-
#160
by
MP99
on 14 Jun, 2014 09:09
-
Came across an interesting video yesterday by accident. Has some good Antares imagery I hadn't seen before.
Orbital do seem to have a better PQ on their on-vehicle video than SpaceX.
Cheers, Martin
-
#161
by
rayleighscatter
on 21 Jun, 2014 01:46
-
From the WSJ:
Dulles, Va.-based Orbital Sciences is considering the RD-180 alongside the existing Russian AJ-26 booster used on its Antares rocket, and a third engine produced by Alliant Techsystems Inc., Orbital Sciences’ merger partner.
...
People familiar with the situation said Orbital Sciences is in direct talks with NPO Energomash rather than with RD Amross.
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-561093/Still seem to be expecting a final decision in August.
-
#162
by
wannamoonbase
on 08 Jul, 2014 12:06
-
Orbital has a difficult problem to solve finding additional engines. Restarting production of the NK-33/AJ26 is the simplistic.
Not to be a SpaceX fan boy, but if the US doesn't develop a booster engine and if (I'd say when) relations with Russia tank anytime in the future then the Delta 4 and SpaceX are the only rides in town.
-
#163
by
russianhalo117
on 08 Jul, 2014 13:18
-
An Aerojet Rocketdyne representative mentioned that the corporation plans to formally propose the AR-1 LRE package to OSC in the event that OSC chooses to continue on the LRE path, yet might want to go with a fully domestic LRE.
-
#164
by
spacetech
on 13 Jul, 2014 17:52
-
During launch coverage, they didn't announce the downrange distances, only altitude and velocity
Does anyone know the downrange distances for a CRS mission to the ISS?
-
#165
by
su27k
on 15 Jul, 2014 11:58
-
So does anyone know why there's no rocket cam for recent Antares launches? They used to have it in test flights, but seems to disappeared for CRS launches. Just watched ORB-2 and Orbcomm OG2 videos back to back, the live rocket cam footage makes the latter much more interesting to watch.
-
#166
by
edkyle99
on 15 Jul, 2014 14:23
-
So does anyone know why there's no rocket cam for recent Antares launches? They used to have it in test flights, but seems to disappeared for CRS launches. Just watched ORB-2 and Orbcomm OG2 videos back to back, the live rocket cam footage makes the latter much more interesting to watch.
My guess is that it was originally provided for engineering assessment, but is now deemed unnecessary. It adds a little bit of weight and a certain amount of cost. This was the heaviest payload for Antares to date, so margins may have been slim. There's a chance the cameras may reappear for the next flight since that will be the first Antares 130 with a Castor 30XL, but we'll have to see.
- Ed Kyle
-
#167
by
kevin-rf
on 15 Jul, 2014 18:11
-
Also, don't forget the bandwidth for the cam is not free.
-
#168
by
arachnitect
on 19 Jul, 2014 02:25
-
-
#169
by
LouScheffer
on 19 Jul, 2014 23:57
-
http://spacenews.com/article/financial-report/41291orbital-sciences-books-first-geostar-3-orders-nears-antares-engine
[during July 17th conference call] Orbital Sciences Chief Executive David W. Thompson said a decision has just about been made on a long-term supplier for the Antares first-stage propulsion system, and that a formal announcement was imminent.
Given that (a) they are not waiting for the situation in the Ukraine to settle, and (b) counting on a new USA engine as a direct replacement would be very risky for the next re-supply contract, and (c) they just bought a solid rocket company, I'd be astonished of the answer was not to replace the first stage with an in-house solid.
Of course, I've been astonished before....
-
#170
by
edkyle99
on 20 Jul, 2014 00:44
-
Given that (a) they are not waiting for the situation in the Ukraine to settle, and (b) counting on a new USA engine as a direct replacement would be very risky for the next re-supply contract, and (c) they just bought a solid rocket company, I'd be astonished of the answer was not to replace the first stage with an in-house solid.
Of course, I've been astonished before....
This will be an important announcement, and not just for Orbital. I have no idea about the answer. There are so many secrets in the space business these days.
- Ed Kyle
-
#171
by
TrevorMonty
on 20 Jul, 2014 01:03
-
They don't time to wait for new engine to be developed and foreign engines supply lines are risky. That leave 2 options
1) solid
2) liquid using a current domestic engine. The only 2 I can think of are the BE3(not proven) and Merlin( may not be for SALE).
-
#172
by
MATTBLAK
on 20 Jul, 2014 01:10
-
Is the RS-27 engine as used on the Delta 2 still available for production? And if so, could it be adopted for upper stage use if the new first stage was a solid?
-
#173
by
JazzFan
on 20 Jul, 2014 01:26
-
It has been out of production for some time and converting RS-27 to a second stage engine sounds like too much work. Those additional changes will not be cost effective and yield no ROI as compared to selecting another engine that is already more closely optimized to meeting the requirements. Also, does the alternate engine need to meet current requirements or any expected requirements of future needs? Meeting current requirements has a finite date based on the current COTS contract.
-
#174
by
MATTBLAK
on 20 Jul, 2014 01:37
-
Oh, believe me; I suspected your answers were to be the case. Other than Space X, is it only Russia that has hydrocarbon engines for upper stages at the moment? Buying Russian engines pretty much is the question at the moment. And I don't think there are any high-thrust hypergolic engines in U.S. service right now, are there? In the 80 to 90,000lb thrust class I mean. With the recent ATK/Orbital merger, I can forsee an all-solid beast with a 'Liberty' based first stage (3 or 4 segment?) and the current Castor 30XL for the upper stage. Would such a launcher give us the dreaded 'thrust oscillation'? Or would a 3-segment version avoid this issue?
-
#175
by
arachnitect
on 20 Jul, 2014 01:47
-
I have no idea about the answer. There are so many secrets in the space business these days.
- Ed Kyle
Well I'd be shocked if the Kuznetzov restart happens. Beyond that... no idea.
-
#176
by
Antares
on 20 Jul, 2014 03:40
-
My handicap, based on the chatter from my sources in recent weeks, not what I thought it would've been:
Win (60%): RD-191/151
Place (30%): AR-1e6
distant Show (10%): ATK solid
-
#177
by
PahTo
on 20 Jul, 2014 20:53
-
My handicap, based on the chatter from my sources in recent weeks, not what I thought it would've been:
Win (60%): RD-191/151
Place (30%): AR-1e6
distant Show (10%): ATK solid
No doubt, that. Given the recent merger (or whatever you call it), I would have put domestic solid fuel as the leader by a long shot.
-
#178
by
LouScheffer
on 20 Jul, 2014 21:12
-
My handicap, based on the chatter from my sources in recent weeks, not what I thought it would've been:
Win (60%): RD-191/151
Place (30%): AR-1e6
distant Show (10%): ATK solid
Of course you are closer to the problem than I, but from appearances your list is ordered by technical merit, whereas my conclusion is dominated by business issues. It will be interesting how this shakes out...
-
#179
by
rayleighscatter
on 20 Jul, 2014 22:03
-
I could see Orbital attempting to maintain the Antares as a liquid first stage. They already have a robust offering of solids and if they're looking to expand their capabilities a desire to keep using a liquid rocket has its merits. There's even a possibility that a combined Orb/ATK may want to get in on development or contract manufacturing of liquid engines. If they wanted to build a contract copy of a RD-180 they could use it in Antares and I could think of another possible customer of an American built RD-180. All supposition of course.