The proposed Kodiak launch site photo appears to show a mobile service tower (a building really) pulled back from a rocket that looks to me like something with only one Castor 120 and a Castor 30 type on top of an SRB segment type first stage.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/16/2012 01:15 amThe proposed Kodiak launch site photo appears to show a mobile service tower (a building really) pulled back from a rocket that looks to me like something with only one Castor 120 and a Castor 30 type on top of an SRB segment type first stage.Do you mean this (attached) artwork? I don't see indication the building moves.
Yes, the building moves on rails. We are calling it the Vehicle Processing Facility. It will have a 225-250 ton bridge crane that will stack the vehicle on the pad and then retract ~400 feet for launch.The EA for this project should be released to the public next month. Construction time depends on when the Athena III makes its first sale.
There was some mention that Alaska wanted to be able to "share" the same facilites between the Athena and Orbital's Antares. Of course, Antares needs to book some west coast flights on it's manifest first, but how realistic is it for Athena and Antares to share the same launch facilities ?
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 07/27/2012 01:14 amThere was some mention that Alaska wanted to be able to "share" the same facilites between the Athena and Orbital's Antares. Of course, Antares needs to book some west coast flights on it's manifest first, but how realistic is it for Athena and Antares to share the same launch facilities ?I just don't see it. Antares need an HIF, Athena a movable VPF that goes over the pad. Antares needs an RP-1 infrastructure, Athena needs none. If you use the same pad, should OSC wait on the HIF while the Athena is integrated on the pad? I simply don't see it.
On top of that, I do not know of any launch pad anywhere that is dual use for liquid and solid LVs.
Quote from: baldusi on 07/27/2012 05:00 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 07/27/2012 01:14 amThere was some mention that Alaska wanted to be able to "share" the same facilites between the Athena and Orbital's Antares. Of course, Antares needs to book some west coast flights on it's manifest first, but how realistic is it for Athena and Antares to share the same launch facilities ?I just don't see it. Antares need an HIF, Athena a movable VPF that goes over the pad. Antares needs an RP-1 infrastructure, Athena needs none. If you use the same pad, should OSC wait on the HIF while the Athena is integrated on the pad? I simply don't see it.You are correct about the different infrastructure requirements. On top of that, I do not know of any launch pad anywhere that is dual use for liquid and solid LVs. We have designs for a liquid pad and a solid pad. It may not be possible, or even operationally effective, to try to integrate the two dissimilar designs. We are still brain storming concepts, because we don't have the $$ to build two pads simultaneously. It is a moot point until there is a formal commitment from Orbital about their West Coast site.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-considers-viability-of-resurrected-athena-small-satellite-launcher-programme-376581/Just saw this.Possibly not good news?
a price point of around $70 million for an Athena II...
http://www.spacenews.com/article/900m-in-pentagon-launch-contracts-awarded-to-lockheed-orbital-spacex#.UL4ud2fNlQF
I'm writing a short article on Athena. It discusses its history, launches, and current plans.Here's a question that I haven't been able to answer: why did they name it "Athena"?
Quote from: Blackstar on 02/01/2013 05:05 pmI'm writing a short article on Athena. It discusses its history, launches, and current plans.Here's a question that I haven't been able to answer: why did they name it "Athena"? Likely because the original designations "LLV" ("Lockheed Launch Vehicle") and "LMLV" ("Lockheed Martin Launch Vehicle") were not so well suited for marketing as a traditional mythological name.