-
#800
by
envy887
on 05 Jun, 2019 12:52
-
If you wany to improve Antares give it hydolox US (40t) which NGIS are building for Omega and few Gem63 SRBs. Would turn it into another Atlas with maybe better performance, as Centuar is to small for Atlas.
This would increase the cost, but increase the capability especially to higher energy orbits.
The problem is that like Atlas it would be too expensive for the commercial market, and with a Russian engine it will not get DOD payloads. So that just leaves NASA missions, which isn't a much bigger market than Antares already has.
-
#801
by
edkyle99
on 05 Jun, 2019 13:39
-
Antares uses a recently developed kerolox engine that every other US launch provider will have fled like the plague within the next 2 years.
Only ULA, and only because end of RD-180 is mandated by Congress for national defense missions, and even then we could see RD-180 fly on for more than two years I think. ULA would be perfectly happy flying Atlas 5 for another decade it if could. International relations are ever-changing. The mandates don't affect Antares because it flies civil space.
It's second stage may be THE most advanced solid motor in the world, but it's still a solid motor in a world where those are fast becoming obsolete.
If that were true we wouldn't see brand new developments like Ariane 6 and Vega and H-3 and GSLV-Mk 3 and Vulcan and Omega using solid rocket motors.
It's capabilities relative to other launchers are irrelevant, because they all beat it on price by such are margin as to be exclusionary.
It is cheaper than Atlas 5 and Delta 4 and Falcon Heavy. I expect that it will become steadily more competitive with SpaceX since SpaceX cargo prices had to rise considerably using the new Dragon 2 even as Antares/Cygnus prices fell for CRS-2. I think Antares will still be cheaper than the NSSL winners, largely because it is a smaller rocket with a smaller industrial footprint.
The problem with Antares is not just the price, although that's one of the biggest. A more expensive rocket can survive or even thrive if it has more value elsewhere. The issue is that there is no reason at all to use Antares over another LV.
The main reason is that its launch service is owned by the same company that assembles its payload. That's how the CRS contracts were won by the two main providers. NASA bought commercial redundancy, and it paid off when both providers suffered launch failures. We'll see whether Antares can win alternate launch missions in the future. As the rocket flies for a few years, and as the NG merger benefits accrue, I think it should become more cost-competitive. Northrop Grumman has contract options for at least 60 RD-181's apparently.
- Ed Kyle
-
#802
by
JEF_300
on 05 Jun, 2019 16:45
-
Rather than responding to each point and continuing this back and forth, I'm just gonna skip to your final few statements.
We'll see whether Antares can win alternate launch missions in the future. As the rocket flies for a few years, and as the NG merger benefits accrue, I think it should become more cost-competitive. Northrop Grumman has contract options for at least 60 RD-181's apparently.
- Ed Kyle
I hope you're right. Antares is an excellent rocket and the world would be mildly better, in my opinion, if it flies more.
But what if that doesn't happen? People have been saying that "Antares will get cheaper" for years now; actually I'm pretty sure I've said it. But it hasn't yet. And it still hasn't got any non-Cygnus launch, save for the test-flight.
It's not so much that I think Antares being uncompetitive hurts NGIS, but I wonder how much having something that WAS competitive launching from Wallops would help them. What's the opportunity cost, long-term?
If Antares hasn't become competitive by the time of the first OmegA launch (to be read as "when a bunch of engineering staff becomes available"), then perhaps it's time to put something new on that pad.
-
#803
by
rayleighscatter
on 08 Jun, 2019 12:32
-
But what if that doesn't happen? People have been saying that "Antares will get cheaper" for years now; actually I'm pretty sure I've said it. But it hasn't yet.
They shaved nearly 1/3 of the costs off between their CRS-1 and CRS-2 contracts. (1.9 billion to 1.2 billion)
-
#804
by
gongora
on 08 Jun, 2019 13:25
-
CRS costs are not Antares costs (or Falcon costs for that matter).
-
#805
by
PM3
on 11 Jun, 2019 21:06
-
New Antares FAA license
Revision 3 - Issued June 7, 2019; effective June 12, 2019
1) Changed Antares launch vehicle configuration from 230 to 230+.
2) Changed term of license from five years from June 12, 2014, to five years from June 12, 2019.
-
#806
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 12 Jun, 2019 09:20
-
Anyone know what changes there are for Antares 230+?
-
#807
by
rayleighscatter
on 12 Jun, 2019 10:30
-
CRS costs are not Antares costs (or Falcon costs for that matter).
And people's claims of Antares costs not dropping are just that. People's claims.
-
#808
by
ZachS09
on 12 Jun, 2019 11:40
-
Anyone know what changes there are for Antares 230+?
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/06/orbital-atk-crs2-cygnus-flights-antares-commercial/A major change to the first stage includes "structural capability to the intertank bay between both the fuel and oxidizer tanks and the forward bay forward of the oxidizer tank"; the RD-181 engines will be run at full power as opposed to the earlier 230 that under-throttled the engines for structural reasons.
Also, the Castor 30XL second stage will be "optimized, removing some dry mass from the inert and structural parts of the motor case".
Finally, there will be "trajectory improvements with a load release autopilot that allows them to 'steer into the wind' and be a little bit more aggressive".
All these changes increase the mass-to-orbit capability, which means that more cargo can be packed inside Cygnus without the need of the Atlas V. That last part is my own opinion since Northrop Grumman COULD call up ULA and ask for them to launch another Cygnus.
-
#809
by
edkyle99
on 12 Jun, 2019 21:43
-
Antares 230+ was supposed to improve performance to 7.4 metric tons or more to LEO/ISS, via. higher thrust setting on RD-181 facilitated by stronger airframe and by Castor 30XL tweaking. I expect the or more, since the most recent supposedly Antares 230 launch boosted 7.3 metric tons.
- Ed Kyle
-
#810
by
russianhalo117
on 13 Jun, 2019 05:45
-
Anyone know what changes there are for Antares 230+?
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/06/orbital-atk-crs2-cygnus-flights-antares-commercial/
A major change to the first stage includes "structural capability to the intertank bay between both the fuel and oxidizer tanks and the forward bay forward of the oxidizer tank"; the RD-181 engines will be run at full power as opposed to the earlier 230 that under-throttled the engines for structural reasons.
Also, the Castor 30XL second stage will be "optimized, removing some dry mass from the inert and structural parts of the motor case".
Finally, there will be "trajectory improvements with a load release autopilot that allows them to 'steer into the wind' and be a little bit more aggressive".
All these changes increase the mass-to-orbit capability, which means that more cargo can be packed inside Cygnus without the need of the Atlas V. That last part is my own opinion since Northrop Grumman COULD call up ULA and ask for them to launch another Cygnus.
After A230+ debuts only 4 segment PLC and ULC would need AV do to MARS and Antares A230+ limitations.
-
#811
by
ZachS09
on 13 Jun, 2019 11:20
-
Anyone know what changes there are for Antares 230+?
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/06/orbital-atk-crs2-cygnus-flights-antares-commercial/
A major change to the first stage includes "structural capability to the intertank bay between both the fuel and oxidizer tanks and the forward bay forward of the oxidizer tank"; the RD-181 engines will be run at full power as opposed to the earlier 230 that under-throttled the engines for structural reasons.
Also, the Castor 30XL second stage will be "optimized, removing some dry mass from the inert and structural parts of the motor case".
Finally, there will be "trajectory improvements with a load release autopilot that allows them to 'steer into the wind' and be a little bit more aggressive".
All these changes increase the mass-to-orbit capability, which means that more cargo can be packed inside Cygnus without the need of the Atlas V. That last part is my own opinion since Northrop Grumman COULD call up ULA and ask for them to launch another Cygnus.
After A230+ debuts only 4 segment PLC and ULC would need AV do to MARS and Antares A230+ limitations.
What does that mean? I'm sorry to say this, but the answer structure is a bit hard for me to understand.
-
#812
by
arachnitect
on 13 Jun, 2019 14:18
-
Anyone know what changes there are for Antares 230+?
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/06/orbital-atk-crs2-cygnus-flights-antares-commercial/
A major change to the first stage includes "structural capability to the intertank bay between both the fuel and oxidizer tanks and the forward bay forward of the oxidizer tank"; the RD-181 engines will be run at full power as opposed to the earlier 230 that under-throttled the engines for structural reasons.
Also, the Castor 30XL second stage will be "optimized, removing some dry mass from the inert and structural parts of the motor case".
Finally, there will be "trajectory improvements with a load release autopilot that allows them to 'steer into the wind' and be a little bit more aggressive".
All these changes increase the mass-to-orbit capability, which means that more cargo can be packed inside Cygnus without the need of the Atlas V. That last part is my own opinion since Northrop Grumman COULD call up ULA and ask for them to launch another Cygnus.
After A230+ debuts only 4 segment PLC and ULC would need AV do to MARS and Antares A230+ limitations.
What does that mean? I'm sorry to say this, but the answer structure is a bit hard for me to understand.
I interpret russianhalo's comment to mean A230+ can lift a maxed out Enhanced Cygnus, but the proposed 4 segment "Super Cygnus" or Unpressurized Logistics Carrier Cygnus would fly on Atlas V due to some combination of ground infrastructure or vehicle limitations with Wallops(MARS) and Antares
-
#813
by
brickmack
on 07 Jul, 2019 21:52
-
CRS costs are not Antares costs (or Falcon costs for that matter).
And people's claims of Antares costs not dropping are just that. People's claims.
I mean, we may not have firm proof that Antares costs haven't gone down, but it seems pretty much impossible (and very likely that costs have gone *up*). Antares today uses RD-181s instead of AJ26/NK-33 (new-build engines instead of refurbished museum pieces, thats gotta increase costs, plus the dev costs to accommodate that change sooner than originally planned), they seem to have dropped the non-XL variant of Castor 30 (pricing information from around when Antares first debuted indicated about a 20 million dollar price increase for the XL), the fairing is larger (might not be a huge cost increase, but non-zero), they've added additional service options like late loading that require personnel and facilities. Meanwhile Zenit has pretty much ceased to exist so no longer any cost benefit due to first stage structural commonality, Orbital/Northrop's other rockets are flying less frequently as well, and Antares has failed to achieve its target flight rate because of a complete lack of non-Cygnus missions which they'd originally hoped to get (remember, Antares was conceived prior to COTS/CRS even being proposed, as a Delta II replacement. Cygnus came later). Likely because it costs almost as much as an Atlas V 401 for marginally less LEO performance, much less high energy performance, less payload volume, worse insertion accuracy, severely limited insertion geometry, and a poor reliability record. Plus inflation isn't helping. Has there been *any* design or process change implemented that we know of which could even offset all those likely significant cost increases, nevermind result in a net price reduction?
-
#814
by
ncb1397
on 08 Jul, 2019 00:03
-
I mean, we may not have firm proof that Antares costs haven't gone down, but it seems pretty much impossible (and very likely that costs have gone *up*). Antares today uses RD-181s instead of AJ26/NK-33 (new-build engines instead of refurbished museum pieces, thats gotta increase costs, plus the dev costs to accommodate that change sooner than originally planned), they seem to have dropped the non-XL variant of Castor 30 (pricing information from around when Antares first debuted indicated about a 20 million dollar price increase for the XL), the fairing is larger (might not be a huge cost increase, but non-zero), they've added additional service options like late loading that require personnel and facilities. Meanwhile Zenit has pretty much ceased to exist so no longer any cost benefit due to first stage structural commonality, Orbital/Northrop's other rockets are flying less frequently as well, and Antares has failed to achieve its target flight rate because of a complete lack of non-Cygnus missions which they'd originally hoped to get (remember, Antares was conceived prior to COTS/CRS even being proposed, as a Delta II replacement. Cygnus came later). Likely because it costs almost as much as an Atlas V 401 for marginally less LEO performance, much less high energy performance, less payload volume, worse insertion accuracy, severely limited insertion geometry, and a poor reliability record. Plus inflation isn't helping. Has there been *any* design or process change implemented that we know of which could even offset all those likely significant cost increases, nevermind result in a net price reduction?
You list a lot of reasons why the Antares rocket costs will go up, but ignore the reasons why it would go down...
see:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ukraine+usd+exchange+ratehttps://www.google.com/search?q=russian+us+exchange+rateAnyways, the only purchases of Antares are for CRS flights and those contracts have gone down in price. The prices have gone down.
-
#815
by
envy887
on 08 Jul, 2019 12:34
-
I mean, we may not have firm proof that Antares costs haven't gone down, but it seems pretty much impossible (and very likely that costs have gone *up*). Antares today uses RD-181s instead of AJ26/NK-33 (new-build engines instead of refurbished museum pieces, thats gotta increase costs, plus the dev costs to accommodate that change sooner than originally planned), they seem to have dropped the non-XL variant of Castor 30 (pricing information from around when Antares first debuted indicated about a 20 million dollar price increase for the XL), the fairing is larger (might not be a huge cost increase, but non-zero), they've added additional service options like late loading that require personnel and facilities. Meanwhile Zenit has pretty much ceased to exist so no longer any cost benefit due to first stage structural commonality, Orbital/Northrop's other rockets are flying less frequently as well, and Antares has failed to achieve its target flight rate because of a complete lack of non-Cygnus missions which they'd originally hoped to get (remember, Antares was conceived prior to COTS/CRS even being proposed, as a Delta II replacement. Cygnus came later). Likely because it costs almost as much as an Atlas V 401 for marginally less LEO performance, much less high energy performance, less payload volume, worse insertion accuracy, severely limited insertion geometry, and a poor reliability record. Plus inflation isn't helping. Has there been *any* design or process change implemented that we know of which could even offset all those likely significant cost increases, nevermind result in a net price reduction?
You list a lot of reasons why the Antares rocket costs will go up, but ignore the reasons why it would go down...
see:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ukraine+usd+exchange+rate
https://www.google.com/search?q=russian+us+exchange+rate
Anyways, the only purchases of Antares are for CRS flights and those contracts have gone down in price. The prices have gone down.
Do you have any concrete examples of Russian spaceflight hardware or services going down with exchange rate changes? RD-180 and Soyuz seats have gone up considerably. I don't think it's inconsistent to assume that RD-181 would trend in the same direction.
-
#816
by
Timt64
on 31 Jul, 2019 16:26
-
Hi looking for a little help here comparing vehicle sizes, I have a model kit that i will be building, and the model i have is based on the CRS-2 (ORB-2) mission. The vehicle i want to produce is from the CRS-NG 10 mission.
From what i have been able to see so far is that the earlier mission had a second stage fitted with a Castor 30B the later mission had a second stage that was fitted with a Castor XL. From an infographic i found earlier in this thread "an additional fairing adapter" appears to accommodate the up-rated Castor. I have found information that gives a difference of 1.82m in length between the two engines, would this mean that the extra fairing adapter would measure the 1.82m dimension.
Also the Cygnus was a Standard version on the earlier mission, and an Enhanced version on the later mission, from what i have seen so far the difference, between the two variants of the Cygnus was 1.2m, did this mean the the payload fairing was lengthened by a corresponding amount.
Overall is the difference in height between the two vehicles around the 3m mark, or a i being a bit simplistic about this and there is something i am missing
-
#817
by
jstrotha0975
on 31 Jul, 2019 16:48
-
Looks like the later mission uses 2 fairing adapters and not one.
-
#818
by
soltasto
on 14 Aug, 2019 16:22
-
Just got an email from the NASA LSP ELVPerf platform:
Hello ELVPerf Community,
We are pleased to announce that our Launch Services Program?s Vehicle Performance Website has been updated with the latest Antares performance data, based on contract updates that were completed in late June. Our validation of the data and testing of the site is now complete, so we hope everyone finds these updates helpful in planning exercises.
As with all data on our website, the intent is to serve as a planning resource for the NASA spacecraft community and missions that are to be launched via the NLS contract. Any performance values obtained from our site are based on the stated ground rules and valid under the terms and conditions of the NLS-II contract. Due to differences in contracts and how providers choose to market their vehicles, be aware that data from other sources may or may not align with that presented on our website.
Please let us know if you have any questions or issues.
Thanks,
LSP Flight Dynamics
EDIT: Added graphs from the updated websites. LEO inclination is 51.6°, Elliptical inclination is 38°.
-
#819
by
zubenelgenubi
on 06 Dec, 2020 00:34
-