How would YOU evolve the Antares?

[thydusk666]

I'd like to hear how you would evolve the Antares rocket while being commercially competitive.

- Only using existing technology - expensive R&D excluded
- The rocket should be able to make money in 5 years.

[Hauerg]

I'd like to hear how you would evolve the Antares rocket while being commercially competitive.

- Only using existing technology - expensive R&D excluded
- The rocket should be able to make money in 5 years.

Not.
(I am glad it flies, but it is not something I wanted to win COTS back when it was a new idea.)

[thydusk666]

Why not? Competition is always good.

[rklaehn]

I'd like to hear how you would evolve the Antares rocket while being commercially competitive.

- Only using existing technology - expensive R&D excluded
- The rocket should be able to make money in 5 years.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31679

But it might just be that these requirements are contradictory. If somebody (SpaceX or Blue Origin or even a smaller outfit like XCOR) succeeds with reusability, there won't be a way to make money using expendable launch vehicles.

Orbital is in cooperation with StratoLaunch to develop the rocket that is to be launched by the StratoLaunch carrier aircraft.

Orbital also has developed the X-34 suborbital spaceplane that unfortunately has never been flown for various reasons, none were the fault of Orbital. They also do Pegasus.

So as a first step, launch Antares from the StratoLaunch carrier plane. That should give you increased payload and flexibility. As a second step, use the know how from X-34 development and Pegasus to develop an antares-based reusable winged stage for use with the StratoLaunch carrier plane. For the second rocket stage it might make sense to keep the Castor 30 XL.

Then gradually increase the performance of the reusable winged stage until you have a subsonic airlaunch assisted SSTO.

[bad_astra]

I'd put a Gemini capsule on it and launch people.

[R7]

Add AJ26-59 to the first stage, swap the Castor for AJ26-60 and make the whole thing reusable.

Oh wait...

[thydusk666]

Add AJ26-59 to the first stage, swap the Castor for AJ26-60 and make the whole thing reusable.

Oh wait...

Would the Aerojet engines be able to cheaply handle the large number of flights linked to re-usability?

[thydusk666]

I'd put a Gemini capsule on it and launch people.

That would definitely give ASAP something new to work on 

[R7]

Would the Aerojet engines be able to cheaply handle the large number of flights linked to re-usability?

George Mueller thought so

[edkyle99]

I'd like to hear how you would evolve the Antares rocket while being commercially competitive.
- Only using existing technology - expensive R&D excluded
- The rocket should be able to make money in 5 years.

I would stick with Orbital's plan.  They seem to know what they're doing.

They're going to add a small bipropellant maneuvering stage for non-Cygnus LEO missions and a Star 48V third stage for higher energy missions.  They're likely going to have Aerojet run up the thrust on those NK-33 engines by another 5% or so.  They may set up a West Coast launch pad. 

At that point Antares will be a Delta II replacement.  Remember Delta II?  A pretty darn busy rocket in its day.  It is now shorn of GPS work, but that accounted for less than half of its launches.  Antares will have no U.S. based competition in this specific payload class.

Someday, if it wanted, Orbital could add a high energy upper stage and make Antares into a 4-5 tonne to GTO rocket, touching the lower edge of the EELV capability (and nearly equaling what Titan III Commercial could do).

 - Ed Kyle

[Mr. D]

If I may be a cynic (it's my speciality!):
1) It sure sounds like they're going to be developing a high(er than Castor) energy upper stage for Stratolaunch (at least that's what the model is kinda implying) so:
2) Migrate that upper stage to Antares. R&D paid for by Stratolaunch.
3) (optional) Let Stratolaunch fail.

In parallel: get a polar and sun sync launch pad. VAFB or Kodiak would do fine.

Hopefully the upper stage commonality might reduce fixed cost per project. You might also get other derivatives using the same upper stage. Like put it on top of one or two Castor 120's or something.

Notice: I am not a rocket scientist, or engineer.

[Prober]

How would YOU evolve the Antares?
 
I could tell you......but first I'd have to get a check in hand.

[simonbp]

I'd hire XCOR to build an LH2/LOX stage sized to optimise GTO payload...

[wolfpack]

I'd fix it so it launches when I'm at Wallops instead of in Raleigh!

Was so looking forward to the kids seeing it go off on Saturday.

[thydusk666]

How about increasing the performance range by strapping 2-3-4-5 RP-1/LOX cross-fed boosters?

Since Orbital has pretty much built the Antares by "shopping around", how difficult would be for them to handle or outsource (Yuzhnoye Design Bureau) the buildout of such liquid boosters, with already available (Russian) engines such as RD-107?

If separated at lower altitude, they may even be able to recover these boosters with an RTL parachute landing system from Armadillo.

p.s. I know, rockets are not Legos

[Lobo]

I would stick with Orbital's plan.  They seem to know what they're doing.

They're going to add a small bipropellant maneuvering stage for non-Cygnus LEO missions and a Star 48V third stage for higher energy missions.  They're likely going to have Aerojet run up the thrust on those NK-33 engines by another 5% or so.  They may set up a West Coast launch pad. 

At that point Antares will be a Delta II replacement.  Remember Delta II?  A pretty darn busy rocket in its day.  It is now shorn of GPS work, but that accounted for less than half of its launches.  Antares will have no U.S. based competition in this specific payload class.

Someday, if it wanted, Orbital could add a high energy upper stage and make Antares into a 4-5 tonne to GTO rocket, touching the lower edge of the EELV capability (and nearly equaling what Titan III Commercial could do).

 - Ed Kyle

Yea, I think this sounds pretty good.

I think that the current Antares with the planned Castor 30A, then 30B, then 30XL upper stage fly out OSC’s ISS supply contract, and maybe do some other LEO commercial payloads.  I think they have enough NK33/AJ26’s for 19 more Antares launches? 
After that, Aerojet plans seem to be to make their own AJ26, based on the NK33 but with everything built in the US and with the thrust bumped up to about 500klbs.  Although, since I don’t think there’s any immediate market for this new “AJ26-500” by itself, I think the plan now maybe be to go straight to a dual thrust chamber version of this engine, which would be the “AJ-1E6”.  Two 500klbs thrust chambers for 1M lbs total. Basically an upgraded RD-180.  I think Antares will be upgraded for this single dual thrust chamber engine, much like the Atlas V core.  Maybe a core stretch and some tweaking of the MPS.  Much like SpaceX did with Falcon 9 v1.1.  This will be Antares v1.1 
And I think Aerojet hopes to compete for the SLS Advanced boosters with an LRB with four of these AJ-1E6’s. 

If they keep the Castor upper stage, and keep costs down, they could compete in that Delta II market like Ed said.  However, what does the Delta II cost compared to the Falcon 9?  F9 has more capacity, but if it’s about the same price, then F9 would already be competing in the Delta II market.  Antares can too.  I’m assuming the Castor upper stage will be much cheaper than either the Delta K upper stage for Delta II, or Falcon upper stage for F9?  Because a solid upper stage should be cheaper than a liquid stage?  (Someone can correct me if that’s wrong).
So that could give Antares a cost advantage in that market.  The “Antares v1.1” core would give a better boost, and improve overall performance even using a solid upper stage.

Beyond that, as Ed says, they could add a high energy upper stage and compete in the Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9 market.  And interesting possibility would be to use an NK43/AJ26-59, which is the upper stage version of the NK33.  And keep the engines common.  They’d probably have to derate it though on an LV the size of Antaries, because NK43/AJ26-59 is almost 400Klbs vacuum.  And I’d imagine the AJ26-500 version would be over 500klbs in vacuum. 
But, if they could derate it to around 100klbs vacuum, they’d basically have an upper stage with better ISP than the Merlin-1-Vacuum.  More like an RD-0124.  That could be an optional upper stage.  They could go a hydrolox upper stage, but then they’d have to add a whole hydrolox system to the pad, and it would probably be a pretty different upper stage from the core.  A kerolox upper stage using a derated AJ26-59 could be made with all the same tooling as the core, and the kerolox is already at the pad.  And they’d need a hydrolox engine, etc.

I’d guess that’s all you’d see from Antares for some time.  I don’t know if there’s enough large commercial payloads to warrant some sort of tri-core heavy version.  Plus that would require a pad redesign.  And like SpaceX will have to deal with, if they plan to go after government payloads, they will probably have to add vertical integration.  That’s getting quite a ways away from what they have now there at Wallops.  They might want to try to partner with NASA for use of KSC in that event.  Not sure if there’s enough payloads in that EELV-heavy class to warrant another player though.

[edkyle99]

If they keep the Castor upper stage, and keep costs down, they could compete in that Delta II market like Ed said.  However, what does the Delta II cost compared to the Falcon 9?  F9 has more capacity, but if it’s about the same price, then F9 would already be competing in the Delta II market. 

Falcon 9v1.1 is well beyond the Antares/Delta II class.  V1.1 is bigger, with a bigger ground footprint, etc., and will, I believe, cost more (no matter the current list price). 

Delta II itself will go away after its final four (or five) launches.   They've already locked the gates at Cape Canaveral SLC 17, since only Vandenberg launches are now planned.

 - Ed Kyle

[Lurker Steve]

I'd like to hear how you would evolve the Antares rocket while being commercially competitive.
- Only using existing technology - expensive R&D excluded
- The rocket should be able to make money in 5 years.

I would stick with Orbital's plan.  They seem to know what they're doing.

They're going to add a small bipropellant maneuvering stage for non-Cygnus LEO missions and a Star 48V third stage for higher energy missions.  They're likely going to have Aerojet run up the thrust on those NK-33 engines by another 5% or so.  They may set up a West Coast launch pad. 

At that point Antares will be a Delta II replacement.  Remember Delta II?  A pretty darn busy rocket in its day.  It is now shorn of GPS work, but that accounted for less than half of its launches.  Antares will have no U.S. based competition in this specific payload class.

Someday, if it wanted, Orbital could add a high energy upper stage and make Antares into a 4-5 tonne to GTO rocket, touching the lower edge of the EELV capability (and nearly equaling what Titan III Commercial could do).

 - Ed Kyle

Obviously, Orbital has a pretty decent eye on what size LV is required for the market. I assume this will be the last launch of Pegasus because there aren't enough payloads of the correct size. Now they are also growing Minotaur because the customer requires more lift.

They are probably wise to stay away from the Atlas V / F9 size range for now, since that extra capability will probably result in a more expensive LV. They can probably be price-competive in the lower end of the market, at least for their target payloads with NASA and the DOD. How many non-NASA/DOD payloads has Orbital ever launched anyway ?

[deltaV]

Do we have any hints at Antares cost other than Orbital's CRS bid? Have any payloads its size selected a launch recently? If so did Antares win them?

[Danderman]

Plan A: Contract with Yuznoye to use Zenit 2nd stage tooling to build a liquid second stage using NK-39 (altitude version) as an engine.

or

Plan B: Use the eventual Blue Origin LH2 engine, and provide DoD with EELV class performance.

Plan A provide 50% of Zenit performance, whereas Plan B is much more capable.