-
Orbital's Antares Development Update Thread
by
edkyle99
on 05 Jan, 2009 15:18
-
-
#1
by
bad_astra
on 06 Jan, 2009 18:03
-
Thanks for these updates.
-
#2
by
Jose
on 07 Jan, 2009 19:10
-
Your Internets-fu is strong. Thanks!
-
#3
by
simonbp
on 09 Jan, 2009 03:36
-
-
#4
by
antonioe
on 09 Jan, 2009 15:39
-
Here is a link to Dave Steffy's AIAA 2008 conference paper on Taurus II.
http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/conferences/Steffy_NRO-AIAA_Conference_Paper--Steffy.pdf
This paper includes a schedule that shows the following significant milestones occurring during 2009.
...and has a great set of model-making-ready drawings. Thanks Ed!
Simon 
Note: the location of the Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF) has been moved about a mile to the right (North) of the picture in page 9 of the presentation.
-
#5
by
ugordan
on 09 Jan, 2009 16:02
-
Any chance we'll get to see some videos of those AJ-26 qualification firings?
-
#6
by
zaitcev
on 10 Jan, 2009 03:00
-
Far it be for me to challenge design and engineering at OSC, this is just my curiosity: why does Taurus II use Castor-30 after all? At best as I can discern by reading the presentation linked in the "news" thread, this is done to leverage heritage hardware with a track record. Is that correct, or there's more to it? It's difficult to imagine that nobody in the industry can build an upper stage engine, so the stage would restart. Moreover, the flight history of Falcon 1 suggests that Kestrel is unproblematic, so perhaps the heritage issues are overblown.
-- Pete
{Edit: as Jose pointed out below, Dr. Elias has outlined the "High Energy Second Stage" at forum previously.}
-
#7
by
Jose
on 10 Jan, 2009 04:00
-
-
#8
by
madscientist197
on 10 Jan, 2009 07:32
-
In general, solids are cheap and reliable -- I don't think you can get a much better argument for a commercial contractor. I don't think OSC wants to invest any more money than they have to, because it is a particularly risky enterprise after all. It's not like there is a truely viable non-government/commercial market for small launchers.
-
#9
by
simonbp
on 10 Jan, 2009 16:54
-
The presentation mentions performance with a third stage; is that with the Orbit Raising Kit (which is a Cygnus SM, right?) or a Star 48/similar?
Would it make any sense to stack two Castor 30's on top on each other (as a third stage)?
Is the High-Energy Second Stage in the works at all?
Simon
-
#10
by
antonioe
on 10 Jan, 2009 20:11
-
1.- Yes (Star 48) The ORK and Cygnus SM have a lot in common (mostly in the propulsion system), but are NOT identical; for starters, the SM has a quad-redundant avionics system - the ORK uses the basic LV avionics. The SM has solar panels - the ORK only the LV batteries; etc. etc.
2.- Yes
3.- Yes
-
#11
by
antonioe
on 12 Jan, 2009 03:56
-
Was use of a high energy second stage presented to the CRS SEB?
I'm afraid you would have to ask NASA for any SEB questions...
-
#12
by
pippin
on 12 Jan, 2009 11:51
-
SEB? Isn't that a Swedish Bank?
-
#13
by
AnalogMan
on 06 May, 2009 18:08
-
Came across this in my web travels (from a document dated April 16, 2009) - thought it might be of interest.
-
#14
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 06 May, 2009 18:43
-
Looking to the launch pads yesterday from the Wallops Visitor's Center, though I saw a few buildings near the pad that I did not recognize, is there any way we could get some pictures of any new buidlings (I couldnt take any pictures as I cold only see the pad through high powered binoculars!)
Also I would suggest Orbital ask Wallops to make an observation deck at the visitor's center that extends over the marsh a little bit with a few permanent spyglasses or toll binoculars:
-
#15
by
just-nick
on 08 May, 2009 22:03
-
I haven't seen this elsewhere on these formus, but it seems there's a little new info on the high energy second stage showing up here:
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/TaurusII_fact.pdfOrbital's revised the brochure and is showing a little LOX/LCH4 going on there!
Anyone with any details about WHAT a PWR35M is, though?
--Nick
-
#16
by
kevin-rf
on 09 May, 2009 02:07
-
Wow, first the GX .pdf showing up on the ULA website and now this Orbital .pdf. The Delta II payload class space is getting quite exciting. Some one thinks that that launchers for this class are needed. Good find, and Orbital good luck tonight.
-
#17
by
zaitcev
on 09 May, 2009 02:16
-
It's going to be a riot of hilarity if the methane stage on Taurus II flies before GX. Japanese are more sensitive to the loss of face than us, too.
Meanwhile though, I'd love Taurus to fly period, even with Castor. Yuzhnoe has some detractors who say that the production is runing on parts made back in the 80s. And coincidentially, there's apparently a difficulty with producing Zenit right now and rumours circulate about Roskosmos may be taking rockets away from SeaLaunch. If Yuzhmash can make a tankage set for Taurus that succesfuly flies without feeding a fistful of "foreign particles" to AJ-26s, it will go a long way to support their credibility.
-- Pete
-
#18
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 09 May, 2009 04:51
-
Wow, first the GX .pdf showing up on the ULA website and now this Orbital .pdf. The Delta II payload class space is getting quite exciting.
With a LEO payload at 7.6 tonnes, the Taurus II with the "enhanced" 2nd stage would move beyond Delta II class - beyond even the Delta II Heavy class.
My question - what is the payload? Companies don't build rockets like this unless they're targeting a certain payload category.
- Ed Kyle
Perhaps COTS-D, GPS backup for EELV, or perhaps working to get in on the polar orbit market by flying a dog-leg out of Wallops?
-
#19
by
just-nick
on 10 May, 2009 15:48
-
Anyone with any details about WHAT a PWR35M is, though?
I shouldn't guess which one is right, but if I were going to guess, I would guess 35,000 pounds thrust (15.88 metric tonnes thrust).
I think you're right on that. A few weeks ago, Google had a cached copy of something called the "TaurusII_Brochure.pdf" I suspect it was accidentally posted. Anyhow, I just realized I had the good sense to save a copy locally when I first saw it. A couple added facts: 147kN thrust for the PWR35M, 1818kg dry weight and aluminum tank structure for the enhanced 2nd stage. Since 1818 kg is 4000 lbs, I suspect that's an example of false precision caused by units conversion and we are definitely still dealing with round figure estimates.
Cheers,
--Nick
