-
#580
by
John-H
on 01 Mar, 2015 04:29
-
...
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....
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.
In any business where your costs go down with volume, having more customers can decrease your prices and "support" the business. This doesn't even consider the case where one customer provides a lot of the volume, or where one customer pays higher prices.
John
-
#581
by
rayleighscatter
on 03 Mar, 2015 20:45
-
Testing of the RD-181 next month. First engines expected to be delivered for assembly in June.
-
#582
by
spacenut
on 10 Mar, 2015 18:36
-
So what is the orbital LEO payload ability of two stacked composite solid sections for first stage, with the existing solid upper stage to replace Antares? I know it might not happen unless the infrastructure is built, but anything can happen. Just wondering if the capability would be good enough to go head to head with ULA and SpaceX.
-
#583
by
Lobo
on 10 Mar, 2015 20:57
-
So what is the orbital LEO payload ability of two stacked composite solid sections for first stage, with the existing solid upper stage to replace Antares? I know it might not happen unless the infrastructure is built, but anything can happen. Just wondering if the capability would be good enough to go head to head with ULA and SpaceX.
Ed Kyle ran some numbers here:
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/santares.htmlAnd here back up thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32903.msg1191231#msg1191231He did another somewhere that I think has info for two identical SLS composite segments stacked on top of each other as individual motors, but I can't find where it is at the moment.
-
#584
by
quanthasaquality
on 11 Mar, 2015 01:33
-
I liked the idea of the Antares rocket using less proven and reliable rocket engines, like the nk-33, to send cheap payloads to the ISS. The rd-181 comes from a well established rocket engine family. I'd like to see Antares use the new kerosene staged combustion engine from China, an early BE-4 engine, Ukrainian rd-120k, a South Korean, or an Iranian rocket engine. Yes, the Indian Vikas engine is now too proven.
-
#585
by
ChrisWilson68
on 11 Mar, 2015 06:01
-
I liked the idea of the Antares rocket using less proven and reliable rocket engines, like the nk-33, to send cheap payloads to the ISS. The rd-181 comes from a well established rocket engine family. I'd like to see Antares use the new kerosene staged combustion engine from China, an early BE-4 engine, Ukrainian rd-120k, a South Korean, or an Iranian rocket engine. Yes, the Indian Vikas engine is now too proven.
That would be good for China, Blue Origin, Ukraine, South Korea, Iran, and India, respectively, but not good for OrbitalATK. I'm also really curious why you would like to see supplies to the ISS get less reliable in order for Iran get better at making rocket engines.
-
#586
by
notsorandom
on 11 Mar, 2015 12:10
-
Yes, the Indian Vikas engine is now too proven.
Certainly, and it has heritage from the very successful Viking engines of the Ariane 1-4. Likely the most relyable engine you listed. However it is a gas generator engine using the hypergolic combination of N2O4/UH 25. Were Antares to be modified to use it would need four of the engines, and suffer a large performance loss. The whole first stage would need a significant redesign to use the different fuel and oxidizer. At this point it would basically be a new rocket. There would also be the issue of using toxic propellants, especially now since the last one blew up right over the pad.
-
#587
by
baldusi
on 11 Mar, 2015 13:00
-
I liked the idea of the Antares rocket using less proven and reliable rocket engines, like the nk-33, to send cheap payloads to the ISS. The rd-181 comes from a well established rocket engine family. I'd like to see Antares use the new kerosene staged combustion engine from China, an early BE-4 engine, Ukrainian rd-120k, a South Korean, or an Iranian rocket engine. Yes, the Indian Vikas engine is now too proven.
RD-120K is an NPO Energomash development (the same designer of the RD-170/180). The RD-120 is also designed by NPO Energomash but built under license by the Ukranian Yuzhmash. They did had a project to develop a new engines based on that same technology, the
RD-801 and
RD-810 projects.
-
#588
by
gongora
on 04 May, 2015 22:03
-
So Spaceflight Now added Orb-5 to the launch schedule, and it says the launch site is Baikonur. I'd assume that's a typo?
-
#589
by
Kabloona
on 04 May, 2015 22:41
-
So Spaceflight Now added Orb-5 to the launch schedule, and it says the launch site is Baikonur. I'd assume that's a typo?
Must be a cut/paste error. The rest of the info seems correct.
The rocket will fly in the Antares 230 configuration, with two RD-181 first stage engines and a Castor 30XL second stage.
-
#590
by
a_langwich
on 17 May, 2015 05:17
-
This has probably previously been discussed somewhere, but what if OrbATK were to design attachment points for solids on the Antares first stage? Say, six of them, and say, about the size of the Atlas V solids...would the Antares first stage be about as capable as an Atlas V first stage, or approach Vulcan first stage numbers?
OrbATK could probably find some personnel who knew a thing or two about solids.
If SpaceX is pushing Dragons, Dragons, Everywhere as landers, then it seems OrbitalATK would like to push Cygnus, Cygnus Everywhere as in-space habitation and exploration and delivery modules. And beyond LEO, it would be nice if Antares had more heft. Even in LEO, it would be nice if Antares could support some beefier Cygnus variants.
Antares' upper stage doesn't really have the Isp for higher energy destinations, but it seems likely that if ULA down-selects between Aerojet Rocketdyne, Xcor, and Blue Origin for Vulcan's upper stage engine, that leaves two upper stage engine designs looking for a home...
-
#591
by
Zed_Noir
on 17 May, 2015 14:27
-
This has probably previously been discussed somewhere, but what if OrbATK were to design attachment points for solids on the Antares first stage? Say, six of them, and say, about the size of the Atlas V solids...would the Antares first stage be about as capable as an Atlas V first stage, or approach Vulcan first stage numbers?
OrbATK could probably find some personnel who knew a thing or two about solids.
If SpaceX is pushing Dragons, Dragons, Everywhere as landers, then it seems OrbitalATK would like to push Cygnus, Cygnus Everywhere as in-space habitation and exploration and delivery modules. And beyond LEO, it would be nice if Antares had more heft. Even in LEO, it would be nice if Antares could support some beefier Cygnus variants.
Antares' upper stage doesn't really have the Isp for higher energy destinations, but it seems likely that if ULA down-selects between Aerojet Rocketdyne, Xcor, and Blue Origin for Vulcan's upper stage engine, that leaves two upper stage engine designs looking for a home...
Since OrbitalATK get their Zenit heritage cores from Ukraine. AIUI the Antares core is not design for any attached solid boosters. You need to redesign and re-certified a new core with strapped-on solid boosters option along with new manufacturing processes and vertical vehicle integration.
-
#592
by
notsorandom
on 18 May, 2015 15:12
-
The original concept design for Antares had one AJ-26 with SRBs but the two engine design offered better performance and cost. The core doesn't have the ability to mount boosters and I am not sure if the pad can handle them. There is a little bit of uncertainty with the Ukrainian built tanks. The Zenit programs and other rockets the factory produced have been canceled leaving an uncertain financial outlook. OrbATK has stated that they have a domestically produced backup plan. If that ends up being used then they might do a bit of a redesign to include SRBs. However nothing is known about the back up plan other than that it exists. It may never be needed either.
-
#593
by
edkyle99
on 18 May, 2015 15:29
-
The original concept design for Antares had one AJ-26 with SRBs but the two engine design offered better performance and cost.
I've never heard that. Antonio told us it was two NK-33 type engines from the outset, although I'm sure that Orbital evaluated many alternatives before making that choice.
- Ed Kyle
-
#594
by
baldusi
on 18 May, 2015 16:25
-
The original concept design for Antares had one AJ-26 with SRBs but the two engine design offered better performance and cost.
I've never heard that. Antonio told us it was two NK-33 type engines from the outset, although I'm sure that Orbital evaluated many alternatives before making that choice.
- Ed Kyle
Let me put my OrbitalATK hat for a while. They have this running line for GEM-60. And they didn't had any reason to go with solids before, but now this means an extra revenue source. So it does looks nice. But here comes the kicker: current Antares pad flow (and pad!) are incompatible with solids. So, if they ever plan for a new LV, they will have the incentives to go that route. But for now, RD-181 is the only first stage propulsion. What I would expect them to do is a Castor 30XLB. That should enable them to squeeze a bit more performance out of the enlarged first stage. And they might move the fairing production in house.
The only issue I see is that apparently, NASA is thinking of trying to keep cargo missions "small", rather than big. The logistic pains of a failure of a big cargo shipment is apparently quite high. And in that sense, it hits Cygnus (and Jupiter) hardest. The nice thing of Cygnus is its very ample volume, and with the right vehicle, it could handle a lot of cargo. A SuperCygnus on a 401 should be able to do 4 tonnes of cargo easily, if not 5. But such a loss whould entail one third of the yearly USOS shipment.
-
#595
by
notsorandom
on 18 May, 2015 17:09
-
The original concept design for Antares had one AJ-26 with SRBs but the two engine design offered better performance and cost.
I've never heard that. Antonio told us it was two NK-33 type engines from the outset, although I'm sure that Orbital evaluated many alternatives before making that choice.
- Ed Kyle
Found it! I remember reading this way back when. Also speaks to the viability pad wise.
That is currently the plan. Yes, 0B will require a lot of mods, but so will any pad at CCASF or VAFB... we checked them all! Liquid propellant sotrage tanks being the simgle biggest mod everywhere.
While, yes, Taurus II has more thrust than anything that has been launched from it (by the way, the Ray Crough picture I posted in the posting above is precisely at pad 0B!!!) the mods are less violent that the ones that would have been required had we gone with the original T II "single NK-33/at least two SRB's" configuration due to a) the wider "stance" of the 2-SRB configuration and b) the more energetic and damaging plume of the solids. However, adapting the transporter-erector to the 01B geometry is actually harder than is the case for the CCAFS and VAFB pads. You can't win everything...
-
#596
by
rayleighscatter
on 01 Jun, 2015 16:46
-
First two flight engines complete. First engine has gone through 7 test firings in 2 months completing acceptance testing, second engine starts testing this week.
Pad work expected to be complete in September
First stage modifications on existing cores on schedule
March 2016 expected date of first launch with one month existing schedule margin.
-
#597
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 02 Jun, 2015 15:31
-
Spaceflightnow write up of the current status of RD-181 development:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/01/rd-181-engines-prepared-for-shipment-to-u-s/The first pair of RD-181 rocket engines set to launch on Orbital ATK’s redesigned Antares rocket are in the final stages of acceptance testing in Russia ahead of their export to the United States in early July, officials said.
The RD-181 engine completed its certification program May 7 with the last of seven hotfire tests in Russia, according to NPO Energomash of Khimki, Russia, the engine’s manufacturer.
[...]
-
#598
by
Lars-J
on 11 Jun, 2015 23:55
-
First two flight engines complete. First engine has gone through 7 test firings in 2 months completing acceptance testing, second engine starts testing this week.
Pad work expected to be complete in September
First stage modifications on existing cores on schedule
March 2016 expected date of first launch with one month existing schedule margin.
Are they going to test fire these engines themselves at Stennis? Or simply accept then as-is?
-
#599
by
Kabloona
on 12 Jun, 2015 00:05
-
First two flight engines complete. First engine has gone through 7 test firings in 2 months completing acceptance testing, second engine starts testing this week.
Pad work expected to be complete in September
First stage modifications on existing cores on schedule
March 2016 expected date of first launch with one month existing schedule margin.
Are they going to test fire these engines themselves at Stennis? Or simply accept then as-is?
Energomash is doing the acceptance test firings, after which the engines will be shipped to the States and integrated with the vehicle.