Not only was Antares the name for the Apollo 14 LM, as noted by another poster, it was the name of the family of the solid rocket motors used as the third stage of the Scout launch vehicle (ABL X-254 Antares I, ABL X-259 Antares II, Thiokol Star 31 Antares III).Of course, let's not forget the true meaning of the name for the red star Antares: "Rival of Ares". Subtle dig at the Liberty folks? :-)
Of course, let's not forget the true meaning of the name for the red star Antares: "Rival of Ares". Subtle dig at the Liberty folks? :-)
I like it, tho one thing bothers me about this design: why choose a solid upperstage? Performance-wise that doesn't seem like a very smart move to me, as solids usually have a pretty low isp, no?
HESS would also put it very close to the Falcon 9 on performance. I'm not sure they want to go head to head. The basic idea was to go below it's performance and below its price.
Orbital does things for one reason: profit. If F9 stays successful, it's hard to see how TRFKAT2 sells to anyone but the government.Turfcat... I like it
Quote from: aquanaut99 on 12/13/2011 05:59 amI like it, tho one thing bothers me about this design: why choose a solid upperstage? Performance-wise that doesn't seem like a very smart move to me, as solids usually have a pretty low isp, no?The Russian government had issues with them importing the liquid engine they wanted to use. Unfortunately, the American offerings for upper stage engines are pretty slim right now.
The Russian government had issues with them importing the liquid engine they wanted to use.
TRFKAT2
Quote from: strangequark on 12/13/2011 03:08 pmThe Russian government had issues with them importing the liquid engine they wanted to use. Unfortunately, the American offerings for upper stage engines are pretty slim right now. Is that the RD-0148, the RL-10B-2 equivalent?
The Russian government had issues with them importing the liquid engine they wanted to use. Unfortunately, the American offerings for upper stage engines are pretty slim right now.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 12/13/2011 03:15 pmQuote from: strangequark on 12/13/2011 03:08 pmThe Russian government had issues with them importing the liquid engine they wanted to use. Unfortunately, the American offerings for upper stage engines are pretty slim right now. Is that the RD-0148, the RL-10B-2 equivalent?Honestly not sure on details. I heard it second hand, though from a reliable source.
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
Quote from: antonioe on 07/27/2010 02:14 amThere has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!
Heh.QuoteTo clear up any marketplace confusion and provide clear differentiation between this new launch vehicle and our Taurus XL rocket.I wonder why...
To clear up any marketplace confusion and provide clear differentiation between this new launch vehicle and our Taurus XL rocket.