It beat out F9 for 4 launches.
But hey - the more the merrier, and I really don't see these two companies headed for the same market area, so there isn't even real competition. There's some overlap on ISS cargo delivery, but in the grand scheme of things, they can't survive on that alone. The whole point is that they find other markets, and it looks like they all can, so beers all around.
And if you want to put a SpaceX spin on it, they feared the then plans of SpaceX would not meet the Delta II class payload needs of it's satellite business. If they had confidence in SpaceX, they most likely would not have built the Antares.
Quote from: meekGee on 04/18/2013 05:15 amSo this answers the "why" from a few posts ago. A new rocket is always fun, but if the upside is just a delta II replacement then it's less exciting to me than what's in those other forums you complain that I frequent too much...Other than, which is in the Orbital threads somewhere, at that point in time ULA had it's EELV solutions, but the (at that point) lower cost Delta II left a capability gap that Orbital feared would jack up the launch prices of Delta II class sized payloads that must fly on US launchers, thus putting many of these payloads into a cost death spiral that would cost Orbital Delta II sized satellite business. Orbital did not get into the business to challenge established launch providers, but to fill a gap that they feared would cost them satellite contracts. Hence the Antares was born.And if you want to put a SpaceX spin on it, they feared the then plans of SpaceX would not meet the Delta II class payload needs of it's satellite business. If they had confidence in SpaceX, they most likely would not have built the Antares.
So this answers the "why" from a few posts ago. A new rocket is always fun, but if the upside is just a delta II replacement then it's less exciting to me than what's in those other forums you complain that I frequent too much...
Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/18/2013 01:16 pmQuote from: meekGee on 04/18/2013 05:15 amSo this answers the "why" from a few posts ago. A new rocket is always fun, but if the upside is just a delta II replacement then it's less exciting to me than what's in those other forums you complain that I frequent too much...Other than, which is in the Orbital threads somewhere, at that point in time ULA had it's EELV solutions, but the (at that point) lower cost Delta II left a capability gap that Orbital feared would jack up the launch prices of Delta II class sized payloads that must fly on US launchers, thus putting many of these payloads into a cost death spiral that would cost Orbital Delta II sized satellite business. Orbital did not get into the business to challenge established launch providers, but to fill a gap that they feared would cost them satellite contracts. Hence the Antares was born.And if you want to put a SpaceX spin on it, they feared the then plans of SpaceX would not meet the Delta II class payload needs of it's satellite business. If they had confidence in SpaceX, they most likely would not have built the Antares. good business plan for Orbital But Orbital, SpaceX, ULA and Russia will have some major competition coming from SKorea. See the Naro update I posted.
Quote from: Prober on 04/18/2013 03:45 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 04/18/2013 01:16 pmQuote from: meekGee on 04/18/2013 05:15 amSo this answers the "why" from a few posts ago. A new rocket is always fun, but if the upside is just a delta II replacement then it's less exciting to me than what's in those other forums you complain that I frequent too much...Other than, which is in the Orbital threads somewhere, at that point in time ULA had it's EELV solutions, but the (at that point) lower cost Delta II left a capability gap that Orbital feared would jack up the launch prices of Delta II class sized payloads that must fly on US launchers, thus putting many of these payloads into a cost death spiral that would cost Orbital Delta II sized satellite business. Orbital did not get into the business to challenge established launch providers, but to fill a gap that they feared would cost them satellite contracts. Hence the Antares was born.And if you want to put a SpaceX spin on it, they feared the then plans of SpaceX would not meet the Delta II class payload needs of it's satellite business. If they had confidence in SpaceX, they most likely would not have built the Antares. good business plan for Orbital But Orbital, SpaceX, ULA and Russia will have some major competition coming from SKorea. See the Naro update I posted. I doubt the Koreans are a threat - their launcher will be late to the party and obviously is mainly for domestic use. Same with the Japanese.
But Orbital, SpaceX, ULA and Russia will have some major competition coming from SKorea.
Quote from: Prober on 04/18/2013 03:45 pm But Orbital, SpaceX, ULA and Russia will have some major competition coming from SKorea. Not at all
Believe it Jim, they have Sat platforms (on the shelf) and launch services under construction.
Quote from: Prober on 04/18/2013 07:45 pmBelieve it Jim, they have Sat platforms (on the shelf) and launch services under construction. That doesn't mean it is competition.Your point is unsubstantiated.
Quote from: Prober on 04/18/2013 03:45 pmBut Orbital, SpaceX, ULA and Russia will have some major competition coming from SKorea. With what launch vehicle?
Quote from: Lars_J on 04/18/2013 08:49 pmQuote from: Prober on 04/18/2013 03:45 pmBut Orbital, SpaceX, ULA and Russia will have some major competition coming from SKorea. With what launch vehicle?Never mind "what launch vehicle". The South Koreans doesn't even have a suitable engine available.Back on topic. Orbital at least have the NK33 stockpile available to base their launch vehicle on, when they got the late entry into the COTS program..
Early WX balloon run of the Overpressure safety criteria (which was marginal on Wed) was reported as "good." It's the last balloon before launch that counts, though...
!CARF 04/109 (KZNY A0226/13) ZNY AIRSPACE DCC ANTARES ONE STATIONARY RESERVATION WITHIN AN AREA BNDD BY 2657N/6014W 2807N/5848W 1834N/5030W 1814N/5058W 1814N/5212W SFC-UNL WEF 1304202100-1304210030
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/17/2013 03:35 pmIt's obviously a very different machine from the ULA launchers or Falcon-9. Would I be right in saying that the core will get almost all the way to orbit and the U/S is little more than a kick stage to get the perigee up?You know, I don't understand the choice of a solid U/S. It seems to have all the wrong attributes for an U/S.Solids, IIUC, have a high "dry" weight, since the entire "tank" is thick walled. And in an U/S, every pound wasted is 100% at the expense of payload.Also, it burns to depletion, so you can't control end-of-burn, so I'd think that precision insertion is problematic.Lastly, it is not a high ISP solution.I always thought that solids are good as either high-thrust boosters, or BEO kick stages since they are simple and can last a long time in orbit.Anyone familiar with why they went with a solid U/S?
It's obviously a very different machine from the ULA launchers or Falcon-9. Would I be right in saying that the core will get almost all the way to orbit and the U/S is little more than a kick stage to get the perigee up?