-
#340
by
GalacticIntruder
on 06 Nov, 2014 18:05
-
Might as well ask what was the whole point of CRS contracts to Orbital if they are just going to farm out the Cygnus to SpaceX or ULA? How much time and money was spent by NASA and Orbital to certify the Antares, and now they want to kick it to the curb?
If it was a great idea not to use Antares, and it probably is, they should have done that from day one.
-
#341
by
Cherokee43v6
on 06 Nov, 2014 18:10
-
Might as well ask what was the whole point of CRS contracts to Orbital if they are just going to farm out the Cygnus to SpaceX or ULA? How much time and money was spent by NASA and Orbital to certify the Antares, and now they want to kick it to the curb?
If it was a great idea not to use Antares, and it probably is, they should have done that from day one.
The contract was for 'delivery service' not 'delivery equipment'. Therefore, if Orbital can fly the Cygnus on another booster successfully, then they are meeting the letter AND spirit of the agreement.
The Antares was merely their choice of launch vehicle for Cygnus. Will it cost Orbital more to fly on someone else's rocket? Most likely. However, it will also prove the robustness of their selection if they can do so, since by not being locked to a single LV, they provide assured access baring any failures of the Cygnus vehicle.
-
#342
by
Lars-J
on 06 Nov, 2014 18:24
-
Might as well ask what was the whole point of CRS contracts to Orbital if they are just going to farm out the Cygnus to SpaceX or ULA? How much time and money was spent by NASA and Orbital to certify the Antares, and now they want to kick it to the curb?
If it was a great idea not to use Antares, and it probably is, they should have done that from day one.
This was not the plan, it will just be a temporary occurrence for one or two launches. Meanwhile they are accelerating the timeline for the Antares engine replacement. What more do you want?
-
#343
by
R7
on 06 Nov, 2014 18:50
-
how do we count?
NK-33:
- 2 piece rotor
- 2 Impeller
- Fuel Boost Pump shaft
RD-170
- 2 piece rotor
- 2 external prepumps (still shafts) driven by oxygen rich gas and fuel
The fuelpump is now a two-stage pump and doesn't require gearing. The pre-pumps are driven by fluids and don't require gearing, but require piping and turbines.
It's a matter of opinion whether one counts the main shaft as one with flexible middle or as two shaft connected by a spring. I chose the former. Your NK-33 list lacks the idler wheel shaft. RD-180 has proven the gearless approach with turbine driven boost pumps quite robust.
-
#344
by
R7
on 06 Nov, 2014 18:51
-
Cool video, but I am experiencing some difficulties with the subtitles.
Somehow you have activated the subtitles for hybrid engines.
-
#345
by
Kim Keller
on 06 Nov, 2014 18:57
-
How much time and money was spent by NASA and Orbital to certify the Antares, and now they want to kick it to the curb?
NASA did not certify Antares.
-
#346
by
Prober
on 06 Nov, 2014 18:59
-
Might as well ask what was the whole point of CRS contracts to Orbital if they are just going to farm out the Cygnus to SpaceX or ULA? How much time and money was spent by NASA and Orbital to certify the Antares, and now they want to kick it to the curb?
If it was a great idea not to use Antares, and it probably is, they should have done that from day one.
This was not the plan, it will just be a temporary occurrence for one or two launches. Meanwhile they are accelerating the timeline for the Antares engine replacement. What more do you want?
Launching on the Falcon was also contracted to be seamless. This was not the case with the translation from Falcon 1.0 to 1.1 and NASA worked with the contract.
-
#347
by
abaddon
on 06 Nov, 2014 19:00
-
Might as well ask what was the whole point of CRS contracts to Orbital if they are just going to farm out the Cygnus to SpaceX or ULA? How much time and money was spent by NASA and Orbital to certify the Antares, and now they want to kick it to the curb?
If it was a great idea not to use Antares, and it probably is, they should have done that from day one.
This was not the plan, it will just be a temporary occurrence for one or two launches. Meanwhile they are accelerating the timeline for the Antares engine replacement. What more do you want?
Jello shots. For everyone.
-
#348
by
Antares
on 07 Nov, 2014 02:33
-
That's almost right. Orbital and NASA just announced their plans, abandoning the AJ-26 and stepping up work for the replacement engines already on the drawing board, with MARS repaired in the coming year. Doing that time, one or two Cygnus flights will go using "non-Antares" vehicles.
I missed the NASA announcement. Can you point me to it? /sarc
-
#349
by
sdsds
on 20 Nov, 2014 20:20
-
It's rather neat that with the Orbital ATK merger in progress ATK must provide us (well, must provide investors) an essentially "outside" review of both the mishap and the MIB, since it effects their business plan. In a recent investor Q&A:
when you combine the assessment of the likelihood of the execution of the recovery plan with the - NASA’s continuing involvement and the interest in affordable innovation and Orbital’s ability to continue to deliver that, those factors came together to allow us to reach the conclusions that we talked about. That we thought there would be limited impact in the go-forward business and the go-forward competition.
(Source: the Nov. 20 filing at:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=IROL-sec)
-
#350
by
a_langwich
on 10 Dec, 2014 01:00
-
The RD-170 design may be an improvement, but is there any evidence the NK-33 design is bad? What we've seen is that 40-year-old parts apparently can't be made to be as reliable as newly made engines of other designs. Who knows whether a 40-year-old RD-170, or RD-180, or RD-181, or any other design, would prove to be even as robust as the NK-33? They fired an old F-1 gas generator, but that's a tiny test compared to putting two complete engines under an LV and flying all the way to orbit, multiple times.
At this point, I'd characterize what we've learned is "non-destructive evaluation is not sufficient to identify all the problems that may occur with aging/weathering" more than any design problem with the NK-33. Or, we may have learned "Aerojet wasn't capable of making AJ-26 fully reliable at the price they charged for the engine," whether that is due to limits in our technology (NDE limits), or just flaws in its competencies as a company (like Proton), or limits in its willingness to meet that standard at that price (eg, "our tests indicated we should replace all of ____, but we aren't going to do that because of cost").
The NK-33 should still be considered a towering achievement for its time, a regeneratively cooled oxygen-rich staged combustion engine of surprising efficiency and power-to-weight ratio. Like most prize fighters, it may have lost its last match, but that shouldn't diminish its achievement: perhaps the best engine in the world in its day. Tragically it didn't have the opportunity to prove that in its prime. Even now, there's no chance to correct problems and produce fixed new engines, because of the lost assembly line.
-
#351
by
kevin-rf
on 10 Dec, 2014 02:06
-
Cough, Soyuz-2-1v... A little early to be writing obituaries. It may be done on Antares, but it may still have some life left in it.
-
#352
by
Lars-J
on 10 Dec, 2014 05:36
-
The RD-170 design may be an improvement, but is there any evidence the NK-33 design is bad? What we've seen is that 40-year-old parts apparently can't be made to be as reliable as newly made engines of other designs. Who knows whether a 40-year-old RD-170, or RD-180, or RD-181, or any other design, would prove to be even as robust as the NK-33? They fired an old F-1 gas generator, but that's a tiny test compared to putting two complete engines under an LV and flying all the way to orbit, multiple times.
You could be right - However, since new-build NK-33's are not available, that distinction isn't worth much.
-
#353
by
Zed_Noir
on 10 Dec, 2014 07:30
-
Cough, Soyuz-2-1v... A little early to be writing obituaries. It may be done on Antares, but it may still have some life left in it.
IIRC the Russians is only using the NK-33 as an interim measure before switching to RD-193 on the Soyuz 2-1v.
-
#354
by
edkyle99
on 10 Dec, 2014 15:50
-
Atlas V, the most expensive option but also likely the most reliable option. I wonder why Falcon 9 didn't make the cut. Maybe it can't lift as much as claimed, or costs more than claimed?
- Ed Kyle
-
#355
by
Lars-J
on 10 Dec, 2014 16:04
-
Atlas V, the most expensive option but also likely the most reliable option. I wonder why Falcon 9 didn't make the cut. Maybe it can't lift as much as claimed, or costs more than claimed?
- Ed Kyle
There could also have been pressure (internal & external) to not put all CRS eggs on one launcher.
-
#356
by
edkyle99
on 10 Dec, 2014 16:07
-
Hard to believe that the new engines are nearly on their way, set to arrive in just a few months if the announced schedule is right, and yet Orbital still has not announced which engines or who will manufacture/deliver them. Meanwhile, ULA has already announced its engine choice for something that won't fly until 2019!
I wonder why.
- Ed Kyle
-
#357
by
a_langwich
on 10 Dec, 2014 16:30
-
The RD-170 design may be an improvement, but is there any evidence the NK-33 design is bad? What we've seen is that 40-year-old parts apparently can't be made to be as reliable as newly made engines of other designs. Who knows whether a 40-year-old RD-170, or RD-180, or RD-181, or any other design, would prove to be even as robust as the NK-33? They fired an old F-1 gas generator, but that's a tiny test compared to putting two complete engines under an LV and flying all the way to orbit, multiple times.
You could be right - However, since new-build NK-33's are not available, that distinction isn't worth much.
It may not matter when choosing whether or not to use the existing supply of old engines. But it matters a great deal when dismissing the excellent work of designers under great pressure, who hit one out of the park. Those guys deserve a lot more credit than they ever got.
-
#358
by
king1999
on 10 Dec, 2014 16:58
-
Hard to believe that the new engines are nearly on their way, set to arrive in just a few months if the announced schedule is right, and yet Orbital still has not announced which engines or who will manufacture/deliver them. Meanwhile, ULA has already announced its engine choice for something that won't fly until 2019!
I wonder why.
- Ed Kyle
Obviously for political reasons. While the Congress is debating on the budget for next year and beyond, they don't want to add anything controversial at the moment. I suspect that they will wait until the spring when everything is quiet down a bit.
-
#359
by
a_langwich
on 10 Dec, 2014 19:04
-
Hard to believe that the new engines are nearly on their way, set to arrive in just a few months if the announced schedule is right, and yet Orbital still has not announced which engines or who will manufacture/deliver them. Meanwhile, ULA has already announced its engine choice for something that won't fly until 2019!
I wonder why.
- Ed Kyle
Yes, I agree, it's curious.
--Do we know if RD-193/RD-181s are approved for export?
--Do we know what corporate entity has the rights to sell the engines abroad? (Orbital must know, since they seem to have contracted for delivery at least the test engines.)
--Does choosing a Russian engine, in light of the McCain amendments to the 2015 NDAA, limit Orbital's ability to sell launches to the government outside of CRS-2?
Another stray thought: isn't the first stage tanking Orbital buys very similar to the Zenit first stage? Doesn't that company also have a license to put an RD-171 on that first stage? Could Orbital have just bought the whole first stage, engines and tanks? (Although Zenit's failure rate has been poor.)
Still, despite these questions, it's pretty fantastic the way they've dealt with what seemed like a severe setback: the loss of confidence in their first stage engines. Their response to investors seems to me to be pretty honest and straightforward, where many companies seem to push the truth as far as the lawyers will let them. It remains to be seen what kind of chunk the Atlas purchase will take out of their profitability, but their ability to adroitly handle an LV RUD ought to be a positive factor for their CRS-2 bid.
If history is any guide, Orbital will have the new engines tested and ready to go before the Virginia spaceport people have the pad repaired.
Especially if they are waiting for Congress to pass a bill, in order to get some funding.
Especially if they are waiting for Congress to pass a bill, in order to get some funding.