Author Topic: Orbital's Antares Development Update Thread  (Read 1065173 times)

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1710
  • Liked: 2215
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #300 on: 03/18/2010 02:59 am »
What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26.  The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant:

The first stage tanks are not made in the U.S. Using a liquid 2nd stage with an airstart AJ-26 would require new tankage. Would Orbital be making it? Do they have much experience with large liquid prop systems? Would it make the vehicle less than 51% "american" if a foreign contractor made it instead? Would it stretch-out the schedule even further?

Questions, questions...

If Dave Thompson is calling the schedule "busy and tight" in public, the reality is probably more like "frantic." Using a solid on S2 probably gives them the shortest critical path and the lowest schedule risk, I would guess.

If I were making decisions at Orbital, I'd be looking to fly initial Cygnus flights on the remaining white-tail Delta IIs.  While expensive, it is the low-risk approach to keeping on track and meeting COTS commitments.  Later, if T-II comes on line, switch, otherwise continue to fly on Atlas 5 401.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #301 on: 03/18/2010 08:43 am »
What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26.  The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant:

The first stage tanks are not made in the U.S. Using a liquid 2nd stage with an airstart AJ-26 would require new tankage. Would Orbital be making it? Do they have much experience with large liquid prop systems? Would it make the vehicle less than 51% "american" if a foreign contractor made it instead? Would it stretch-out the schedule even further?

Questions, questions...

If Dave Thompson is calling the schedule "busy and tight" in public, the reality is probably more like "frantic." Using a solid on S2 probably gives them the shortest critical path and the lowest schedule risk, I would guess.

If I were making decisions at Orbital, I'd be looking to fly initial Cygnus flights on the remaining white-tail Delta IIs.  While expensive, it is the low-risk approach to keeping on track and meeting COTS commitments.  Later, if T-II comes on line, switch, otherwise continue to fly on Atlas 5 401.
I'd keep that in the back of the mind, but not commit to it until after the full systems test is performed in the next 4 months.  At this point, the engines are a known quality with hundreds of hours of testing under their belt.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1710
  • Liked: 2215
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #302 on: 03/18/2010 02:15 pm »
What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26.  The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant:

The first stage tanks are not made in the U.S. Using a liquid 2nd stage with an airstart AJ-26 would require new tankage. Would Orbital be making it? Do they have much experience with large liquid prop systems? Would it make the vehicle less than 51% "american" if a foreign contractor made it instead? Would it stretch-out the schedule even further?

Questions, questions...

If Dave Thompson is calling the schedule "busy and tight" in public, the reality is probably more like "frantic." Using a solid on S2 probably gives them the shortest critical path and the lowest schedule risk, I would guess.

If I were making decisions at Orbital, I'd be looking to fly initial Cygnus flights on the remaining white-tail Delta IIs.  While expensive, it is the low-risk approach to keeping on track and meeting COTS commitments.  Later, if T-II comes on line, switch, otherwise continue to fly on Atlas 5 401.
I'd keep that in the back of the mind, but not commit to it until after the full systems test is performed in the next 4 months.  At this point, the engines are a known quality with hundreds of hours of testing under their belt.

I'm not concerned about the engines; I think they are fine.  But there is much more to a LV than propulsion alone.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #303 on: 03/18/2010 10:32 pm »
I'm not concerned about the engines; I think they are fine.  But there is much more to a LV than propulsion alone.

Perhaps, but Orbital has experience with those systems and the engines are the single hardest component.

They'll be fine.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #304 on: 03/19/2010 03:36 pm »
I'm not concerned about the engines; I think they are fine.  But there is much more to a LV than propulsion alone.

Perhaps, but Orbital has experience with those systems and the engines are the single hardest component.

They'll be fine.
I agree - I wouldn't say the engines are the hardest component, certainly not these engines - but they are, though, the newest component considering Orbital's previous launch vehicle experience.  They just dissasembled the engine that was test-fired last week at flight thrust levels for two times mission duration+qual test (straight out of the box, after 30+ years in storage!!!) and the bearings and everything else look just fine.

The single hardest component of the whole program, IMHO, is the integration of the entire LV.  There's where previous experience, albeit with solids and smaller vehicles, helps.
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #305 on: 03/19/2010 03:55 pm »
What really surprised me is OSC using a low Isp Solid 2nd Stage. Rather nullifies the efficiency of the 26.  The engine is also available with a high-altitude/vacuo nozzle- the NK-43/??? variant:

The first stage tanks are not made in the U.S. Using a liquid 2nd stage with an airstart AJ-26 would require new tankage. Would Orbital be making it? Do they have much experience with large liquid prop systems? Would it make the vehicle less than 51% "american" if a foreign contractor made it instead? Would it stretch-out the schedule even further?

Questions, questions...

If Dave Thompson is calling the schedule "busy and tight" in public, the reality is probably more like "frantic."
I would not necessarily assume that; DWT has this annoying habit of being uncharacteristically accurate in his public stements, at least uncharacteristically for this industry.  While he is not above spining statements a bit - who isn't -  in 23 years of working with him I still have to catch him making an official statement that after the fact proved to be inaccurate - even many years afterwards!  That is not just "honesty", it's some kind of intuitive gift, and it has served him pretty well.
Quote
Using a solid on S2 probably gives them the shortest critical path and the lowest schedule risk, I would guess.
Right on target.  As for using the NK-43 for the second stage, it's a very good engine with great ISP (346 s) and great T/W (120+).  Unfortunately, it's about 5 times too big (about 400,000 lbf thrust vs. 80,000 lbf for the Castor 30).  There are better Lox-kerosene engines for the Taurus II second stage from the thrust matching standpoint with equal or better Isp and good enough T/W (e.g. RD-0124 at 66,000 lbf thrust, Isp = 359 s, T/W = 63 with TVC and controller)

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Freddie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #306 on: 03/19/2010 04:16 pm »
I'm not concerned about the engines; I think they are fine.  But there is much more to a LV than propulsion alone.

Perhaps, but Orbital has experience with those systems and the engines are the single hardest component.

They'll be fine.
I agree - I wouldn't say the engines are the hardest component, certainly not these engines - but they are, though, the newest component considering Orbital's previous launch vehicle experience.  They just dissasembled the engine that was test-fired last week at flight thrust levels for two times mission duration+qual test (straight out of the box, after 30+ years in storage!!!) and the bearings and everything else look just fine.

The single hardest component of the whole program, IMHO, is the integration of the entire LV.  There's where previous experience, albeit with solids and smaller vehicles, helps.

Thank you very much for returning to this forum with posts during the past week.  Your wisdom, insight, and humor have been very much missed.

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #307 on: 03/19/2010 04:25 pm »
Thanks; I've been a bit busy lately trying to sell and build a few satellites... you know, those funny little things that people put on top of rockets and that actually pay the bills?... ::)
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #308 on: 03/19/2010 04:26 pm »
 Is the PWR35M a distant maybe, not really being considered or a real possibility?
 
 Bout time you showed up Antoine. I wish all the players had someone with your honesty and credibility in their threads.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #309 on: 03/19/2010 04:27 pm »
.. and always hold up launches ...
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #310 on: 03/19/2010 04:28 pm »
... oh, like the LV has never held up the launch of a perfectly good spacecraft!...

Hey!  I have an idea!  Let's blame the range!
« Last Edit: 03/19/2010 04:37 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Dmitry_V_home

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • City of Toglliatti, Samara region, Russia
  • Liked: 666
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #311 on: 03/21/2010 07:04 am »
Right on target.  As for using the NK-43 for the second stage, it's a very good engine with great ISP (346 s) and great T/W (120+).  Unfortunately, it's about 5 times too big (about 400,000 lbf thrust vs. 80,000 lbf for the Castor 30).  There are better Lox-kerosene engines for the Taurus II second stage from the thrust matching standpoint with equal or better Isp and good enough T/W (e.g. RD-0124 at 66,000 lbf thrust, Isp = 359 s, T/W = 63 with TVC and controller)

NK-31/39. May be?
« Last Edit: 03/21/2010 07:05 am by Dmitry_V_home »

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1710
  • Liked: 2215
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #312 on: 03/21/2010 04:37 pm »
Right on target.  As for using the NK-43 for the second stage, it's a very good engine with great ISP (346 s) and great T/W (120+).  Unfortunately, it's about 5 times too big (about 400,000 lbf thrust vs. 80,000 lbf for the Castor 30).  There are better Lox-kerosene engines for the Taurus II second stage from the thrust matching standpoint with equal or better Isp and good enough T/W (e.g. RD-0124 at 66,000 lbf thrust, Isp = 359 s, T/W = 63 with TVC and controller)

NK-31/39. May be?

It is certainly close to the right size.  I know Orbital looked at that engine as a replacement for FASTRAC on X-34, and from what I heard at the time (Antonio can perhaps enlighten us) it was a pretty good choice, but NASA MSFC didn't approve it.  Today, though, I expect Orbital sees an engine such as the RD-0124 as being in production and thus having more test and spares support.  Hard to say.  I think Aerojet still has rights to the 31/39 in the U.S.

Dmitry, since you live in Samara, can you say if you work at the plant?  I've been looking for an answer to how many NK-33 and 43 complete and partial engines are still available there.  I have heard numbers from a "a few" to "dozens".  Care to shed light on the true count?

Offline Dmitry_V_home

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • City of Toglliatti, Samara region, Russia
  • Liked: 666
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #313 on: 03/21/2010 08:51 pm »
Dmitry, since you live in Samara, can you say if you work at the plant?  I've been looking for an answer to how many NK-33 and 43 complete and partial engines are still available there.  I have heard numbers from a "a few" to "dozens".  Care to shed light on the true count?

I do not live for a long time already in Samara and did not work in SNTK (I worked in Volga branch RKK "Energia"). But I can tell that now on SNTK 54 engines NK-33 from which 46 engines can be prepared for commodity deliveries remain.
The total of engines NK-33/43/39/31, including engines in Aerojet, does not exceed 150.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1710
  • Liked: 2215
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #314 on: 03/21/2010 09:59 pm »
Dmitry, since you live in Samara, can you say if you work at the plant?  I've been looking for an answer to how many NK-33 and 43 complete and partial engines are still available there.  I have heard numbers from a "a few" to "dozens".  Care to shed light on the true count?

I do not live for a long time already in Samara and did not work in SNTK (I worked in Volga branch RKK "Energia"). But I can tell that now on SNTK 54 engines NK-33 from which 46 engines can be prepared for commodity deliveries remain.
The total of engines NK-33/43/39/31, including engines in Aerojet, does not exceed 150.


Thanks!

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #315 on: 03/21/2010 11:55 pm »
Dmitry, since you live in Samara, can you say if you work at the plant?  I've been looking for an answer to how many NK-33 and 43 complete and partial engines are still available there.  I have heard numbers from a "a few" to "dozens".  Care to shed light on the true count?

I do not live for a long time already in Samara and did not work in SNTK (I worked in Volga branch RKK "Energia"). But I can tell that now on SNTK 54 engines NK-33 from which 46 engines can be prepared for commodity deliveries remain.
The total of engines NK-33/43/39/31, including engines in Aerojet, does not exceed 150.


What are the plans for new production?
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #316 on: 03/22/2010 12:02 pm »
Dmitry, since you live in Samara, can you say if you work at the plant?  I've been looking for an answer to how many NK-33 and 43 complete and partial engines are still available there.  I have heard numbers from a "a few" to "dozens".  Care to shed light on the true count?

I do not live for a long time already in Samara and did not work in SNTK (I worked in Volga branch RKK "Energia"). But I can tell that now on SNTK 54 engines NK-33 from which 46 engines can be prepared for commodity deliveries remain.
The total of engines NK-33/43/39/31, including engines in Aerojet, does not exceed 150.


What are the plans for new production?
With the discussion of using them on the Rus-M and Soyuz, I highly suspect that part of what Aerojet and Energia have been doing with the upgrades and tests has been to formulate a plan for production.  With the low cost of the engines, for them to not have done this level of preliminary work would be surprising.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Dmitry_V_home

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • City of Toglliatti, Samara region, Russia
  • Liked: 666
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #317 on: 03/22/2010 02:34 pm »
What are the plans for new production?

Last week the TV of Samara has informed that the decision on renewal of manufacture อส-33 is accepted. But official acknowledgement while are not present. Also it became known that in the project "Sojuz-1" decided to refuse engine NK-33-1. Instead of it it will be applied standard อส-33 in a combination to control engine RD-0110R.

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #318 on: 03/28/2010 05:38 am »
Just came back from Wallops - work there is in full swing, and everything should be done by December.  Lots of piling going on... the pilings for the HIF (Horizontal Integration Facility - the BIG building) have all been driven, the new pad 0A pile driving is beginning.  In total, over 5,000 piles! (well, 50-ft pile segments... some of the pilings are 150 ft deep, so they take 3 sections... the total number of pilings is about 3,000).

Here are a few pictures: in the "Pan view of Pad 0A" you can see some the piles for the ramp indicates both the curve and the slope of the ramp.  Notice the height of the sea wall.

In the background, just to the right of the lollipop-shaped water tower is a POINTY (not squat) comm antenna tower.  that's where the HIF is located (the HIF "hugs" that tower, as you will see in the pictures).  That gives you an idea of the separation between the pad and the HIF.

In the view from the North ("k - ramp piles begin added") you can see the (future) transition from the old beach road to the new ramp, as well as pad 0B, which has recently been upgraded for Minotaur IV.
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #319 on: 03/28/2010 05:50 am »
The first picture shows the HIF construction site - notice one of the two ramps leading up to the HIF floor level, some 11 feet above sea level (10 ft required for the 100-year worse case storm and solar tide flooding plus one for good luck, like at Michoud...).  In the background  ("Looking South at HIF") you can faintly see the pile driver working at the pad, between the lefmost pile driver and the flagpole.

On the second picture, note the pilings along the centerline of the ramp... there are matching pilings along the two sides of the ramps... then hundreds (actually, over 1,000) under the main building pad itself!

I've also included a couple of CAD drawings of the pad complex showing the ramp, the enormous water tank for the deluge systems, the fuel/gas tank farms and the large water, kerosene and LOX holding basins to catch the deluge water as well as any spills... all very, very environmentally-friendly.

It takes more than rocket engines, you know!!!
« Last Edit: 03/28/2010 04:13 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0