual first declension plural. However, that may be open to interpretation. I have a cousin with a doctorate in Ancient Mediterranean Languages that I could ask.
Is it rolling? Did it roll? Webcam?
Any update on the rollout?
Heard yesterday that it should be sometime today. No big showstoppers, just a couple of little things that have needed resolution. Better to be right than quick.Certainly agreed on that last part! It's just that I'd hate to see Antares and Cygnus got lost in all the shuffle with SpaceX-1 coming up. Looking forward to hearing more. :)
Is the entire rocket assembly rolling out including fairing? If so, it's a unique opportunity to see both Orbital and SpaceX rockets roll out at the same or near same time.
Certainly agreed on that last part! It's just that I'd hate to see Antares and Cygnus got lost in all the shuffle with SpaceX-1 coming up. Looking forward to hearing more. :)
Antares lost the first dry dress rehearsal and test fire of the NK-33 to the Soyuz-2.1v. I just hope they are first to the WDR and actual launch.I heard they actualy loaded LOX during that roll-out. Still, Antares is in the lead since Soyuz launch is postponed into March-April timeframe due to the incident during hot-fire testing at the Peresvet facility. Until that test is re-taken, they cannot fly (unless Mr. Kirillin clenches his balls and orders to fly without the test). Now, of course, if Antares catches fire on the pad during the hot-fire, they're going to be even, but that's not very likely IMHO.
Now, of course, if Antares catches fire on the pad during the hot-fire, they're going to be even, but that's not very likely IMHO.
https://twitter.com/OrbitalSciences/status/249203962979434497/photo/1
All three stages in the same orientation. Like I said, it's a non-problem when you have transporters like Orbital's. Load it, roll out, 3-point turn right there in the street, roll in and unload, done. It's not a pain like Proton.
Can someone explain one thing to me? Test flight is in october, right? And demo flight for COTS in december, right? This is awfully short time between two launches. Two months!
OSC operates on assumption that maiden flight will go perfectly or what?
Even SpaceX with their well known attitude to space ops wasn't THAT optimistic with their test flights...
Can someone explain one thing to me? Test flight is in october, right? And demo flight for COTS in december, right? This is awfully short time between two launches. Two months!
OSC operates on assumption that maiden flight will go perfectly or what?
Even SpaceX with their well known attitude to space ops wasn't THAT optimistic with their test flights...
#Antares first stage arrives on the pad at @NASA_Wallops. First stage approaching adapter ring on the right. @NASA pic.twitter.com/kxAFDBXM
Actually, proper term for the adapter ring shown in previous photo is "launch mount." Trip from HIF to top of ramp on pad was 1hr. 15 min.
Orbital Begins Antares Rocket Operations at Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport
-- Rockets First Stage Transported to New Launch Pad to Commence Full-Scale Operations --
(Dulles, VA 1 October 2012) – Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB), one of the world’s leading space technology companies, today announced that has it has commenced Antares launch vehicle operations at the liquid-fuel launch complex at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS). Following a four-year design, development, construction, test and inspection process, the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VCSFA), which oversees MARS, has authorized Orbital to begin on-pad operations leading up to flight demonstrations of its Antares medium-class launch vehicle and Cygnus cargo logistics spacecraft, the vehicles Orbital will use to fulfill a $1.9 billion NASA contract to deliver essential cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). The MARS launch complex is located at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in eastern Virginia and is owned and operated by MARS, under the auspices of the VCSFA, which receives its funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
“MARS has completed construction and testing operations on its launch complex at Wallops Island, the first all-new large-scale liquid-fuel launch site to be built in the U.S. in decades,” said David W. Thompson, Orbital’s President and Chief Executive Officer. “Accordingly, our pad operations are commencing immediately in preparation for an important series of ground and flight tests of our Antares medium-class launch vehicle over the next few months. In fact, earlier today, an Antares first stage test article was transported to the pad from its final assembly building about a mile away, marking the beginning of full pad operations.”
Over the next several months, the company plans to complete three major program milestones, including an on-pad hot-fire test of the Antares first stage, the maiden flight of a fully operational Antares rocket, and a demonstration mission to the ISS of Orbital’s cargo delivery system, prior to commencing operational cargo delivery missions under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) agreement in 2013. This system, developed under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) joint research and development agreement with NASA, is made up of an Antares rocket, a Cygnus advanced maneuvering cargo logistics spacecraft, and ground-based mission operations command and control facilities.
The first of the three milestones, the Antares hot-fire test operation, will demonstrate the readiness of the rocket’s first stage and launch pad fueling systems to support the upcoming flights. The hot-fire test involves firing Antares’ dual AJ26 rocket engines that will generate a combined total thrust of 680,000 lbs. for approximately 30 seconds while the first stage is held down on the pad. The hot-fire operation is expected to be conducted in four to five weeks following integration and check-out of the Antares first stage test unit with the launch complex’s fueling systems.
The hot-fire test will be followed about one month later by the maiden flight of the Antares rocket, which will carry a Cygnus mass simulator payload that will be heavily instrumented to gather data on the launch environment aboard Antares. In addition, four small “pico satellites” will be deployed from two dispensers that will be integrated with the mass simulator.
The last of the three COTS test milestones will be the COTS demonstration mission to the ISS. For this mission, a fully operational Cygnus spacecraft will be launched into orbit by Antares and, following an extensive series of in-orbit tests, will autonomously rendezvous and berth with the ISS. The first Cygnus will deliver approximately 550 kg of cargo upon its arrival and will remove about 1,000 kg of disposal cargo upon its departure from the orbiting laboratory.
About Orbital
Orbital develops and manufactures small- and medium-class rockets and space systems for commercial, military and civil government customers. The company’s primary products are satellites and launch vehicles, including low-Earth orbit, geosynchronous-Earth orbit and planetary exploration spacecraft for communications, remote sensing, scientific and defense missions; human-rated space systems for Earth-orbit, lunar and other missions; ground- and air-launched rockets that deliver satellites into orbit; and missile defense systems that are used as interceptor and target vehicles. Orbital also provides satellite subsystems and space-related technical services to U.S. Government agencies and laboratories.
More information about Orbital can be found at http://www.orbital.com
New photos from today's #Antares roll out at @NASA_Wallops. First of 4 photos Antares about half way to the pad. @NASA pic.twitter.com/k6GrpgpZ
Second of four photos. #Antares approaching the MARS pad at @NASA_Wallops. @NASA pic.twitter.com/SC8rLj29
Third photo. #Antares on ramp to pad. Water tower to be used to deluge the pad with H2O during hot fire test. @NASA pic.twitter.com/KOjlPk9N
Last photo. #Antares first stage arrives on the pad as seen from a distance. pic.twitter.com/lfh6hHwz
The first stage of Orbital Science's commercial rocket called Antares begins its rollout from the Horizontal Integration Facility to the new Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport launch pad located at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on the eastern shore of Virginia.
Okay, Who do I ask about rapping off that water tower? That looks like a fun drop!
(Bridge day is just around the corner...)
Remind me again, are those the NK's, or the desiccant canisters?
NASA Wallops Facebook page has more photo'sQuoteThe first stage of Orbital Science's commercial rocket called Antares begins its rollout from the Horizontal Integration Facility to the new Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport launch pad located at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on the eastern shore of Virginia.
I like their rolling erector truck thingy!
Article for rollout. Includes Ron Smith's Antares overview and some of our L2 imagery.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/orbitals-antares-closing-debut-launch-pad-arrival/
Really hope they show a pic of the vehicle erect on the pad. That's what I'm after.
Antares is vertical!
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/338344_10151214688566772_147616691_o.jpg
Is that only the 1st stage?
First stage only. No good reason to have 14 tons of solid propellant on top of a hotfire unless you're actually going up hill.
Is that only the 1st stage?
First stage only. No good reason to have 14 tons of solid propellant on top of a hotfire unless you're actually going up hill.
Soooo....upper stage avionics that would be used to control the first stage in flight won't be exercised in the hot-fire?Are they on the solid upper stage?
Soooo....upper stage avionics that would be used to control the first stage in flight won't be exercised in the hot-fire?Are they on the solid upper stage?
Soooo....upper stage avionics that would be used to control the first stage in flight won't be exercised in the hot-fire?
anyone know how much of a warning we might get before an engine test fire?
The first stage test article was rotated vertically, last night...
Roll out video is up!
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=153244401
(including the erector erecting!)
Soooo....upper stage avionics that would be used to control the first stage in flight won't be exercised in the hot-fire?
There's an upper stack simulator. My comment was directed more to the motor, but key elements from the EE/GNC side of the house will be active and part of this hotfire test.
Perhaps because their pad is able to deal with such a long run without unacceptable damage and because extra testing is good. This is, after all, the very first Antares launch! If the vehicle is damaged by a planned 30-sec hot fire (that they were expecting to do), then it's not unlikely the vehicle would've been damaged in flight. Better to find the problems on the pad /before/ you launch.Soooo....upper stage avionics that would be used to control the first stage in flight won't be exercised in the hot-fire?
There's an upper stack simulator. My comment was directed more to the motor, but key elements from the EE/GNC side of the house will be active and part of this hotfire test.
Thanks.
So, why the 30-sec hot-fire? Why expose yourself to the potential for pad or vehicle damage with such a long run?
Thanks.
So, why the 30-sec hot-fire? Why expose yourself to the potential for pad or vehicle damage with such a long run?
Perhaps because their pad is able to deal with such a long run without unacceptable damage and because extra testing is good. This is, after all, the very first Antares launch! If the vehicle is damaged by a planned 30-sec hot fire (that they were expecting to do), then it's not unlikely the vehicle would've been damaged in flight. Better to find the problems on the pad /before/ you launch.
I would invite our resident space historians to cite another example of a rocket performing such a long hot-fire. All the instances I can think of involved a handful of seconds.
I would invite our resident space historians to cite another example of a rocket performing such a long hot-fire. All the instances I can think of involved a handful of seconds.
Didn't the Shuttle do a full length burn before its first flight? Of course, they only did that once, not every time.
I would invite our resident space historians to cite another example of a rocket performing such a long hot-fire. All the instances I can think of involved a handful of seconds.
Didn't the Shuttle do a full length burn before its first flight? Of course, they only did that once, not every time.
Then why does SpaceX even bother with acceptance testing their stages at McGregor?Perhaps because their pad is able to deal with such a long run without unacceptable damage and because extra testing is good. This is, after all, the very first Antares launch! If the vehicle is damaged by a planned 30-sec hot fire (that they were expecting to do), then it's not unlikely the vehicle would've been damaged in flight. Better to find the problems on the pad /before/ you launch.
An engine run on the pad subjects the vehicle to a different set of environments than it will experience in flight. Surviving or failing in one set of dynamic environments is not proof of its ability (or deficiency) to survive a different set of dynamic environments.
...
Then why does SpaceX even bother with acceptance testing their stages at McGregor?
There is no /proof/ in this business. Merely evidence.
Then why does SpaceX even bother with acceptance testing their stages at McGregor?
There is no /proof/ in this business. Merely evidence.
Take note of how their test stand is constructed.
I'm in this business. Your last statement is....well, silly.
Regardless of the test stand, SpaceX apparently DOES think it's something worthwhile doing, for even longer (when in McGregor)! So why shouldn't Orbital do it? Orbital has been in this business for longer than SpaceX (though hasn't done so much with liquid stages). And remember, this is a Ukrainian stage... The Russian Soyuz is ignited 17 seconds before lift-off (I'm not sure about the Zenit count-down sequence). So, what's the big problem with testing the rocket for 30 seconds before hand? As others have noted, Shuttle did a 20 second on-pad burn. Several other folks do similar things.Then why does SpaceX even bother with acceptance testing their stages at McGregor?
There is no /proof/ in this business. Merely evidence.
Take note of how their test stand is constructed.
Regardless of the test stand, SpaceX apparently DOES think it's something worthwhile doing, for even longer (when in McGregor)! So why shouldn't Orbital do it? Orbital has been in this business for longer than SpaceX (though hasn't done so much with liquid stages). And remember, this is a Ukrainian stage... The Russian Soyuz is ignited 17 seconds before lift-off (I'm not sure about the Zenit count-down sequence). So, what's the big problem with testing the rocket for 30 seconds before hand? As others have noted, Shuttle did a 20 second on-pad burn. Several other folks do similar things.Then why does SpaceX even bother with acceptance testing their stages at McGregor?
There is no /proof/ in this business. Merely evidence.
Take note of how their test stand is constructed.
You don't think Orbital knows enough about their launch pad to know if it can handle a 30 second hot fire? Likely story... The folks at Orbital aren't amateurs.
I know.......
There is no /proof/ in this business. Merely evidence.
I'm in this business.
Your last statement is....well, silly.Your statement "Surviving or failing in one set of dynamic environments is not proof of its ability (or deficiency) to survive a different set of dynamic environments" is also silly, since it's tautologically true... And yet, Apollo did stage acceptance tests, SpaceX does stage acceptance tests, etc. The dynamic environments are different, obviously, but that clearly doesn't immediately answer the question of whether or not it's worth it to do the 30 second hot fire.
Regardless of the test stand, SpaceX apparently DOES think it's something worthwhile doing, for even longer (when in McGregor)!
So why shouldn't Orbital do it?
Orbital has been in this business for longer than SpaceX (though hasn't done so much with liquid stages).
And remember, this is a Ukrainian stage... The Russian Soyuz is ignited 17 seconds before lift-off (I'm not sure about the Zenit count-down sequence).
So, what's the big problem with testing the rocket for 30 seconds before hand? As others have noted, Shuttle did a 20 second on-pad burn. Several other folks do similar things.
You don't think Orbital knows enough about their launch pad to know if it can handle a 30 second hot fire? Likely story... The folks at Orbital aren't amateurs.
The Russian Soyuz is ignited 17 seconds before lift-off (I'm not sure about the Zenit count-down sequence).
This 30-second run has the appearance (to me) of being a static firing of a completed rocket stage
The Russian Soyuz is ignited 17 seconds before lift-off (I'm not sure about the Zenit count-down sequence).
Do you have any proof for this assertion?
The Russian Soyuz is ignited 17 seconds before lift-off (I'm not sure about the Zenit count-down sequence).
Do you have any proof for this assertion? None of the Soyuz launch videos I have seen back that up. From what I can tell (and have read), the Soyuz is released as soon as its thrust has built up enough to lift the rocket off the pad.
The Russian Soyuz is ignited 17 seconds before lift-off (I'm not sure about the Zenit count-down sequence).
Do you have any proof for this assertion? None of the Soyuz launch videos I have seen back that up. From what I can tell (and have read), the Soyuz is released as soon as its thrust has built up enough to lift the rocket off the pad.
Try this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqDZAYUT34E
smoke (or maybe water) at 00:17
visible fire at 00:22
liftoff at 00:33
time = 11 to 16 seconds
The ignition sequence starts 17 seconds before liftoff: http://spaceflightnow.com/soyuz/vs01/countdowntimeline.htmlThe Russian Soyuz is ignited 17 seconds before lift-off (I'm not sure about the Zenit count-down sequence).
Do you have any proof for this assertion? None of the Soyuz launch videos I have seen back that up. From what I can tell (and have read), the Soyuz is released as soon as its thrust has built up enough to lift the rocket off the pad.
Try this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqDZAYUT34E
smoke (or maybe water) at 00:17
visible fire at 00:22
liftoff at 00:33
time = 11 to 16 seconds
Ignition appears to occur just as the announcer says T-10s. (or just before).
Thanks - longer than I thought, but not 17 seconds.
I know.......
There is no /proof/ in this business. Merely evidence.
I'm in this business.QuoteYour last statement is....well, silly.Your statement "Surviving or failing in one set of dynamic environments is not proof of its ability (or deficiency) to survive a different set of dynamic environments" is also silly, since it's tautologically true... And yet, Apollo did stage acceptance tests, SpaceX does stage acceptance tests, etc. The dynamic environments are different, obviously, but that clearly doesn't immediately answer the question of whether or not it's worth it to do the 30 second hot fire.
You worked Shuttle, so you tell me why Shuttle did a 20 second hot fire. Clearly, there was a significant perceived benefit from such a test for an inaugural launch.
Date: Late 2012
Mission: Orbital Sciences Corporation Test Flight
Launch Vehicle: Antares
Launch Site: Wallops Flight Facility, Va.
Launch Pad: 0A
Description: The Antares is scheduled for a test flight under NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services agreement with the company.
Date: Spring 2013
Mission: Orbital Sciences Corporation Test Flight
Launch Vehicle: Antares/Cygnus
Launch Site: Wallops Flight Facility, Va.
Launch Pad: 0A
Description: The Cygnus spacecraft is scheduled for a demonstration flight on an Orbital Antares launch vehicle under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services agreement with the company. Cygnus will make an attempt to rendezvous and berth with the International Space Station.
Are there any updates on the static test fire?only this:
Also I'm hearing that the Antares test flight 1 might launch somewhere between 20 November 2012 and 12 December 2012. Can someone clarify these dates as probable.
Thanks.
Suff: Tests still going on with Orbital Sciences. Not expecting demo flight until late Feb/early March.
Are there any updates on the static test fire?only this:
Also I'm hearing that the Antares test flight 1 might launch somewhere between 20 November 2012 and 12 December 2012. Can someone clarify these dates as probable.
Thanks.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29131.msg961697#msg961697QuoteSuff: Tests still going on with Orbital Sciences. Not expecting demo flight until late Feb/early March.
Are there any updates on the static test fire?
Also I'm hearing that the Antares test flight 1 might launch somewhere between 20 November 2012 and 12 December 2012. Can someone clarify these dates as probable.
Thanks.
Cygnus launch delayed until March or April 2013. At this rate, SpaceX will have fulfilled half of their CRS contract before Cygnus even launches. Just kidding maybe........
http://spacenews.com/launch/121018-cygnus-debut-pushed.html
Cygnus launch delayed until March or April 2013. At this rate, SpaceX will have fulfilled half of their CRS contract before Cygnus even launches. Just kidding maybe........
http://spacenews.com/launch/121018-cygnus-debut-pushed.html
Cygnus launch delayed until March or April 2013. At this rate, SpaceX will have fulfilled half of their CRS contract before Cygnus even launches. Just kidding maybe........
What is the latest? Has the 7K test-fire occurred, if yes, did it go well?Are there any updates on the static test fire?Plausible. Upgrade to probable if 7K test-fire is on-time and shows no major issues.
Also I'm hearing that the Antares test flight 1 might launch somewhere between 20 November 2012 and 12 December 2012. Can someone clarify these dates as probable.
Thanks.
What is the latest? Has the 7K test-fire occurred, if yes, did it go well?
Please post an update when this milestone occurs successfully.
Many Thanks!
Antares rocket tests halted by Hurricane Sandy
"Engineers planned to load propellant into the Antares first stage as soon as this week, but Hurricane Sandy will delay the rocket's test schedule by at least several days."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/antares/121026sandy/
Antares rocket tests halted by Hurricane Sandy
"Engineers planned to load propellant into the Antares first stage as soon as this week, but Hurricane Sandy will delay the rocket's test schedule by at least several days."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/antares/121026sandy/
Wow. They're going to ride it out on the pad. Not enough time to move it back to the hangar?
Antares rocket tests halted by Hurricane Sandy
"Engineers planned to load propellant into the Antares first stage as soon as this week, but Hurricane Sandy will delay the rocket's test schedule by at least several days."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/antares/121026sandy/
Wow. They're going to ride it out on the pad. Not enough time to move it back to the hangar?
I guess that's a good test of the hold-downs. How bad are the winds going to get, 75-80 mph ? I suppose, other than tipping the stage over, the worst that could happen is a hit by some flying debris.
I guess that's a good test of the hold-downs. How bad are the winds going to get, 75-80 mph ? I suppose, other than tipping the stage over, the worst that could happen is a hit by some flying debris.
Preliminary reports are that the vehicle held up just fine.
Here's a couple of shots:
Dec. 17 Antares • Demo
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: Pad 0A, Wallops Island, Virginia
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.htmlQuoteDec. 17 Antares • Demo
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: Pad 0A, Wallops Island, Virginia
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.htmlQuoteDec. 17 Antares • Demo
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: Pad 0A, Wallops Island, Virginia
now were talking.
Entirely a place-holder, of course, since the article above notes that the actual launch date won't be set until after the static test, which won't come until after the wet dress rehearsals, and so on. The actual demo launch vehicle is still in the barn.
- Ed Kyle
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.htmlQuoteDec. 17 Antares • Demo
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: Pad 0A, Wallops Island, Virginia
now were talking.
Entirely a place-holder, of course, since the article above notes that the actual launch date won't be set until after the static test, which won't come until after the wet dress rehearsals, and so on. The actual demo launch vehicle is still in the barn.
- Ed Kyle
This article reports that the first flight of the Antares has been pushed back into 2013, but the article is behind a pay wall: http://www.spacenews.com/article/no-antares-flight-until-2013-orbital-nasa-say (http://www.spacenews.com/article/no-antares-flight-until-2013-orbital-nasa-say) :-\From my inbox chat with strangequark (From OSC?)
Are there any other sources?
Quote from: strangequark on 09-11-2012, 09:01:47QuoteQuote from: russianhalo117 on 07-11-2012, 14:44:37
7K Test Fire Status: When in November is the test fire expected?Quote
Depends on how the 5K test goes (they load with propellant, and run the countdown up to point of ignition, then stop). If all goes well, then 7K should be November 30.
This article reports that the first flight of the Antares has been pushed back into 2013, but the article is behind a pay wall: http://www.spacenews.com/article/no-antares-flight-until-2013-orbital-nasa-say (http://www.spacenews.com/article/no-antares-flight-until-2013-orbital-nasa-say) :-\
Are there any other sources?
In the meantime, the planned December debut of Antares will slip into 2013 to allow time for clean-up at its Wallops Island launch pad on Virginia's eastern shore in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. The first flight, slated for early next year, will carry a dummy Cygnus cargo carrier along with a secondary payload comprising four cubesats. Orbital's first demonstration to the ISS under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program is expected to follow three months later.
Do you have any new info for the people about the current status of both the 5K (WDR?) and 7K (Static Hot-Fire Test) tests?What is the latest? Has the 7K test-fire occurred, if yes, did it go well?Are there any updates on the static test fire?Plausible. Upgrade to probable if 7K test-fire is on-time and shows no major issues.
Also I'm hearing that the Antares test flight 1 might launch somewhere between 20 November 2012 and 12 December 2012. Can someone clarify these dates as probable.
Thanks.
Please post an update when this milestone occurs successfully.
Many Thanks!
Great to see progress being made. Can't wait for the test launch!
So how much money does Orbital lose for not launching this year?
I guess it doesn't matter considering how much extra padding their contract has compared to SpaceX.
This is commercial fixed price right?
Edit : If there's some sort of CRS thread this question would be better suited in I'm happy for it to be moved.
So how much money does Orbital lose for not launching this year?
I guess it doesn't matter considering how much extra padding their contract has compared to SpaceX.
This is commercial fixed price right?
Story in Av Week blog about how fairing problems may affect Antares:
Story in Av Week blog about how fairing problems may affect Antares:
NESC and Langley PAO have some explaining to do. What AWST obtained under FOIA should have been marked proprietary or more. AIUI, because some documents were properly marked and therefore not releasable, the other side of the story is incomplete.
"Just delayed" can make a difference to whether a business makes payroll. Perhaps not in Orbital's case, but in general delayed payments are not good news.So how much money does Orbital lose for not launching this year?
I guess it doesn't matter considering how much extra padding their contract has compared to SpaceX.
This is commercial fixed price right?
FAR 12 contracts and SAA's use milestone payments. Payments aren't lost (unless they are renegotiated). They're just delayed until the milestone criteria are met.
So how much money does Orbital lose for not launching this year?
I guess it doesn't matter considering how much extra padding their contract has compared to SpaceX.
This is commercial fixed price right?
Edit : If there's some sort of CRS thread this question would be better suited in I'm happy for it to be moved.
Every day the launch is delayed Orbital will have to pay extra wages, extra utility bills and possibly extra interest on the loans. With a fixed price this will reduce their profit and if the delay goes on too long cause the agreement to produce a loss. The company definitely will not want any delays.
Who was it that said Orbital would not launch this year? I though whomever it was was full of it at the time. I'd say more, but it's hard to speak with all these crow feathers in my mouth.
Who was it that said Orbital would not launch this year? I though whomever it was was full of it at the time. I'd say more, but it's hard to speak with all these crow feathers in my mouth.
TBF Orbital started 18 months behind and at 1/2 the award that Spacex started.
...
Personally I think the awarding of the CRS contract to both candidates before one candidate had launched a single relevant vehicle (ie. entirely on Orbitals reputation) was unwise.
Orbital has an advantage in volume of cargo don't forget that.
Many trips may be volume limited instead of mass limited.
I, too, was amazed that Orbital were given such a definite CRS contract before any launches.
any more news on the tanking tests ?Ask strangequark, he knows better than I do.
It's reasonable for Orbital to be 1.5 years behind SpaceX, certainly.AIUI the Orbital award was what was left from the award to Rocketplane Kistler when they were unable to meet all their contract requirements. In hindsight the more limited Orbital spec (including the downmass, or lack of it) would seem to be the only way they felt they could deliver something within the budget. A very odd choice given all Orbital's experience (AFAIK) is in solids, except for their storable final stages.
However, the "1/2 the award" is wrong. The final COTS contract amounts were: SpaceX $396 million, Orbital $288 million. And I'd justify the difference with one word: downmass.
I, too, was amazed that Orbital were given such a definite CRS contract before any launches.
1) In hindsight the more limited Orbital spec (including the downmass, or lack of it) would seem to be the only way they felt they could deliver something within the budget.
2) A very odd choice given all Orbital's experience (AFAIK) is in solids, except for their storable final stages.
A very odd choice given all Orbital's experience (AFAIK) is in solids, except for their storable final stages.
any more news on the tanking tests ?Ask strangequark, he knows better than I do.
any more news on the tanking tests ?Ask strangequark, he knows better than I do.
Nope, I am incommunicado, on vacation, and I like it that way. I don't know a darn thing right now.
any more news on the tanking tests ?Ask strangequark, he knows better than I do.
Nope, I am incommunicado, on vacation, and I like it that way. I don't know a darn thing right now.
QuoteNope, I am incommunicado, on vacation, and I like it that way. I don't know a darn thing right now.
But you're still on NSF ;D
Both of them were related to Orbital's PoV.1) In hindsight the more limited Orbital spec (including the downmass, or lack of it) would seem to be the only way they felt they could deliver something within the budget.
2) A very odd choice given all Orbital's experience (AFAIK) is in solids, except for their storable final stages.
1) Can't tell if those 'they's are both NASA, both Orbital or one of each.
2) Go back to the CRS award threads. NASA didn't have much choice. The selection statement is on L2 and describes Gerstenmaier's thinking.Noted
I meant LOX/RP1 for the 1st stage rather than selection of the company.A very odd choice given all Orbital's experience (AFAIK) is in solids, except for their storable final stages.
Not anymore than Spacex as a choice.
What milestones remain to be cleared before we OSC fan-boys can declare that the February target date for Antares' first launch is relatively secure?
What milestones remain to be cleared before we OSC fan-boys can declare that the February target date for Antares' first launch is relatively secure?
Can you back up a bit and give us interested observers that date (even if tentative) and the source? Thanks ;D
What milestones remain to be cleared before we OSC fan-boys can declare that the February target date for Antares' first launch is relatively secure?
What milestones remain to be cleared before we OSC fan-boys can declare that the February target date for Antares' first launch is relatively secure?
Can you back up a bit and give us interested observers that date (even if tentative) and the source? Thanks ;D
Aviation Week via Orbital: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_27_2012_p0-530068.xml (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_27_2012_p0-530068.xml)
A successful demonstration flight of Orbital’s two stage Antares rocket from MARS including an inaugural rendezvous of its Cygnus cargo craft with the six-person orbiting science laboratory targeted for April would bring the Dulles, Va., based company’s abbreviated five-year development effort under the COTS initiative to a successful close.
:
:
As 2012 ended, Orbital was carrying out a series of countdown dress rehearsals in which fuel was pumped to an Antares first stage. The two-engine first stage, positioned on its MARS launch pad on Oct. 1. was to undergo an independent 29-sec. hot fire test in January.
The workload seemed likely to push a COTS required orbital test flight of the Antares with a Cygnus mass simulator into February 2013, Beneski said. The test flight does not involve a space station rendezvous.
A very odd choice given all Orbital's experience (AFAIK) is in solids, except for their storable final stages.
If Orbital manage to get their hotfire test completed in the first half of January, I could just about see them getting the test launch off in February, if all goes well.
Even given that success, I don't see April as realistic for the COTS demo mission, though. My money would be on no earlier than June.
The X-34 used LOX/Kerosene. Besides the first stage core is being done by the same Ukrainians who manufacture Zenit.
From Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum:
I'm guess proposed version of Atlas since these are all kerolox engines.From Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum:
O.K. What is that thing on the far right?
- Ed Kyle
*or something of that nature. Image is sort of old though with reference to Taurus II ILVFrom Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum:
O.K. What is that thing on the far right?
- Ed Kyle
I guess the only thing to compare it with is Spacex's timetable. 1st F9 launch June/July 2010, 1st COTS demo launch Oct 2010, 2nd/3rd May 2012 1st CRS delivery Oct 2012 (roughly).
However Orbital have much more experience of dealing with new launch vehicles so maybe there more able to anticipate problems and avoid them in the design and test phases prior to launch.
A very odd choice given all Orbital's experience (AFAIK) is in solids, except for their storable final stages.
The X-34 used LOX/Kerosene. Besides the first stage core is being done by the same Ukrainians who manufacture Zenit.
A very odd choice given all Orbital's experience (AFAIK) is in solids, except for their storable final stages.
The X-34 used LOX/Kerosene. Besides the first stage core is being done by the same Ukrainians who manufacture Zenit.
Orbital was well along in development of "Taurus II" before the COTS selection.
While a "Taurus II" may have been on their drawing boards or in planning stages, I suspect it would have ended up significantly different than the current "Antares" without COTS.
The best guess now from the Dulles-based Orbital Sciences Corporation is that its Antares rocket might finally get its dress rehearsal — a test launch — in late February.
"We're in the homestretch for sure," said Orbital spokesman Barron Beneski.
It's impossible to establish a firm test date until ground tests end, perhaps by the end of this month, Beneski said. Then it could take another four to six weeks to get the rocket ready for its test flight.
I have seen references that at yesterday's briefing Mike Suffredini said that the first launch of Antares has been pushed back to March. Is that correct?
I have seen references that at yesterday's briefing Mike Suffredini said that the first launch of Antares has been pushed back to March. Is that correct?
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8031:iss-program-and-science-overview-briefing&catid=1:latest (04:49 - 06:05; HD 09:52 - 11:08).
The objective for the first half of this year is to get the Orbital demo flight off - we'd like to see the Cygnus spacecraft at ISS sometime in the summer timeframe. That's going very well - in fact today [17 Jan] they're doing the last step in the cold-flow test, out at the Wallops launch facility. This afternoon, after lunch I think, they'll start the flowing of the propellant in order to test that whole system. That'll be followed up immediately at the end of January by a hotfire test which has been in the works for some time. And then the plan is to have the test flight that we've talked about in roughly the March/early spring timeframe, with a full possible launch of the demo flight hopefully in the summer timeframe. So that's the plan for the Orbital vehicle, and many things have come together with getting the pad ready and the vehicle ready to go fly; they've overcome a number of hurdles and the schedule is starting to stabilize on that system and so we're looking forward to it coming to ISS as well.
Short version:
Cold-flow tests - concluding today
Hotfire test - end of January
Test launch - March/"early spring" (April?)
Cygnus COTS demo to ISS - "Summer timeframe" (July/August?)
Hampton Roads has an unofficial "save the date" from NASA for the much-anticipated commercial launches of the Antares rocket and Cygnus spacecraft from the Wallops Flight Facility on Virginia's Eastern Shore.
In a press briefing Thursday from the Johnson Space Center in Houston, NASA officials said April 5 is penciled in for a demonstration launch and attempt to berth with the International Space Station (ISS), and mid-August for the first official resupply mission.
But those dates came with a reality check.
"Many things could happen," said Mike Suffredini, ISS program manager, noting that Dulles-based Orbital Sciences Corporation has already overcome a "number of hurdles" to get its technology to this point. "We think the schedule is starting to stabilize."
Quote
Hampton Roads has an unofficial "save the date" from NASA for the much-anticipated commercial launches of the Antares rocket and Cygnus spacecraft from the Wallops Flight Facility on Virginia's Eastern Shore.
In a press briefing Thursday from the Johnson Space Center in Houston, NASA officials said April 5 is penciled in for a demonstration launch and attempt to berth with the International Space Station (ISS), and mid-August for the first official resupply mission.
But those dates came with a reality check.
"Many things could happen," said Mike Suffredini, ISS program manager, noting that Dulles-based Orbital Sciences Corporation has already overcome a "number of hurdles" to get its technology to this point. "We think the schedule is starting to stabilize."
http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-01-18/news/dp-nws-nasa-rocket-briefing-20130118_1_cygnus-spacecraft-antares-rocket-orbital-spokesman-barron-beneski
Are the previous NK-33s taken to America all ones manufactured decades ago?Yes, to my knowledge they have been in storage since N1 program was cancelled. There are like 200+ or so available to Antares and Soyuz launchers prior to their eventual conversion. At least this will clean out the Russian warehouses for new use.
There are less then 100 engines.
JSC "Kuznetsov" has signed an option (a contract in which the potential buyer gets the right but not the obligation, to buy) with Aerojet and Orbital Sciences for 50 newly manufactured engines NK-33 to 2020. According to the press service of the company.
http://vninform.ru/231226/article/kuznecov-podpisal-dogovor-s-aerojet-i-orbital-sciences-na-postavku-50-dvigatelej-nk33.html
There are less then 100 engines.
believe the USA received in the 20"s and Russia has in the 40's left?
Right, so I'm going to write up the status of Antares ahead of the test flight, start a SpaceX style flow update thread, a party thread and a discussion thread.
All today.
Date: May 3
Mission: Orbital Sciences Corporation Test Flight
Launch Vehicle: Antares/Cygnus
Launch Site: Wallops Flight Facility, Va.
Launch Pad: 0A
Description: The Cygnus spacecraft is scheduled for a demonstration flight on an Orbital Antares launch vehicle under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services agreement with the company. Cygnus will make an attempt to rendezvous and berth with the International Space Station.
Large baseline article - with updated info and various mission overviews rewritten:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/flight-antares-orbital-long-awaited-debut/
Keeping this thread open, but please refer to:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=46.0
As I'll be setting up the live threads for the hotfire onwards.
Forgive the mundane question, but are the engines from unlaunched tests reusable?Depends on results of engines inspection after its testing, but typically yes following any refurb work and R&R of single/limited-use components. These engines can be fired multiple times and are operational engines. Operational engines are being used for all tests as the engines were previously qualified originally in USSR for use on the cancelled N-1 program and then requalified by RF before being purchased and modified and upgraded by Aerojet. RD-180 is also reusable and it comes down to whether the company plans to recover the stage and pay for refurbishment costs or save a little by choosing the expendable route.
I still want to sneak in at night and rappel off that water tower...
When they say they're clear of the tower, to which are they referring? ;)In this particular pad design I would say in this case it would be the four lightning towers. If it was the water tower then it would be a failing rocket that just missed a piece of before its flight terminated.
In this particular pad design I would say in this case it would be the four lightning towers. If it was the water tower then it would be a failing rocket that just missed a piece of before its flight terminated.
Yes, Except in this case Antares sort of follows Zenit pad design. Its TEL car is lowered to the ground before liftoff and retracted. Since there is not a liquid upper stage yet there is no need for a Zenit-like umbilical mast. First stage connections are at base of rocket and TEL car-to-pad interfaces are almost identical to Zenit TEL railcar-to-pad interfaces. Besides engines and a few other items Zenit and Antares first stages are a just about practically identical in terms of their design.In this particular pad design I would say in this case it would be the four lightning towers. If it was the water tower then it would be a failing rocket that just missed a piece of before its flight terminated.
I don't think when the call is made on Atlas it has cleared the lightning towers only the umbilical tower.
That said, this is Orbital and not ULA. They may decide on a different criteria. Though I suspect if it came close to any of the lightning towers you would face a similar safety violation and FTS activation.
In this particular pad design I would say in this case it would be the four lightning towers. If it was the water tower then it would be a failing rocket that just missed a piece of before its flight terminated.
I don't think when the call is made on Atlas it has cleared the lightning towers only the umbilical tower.
That said, this is Orbital and not ULA. They may decide on a different criteria. Though I suspect if it came close to any of the lightning towers you would face a similar safety violation and FTS activation.
In this particular pad design I would say in this case it would be the four lightning towers. If it was the water tower then it would be a failing rocket that just missed a piece of before its flight terminated.
I don't think when the call is made on Atlas it has cleared the lightning towers only the umbilical tower.
That said, this is Orbital and not ULA. They may decide on a different criteria. Though I suspect if it came close to any of the lightning towers you would face a similar safety violation and FTS activation.
Doesn't the "tower clear" bit harken back to Apollo days, when the astronauts needed to have that situational awareness, and also because the tower clear moment was when the spacecraft control center ("Houston") began "controlling" the flight? (I don't think they used the phrase during Mercury or Gemini - perhaps it was a Jack King innovation for Apollo). Today, "clear the tower" is more of a historical artifact that likely has no purpose for an unmanned flight.
- Ed Kyle
delta-FRCR* go/nogo polling today for final approval of 7K hotfire test.What are the new target dates and times in UTC for the pending 7K hotfire test if a go is given by FRCR?
*Flight Readiness Certification Review
delta-FRCR* go/nogo polling today for final approval of 7K hotfire test.What are the new target dates and times in UTC for the pending 7K hotfire test if a go is given by FRCR?
*Flight Readiness Certification Review
Many thanks.delta-FRCR* go/nogo polling today for final approval of 7K hotfire test.What are the new target dates and times in UTC for the pending 7K hotfire test if a go is given by FRCR?
*Flight Readiness Certification Review
Real Soon Now(tm). It's a matter of days, but there are always last minute changes. We'll keep you posted.
Culbertson: 1st Antares hot fire test planned for next Tuesday at Wallops; test flight in about a month to 5 weeks after. #faacstc
Culbertson: COTS demo flight planned about 3 months after Antares demo flight; 1st CRS flight 3-4 months after that. #faacstc
From Twiter/@jeff_foust:QuoteCulbertson: 1st Antares hot fire test planned for next Tuesday at Wallops; test flight in about a month to 5 weeks after. #faacstc
Culbertson: COTS demo flight planned about 3 months after Antares demo flight; 1st CRS flight 3-4 months after that. #faacstc
So, that gives a loose schedule of:
Hot fire: 12 February
Test flight: 12-19 March
COTS demo: Early-mid June
1st CRS flight: Sep-Oct
From Twiter/@jeff_foust:QuoteCulbertson: 1st Antares hot fire test planned for next Tuesday at Wallops; test flight in about a month to 5 weeks after. #faacstc
Culbertson: COTS demo flight planned about 3 months after Antares demo flight; 1st CRS flight 3-4 months after that. #faacstc
So, that gives a loose schedule of:
Hot fire: 12 February
Test flight: 12-19 March
COTS demo: Early-mid June
1st CRS flight: Sep-Oct
Reading that the likely culprit of the recent Zenit failure is the Ukranian build turbine of the APU, and given that the Ukranians designed and build the tanks and pressurization system, do they also supply the APU? Will this affect the Antares schedule?
Zenit and Antares TVC and Engines are completely unrelated (not connected) to each other. They are manufactured by different companies and with different supplier chains, at least that seems the case at the level of information I have found in the public realm.Reading that the likely culprit of the recent Zenit failure is the Ukranian build turbine of the APU, and given that the Ukranians designed and build the tanks and pressurization system, do they also supply the APU? Will this affect the Antares schedule?
TVC and associated subsystems for the AJ-26 are provided by Aerojet, not Yuzhnoye/Yuzhmash. I'm not intimately familiar with the TVC, but I'm fairly confident it just taps from the main kerosene pump, rather than having a dedicated system like Zenit.
Zenit and Antares TVC and Engines are completely unrelated (not connected) to each other. They are manufactured by different companies and with different supplier chains, at least that seems the case at the level of information I have found in the public realm.
I just noticed in this image that the 2 engines seem to protrude out of the main assembly, just like the very first version of the Falcon 1. IIRC, Falcon 1's first flight failed due to a fire at the base of the engine, which was not enclosed.
Falcon 1 was subsequently modified to enclose this area and replace the atmosphere with nitrogen.
BTW, it would be great if someone could point out the Aerojet-developed gimbal system for the engine.
BTW, it would be great if someone could point out the Aerojet-developed gimbal system for the engine.
I just noticed in this image that the 2 engines seem to protrude out of the main assembly, just like the very first version of the Falcon 1. IIRC, Falcon 1's first flight failed due to a fire at the base of the engine, which was not enclosed.
I just noticed in this image that the 2 engines seem to protrude out of the main assembly, just like the very first version of the Falcon 1. IIRC, Falcon 1's first flight failed due to a fire at the base of the engine, which was not enclosed.
Enclosing the engine section had nothing to do with fire prevention, it was to provide a dry and non corroding environment.
I just noticed in this image that the 2 engines seem to protrude out of the main assembly, just like the very first version of the Falcon 1. IIRC, Falcon 1's first flight failed due to a fire at the base of the engine, which was not enclosed.
Enclosing the engine section had nothing to do with fire prevention, it was to provide a dry and non corroding environment.
Would that have been driven by the environment at Kwajalein, or would that sort of design feature also be helpful at Wallops?
Thanks, Martin
It is with great pride that I would like to share with the NSF community the news that Mike Dorsch, Antares Chief Engineer, a.k.a. "the unflappable", a.k.a. "Mr. Nominal" has been selected as the 2013 recipient of the AIAA National Capital Engineer of the Year award. His citation reads:
For outstanding technical leadership of the development of the
Antares Launch Vehicle
that was launched from the Wallops Flight Facility and
resulted in a successful first flight to orbit on April 21, 2013.
For those that follow these AIAA events, and are within driving distance of D.C., the awards banquet will be on June 6 at 6 pm at the Army-Navy club.
Please joint me in congratulating Mike on this most well-deserved recognition.
It is with great pride that I would like to share with the NSF community the news that Mike Dorsch, Antares Chief Engineer, a.k.a. "the unflappable", a.k.a. "Mr. Nominal" has been selected as the 2013 recipient of the AIAA National Capital Engineer of the Year award. ...
Please joint me in congratulating Mike on this most well-deserved recognition.
@pbdes: Aerojet Rocketdyne's Boley: New production line for NK33/AJ26 engines for Orbital's Antares rocket negotiated, awaiting Orbital contract.
8:35 a.m. Mon, Jun 17
Interesting tweet:Quote@pbdes: Aerojet Rocketdyne's Boley: New production line for NK33/AJ26 engines for Orbital's Antares rocket negotiated, awaiting Orbital contract.
8:35 a.m. Mon, Jun 17
Hmm, I remember there were Russian comments that the NK-33 isn't worth re-starting production with the RD-19X lying around..... ::)
"You want RD-180? We're not saying no but how about more old NK-33s?"
Nowhere in that article does it say that new engines can be produced only that another 23 old ones can be refurbished.
Very diplomatic. If Orbital wants the RD-180 they should get the RD-180 it should only be a matter of price.
Here is a couple of interesting article on Orbital's search for a new engine for CRS-2:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_24_2013_p32-590271.xml&p=1
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_18_2013_p0-588833.xml&p=1
Interesting tweet:While I was surprised NASA ever accepted a plan offering refurbished NK-33s, I'm even more surprised they'd pull the rug out this late leaving Orbital up a creek. Not many viable options IMO;Quote@pbdes: Aerojet Rocketdyne's Boley: New production line for NK33/AJ26 engines for Orbital's Antares rocket negotiated, awaiting Orbital contract.
8:35 a.m. Mon, Jun 17
While I was surprised NASA ever accepted a plan offering refurbished NK-33s, I'm even more surprised they'd pull the rug out this late leaving Orbital up a creek. Not many viable options IMO;
"Antares First-stage Engines Available Long Term, Aerojet Rocketdyne Chief Says"
The above-titled news article can be read at
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35819antares-first-stage-engines-available-long-term-aerojet-rocketdyne-chief#.Ub9etJLD-mQ .
“The AJ-26 has been out of production for over 40 years and there are a finite and limited number of these engines remaining,” the Orbital white paper states. “There are enough of these engines to support Orbital’s [international space station] cargo resupply missions currently under contract and a limited number of additional missions. For Orbital to be a viable long-term competitor, it needs a long-term propulsion solution.”
I wonder if the response didn't start on the Russian side. There were stories last year about Energomash pushing to sell RD-180 or RD-191 to both Orbital and for new Soyuz rather than having Russian industry try to restart NK-33.Here is a couple of interesting article on Orbital's search for a new engine for CRS-2:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_24_2013_p32-590271.xml&p=1
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_18_2013_p0-588833.xml&p=1
Are Orbital and Aerojet facing a situation where neither company can prudently invest in restarting engine production, given the risk that Orbital might not be awarded any CRS-2 work? Is it possible their public discussion of this is a response to the recent OIG report criticizing NASA for pre-paying Orbital on CRS-1?
Ed, your comment vaguely reminds me of something akin to Athena III?Except going beyond that to two SRB-diameter solid stages, upgraded to composite cases with improved propellant, etc..
Ed, your comment vaguely reminds me of something akin to Athena III?Except going beyond that to two SRB-diameter solid stages, upgraded to composite cases with improved propellant, etc..
- Ed Kyle
Which leads to the question, what is going on with the Teledyne Brown / Aerojet deal to build the AJ-26-500 / AJ1E6 / etc down in Huntsville. That doesn't require restarting the NK33 production line, just a new production line in "Rocket City". Does the domestically produced AJ-26 go away now that they are "Aerojet Rocketdyne" ??
I wonder if the response didn't start on the Russian side. There were stories last year about Energomash pushing to sell RD-180 or RD-191 to both Orbital and for new Soyuz rather than having Russian industry try to restart NK-33.Here is a couple of interesting article on Orbital's search for a new engine for CRS-2:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_24_2013_p32-590271.xml&p=1 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_24_2013_p32-590271.xml&p=1)
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_18_2013_p0-588833.xml&p=1 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_18_2013_p0-588833.xml&p=1)
Are Orbital and Aerojet facing a situation where neither company can prudently invest in restarting engine production, given the risk that Orbital might not be awarded any CRS-2 work? Is it possible their public discussion of this is a response to the recent OIG report criticizing NASA for pre-paying Orbital on CRS-1?
- Ed Kyle
Not quite, because Athena 3 would have used a Castor 120 second stage on top of a 2.5 SRB segment first stage. Pegasus 2 would use two SRB-diameter composite case stages.Ed, your comment vaguely reminds me of something akin to Athena III?Except going beyond that to two SRB-diameter solid stages, upgraded to composite cases with improved propellant, etc..
- Ed Kyle
Rather like the original PlanetSpace/ATK Athena 3 proposal?
Nobody wants a solid that doesn't fit on a rail cart though right?SRB segments are transported by rail. There's no reason that the "Pegasus 2" segments could not move in similar fashion, though the final few miles to Wallops would have to be off-rail.
While I was surprised NASA ever accepted a plan offering refurbished NK-33s, I'm even more surprised they'd pull the rug out this late leaving Orbital up a creek. Not many viable options IMO;
- With problems arising with existing AJs, buying the other 40-odd NKs seems out of the question and Soyuz wants them anyways. A full restart, I'd guess, would take a lot longer than the 3-4 years quoted.
- RDs are likewise not an option as ULA won't let Orbital touch the 180s, the 190s are probably Anagra and Soyuz-only and any other variants are also long way from service.
- Lastly is the improbable, but not nearly-impossible like the others; Orbital's Falcon5
ULA shouldn't have any say in who P&W and NPO Energomash sell engines to as long as they can still meet their existing contracts with them.
ULA shouldn't have any say in who P&W and NPO Energomash sell engines to as long as they can still meet their existing contracts with them.
Unless ULA paid P&W money to develop parts of the engine, then they should have control over those bits. How was the RD-180 development contract structured? I thought Lockheed paid P&W to develop the RD-180. Is that incorrect?
I thought the shuttle derived SRB segments are too heavy for anything other than rail.
Since the SLS block II seems to be considering the AJ-26-500 and the F1A as one possible configuration for block II.
The former would solve Orbital's problem though if they go with an F1 for SLS this would be much to large for Antares in it's present form and the ISP is much lower.
Though since the thrust is so much higher a larger core could more then offset the reduced ISP.
ULA shouldn't have any say in who P&W and NPO Energomash sell engines to as long as they can still meet their existing contracts with them.Unless ULA paid P&W money to develop parts of the engine, then they should have control over those bits. How was the RD-180 development contract structured? I thought Lockheed paid P&W to develop the RD-180. Is that incorrect?
The Corporation has entered into agreements with RD AMROSS, a joint venture of the Pratt & Whitney division of United Technologies Corporation and the Russian firm NPO Energomash, for the development and purchase, subject to certain conditions, of up to 101 RD-180 booster engines for use in two models of the Corporation's launch vehicles. Terms of the agreements call for payments to be made to RD AMROSS upon the achievement of certain milestones in the development and manufacturing processes. Approximately $100 million of payments made under these agreements were included in the Corporation's inventories at December 31, 1998.
The Corporation has entered into agreements with RD AMROSS, a joint venture of the Pratt & Whitney division of United Technologies Corporation and the Russian firm NPO Energomash, for the development and purchase, subject to certain conditions, of up to 101 RD-180 booster engines for use in two models of the Corporation's Atlas launch vehicle. Terms of the agreements call for payments to be made to RD AMROSS upon the achievement of certain milestones in the development and manufacturing processes. Approximately $55 million of payments made under these agreements were included in the Corporation's inventories at December 31, 1999.
...
Included in 1999 and 1998 commercial launch vehicle inventories were amounts advanced to Russian manufacturers, Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center and RD AMROSS, a joint venture between Pratt & Whitney and NPO Energomash, of approximately $903 million and $840 million, respectively, for the manufacture of launch vehicles and related launch services
Since the SLS block II seems to be considering the AJ-26-500 and the F1A as one possible configuration for block II.
The former would solve Orbital's problem though if they go with an F1 for SLS this would be much to large for Antares in it's present form and the ISP is much lower.
Though since the thrust is so much higher a larger core could more then offset the reduced ISP.
Since Congress is starting to push a move to blockII first this can all be locked in soon enough.
So to get back to the real question, does Lockmart/ULA own the engine and P&W along with RD AMROSS are the contract manufactures of the engine.No, Lockmart/ULA do not "own the engine", although they may hold rigts which preclude use by others.
Definitions of ownership are really important here.No, definitions of rights are important here.
They can buy the RD-191 and the RD-193 variant is supposed to be a largely drop in replacement for the NK-33.Says who? You got a contract in your pocket?
They can buy the RD-191 and the RD-193 variant is supposed to be a largely drop in replacement for the NK-33.Says who? You got a contract in your pocket?
So to get back to the real question, does Lockmart/ULA own the engine and P&W along with RD AMROSS are the contract manufactures of the engine. In that case Lockheed Martin and/or ULA would have to sell (or agree to let P&W/RD AMROSS sell) the engines to Orbital.
Definitions of ownership are really important here.
What is the marketing agreement left in place between Lockheed Martin, P&W, and RD AMROSS after the RD-180 was developed. Was P&W/RD AMROSS allowed to sell the RD-180 to others, or not. Of course it does sound like this area is fuzzy, hence the anti-trust issue...
It could be as cut and dry as should Orbital be able to demand SpaceX sell it Merlins.
Boley said 43 NK-33 engines have been procured by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Twenty of them have been made ready for Orbital’s initial Antares missions, to deliver cargo to the international space station for NASA. Two AJ-26 engines are needed to power the Antares core stage.
The remaining 23 have not yet been worked on, but making them ready for Antares, Boley said, does not present any financial or technical obstacles that Aerojet has not already encountered with the first 20 engines.
Boley said in a June 18 briefing with reporters that in addition to these 43 engines, Kuznetsov has 12 to 18 NK-33 engines at its disposal.
It could be as cut and dry as should Orbital be able to demand SpaceX sell it Merlins.
Merlins wouldn't do Orbital any good with the existing Antares vehicle. Not enough thrust.
Quoting from the 17 June Space News article :
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35819antares-first-stage-engines-available-long-term-aerojet-rocketdyne-chief#.UciSezvTpdU (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35819antares-first-stage-engines-available-long-term-aerojet-rocketdyne-chief#.UciSezvTpdU)QuoteBoley said 43 NK-33 engines have been procured by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Twenty of them have been made ready for Orbital’s initial Antares missions, to deliver cargo to the international space station for NASA. Two AJ-26 engines are needed to power the Antares core stage.
The remaining 23 have not yet been worked on, but making them ready for Antares, Boley said, does not present any financial or technical obstacles that Aerojet has not already encountered with the first 20 engines.
These numbers don’t make sense. Depending on the source, Aerojet acquired 36 or 37 NK-33 and 9 or 10 NK-43 engines in the 1990s. To the best of my knowledge no other deliveries have been made since. Even if he’s talking about the overall number of NK engines procured by Aerojet rather than just the NK-33, the numbers don’t add up (should be more than 43).
They can buy the RD-191 and the RD-193 variant is supposed to be a largely drop in replacement for the NK-33.Says who? You got a contract in your pocket?
So you believe that because LM paid for the development of the RD-180, which is basically a 2-chamber version of the 4-chamber RD-170, LM may also have some exclusivity built into the contract that precludes any other US LV provider from using other Rocketdyne / RD-AMROSS engines ? Even engines that are not technically derived from the RD-170 ?
So to get back to the real question, does Lockmart/ULA own the engine and P&W along with RD AMROSS are the contract manufactures of the engine.No, Lockmart/ULA do not "own the engine", although they may hold rigts which preclude use by others.
In particular, there appears to be a contract guaranteeing then-Lockheed Martin exclusive rights to purchase the engine in exchange for money to develop the two chamber variant. Money which may also have been used to establish the production equipment/facilities for the RD-180.
There's not enough profit margin to design a new launch vehicle. Needs to be very close in performance, and probably the same fuel.Not only fuel but O/F ratio. Russian SC enginer are about 2.65 vs the usual US GG 2.3. This affects the stage tankage. And the stage depend on the high T/W and isp of the engine. Plus, the guidance depends on dual nozzles. Of all the engines that I know that have actually been fired, only NK-33, RD-180/191/193 could fit the stage without significant stage redesign.
Unless, of course, Orbital can convince NASA to fund another vehicle design...the chances for that seem even slimmer.
No offense, Ed, but is a change from a liquid engined first stage to an as-yet-undeveloped solid a reasonable expectation for a follow-on contract? The point of this is for CRS-2. CRS-2 is for delivery of supplies to ISS, not development of a launch vehicle. That train left the station. Similar logic applies to F-1, or M-1Ds, or other extensive redesign efforts.I wouldn't have thought so, until Stratolaunch opened a new line of possibilities. That might offer a way for Orbital to leverage development costs, though a straight-up ground-launched Pegasus 2 won't be in the cards.
There's not enough profit margin to design a new launch vehicle. Needs to be very close in performance, and probably the same fuel.
Unless, of course, Orbital can convince NASA to fund another vehicle design...the chances for that seem even slimmer.
No European, US, Chinese nor Japanese rocket fits the requirements.
Quoting from the 17 June Space News article :
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35819antares-first-stage-engines-available-long-term-aerojet-rocketdyne-chief#.UciSezvTpdU (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35819antares-first-stage-engines-available-long-term-aerojet-rocketdyne-chief#.UciSezvTpdU)QuoteBoley said 43 NK-33 engines have been procured by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Twenty of them have been made ready for Orbital’s initial Antares missions, to deliver cargo to the international space station for NASA. Two AJ-26 engines are needed to power the Antares core stage.
The remaining 23 have not yet been worked on, but making them ready for Antares, Boley said, does not present any financial or technical obstacles that Aerojet has not already encountered with the first 20 engines.
These numbers don’t make sense. Depending on the source, Aerojet acquired 36 or 37 NK-33 and 9 or 10 NK-43 engines in the 1990s. To the best of my knowledge no other deliveries have been made since. Even if he’s talking about the overall number of NK engines procured by Aerojet rather than just the NK-33, the numbers don’t add up (should be more than 43).
think someone is mixing up their numbers. My understanding is that the first purchase of engines was in the 20's. in the 1990's. Not sure about the rest of the purchase.
A lot of this history overlaps the Kistler history.
No European, US, Chinese nor Japanese rocket fits the requirements.
Quoting from the 17 June Space News article :
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35819antares-first-stage-engines-available-long-term-aerojet-rocketdyne-chief#.UciSezvTpdU (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35819antares-first-stage-engines-available-long-term-aerojet-rocketdyne-chief#.UciSezvTpdU)QuoteBoley said 43 NK-33 engines have been procured by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Twenty of them have been made ready for Orbital’s initial Antares missions, to deliver cargo to the international space station for NASA. Two AJ-26 engines are needed to power the Antares core stage.
The remaining 23 have not yet been worked on, but making them ready for Antares, Boley said, does not present any financial or technical obstacles that Aerojet has not already encountered with the first 20 engines.
These numbers don’t make sense. Depending on the source, Aerojet acquired 36 or 37 NK-33 and 9 or 10 NK-43 engines in the 1990s. To the best of my knowledge no other deliveries have been made since. Even if he’s talking about the overall number of NK engines procured by Aerojet rather than just the NK-33, the numbers don’t add up (should be more than 43).
think someone is mixing up their numbers. My understanding is that the first purchase of engines was in the 20's. in the 1990's. Not sure about the rest of the purchase.
A lot of this history overlaps the Kistler history.
This 1998 Aerojet/Kuznetsov paper says Aerojet imported 36 NK-33 engines and 9 NK-43 engines :
http://lpre.de/resources/articles/AIAA-1998-3361.pdf (http://lpre.de/resources/articles/AIAA-1998-3361.pdf)
Press reports in 1996-1997 (when the engines were shipped to the US) give similar numbers. Since then there have been no other press reports of NK shipments to the US, so if they did take place we weren't told about it.
No European, US, Chinese nor Japanese rocket fits the requirements.
What about RD-120K? The Isp is as good as NK-33's, claimed at least. It's about half of NK-33 thrust, so 4 of those should be just right. Yes, it's a redesign, but not much worse than a switch to RD-180. The t/w is about the same, noticeably worse than NK-33 of course, but Orbital seems not to mind.
How about the AJ1E6 ??
We don't know what happened to the Aerojet's domestic AJ26-500 development with Teledyne Brown, but they are working the 1K version of the same engine as part of the SLS advanced booster contract.
The 1E6 should be a fairly straightforward replacement for 2 of the current AJ26/NK33s, right ? Maybe a little simpler thrust structure and plumbing with only 1 engine to deal with instead of 2. Plus we share the engine with SLS. What's not to like, other than the cost ?
The RD-120 is an excellent engine; but Ukraine and Russia both make claims on it. Production is in the Ukraine as I understand it.
The RD-120 is an excellent engine; but Ukraine and Russia both make claims on it. Production is in the Ukraine as I understand it.
There's that, I agree, but this should be easier to resolve than getting export licenses for RD-181, or at least I'm betting. Not many Ukrainians are as paranoid and obsessed about the imperial struggle with The Great Satan as old Russians (who, coincidentially, clog the government apparatus). BTW, there are proposals on the table right now in Russia to freeze the RD-180 contract. Energomash people are already peeing their pants.
Proposals to freeze *what* RD-180 contract? There is no current or near term Russian launch vehicle using the RD-180.
CRS v2 is not a rocket development contract but a cargo delivery contract. Orbital's price was already above SpaceX using cheap engines, how are they going to compete while trying to absorb all these other costs? And why shouldn't NASA throw CRS v2 open to ULA, since they have paid for SpaceX and Orbital to get up to speed already? It should be a level playing field by 2016, when the current CRS ends and this next CRS v2 would start.
The RD-120 is an excellent engine; but Ukraine and Russia both make claims on it. Production is in the Ukraine as I understand it.
There's that, I agree, but this should be easier to resolve than getting export licenses for RD-181, or at least I'm betting. Not many Ukrainians are as paranoid and obsessed about the imperial struggle with The Great Satan as old Russians (who, coincidentially, clog the government apparatus). BTW, there are proposals on the table right now in Russia to freeze the RD-180 contract. Energomash people are already peeing their pants.
No European, US, Chinese nor Japanese rocket fits the requirements.
What about RD-120K? The Isp is as good as NK-33's, claimed at least. It's about half of NK-33 thrust, so 4 of those should be just right. Yes, it's a redesign, but not much worse than a switch to RD-180. The t/w is about the same, noticeably worse than NK-33 of course, but Orbital seems not to mind.
There's that, I agree, but this should be easier to resolve than getting export licenses for RD-181, or at least I'm betting. Not many Ukrainians are as paranoid and obsessed about the imperial struggle with The Great Satan as old Russians (who, coincidentially, clog the government apparatus). BTW, there are proposals on the table right now in Russia to freeze the RD-180 contract. Energomash people are already peeing their pants.
There's that, I agree, but this should be easier to resolve than getting export licenses for RD-181, or at least I'm betting. Not many Ukrainians are as paranoid and obsessed about the imperial struggle with The Great Satan as old Russians (who, coincidentially, clog the government apparatus). BTW, there are proposals on the table right now in Russia to freeze the RD-180 contract. Energomash people are already peeing their pants.
I hope that it won't occur. Otherwise there will be that in Russian is called "to step to itself on balls"
If OF ratio is different 2.6 vs 2.8 for the NK-33 and it lacks gimbal capability though it probably can be added.OF ratio is 2.62 for the NK-33.
There's that, I agree, but this should be easier to resolve than getting export licenses for RD-181, or at least I'm betting. Not many Ukrainians are as paranoid and obsessed about the imperial struggle with The Great Satan as old Russians (who, coincidentially, clog the government apparatus). BTW, there are proposals on the table right now in Russia to freeze the RD-180 contract. Energomash people are already peeing their pants.
I hope that it won't occur. Otherwise there will be that in Russian is called "to step to itself on balls"
Dmitry any "real" signs that NK-33 production will start again?
There's that, I agree, but this should be easier to resolve than getting export licenses for RD-181, or at least I'm betting. Not many Ukrainians are as paranoid and obsessed about the imperial struggle with The Great Satan as old Russians (who, coincidentially, clog the government apparatus). BTW, there are proposals on the table right now in Russia to freeze the RD-180 contract. Energomash people are already peeing their pants.
I hope that it won't occur. Otherwise there will be that in Russian is called "to step to itself on balls"
Dmitry any "real" signs that NK-33 production will start again?
Well there are some signs, don't know how much "real" they are ::)
http://www.vninform.ru/article/261232.html (http://www.vninform.ru/article/261232.html)
http://www.vkonline.ru/article/259355.html (http://www.vkonline.ru/article/259355.html)
oh very good I think :-X
Dmitry any "real" signs that NK-33 production will start again?
oh very good I think :-X
Nothing of this goes ahead unless and until Orbital signs it off and promises to bankroll. And that's not happening. Otherwise they would not try to get their hands on RD-180. I entertained hopes about it before the whitepaper and the lawsuit, but the train has left the station.
On a somewhat related note:oh very good I think :-X
Nothing of this goes ahead unless and until Orbital signs it off and promises to bankroll. And that's not happening. Otherwise they would not try to get their hands on RD-180. I entertained hopes about it before the whitepaper and the lawsuit, but the train has left the station.
Will look more into what Orbital is doing. However believe that first Orbital must get Antares to ISS.
Orbital would not spend more on engines unless they can use them.
Looks like Sept 2013 is the key date with Aerojet.
Orbital finally got an updated User's Guide for Antares out into the open! ;D http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Antares%20UG.pdf (http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Antares%20UG.pdf)
The lack of any non CRS flights for Antares has me curious whether they're actively selling Antares launches at all.Other likely non-CRS customer is NASA medium class science missions. Viability of providers for those types of missions is one reason for the way CRS was structured. Probably best discussed in a non-update thread.