Author Topic: Orbital's Antares Development Update Thread  (Read 860867 times)

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #60 on: 06/30/2009 09:20 pm »
does anyone have pictures from the ceremony?
I'm trying to get some.  I was there.  Not much to see - a bunch of talking heads, a couple heavy machinery.  The Senator WAS pretty excited, though... even if she mis-named the spacecraft a couple of times...
Quote
  I so wish they had blogs
I gues you'll have to do with poor little me... :)
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline veryrelaxed

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #61 on: 06/30/2009 11:27 pm »
...
Quote
  I so wish they had blogs
I gues you'll have to do with poor little me... :)

Personally, I'm content with that ;)  Thank you for posting on this site.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1880
  • Liked: 264
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #62 on: 07/01/2009 02:33 pm »
Great news about the ground breaking. Can't wait to see a launch.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #63 on: 07/02/2009 08:03 pm »
OSC has yet to complete a COTS system-level PDR that had been scheduled for April.

Didn't they get paid for that?  I know people from HQ went to a preboard and a final board a few months ago.
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 antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #64 on: 07/03/2009 02:57 am »

OK, does anyone have pictures from the ceremony?  That's one thing I wish Oribital did more like SpaceX.

Ask and ye shall receive:

First picture: Orbital's luxury corporate jet - not paid by any Obama bailouts!!!

Second picture: J.R., friendly security guy, yours truly in a hideous business suit (God, how I hate suits!), Mike Hamel.  Welcoming committee vehicles in the background.  DWT drove from the Outer Banks where he was on vacation with his family - he left OBX at 5 a.m. to be there in time.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2009 03:44 am by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #65 on: 07/03/2009 03:02 am »
Next: DWT explains the works to Acting Administrator Scolese ("Chris, there will be a test afterward, so pay attention")

Second picture: the desolate view of the Island looking towards Pad 0B (Pad 0A gave its all in the name of progress a couple of months ago) - I will post a picture taken from the same point a year from now...

By the way, all photos courtesy Capt. Frank Culbertson, USN (Ret.)
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #66 on: 07/03/2009 03:38 am »
Next: the dignitaries laugh, not knowing they will be soon sent to hard labor in the salt mines.  Left to right:  DWT, Virginia Deputy Secretary of Trade and Commerce David Smith, Goddard Space Flight Center Director Rob Strain, NASA Acting Administrator Chris Scolese (partially hidden), Chairwoman Mikulski, NASA Wallops Flight Facility Director John Campbell.

Yours truly is standing behind, not amused (it must be that darn suit...)

Second photo: Secretary Smith, DWT, Chairwoman Mikulski, Acting Administrator Scolese, Virginia Space Flight Authority Chairman Vincent Boles, Goddard Director Rob Strain, Wallops Director John Campbell.  I asked them to stay and dig for a couple more hours - my construction budget is very limited.  Did they do it?  Nooo... too important... too busy to stop and help the little people...

Last picture... Wait!  Is that an MLAS lurking in the background?...
« Last Edit: 07/04/2009 09:07 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8657
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1125
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #67 on: 07/03/2009 11:27 am »

Now if you had announced this in advance, and posted tickets on NSF I am sure your could have had quite the NSF crowd on hand to witness the events :D
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online wjbarnett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Not enough time to do this
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 1078
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #68 on: 07/03/2009 02:11 pm »
Ask and ye shall receive:

Thanks so much Antonio. It's great to see your progress! Keep going!
Jack
Twitter: wjackbarnett

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #69 on: 07/03/2009 04:42 pm »

Now if you had announced this in advance, and posted tickets on NSF I am sure your could have had quite the NSF crowd on hand to witness the events :D

AS A MATTER OF FACT we did round up quite a crowd, as you can tell in the following picture.  The armed guards, after removing their shackles, retreated behind the cameramen (that's why you can't see them)
« Last Edit: 07/03/2009 04:43 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline veryrelaxed

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #70 on: 07/03/2009 11:11 pm »
Thanks for the photos.  Some high profile company you 'rounded up' out there ;)

I'm sure the place will look different in a year...  Best of luck.

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #71 on: 07/05/2009 09:52 pm »
What kind of upmass hit is Orbital taking by building at Wallops vs Kennedy/Canaveral?
Go at Throttle Up!

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #72 on: 07/05/2009 11:07 pm »
What kind of upmass hit is Orbital taking by building at Wallops vs Kennedy/Canaveral?

Considering they're launching to ISS, I don't think there's any, since the inclination is still above Wallops. But I may be wrong on that.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #73 on: 07/05/2009 11:32 pm »
Should still be some unless you launch straight north, although it's not as big as for GSO.
There's still a delta-v in eastern direction.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9657
  • Liked: 385
  • Likes Given: 468
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #74 on: 07/06/2009 01:11 am »
What kind of upmass hit is Orbital taking by building at Wallops vs Kennedy/Canaveral?

Zero.

The hit is if ORB decides to fly GTO missions with Taurus II, then a change of launch site would probably be in order. Hawaii would be a nice place.

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4599
  • Liked: 1840
  • Likes Given: 1542
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #75 on: 07/06/2009 01:56 am »
What kind of upmass hit is Orbital taking by building at Wallops vs Kennedy/Canaveral?

Zero.

Is that answer the result of a calculation or just your intuition?  Pippin's point seems valid, although it would seem any "hit" would be minimal.   As you can see from Slide 8 of the OSC presentation to the Augustine HSF committee and the Taurus II Fact Sheet, there is only a small difference in payload between 29 deg from CCAFS and 52 deg from WFF. 
Can someone verify this conjecture numerically?

PS IMHO using Wallops is a great idea, and one that SpaceX would have done well to make rather than launching from the absolute middle of nowhere or from somewhere with lots of other launch sites like Vandenberg.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 01:59 am by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #76 on: 07/06/2009 02:01 am »
The answer is not as simple as that; in addition to the obvious effect of the Earth's rotation, the location of the stage impact points and resulting probability of hitting somebody on the ground enter into the picture.  For example, for high-acceleration vehicles with stage impact points close to the launch site, there is little practical performance difference to the ISS inclination (51.6 deg) from CCAFS (Florida) and from WFF (VA).  However, you launch NORTH from CCAFS (ascending node) to avoid the islands, and SOUTH from WFF (descending node) to avoid Europe.

With low acceleration vehicles stage impact points move downrange, so a CCAFS launch north to ISS (you still can't launch south, I'm told) might drop a stage on Newfoundland; this may require a payload-reducing dogleg right our of the Cape, making the WFF performance higher even tough, from an Earth rotation standpoint it's an even match (Earth rotation is higher from FL, but the launch azimuth is more easterly from VA).

Oh by the way: the number of stages and the use of strapons makes a difference on this stage impact point analysis, too...

The bottom line is that it is non-intuitive and requires more than a simple calculation - you have to run a complete trajectory analysis.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 02:03 am by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8657
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1125
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #77 on: 07/06/2009 02:16 am »
Just to add a little more detail, here is an earlier post by Antonioe on the same question with some numbers to put behind what he just posted.


Well, i *JUST* happen to have two Visual Basic macros for Excel that help a bit.  The first one estimates (geometrically) the launch azimuth required to hit a desired inclination from a certain latitude, given the target orbital altitude (it's an estimation - accurate results depend on the particulars of the trajectory, e.g., slow liquid Ariane 5 style vs. fast, solid, taurus style; but, hey, it's a lot better than guessing!)

The second function calculates - also geometrically - the inertial velocity due to earth rotation in the direction of the launch azimuth at a given latitude.  Like the other function, this is an approximation to the performance impact, but, again, it's better than a guess...

And the results are:    
WFF   
CCAFS
Latitude, deg   37.83   28.5
Launch az. For i=51.6, deg   50.1   42.8
Earth vel. In dir of launch az, m/s   282   278


 

Although these are approximations, I'd say the result is a tie.  Downrange issues (stage imnpacts, overflights, etc) probably have more of an impact, and I can't evaluate them without a more detailed analysis, which we have not done yet.  Even then I expect nearly a wash.

and

Well, from a northern latitude, you shoot closer to East to get to the desired inclination than from a southern latitude, and that helps in getting more of the Eastwards Earth Rotational Velocity (EERV) in the direction of launch, but on the other hand the amount of EERV up north is lower than further south.  I guess one effect cancels the other.

Also note that the launch azimuth numbers I gave in the table are the ascending ones; you get the same results if you mirror image them w.r.t. East, i.e. 129.9 deg from WFF and 137.2 deg from CCAFS (the approximate rotational velocity help being the same for both the ascending and descending cases.)  From CCAFS, range limits may preclude use of the the ascending azimuth (anybody knows for sure?)

BTW, from a latitude of 51.6 deg, my Excel calculations show a launch azimuth of 90 deg (duh...) and a net contribution of rotational velocity in the direction of launch of 289 m/s.  Not a big difference from 278 (CCAFS) or 282 (WFF).  What's at 51.6 deg north latitude?

Link to the earlier discussion : http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11939.msg248933#msg248933

I hope I did not miss quote anyone ;)
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #78 on: 07/06/2009 02:17 am »
The answer is not as simple as that; in addition to the obvious effect of the Earth's rotation, the location of the stage impact points and resulting probability of hitting somebody on the ground enter into the picture.  For example, for high-acceleration vehicles with stage impact points close to the launch site, there is little practical performance difference to the ISS inclination (51.6 deg) from CCAFS (Florida) and from WFF (VA).  However, you launch NORTH from CCAFS (ascending node) to avoid the islands, and SOUTH from WFF (descending node) to avoid Europe.

With low acceleration vehicles stage impact points move downrange, so a CCAFS launch north to ISS (you still can't launch south, I'm told) might drop a stage on Newfoundland; this may require a payload-reducing dogleg right our of the Cape, making the WFF performance higher even tough, from an Earth rotation standpoint it's an even match (Earth rotation is higher from FL, but the launch azimuth is more easterly from VA).

Oh by the way: the number of stages and the use of strapons makes a difference on this stage impact point analysis, too...

The bottom line is that it is non-intuitive and requires more than a simple calculation - you have to run a complete trajectory analysis.


Answer for the rest of us: rocket science is, well, rocket science. :) Thanks for the informative answer.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17842
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 5192
Re: Taurus II Development News
« Reply #79 on: 07/06/2009 03:18 pm »
The answer is not as simple as that; in addition to the obvious effect of the Earth's rotation, the location of the stage impact points and resulting probability of hitting somebody on the ground enter into the picture.  For example, for high-acceleration vehicles with stage impact points close to the launch site, there is little practical performance difference to the ISS inclination (51.6 deg) from CCAFS (Florida) and from WFF (VA).  However, you launch NORTH from CCAFS (ascending node) to avoid the islands, and SOUTH from WFF (descending node) to avoid Europe.

With low acceleration vehicles stage impact points move downrange, so a CCAFS launch north to ISS (you still can't launch south, I'm told) might drop a stage on Newfoundland; this may require a payload-reducing dogleg right our of the Cape, making the WFF performance higher even tough, from an Earth rotation standpoint it's an even match (Earth rotation is higher from FL, but the launch azimuth is more easterly from VA).

Oh by the way: the number of stages and the use of strapons makes a difference on this stage impact point analysis, too...

The bottom line is that it is non-intuitive and requires more than a simple calculation - you have to run a complete trajectory analysis.


Ah, that explains that. Thanks!

Yeah, don't be ticking off the Newfies...they're mad enough at Canada as it is.  :)

Could also hit an oil or gas rig, which would be bad.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 03:19 pm by robertross »
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Tags: