I think your idea of value is different than most. A >50% additional margin per reuse seems worth the effort.
That leaves the upper stage or stages, which should cost less than the Falcon 9 or Atlas 5 upper stages (which are also expended).
As of 2011, Taurus II Standard (Antares 120) was 75-80 million. Taurus IIE (Antares 130) was 85-90 million. Taurus IIH (Antares 132) was 90-95 million. I think we can safely assume the price will have gone up significantly since they're no longer getting NK-33s very cheaply. The price difference between those configurations would imply Star 48BV is ~5 million, and Castor 30XL (being almost twice the mass of Castor 30B, so probably about twice the price difference) is ~20 million. Plus ~14% on all those numbers for inflation, plus whatever the cost increase from RD-181 is
Quote from: brickmack on 06/15/2018 03:54 amAs of 2011, Taurus II Standard (Antares 120) was 75-80 million. Taurus IIE (Antares 130) was 85-90 million. Taurus IIH (Antares 132) was 90-95 million. I think we can safely assume the price will have gone up significantly since they're no longer getting NK-33s very cheaply. The price difference between those configurations would imply Star 48BV is ~5 million, and Castor 30XL (being almost twice the mass of Castor 30B, so probably about twice the price difference) is ~20 million. Plus ~14% on all those numbers for inflation, plus whatever the cost increase from RD-181 isOne thing that changed since 2011 was that Orbital merged with ATK, which likely provided lower cost access to the solid motors. Another change, obviously was that Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ26 (re-configured NK33) was dropped in favor of direct-buy Energomash RD-181. The final change is Northrop Grumman buying the program, a giant company that can price things differently for its own reasons. If it wants to compete, it will have to price things differently. If a Vulcan will be $99 million and an Ariane 62 $92 million, there is no way that a less capable Antares can be $90 or $80 or even $70 million. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: ZachF on 06/14/2018 08:23 pmThe +/-$24 million for the engines is probably not that far off the cost of an entire F9 lower stage. The lower stage is probably ~$40 million for the Antares and ~$30m for the F9 if I had to guess.Falcon 9 first stage almost certainly costs more then $24 million. If it only cost that much, SpaceX wouldn't bother trying to recover the stage! Musk has said that the first stage accounts for 60-75% of the total Falcon 9 cost (varying amounts depending on when he was asked). Gwynn Shotwell also once said that it cost less than half the cost of a new first stage to refurbish and refly a stage. That is the number that Northrop Grumman needs to target. - Ed Kyle
The +/-$24 million for the engines is probably not that far off the cost of an entire F9 lower stage. The lower stage is probably ~$40 million for the Antares and ~$30m for the F9 if I had to guess.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 06/14/2018 09:48 pmQuote from: envy887 on 06/14/2018 06:57 pmThe avionics probably aren't smaller,or cheaper than F9 since AIUI they don't use off-the-shelf hardware. Nor the booster airframe, as it's purchased rather than built. Nor the engines - ULA pays ~24 million dollars for a single RD-180, and I doubt a pair of RD-181's is much if any, cheaper.I could easily see RD-181 being cheaper for NG than RD-180 is for ULA. Aside from being a different and less complex engine NG also isn't a captive customer. They can always move on to another engine, another launcher, or exit the launch business altogether. ULA doesn't(didn't) really have that option with Atlas V. For national security it was the only game in town so any price could be asked. It's like Soyuz. We've seen what a privately purchased Soyuz seat costs, and what a NASA purchased Soyuz seat costs. A private customer can always walk away, NASA is captive.So it comes down to business. If Energomash wants to sell engines, they can't price themselves out of the market. Even Antares isn't a free lunch, NG has already shown they'll switch launchers on CRS.RD-180 sales have to go through a middle man which takes a cut of each engine purchase on top of the base price. That middle man is United Technology Corporation's Joint Venture RD Amross, LLC formed between subsidiary Pratt & Whitney and JSC NPO Energomash (fka NPO Energomash). Due to various reasons UTC's 50% share was not transferred to Aerojet General upon Rocketdyne's spinoff from PW and its merger with AG to become Aerojet Rocketdyne.RD-181 is directly purchased from JSC NPO Energomash at export price.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/14/2018 06:57 pmThe avionics probably aren't smaller,or cheaper than F9 since AIUI they don't use off-the-shelf hardware. Nor the booster airframe, as it's purchased rather than built. Nor the engines - ULA pays ~24 million dollars for a single RD-180, and I doubt a pair of RD-181's is much if any, cheaper.I could easily see RD-181 being cheaper for NG than RD-180 is for ULA. Aside from being a different and less complex engine NG also isn't a captive customer. They can always move on to another engine, another launcher, or exit the launch business altogether. ULA doesn't(didn't) really have that option with Atlas V. For national security it was the only game in town so any price could be asked. It's like Soyuz. We've seen what a privately purchased Soyuz seat costs, and what a NASA purchased Soyuz seat costs. A private customer can always walk away, NASA is captive.So it comes down to business. If Energomash wants to sell engines, they can't price themselves out of the market. Even Antares isn't a free lunch, NG has already shown they'll switch launchers on CRS.
The avionics probably aren't smaller,or cheaper than F9 since AIUI they don't use off-the-shelf hardware. Nor the booster airframe, as it's purchased rather than built. Nor the engines - ULA pays ~24 million dollars for a single RD-180, and I doubt a pair of RD-181's is much if any, cheaper.
As of 2011, Taurus II Standard (Antares 120) was 75-80 million. Taurus IIE (Antares 130) was 85-90 million. Taurus IIH (Antares 132) was 90-95 million. I think we can safely assume the price will have gone up significantly since they're no longer getting NK-33s very cheaply.
And Northrop can't exit the launch business and leave NASA hanging on CRS. Not if they want to keep building multiple billion dollar satellites for NASA.
BUMP For RD-181:Per likely strong lobbying efforts via Aerojet Rocketdyne and others Congress adds RD-181 in latest version of Russian engine ban: http://spacenews.com/energomash-raises-alarm-over-u-s-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/
Cross post with news that Antares now has to look for a domestic engine or cease flights after it runs out of RD-181's:Quote from: russianhalo117 on 07/10/2018 05:19 pmBUMP For RD-181:Per likely strong lobbying efforts via Aerojet Rocketdyne and others Congress adds RD-181 in latest version of Russian engine ban: http://spacenews.com/energomash-raises-alarm-over-u-s-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/
Quote from: fthomassy on 06/14/2018 11:26 pmI think your idea of value is different than most. A >50% additional margin per reuse seems worth the effort.Worth the effort for Falcon 9, yes apparently, but since Antares is a smaller rocket not competing across the entire Falcon 9 payload range, it seems to me that there should be a window within the lighter payload range where it could or should compete. It would have to be able to compete with that partly-used Falcon 9 to do so. To me, it is a waste of a perfectly good rocket that could be better used for heavier things when a Falcon 9 launches a 350 kg TESS or a 470 kg Formosat or a 2 tonne Paz, etc.. - Ed Kyle
Has Antares been stealth cancelled? Did NASA Wallops basically announce what we all suspect will happen, when they had a ground breaking ceremony for the Rocketlab pad - right next to the Antares pad?See article and video: https://www.wmdt.com/2018/10/wallops-flight-facility-becomes-first-us-launch-site-for-rocket-lab/ (In he video note that they are right at the Antares pad when Beck is interviewed)
I don't think it would take much to improve the Antares with a stretched first stage and new engines, maybe a pair of Merlins. Maybe a 5m cryogenic upper stage too. Wouldn't be able to lift as much as other company's rockets, but would hopefully be a cheaper, less capable alternative.
I love Antares, but the reality is that it's an outdated launch vehicle that is only still viable because it was successfully designed to survive on an absolutely tiny launch cadence, and because NASA likes having a backup.
Quote from: JEF_300 on 06/04/2019 11:09 pmI love Antares, but the reality is that it's an outdated launch vehicle that is only still viable because it was successfully designed to survive on an absolutely tiny launch cadence, and because NASA likes having a backup. "Outdated"? Antares is still brand new! It is powered by a pair of one of the world's most advanced, most efficient, and most recently-developed hydrocarbon rocket engines. It's second stage ranks among the most advanced solid motors. Like RD-181, Castor 30XL was recently developed. The Antares 230 type is only in its third year of service, still ramping up in capability. Its last payload weighed 7.3 tonnes and more capability growth is coming - not bad for a launch vehicle that weighs about half as much as a Falcon 9.
Surviving on a low launch rate is a good thing given the ups and downs of this business.