-
#80
by
simonbp
on 27 Apr, 2014 23:45
-
Yeah, and if AJ-1E6 inherits the NK-33's reusability, then it could make a good choice.
Either way, if OSC is going to go to effort of redesigning Antares, I find it hard to believe that it won't be with a path to reusability. Antares as-is is designed to be profitable at a very low flight rate. It would only be worth the effort to redesign if they want to give SpaceX a run on the reusable first stage game. Otherwise, Antares has a very limited future.
-
#81
by
kevin-rf
on 28 Apr, 2014 00:06
-
Or are hedging bets against SpaceX being able to do what it claims with cost, flight rate, and re-usability.
-
#82
by
Lar
on 28 Apr, 2014 00:18
-
Nod...
Anyone doing a new (or essentially new, as in this case if the engine differs at all...) first stage that isn't at least designing not to preclude reuse is on a fools errand at this point. IMHO of course.
-
#83
by
arachnitect
on 28 Apr, 2014 01:06
-
Yeah, and if AJ-1E6 inherits the NK-33's reusability, then it could make a good choice.
Either way, if OSC is going to go to effort of redesigning Antares, I find it hard to believe that it won't be with a path to reusability. Antares as-is is designed to be profitable at a very low flight rate. It would only be worth the effort to redesign if they want to give SpaceX a run on the reusable first stage game. Otherwise, Antares has a very limited future.
They say it will cost no more than $30M in redesign work to switch to new engines.
Antares can't take the performance hit to go reusable.
Suddenly everyone needs to be making reusable rockets? Spacex is the only one working on reuse. Spacex is the outlier.
-
#84
by
simonbp
on 28 Apr, 2014 01:10
-
Or are hedging bets against SpaceX being able to do what it claims with cost, flight rate, and re-usability.
Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. Antares only makes sense at the current very low flight rate. You could only add a few more flights without some serious changes. They could try to scoop up a few NASA/DoD science flights, like a larger Pegasus. But Antares is neither sized nor priced for commercial launches.
-
#85
by
kevin-rf
on 28 Apr, 2014 03:09
-
Taurus II ANTARES was sized and priced for payloads that are required to fly on US built launchers but to small to make economic sense on an EELV . It was also designed to provide economic rides for Orbital's smaller family of GSO satellites. This was a time when cheaper Delta II launches where being pushed to more expensive EELV's and SpaceX was far from a sure thing.
While SpaceX has only launched Orbital built GSO built satellites, it does not mean Orbital should throw up its hands and go home. SpaceX still has hurdles to overcome. No need for Orbital to pack up and go home because the group think on NSF is if it is not an RLV they should. They have a rocket they spent good money developing, they needed to now market it and make money with it.
-
#86
by
TrevorMonty
on 28 Apr, 2014 04:51
-
Antares was built for ISS resupply missions and I can't see Orbital losing that business anytime soon. Definitely not to SpaceX no matter how cheap they are, as NASA wants at least 2 separate suppliers. A few extra commercial or DOD launches would be bonus.
If they take on to many extra launches then they would have to invest heavily into more launch facilities.
-
#87
by
LouScheffer
on 28 Apr, 2014 17:31
-
If they take on too many extra launches then they would have to invest heavily into more launch facilities.
Why is that? One flight per facility every two months is not a breakneck pace, and quite a bit more than they are launching now...
-
#88
by
newpylong
on 28 Apr, 2014 18:01
-
I think they can handle an increase. Right now the components are either sitting at MARS integrated or in pieces for quite a long time waiting for launch.
-
#89
by
simonbp
on 28 Apr, 2014 19:19
-
Taurus II ANTARES was sized and priced for payloads that are required to fly on US built launchers but to small to make economic sense on an EELV . It was also designed to provide economic rides for Orbital's smaller family of GSO satellites. This was a time when cheaper Delta II launches where being pushed to more expensive EELV's and SpaceX was far from a sure thing.
You are right about the original Taurus II. However, when the bottom fell out of the commercial market in circa-2009, Orbital decided to refocus the vehicle on CRS, since that was a much more stable funding source. Originally, Taurus II was to have an optional liquid upper stage scaled for GTO launches of its GeoSTAR bus, but that has since fallen away. They are now trying to sell it with a Star 48 third stage, targeted at NASA escape velocity (planetary) missions.
While SpaceX has only launched Orbital built GSO built satellites, it does not mean Orbital should throw up its hands and go home. SpaceX still has hurdles to overcome. No need for Orbital to pack up and go home because the group think on NSF is if it is not an RLV they should. They have a rocket they spent good money developing, they needed to now market it and make money with it.
These days, no amount of marketing is going to sell a rocket built in eastern Ukraine. Sad, but that's the reality. No corporate lawyer is going to approve spending money on a launch that depends on the future political stability of area that is currently in civil war.
I serious doubt Orbital will "pack up and go home" on the orbital launch business! However, they are very much a for-profit company, and if SpaceX starts to make a profit with a reusable first stage, they will respond with their own reusable first stage. The question is how much it will resemble Antares; I would guess it would have a new first stage and engines, but the current Antares second stage and payload faring.
-
#90
by
baldusi
on 28 Apr, 2014 19:53
-
Or, they might get an arrangement to use the StratoLauncher service for CRS-2 while the Ukranian crisis settles. The StartoLauncher would also giver a bit more performance (between 1 and 2tonnes to LEO), increase launch windows and allow for a wider and cheaper (if designed for) pressurized module. The reason is that current Cygnus pressurized module reuses the European ATV and Columbus technology that's designed for 20year of life.
The two relevant articles are
here and
here.
-
#91
by
USFdon
on 28 Apr, 2014 23:13
-
Or, they might get an arrangement to use the StratoLauncher service for CRS-2 while the Ukranian crisis settles. The StartoLauncher would also giver a bit more performance (between 1 and 2tonnes to LEO), increase launch windows and allow for a wider and cheaper (if designed for) pressurized module. The reason is that current Cygnus pressurized module reuses the European ATV and Columbus technology that's designed for 20year of life.
The two relevant articles are here and here.
Going with the StratoLauncher as a backup makes sense. In other news, when did it become a possibility to have Antares air launched! I though that it was going to be a solid rocket like Pegasus? This coupled with the photo showing 4 engines* on the bottom of the rocket makes that an interesting article.
Or is this an old pic from when it was a Falcon 5 derivative?
-
#92
by
bubbagret
on 28 Apr, 2014 23:20
-
Old picture. Note the Dragon at the front.
-
#93
by
baldusi
on 29 Apr, 2014 00:15
-
The StartoLauncher will have double solids as first stage and an hydrolox as upper stage. It's designed by orbital but owned by StratoLauncher. Thus, it's a bit a third party vehicle a bit an own vehicle. IAUI, Orbital can't use the parts for themselves. But they will probably get some revenue and work out of each launch.
-
#94
by
TrevorMonty
on 29 Apr, 2014 00:51
-
The heavier CRS-2 payload requirements may be deciding factor in Antares engine selection.
-
#95
by
Zed_Noir
on 29 Apr, 2014 01:21
-
The StartoLauncher will have double solids as first stage and an hydrolox as upper stage. It's designed by orbital but owned by StratoLauncher. Thus, it's a bit a third party vehicle a bit an own vehicle. IAUI, Orbital can't use the parts for themselves. But they will probably get some revenue and work out of each launch.
This
Spacenews article muddles things up a bit. From the Spacenews article dated April 23rd, the Stratolaunch LV configuration is still in flux.
-
#96
by
Lars_J
on 29 Apr, 2014 16:54
-
Given today's ATK merger announcement, how would an all-solid "Antares II" look? (if that is what they do)
It would have to become a 3-stage rocket, right? Or use something like a 5 segment SRB as a first stage - but would that even be sufficient?
-
#97
by
arachnitect
on 29 Apr, 2014 17:16
-
Given today's ATK merger announcement, how would an all-solid "Antares II" look? (if that is what they do)
It would have to become a 3-stage rocket, right? Or use something like a 5 segment SRB as a first stage - but would that even be sufficient?
For a 3 stage design 3 segment or maybe even 2.5 should be sufficient.
-
#98
by
PahTo
on 29 Apr, 2014 17:47
-
Sounds like Athena (III).
-
#99
by
baldusi
on 29 Apr, 2014 17:59
-
Doesn't those segments belong to NASA? I believe they'd rather use some form of new solids. In particular, those developed for StratoLauncher might be extended a bit. Or, alternatively, they might partner with StratoLaunch and be done with it.
The proposed extension to Cygnus (the one with four segments, 3.7tonnes of cargo and 33m³ of volume) would need about 6tonnes to a 51.6deg x 300km orbit. That's 1 tonne more than an Antares 130. The StratoLauncher is supposed to get 6 tonnes, and the cross range of the plane might enable some very wide launch windows, which is a considerable advantage for late-load cargo.
In fact, I don't see how they would handle Antares and StartoLauncher without overstepping all the time.