Antares General Discussion Thread

#480 by sdsds on 23 Dec, 2014 20:31
Quote from: ArbitraryConstant on 23 Dec, 2014 18:27
here we are with AJR's potentially exiting the market because they didn't invest, while Blue Origin was Johnny-on-the-spot with a half-completed engine because they did.

I don't disagree, but have two questions. 1. Where do we get the idea that AJR is potentially exiting the market? 2. Where do we get the idea that the Blue engine is "half-completed"? (Or did you mean "half" as a colloquialism for "partially"?)
#481 by edkyle99 on 24 Dec, 2014 05:28
Quote from: sdsds on 23 Dec, 2014 20:31
1. Where do we get the idea that AJR is potentially exiting the market? 2. Where do we get the idea that the Blue engine is "half-completed"? (Or did you mean "half" as a colloquialism for "partially"?)
Since BE-4 will replace RD-180 and RS-68, and since Orbital just shelved AJ26, Aerojet Rocketdyne stands to lose all of its currently-active liquid booster propulsion business. It will still make smaller engines, like RL-10, RS-88 and the like.

The "half-completed" talk came from the ULA/Blue press conference, which suggested that BE-4 is already "well under way", some three years into development with four more years to go.

- Ed Kyle
#482 by ArbitraryConstant on 24 Dec, 2014 06:06
Quote from: sdsds on 23 Dec, 2014 20:31
1. Where do we get the idea that AJR is potentially exiting the market?
Just run the current situation forward a few years. I think the chance any of their LREs still having a customer in 10 years is poor.

Quote from: sdsds on 23 Dec, 2014 20:31
2. Where do we get the idea that the Blue engine is "half-completed"? (Or did you mean "half" as a colloquialism for "partially"?)
Something around half the time required for development had already elapsed, hence the time to the engine being available is cut by an important amount.
#483 by ArbitraryConstant on 24 Dec, 2014 06:19
Quote from: edkyle99 on 24 Dec, 2014 05:28
Since BE-4 will replace RD-180 and RS-68, and since Orbital just shelved AJ26, Aerojet Rocketdyne stands to lose all of its currently-active liquid booster propulsion business.
Yes.

Quote from: edkyle99 on 24 Dec, 2014 05:28
It will still make smaller engines, like RL-10, RS-88 and the like.
ULA is being relatively low key about its plans and schedule to replace RL-10 but those plans don't seem that far behind the first stage.
#484 by TrevorMonty on 24 Dec, 2014 08:46
Quote from: edkyle99 on 24 Dec, 2014 05:28
Quote from: sdsds on 23 Dec, 2014 20:31
1. Where do we get the idea that AJR is potentially exiting the market? 2. Where do we get the idea that the Blue engine is "half-completed"? (Or did you mean "half" as a colloquialism for "partially"?)
Since BE-4 will replace RD-180 and RS-68, and since Orbital just shelved AJ26, Aerojet Rocketdyne stands to lose all of its currently-active liquid booster propulsion business. It will still make smaller engines, like RL-10, RS-88 and the like.

The "half-completed" talk came from the ULA/Blue press conference, which suggested that BE-4 is already "well under way", some three years into development with four more years to go.

- Ed Kyle
They expect BE4 to be flight ready in 2017.
#485 by Prober on 27 Dec, 2014 15:20
Quote from: edkyle99 on 24 Dec, 2014 05:28
Quote from: sdsds on 23 Dec, 2014 20:31
1. Where do we get the idea that AJR is potentially exiting the market? 2. Where do we get the idea that the Blue engine is "half-completed"? (Or did you mean "half" as a colloquialism for "partially"?)
Since BE-4 will replace RD-180 and RS-68, and since Orbital just shelved AJ26, Aerojet Rocketdyne stands to lose all of its currently-active liquid booster propulsion business. It will still make smaller engines, like RL-10, RS-88 and the like.

The "half-completed" talk came from the ULA/Blue press conference, which suggested that BE-4 is already "well under way", some three years into development with four more years to go.

- Ed Kyle

you have "insight" Ed....agree with you.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36387.msg1306565#msg1306565
#486 by newpylong on 03 Feb, 2015 14:51
Implications for Antares with Russia ending Zenit program?
#487 by kevin-rf on 03 Feb, 2015 15:37
Just a WAG, but considering Zenit's low launch rate in recent years, it shouldn't have much of an impact on tank costs.

1 in 2014
2 in 2013
3 in 2012
5 in 2011
0 in 2010

I think a bigger worry should be the tank factory being "damaged" by the current unrest.
#488 by kevin-rf on 03 Feb, 2015 15:42
Not to show geo/political ignorance, but are not the tanks produced in Dnipropetrovsk? Which is inside the eastern Ukraine area of conflict?

More a question, does Orbital have a tank plan B?
#489 by edkyle99 on 03 Feb, 2015 16:53
Quote from: kevin-rf on 03 Feb, 2015 15:42
Not to show geo/political ignorance, but are not the tanks produced in Dnipropetrovsk? Which is inside the eastern Ukraine area of conflict?
It is well within the Kiev controlled zone currently. But of more importance is the possibility of the Ukrainian company shutting itself down, as it is reportedly on the verge of bankruptcy, etc. Yuzhmash is reportedly shut down right now, its workers, who say they haven't been paid since June, sent home until March at least. (Of course these reports could be propaganda, since you would expect a company like this to be producing arms for Kiev right now.)

- Ed Kyle
#490 by Lobo on 03 Feb, 2015 17:44
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03 Feb, 2015 16:53
Quote from: kevin-rf on 03 Feb, 2015 15:42
Not to show geo/political ignorance, but are not the tanks produced in Dnipropetrovsk? Which is inside the eastern Ukraine area of conflict?
It is well within the Kiev controlled zone currently. But of more importance is the possibility of the Ukrainian company shutting itself down, as it is reportedly on the verge of bankruptcy, etc. Yuzhmash is reportedly shut down right now, its workers, who say they haven't been paid since June, sent home until March at least. (Of course these reports could be propaganda, since you would expect a company like this to be producing arms for Kiev right now.)

- Ed Kyle

So what are the implications for the Antares cores? Not good, I'd imagine. Can OSC order enough cores from them to keep them in business?
#491 by notsorandom on 03 Feb, 2015 17:56
Two scenarios seem likely now. One is that the plant closes down due to bankruptcy, the current conflict, etc. In that case Orbital must find a new way to make the tanks or Antares is no more. The other case is that the factory keeps its doors open yet looses Russia as a market and revenue stream. Which would mean to keep afloat they have to put more of the overhead on the remaining products. Orbital would have to pay more, possibly quite a bit more, for the Antares tanks. One of the reasons Antares is profitable at a low flight rate is that much of the overhead is shared with their supplier's other customers.
#492 by Lobo on 03 Feb, 2015 23:32
Quote from: notsorandom on 03 Feb, 2015 17:56
Two scenarios seem likely now. One is that the plant closes down due to bankruptcy, the current conflict, etc. In that case Orbital must find a new way to make the tanks or Antares is no more. The other case is that the factory keeps its doors open yet looses Russia as a market and revenue stream. Which would mean to keep afloat they have to put more of the overhead on the remaining products. Orbital would have to pay more, possibly quite a bit more, for the Antares tanks. One of the reasons Antares is profitable at a low flight rate is that much of the overhead is shared with their supplier's other customers.

This would seem problematic ofr OrbATK. Make me wonder if pursuing the wide body composite Solid booster might have been better after the Antares explosion. Investment would have to be made in infrastructure changes, but they they'd have had essentially both the engine, and core, in house. Now they have to invest at least into reengineing the boosters stage, and may either need to invest in a new booster stage, or pay a lot more to keep their existing one.

It wouldn't have been ready quickly but may have been better (for them) in the long run.

Are there other domestic (or foreign) rocket core options?
Dynetics was working on a 5m wide SLS booster core, and had put together part of a pathfinder tank or something as I recall. As that's probably not going anywhere now, could Dynetics produce a core for Antares?
#493 by Ikarie XB-1 on 12 Feb, 2015 00:00
I wouldn't want to be in Orbital's shoes right now. Half way through a major NASA contract, having lost a bird, having to quickly re-engine (RD-181 must cost more than leftover AJ-26) while paying for contingency flights on Atlas and now in real danger of loosing their tank manufacture - or having to pay a lot more for it. Meanwhile, F9R is inching closer to reality (as an actual RLV), which might make it cheaper to fly Delta II/Antares payloads than using Orbital's own vehicle. I wonder if we'll ever see Orbital doing CRS2? If so, I wonder if we'll ever see a commercial Antares sat launch?

Anyone know the number of tanks already delivered or at least manufactured in support of CRS1? If - god forbid - things turn for the worst in Ukraine, will Orbital be able to at least conduct the remaining CRS1 launches without relying on further core production?
#494 by baldusi on 12 Feb, 2015 04:14
Actually, OrbitalATK can simply keep using the Atlas V. With a slight stretch (the super Cygnus 5-segment would have 33m³) they might be able to cover their contract in just 3 launches (could do 5,000kg/launch if it was dense enough). Since they were receiving 280M per launch on CRS-1 for 2,500kg per launch, and I would guess that an Atlas V 401 would cost them less than 130M, they could very well do a very handsome profit none the less. And with commercial crew launching on Av that would mean some 12 to 14 AV per year. That should get them a nice price.
#495 by jimvela on 12 Feb, 2015 04:32
Quote from: baldusi on 12 Feb, 2015 04:14
Actually, OrbitalATK can simply keep using the Atlas V.

Well, other than the fact that AV is getting re-engined as well...

How many are actually available for such use given the need to provide assured access to space for the primary EELV customers?
#496 by butters on 12 Feb, 2015 05:10
I think OrbAtk should focus on solids. There's always going to be a market for those. In liquids it's going to be SpaceX vs. ULA (and their new-space engine partners). The Orbital side brings the satellite bus expertise and they should also focus on that. Solids and satellites.
#497 by baldusi on 12 Feb, 2015 12:42
Quote from: jimvela on 12 Feb, 2015 04:32
Quote from: baldusi on 12 Feb, 2015 04:14
Actually, OrbitalATK can simply keep using the Atlas V.

Well, other than the fact that AV is getting re-engined as well...

How many are actually available for such use given the need to provide assured access to space for the primary EELV customers?
As many as required. NPO Energomash is more than happy to sell as many RD-180 as requested. And the Russian Government has no problem for ISS runs. Besides, you have to look at how new cores are deployed. If they have their inaugural flight in 2019, then they'll have a couple of launches in 2020, four or five in 2021 and probably move all non paranoiac customers to new core by 2022/3. So it's not really a problem for the CRS-2 contract, since it's close to the expected life of the ISS.
#498 by Lobo on 12 Feb, 2015 16:08
Quote from: jimvela on 12 Feb, 2015 04:32
Quote from: baldusi on 12 Feb, 2015 04:14
Actually, OrbitalATK can simply keep using the Atlas V.

Well, other than the fact that AV is getting re-engined as well...

How many are actually available for such use given the need to provide assured access to space for the primary EELV customers?

Yea, I'd think before they signed the contract for the RD-181's is the time to have decided to keep flying on Atlas.

I think there's two separate issues here.

1) Fulfilling NASA's CRS contract.

2) OrbATK becoming a playing in the commercial and USG payload market (as they've said they intended to)

For the first, they may have determined repairing the pad and what are probably fairly minor modifications to mount the RD-181 engines won't be that expensive. The temporary move to Atlas is likely more an issue of time than money. Once Antares is flying again, they won't need Atlas for that, And Antares is likely cheaper for them, and they really only need enough Antares cores and RD-181 pairs to complete the CRS contract. (not sure how many that is).

The second issue becomes more sticky. Antares isn't a great launcher BLEO because of the lack of a high energy upper stage, and most payloads are going BLEO for comsats and USG sats. Wallops is not a good location for those orbits, and Jim has said before that USG won't launch their payloads on an LV that's not launching out of CCAFS for East Coast launches. It also sounds like the pad at Wallops would not be easily modified for vertical payload integration which USG would require.
To compete for USG payloads, OrbATK will also need a West Coast Pad, as I understand. So they'll need a pad at VAFB, or perhaps Kodiak?
And even with a high energy hydrolox upper stage it would probably have performance similar to Atlas V-401. Good for most commercial sats, but I think Antares might need the capability to lift more than that for USG payloads. ULA has the heavier Atlas and Delta variants. SpaceX will have FH. What will OrbATK do? Can they just compete for the smaller payloads or does USAF require they can cover their full payload range? Not sure how that works, but that's a potential issue there. Maybe that means an Antares Heavy, or can the Antares core be adapted to mount ATK GEM-60's? (can they contractually use them for any LV other than Delta?)

So, if I understand correctly, if they really want to compete for USG payloads, OrbATK will need a CCCAFS pad, a West Coast pad, both with vertical payload integration. And perhaps heavier variants to cover the larger USAF/DoD payloads?
I think it's this aspect which really makes relying on the Ukrakian cores in the long run become problematic I think. As well as the Russian engines for reasons ULA is seeing.

A stockpile of cores and the Russian RD-181 contract can get them through the CRS contract flying from Wallops as a short term (and relatively inexpensive) fix for that contract. But beyond that there's a lot of questions with the engine, core, and launch site.

This is where I think boosters using the 3.7m wide composite solids, along with a new hydrolox upper stage could still be in the mix. Wallops couldn't handle that but that would be a moot point as OrbATK would need a CCAFS pad anyway. They can build the new pad to accommodate the large solid motors. And obviously there's rail accommodations to the cape from Utah for such segments. That puts the engines and cores all in-house at OrbATK. As well as upper stage motors that already exist in-house like Castor 120 adn Castor 30XL. Pretty much everything but a new hydrolox upper stage/engines. They’d have options for heavier payloads such as putting three 1st stage motors in a parallel “heavy” configuration, or ringing the single booster motor with GEM-60’s like a Delta II.
And well...ATK has always been fond of such an LV. (Athena III, Liberty)
Regardless of that, I think it has a lot of benefit for OrbATK in the long run. Particularly if SLS survives long enough for NASA to start ordering Advanced solid boosters as they'd use the same casing tooling and propellants.
But this wouldn't be available to quickly get Cygnus launches back in-house to fulfill the CRS contract. They'd be reliant on someone else for several years. So -maybe- the re-engined Antares is more like an interim step using an existing alternate engine on their existing (repaired) pad?
#499 by Lobo on 12 Feb, 2015 16:09
Quote from: butters on 12 Feb, 2015 05:10
I think OrbAtk should focus on solids. There's always going to be a market for those. In liquids it's going to be SpaceX vs. ULA (and their new-space engine partners). The Orbital side brings the satellite bus expertise and they should also focus on that. Solids and satellites.

Agreed. For the reasons I just listed above. :-)