-
#560 by Space Ghost 1962 on 19 Feb, 2015 19:36
-
Indeed. The challenge of thinking about this out loud is interesting as signal. The noise of "message discipline" and/or romanticism/exceptionalism boors me, especially given decades of dead ends in aerospace.
Thank you Lobo. Rare to hear any encouragement here to speak more about anything.
You are welcome. Even if I don’t quite agree, I always learn a lot from you and others with a lot of background in this. :-)
I can appreciate that. I've looked for it as well. And while in a massively unpleasant global situation I could see it as a necessary expedient in an extremely rare situation, I can't make the numbers work for this - my hitch with this.
Yes big solids are on "keep alive" with SLS, but as with any politically "too big to fail", fiat driven product of the arsenal system, they drag along baggage with the benefit of funding. You see, once you turn down the path of such development, things creep in, either as expedients "to make it go" somehow (but not for the right reason), or as "acceptants" (good enough for govt work but not acceptable fora business). Once in, they are difficult and tedious to remove.
The greatness of the EELV program was to weed out many of these, and transition to an almost rational business. (Aside, think that competition from SpaceX is reinvigorating what had become a stolid pace or retreat from same - hope for a committed, stable, balanced, evolving, multiple launch service provider market).
Lobo, I know you've really wanted to see something "useful" come out of the big solids side. Hate to rain on that parade, but the time for that was during STS and it past. And I can't bring it up again here, because the same abject blindness is omnipresent. If you want to understand this area more, study Europe's large solids in detail - they have gone further than America in rational economics for big solids, but are hobbled by political division, funding, and geo return.
Yes SLS can underwrite a "fast start" and parallel funding. But even with that, the incremental part of fixed costs is more than Antares. And, any threat to SLS, or postponement of developments/launches/missions would cause short selling and "death watch" mania that no rational business wants.
I guess I see it a little different. It’s not that I wan to see something useful come out of the bid solids (although, in a way I do), but it’s more due to the merger of OSC and ATK. That now means that big solid boosters are an “in-house” item, not something to need to be outsourced. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so to speak. The more you have in-house, the more control of your costs you have. You can streamline, downsize, optimize, or cost-share as necessarily to get price points you want. You can’t do that when you are buying everything from someone else.
I'd like you to think of something else. Not everything has to do with SpaceX. They may be going down a dead-end (don't think so, but it's possible since we don't see the full story). So what else could the merger be about?
Plenty. From a business perspective, ATK's other businesses fit against Orbital's in a way that the revenues "smooth out" the ability to justify to shareholders gradual revenue growth, and growth is hard here. It's a more effective diversification then ATK was trying by itself. It is more likely that this is the point of the merger than LV fallback. So your presumption may not be justified - not solids against LRE's.
You can do solids as competitors to LRE LV's. Absolutely. But they don't compete well apples to apples, to use another fine poster's aphorism. Solids you use more like munitions/ammunition, practically like artillery shells. They are the ultimate in disposables, of a certain caliber. LRE's might be used in reusables (we'll see). They can be used in exotic disposables to certain economic limits. And anything can be used uneconomically as a sledgehammer if you can afford to whack it as big as you want
SpaceX has shown a very good model in that respect. So that merger has changed Antares’ options now. If not for that, I wouldn’t be even talking about OSC buying solids from ATK. I’d think they’d be better off building the core themselves and then perhaps pursuing AR-1 as a future new engine to replace RD-181 as soon as is feasible for the long term Antares business model. But big solids are now in-house, and with them, you have both the “engine” and the “core”.
How specifically has it changed Antare's options? To me there is no change. Because the economics have not shifted enough to accommodate use, even if they are in house.
The best of ATK is in doing custom solids like Antares second stage - but "what's next" like this?
Actually, buying BE-4's if they are "real" would be better, because more volume of consumption. I think the BE-4 / AR-1 gambit is all about if King Stork or King Log can make it to the test stand first and with conviction (my issue about BO/Bezos is lack of conviction, like with his dumb smartphone).
"Engine" and "core"? Nope - that's "LRE thinking". I see it as infrequent, costly "ammo" for a one-off "super gun", in the solids vernacular. Not unlike the Minotaurs - special purpose fireworks of a useful kind. To make them work, you need the logical equivalent of a "revolver", "automatic/cartridge", or "machine/belt" to sequence launches such that the economics of "ammo" full consumption work. The bigger the rounds, the tougher.If OrbATK wants to do anything but just CRS launches, they’ll almost certainly need to move to the Cape. Especially if they want government payloads too. That might be a pipe dream as you say, but they –did- state they want to. I’m taking them at their word and speculating ways to do that. Moving to the Cape then also means access for those 3.7m wide solid motors from Utah which Wallops doesn’t have. So they’ll need to make that investment if they want to do anything but CRS contracts.
They want it, but they don't risk more than they can get. And frankly they risked too much on Nk-33/AJ-26. The good - they got into the medium LV Delta II business. The bad - they couldn't maintain reliable propulsion for it.
What does a new pad at CCAFS/KSC get them? More expense, but greater launch azimuths/energy, DoD payloads, access to SC integration facilities, HSF potential. Vandenberg gets you DoD/polar for the expense. But to win those launches, you need to meet the requirements.
Keep in mind, they will never get cheaper than WFF for their immediate needs. To do those 3.7M solids, the expenses go up drastically. That first expense step up is a doozey! "Oh, excuse me Mr Shareholder, my just exploded LV, with that $0.5B pad/services, is now going to take 10 years instead of 5 to break even, my bad!".
And its not just CRS for WFF, you can do NASA/other institutional missions that you build the sats for. You just aren't going to do AF/NRO/etc, and those are already hard to get into, as SX is finding.Besides the advantage of being in-house, the fact the 3.7m wide composite solid tooling will be underwritten by SLS helps a lot cost wise. They’d still have to develop the monolithic motors out of that 3.7m tooling, but again, given how fast and inexpensively they developed Castor 30XL, I just don’t think that would be a major expense.
That's the cheap part. Now to the 30XL - I'll grant you it's competitive. But you don't need a new pad to displace from, say a kerolox US. So your fixed costs aren't rising. Mess with the first/boosters, and you've got acoustics/overpressure/handling issues that are an issue. Also, 30XL may be at the limit for such an US - an rare ideal case from which others don't follow.
For big solids, its the transport/handling/integration/pad that are among the killers (low iSP too). We tend to forget about them with LRE because the opposite is true for them.And they already have their own facilities for testing such new motors.
So they don't upgrade US - why? Could it perhaps be a "costing trap", e.g. you get used to "too cheap", where the next step up costs too much, because too much needs to change for that increment? Does this sound familiar?
Finally, they’d need a new high energy upper stage. Such a stage was already being looked at for Pegasus II. OrbATK probably has the expertise and ability to manufacture such a stage themselves if they had an engine. RL-10 would have been used for Pegasus II. BE-3 would be an option too…and probably a better one cost and performance wise. So I don’t really know that the stage itself would be a big deal for a company like OrbATK, but it would depend on getting an engine.
Answer is "it depends on the requirements to be competitive", and the use of capital to get there. The only way I can get your big solid LV is if govt special pleading underwrites many costs. Like with SLS. SX and ULA would both want in on the same handouts in that case.I’m certainly no expert in how all of this work, so I’m not saying this is likely or anything. But from my limited knowledge, it does seem fairly plausible though –if- OrbATK wants to become a player in the commercial and government markets as they’ve said. If they abandon that, then they’ll probably just stockpile RD-181 engines and Ukrainian cores and launch CRS missions until there are no more contracts, and then they’ll retire Antares all together.
Yup, likely.
Could you explain your last sentence more? See, that's the part I can't get myself. And I've been trying to do exactly that for much of my life, so I'm a bit familiar with the various attempts to do so. Note the word "attempts".
As long as the transport and handling costs are mitigated, yes. But they have never been for STS, so won't be for SLS, where govt would rather spend the money elsewhere, because the improvement to a "infrequent flyer" makes no sense to them - see above.
I think it would be a different paradigm than STS. STS boosters required very exotic processes to make the steel casings in such a way that they could survive more than one burn. Going to composite SLS segments means the tooling [theoretically] will be vastly cheaper to operate and maintain. It’s a very different thing to spin composites than forge exotic steel. Then the segments don’t need to be recovered from the ocean, transported back to the Cape, de-stacked, and transported back to Utah. As I understand, along with the high cost of maintaining the steel casing forging tooling (which did nothing besides make new STS casings occasionally) the cost of de-mating the segments and shipping everything back to Utah was all involved in making it so expensive.
SLS will have segments transported form Utah to the Cape and then get mated together. So there will be that. A solid Antares would use monolithic motors which would be stacked (rather than mated like segmented motors). As I understand that’s a much easier thing. Stacking rocket stage essentially, like how Castor 30XL is stacked on the Antares core, or the segments of Minotaur or Athena. Just larger.
So I think it could be a very different structure than STS was, even thought they’d be the same diameter. With a plausible chance of being cost effective. -
#561 by Lobo on 23 Feb, 2015 17:22
-
Well, I was going to explain my last sentance more...but the thread got locked. Hmmm...didn't think it'd gotten contentious or OT. I wonder why it was locked?
EDIT: Chris said it appeared to be locked by mistake.Could you explain your last sentence more? See, that's the part I can't get myself. And I've been trying to do exactly that for much of my life, so I'm a bit familiar with the various attempts to do so. Note the word "attempts".
What I mean is that the logistics cycle for the Shuttle SRB's was very different than an Antares with two stacked monolithic 3.7m composite motors would be. A huge amount of the overhead of STS would not be applicable. Really the only thing similar would be their external dimensions. They'd be more like GEM-60's, Atlas SRB's, or Castor 30XL's. From what I understand, it wasn't just the long round trip and the mating and demating of the segments that made the STS SRB's expensive, it was the cost of maintaining the facilities that could forge new segments. They didn't make new ones very often, but they had like two seprate dedicated facilities that had to be kept online year round for just that purpose. I'm not expert in composites, but as far as I know, there's not much different in making small diameter casings vs. big ones. There's larger scale tooling needed, but it could be housed in the same facility that makes the composite GEM-60's. I worked on a project where we sold air compressors into the BMW composite facility up here in Moses Lake, WA and know they have rooms where they make the fibers and then areas where they form the parts. I would think the big 3.7m composite tooling could sit right beside the 60" diameter GEM-60 tooling, and the same people could use either depending on what needs to be made.
Again, this is a simplistic view...the big motors might not be able to ship out of the GEM-60 facility due to size. But my point is with composites, they shouldn't need extra faciliteis fully staffed and sitting on hot stand by so they can forge new casings when the rare call came in (I think for shuttle, they had to keep the forge tooling hot all the time becuse if it cooled, it couldn't be restarted. Which isn't the case at all for expendable composites.)
Then once the new tooling was in place, the paradigm would be more like GEM-60 than STS segments.QuoteWhat does a new pad at CCAFS/KSC get them? More expense, but greater launch azimuths/energy, DoD payloads, access to SC integration facilities, HSF potential. Vandenberg gets you DoD/polar for the expense. But to win those launches, you need to meet the requirements.
Keep in mind, they will never get cheaper than WFF for their immediate needs. To do those 3.7M solids, the expenses go up drastically. That first expense step up is a doozey! "Oh, excuse me Mr Shareholder, my just exploded LV, with that $0.5B pad/services, is now going to take 10 years instead of 5 to break even, my bad!".
Well my main point here is not that a new pad at the Cape would be cheaper than WFF. You are right, they will never get cheaper than WFF and it meets their CRS needs. But that's about all it will ever do. SpaceX opted for a pad in a location where they could fulfill their CRS...-and- that investment could be applied to other applications. OSC now finds themself in a bit of a pickle for their lack of forsight. Although WFF was probably cheaper than setting up Antares at the Cape, they will pay the price for those savings if they want to do other payloads. Ditto for the low cost solid upper stage.
My point is that, if they want to pursue other payloads than CRS (and they've said they do), they'll most likely have to move to the Cape. Even if they keep Antares as is, they'd need to redo everything they have at WFF at a location at the Cape. If they want USAF/DoD paylaods, they'll need a way to vertically integrate the payload. That means some sort of MSS on the pad is it looks like SpaceX will do, or an Atlas or Titan like VIF. Once you are in to it to that extent...if you wanted to switch to a different engine/core, then would be the time. Wouldn't you agree? At the Cape, large solid motor deliveries are then feasible, and those motors could be made in house. So that's what I mean by it changes the future options for Antares. Now that's not to say that's the best/most inexpensive way forward for OrbATK...just that it's plausible where it really isn't at WFF. But OSC has operating a solid booster before, and ATK has wanted to since they conceived Liberty. So you know they are thinking about it. ;-)
Heck the OSC main guy said straight up they were evaluting two liquid options for Antares and one solid option. Any doubt that solid option was 3.7m wide composite solid motors? RD-181 was the other option and the fastest and cheapest to impliment and was the selection, and the other liquid option was probably RD-180.
Anything but CRS means a move to the Cape, a move to the Cape means a whole new pad, and a whole new pad at the Cape means large solids are a plausible option. IMHO anyway.
Again, that's just from a simpistic aerial view. Obviously they'd look at all options and make decisions based on WAY more info than I have. :-)
And your skeptism could be very well founded in the overall calculus.
Been a fun and educations discussion either way though. Thanks!.
-
#562 by MP99 on 23 Feb, 2015 17:43
-
If OrbATK wants to do anything but just CRS launches, they’ll almost certainly need to move to the Cape. Especially if they want government payloads too. That might be a pipe dream as you say, but they –did- state they want to. I’m taking them at their word and speculating ways to do that. Moving to the Cape then also means access for those 3.7m wide solid motors from Utah which Wallops doesn’t have. So they’ll need to make that investment if they want to do anything but CRS contracts.
They want it, but they don't risk more than they can get. And frankly they risked too much on Nk-33/AJ-26. The good - they got into the medium LV Delta II business. The bad - they couldn't maintain reliable propulsion for it.
What does a new pad at CCAFS/KSC get them? More expense, but greater launch azimuths/energy, DoD payloads, access to SC integration facilities, HSF potential. Vandenberg gets you DoD/polar for the expense. But to win those launches, you need to meet the requirements.
Keep in mind, they will never get cheaper than WFF for their immediate needs. To do those 3.7M solids, the expenses go up drastically. That first expense step up is a doozey! "Oh, excuse me Mr Shareholder, my just exploded LV, with that $0.5B pad/services, is now going to take 10 years instead of 5 to break even, my bad!".
And its not just CRS for WFF, you can do NASA/other institutional missions that you build the sats for. You just aren't going to do AF/NRO/etc, and those are already hard to get into, as SX is finding.Besides the advantage of being in-house, the fact the 3.7m wide composite solid tooling will be underwritten by SLS helps a lot cost wise. They’d still have to develop the monolithic motors out of that 3.7m tooling, but again, given how fast and inexpensively they developed Castor 30XL, I just don’t think that would be a major expense.
That's the cheap part. Now to the 30XL - I'll grant you it's competitive. But you don't need a new pad to displace from, say a kerolox US. So your fixed costs aren't rising. Mess with the first/boosters, and you've got acoustics/overpressure/handling issues that are an issue. Also, 30XL may be at the limit for such an US - an rare ideal case from which others don't follow.
For big solids, its the transport/handling/integration/pad that are among the killers (low iSP too). We tend to forget about them with LRE because the opposite is true for them.
Specifically on the subject of Shuttle-heritage SRB segments (sizes) and "What does a new pad at CCAFS/KSC get them?"
Is there the chance to do what Ares I was doing - trains to KSC, stack in the VAB, crawler to 39B, launch from one of the (now SLS) SRB mounts over the existing SRB trench?
Basically, a mini Ares I. And I believe NASA has said they'd like to share 39B if they could.
These are facilities that NASA maintains for eventual SLS use. If Antares had to take a lion's share of those costs during SLS development, that would be a big issue. I guess it would only work on a "well, they're there anyway" basis.
And even then, I appreciate SRBs are not cheap. But there was a general cost sharing when NASA was still buying RS-25s and supporting the infrastructure that went away with the Shuttle. I guess I'm thinking of something similar for OATK and segmented SRBs: cost- and facility- sharing with SLS.
cheers, Martin -
#563 by Lars-J on 23 Feb, 2015 19:58
-
Fix yer' quotes!
-------------
I have not seen this discussed here, but Doug Messier on Parabolic arc wrote a story a few days ago with the following headline:
Orbital Says It Won’t Conduct Demo Flight of Upgraded Antares Rocket http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/02/20/orbital-wont-conduct-demo-flight-upgraded-antares-rocket/#sthash.KS339U0P.dpuf
The linked article in his piece does not mention this development, but I thought it should be noted here. Is it correct? -
#564 by Space Ghost 1962 on 23 Feb, 2015 20:05
-
If OrbATK wants to do anything but just CRS launches, they’ll almost certainly need to move to the Cape. Especially if they want government payloads too. That might be a pipe dream as you say, but they –did- state they want to. I’m taking them at their word and speculating ways to do that. Moving to the Cape then also means access for those 3.7m wide solid motors from Utah which Wallops doesn’t have. So they’ll need to make that investment if they want to do anything but CRS contracts.
They want it, but they don't risk more than they can get. And frankly they risked too much on Nk-33/AJ-26. The good - they got into the medium LV Delta II business. The bad - they couldn't maintain reliable propulsion for it.
What does a new pad at CCAFS/KSC get them? More expense, but greater launch azimuths/energy, DoD payloads, access to SC integration facilities, HSF potential. Vandenberg gets you DoD/polar for the expense. But to win those launches, you need to meet the requirements.
Keep in mind, they will never get cheaper than WFF for their immediate needs. To do those 3.7M solids, the expenses go up drastically. That first expense step up is a doozey! "Oh, excuse me Mr Shareholder, my just exploded LV, with that $0.5B pad/services, is now going to take 10 years instead of 5 to break even, my bad!".
And its not just CRS for WFF, you can do NASA/other institutional missions that you build the sats for. You just aren't going to do AF/NRO/etc, and those are already hard to get into, as SX is finding.Besides the advantage of being in-house, the fact the 3.7m wide composite solid tooling will be underwritten by SLS helps a lot cost wise. They’d still have to develop the monolithic motors out of that 3.7m tooling, but again, given how fast and inexpensively they developed Castor 30XL, I just don’t think that would be a major expense.
That's the cheap part. Now to the 30XL - I'll grant you it's competitive. But you don't need a new pad to displace from, say a kerolox US. So your fixed costs aren't rising. Mess with the first/boosters, and you've got acoustics/overpressure/handling issues that are an issue. Also, 30XL may be at the limit for such an US - an rare ideal case from which others don't follow.
For big solids, its the transport/handling/integration/pad that are among the killers (low iSP too). We tend to forget about them with LRE because the opposite is true for them.
Specifically on the subject of Shuttle-heritage SRB segments (sizes) and "What does a new pad at CCAFS/KSC get them?"
Is there the chance to do what Ares I was doing - trains to KSC, stack in the VAB, crawler to 39B, launch from one of the (now SLS) SRB mounts over the existing SRB trench?
As long as they pay for it, in theory yes.Quote
Basically, a mini Ares I. And I believe NASA has said they'd like to share 39B if they could.
These are facilities that NASA maintains for eventual SLS use. If Antares had to take a lion's share of those costs during SLS development, that would be a big issue. I guess it would only work on a "well, they're there anyway" basis.
In theory when SLS doesn't need it.QuoteAnd even then, I appreciate SRBs are not cheap. But there was a general cost sharing when NASA was still buying RS-25s and supporting the infrastructure that went away with the Shuttle. I guess I'm thinking of something similar for OATK and segmented SRBs: cost- and facility- sharing with SLS.
Keep in mind all of it is expensive and never designed to function cost effective in that capacity.
cheers, Martin
Also, such hybrid govt/"commercial" will compromise operations/logistics/other. So if a trillion dollar govt program gets any risk/threat from a fraction of a billion "commercial" "launchpad share", how do you think that works out? Govt goes first. Same is true on the economic decisions. -
#565 by rayleighscatter on 23 Feb, 2015 20:33
-
Orbital ATK announced recently that a hotfire would likely take place in January 2016, and a launch in March 2016.
-
#566 by Lobo on 24 Feb, 2015 19:57
-
Keep in mind the separate use cases are very different. The burn profile, sidemount vs inline, handling, segment lifetime (humidity). It is not easy repurposing solid segments for one with the other. Also the timelines for launch campaigns for both are very different.
What I mean is that the logistics cycle for the Shuttle SRB's was very different than an Antares with two stacked monolithic 3.7m composite motors would be.
Well, this whole concept is predicated on the idea that the STS Advanced booster casings would be suitable for use as monolithics without any major changes. Otherwise the whole concept sort of falls apart. Although, I suppose it really depends on how hard it is to make different length composite casings with possibly different wall thicknesses, once the SLS contract paid for the equipment needed to make the 3.7m wide casings. Could be that once that is in place, making 3.7m wide casings of various lengths or thicknesses would be a minor thing. I don’t know enough about it to know if making them any different than the exact SLS booster spec would be notable cost or not.I'm not expert in composites, but as far as I know, there's not much different in making small diameter casings vs. big ones.
Not quite true. BTW Kabloona is an expert in this area. If, however, you suggest to him "playing with the recipe" in any way for solids, he'll dig in his heels and fight you to the bitter end.
The "recipe" can affect reliability. Experts don't want to risk wrecking this. Among other things, it undercuts their expertise, not unlike AJ-26 exploding makes Aerojet look bad.
Well, the way I imagine it would be that SLS pays for the equipment to mold composites into 3.7m wide casings, the propellant mix (I think they are still playing with that?), and whatever is used to “pour” the propellant into the casings and cure it.
If wanting to make a monolithic motor out of such a case, I don’t know that you are playing with the “recipe”. You’d use the same mix of propellants, but have a different “pour” to get it’s burn profile, thrust, etc where you’d want them for a Solid Antares. Whatever is different about that (which I don’t really know) would be what OrbATK would pick up out of pocket. As well as testing that motor separately. I can’t see that that would be as large as an expense for OrbATK as domestically sourcing a liquid core and engine. If they plan to use the Ukrainian core and Russian engine indefinitely, that’s obviously not going to require any new development, but then Antares will be always subject to the political winds of Russian and Ukraine, the former which has finally gotten ULA to make a change of action. Antares will need a high energy upper stage if they want to play in the EELV/BLEO market. So that’s a push whether they went solid or stayed Ukrainian/Russian liquid.
Well my main point here is not that a new pad at the Cape would be cheaper than WFF. You are right, they will never get cheaper than WFF and it meets their CRS needs. But that's about all it will ever do.
Not true - listen to my past posts on this specifically.
They can do "good enough" SSO / GTO, even limited deep space for NASA, NOAA, etc, as well as commercial. They can't do DoD / NRO, but then neither can SpaceX or anyone else for that matter.
Ahhh. Ok, that would make more sense to stay liquid then if they decided not to compete in DoD/NRO at all, and just upgraded Antares enough to better do SSO/GTO for other customers. Like I think SpaceX’s original business plan was with Falcon 5 and Falcon 9.
It didn’t realize WFF was “good enough”.
But, if OA does want to go after DoD/NRO as they said…if they are serious about it…they’ll need to move to the Cape, and need a new pad there. At which time maybe a solid booster gets looked at. Especially if in the mean time they were to develop a hydrolox upper stage for Antares that could be then used for a solid Antares.
They pretty much need a hydrolox upper stage if they want to do non DoD SSO/STO out of WFF, don’t they?
To all yes. I think the plan was to get into Delta II alongside F9 1.0 . Then after CRS and a few NASA/"commercial", rebuild a former Delta II LC at CCAFS and VBG.
My point is that, if they want to pursue other payloads than CRS (and they've said they do), they'll most likely have to move to the Cape. Even if they keep Antares as is, they'd need to redo everything they have at WFF at a location at the Cape. If they want USAF/DoD payloads, they'll need a way to vertically integrate the payload. That means some sort of MSS on the pad is it looks like SpaceX will do, or an Atlas or Titan like VIF. Once you are in to it to that extent...if you wanted to switch to a different engine/core, then would be the time. Wouldn't you agree?
Hmmm…But I thought the Delta II LC at CCAFS was slated to be retired and not activated again due to it’s proximity to populace to the south there? Could they have gotten into the Delta II LC there?
-
#567 by Lobo on 24 Feb, 2015 21:48
-
Orbital ATK announced recently that a hotfire would likely take place in January 2016, and a launch in March 2016.
That's pretty quick. Hopefully all goes well for them so they can get Cygnus back on their own bird. -
#568 by russianhalo117 on 25 Feb, 2015 17:18
-
yes to the latter two questions at the end.
Keep in mind the separate use cases are very different. The burn profile, sidemount vs inline, handling, segment lifetime (humidity). It is not easy repurposing solid segments for one with the other. Also the timelines for launch campaigns for both are very different.
What I mean is that the logistics cycle for the Shuttle SRB's was very different than an Antares with two stacked monolithic 3.7m composite motors would be.
Well, this whole concept is predicated on the idea that the STS Advanced booster casings would be suitable for use as monolithics without any major changes. Otherwise the whole concept sort of falls apart. Although, I suppose it really depends on how hard it is to make different length composite casings with possibly different wall thicknesses, once the SLS contract paid for the equipment needed to make the 3.7m wide casings. Could be that once that is in place, making 3.7m wide casings of various lengths or thicknesses would be a minor thing. I don’t know enough about it to know if making them any different than the exact SLS booster spec would be notable cost or not.I'm not expert in composites, but as far as I know, there's not much different in making small diameter casings vs. big ones.
Not quite true. BTW Kabloona is an expert in this area. If, however, you suggest to him "playing with the recipe" in any way for solids, he'll dig in his heels and fight you to the bitter end.
The "recipe" can affect reliability. Experts don't want to risk wrecking this. Among other things, it undercuts their expertise, not unlike AJ-26 exploding makes Aerojet look bad.
Well, the way I imagine it would be that SLS pays for the equipment to mold composites into 3.7m wide casings, the propellant mix (I think they are still playing with that?), and whatever is used to “pour” the propellant into the casings and cure it.
If wanting to make a monolithic motor out of such a case, I don’t know that you are playing with the “recipe”. You’d use the same mix of propellants, but have a different “pour” to get it’s burn profile, thrust, etc where you’d want them for a Solid Antares. Whatever is different about that (which I don’t really know) would be what OrbATK would pick up out of pocket. As well as testing that motor separately. I can’t see that that would be as large as an expense for OrbATK as domestically sourcing a liquid core and engine. If they plan to use the Ukrainian core and Russian engine indefinitely, that’s obviously not going to require any new development, but then Antares will be always subject to the political winds of Russian and Ukraine, the former which has finally gotten ULA to make a change of action. Antares will need a high energy upper stage if they want to play in the EELV/BLEO market. So that’s a push whether they went solid or stayed Ukrainian/Russian liquid.
Well my main point here is not that a new pad at the Cape would be cheaper than WFF. You are right, they will never get cheaper than WFF and it meets their CRS needs. But that's about all it will ever do.
Not true - listen to my past posts on this specifically.
They can do "good enough" SSO / GTO, even limited deep space for NASA, NOAA, etc, as well as commercial. They can't do DoD / NRO, but then neither can SpaceX or anyone else for that matter.
Ahhh. Ok, that would make more sense to stay liquid then if they decided not to compete in DoD/NRO at all, and just upgraded Antares enough to better do SSO/GTO for other customers. Like I think SpaceX’s original business plan was with Falcon 5 and Falcon 9.
It didn’t realize WFF was “good enough”.
But, if OA does want to go after DoD/NRO as they said…if they are serious about it…they’ll need to move to the Cape, and need a new pad there. At which time maybe a solid booster gets looked at. Especially if in the mean time they were to develop a hydrolox upper stage for Antares that could be then used for a solid Antares.
They pretty much need a hydrolox upper stage if they want to do non DoD SSO/STO out of WFF, don’t they?
To all yes. I think the plan was to get into Delta II alongside F9 1.0 . Then after CRS and a few NASA/"commercial", rebuild a former Delta II LC at CCAFS and VBG.
My point is that, if they want to pursue other payloads than CRS (and they've said they do), they'll most likely have to move to the Cape. Even if they keep Antares as is, they'd need to redo everything they have at WFF at a location at the Cape. If they want USAF/DoD payloads, they'll need a way to vertically integrate the payload. That means some sort of MSS on the pad is it looks like SpaceX will do, or an Atlas or Titan like VIF. Once you are in to it to that extent...if you wanted to switch to a different engine/core, then would be the time. Wouldn't you agree?
Hmmm…But I thought the Delta II LC at CCAFS was slated to be retired and not activated again due to it’s proximity to populace to the south there? Could they have gotten into the Delta II LC there? -
#569 by Space Ghost 1962 on 25 Feb, 2015 19:08
-
Orbital ATK announced recently that a hotfire would likely take place in January 2016, and a launch in March 2016.
That's pretty quick. Hopefully all goes well for them so they can get Cygnus back on their own bird.
RD-193 is a "plug compatible" for NK-33. RD-181 is almost the same for 2x AJ-26 "for export only" product.
Now the real question you should be asking is ... does hotfire at WFF pad constitute adequate testing prior to first flight? Or are we ... perish the thought ... into "launch fever'. Nah - only happens to them upstarts - don't they know they're not part of the club ... -
#570 by arachnitect on 25 Feb, 2015 19:11
-
Orbital ATK announced recently that a hotfire would likely take place in January 2016, and a launch in March 2016.
That's pretty quick. Hopefully all goes well for them so they can get Cygnus back on their own bird.
RD-193 is a "plug compatible" for NK-33. RD-181 is almost the same for 2x AJ-26 "for export only" product.
Now the real question you should be asking is ... does hotfire at WFF pad constitute adequate testing prior to first flight? Or are we ... perish the thought ... into "launch fever'. Nah - only happens to them upstarts - don't they know they're not part of the club ...
Engines will be test fired in Russia. -
#571 by Space Ghost 1962 on 25 Feb, 2015 19:15
-
Like the NK-33's were. And the "AJ-26" was at Stennis. Which failed in some cases. As did Antares 130. Oops.Orbital ATK announced recently that a hotfire would likely take place in January 2016, and a launch in March 2016.
That's pretty quick. Hopefully all goes well for them so they can get Cygnus back on their own bird.
RD-193 is a "plug compatible" for NK-33. RD-181 is almost the same for 2x AJ-26 "for export only" product.
Now the real question you should be asking is ... does hotfire at WFF pad constitute adequate testing prior to first flight? Or are we ... perish the thought ... into "launch fever'. Nah - only happens to them upstarts - don't they know they're not part of the club ...
Engines will be test fired in Russia.
add:
If I have to be pedantic again to appear to get the point across to wishful thinkers of both old/young, experienced/not ... the issue here is that there is a longstanding issue of potentially insufficient "due care", "diligence", or "attention to duty" - depending on which walk of life you'd roll it up under.
From what I've seen, there's a lot of issues being caught at the stage level in Texas, and the level of testing necessary to prove engine/stage reliability, as well as explaining past failures bugs me.
It also bothers me that there's a lack of attention to detail across the board for various reasons, and in these environments we don't look issues face on - which leads to repeats. This is true for all providers equally. -
#572 by Kim Keller on 25 Feb, 2015 19:28
-
Hmmm…But I thought the Delta II LC at CCAFS was slated to be retired and not activated again due to it’s proximity to populace to the south there? Could they have gotten into the Delta II LC there?
yes to the latter two questions at the end.
The range facilities maps I've seen indicate that anything south of SLC-36 and -46 is a keep-out zone - no more active launch complexes. -
#573 by arachnitect on 25 Feb, 2015 19:29
-
Like the NK-33's were. And the "AJ-26" was at Stennis. Which failed in some cases. As did Antares 130. Oops.Orbital ATK announced recently that a hotfire would likely take place in January 2016, and a launch in March 2016.
That's pretty quick. Hopefully all goes well for them so they can get Cygnus back on their own bird.
RD-193 is a "plug compatible" for NK-33. RD-181 is almost the same for 2x AJ-26 "for export only" product.
Now the real question you should be asking is ... does hotfire at WFF pad constitute adequate testing prior to first flight? Or are we ... perish the thought ... into "launch fever'. Nah - only happens to them upstarts - don't they know they're not part of the club ...
Engines will be test fired in Russia.
So what are you proposing they should do? The divergent fortunes of RD-180 and AJ-26 suggest that inspecting and test firing engines in the US is the opposite of helpful. -
#574 by Space Ghost 1962 on 25 Feb, 2015 19:59
-
Like the NK-33's were. And the "AJ-26" was at Stennis. Which failed in some cases. As did Antares 130. Oops.Orbital ATK announced recently that a hotfire would likely take place in January 2016, and a launch in March 2016.
That's pretty quick. Hopefully all goes well for them so they can get Cygnus back on their own bird.
RD-193 is a "plug compatible" for NK-33. RD-181 is almost the same for 2x AJ-26 "for export only" product.
Now the real question you should be asking is ... does hotfire at WFF pad constitute adequate testing prior to first flight? Or are we ... perish the thought ... into "launch fever'. Nah - only happens to them upstarts - don't they know they're not part of the club ...
Engines will be test fired in Russia.
So what are you proposing they should do? The divergent fortunes of RD-180 and AJ-26 suggest that inspecting and test firing engines in the US is the opposite of helpful.
Full up, full duration stage test. -
#575 by baldusi on 25 Feb, 2015 20:48
-
Like the NK-33's were. And the "AJ-26" was at Stennis. Which failed in some cases. As did Antares 130. Oops.
NK-33 were the second rocket of an aircraft turbine manufacturer, and the first reusable one (the NK-15 was single use, i.e. you couldn't test accept them), designed and built in the early 70s with basically no one alive that had designed them. The RD-181 is the latest in the line of the RD-170/180/191/193 family, with a lot of experience, modern design techniques, cohesive team and its an underrated version of more powerful engines. NPO Energomash might be many things, but right now, they are probably the top rocket engine designed in the world. In the kerosene camp, they have no contestant.
add:
If I have to be pedantic again to appear to get the point across to wishful thinkers of both old/young, experienced/not ... the issue here is that there is a longstanding issue of potentially insufficient "due care", "diligence", or "attention to duty" - depending on which walk of life you'd roll it up under.
From what I've seen, there's a lot of issues being caught at the stage level in Texas, and the level of testing necessary to prove engine/stage reliability, as well as explaining past failures bugs me.
It also bothers me that there's a lack of attention to detail across the board for various reasons, and in these environments we don't look issues face on - which leads to repeats. This is true for all providers equally. -
#576 by Space Ghost 1962 on 25 Feb, 2015 23:15
-
Like the NK-33's were. And the "AJ-26" was at Stennis. Which failed in some cases. As did Antares 130. Oops.
NK-33 were the second rocket engine of an aircraft turbine manufacturer, and the first reusable one (the NK-15 was single use, i.e. you couldn't test accept them), designed and built in the early 70s with basically no one alive that had designed them.
add:
If I have to be pedantic again to appear to get the point across to wishful thinkers of both old/young, experienced/not ... the issue here is that there is a longstanding issue of potentially insufficient "due care", "diligence", or "attention to duty" - depending on which walk of life you'd roll it up under.
From what I've seen, there's a lot of issues being caught at the stage level in Texas, and the level of testing necessary to prove engine/stage reliability, as well as explaining past failures bugs me.
It also bothers me that there's a lack of attention to detail across the board for various reasons, and in these environments we don't look issues face on - which leads to repeats. This is true for all providers equally.
They were still alive in the 90's when Kistler selected them. Well aware of them (and chain of custody so to speak).
Biggest issue from the beginning has been testing and understanding results. ORSC is always "on the edge".The RD-181 is the latest in the line of the RD-170/180/191/193 family, with a lot of experience, modern design techniques, cohesive team and its an underrated version of more powerful engines. NPO Energomash might be many things, but right now, they are probably the top rocket engine designed in the world. In the kerosene camp, they have no contestant.
I'm skeptical of this claim for a very technical reason. You need a minimum number of engines tested & flown to maintain "proficiency" for ORSC. A significant advantage for Energomash has been the RD-171/RD-180 consumption path, which may be dropping with lack of Zenit/Atlas launches. It is unclear to me that for RD-191/RD-181/RD-193 this is applicable, for specific dependencies and going forward post RD-180 conclusion.
So never impugning Energomash or implying a better source. Simply respecting the unique charms of this application of coatings to allow ORSC, and its process limitations.
And its more than just engine test, but integration into the stage, and test of the stage as a system. Am skeptical of accepted Russian/other practice of flight test in place of stage test on test stand. With a stage on a test stand, you can more fully instrument a test article to prove propulsion for the lifetime of the stage. -
#577 by Antares on 27 Feb, 2015 16:02
-
Stage test does nothing for engines. If you're concerned about engines, run them on a test stand. Stage test is about verifying structural, thermal and fluid analysis. Duration does nothing for that as long as it's long enough to cover the operating box.
-
#578 by Space Ghost 1962 on 27 Feb, 2015 17:41
-
Stage test does nothing for engines. If you're concerned about engines, run them on a test stand. Stage test is about verifying structural, thermal and fluid analysis.
Concern regarding engine nothing to do with stage test - purely limits as stated.
Concern about stage test has to do with provoking failure in use case, by effectively synthesizing more "launches" with instrumented vehicle, which may result also in engine failures, which all of this you know so I don't understand why I am even having to say this. Clearly the Antares failure justifies this.
The advantage of a stage test over a launch, naturally, is to have the instruments "bounds check" the process, so that you can shut down the test BEFORE it goes wrong, unlike at launch. This is also SUPPOSED TO BE TRUE for engine tests, like an AJ-26 at Stennis - you're not supposed to have the kind of accidents that have happened.
But these engines are very unique in how they function. Very temperamental thoroughbreds, with very particular traits.
The problems with stage tests are that it isn't flight, and that it requires a costly facility.
By the way, its not just Antares I'm on about here. SX should be testing US in a vacuum test facility too. And NGLV also needs a stage test too.QuoteDuration does nothing for that as long as it's long enough to cover the operating box.
Duration and repetition allow you to catch things not in the box. If things are failing, either the box is wrong and needs to be fixed, or we need to discover more to find the right box - however you wish to semantically address it.
My top level issue is that we have a gap in testing across the board. Am I communicating?
add: missed a point in my frustration to reply.
add:
Also I've been watching the effects of stage testing with F9 iterations catch issues. Have always felt we've been too close to the edge in this area. What I've like about this latest exploration of stage reuse phase is that we are discovering more about component and system failures of propulsion.
Perhaps we were too narrow to predict accurately the effectiveness of our designs.
-
#579 by Robotbeat on 01 Mar, 2015 02:34
-
...
I agree with you until that point. Launching government payloads doesn't automatically mean you're "supported" by government funds (the implication being that it's a kind of subsidy). By that argument, just about every business is gov't supported because the govt buys products from them.
It could be that Orbital wasn't interested in losing money. It might be that there's little, or no, profit to be gained launching commercial satellites, given the Non-laissez-faire market at work in that business segment. Going after that handful of payloads are SpaceX, Arianespace, and ILS/Proton, and soon others. (Arianespace recently beat SpaceX in winning two payloads, after it slashed its prices.) All are supported or outright subsidized in some way by government funds, overtly or otherwise....
