-
#120
by
Jim
on 07 Nov, 2014 01:13
-
How about as a short term solution. Use a recovered F9 first stage (provided SpaceX gets one back soon).
Use the Antares second stage. Let Orbital provide any adapter and they could process all their stuff elsewhere at the cape then shortly before flight integrate both sections at LC40.
SpaceX could have an anchor user for used F9 boosters and by just selling the booster and launch they could give Orbital some great pricing.
It's a nonstarter. Breaks the rule: "rockets are not Legos"
There are many ways it wouldn't work, I will let it up to others to point out the ways.
-
#121
by
CT Space Guy
on 07 Nov, 2014 01:16
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
-
#122
by
arachnitect
on 07 Nov, 2014 01:24
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
Would need to do loads analysis, aerodynamic work, get the avionics to talk to each other, etc. etc.
Faster (and therefore cheaper) to just use a proper F911
-
#123
by
Jim
on 07 Nov, 2014 01:27
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
they are intuitively obvious .
Somebody with a tagline such as "Old space, limited knowledge unlimited arrogance….New space Thump, Thump" should be able to point them out.
-
#124
by
rusty
on 07 Nov, 2014 05:40
-
Minotaur family excluding Minotaur-C versions are not subject to FAA because they are government launchers (managed through USAF; DoD, not FAA/NASA; DoC) . Since Antares is a civilian launcher it is subject to stricter criteria to ensure enforced safety. I will let other people like Jim provide the details as I'm at work right now.
And yet a solid has been proposed as an Antares first stage. Perhaps yours and the previous "overpressure IIRC" comments are invalid. I will let Chris Gebhardt provide the details as I'm busy.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/atk-expand-alternative-atlasv-rd-180/
-
#125
by
fatjohn1408
on 07 Nov, 2014 07:56
-
Well since this article came out:
http://spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42460orbital-to-accelerate-upgraded-antares-use-other-vehicles-for-cygnusWe know they are in talks with three companies.
Two in the US and one in Europe.
Since Athena and Rockot don't have the capability or cant upgrade on time I think it is safe to say that those companies are SpaceX (Falcon 9), ULA (Atlas V 401) and Arianespace (Soyuz ST).
Any arguments against this reasoning?
All would enable larger capacity than Antares and pricewise Falcon 9 would win just ahead of Soyuz and lagging quite far behind would be Atlas V 401. A though nut to crack, I don't know how eager they are to launch with F9 and if they go with Soyuz they should know that the Soyuz only has a limited amount of years that it will be flown from CSG. So they can't choose it as the default back-up for the remainder of the ISS cargo program, namely CRS-2.
My 50 cents, its going to be Soyuz nonetheless.
-
#126
by
abaddon
on 07 Nov, 2014 15:28
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
Jim was being
very nice. You should let it go.
-
#127
by
zaitcev
on 07 Nov, 2014 16:07
-
I think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191.
It is somewhat offtopic here, because we focus on Antares, but Angara will not migrate to 193. They need the performance of 191 to hit the payload targets of the A5, which is the only thing their main customer (MoD) cares about. Do keep in mind that the transfer of production of RD-191 into Khrunichev is not officially cancelled. That is why 191 is kept separate from the rest of the "family". It is a package deal that can be moved between major organizations, while 193 and 181 are intended for continuation of in-house production at Energomash.
-
#128
by
bad_astra
on 07 Nov, 2014 17:15
-
I have an idea.. clean sheet design for Antares 2
1st stage: 1 RS27
2nd stage: 1 AJ-10
-
#129
by
Danderman
on 07 Nov, 2014 17:20
-
This topic is about RD-193, a very interesting engine, and I look forward to getting information about RD-193.
Discussions about other engines, and your personal design for a new launcher should go elsewhere.
-
#130
by
Prober
on 07 Nov, 2014 17:25
-
This topic is about RD-193, a very interesting engine, and I look forward to getting information about RD-193.
Discussions about other engines, and your personal design for a new launcher should go elsewhere.
Elects Danderman mod for the day
-
#131
by
kevin-rf
on 07 Nov, 2014 17:41
-
I have an idea.. clean sheet design for Antares 2
1st stage: 1 RS27
2nd stage: 1 AJ-10
You forgot the solids, without them, you would be lucky to get a corona capsule to the ISS
-
#132
by
bad_astra
on 07 Nov, 2014 19:52
-
It was just tongue in cheek, mostly.
-
#133
by
baldusi
on 07 Nov, 2014 19:55
-
I think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191.
It is somewhat offtopic here, because we focus on Antares, but Angara will not migrate to 193. They need the performance of 191 to hit the payload targets of the A5, which is the only thing their main customer (MoD) cares about. Do keep in mind that the transfer of production of RD-191 into Khrunichev is not officially cancelled. That is why 191 is kept separate from the rest of the "family". It is a package deal that can be moved between major organizations, while 193 and 181 are intended for continuation of in-house production at Energomash.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the RD-191 has the design requirement of throttling to 30% and was optimized for the center core of the A5. Also, it has a TVC. The RD-193 was designed as a replacement of the NK-33 on the Soyuz-2.1v, which lacks an integrated TVC (it uses the RD-0110R vernier engine) and doesn't needs to throttle (at least not so much). And since the RD-191 needs to work both as a booster and a sustainer, it might have an expansion ratio different than a pure core engine.
From the POV of NPO Energomash, Americans like to use American designed TVC on Russian engines (while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company). And Aerojet had already modified the NK-33 TVC to move the whole engine (I believe). Thus, an RD-193 could be almost a drop in replacement for the NK-33, while an export version of the RD-191 would be unnecessary heavy and have excessive capabilities (i.e. more expensive than necessary).
-
#134
by
owais.usmani
on 07 Nov, 2014 20:05
-
Well since this article came out: http://spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42460orbital-to-accelerate-upgraded-antares-use-other-vehicles-for-cygnus
We know they are in talks with three companies.
Two in the US and one in Europe.
Since Athena and Rockot don't have the capability or cant upgrade on time I think it is safe to say that those companies are SpaceX (Falcon 9), ULA (Atlas V 401) and Arianespace (Soyuz ST).
Any arguments against this reasoning?
All would enable larger capacity than Antares and pricewise Falcon 9 would win just ahead of Soyuz and lagging quite far behind would be Atlas V 401. A though nut to crack, I don't know how eager they are to launch with F9 and if they go with Soyuz they should know that the Soyuz only has a limited amount of years that it will be flown from CSG. So they can't choose it as the default back-up for the remainder of the ISS cargo program, namely CRS-2.
My 50 cents, its going to be Soyuz nonetheless.
Do they have a fairing for Soyuz carrying Cygnus?
-
#135
by
owais.usmani
on 07 Nov, 2014 20:06
-
(while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company).
which company?
-
#136
by
sdsds
on 07 Nov, 2014 21:09
-
Some time ago Anatoly Zak wrote:
Along with its use on the Soyuz-2.1v and other upgrades of the Soyuz family, the experimental engine could serve as a basis for the yet-to-be developed RD-181 engine intended for "foreign" launch vehicles [and] the final configuration of RD-193 would not include gimbal suspension.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd193.htmlDoes this imply the possibility that RD-193 will be the engine without TVC for Russian domestic use, and RD-181 will be essentially the same engine but with thrust vectoring, for export to the United States?
-
#137
by
Remes
on 07 Nov, 2014 22:58
-
(while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company).
which company?
We are talking about TVC? I think the TVC on Atlas V on RD-180 is russian made. A complete package.
The TVC on NK-33 on Antares is a Moog System (and a whole bunch of others things are from Moog, like second stage TVC and the valves, which replaced some russian designs on the NK-33).
-
#138
by
CT Space Guy
on 08 Nov, 2014 00:42
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
Jim was being very nice. You should let it go.
I've spent my entire career running circles around guys like Jim...If he responds to my posts, I will respond to him.
I never run away from people like him...In the end they all go thump thump. Every one of them.
-
#139
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 08 Nov, 2014 00:49
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
Jim was being very nice. You should let it go.
I've spent my entire career running circles around guys like Jim...If he responds to my posts, I will respond to him.
I never run away from people like him...In the end they all go thump thump. Every one of them.
Hahahahaa! That's rich.
This should be fun. Someone pass the popcorn.
