-
#200
by
arachnitect
on 12 Sep, 2014 20:48
-
-
#201
by
Prober
on 15 Sep, 2014 13:37
-
-
#202
by
edkyle99
on 15 Sep, 2014 15:09
-
like this comment left on that article 
"Four Years" my foot! Bet somebody could have something runable off the shelf in nine months or less ... if they were properly motivated.
The commenter you mention is obviously not aware of the process to certify a high pressure staged combustion engine. It took Glushko/Energomash nine years to get RD-170 from concept to flight (on a Zenit initially) and eleven years to fly it on Energia. Eleven years passed from the start of SSME development to first flight. Kuznetzov needed the better part of a decade to create NK-15. And so on.
- Ed Kyle
-
#203
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 15 Sep, 2014 18:54
-
Indeed. What is described currently would be the way to aggressively pursue a replacement, which also would have significant advantages in "future proofing", testing, and cost effective manufacturing.
It also would mitigate other concerns with these engines, as well as explain the very different diagrams shown of the engine, which are far different than past ones.
It's exactly the best way to go forward in this area I could think of. But please don't confuse it with SpaceX approach at all - more of an ultimate "arsenal system full court press". When they can get going, they can do amazing things. That is their strength after all.
-
#204
by
TrevorMonty
on 17 Sep, 2014 19:08
-
-
#205
by
Kryten
on 17 Sep, 2014 19:47
-
-
#206
by
yg1968
on 17 Sep, 2014 22:59
-
-
#207
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 23 Sep, 2014 00:25
-
RD-193 might not be as much of an issue as RD-180. In the near term it might be overlooked given its lack of greater consequence.
Shutting down a CRS-2 / Delta II class LV right now would primarily injure ISS and favor other CRS-2 bidders.
-
#208
by
arachnitect
on 30 Sep, 2014 21:34
-
-
#209
by
sdsds
on 30 Sep, 2014 22:22
-
Specifically:
Frank Culbertson said the engine decision is linked to the company’s [CRS2] proposal [...] due Nov. 14. “We’ll make sure we’ll have a decision on that before we submit the proposal.”
He didn't exactly say the decision would be made public at that time. Is that implicit in a CRS2 proposal, or will the public need to wait for the NASA selection decision before knowing the proposal details?
-
#210
by
yg1968
on 03 Oct, 2014 03:40
-
This part of the article is interesting too:
There are enough AJ-26 engines in stock, Culbertson said, for Orbital to perform the remaining six missions in its current CRS contract with NASA, as well as some additional launches. The existing cargo contract could be extended as a bridge until the CRS2 contracts begin. “We’ll sign it as soon as NASA offers it,” he said of a potential CRS contract extension.
-
#211
by
a_langwich
on 05 Oct, 2014 04:57
-
This part of the article is interesting too:
There are enough AJ-26 engines in stock, Culbertson said, for Orbital to perform the remaining six missions in its current CRS contract with NASA, as well as some additional launches. The existing cargo contract could be extended as a bridge until the CRS2 contracts begin. “We’ll sign it as soon as NASA offers it,” he said of a potential CRS contract extension.
I suspect that means Orbital would really, really prefer a contract extension, because they can do the additional flights with the existing engines and design and continue to "amortize" their design investment. There's nothing better than continuing to make money off existing production lines.
For CRS-2, things get really ugly for them, it seems. Perhaps they can get an RD-181-ish engine and minimize the design changes, but there may still need to be a confidence flight, and there's no way any new engines can be as cheap as the "free to a good home!" NK-33s were. AR-1 is too expensive and too late. BE-4 is too late. And, on top of that, they will have to compete with CST-100 and Dream Chaser and possibly others, and there's no guarantee their new price structure can give them the win. Assuming that solids rule out launching from their existing pad, I don't see a way to make a solid-rocket AJ-26 replacement fit into a CRS-2 bid.
I hope they can pull something out, because I really like the way they've executed with Antares and Cygnus, and continued to improve it.
A Russian engine is much lower risk for them than ULA, I think, because civilian NASA supply runs are obviously non-threatening, and cutting them off would not give any negotiating leverage to the Russian government (unlike threatening to cut off the engines for the primary DOD LV).
-
#212
by
Zed_Noir
on 05 Oct, 2014 11:06
-
One way I see for OrbitalATK to do CRS-2 is to fly the Cygnus on top of a F9R from LC-40 and/or LC-39A, sub-contracting SpaceX as LV provider. So no additional engine or LV development required if OrbitalATK & SpaceX strikes a deal. After all there was the surprising merger between ATK & Orbital.
-
#213
by
Jim
on 05 Oct, 2014 17:39
-
One way I see for OrbitalATK to do CRS-2 is to fly the Cygnus on top of a F9R from LC-40 and/or LC-39A, sub-contracting SpaceX as LV provider. So no additional engine or LV development required if OrbitalATK & SpaceX strikes a deal. After all there was the surprising merger between ATK & Orbital.
No, the same thing
-
#214
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 05 Oct, 2014 18:30
-
OK. Reading some tea leaves here to posit ways that Cygnus CRS missions keep flying.
It is interesting to consider how far to take existing Antares (w/o modification). It is possible to extend the existing contract for the stretched Cygnus using all available NK33/43 engines, fed through AR to become AJ-26's. This would work for governments and existing contracts for many, many reasons I don't wish to get into. In fact, it is the most sensible way of postponing this issue indefinitely. The net effect of such would mean that CRS-2 would deal with the remainder of need, which would fit with Dragon 1 and commercial crew offerings for such additional need, which would be somewhat less than if CRS-1 concluded entirely before CRS-2 would come on. Also, Antares re engining would likely also be postponed.
As to Falcon 9 launching of Cygnus, it is true that both companies work together on other payloads already. This might be a fall back for the above coming off as well. But the idea of the CRS contracts is as a full up bid of vehicle(s) as a service that is supplied. Beyond contingency, things get screwed up as an economical business decision for both. Which is why it wouldn't happen for CRS-2.
A different way to read the tea leaves.
-
#215
by
LouScheffer
on 06 Oct, 2014 14:18
-
I've heard three technical objections to a solid-fuel Antares. Each makes sense, but we need to keep costs in perspective.
First, a new (or expanded) pad would be needed. The last time they built a pad, it was $90 million. A pad for solids seems simpler (though bigger) so I guess the cost should be comparable.
Next, there would need to be some way to stack rather large and heavy stages. However, commercial cranes that can let 200 tons are readily available, so this is hardly unexplored territory. Maybe another $100 million for a custom solution (building + crane(s)).
Finally, there is the concern that termination overpressure might shower people with broken window glass. Rather than prohibit solids, maybe the right thing to do is fix the windows. They could be replaced with safety glass, or there are films designed for just this purpose.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Window_Film/Solutions/Markets-Products/Residential/Safety-Security_Window_Films/ that could be used to retrofit existing windows. If you needed to retrofit 100,000 windows (which seems really high) at $100 each, that is still only $10 million.
Overall, it seems you could solve the technical problems of a solid Antares from Wallops for a few hundred million. Compared to the savings from bringing motor production in-house, or the costs of a new liquid stage, this seems entirely reasonable.
-
#216
by
Jim
on 06 Oct, 2014 14:31
-
Finally, there is the concern that termination overpressure might shower people with broken window glass. Rather than prohibit solids, maybe the right thing to do is fix the windows. They could be replaced with safety glass, or there are films designed for just this purpose.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Window_Film/Solutions/Markets-Products/Residential/Safety-Security_Window_Films/ that could be used to retrofit existing windows. If you needed to retrofit 100,000 windows (which seems really high) at $100 each, that is still only $10 million.
Not feasible. This constraint is for the surrounding communities. They are not for the launch site to fix nor to maintain. The range has no way of ensuring that every window is in compliance.
-
#217
by
kevin-rf
on 06 Oct, 2014 14:36
-
Finally, there is the concern that termination overpressure might shower people with broken window glass. Rather than prohibit solids, maybe the right thing to do is fix the windows. They could be replaced with safety glass, or there are films designed for just this purpose.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Window_Film/Solutions/Markets-Products/Residential/Safety-Security_Window_Films/ that could be used to retrofit existing windows. If you needed to retrofit 100,000 windows (which seems really high) at $100 each, that is still only $10 million.
Have you tried to replace replacement windows recently? $100 will get you a chuckle.
The window issue affects not only the launch facility, but nearby private property.
People will not accept less than an energy efficient window replacement that is as good as if not better than the existing windows. Those are not cheap. My brother inlaw just replaced two windows in his NYC apartment to the tune of $4000 per window. The few times I've had them quoted I choked on the quote. The window replacement market is big business.
Plus you have to convince the residents that they need these windows. There are people who will refuse new windows, especial if they live in a very old house with very old glass.
And what does that say to Joe public about the safety of launches from Wallops?
-
#218
by
arachnitect
on 06 Oct, 2014 16:25
-
-
#219
by
MP99
on 06 Oct, 2014 16:48
-
Finally, there is the concern that termination overpressure might shower people with broken window glass. Rather than prohibit solids, maybe the right thing to do is fix the windows. They could be replaced with safety glass, or there are films designed for just this purpose.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Window_Film/Solutions/Markets-Products/Residential/Safety-Security_Window_Films/ that could be used to retrofit existing windows. If you needed to retrofit 100,000 windows (which seems really high) at $100 each, that is still only $10 million.
Have you tried to replace replacement windows recently? $100 will get you a chuckle.
The window issue affects not only the launch facility, but nearby private property.
People will not accept less than an energy efficient window replacement that is as good as if not better than the existing windows. Those are not cheap. My brother inlaw just replaced two windows in his NYC apartment to the tune of $4000 per window. The few times I've had them quoted I choked on the quote. The window replacement market is big business.
Plus you have to convince the residents that they need these windows. There are people who will refuse new windows, especial if they live in a very old house with very old glass.
And what does that say to Joe public about the safety of launches from Wallops?
$100 dollars per window is just to apply a plastic film over the glass, to stop shards flying in the event of an explosion.
The last office building I worked in had the sheets retrofitted onto every window shortly after 9/11 (or it might have been after 7/7).
Cheers, Martin
