I'm suprized how long it is taking to complete the new facility. The update says the concrete is finally complete, and they are working on the fuel farm.
aviationweek: Orbital Sees First Taurus II Flight In Sept.
“Since this is one of the first brand-new launch pads to be developed in quite a number of years, we wanted to be sure that we were benefitting from the experience that existed in NASA with respect to the whole ground-processing and pre-launch flow and the necessary equipment at the pad,” [Orbital's] Thompson says.“It’s a first time for them, so we’re sending in people who’ve done this time and time again,” [NASA's] Bolden says. “I think we’re going to be okay.”
Quote from: Salo on 03/29/2011 04:16 pmaviationweek: Orbital Sees First Taurus II Flight In Sept. Wow, the spin on this is carefully polished!Quote“Since this is one of the first brand-new launch pads to be developed in quite a number of years, we wanted to be sure that we were benefitting from the experience that existed in NASA with respect to the whole ground-processing and pre-launch flow and the necessary equipment at the pad,” [Orbital's] Thompson says.“It’s a first time for them, so we’re sending in people who’ve done this time and time again,” [NASA's] Bolden says. “I think we’re going to be okay.”I think we're going to be okay.
Still based on SpaceX's know slip rate, will it fly before SpaceX's next flight? That would be an interesting wager. Who flies next.My money is on the original new space startup...
You could also compare with the Soyuz pad at Kourou...
There are interesting items in that charter:1.- Jim Maser is identified as a professional association (AIAA) executive, not as president of P&WR.2.- The entire document is a defense of Constellation/Orion and an attack on COTS (Appendix 1 is a long list of Constellation/Orion acheivements, while Appendix 2 contains only graphical Schedules for SpaceX and Orbital highlighting the COTS program schedule delays.)
Quote from: antonioe on 04/05/2011 07:45 pmThere are interesting items in that charter:1.- Jim Maser is identified as a professional association (AIAA) executive, not as president of P&WR.2.- The entire document is a defense of Constellation/Orion and an attack on COTS (Appendix 1 is a long list of Constellation/Orion acheivements, while Appendix 2 contains only graphical Schedules for SpaceX and Orbital highlighting the COTS program schedule delays.) Dr. Elias returns! I'd be wondering what thinking is going on at Orbital in light of today. For a while, it looked like Taurus II(e) meant that SpaceX and Orbital were playing approximately in the same ballgame -- and that Orbital had gotten pulled, by necessity (by NASA's begging?) into the medium launcher business. But recently we've seen the vision of Prometheus flying on Atlas V, not TII (for good reasons), and if Falcon can achieve anything like it's economic goals and gain the lead on obtaining NASA certification via flight history, TII might be destined for a short life as a pure-CRS launcher. But Orbital must have lots of ideas for interesting mission hardware they'd like to compete for and fly, if NASA or other commercial customers were willing to try some new concepts. Space hardware much more interesting than launchers. ? -Alex
But recently we've seen the vision of Prometheus flying on Atlas V, not TII (for good reasons), and if Falcon can achieve anything like it's economic goals and gain the lead on obtaining NASA certification via flight history, TII might be destined for a short life as a pure-CRS launcher.
Quote from: alexw on 04/06/2011 05:48 amBut recently we've seen the vision of Prometheus flying on Atlas V, not TII (for good reasons), and if Falcon can achieve anything like it's economic goals and gain the lead on obtaining NASA certification via flight history, TII might be destined for a short life as a pure-CRS launcher.Pretty sure that as long as Cynus flies CRS flights Taurus 2 will be around.Also orbital designed Taurus II to replace Delta II class LV's to ensure that their real bread and butter, spacecraft, can still get to orbit and Falcon 9 had not flown yet (and therefore still a big gamble) Atlas V is a much heavier lifter, so why reinvent the wheel (ie just buy flights)? Dont forget the EELV class field is already overcapacity in the commercial market, and with two govt sponsored lv's probably not a market case.
SpaceX's per-launch costs aren't necessarily going to be lower than Orbital's.
Taurus II is still just as important to Orbital and NASA. And I am very excited to see what else Orbital has in store for us!
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/06/2011 05:15 pmSpaceX's per-launch costs aren't necessarily going to be lower than Orbital's.SpaceX has a bit of a cost advantage, since they build their own engines. OSC has to purchase their first (and second?) stage engines, and they subcontract the entire first stage....
Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/06/2011 10:16 pmAlso, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply.I'm tempted to say the same was true for RD-180. Now apparently less so.