How would YOU evolve the Antares?

[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.