-
Antares - How much is actually built by Orbital?
by
mlindner
on 16 Apr, 2013 23:10
-
I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the vehicle, but from looking around it doesn't appear that Orbital had much hand in the design of the vehicle.
The engines are NK-33 from the old Soviet N1. The first stage was designed by Yuzhnoye SDO. The second stage is designed by ATK. So from what I'm seeing this is only 1/2 to 1/3 American (depending on how you count stages) and none of it is designed by Orbital? Did they build the avionics package for the first or second stage?
-
#1
by
arachnitect
on 17 Apr, 2013 00:34
-
A rocket is more than the sum of its parts.
And yes, the avionics are by Orbital.
-
#2
by
Kabloona
on 17 Apr, 2013 01:09
-
Systems engineering on a project like this is the most difficult, and critical, part of the whole effort, I would argue, and easily overlooked in the "who built what" discussion.
Also, let's not confuse the S2 *motor* which is ATK's with the whole stage...
By reductio ad absurdum you could argue that Orbital didn't design/build much of Pegasus because all the stage motors were designed and built by Hercules. But of course that would ignore all the system design, systems engineering, software, GNC, avionics, GSE, carrier aircraft design mods, launch site integration and test, etc, done by Orbital.
-
#3
by
deltaV
on 17 Apr, 2013 01:14
-
And Chris B. didn't build NSF. At least not unless his day job involves running a semiconductor fab and a hard drive manufacturer and he moonlights as an operating system developer and...
-
#4
by
fregate
on 17 Apr, 2013 01:32
-
I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the vehicle, but from looking around it doesn't appear that Orbital had much hand in the design of the vehicle.
The engines are NK-33 from the old Soviet N1. The first stage was designed by Yuzhnoye SDO. The second stage is designed by ATK. So from what I'm seeing this is only 1/2 to 1/3 American (depending on how you count stages) and none of it is designed by Orbital? Did they build the avionics package for the first or second stage?
FYI NK-33 LREs were intended for Soviet N-1 Launch Vehicle, but had been created later in 70s (NK-33 LRE is derived from the earlier NK-15, 30xNK-15 had been used on first stage of N-1 during 4 unsuccessful launches).
The rest is the history...
-
#5
by
strata8
on 17 Apr, 2013 01:59
-
From Orbital's Antares factsheet:
Orbital Sciences Corporation
- Prime integrator, systems engineering, avionics, primary structure, testing and software
- Overall Stage 1 development and integration
KB Yuzhnoye/Yuzhmash
- Stage 1 core design, production and verification
Aerojet
- Stage 1 engines
ATK
- Stage 2 motor
Even if the majority of the components aren't manufactured by Orbital, there a very not insignificant amount of work that goes into actually assembling the thing.
-
#6
by
antonioe
on 17 Apr, 2013 02:09
-
Forgot: fairing, telemetry, flight termination system, GN&C software, launch pad interface (hold-down, umbilicals, fuel/oxidizer/nitrogen/helium loading and pressurization system) thrust vector control, stage and payload separation systems, upper stage reaction (attitude) control systems, countdown sequencer and ground display/control consoles, propellant and gases loading control and display consoles... just to name a few.
Oh! And the parts have to fit. Duck tape not allowed.
-
#7
by
mlindner
on 17 Apr, 2013 05:52
-
Systems engineering on a project like this is the most difficult, and critical, part of the whole effort, I would argue, and easily overlooked in the "who built what" discussion.
I would agree. Integrating parts from several countries from a multitude of companies that were never designed/intended to work with each other does sound like a complex task.
To everyone else, thanks for all the useful factoids. The whole concept of buying someone else's non-mass produced products or even custom produced products to make something else has always rubbed me the wrong way. The airlines do this as well and it has always bugged me as well.
Anyway, I think the question has been satisfactorily answered now.
-
#8
by
a_langwich
on 17 Apr, 2013 07:35
-
Forgot: fairing, telemetry, flight termination system, GN&C software, launch pad interface (hold-down, umbilicals, fuel/oxidizer/nitrogen/helium loading and pressurization system) thrust vector control, stage and payload separation systems, upper stage reaction (attitude) control systems, countdown sequencer and ground display/control consoles, propellant and gases loading control and display consoles... just to name a few.
Oh! And the parts have to fit. Duck tape not allowed.
Yes. All these posts have focused on the simple meaning of "built"...there's also the aspect of who had the stones (and money or access to money) to plop down hundreds of millions of dollars, and contract to pay for those other parts, and submit the bids to NASA and respond to their feedback, and attach their name to the venture for good or ill, on what is still a very risky venture.
Good luck^H^H^H^H...may your stochastic events be favorable.
-
#9
by
Lurker Steve
on 17 Apr, 2013 13:41
-
I was thinking about the first stage this morning. This is Orbital's first LV with a liquid first stage, right ?
Exactly what were the options here :
1. Build out a new factory for creating a liquid first stage. Huge capital investment for a factory that will be under-utilized most of the time.
2. Find someone else to build the stage for us. What domestic options are there ? Who builds liquid first stages in the US that isn't the competition (ULA, SpaceX) ?
3. Find a global partner with experience in building RP1/LOX stages of this size that has some spare production capacity in their existing factory.
It turns out that #3 happens to be the most logical choice every time.
-
#10
by
Lar
on 17 Apr, 2013 15:16
-
It turns out that #3 happens to be the most logical choice every time.
For the expected volumes I totally agree. SpaceX is betting on higher volumes though, apparently...
Maybe someday soon the market will be big enough that Orbital will revisit this decision because they are flush with business.
-
#11
by
kevin-rf
on 17 Apr, 2013 19:35
-
Oh! And the parts have to fit. Duck tape not allowed.
What about aviation grade Speed Tape
-
#12
by
Kabloona
on 17 Apr, 2013 21:12
-
Oh! And the parts have to fit. Duck tape not allowed.
What about aviation grade Speed Tape
Could have used some of that today on the S2 umbilical...
-
#13
by
antonioe
on 19 Apr, 2013 00:59
-
Oh! And the parts have to fit. Duck tape not allowed.
What about aviation grade Speed Tape
The folks out at Dryden call it "Mach 3 tape" and have proof of it (SR-71.)
-
#14
by
kevin-rf
on 19 Apr, 2013 01:15
-
So with the disconnect, is Wallops gonna one up them and push it to Mach 25?
-
#15
by
antonioe
on 19 Apr, 2013 02:15
-
Yeah, but the Q is wimpy...
-
#16
by
antonioe
on 08 May, 2013 14:43
-
The war of words continues...
Can you spot at least four things wrong with the following sentence (from an <a href="
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-25/what-spacex-can-teach-us-about-cost-innovation.html> article "about" SpaceX[/url]):
"Another similar space venture is still using fuel-inefficient surplus Russian rocket engines built in the 1960's that cost more to run and maintain over time. Due to their finite number, the company has a limited future unless like SpaceX it develops its own engine."
I find the date the article was issued (April 25) interesting...
-
#17
by
Kabloona
on 08 May, 2013 15:05
-
The war of words continues...
Can you spot at least four things wrong with the following sentence (from an <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-25/what-spacex-can-teach-us-about-cost-innovation.html> article "about" SpaceX[/url]):
"Another similar space venture is still using fuel-inefficient surplus Russian rocket engines built in the 1960's that cost more to run and maintain over time. Due to their finite number, the company has a limited future unless like SpaceX it develops its own engine."
I find the date the article was issued (April 25) interesting...
OK, I'll bite:
1. Fuel ineffcient??
2. Cost more to run??
3. Finite number?? Umm, yes, until more are built...just like Merlins are finite in number...until more are built...
4. Limited future unless own engine developed??
Ah, the indignities.
-
#18
by
randomly
on 08 May, 2013 15:05
-
The profound level of ignorance in that article is stunning. It's rather scary that such stuff is published and read and given credibility in the business world.
-
#19
by
jnc
on 08 May, 2013 15:07
-
Can you spot at least four things wrong with the following sentence
Eh, don't you know that
reporters management consultants are the smartest people on earth?! A mere rocket scientist, no matter how long and distinguished their career, just doesn't understand as much as they do!
(Speaking of careers in aerospace, my wife and I were just discussing that last night. As a computer science person, I did my most important work in my late 20's, whereas as an aerospace person, she's just now getting to the top of the heap. Very different career trajectories [sic].)
Noel
