Here's the thing about Antares. When it returns to flight, it will have the highest performing hydrocarbon engine in the U.S., and will be the newest engine in the U.S.. The engine will share production overhead costs with Russia's new primary rocket, Angara, so it will be both "low cost" and will benefit from Angara development and flight experience. It will be topped by the newest, most efficient high thrust solid motor in the U.S., produced in-house by Orbital ATK, so it will be "low cost" in that regard. It will occupy a payload category all by itself. It will continue to be conservatively run by one of the better managed companies in this business, while its competitors are all spending aggressively right now to develop new systems. I wouldn't count Antares out. - Ed Kyle
It will continue to be conservatively run by one of the better managed companies in this business, while its competitors are all spending aggressively right now to develop new systems. I wouldn't count Antares out. - Ed Kyle
Orbital and good management? When you look at the results of Orbital and SpaceX, the difference is obvious! Both of them started their rocket developments with COTS and what did they archieve?Falcon 9 - 15 performed launches, 1 semi failure, lots of commercial/government payloads waiting to be launchedAntares - 5 performed launches, 1 failure, no non-CRS launch contracts so far...
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/17/2015 05:17 amIt will continue to be conservatively run by one of the better managed companies in this business, while its competitors are all spending aggressively right now to develop new systems. I wouldn't count Antares out. - Ed KyleOrbital and good management? When you look at the results of Orbital and SpaceX, the difference is obvious! Both of them started their rocket developments with COTS and what did they archieve?Falcon 9 - 15 performed launches, 1 semi failure, lots of commercial/government payloads waiting to be launchedAntares - 5 performed launches, 1 failure, no non-CRS launch contracts so far...
Quote from: baldusi on 02/16/2015 01:57 amGenCorp earned money because they are going to redevelop Canoga Park. It was actually a real estate transaction. The removal of the president has probably to do with normal business issues. The ULA NGLV propulsion loss might have had a lot more to do with it. They still have SLS's RS-25D.... And the RS-25 will only be about 2 engines per year, at best. Even at inflated prices, that's not a lot to run your business on. And doesn't ULA currently have a stockpile of RL-10's they are going through. Not a lot of business at the moment.
GenCorp earned money because they are going to redevelop Canoga Park. It was actually a real estate transaction. The removal of the president has probably to do with normal business issues. The ULA NGLV propulsion loss might have had a lot more to do with it. They still have SLS's RS-25D.
A good analysis as always Space Ghost. But I think you hit on it there about 3.7m wide new composite solids. Unless and until SLS is cancelled, it seems like ATK Advanced solids are going to be a given for SLS after the first couple of launches. That means NASA money flowing into OrbATK to develop them. A big booster segment will be different than a stand along monolithic 3.7m wide booster for an Antares replacement. But the NASA money would pay for the tooling required to make those 3.7m wide casings, and after that tooling exists, they really wouldn't be dependant on NASA so not sure that Wallstreet would care much.
Then it's just a matter of getting the propellant pour and throat correct to make a monolithic booster out of those segment lengths. Should be much easier than a mult-segment configuration I'd imagine.
As you said, RD-181 gets Antares flying again with the least amount of investment and the fastest time. But it's hard to see a long term business model for that for OrbATK especially if they want USAF/DoD business as they say they do.
Big solids solve both the Russian engine issue and the Ukrainian core issue, -and- brings it all in-house which SpaceX has shown is advantageous. And the infrastructure to get them to CCAFS is already in place. (unsure about VAFB, but obviously they had a way to get STS solid segments there back in the 80's, so there must be rail access from Utah to there?)
As Ed has referenced in the past, a two SLS booster segment sized monolithic motors stacked on each other with a large hydrolox upper stage. ... I'd think between ATK and OSC, they could develop their own upper stage in-house, if they have an engine for it.
For heavier payloads, three 1st stage solid motors are put together in parallell. (This all assumes new CCAFS and VAFB pads anyway, they'd build them to handle a tri-core configuration)
Otherwise, I don't see much of a long term business model for them with Antares launching from only Wallops as arachnitect said. Maybe limited commercial comsat business assuming there's no interruptions in Russian engines and Ukrainian cores would be about all they could compete for aside from CRS I believe?
The military will always need solid motors due to the launch immediately requirement. How much of space launch should/could take advantage of that requirement? A sober business analysis would be good here.
Is there any way at all that Antares in its current, as antonioe called it, upside down Isp configuration can compete with Falcon 9 for cost and reliability? I think its days are numbered. My consideration of an all-solid version would only be negligibly more sanguine.
I'm not sure I agree with throwing all of AR under the "no LOX/RP competence bus." Canoga entered the stage long after Sacramento and Dulles made that dubious decision.
Here's the thing about Antares. When it returns to flight, it will have the highest performing hydrocarbon engine in the U.S., and will be the newest engine in the U.S..
It will occupy a payload category all by itself.
It will continue to be conservatively run by one of the better managed companies in this business, while its competitors are all spending aggressively right now to develop new systems.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/17/2015 05:17 am...The engine will share production overhead costs with Russia's new primary rocket, Angara, so it will be both "low cost" and will benefit from Angara development and flight experience. The flight-rate of Antares, at least for the near term, will be higher than that of Angara. If anything, Antares will not benefit from Angara related flight experience for RD-181. It will be the other way around: The RD-191 of Angara will benefit from the Antares related flight experience of RD-181. I can see why Energomash was so anxious to sell RD-181 to Orbital.
...The engine will share production overhead costs with Russia's new primary rocket, Angara, so it will be both "low cost" and will benefit from Angara development and flight experience.
Quote from: tobi453 on 02/17/2015 05:15 pmOrbital and good management? When you look at the results of Orbital and SpaceX, the difference is obvious! Both of them started their rocket developments with COTS and what did they archieve?Falcon 9 - 15 performed launches, 1 semi failure, lots of commercial/government payloads waiting to be launchedAntares - 5 performed launches, 1 failure, no non-CRS launch contracts so far...A more correct take on it is that the Antares started development 5 years later than Falcon 9.
Quote from: Lars-J on 02/16/2015 06:33 amQuote from: baldusi on 02/16/2015 01:57 amGenCorp earned money because they are going to redevelop Canoga Park. It was actually a real estate transaction. The removal of the president has probably to do with normal business issues. The ULA NGLV propulsion loss might have had a lot more to do with it. They still have SLS's RS-25D.... And the RS-25 will only be about 2 engines per year, at best. Even at inflated prices, that's not a lot to run your business on. And doesn't ULA currently have a stockpile of RL-10's they are going through. Not a lot of business at the moment.Current plan is 4 RS-25s per year once production starts again.
Yes, some RL-10s exist but the majority are being converted to RL-10C so that is some revenue. More will be needed for the SLS EUS and most likely ULA's new upper stage.
Still probably not enough orders after losing RS-68 eventually though.
Pardon me, but Orbital has done more LV's, and over a much longer time. Expect more from them as well as shorter time to prove a new LV. Also, company has been around much, much longer.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/17/2015 09:44 pmPardon me, but Orbital has done more LV's, and over a much longer time. Expect more from them as well as shorter time to prove a new LV. Also, company has been around much, much longer.And SpaceX has been working on liquid rockets much longer.It's like comparing apples to orange juice.
everyone in this industry has the knowledge for these decisions as far as I see it.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/17/2015 11:27 pmeveryone in this industry has the knowledge for these decisions as far as I see it. Hence my earlier point about how SpaceX had a 5 year head start on their LV. The longevity of the companies and prior work being irrelevant as both had the knowledge for those decisions.
Orbital and good management? When you look at the results of Orbital and SpaceX, the difference is obvious! Both of them started their rocket developments with COTS and what did they archieve?
Quote from: tobi453 on 02/17/2015 05:15 pmOrbital and good management? When you look at the results of Orbital and SpaceX, the difference is obvious! Both of them started their rocket developments with COTS and what did they archieve?Orbital ATK had $5.14 billion in revenues during the past year. What did SpaceX bring in? Six launches at $70 million plus a bit more for the Dragons, maybe half a billion? Certainly less than $1 billion.Orbital ATK had $322 million in earnings last year. SpaceX? Did it spend less or more than it brought in? Consider those Falcon 9 v1.1 launches of Orbital-built satellites last year. Who made more money on each of those flights - Space X or Orbital?I'm hoping SpaceX turns out to be as successful as Orbital ATK, but I'm wondering after reading about Tesla's most recent quarterly. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/17/2015 05:17 amHere's the thing about Antares. When it returns to flight, it will have the highest performing hydrocarbon engine in the U.S., and will be the newest engine in the U.S.. The engine will share production overhead costs with Russia's new primary rocket, Angara, so it will be both "low cost" and will benefit from Angara development and flight experience. It will be topped by the newest, most efficient high thrust solid motor in the U.S., produced in-house by Orbital ATK, so it will be "low cost" in that regard. It will occupy a payload category all by itself. It will continue to be conservatively run by one of the better managed companies in this business, while its competitors are all spending aggressively right now to develop new systems. I wouldn't count Antares out. - Ed KyleThe flight-rate of Antares, at least for the near term, will be higher than that of Angara. If anything, Antares will not benefit from Angara related flight experience for RD-181. It will be the other way around: The RD-191 of Angara will benefit from the Antares related flight experience of RD-181. I can see why Energomash was so anxious to sell RD-181 to Orbital.
Current plan is 4 RS-25s per year once production starts again.Not yet authorized. Clouds on the horizon.
Yes, some RL-10s exist but the majority are being converted to RL-10C so that is some revenue. More will be needed for the SLS EUS and most likely ULA's new upper stage.I am skeptical.