I apologize for being so far behind the times, but I'd thought until last week that the eventual path forward was the AJ-500. I haven't been able to find much solid information on AJ-500/AJ-1000/AR-1??? this past year, so is that all just paper?
Wouldn't it just be easier to go with a solid ATK first stage? They are already using or will use a ATK 30XL for the second. ATK has a good track record.
How is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180? Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?
Here you go, now it makes sense.They can even use the super enhanced cygnus on a F9 (can they?) for crs1 and do less missions (4 instead of 5) for less $ each (compared to Atlas, I don't know the price of Antares). It's not like spacex won't work with orbital.Of course that's for the short term only.
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.
Quote from: Prober on 11/01/2014 03:27 pmWith Ukraine (RD-120K) as an engine partner; ATK/Orbital has surplus manufacturing ability to cast, and produce their own staged combustion engine in the USA. If the company wishes to add very advanced manufacturing to the mix, they know where to find me.ATK/Orbital could even tap into this funding to do the job.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.01) No, the Ukraine does not control the IP of the RD-120K and therefore cannot partner with others. 2) And no, they can not tap into that funding unless it is for the USAF.
With Ukraine (RD-120K) as an engine partner; ATK/Orbital has surplus manufacturing ability to cast, and produce their own staged combustion engine in the USA. If the company wishes to add very advanced manufacturing to the mix, they know where to find me.ATK/Orbital could even tap into this funding to do the job.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.0
150 family is derated 190 family. Ones digit are variants for each application or which design improvements have been rolled in.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 11/01/2014 06:58 pmHow is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180? Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?Believe the two nozzles gimbal independently. Should work on Antares.
Patents are for 20 years. the RD-120 was 1980's technology. Any patents would become open and no longer protected.the internal IP owned by, and developed by the Ukrainian company is theirs to do with as they please.
Quote from: arachnitect on 11/01/2014 07:14 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 11/01/2014 06:58 pmHow is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180? Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?Believe the two nozzles gimbal independently. Should work on Antares.I learn something new every day here.I just sort of implicitly assumed that they were locked together with one TVC set which, in retrospect, is a stupid assumption.Thanks!
The RD193 would be most compatible with Antares, but to make most of it the Antares would need larger fuel tanks ie . Pad and infrastructure wouldn't need to many modifications. There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.
Quote from: Prober on 11/01/2014 07:52 pmPatents are for 20 years. the RD-120 was 1980's technology. Any patents would become open and no longer protected.the internal IP owned by, and developed by the Ukrainian company is theirs to do with as they please.This is something I've been saying for a long time and you are't understanding it.US patent laws are not applicable. US companies just can't pair up with another foreign company and produce an engine. There are ITAR and EAR considerations.You don't know anything about IP or agreements wrt this engineJust because one company can build an engine doesn't mean it knows how to modify the engine or design another.
Quote from: gongora on 10/31/2014 08:00 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 10/31/2014 07:36 pmBesides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?How much would flying on Atlas cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so. Exactly. Go to Atlas, and lose money each flight on the contract, all so they could avoid issues with Russian engines, which are also present on Atlas? FF, you need to take your logic back to the garage and tinker on it a bit more.IF they were planning to try using the RD-180 (and thus needed some negotiating power with ULA), and IF they wanted to hedge their return-to-flight bets, I could see them possibly launching one or two Cygnus on Atlas in the short term. Or even offering the super-sized Cygnus on an Atlas if there were interest in putting the larger Cygnus in a farther orbit (L1/2 maybe?) than Antares 130 could handle. That would be a nice business incentive for ULA to be accommodating, and it might provide a nice "assured access" second source LV for Cygnus customers, and it might open up one or two more opportunities for enhanced Cygnus customers. (Big IF on the last one...lots of people talk, but few write checks from a bank account with that kind of money.)But I doubt very much launching on Atlas makes any financial sense for Orbital in the long run, certainly not for CRS2. The whole point of Antares was that the lower-cost segment of the Delta II market was poorly served by extremely expensive EELV launches.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 10/31/2014 07:36 pmBesides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?How much would flying on Atlas cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so.
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
...IMHO events of the last 3 years to me seem to have a common teaching, and that is get off reliance on foreign engines if you want to save money long term.
Quote from: SIEP on 11/01/2014 12:45 amIt isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.