This was an interesting panel on commercial launches and featured Dr. Antonio Elias from Orbital (along with SpaceX and SNC):
I found it interesting (neat!) that OSC sent their biggest rocket scientist, the other two sent sales people
When in doubt, find another Russian engine? Oy vey.
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.
Ha! A bureaucratic solution to the RD-180 "ban". Ship RD-181 instead!
- Ed Kyle
What are the differences between the RD-180 and 181? I couldn't find much on the 181 on line.
What are the differences between the RD-180 and 181? I couldn't find much on the 181 on line.
2 * RD-181 = RD-180 ? It
looks like RD-180 sawed in half.
What are the differences between the RD-180 and 181? I couldn't find much on the 181 on line.
2 * RD-181 = RD-180 ? It looks like RD-180 sawed in half.
Lobo: Why search the rest of the on-line world, when we have the one of the best non-russian sources of information here in this forum?
There is a already at least one
thread with more info on RD-181. It seems it is not completely developed yet. It seems to be based on RD-191 with many modernizations and improvements, plus some adaptations for Antares and similar uses. (RD-191 is a 1-chamber engine in the same family as RD-180 (2-ch) and used for Angara). Another improved RD-191-based engine may also be adopted as a replacement for NK-33 on Soyuz 2-1v if production of the original is not restarted instead.
R7: It is not surprising RD-180 and RD-181 looks similar (apart from the number of chambers+nozzles), They are derived from the same roots, and both are modern, "americanized"/"export" variants, only RD-181 is newer and with more extensive improvements.
Also, like
sdsds, I will not take the RD-181 selection as a fact unless confirmed. Russians have a long "tradition" of presenting proposed solutions/deals as if they were chosen solutions or agreed deals. The mention of upcoming negotiations hint that that may well be the case here also. I take it ONLY as confirmation that RD-181 is one of the Antares engine candidates for the next batch after the engines stockpiled at Aerojet run out.
edit: added minor clarifications
What are the differences between the RD-180 and 181? I couldn't find much on the 181 on line.
2 * RD-181 = RD-180 ? It looks like RD-180 sawed in half.
No, the 191 is 1/2 the 180
What are the differences between the RD-180 and 181? I couldn't find much on the 181 on line.
2 * RD-181 = RD-180 ? It looks like RD-180 sawed in half.
No, the 191 is 1/2 the 180
And RD-193 seems like one-half of an RD-181. Maybe.
- Ed Kyle
In all cases, Orbital would be smart to produce an updated Antares that also support GEO launches for Orbital built comsats.
The RD-181 numbering seems confusing because it certainly looks like single chamber engine and thought 18x denotes dual and 19x single chamber designs. Looks like 18x series is for any post-USSR export models and 19x for post-USSR domestic use.
edit:
http://www.b14643.de/ has nice
RD-170 family tree. It shows RD-181 branching from RD-180 but
Russianspaceweb says RD-181 could be developed from RD-193.
Lobo: Why search the rest of the on-line world, when we have the one of the best non-russian sources of information here in this forum?
Maybe because I wasn't aware of that thread??
There is a already at least one thread with more info on RD-181. It seems it is not completely developed yet. It seems to be based on RD-191 with many modernizations and improvements, plus some adaptations for Antares and similar uses. (RD-191 is a 1-chamber engine in the same family as RD-180 (2-ch) and used for Angara). Another improved RD-191-based engine may also be adopted as a replacement for NK-33 on Soyuz 2-1v if production of the original is not restarted instead.
I'll go review that thread. Thanks.
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.
Ha! A bureaucratic solution to the RD-180 "ban". Ship RD-181 instead!
- Ed Kyle
Wouldn't that then open up OSC/ATK the the same problems they are ULA are now facing again down the road?
Seems like it would be unwise given recent events to risk that again down the road, even if things get sorted out now for the time being.
D-180 "ban". Ship RD-181 instead!
- Ed Kyle
Wouldn't that then open up OSC/ATK the the same problems they are ULA are now facing again down the road?
Seems like it would be unwise given recent events to risk that again down the road, even if things get sorted out now for the time being.
It would - that is why I think replacing the 1st stage with solid engines is a way to go. Otherwise OSC/ATK merger does not make sense. Orbital has long argued that is better to have more small missions - and solids can address that part of the market.
think this is the right place for this post ..if not move it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/the-musk-show-in-washington-roils-rivals-as-fans-applaud.htmlMusk has suggested that Orbital Sciences Corp. deserves fewer missions to supply the space station. Unlike SpaceX, Dulles, Virginia-based Orbital delivers cargo to the station using a one-way spacecraft that burns up on its return.
“They take up less than we do and they take nothing down, and they get paid twice as much per mission as we do,” Musk said in an April presentation at the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s annual conference in Washington.
think this is the right place for this post ..if not move it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/the-musk-show-in-washington-roils-rivals-as-fans-applaud.html
Musk has suggested that Orbital Sciences Corp. deserves fewer missions to supply the space station. Unlike SpaceX, Dulles, Virginia-based Orbital delivers cargo to the station using a one-way spacecraft that burns up on its return.
“They take up less than we do and they take nothing down, and they get paid twice as much per mission as we do,” Musk said in an April presentation at the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s annual conference in Washington.
Ahhh...the plot thickens...
They do offer more pressurized volume though, especially when the enhanced Cygnus flies. However, he has a point. Why is OSC getting twice as much per mission as SpaceX does? That doesn't seem right. They should both be getting similar money for similar services I'd think.
And good for McCain and some others for standing up against the "business as usual" with government and traditional government contractors. Too few politicians will do that.
D-180 "ban". Ship RD-181 instead!
- Ed Kyle
Wouldn't that then open up OSC/ATK the the same problems they are ULA are now facing again down the road?
Seems like it would be unwise given recent events to risk that again down the road, even if things get sorted out now for the time being.
It would - that is why I think replacing the 1st stage with solid engines is a way to go. Otherwise OSC/ATK merger does not make sense. Orbital has long argued that is better to have more small missions - and solids can address that part of the market.
Hence why I think that's the way they'll end up going with Antares. They won't have to depend on unreliable Russian suppliers, and they just merged with a company that already makes rocket boosters...just solid rather than liquid. I'd be pretty surprised if they don't go that ways, but they'll have to sleep in the bed they make if they switch to a Russian supplied engine like RD-181's.
I'm guessing the talk about Russian engine options is just to cover their options before they do a major overhaul of Antares.
They won't have to depend on unreliable Russian suppliers ...
Let's not blame the suppliers. The Russian suppliers themselves, Energomash, etc., have been quite dependable and reliable. The problem is entirely political, and it cuts both ways. It was a U.S. judge that first stopped RD-180 imports (briefly). It is Russia's Deputy Prime Minister who subsequently threatened a cut-off, apparently in response to U.S. sanctions that themselves were a political response to Ukraine. Energomash/RD-AMROSS itself has never stopped supporting its U.S. customer.
- Ed Kyle
I wonder if the Antares could handle 6- 7 Merlins.
Just launch Cygnus on Falcon 9 if you're going that route. If you're talking just bulky cargo upmass, Cygnus is simply better than Dragon for the same mass.
Exactly. Cygnus and Dragon both fill important niches and have different and complementary capabilities. Dragon could theoretically launch up to 6000kg of cargo, but with how small its pressurized volume is, it would need cargo with an effective density of over 500kg/m^3 to max out its mass capacity. Admittedly, Dragon on a F9 with reusable first stage would likely be a lot better matched between available volume and net cargo mass capacity.
But yeah, I'm glad we've got both vehicles flying.
~Jon
If you add in cargo that DOESN'T require pressurization, I'm fairly certain that they could easily max out the 6,000Kg cargo capacity. I suspect though, Elon has something else up his sleeve. Possibly an extended Dragon?
It's always bothered me that they included the "Trunk" as part of their spacecraft systems. While it IS a convient place to mount the solar arrays, I've always had a hunch that he has plans to use that additional space and mass that could be added there for something...Interesting.
think this is the right place for this post ..if not move it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/the-musk-show-in-washington-roils-rivals-as-fans-applaud.html
Musk has suggested that Orbital Sciences Corp. deserves fewer missions to supply the space station. Unlike SpaceX, Dulles, Virginia-based Orbital delivers cargo to the station using a one-way spacecraft that burns up on its return.
“They take up less than we do and they take nothing down, and they get paid twice as much per mission as we do,” Musk said in an April presentation at the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s annual conference in Washington.
Ahhh...the plot thickens...
They do offer more pressurized volume though, especially when the enhanced Cygnus flies. However, he has a point. Why is OSC getting twice as much per mission as SpaceX does? That doesn't seem right. They should both be getting similar money for similar services I'd think.
And good for McCain and some others for standing up against the "business as usual" with government and traditional government contractors. Too few politicians will do that.
No offense, but Musk is getting paid less, because he asked for less... He left money on the table trying to get his foot in the door. Now he is crying about about it?
