-
#240 by kevin-rf on 16 Oct, 2014 17:46
-
Why so coy Orbital?
Smart money still on RD-181
Why tip ones hand so your competitors know your next move and counter it?
I just hope they managed to resurrect and fit 5 modernized F-1's on a wide body Antares
-
#241 by TrevorMonty on 16 Oct, 2014 17:56
-
A RD 181 would give them the option to fly crew vehicles.
-
#242 by Lobo on 16 Oct, 2014 18:01
-
Apparently Orbital made a decission, but does not tell for now. The re-engined Antares will be ready in late 2016 or early 2017 and will have a performance improvement.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/522746147522109441
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/522746399637528576
Very interesting.
If ready that soon, then likely not AR-1.
And while ATK could probably have a 3.71m wide composite solid rocket motor ready in that time frame (they got Caster 30XL developed very quickly), that time frame is probably too short for the kind of launch infrastructure changes needed for big solids, as they'd need to move to the Cape build a new pad at and old pad location, or modify an old shuttle MLP and launch from 39B. It seems pretty unlikely they could adapt Wallops to it as has been discussed.
So yea, seems like in that time frame it would be a kerolox engine of similar performance to AJ26, with perhaps just a stretched core as more performance is mentioned. So one RD-181, or perhaps two RD-191's or RD-193's on a stretched core seems like a pretty likely option given everything. RD-191 would share production with Angara and RD-193 would in the near future share production with Soyuz-2-1v.
About the only thing I can think of that is feasible in 2-2.5 years from a booster modificationa and launch facility standpoint.
Seems like OrbATK would be inviting some potential future issues with Russian/US politics. The issue that ULA seems to be moving away from.
-
#243 by Zed_Noir on 16 Oct, 2014 18:49
-
After reading the tweets from Stephan Clark. My WAG that Orbital will sub-contracted the propulsion stuff to SpaceX is still in play.
@Lobo, the time frame to integrate any new Russian engine to a variant of the current Antares core seems very tight. -
#244 by Space Ghost 1962 on 16 Oct, 2014 19:20
-
Correct. For AR-1 to be an option, need obvious billion dollar infusion soon. House last year voted a measly $2M in Ebola funding, 12.5x just came in from Zuckerberg alone, not hearing any increase either way. Testing would have to start in 6 months for this.Apparently Orbital made a decission, but does not tell for now. The re-engined Antares will be ready in late 2016 or early 2017 and will have a performance improvement.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/522746147522109441
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/522746399637528576
If ready that soon, then likely not AR-1.And while ATK could probably have a 3.71m wide composite solid rocket motor ready in that time frame (they got Caster 30XL developed very quickly), that time frame is probably too short for the kind of launch infrastructure changes needed for big solids, as they'd need to move to the Cape build a new pad at and old pad location, or modify an old shuttle MLP and launch from 39B. It seems pretty unlikely they could adapt Wallops to it as has been discussed.
Fast path for this would be another VIF at LC41, which would totally annoy ULA. Perhaps 9 months start for facilities, 3 month start for stage prototypes.So yea, seems like in that time frame it would be a kerolox engine of similar performance to AJ26, with perhaps just a stretched core as more performance is mentioned.
The question to ask is how much performance increase? How does it affect other missions besides CRS payload increases? Does it affect the rest of the stack? Any increase in C3? These will tell the rest of the story.
But if it is a re-engine, then no more NK-33ish to export from Russia? That's interesting right there. By my count a few hundred engines including NK43's are then to be unflown. Why?So one RD-181, or perhaps two RD-191's or RD-193's on a stretched core seems like a pretty likely option given everything. RD-191 would share production with Angara and RD-193 would in the near future share production with Soyuz-2-1v.
Yup.
About the only thing I can think of that is feasible in 2-2.5 years from a booster modification and launch facility standpoint.Seems like OrbATK would be inviting some potential future issues with Russian/US politics. The issue that ULA seems to be moving away from.
Orbital is not in it from a strategic point of view (yet). They are coldly calculated players at LV economics. They will work up CRS, then additional missions, then a second launch site, well before they can afford to take on things that impinge on the politics. Just look at the fun ULA and SpaceX are having right now together. A three-way legal brawl with national security implications would make the geopolitical stuff all the more exciting.
Keep in mind its not just engines, its the outsourcing to Ukraine as well. Watch closely Sea Launch as well for hints as to how that is going - the more games you hear, the longer, less definite the plans are.
ULA's done an excellent job of communicating a rational way out. But they had to. And it means that no matter the "geometry" of frozen conflicts in the future, they can adapt.
As to the frozen conflicts, watch cash flows closely. The kleptocracy's weak spot is cash on hand. Even the Chinese are extremely wary of fronting cash no matter what they get in return. Hand to mouth means slooow chaaaange ...After reading the tweets from Stephan Clark. My WAG that Orbital will sub-contracted the propulsion stuff to SpaceX is still in play.
Ok, the two "far out" ways would be acquiring from BO or SpaceX. They are indigenous. Why would either of these come off? BO's busy with ULA, has no time, doesn't need money. SpaceX sells launch services, why fund a competitor? None of this makes any sense whatsoever.
@Lobo, the time frame to integrate any new Russian engine to a variant of the current Antares core seems very tight.
More likely getting Europe/Japan partners for engines. Not much hydrocarbon boost to be had there ... -
#245 by Zed_Noir on 16 Oct, 2014 19:48
-
...
Exactly. Orbital buys launch service from SpaceX and exits the launch business. Yes, it's far out and unlikely to happen.After reading the tweets from Stephan Clark. My WAG that Orbital will sub-contracted the propulsion stuff to SpaceX is still in play.
Ok, the two "far out" ways would be acquiring from BO or SpaceX. They are indigenous. Why would either of these come off? BO's busy with ULA, has no time, doesn't need money. SpaceX sells launch services, why fund a competitor? None of this makes any sense whatsoever.
...
... -
#246 by kevin-rf on 16 Oct, 2014 20:02
-
Remember part of the reason they started Antares was they no longer had a domestic vehicle to launch Delta II class payloads they built in a cost effective manor. The falcon has filled that niche, and has flown payloads built by Orbital. So it is not to far out.
-
#247 by TrevorMonty on 16 Oct, 2014 20:03
-
Given time frame the mostly likely candidate is a Russian engine. SpaceX might sell them Merlins, at least they would still be make money off a competitor's launch..
Pad modifications seems to rule out solids.
The BE4 is definitely not an option. The BE3 is available but would require a totally new LV. -
#248 by Zed_Noir on 16 Oct, 2014 20:35
-
...
To clarified . Orbital buys the F9 and the use of LC-40 pad to launch the Cygnus to LEO. They don't spend any money adopting the Merlin or any other engine to their Ukrainian core if they exit the launch business. Just stick the Cygnus inside the F9 payload fairing.
SpaceX might sell them Merlins, at least they would still be make money off a competitor's launch..
...
-
#249 by Space Ghost 1962 on 16 Oct, 2014 20:44
-
...
Exactly. Orbital buys launch service from SpaceX and exits the launch business. Yes, it's far out and unlikely to happen.After reading the tweets from Stephan Clark. My WAG that Orbital will sub-contracted the propulsion stuff to SpaceX is still in play.
Ok, the two "far out" ways would be acquiring from BO or SpaceX. They are indigenous. Why would either of these come off? BO's busy with ULA, has no time, doesn't need money. SpaceX sells launch services, why fund a competitor? None of this makes any sense whatsoever.
...
...
Except that doesn't fit for why they did/do the launch business in the first place, as a means to secure a stream of sats to orbit independent of provider(s). Additionally, why acquire ATK, which is mostly propulsion for weapons and sats ...Remember part of the reason they started Antares was they no longer had a domestic vehicle to launch Delta II class payloads they built in a cost effective manor. The falcon has filled that niche, and has flown payloads built by Orbital. So it is not to far out.
Correct about Delta II being addressed.
But note that the launch economics of F9 1.1 exceed this. They've taken on ULA/Atlas/AF. Costs are rising. Unless reuse lowers costs significantly, we've again got a problem if ELV costs rise closer to Atlas levels, and Atlas droops lower (bit of a fantasy, but, hey, one likes to dream ...).
So if F9R does what Musk claims, yup, they own the Delta II slot forever. Note - they still don't do all of the vehicle capabilities - some are still missing. And if FHR comes on hot and heavy, about 90% of current EELV.
But then, does this mean that OrbATK is back to flying solids out of WFF as a fallback? Can't see how that could work out.
The only WFF LRE LV's look like the obvious ones. -
#250 by Jim on 16 Oct, 2014 20:55
-
Fast path for this would be another VIF at LC41, which would totally annoy ULA. Perhaps 9 months start for facilities, 3 month start for stage prototypes.
Huh? OSC can't stick their vehicle in there and use SLC-41. It is ULA's exclusive use. -
#251 by Jim on 16 Oct, 2014 20:57
-
To clarified . Orbital buys the F9 and the use of LC-40 pad to launch the Cygnus to LEO. They don't spend any money adopting the Merlin or any other engine to their Ukrainian core if they exit the launch business. Just stick the Cygnus inside the F9 payload fairing.
Not worth the effort. -
#252 by kevin-rf on 16 Oct, 2014 23:38
-
Fast path for this would be another VIF at LC41, which would totally annoy ULA. Perhaps 9 months start for facilities, 3 month start for stage prototypes.
Huh? OSC can't stick their vehicle in there and use SLC-41. It is ULA's exclusive use.
Maybe it was part of the ULA Orbital anti-trust settlement (Yes I am making it up)
-
#253 by Space Ghost 1962 on 17 Oct, 2014 00:02
-
Maybe it was part of the ULA Orbital anti-trust settlement
Fast path for this would be another VIF at LC41, which would totally annoy ULA. Perhaps 9 months start for facilities, 3 month start for stage prototypes.
Huh? OSC can't stick their vehicle in there and use SLC-41. It is ULA's exclusive use. (Yes I am making it up)
The govt giveth, and the govt takes away
Hey, they still can fly, and even add another VIF for say a 5 meter Atlas work alike!
Think of it as facilities utilization ... Boy would that be a pain!
-
#254 by kevin-rf on 17 Oct, 2014 00:09
-
Didn't I read somewhere that the site only has room for three VIF's?
They are better sticking with Wallops and coming up with a good upper stage with multiple restarts. That way they could do decent polar and GTO. -
#255 by Space Ghost 1962 on 17 Oct, 2014 00:23
-
Didn't I read somewhere that the site only has room for three VIF's?
Itching to do nat sec birds. Either/both CCAFS/ Vandenberg. Not a chance WFF for this stuff.
They are better sticking with Wallops and coming up with a good upper stage with multiple restarts. That way they could do decent polar and GTO.
Anyways, they have problems with LRE first stage. And you want them to do a LRE US, which BTW they wanted a Russian engine for that originally as well?
But yeah, a HE US, if they still could fly more Antares LV besides CRS, would really make for a nice launch service provider business. -
#256 by Patchouli on 17 Oct, 2014 05:57
-
Why so coy Orbital?
Smart money still on RD-181
Why tip ones hand so your competitors know your next move and counter it?
I just hope they managed to resurrect and fit 5 modernized F-1's on a wide body Antares
Maybe a single simplified F-1 on a Zenit sized core but most likely I think it's the RD-193 or RD-181.
Despite having a lower ISP a single F-1 with appropriately sized tanks would offer a massive increase in performance.
Though this would be unlikely to be ready by 2016 though it would be faster to get ready for flight then the AR-1.
-
#257 by Lars-J on 17 Oct, 2014 06:47
-
Maybe a single simplified F-1 on a Zenit sized core but most likely I think it's the RD-193 or RD-181.
Despite having a lower ISP a single F-1 with appropriately sized tanks would offer a massive increase in performance.
Though this would be unlikely to be ready by 2016 though it would be faster to get ready for flight then the AR-1.
An F-1 engine ready faster than AR-1? Surely you are kidding. Neither will happen, though. -
#258 by Patchouli on 17 Oct, 2014 06:55
-
An F-1 engine ready faster than AR-1? Surely you are kidding. Neither will happen, though.
It's a low pressure engine that doesn't push the limits of it's construction materials as much and would be mostly based on technology the industry is familiar with so design and testing should go faster.
It's similar to how building a large displacement big block V8 for a hotrod is a lot easier then building a formula one engine.
But yes both are unlikely considering the 2016 date so the RD-193 or RD-181 are probably the most likely candidates as they'd require the least amount of rework.
Second most likely candidate is a SRB stage from ATK though this would likely have to be two stages to offer then same performance of the present first stage. -
#259 by MP99 on 17 Oct, 2014 07:42
-
So yea, seems like in that time frame it would be a kerolox engine of similar performance to AJ26, with perhaps just a stretched core as more performance is mentioned.
The question to ask is how much performance increase? How does it affect other missions besides CRS payload increases? Does it affect the rest of the stack? Any increase in C3? These will tell the rest of the story.
But if it is a re-engine, then no more NK-33ish to export from Russia? That's interesting right there. By my count a few hundred engines including NK43's are then to be unflown. Why?
I thought the whole reason for this issue in the first place was coming to the end of supply of NK-33?
Cheers, Martin
