-
#320
by
Garrett
on 20 May, 2014 13:41
-
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed
)
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
-
#321
by
Star One
on 20 May, 2014 14:28
-
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed )
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
-
#322
by
arachnitect
on 20 May, 2014 16:50
-
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
That's how they originally planned to do it, but if RD-180 becomes as priceless as people think they have other ways of doing an inflight abort test ("little joe" type of vehicle).
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed )
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.
-
#323
by
Star One
on 20 May, 2014 17:34
-
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
That's how they originally planned to do it, but if RD-180 becomes as priceless as people think they have other ways of doing an inflight abort test ("little joe" type of vehicle).
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed )
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.
It depends how they define national security payloads though doesn't it.
-
#324
by
guckyfan
on 20 May, 2014 17:51
-
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.
Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?
-
#325
by
Star One
on 20 May, 2014 18:49
-
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.
Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?
Could you imagine any US administration giving that kind of pledge, as I can't.
-
#326
by
guckyfan
on 20 May, 2014 19:01
-
Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?
Could you imagine any US administration giving that kind of pledge, as I can't.
Exactly my point. That would mean no RD-180 for civilian use. Again: If enacted as formulated.
-
#327
by
Nomadd
on 20 May, 2014 19:06
-
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed )
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
No, they're not going to continue as normal if the supply is about to run out.
If the Russians want to keep selling engines and the US wants to keep buying them, the US can make a statement that they won't be used for offensive or defensive weaponry or whatever it takes to save face on the Russian side. If there's a will, there will be some semantic solution to implement it. Let the NRO put their logo on the rocket instead of the AF if that's what it takes.
-
#328
by
arachnitect
on 20 May, 2014 21:16
-
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.
Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?
Could you imagine any US administration giving that kind of pledge, as I can't.
Most likely event is continuation of status quo. Realpolitik does happen though; move a few NRO birds over to Delta, everyone's "happy," and life continues more or less as before.
Cheer up with selfies in space:
http://www.space.com/25950-space-apps-boeing-cst-100-capsule.html"There's no telling where this [partnership] is going to lead in half a dozen years, but our intention is to closely mimic what the commercial customer desires on an airliner, to be able to provide them with at least a similar type of service on a spaceliner," Ferguson said.
-
#329
by
newpylong
on 21 May, 2014 13:24
-
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
They don't need it for either test and I suspect they won't use one.
Apollo used Little Joe.
Orion is going to use a Peacekeeper.
-
#330
by
Zed_Noir
on 22 May, 2014 11:55
-
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
They don't need it for either test and I suspect they won't use one.
Apollo used Little Joe.
Orion is going to use a Peacekeeper.
First the Peacekeeper SLV more commonly known as the Minotaur IV+ is under-power for this inflight abort test. The Minotaur have a LEO payload capacity of 1735 kg with 2,200 kN thrust from the first stage. Somehow don't see the Minotaur lift the 10 ton CST-100 capsule and service module stack to the Max-Q of the Atlas V.
Second without a successful LES abort test of the CST-100 from the Atlas V at Max-Q. You have no way of gauging the effectiveness of the CST-100 abort system.
-
#331
by
newpylong
on 22 May, 2014 13:13
-
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
They don't need it for either test and I suspect they won't use one.
Apollo used Little Joe.
Orion is going to use a Peacekeeper.
First the Peacekeeper SLV more commonly known as the Minotaur IV+ is under-power for this inflight abort test. The Minotaur have a LEO payload capacity of 1735 kg with 2,200 kN thrust from the first stage. Somehow don't see the Minotaur lift the 10 ton CST-100 capsule and service module stack to the Max-Q of the Atlas V.
Second without a successful LES abort test of the CST-100 from the Atlas V at Max-Q. You have no way of gauging the effectiveness of the CST-100 abort system.
I suggest reading the following article:
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/space-flight-centers/ccafs-space-flight-centers/nasa-official-talks-ascent-abort-2/If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
-
#332
by
Jim
on 22 May, 2014 13:40
-
If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
-
#333
by
baldusi
on 22 May, 2014 14:07
-
First the Peacekeeper SLV more commonly known as the Minotaur IV+ is under-power for this inflight abort test. The Minotaur have a LEO payload capacity of 1735 kg with 2,200 kN thrust from the first stage. Somehow don't see the Minotaur lift the 10 ton CST-100 capsule and service module stack to the Max-Q of the Atlas V.
2,200k n are 218 tonnes of force. How much would the stack weight? Please remember that they just need to reach MaxQ, which is usually about 30s into the flight and that's it.
-
#334
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 22 May, 2014 14:31
-
If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
70 tons of ballast?
-
#335
by
Zed_Noir
on 22 May, 2014 15:13
-
If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
70 tons of ballast?
My
Jimspeak interpretation: you need the whole Minotaur IV LV not just only the 1st stage. The avionics are in the upper stage. Unless someone have a single stage LV available with a Thiokol SR-118 solid motor.
-
#336
by
Jim
on 22 May, 2014 17:04
-
If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
70 tons of ballast?
My Jimspeak interpretation: you need the whole Minotaur IV LV not just only the 1st stage. The avionics are in the upper stage. Unless someone have a single stage LV available with a Thiokol SR-118 solid motor.
It is a single motor with avionics and will carry 150klbs of ballast so the Orion abort will be at the proper conditions (velocity and altitude)
-
#337
by
newpylong
on 22 May, 2014 17:18
-
If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
70 tons of ballast?
My Jimspeak interpretation: you need the whole Minotaur IV LV not just only the 1st stage. The avionics are in the upper stage. Unless someone have a single stage LV available with a Thiokol SR-118 solid motor.
Did you read the article? It's just the first stage with Orion on top.
Here is further clarification:
http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSystems/Publications/ATB_factsheet.pdf
-
#338
by
TrevorMonty
on 22 May, 2014 21:53
-
If they do use something like a Little Joe, SNC may also be interested in using it for DC. This would help to share development costs.
-
#339
by
ChefPat
on 23 May, 2014 14:29
-
Boeing to show off commercial capsule at KSC next monthBoeing will visit Kennedy Space Center June 9 to discuss its CST-100 crew capsule, a contender to launch NASA astronauts to the International Space Station.
A media invitation offers a "boarding pass" to experience a capsule mockup and preview the "Commercial Crew Processing Facility" in which flight vehicles will be assembled, in a renovated space shuttle hangar and engine shop.
)