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.

[Hyperion5]

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

"Not only can we sustain the prices, but the next version of Falcon 9 is actually able to go to a lower price," warned Mr Musk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20389148

I would think if Orbital ever upgrades the Antares, the above statement might worry them about its possible prospects.  I have my doubts that Orbital could handle a price war between an upgraded Antares and the Falcon 9 v1.1. 

[Bob Shaw]

The problem with Antares is the business of running out of engines. Unless they get any upgrade path just right, then they risk a gap in flights which would rapidly become terminal. So, as a major goal they must get their engine sourcing worked out as quickly as possible. Interesting upper stages are well and good, but perform no function without a first stage to ride.

Orbital has demonstrated that Lego brick launch vehicles are indeed possible; let us hope that they find another suitable slot-in solution!

[douglas100]

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

Too complicated and too expensive. The ground infrastructure would have to be rebuilt to handle liquid strap on boosters. Recovery and cross feed are unnecessary for a vehicle in the Delta II class. Some of the ideas posted immediately above are more likely.

[Danderman]

The problem with Antares is the business of running out of engines. Unless they get any upgrade path just right, then they risk a gap in flights which would rapidly become terminal. So, as a major goal they must get their engine sourcing worked out as quickly as possible. Interesting upper stages are well and good, but perform no function without a first stage to ride.

There are probably at least 7 years worth of engines lying around now, so Orbital has a little time to get their hands on more engines down the road.  The fewer NK-33s available, the more the value of more capable upper stages, which would leverage those first stage engines.

BTW, don't forget that NK-43s could be converted to NK-33 quite easily.

[Lurker Steve]

The problem with Antares is the business of running out of engines. Unless they get any upgrade path just right, then they risk a gap in flights which would rapidly become terminal. So, as a major goal they must get their engine sourcing worked out as quickly as possible. Interesting upper stages are well and good, but perform no function without a first stage to ride.

There are probably at least 7 years worth of engines lying around now, so Orbital has a little time to get their hands on more engines down the road.  The fewer NK-33s available, the more the value of more capable upper stages, which would leverage those first stage engines.

BTW, don't forget that NK-43s could be converted to NK-33 quite easily.

And that Aerojet is working on a new production of a domestic AJ-26 as part of the SLS advanced booster contract.

[Bob Shaw]

It'll be interesting to see how the multi-national outsourcing of Orbital performs compared to the strict vertical integration of SpaceX - this looks like a test case for future MBA dissertations!

[Lobo]

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

Do we know what the costs are likely to be between F9 v1.1, Antares, and Delta 2 going forward?  What I'm pointing out is if F9 is about the price of Delta 2 or Antares, then the larger class of F9 is moot.  If the cost is the same, there's no reason not to launch a 5mt payload on F9, right?
That's only if price is directly proportional to lift capability.  That's been the rule of thumb for a long time, but with these new commercial players?  Might not be the case.  Antares will have to be notably cheaper than F9 for the 5mt payload customers to want to use it.  If OSC can make Antares notably cheaper than F9, then that's the only way I see them carving out a market for themselves. 

If they could launch Antares for say 70% of the price of a F9 with half the payload, then they can scoop up those Delta 2 class customers Away from SpaceX.
Otherwise they might struggle against the other players.
Soyuz, is another player in that class.  What about Long March?

[Lurker Steve]

They could be 95 percent the price of the F9. It doesn't matter as long as the payload fits and they are only competing on price / schedule. The customer doesn't care about excess capability or re-usability. They only care about getting their payload to orbit.

[edkyle99]

It'll be interesting to see how the multi-national outsourcing of Orbital performs compared to the strict vertical integration of SpaceX - this looks like a test case for future MBA dissertations!

Yes, but again they will not be in the same payload class and so will not compete head to head. 

Look at all of the money SpaceX has to have poured into SLC 4E, SLC 40, McGregor, Hawthorne, and now it is looking at yet a third launch site somewhere.  Orbital, by comparison, has used existing engines, used an existing Ukrainian production line, leveraged a DoD solid motor development program for its upper stage, and got the government to help pay for its launch facilities.   

Another wrinkle is that Orbital also builds satellites and might be able to offer a package deal in some cases that SpaceX won't be able to offer.

 - Ed Kyle

[Lurker Steve]

It'll be interesting to see how the multi-national outsourcing of Orbital performs compared to the strict vertical integration of SpaceX - this looks like a test case for future MBA dissertations!

Yes, but again they will not be in the same payload class and so will not compete head to head. 

Look at all of the money SpaceX has to have poured into SLC 4E, SLC 40, McGregor, Hawthorne, and now it is looking at yet a third launch site somewhere.  Orbital, by comparison, has used existing engines, used an existing Ukrainian production line, leveraged a DoD solid motor development program for its upper stage, and got the government to help pay for its launch facilities.   

Another wrinkle is that Orbital also builds satellites and might be able to offer a package deal in some cases that SpaceX won't be able to offer.

 - Ed Kyle

Any idea what it costs Aerojet to lease a test stand at Stennis vs how much it cost SpaceX to develop their own facilities in McGregor ?

[Lobo]

They could be 95 percent the price of the F9. It doesn't matter as long as the payload fits and they are only competing on price / schedule. The customer doesn't care about excess capability or re-usability. They only care about getting their payload to orbit.

Depends on the track record difference at that time.  Let's say in two Years, if SpaceX has 20 successful launches, and OSC has 5 or 6, if OSC is 95% of SpaceX, I don't think that's going to cut it.  They need to be below SpaceX's price enough for people to take a chance on them.
I think Jim has made that case again and again with ULA's reliability.

But, that's actually a secondary issue.  -Will- Antares be 95% of an F9?  Or will it be 100% of it?  or 110% of it?  or 120% of it?  Or 200% of it?
The fact that F9 can throw up twice what a customer needs isn't imporant, as you said, their price is (as well as track record). 
If a rocket that's twice as powerful as you need costs a little less and has a longer track recrod...why would you not go with it?

I'm just looking at this from a standard free market economics stand point.  SpaceX is entering the market [potentiall] a LOT cheaper than similar LV's in Atlas and Delta.  And [according to Elon anyway] FH will be cheaper than Araine V.  And certainly Delta 4-heavy.  He's claiming to be cheaper than the Russians and Chinese too.
SpaceX is the new kid on the block, and they need to be cheap enough to get customer to take a chance on them.  Once they become established, you might see those prices go up as they develop a track record. 
In a year or two, Antares will be available for commercial payloads, and they'll be the new kid on the block.  They'll have to be cheaper than the competition, and maybe a good deal cheaper, to get customers to try them.  At least at first.

Now, if they can offer Delta II class payloads at a total launch cost of reasonably less than SpaceX, I think that -is- a good niche they could carve out.  I don't know what the Castor 30A/B/XL upper stage costs compared to the Falcon upper stage, but I'd assume it's cheaper.  A simple solid stage vs. a liquid stage.  And if the booster is roughly the same cost as the F9 booster, and OSC's operations overhead can be kept to similar that of SpaceX's, then I think they might have a good shot at offering that Delta II class LV for maybe 70-80% of an F9 launch, and that might be enough to get potential customers to give them a try.

[jnc]

SpaceX is the new kid on the block, and they need to be cheap enough to get customer to take a chance on them.  Once they become established, you might see those prices go up as they develop a track record. 
In a year or two, Antares will be available for commercial payloads, and they'll be the new kid on the block.

You need to differentiate between SpaceX and Orbital (the organizations) on the one hand, and Antares and Falcon-9 (the launch vehicles) on the other.

As an organization, Orbitl has a much, much longer i) history, and ii) launch track record.

Which is not to say that SpaceX isn't doing a good job, and the Falcon-9 seems to be a fine launch vehicle. But SpaceX as an organization is much younger.

Noel

[simonbp]

It'll be interesting to see how the multi-national outsourcing of Orbital performs compared to the strict vertical integration of SpaceX - this looks like a test case for future MBA dissertations!

Yes, but again they will not be in the same payload class and so will not compete head to head. 

Look at all of the money SpaceX has to have poured into SLC 4E, SLC 40, McGregor, Hawthorne, and now it is looking at yet a third launch site somewhere.  Orbital, by comparison, has used existing engines, used an existing Ukrainian production line, leveraged a DoD solid motor development program for its upper stage, and got the government to help pay for its launch facilities.   

Antares was designed to be profitable with just a few launches per year, which explains the relatively light investment.

Another wrinkle is that Orbital also builds satellites and might be able to offer a package deal in some cases that SpaceX won't be able to offer.

IIRC, this was the entire point; Orbital was doing good business selling Delta II-class spacecraft and didn't want to loose it when Delta II went away. I'm pretty sure they make far more money off of the satellites than that the rockets. If in the future it's significantly cheaper to launch Delta II-class payloads on a reusable Falcon, I can imagine Orbital quietly dropping Antares and optimising satellites for Falcon. They are quite good at this whole capitalism thing...

[Lobo]

It'll be interesting to see how the multi-national outsourcing of Orbital performs compared to the strict vertical integration of SpaceX - this looks like a test case for future MBA dissertations!

Yes, but again they will not be in the same payload class and so will not compete head to head. 

Look at all of the money SpaceX has to have poured into SLC 4E, SLC 40, McGregor, Hawthorne, and now it is looking at yet a third launch site somewhere.  Orbital, by comparison, has used existing engines, used an existing Ukrainian production line, leveraged a DoD solid motor development program for its upper stage, and got the government to help pay for its launch facilities.   

Another wrinkle is that Orbital also builds satellites and might be able to offer a package deal in some cases that SpaceX won't be able to offer.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, Antares has the -potential- to be cheaper than F9...but will it in reality?  That's the multi-million dollar question...pardon the pun.

In reality, they pretty much -have- to be in order to have a chance at surviving beyond just the ISS commercial cargo contract.  So I think they -will- be...or Antares will go away after the cargo contract expires unless they land another ISS contract after that.

[Lobo]

SpaceX is the new kid on the block, and they need to be cheap enough to get customer to take a chance on them.  Once they become established, you might see those prices go up as they develop a track record. 
In a year or two, Antares will be available for commercial payloads, and they'll be the new kid on the block.

You need to differentiate between SpaceX and Orbital (the organizations) on the one hand, and Antares and Falcon-9 (the launch vehicles) on the other.

As an organization, Orbitl has a much, much longer i) history, and ii) launch track record.

Which is not to say that SpaceX isn't doing a good job, and the Falcon-9 seems to be a fine launch vehicle. But SpaceX as an organization is much younger.

Noel

Ummm...ok...OSC launching -Antares-...needs to be proven.

[edkyle99]

Yes, Antares has the -potential- to be cheaper than F9...but will it in reality?  That's the multi-million dollar question...pardon the pun.

I'll come out and say exactly what I believe will happen.

Antares will be cheaper than Falcon 9 (v1.1). 

That doesn't mean that Falcon 9 won't also prosper.  It should cost more, because it will lift more.

 - Ed Kyle

[Hyperion5]

Yes, Antares has the -potential- to be cheaper than F9...but will it in reality?  That's the multi-million dollar question...pardon the pun.

I'll come out and say exactly what I believe will happen.

Antares will be cheaper than Falcon 9 (v1.1). 

That doesn't mean that Falcon 9 won't also prosper.  It should cost more, because it will lift more.

 - Ed Kyle

I think the real key to determining which is cheaper isn't total price, but price per kg to orbit.  On this mark, I would expect Spacex to triumph over Orbital until Orbital gets more ambitious with the Antares.  I also like to point out, Ed, that the Falcon Heavy rocket is going to both out-mass and out-lift the Ariane 5.  The Ariane 5 however is also more expensive.  Until Orbital starts posting prices, we really can only theorize one way or another. 

If there's another good reason why Spacex would be able to charge more, I say look no further than the Antares' upper stages.  The Falcon US has a restartable LRE, while Orbital has opted for low-cost solids.  If Orbital really wants to compete with Spacex for more market, a restartable LRE up top is a must.  All of the top competitors in the global launch market have that (the Russians, Chinese, Spacex) or will soon (Ariane).  So while I would give top priority to having a successor ready for the AJ-26 engines (AKA modernized NK-33 engines), my second priority would be a restartable LRE up top.  Whether its hydrolox, methalox or kerolox probably matters less than a restart capability to add needed mission flexibility. 

[Lobo]

Yes, Antares has the -potential- to be cheaper than F9...but will it in reality?  That's the multi-million dollar question...pardon the pun.

I'll come out and say exactly what I believe will happen.

Antares will be cheaper than Falcon 9 (v1.1). 

That doesn't mean that Falcon 9 won't also prosper.  It should cost more, because it will lift more.

 - Ed Kyle

I have no idea if that's going to be the case or not.  We'll have to see.  Hopefully for Orbital's sake, you are correct.  If so, they could have a nice little niche in the market for themselves.

[arachnitect]

I think the real key to determining which is cheaper isn't total price, but price per kg to orbit.  On this mark, I would expect Spacex to triumph over Orbital until Orbital gets more ambitious with the Antares.

US Govt. has a whole bunch of payloads that are way smaller than F9 performance. Any extra performance, no matter it's marginal cost, is wasted. Look at the manifest for the recent past and next few years: OCO-2 flying on a Delta II, LDCM flying on an AV 401, etc.

The payloads are a certain size. If (all else being equal) Orbital can get a JPSS or whatever to orbit for a buck less, they get the contract and the taxpayers save a dollar.

Of course if SpaceX can sell an F9 for less than OSC needs for an A131, then they get the contract, extra performance or not.

If there's another good reason why Spacex would be able to charge more, I say look no further than the Antares' upper stages.  The Falcon US has a restartable LRE, while Orbital has opted for low-cost solids.  If Orbital really wants to compete with Spacex for more market, a restartable LRE up top is a must. 

The Bi-Propellant Third Stage OSC have proposed is essential for Antares' future. A west coast launch site wouldn't hurt either; I understand that SSO is possible from Wallops, but the trajectories hurt to look at.

The determining factor in all this may be the interaction between post-CRS cargo flights and the engine stockpile: if Orbital wins just a few (or no) additional Cygnus runs, they may decide to fly out CRS, use up the engines, forget about a new launch site and third stages and just shut the program down. It would be a shame, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

[strangequark]

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

I'd uprate the AJs, fly for a few years, let XCOR's engines and cryo-composites get some flight history on Lynx to see how they pan out, and then have them build a methane-lox upper stage optimized for GTO/BEO payload.

The piston engines are really interesting to me because they offer the possibility of leveling the cost field between liquids and solids, while retaining the performance benefits of the former. I say methane-lox because you get 85% the Isp of hydrolox with a propellant combination that has 2.5 times the density and is much easier to handle. I say wait on Lynx because XCOR is young, and piston engines relatively unproven. Ground testing is great, and I commend their progress, but the proof is in the accumulated flight time.

-With all that said, the above is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of David Thompson, Antonio Elias, Frank Culbertson, or any of the other guys who

a) Would make that decision.
B) Know what it takes to actually close the business case for a rocket.

[thydusk666]

Thank you all for your comments.

I agree that new strategies have to be drawn out considering SpaceX is expected to cast its shadow over many competitors. But this is not a bad thing, as it can only lead to strong competition, which in turn, produces great things like innovation, invention and (hopefully) lower prices.

On a side note, I think OSC has done a great job by integrating existing systems from different suppliers around the Globe, into a fully functional rocket!
If I'm not mistaken, this has never quite happened before, at least at this scale.

I am really curious how this strategy will play out on a longer term and if it will allow competitive $/kg.

Go Orbital!

[Jim]

I think the real key to determining which is cheaper isn't total price, but price per kg to orbit.

No, it is total price.  That's how they are marketed and bought.  A customer has a spacecraft, he is going to look at what the cheapest cost to put that spacecraft into orbit.  Excess LV is of no use to him on less it can be translated into spacecraft propellant being saved.  But for a LEO mission, that is unlikely.

[thydusk666]

I think the real key to determining which is cheaper isn't total price, but price per kg to orbit.

No, it is total price.  That's how they are marketed and bought.  A customer has a spacecraft, he is going to look at what the cheapest cost to put that spacecraft into orbit.  Excess LV is of no use to him on less it can be translated into spacecraft propellant being saved.  But for a LEO mission, that is unlikely.

Deppends on the marketing strategy, no?
I think once you publish a price/kg to LEO, commercial customers can have a better insight on what you're offering. Especially if you want to fill in the excess capacity with secondary payloads (cubesats for instance). Transparency is good PR, if you have competitive prices.

[Lurker Steve]

If you are looking to compare SpaceX and Orbital, read the following paragraph from their latest quarterly report :

For the remainder of the year, Orbital plans to conduct numerous major operational events, highlighted by two additional Antares launches and Cygnus spacecraft deployments to the International Space Station, the introduction of the Minotaur V rocket that will launch NASA's LADEE spacecraft into lunar orbit from Wallops Island, a Pegasus rocket launch carrying a NASA heliophysics satellite, a Minotaur I rocket launch of an Air Force satellite, the deployment of two or three commercial communications satellites, and one or two additional flights of the company's OBV interceptor booster.  In addition, the company expects to carry out several target vehicle launches as well as up to 15 additional suborbital research rocket missions.  Orbital will also deliver several additional systems for future missions or operational deployments

So, it appears Orbital will be MUCH busier on the launch pad than SpaceX. They just have multiple LVs that are sized (and priced) according to the customer need instead of one size fits all.

[Downix]

If you are looking to compare SpaceX and Orbital, read the following paragraph from their latest quarterly report :

For the remainder of the year, Orbital plans to conduct numerous major operational events, highlighted by two additional Antares launches and Cygnus spacecraft deployments to the International Space Station, the introduction of the Minotaur V rocket that will launch NASA's LADEE spacecraft into lunar orbit from Wallops Island, a Pegasus rocket launch carrying a NASA heliophysics satellite, a Minotaur I rocket launch of an Air Force satellite, the deployment of two or three commercial communications satellites, and one or two additional flights of the company's OBV interceptor booster.  In addition, the company expects to carry out several target vehicle launches as well as up to 15 additional suborbital research rocket missions.  Orbital will also deliver several additional systems for future missions or operational deployments

So, it appears Orbital will be MUCH busier on the launch pad than SpaceX. They just have multiple LVs that are sized (and priced) according to the customer need instead of one size fits all.

And the various launch vehicles use components which share tooling and expertise with each other, improving their overall cost without going for the "one size fits all" approach.

It makes Orbital far more flexible, while keeping their costs in-line.

[Hyperion5]

I think the real key to determining which is cheaper isn't total price, but price per kg to orbit.

No, it is total price.  That's how they are marketed and bought.  A customer has a spacecraft, he is going to look at what the cheapest cost to put that spacecraft into orbit.  Excess LV is of no use to him on less it can be translated into spacecraft propellant being saved.  But for a LEO mission, that is unlikely.

I can't quite agree with that statement, Jim, because it does not explain why the cheap Zenit is now regularly launched less than the much more expensive and larger Ariane 5.  I think this statement should be amended to: "A customer is going to look for the cheapest reliable way of putting a spacecraft into orbit".  Also, a low price per kg is crucial for firms like Spacex to make an otherwise over-sized LV attractive because it's reflected in a lower launch cost.  If a larger rocket has a similar launch price to a smaller rocket, I don't think most satellite firms would care about excess capacity.  They might however if it meant more margin for overcoming problems during launch (say losing an engine) if that increases reliability.   

[Jim]

They might however if it meant more margin for overcoming problems during launch (say losing an engine) if that increases reliability.   

False "reliability".  First stage  is less than 2/3 of the total flight time and the remaining time is with a single engine.

[spectre9]

RL-10 upper stage would be cool.

Expensive but might be worth it to really max out the performance.

[Zed_Noir]

RL-10 upper stage would be cool.

Then you need to install new LH GSE on the pad.

What the Antares need is a relatively cheap restartable KeroLox or hypergolic upper stage. Something like the AJ-10 on the Delta II.

My fantasy choice is for Orbital to buy some SuperDraco engines for a new upper stage. Of course only if SpaceX is willing to sell.

[Lobo]

RL-10 upper stage would be cool.

Then you need to install new LH GSE on the pad.

What the Antares need is a relatively cheap restartable KeroLox or hypergolic upper stage. Something like the AJ-10 on the Delta II.

My fantasy choice is for Orbital to buy some SuperDraco engines for a new upper stage. Of course only if SpaceX is willing to sell.

I think since they already have a kerolox 1st stage, kerolox at the pad, and a kerolox engine that's capable of being used as either a booster or upper stage engine, I'd think some sort of modified NK-33 to make it an NK-43, and maybe detune it for lower thrust (as the NK-43 would probably have much too much thrust to be used as an upper stage for Antares class payloads) would be the logic choice. 
That might add cost though over the Castor upper stage.  So if they are really just shooting for a lot cost Delta II equivalent, there might not be much reason for that.  Maybe as an option to compete for EELV class loads if they want?

 

[MATTBLAK]

The further use of Russian rocket engines is logical as there certainly is a family of available ones. A hypergolic upper engine is also a logical step - I can imagine an LR-91 from Titan might make a good choice as its thrust and efficiency is a bit better than the Castor BA or XLs that are Antares current upper stage. Such an upper stage stage along with the 550k thrust AJ26-500 engine first stage upgrade would turn Antares into a pretty formidable booster. And while we're playing rocket Lego, buying some solids from Aerojet as well as the LR-91 and mounting a pair or even a quartet of them would put the Antares into medium-heavy territory.

[Zed_Noir]

The further use of Russian rocket engines is logical as there certainly is a family of available ones. A hypergolic upper engine is also a logical step - I can imagine an LR-91 from Titan might make a good choice as its thrust and efficiency is a bit better than the Castor XL that is Antares current upper stage. Such an upper stage stage along with the 550k thrust AJ26-500 engine first stage upgrade would turn Antares into a pretty formidable booster. And while we're playing rocket Lego,  buying some solids from Aerojet as well as the LR-91 and mounting a pair or even a quartet of them would put the Antares into medium-heavy territory.

Recall someone (maybe Jorge) mention on another thread that Eastern Bloc booster cores are not compatible with SRM.

Besides the out of production status of the LR91. Which would need new facilities for re-development & production. It uses Aerozine 50 as fuel and is a gas generator hypergolic engine. Might not be cheap to find a turbo-pump supply source.

[Zed_Noir]

RL-10 upper stage would be cool.

Then you need to install new LH GSE on the pad.

What the Antares need is a relatively cheap restartable KeroLox or hypergolic upper stage. Something like the AJ-10 on the Delta II.

My fantasy choice is for Orbital to buy some SuperDraco engines for a new upper stage. Of course only if SpaceX is willing to sell.

I think since they already have a kerolox 1st stage, kerolox at the pad, and a kerolox engine that's capable of being used as either a booster or upper stage engine, I'd think some sort of modified NK-33 to make it an NK-43, and maybe detune it for lower thrust (as the NK-43 would probably have much too much thrust to be used as an upper stage for Antares class payloads) would be the logic choice. 
That might add cost though over the Castor upper stage.  So if they are really just shooting for a lot cost Delta II equivalent, there might not be much reason for that.  Maybe as an option to compete for EELV class loads if they want?

the idea was a cheap restartable liquid engine for a new  Antares upper stage,

A pump feed hypergolic engine should be a lot cheaper than a staged comubustion kerolox engine.

[MATTBLAK]

Yeah - kind of the reason I bought up the LR-91. Its not so many years out of production that bringing it back would be unfeasible. And I don't imagine it would be impossible to address the Aerozine 50 problem and changing to UDMH. But if that's in the too-hard basket, another engine that springs to mind is the old Ariane Viking engine that in its most recent form made 750kn or 17,000 pounds thrust. But that wouldn't be enough thrust and neither would the Delta II's AJ-110 series, even in a cluster of 4.

So I think a decent in-production candidate would be the Proton's RD-0212 engine with more than 320 seconds specific impulse and 640kn of thrust - about 138,000 pounds: http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0212.htm

[Lobo]

RL-10 upper stage would be cool.

Then you need to install new LH GSE on the pad.

What the Antares need is a relatively cheap restartable KeroLox or hypergolic upper stage. Something like the AJ-10 on the Delta II.

My fantasy choice is for Orbital to buy some SuperDraco engines for a new upper stage. Of course only if SpaceX is willing to sell.

I think since they already have a kerolox 1st stage, kerolox at the pad, and a kerolox engine that's capable of being used as either a booster or upper stage engine, I'd think some sort of modified NK-33 to make it an NK-43, and maybe detune it for lower thrust (as the NK-43 would probably have much too much thrust to be used as an upper stage for Antares class payloads) would be the logic choice. 
That might add cost though over the Castor upper stage.  So if they are really just shooting for a lot cost Delta II equivalent, there might not be much reason for that.  Maybe as an option to compete for EELV class loads if they want?

the idea was a cheap restartable liquid engine for a new  Antares upper stage,

A pump feed hypergolic engine should be a lot cheaper than a staged comubustion kerolox engine.

There is more than just the cost of the engine.  The cost of upgrading their pad and infrastructure to handle that too.  A kerolox stage could pretty much use all their existing assets.
I believe Aerojet bought the NK33's for like 1 million each?  Not sure how much they are charging OSC for them, but would an adequate hyperbolic engine be significantly cheaper that 1 million bucks or so?

[MATTBLAK]

Single NK33 it should be then! Does it need a nozzle extension for upper stage duties? Does it need to be throttled down for this use?

[Hyperion5]

Single NK33 it should be then! Does it need a nozzle extension for upper stage duties? Does it need to be throttled down for this use?

You would absolutely need to throttle down an NK-33, but even then, I believe they only throttle down to around ~55% of their maximum.  An RD-191 will throttle all the way down to 30% of maximum, but that's got way too much power for US work on the Antares, as does the NK-33.  In general, I stick to using the Saturn V as a guideline. 

The Saturn V design would suggest if we're trying to max this thing out while minimizing design issues, something with 1/7th-1/9th the thrust of the booster engines at sea level is a good choice.  Now I know people are objecting to putting a hydrogen supply at the pad and dealing with its issues, but it'd let you use the best-proportioned engine I can think of for this rocket, a Blue Origin BE-3 hydrolox engine.  The Antares is taking off with around 740,000 lbs of thrust at liftoff (due to pushing its engines over 100% rating).  A BE-3's 100,000 lbs of thrust would be ideally proportioned and deliver a big boost to the Antares' capabilities.  My only concern is I don't know if Blue Origin would sell such a great engine to a possible competitor. 

If there's a setup that would be engineering-feasible but not politically feasible, I'd say it's using a quartet of RD-0146 engines.  You should be able to fit them into a 3.9 m core and get a big boost in performance from their 463 seconds of Isp.  Their biggest fault is they're not restartable to my knowledge, and that to me makes them little better than what the Antares has now.  I think a restart capability on the 2nd stage is a must for any possible US upgrade.  If the Antares' engines are upgraded to AJ-500 engines, that'd open up a new range of possible US engines.  You might even be able to chance using the Zenit's RD-120 2nd stage engine.  I'd still detune and modify that engine to make it more ideal however. 

[hop]

Ariane Viking engine that in its most recent form made 750kn or 17,000 pounds thrust. But that wouldn't be enough thrust

I think you dropped a decimal there. 750kn is ~ 170,00 lbf (~76 tons) which is a bit much for an Antares upper stage. Remember they wanted to use the RD-0124, which is ~30 tons.

Even if it weren't too much engine, I very much doubt Orbital or any other western manufacturer wants to deal with hypergols in the quantities that would be needed for a second stage. But if they did, India still produces Viking derivatives for PSLV and GSLV...

Single NK33 it should be then! Does it need a nozzle extension for upper stage duties? Does it need to be throttled down for this use?

NK-33 with an extended nozzle exists, it's called an NK-43, but at 1700kn it's way too much engine.

[R7]

Single NK33 it should be then! Does it need a nozzle extension for upper stage duties?

Not necessarily. NK-33 vacuum Isp 331s (Astronautix.com) is better than both LR-91/RD-0212. NK-43 is 345s.

Has there been information floating around about how many NK-43s Aerojet bought, or were they all NK-33s? And is the 43 nozzle extension a "simple" bolt-on to 33, or entirely different regen nozzle?

Does it need to be throttled down for this use?

Depends on the rocket design, how large acceleration your stage and payload can handle?

[MATTBLAK]

Ariane Viking engine that in its most recent form made 750kn or 17,000 pounds thrust. But that wouldn't be enough thrust

I think you dropped a decimal there. 750kn is ~ 170,00 lbf (~76 tons) which is a bit much for an Antares upper stage. Remember they wanted to use the RD-0124, which is ~30 tons.

Even if it weren't too much engine, I very much doubt Orbital or any other western manufacturer wants to deal with hypergols in the quantities that would be needed for a second stage. But if they did, India still produces Viking derivatives for PSLV and GSLV...

Single NK33 it should be then! Does it need a nozzle extension for upper stage duties? Does it need to be throttled down for this use?

NK-33 with an extended nozzle exists, it's called an NK-43, but at 1700kn it's way too much engine.

Spit! You're right!! Thanks: I misread that as 75.8 kilonewtons when I looked it up, not 758kN. So it actually has more thrust than the RD-0212. Fascinating...

[russianhalo117]

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

I did read that Orbital is still looking at using SLC-17 and SLC-2 Delta facilities, but i have not heard anything additional since beginning of 2012. I also read that Lockheed Martin wants those facilities, but launcher was not identified.

[Falcon H]

How would I evolve antares? I would stretch the first stage and add a third NK-33 engine, then develope a liquid fueled second stage, if I wanted to further improve preformance, I could then add boosters (small solid fueled boosters like on the delta II or cores like on the falcon heavy).

[Jim]

I did read that Orbital is still looking at using SLC-17 and SLC-2 Delta facilities, but i have not heard anything additional since beginning of 2012. I also read that Lockheed Martin wants those facilities, but launcher was not identified.

SLC-17 is being raze.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

I did read that Orbital is still looking at using SLC-17 and SLC-2 Delta facilities, but i have not heard anything additional since beginning of 2012. I also read that Lockheed Martin wants those facilities, but launcher was not identified.

SLC-17 is being razed.

If they are building a pad at the Cape, SLC-36 might be the best bet for OSC.

As for VAFB...... SLC-2 won't be available for construction until NET late 2016. Wonder if the very old and disused SLC-1 site can be used instead? (don't see OSC going for Kodiak - too far away for such a big rocket)

[Lobo]

Single NK33 it should be then! Does it need a nozzle extension for upper stage duties?

Not necessarily. NK-33 vacuum Isp 331s (Astronautix.com) is better than both LR-91/RD-0212. NK-43 is 345s.

Has there been information floating around about how many NK-43s Aerojet bought, or were they all NK-33s? And is the 43 nozzle extension a "simple" bolt-on to 33, or entirely different regen nozzle?

This is getting into my point.  Aerojet must have purchased some NK-43’s because they have the “AJ26-59” which is their version of the NK-43. 
Or maybe the engine is identical, just with two nozzles?  Either way, when their stock runs out, they will need to make more themselves.  Hence the plans to make AJ26-500 and AJ-1E6 themselves.  I’m sure AJ26-500 is an upgrade they realized after studying and testing the NK-33 and realizing it was probably made in the typical Soviet fashion, with a lot of margin and conservatively.  With the current tech that’s available, I’m guessing they determined that it would be relatively easily to tweak the design to get 500klbs out of a chamber, by using some of margins built into it.  Now, by itself, there’s probably not an immediate customer for AJ26-500.  Antares would need two of them, and probably a core stretch to hold more fuel.  So, since you need two of them, they borrowed a page from Energomash and figured they’d put two thrust chambers together with a common turbo pump and get 1 Mlbs thrust with an AJ-1E6.  (Or AJ-1,000,000…I’m guessing that’s where the “1E6” comes from?)  That’d simplify the MPS for Antares a bit I think as it would have just one 2-thrust chamber engine with one gimbal.  Much like Atlas V and RD-180. 

As many of us have said, NK-43 at full throttle would be too much thrust for current Antares, or “Antares v1.1” with a core stretch and AJ-1E6.  It would be about 390klbs according to Astruantix.
But less over powered for Antares v1.1.  OSC has a deal with ATK to develop Castor 30XL so I don’t think we’ll see a different upper stage on Antares v1.  They’ll fly that for awhile and establish the brand.  And wait to see if there’s a market share they want to go after with more performance than Antares v1 and v1.1 with Castor 30XL upper stages could do.  If so, they can consider a kerolox upper stage using the Antares tooling (basically, a short Atanres core as the upper stage, like Falcon 9’s upper stage.), with a single chamber NK-43/AJ26-59.  They don’t need the more powerful AJ26-500 version, because even the AJ26-59 version is too powerful.  So they might just make them without the extra performance, and in fact, detune it to get the thrust down to around 125-150klbs for the 1M lb Antares v1.1.  Falcon 9v 1.1 will have about an 8.2:1 ratio of booster thrust to upper stage thrust., so 125-150klbs should be about right.  I’m no rocket scientist, but I don’t think that would be a hard thing to do.  (Usually you are trying to go the other way and squeeze more out!)

Even though the thrust chamber is over sized for what’s needed for Antares, commonality and synergy are kept.  That seems to have worked well for SpaceX, although a single M1-vac is more optimally sized for an upper stage on F9 than an NK-43 on Antares v1.1.  But the concept is the same.

They could buy a different, and more optimally sized engine for it…but unless there’s some major technological reason you can’t detune an NK-43, why would OSC and Aerojet want too?  The detuned NK-43 means more engines sold to OSC for Aerojet, and the Antares v1.1 upper stage being the same basic engine as the booster means their people don’t have to learn about and work with a different engine.    The tech base is the same. 

Unless Aerojet has access to a better engine option? (Which they might, I don’t know much about their current engine options).
Besides, who else would Aerojet have to sell the NK-43/AJ26-59 to?  It’ll be an engine without a customer indefinitely, unless there’s some other customer out there that might want it?
ULA?  I don’t see they going away from their hydrolox upper stages for kerolox.
SpaceX?  No, they have their M1D-Vac in-house.
NASA?  No, the Block 1B hydrolox upper stage is probably the only one they will be building (visa vi Boeing).
Liberty II?  Actaully, for LEO payloads it might be a good upper stage engine for them.  But I think they want to use the Ariane 5 production core as their upper stage with Vulcan modified for air start.
Any international customers?  Certainly not the Russians, they already have their own.  Ariane 5 is going to a new hydrolox upper stage.  I doubt the Chinese, and the Japanese already have a good hydrolox upper stage with an engine made by Mitsubishi.

On the flip side we have OSC and Antares.  It already uses an AJ26 engine.  It’s already kerolox.  It’s initial 2nd stage will be a cheap but low performance solid.  (Castor 30XL has about 301s vac ISP per Ed Kyle’s Space Launch Report).  An AJ26-59/NK-43 would be a big performance boost to that while having synergy with the booster.  Some tweaking of an Aerojet made AJ26-59 might get that ISP higher, closer to 359s for RD-0124 maybe?  Which I think has the most ISP of any non-hydrolox upper stage engine?
Both engines are staged combustion, so I think if the 1960’s NK-43 could get 346s, a modern production engine could get a little better than that.
It would seem that unless OSC wants to go hydrolox (and they don’t need to if they are targeting the payload class range between Delta II and EELV) for a different Antares upper stage, a detuned AJ26-59/NK-43 actually seems like the –most- logical choice.  To me anyway.  And probably the –only- potential customer for the AJ26-59.

[Lobo]

Single NK33 it should be then! Does it need a nozzle extension for upper stage duties? Does it need to be throttled down for this use?

You would absolutely need to throttle down an NK-33, but even then, I believe they only throttle down to around ~55% of their maximum.  An RD-191 will throttle all the way down to 30% of maximum, but that's got way too much power for US work on the Antares, as does the NK-33.  In general, I stick to using the Saturn V as a guideline. 

The Saturn V design would suggest if we're trying to max this thing out while minimizing design issues, something with 1/7th-1/9th the thrust of the booster engines at sea level is a good choice.  Now I know people are objecting to putting a hydrogen supply at the pad and dealing with its issues, but it'd let you use the best-proportioned engine I can think of for this rocket, a Blue Origin BE-3 hydrolox engine.  The Antares is taking off with around 740,000 lbs of thrust at liftoff (due to pushing its engines over 100% rating).  A BE-3's 100,000 lbs of thrust would be ideally proportioned and deliver a big boost to the Antares' capabilities.  My only concern is I don't know if Blue Origin would sell such a great engine to a possible competitor. 

If there's a setup that would be engineering-feasible but not politically feasible, I'd say it's using a quartet of RD-0146 engines.  You should be able to fit them into a 3.9 m core and get a big boost in performance from their 463 seconds of Isp.  Their biggest fault is they're not restartable to my knowledge, and that to me makes them little better than what the Antares has now.  I think a restart capability on the 2nd stage is a must for any possible US upgrade.  If the Antares' engines are upgraded to AJ-500 engines, that'd open up a new range of possible US engines.  You might even be able to chance using the Zenit's RD-120 2nd stage engine.  I'd still detune and modify that engine to make it more ideal however. 

Like I said in my previous post, I think the NK-43 is probably the most logical option, unless OSC wants to go hydrolox.  They might want to build pads at the Cape and VAFB.  And if so, they maybe design those pads with hydrolox capability, vertical integration (for USAF payloads if they want to go after that), and just launch the Delta II class “cheap” launches from Wallops with Castor 30XL.

If they want something better than Castor 30XL, but don’t want/need hydrolox, then I think the NK-43 would be the logical choice for the reasons I mentioned.  Now, the RD-180 and RD-191 can be throttled down to 30%, I think an Aerojet-made AJ26 could probably be made to throttle down to that too.  The old 1960’s era engines maybe only go down to 55%, but the RD family isn’t too far away from the NK’s I don’t think.  So I think it’s probably possible.  So you take an AJ26-59/NK-43 that is about 390klbs of thrust at vacuum (according to Atronautix), then you throttle that back to 30% and you have 117klbs.  Which would be just about right for an Antares v1.1 with an AJ-1E6 engine.  That might be the easiest way to do it.  But they could also just make a version that’s permenantly throttled to that level, and turned for it to maximize ISP.  (Throttled engines loose ISP I heard?)  Put a smaller turbopump on it and tweak it to optimize for running at that thrust level.

But either way, I doubt we’ll see any upper stage on Antares other than Castor 30XL until the existing stock of NK-33’s are flown out and Antares v1.1 starts flying with Aerojet-made AJ-1E6.

EDIT:  Reading Ed Kyle's Space Launch Report a little more carefully, I found this:

"Orbital's Taurus II fact sheet was updated in May 2009 to show a follow-on "enhanced" second stage option.  The stage would be powered by a new Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne PWR35M engine that would burn LOX and Methane to produce 35,000 lb (15.88 tonne) class thrust.  With this stage, Taurus II could move beyond Delta II payload capability, hauling up to 7.6 tonnes to low earth orbit or 1.8 tonnes to Earth escape velocity when topped with a Star 48 third stage. 

In early 2010, the "enhanced" stage design shifted toward kerosene/LOX, potentially to be powered by the Russian RD-0120 staged combustion engine used by Soyuz 2.1b.

In January 2009, Applied Aerospace Structures Corporation of Stockton, California announced that it would build composite structures for Taurus II, including the payload fairing, fairing adapter, interstage, Stage 2 motor adapter, payload fairing adapter, and avionics cylinder.  Deliveries were expected to begin in late 2009. 

A maneuvering bipropellant hypergolic third stage could eventually see use with Taurus II, though it would not be used for COTS demo missions.   The stage, equipped with a bipropellant hypergolic pressure-fed propulsion system similar to equipment used by Orbital's Star2bus satellites, has been called an Orbit Raising Kit (ORK).  The ORK could provide orbit raising maneuvers for higher-altitude missions.       

For higher energy missions, Taurus II could use a Star 48V solid propellant kick motor.  A Star 48V on top of a Taurus II would be able to boost more than 1.1 tonnes to Earth escape velocity.    "

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/taurus2.html


So, it would appear they are looking at a kerolox upper stage as I was thinking.  Although using a different engine purchased from Russia rather than an AJ26-59/NK-43.  But I think Ed mistyped, it's probably an RD-0124 kerolox engine he meant, as the RD-0120 is a hydrolox core engine for Energia. 

[Prober]

I did read that Orbital is still looking at using SLC-17 and SLC-2 Delta facilities, but i have not heard anything additional since beginning of 2012. I also read that Lockheed Martin wants those facilities, but launcher was not identified.

SLC-17 is being raze.

they put a date on that?
 

[john smith 19]

How would I evolve Antares?

I'd start by looking to set up an AJ26 production line.

Without one when they run out of those in store then that's it.

The hazard of building your design around an out of production super performance engine.

Orbital won't abandon solids anytime soon so forget changing that and look at some kind of re-startable 3rd stage to do precision insertion, GTO, perhaps escape missions.