-
#500
by
robertross
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:24
-
-
#501
by
Beittil
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:27
-
Also, going to sea does not allow for late loading of the cargo
How would late loading for Cygnus work for the ULA launchers? IIRC, it was being done prior to encapsulation with Antares. Is there an old proposal/paper someone can point me to? Or an old post/thread here?
Thanks.
Another reason why a Falcon 9 ride makes sense. SpaceX integrates vehicles in the same manner and they have facilities for late loading in place!
-
#502
by
bstrong
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:30
-
Realistically speaking it's only 2 contenders - Atlas or F9.
How about one of each? Mitigates the risk of F9 while still possibly coming out cheaper than two Atlases, despite the extra integration costs.
-
#503
by
Zardar
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:31
-
So I'm puzzled how there can be this many configurations under consideration.
Number of launches. The stated they were considering "a number of launches" using another provider.
So it could be several smaller cygni (?), or a lesser number of enhanced/extended cygni.
-
#504
by
Jim
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:37
-
FH is in launch manifest requiring manufacture of 3 main stages and 28 rocket engines. When FH is postponed, those engines and cores are available for other missions. AFAIK, SpaceX is currently constrained mainly by production.
FH launch rate is not affecting F9 production. There are very few in the manifest.
-
#505
by
cdleonard
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:37
-
So I'm puzzled how there can be this many configurations under consideration.
Number of launches. The stated they were considering "a number of launches" using another provider.
So it could be several smaller cygni (?), or a lesser number of enhanced/extended cygni.
Doubtful. They will take advantage of using an alternate launch vehicle to stuff as much cargo as possible inside the extended Cygnus. This will allow them to fulfill the CRS contract without an additional flight.
Here's the relevant quote (from
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/529990819663851522):
Thompson: use of third-party launchers and upgraded Antares will allow us to launch five missions' of cargo on four missions.
-
#506
by
Dappa
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:37
-
...
I agree that they make no sense, but what else could be the meaning of those 15 configurations that are supposedly available?
3 rocket providers, different options for second stage for some, different Cygnuses.
So I'm puzzled how there can be this many configurations under consideration.
Number of launches. The stated they were considering "a number of launches" using another provider.
So it could be several smaller cygni (?), or a lesser number of enhanced/extended cygni.
I don't think we're talking about different or more Cygnuses here, because the 1 or 2 that will be launched by a 3rd party were both originally scheduled for 2015. Which means that they're a long way towards completion by now, and won't influence the number of possible configurations.
-
#507
by
Jim
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:38
-
It will be short fuse from signing to launching so it needs to be a provider with capacity and fast response time. That doesn't seem to be ULA or the Ariane 5.
Based on what data?
-
#508
by
arachnitect
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:38
-
"15 configurations" isn't a reference to hardware but rather what combinations and schedules are available.
They looked at 15 permutations of providers/schedules for the two flights (also said they've already narrowed it down).
i.e.:
1. AV 401 + F9
2. AV 401, AV401
3. AV 401, Soyuz
4. Soyuz, AV 401
5. Soyuz, Soyuz
Etc. etc.
-
#509
by
Jim
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:41
-
Another reason why a Falcon 9 ride makes sense. SpaceX integrates vehicles in the same manner and they have facilities for late loading in place!
Not true. Not the spacecraft. Spacex uses vertical encapsulation. The late loading facilities are for Dragon and not a fairing.
ULA has the same abilities to get in the fairing late as Spacex.
-
#510
by
saliva_sweet
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:49
-
Realistically speaking it's only 2 contenders - Atlas or F9. As of F9 Launch manifest - it has significant buffer in it with 3 cores and 28 engines called Falcon 9 Heavy.
What does FH have do with it? There is no relationship with it.
They could go on the heavy demo and launch all five cygnuses at once
-
#511
by
psloss
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:51
-
ULA has the same abilities to get in the fairing late as Spacex.
Is there any issue with getting into the Cygnus CBM inside the fairing? (I'm guessing this has already been worked out, but I'm curious if any of that is public.)
Is there a spacecraft that's been integrated with Atlas 5 or Delta 4 that requires that kind of access in that general location while inside the fairing? (Well, a spacecraft that can be discussed in public?
)
-
#512
by
bstrong
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:52
-
They looked at 15 permutations of providers/schedules for the two flights (also said they've already narrowed it down).
i.e.:
1. AV 401 + F9
2. AV 401, AV401
3. AV 401, Soyuz
4. Soyuz, AV 401
5. Soyuz, Soyuz
If this is true, then since four vehicles give you 16 permutations, they must have eliminated exactly one of the options. My guess would be Soyuz/Soyuz, since that probably doesn't give them enough capacity.
-
#513
by
pippin
on 05 Nov, 2014 14:53
-
Energia runs SeaLaunch, so it is not a Euro vehicle either.
I know you are American, but my geography book has Russia as being a European country, too.
It's partly in Europe, partly in Asia.
Well aware of that. Which makes it a European country.
-
#514
by
Star One
on 05 Nov, 2014 15:01
-
Here's AW's article on today's developments.
http://m.aviationweek.com/space/orbital-drops-aj-26-after-failure-looking-alternate-launcher-issI'll quote this bit.
However, he declined to specify which engine will replace the AJ-26, repeating an earlier statement that Antares remains in contention for "a number of new launch contracts" that may ride on the engine choice. Russian news outlets have identified the new RD-193, kerosene-fueled engine as Orbital’s pick, and other possibilities include a single Russian RD-180, a solid-fuel rocket motor proposed by ATK, and even restarting production of the Russian NK-33 that is the basis for the AJ-26.
-
#515
by
M129K
on 05 Nov, 2014 15:03
-
Regardless of whether it's a European country or not (I believe it is), Russia is usually seen as a separate entity from Europe in this context, so it's unlikely they would call Sea Launch or ILS a "European" provider.
-
#516
by
asmi
on 05 Nov, 2014 15:05
-
If it's Europe - it will definetly be Soyuz either way. According to wiki, Antares lifts about 5.5 mT to LEO, while Soyuz lifts about 8 mT, so the capacity is surely there. The problem is as far as I remember Soyuz production has about 2 years of lead time, so if they are about to use it earlier - they will have to take LV off some existing payload already manifested for it.
But even Soyuz is overkill payload-wise, so Atlas-5, Delta-4 and F9 would all be even greater overkill. Infact I think latter three can lift 2 Cygnus'es in a single launch.
-
#517
by
jongoff
on 05 Nov, 2014 15:06
-
Interesting news. Not surprising though--I figured they'd likely do at least temporary flights on another LV. After all the Cygnus SM is a slight mod on their GEO and LEO satellite buses that have already flown on a wide mix of launchers, so integration should hopefully be relatively straightforward. Cutting things down from five remaining flights do four is also interesting. That would imply about 700kg of extra capacity per flight. Also, I wonder what this would mean for the Cygnus spacecraft they've built for ORB-8? Their CRS contract did have the option for additional flights...
All told, it looks like the Orbital team is doing a reasonably good job of turning lemons into lemonade.
~Jon
-
#518
by
Razvan
on 05 Nov, 2014 15:10
-
End of presser. Mr. Thompson is impressive.
Thanks for the help everyone. Hat tip to arachnitect!
My article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/post-mortem-for-crs-3-antares-turbopump/
UPDATES ONLY FROM THIS POINT ONWARDS.
Great article! Very comprehensive.
I agree, it is a great article!
I am also afraid that it is just the begging of finding a more complicated situation for Orbital.
Micro-fissures may appear - just as consequence of the aging process - in very old now engine parts and they are tough, if not impossible, to be traced. How can you scan a sophisticated equipment article such as an engine without disassembling all the component parts of the engine?! My humble opinion is these engines are too risky to be part of a future solution.
Orbital has three more flight for the next year plus this one makes four flights. They should think of an already certified and price competitive launcher to carry their Cygnus, such as Falcon 9 to have enough time for the four launches. Both, Time and Money is of the essence now.
-
#519
by
LouScheffer
on 05 Nov, 2014 15:12
-
If it's Europe - it will definetly be Soyuz either way. According to wiki, Antares lifts about 5.5 mT to LEO, while Soyuz lifts about 8 mT, so the capacity is surely there. The problem is as far as I remember Soyuz production has about 2 years of lead time, so if they are about to use it earlier - they will have to take LV off some existing payload already manifested for it.
This may not be a problem. I think there was a Soyuz scheduled for Galileo, but after the recent failure (in a stage that Cygnus does not need) they were talking about switching these satellites to Ariane. That would free up a Soyuz already scheduled for next year.
)