Interesting that the 1.1 million pound thrust number given in AWST roughly corresponds to the 1,134,183 lbf given as the "average thrust" for a 1.5 segment SRM in the ATK solid motor handbook. Note, however, that the liftoff thrust for 1.5 segment was higher than the "average thrust" at roughly 1.25 million pounds. Meanwhile, the images seem to suggest something roughly the size, perhaps a bit longer than, a single-segment SRM, with two segments for Stage 1 and one for Stage 2. You can fit a New Shepard Propulsion Module neatly into the fairing.This all suggests a low-end Medium class EELV lifter (i.e. Atlas 401 class) in base form.Apologies for re-posting my comparison image here, but I think it may help in discussion. - Ed Kyle
You mean if it caters to the market's desires, right? The demand doesn't have strengths, it has demands, it is the supply's job to cover those demands.
OA EELV Next Gen Vehicle based on available data from trade studies/media and recent Conference calls to date:0-Stage: None (Lite and some Medium versions) or 0-6 GEM-63/GEM-63XL SRM's (Some Medium Versions) or 4 CBS's (Heavy Version)
There were no really major developments in the first quarter on that [launch vehicle] program. We did -- as I mentioned back a couple of months ago, Orbital ATK and the Air Force started at the beginning of the year the first phase of what could be about a four year, jointly funded development program that would be aimed at creating a new, all US-based intermediate- and large-class space launch vehicle. Our objective in pursuing this, if it goes through the full development cycle, would be to introduce a modular vehicle capable of launching not only defense-related satellites in the larger class, but also scientific and commercial satellites. And it would be competitive, both domestically and internationally.Our investments this year, and those of the Air Force, will cover the initial phase of design and early development work, and the decision in the first half of next year will be made concerning whether the remaining activity to complete development, to produce and introduce this new vehicle, will proceed. There will be -- it represents a relative -- not an insignificant, but a relatively modest investment over the next couple quarters, which, if the market indicators and the product performance continue to move in a favorable direction, could lead to a decision sometime about this time next year or a little later relating to the remaining work to actually build and test the vehicle.
More info in tweet:https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/735180704233971712
The 2 LVs on the right seem to have different fairing shape and 2-3 interstage taper. I wonder if one's just an old render.
So do we think Caster 300 is one segment, C600 is two segments, and C1200 is four segments of the same SRM? That is, you could mix and match segments between them (obviously the nozzle section stays at the bottom ). But the SRM also has to have a pressure bulkhead at the top, too...?
If they aren't interchangeable, what's "Common" about them?
Roll control? Wondering how it will be done with this rocket...
For me, the surprise was the four-segment first stage for Heavy missions. That is an entirely different rocket than the Medium version with its two-segment first stage. Heavy and Medium will need significantly different launch pad setups, maybe even different launch platforms. My guess is that in the end one might be developed but not the other. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: a_langwich on 05/25/2016 06:59 amIf they aren't interchangeable, what's "Common" about them?Probably the casings, like in the Space Shuttle SRB's. The core tooling and nozzle are probably different. The forward dome, aft dome and TVC are probably the same.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 05/25/2016 09:30 amQuote from: a_langwich on 05/25/2016 06:59 amIf they aren't interchangeable, what's "Common" about them?Probably the casings, like in the Space Shuttle SRB's. The core tooling and nozzle are probably different. The forward dome, aft dome and TVC are probably the same.If that turns out to be the case (no pun intended, but there it is), I don't see this vehicle getting the economies of scale needed to compete.Nor do I really think it's a wise use of money to _start_ another EELV, when the existing two families are already going to be leaning heavily on commercial sales to keep their launch rate up.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/25/2016 01:47 pmFor me, the surprise was the four-segment first stage for Heavy missions. That is an entirely different rocket than the Medium version with its two-segment first stage. Heavy and Medium will need significantly different launch pad setups, maybe even different launch platforms. My guess is that in the end one might be developed but not the other. - Ed KyleDo we know if the side GEMs fit on both the medium and the heavy? The heavy will be closer/close to the Stick?And do the side GEMs provide as big a benefit if the first stage is essentially fixed duration, no throttling?
I might have missed it while reading, but what is the casing material for "this beastie", fully composite?