-
#100 by edkyle99 on 29 Apr, 2014 18:00
-
Given today's ATK merger announcement, how would an all-solid "Antares II" look? (if that is what they do)
My guess is that it would spring from the Stratolaunch development effort, which is creating two brand new big composite case motors for Stages 1 and 2. An Antares would need two big solid stages to replace the NK-33 liquid stage, though the precise details (thrust, length, propellant loading) would likely differ from what Statrolaunch needs.
It would have to become a 3-stage rocket, right? Or use something like a 5 segment SRB as a first stage - but would that even be sufficient?
Forget about Athena III and the old SRB steel motor cases. That is ancient technology now.
- Ed Kyle -
#101 by USFdon on 29 Apr, 2014 18:04
-
Resurrection of the PlanetSpace COTS proposal?
I also didn't know that ATK actually made a mockup. Maybe this could be created rather quickly.
flightglobal.com -
#102 by Prober on 29 Apr, 2014 18:08
-
Has there been any definitive info on Aerojet starting production of domestic AJ-26's? I know there were comments about an agreement made with Teledyne Brown concerning stateside production and that Aerojet has been fiddling with the NK-33's since the 1990's (including getting a license / documentation). The NK-33 / AJ-26 is a simpler engine than the RD-170 family so presumably it would be easier to produce here. Or was this more hand-waving, PowerPoint studies?
I would think the only way Orbital would get US production for the up-front investment they listed ($30M) would be if both Orbital and ULA committed to a long-term buy of a jointly used engine (ie domestic RD-180).
Have a link to that "up-front investment they listed ($30M)" Might be interesting to run some numbers....think their up front costs a few mil low.....but I'm running this from a pure "manufacturing" view. Not a Rocket engine manufacture view. They should be able to get 3-4 US companies to "manufacture" the engine.
-
#103 by Galactic Penguin SST on 29 Apr, 2014 18:34
-
So......how do you launch an all-solid Antares II from Wallops? (or should it move to the Cape, read LC-39B?)
-
#104 by arachnitect on 29 Apr, 2014 18:45
-
Has there been any definitive info on Aerojet starting production of domestic AJ-26's? I know there were comments about an agreement made with Teledyne Brown concerning stateside production and that Aerojet has been fiddling with the NK-33's since the 1990's (including getting a license / documentation). The NK-33 / AJ-26 is a simpler engine than the RD-170 family so presumably it would be easier to produce here. Or was this more hand-waving, PowerPoint studies?
I would think the only way Orbital would get US production for the up-front investment they listed ($30M) would be if both Orbital and ULA committed to a long-term buy of a jointly used engine (ie domestic RD-180).
Have a link to that "up-front investment they listed ($30M)" Might be interesting to run some numbers....think their up front costs a few mil low.....but I'm running this from a pure "manufacturing" view. Not a Rocket engine manufacture view. They should be able to get 3-4 US companies to "manufacture" the engine.
$30M is Orbital's investment in changes to Antares. Orbital says they won't pay upfront to establish production... they expect those costs to be in the engine unit price.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1404/25antares/QuoteOrbital does not plan on funding research and development of the engines themselves, Thompson said, only the cost of accommodating a new engine on the Antares first stage structure.
Of course there's the question of whether today's announcement changes all that. -
#105 by Avron on 29 Apr, 2014 18:49
-
""after analyzing the sanctions against our space industry I suggest the US delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline."" - Rogozin
I guess he will not be far wrong with all solids -
#106 by yg1968 on 29 Apr, 2014 19:55
-
The StartoLauncher will have double solids as first stage and an hydrolox as upper stage. It's designed by orbital but owned by StratoLauncher. Thus, it's a bit a third party vehicle a bit an own vehicle. IAUI, Orbital can't use the parts for themselves. But they will probably get some revenue and work out of each launch.
This Spacenews article muddles things up a bit. From the Spacenews article dated April 23rd, the Stratolaunch LV configuration is still in flux.
From the article:QuoteBut as a precaution, he said Orbital is considering an all-U.S.-built Antares first stage, for both the engine and the airframe, as it weighs a long-term contract. Thompson told investors on April 17 that Orbital is weighing offers from three companies for the Antares first-stage engine. Two are from Russia, including the current supplier, and one is from the United States.
If that one U.S. company is ATK, that could change their plans. -
#107 by Halidon on 29 Apr, 2014 23:57
-
Not to get too wacky, how feasible would it be Antares II-B first stage and the Liberty second stage became the same core?
-
#108 by arachnitect on 30 Apr, 2014 02:03
-
Not to get too wacky, how feasible would it be Antares II-B first stage and the Liberty second stage became the same core?
Need more thrust. Would need LH2 infrastructure. Upperstage was all EADS anyways, so the ATK merger doesn't really change anything.
The stick is dead, so Antares would carry all the costs. -
#109 by Prober on 30 Apr, 2014 03:25
-
Not to get too wacky, how feasible would it be Antares II-B first stage and the Liberty second stage became the same core?
Need more thrust. Would need LH2 infrastructure. Upperstage was all EADS anyways, so the ATK merger doesn't really change anything.
The stick is dead, so Antares would carry all the costs.
The stick might be dead but what about using the Upper stage from EADS on the Antares?
-
#110 by Lars_J on 30 Apr, 2014 03:39
-
Not to get too wacky, how feasible would it be Antares II-B first stage and the Liberty second stage became the same core?
Need more thrust. Would need LH2 infrastructure. Upperstage was all EADS anyways, so the ATK merger doesn't really change anything.
The stick is dead, so Antares would carry all the costs.
The stick might be dead but what about using the Upper stage from EADS on the Antares?
Eh.. Why? It would be massively oversized. I don't think the current Antares 1st stage could lift it off the pad. Do you not recall how massive it is? It is the same size as the Ariane V core stage.
It's dead. (the stick - and its upper stage) -
#111 by arachnitect on 30 Apr, 2014 04:51
-
Not to get too wacky, how feasible would it be Antares II-B first stage and the Liberty second stage became the same core?
Need more thrust. Would need LH2 infrastructure. Upperstage was all EADS anyways, so the ATK merger doesn't really change anything.
The stick is dead, so Antares would carry all the costs.
The stick might be dead but what about using the Upper stage from EADS on the Antares?
Eh.. Why? It would be massively oversized. I don't think the current Antares 1st stage could lift it off the pad. Do you not recall how massive it is? It is the same size as the Ariane V core stage.
It's dead. (the stick - and its upper stage)
I think Prober's talking about using one of the Ariane 5 upper stages (EPS or ESC).
Maybe?
Keep in mind Orbital now makes their current solid upperstages in house. There's also whatever comes out of the Stratolaunch program. I really don't think they need to go to Europe for an upperstage. They could make a storable propellant stage with an AJ-10 family engine. Or they stick to the script and fly 30B/30XL stages with transfer stage or Star-48 when necessary. -
#112 by Lars_J on 30 Apr, 2014 05:12
-
I think Prober's talking about using one of the Ariane 5 upper stages (EPS or ESC).
Maybe?
Oh, that might make more sense - but those are 5m diameter stages.
But with the ATK merger, I don't see the upper stage changing. -
#113 by edkyle99 on 30 Apr, 2014 16:41
-
Here's a guess at what a solid motor Antares might look like. In this case, I've conjured up a design meant to replicate the current Antares 130 performance (5.5 tonnes to LEO x 51.6 deg)
Two composite case monolithic solid motors would replace the current liquid stage. Both would be about the same diameter as an SRB (3.71 meters), only slightly skinnier than the current 3.9 meter stage. The Castor 30XL would be retained as a third stage, as would the guidance systems, interstage, payload fairing, etc..
The first stage would weigh about 173 tonnes, including 160 tonnes of propellant. It would have an average ISP of about 263 seconds and would need to produce about 400 tonnes or more of liftoff thrust.
The second stage would weigh about 95 tonnes with about 88 tonnes of propellant with a vacuum ISP of 290 seconds and around 200 tonnes of thrust maximum.
Castor 30XL is assumed to weigh 25 tonnes with 23 tonnes of propellant, an ISP of 301 seconds, and a maximum thrust of about 50 tonnes.
With a 1 tonne payload fairing, this combination can generate 9,440 m/s ideal delta-v with a 5.5 tonne payload, which I believe is roughly needed to reach a 51.6 deg LEO from Wallops.
This rocket would weigh about 300 tonnes - only 10 tonnes or so more than an Antares 130 - and would stand shorter then an Antares by 5 meters or more. It would produce 20% or more thrust than Antares, so it should be able to use the existing Antares pad, with modifications.
A key limiting factor is the mass of the first stage. The SRB segments weighed about 150 tonnes loaded and were moved by rail, truck, crane, etc. Plans for Ariane 6 call for monolithic segments loaded with 150 tonnes of propellant or more. Thus a monolithic first stage loaded with 160 tonnes of propellant seems possible, though I'm not quite sure how the Wallops infrastructure would handle a motor of this size.
Obviously, more payload - probably 7-8 tonnes or more - is needed to meet the NASA standards for future CRS work.
- Ed Kyle
-
#114 by Lars_J on 30 Apr, 2014 16:51
-
Very interesting - but I don't see how that would work with the pad.
A key limiting factor is the mass of the first stage. The SRB segments weighed about 150 tonnes loaded and were moved by rail, truck, crane, etc. Plans for Ariane 6 call for monolithic segments loaded with 150 tonnes of propellant or more. Thus a monolithic first stage loaded with 160 tonnes of propellant seems possible, though I'm not quite sure how the Wallops infrastructure would handle a motor of this size.
Yes, there is a reason that the rockets with heavy solid boosters or first stages are usually stacked on the pad - Or moved using a very heavy duty mover. Moving the whole rocket out to the pad (as currently done at Wallops) would not be practical using any of the existing infrastructure there.
It would seem likely that they might want to build a new pad at Wallops for this (if that is what they do) - which would also allow the existing pad to be used until Antares II would be ready. -
#115 by TrevorMonty on 07 May, 2014 04:59
-
Orbital is not the only company interested in AJ 26 engine both Kistler and Kelly Space specify it for their RLVs. Kistler website says they are back in business after coming out of bankruptcy!!.
-
#116 by Lobo on 07 May, 2014 17:31
-
Very interesting - but I don't see how that would work with the pad.
A key limiting factor is the mass of the first stage. The SRB segments weighed about 150 tonnes loaded and were moved by rail, truck, crane, etc. Plans for Ariane 6 call for monolithic segments loaded with 150 tonnes of propellant or more. Thus a monolithic first stage loaded with 160 tonnes of propellant seems possible, though I'm not quite sure how the Wallops infrastructure would handle a motor of this size.
Yes, there is a reason that the rockets with heavy solid boosters or first stages are usually stacked on the pad - Or moved using a very heavy duty mover. Moving the whole rocket out to the pad (as currently done at Wallops) would not be practical using any of the existing infrastructure there.
It would seem likely that they might want to build a new pad at Wallops for this (if that is what they do) - which would also allow the existing pad to be used until Antares II would be ready.
Could/would OSC/ATK rent a high-bay at the VAB and convert an old MLP for use at 39B? NASA trying to get other users. Liberty was kicked around as a potential customer, but maybe an "Antares II" (or Athena III) would be what actually ends up using it? KSC is already set up to receive and process big heavy solid rocket segments of this type, and will be doing that for SLS anyway. Antares II with an intial Castor 30XL 3rd stage would require minimal on-pad support, as it's all solid. Just whatever the payload needs.
Maybe that would be a better option than Wallops? NASA would probably make an attractive offer, as they are realy wanting to make KSC a "multi user" facility. And the MLP modifications would be pretty minor, as it's SRB flame ports would be able to be used as is, as the solid would be of the same diameter as the old STS SRB's and Ares 1-X. Just need a simple umbilical tower for the payload umbilicals added to it. -
#117 by sdsds on 16 May, 2014 03:27
-
I am not sure if this is news or rumor or still unsettled.
http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/731768
"USA to purchase Russia's Energomash rocket engines after 2016"
May 15, 18:05 UTC+4
But the article concludes: "Orbital Science’s technical specialists will visit Energomash next week to negotiate RD-181 purchases." That somewhat implies RD-181 is or was under consideration, not that it has been selected. -
#118 by arachnitect on 16 May, 2014 03:40
-
Even if they don't select ATK's proposal for a solid first stage, I do hope we see what they put together.
-
#119 by edkyle99 on 16 May, 2014 17:33
-
I am not sure if this is news or rumor or still unsettled.
Ha! A bureaucratic solution to the RD-180 "ban". Ship RD-181 instead!
http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/731768
"USA to purchase Russia's Energomash rocket engines after 2016"
May 15, 18:05 UTC+4
But the article concludes: "Orbital Science’s technical specialists will visit Energomash next week to negotiate RD-181 purchases." That somewhat implies RD-181 is or was under consideration, not that it has been selected.
- Ed Kyle
