Author Topic: Orbital's Antares Development Update Thread  (Read 1065232 times)

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #900 on: 03/29/2011 09:05 pm »
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.
Really ? SpaceX broke ground for the F9 site in Nov '07 and flew in June '10. It's not clear to me when the pad facilities were ready to support a launch, but it couldn't be before the first on pad test in early '09.

Orbital broke ground for the Taurus II site on June '09, but they started with less than SpaceX did at SLC40. If they fly in September, they will be slightly ahead of the SpaceX timeline.

You could also compare with the Soyuz pad at Kourou...
« Last Edit: 03/29/2011 09:05 pm by hop »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #901 on: 03/29/2011 10:57 pm »
aviationweek: 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.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline jiggawo

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #902 on: 03/30/2011 01:28 am »
aviationweek: 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.

I believe this is secret code for "we didn't completely understand the scope of what we were doing, and didn't budget it for it, so we're getting NASA to pony up free labor"

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #903 on: 03/30/2011 01:33 am »
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...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #904 on: 03/30/2011 02:01 am »
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...

Are the CRS flights in the ISS schedule yet ? If SpaceX doesn't get to combine it's remaining COTS flights, then it will be even more interesting to see who gets into production first.

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #905 on: 03/30/2011 04:44 am »
You could also compare with the Soyuz pad at Kourou...
Oh LOL that hurts. You can also compare it with the Angara pad at Plesetsk.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #906 on: 03/30/2011 05:16 pm »

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #907 on: 03/30/2011 05:26 pm »
It's not about which company goes to the ISS first, either Spacex or Orbital. It's about both being successful. As long as only one is successful there will always be a question as to new space's abilities. Having both Orbital and Spacex successful in doing cargo operations goes a long way toward proving new space.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #908 on: 03/31/2011 02:50 am »
Depends on what metric one uses to define new space.  By revenue source, I know of no orbital-class launcher or spacecraft I would consider new space since none would exist without government funding.  By who owns the launcher or by contract type, there are already several.  If one goes back into the 1990s, one could go by who owns the spacecraft being launched and include those same companies.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Freddie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #909 on: 04/05/2011 06:41 am »
The charter for the U. S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Space and Science hearing held on 30 March 2011 included in its Appendix 3 on Page 13 of 13 an updated COTS milestone project schedule for Orbital Sciences.  The 13-page hearing charter can be viewed at http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/033011_charter_0.pdf.

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #910 on: 04/05/2011 07:45 pm »
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.)
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 07:55 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #911 on: 04/06/2011 05:48 am »
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.)

    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

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #912 on: 04/06/2011 05:15 pm »
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.)

    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
SpaceX's per-launch costs aren't necessarily going to be lower than Orbital's. I've noticed that SpaceX has, in the past, compensated for cost increases by increasing the payload capacity so the cost-per-kg stayed around the same.

But Orbital needs a Delta II replacement (not an EELV replacement), and Taurus II fits pretty darned well with that. Not to mention Orbital has far, far more experience with this than SpaceX. Orbital has launched over 50 times, including 8 successful orbital launches in one single year. SpaceX did at most 2 in a single year, 2010.

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!
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 05:15 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #913 on: 04/06/2011 08:18 pm »
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.

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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #914 on: 04/06/2011 09:11 pm »
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.

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.
Agreed.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Bernie Roehl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #915 on: 04/06/2011 09:37 pm »
SpaceX'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.

Quote
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!

Agreed!

I'm hoping they'll both be successful.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #916 on: 04/06/2011 10:16 pm »
SpaceX'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.
...
...from Eastern Europe. Sometimes, subcontracting stuff makes a lot of sense, especially since the first stage is made by someone who does more things than just Taurus II first stages (I believe they make Zenit). This has real opportunities for cost reduction through taking advantage of capital investments (machine tools, etc) that have other customers (Zenit). Also, there's a whole bunch of NK-33s that are available comparatively cheaply. They are incredibly high-performance (Isp and thrust/weight).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #917 on: 04/06/2011 10:20 pm »
Also, 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.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #918 on: 04/06/2011 10:29 pm »
Also, 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.
When Atlas ordered the RD-180, the plan was to produce them domestically.  Also, Atlas was the only customer.  Now, the capability of Atlas has Rus-M under heavy development.  If you look at it closely, you realize Rus-M is pretty much a Russian clone of Atlas.  Same diameter, fuel tank size, engine, even the upper stage is close to what Common Centaur would be.  This means less access to the engines.

AJ-26, however, has only one potential other client, the Soyuz-2-1V.  And Aerojet is making noises that they can produce it if demand is there, and I believe them.  PWR could produce the RD-180 as well, but it needs more demand than the AJ-26 due to the AJ-26's smaller nature.  More AJ-26 are needed per-job, which means better production volume, hence, demand grows faster.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #919 on: 04/06/2011 10:33 pm »
Also, 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.
There are something like 70 NK-33s available. Should be good for a decade's worth of launches. It would be really interesting if Aerojet actually decides to produce them.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

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