Author Topic: All Solid Motor Antares  (Read 29752 times)

Offline Rummy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • CA
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #20 on: 01/14/2016 04:32 PM »
Looks like there's going to be an all solid motor launch vehicle from Orbital ATK.

Online Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2398
  • Canada
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 549
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #21 on: 01/15/2016 02:31 AM »
Looks like there's going to be an all solid motor launch vehicle from Orbital ATK.

Nope. The Stick Lives with BE-3U upper stage. :o Otherwise aka Blue Liberty.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4050
  • California
  • Liked: 3349
  • Likes Given: 2110
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #22 on: 01/15/2016 05:32 AM »

Looks like there's going to be an all solid motor launch vehicle from Orbital ATK.

Nope. The Stick Lives with BE-3U upper stage. :o Otherwise aka Blue Liberty.

This seems more like an Ariane 6-ish LV (the old solid variant) than Liberty.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12739
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3661
  • Likes Given: 732
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #23 on: 01/15/2016 04:33 PM »
So, will it be like the solid motor Antares design Orbital-ATK was looking at last year, or something more like one of the Ariane 6 proposals?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #24 on: 01/15/2016 04:47 PM »
OrbATK says "intermediate to heavy class family of EELVs capable of launching Air Force and other payloads"

Return of the old Alliant Techsystems design?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19248.0

Online TrevorMonty

Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #25 on: 01/15/2016 05:31 PM »
OrbATK says "intermediate to heavy class family of EELVs capable of launching Air Force and other payloads"

Return of the old Alliant Techsystems design?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19248.0
The single stick (13t LEO 5t GTO) would cover most CRS, GTO satellites and DOD missions. The 150klbs BE3U allows for considerably larger US, which may eliminate SRMU-2

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4050
  • California
  • Liked: 3349
  • Likes Given: 2110
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #26 on: 01/15/2016 05:40 PM »
So, will it be like the solid motor Antares design Orbital-ATK was looking at last year, or something more like one of the Ariane 6 proposals?

 - Ed Kyle

Something in between, perhaps? I'm thinking two solid stages topped by a 3rd HydroLox stage, powered by a BE-3U. The "intermediate to heavy class" part makes me think that this core could be flanked by two 1st stages as boosters for the "heavy" variant, thus making it similar to the Ariane 6 concept. But I could be off base.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2016 05:59 PM by Lars-J »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1445
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #27 on: 01/15/2016 05:49 PM »
Well, they must have developed some cool tech for the Pegasus II project.

Online TrevorMonty

Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #28 on: 01/15/2016 08:19 PM »
So, will it be like the solid motor Antares design Orbital-ATK was looking at last year, or something more like one of the Ariane 6 proposals?

 - Ed Kyle

Something in between, perhaps? I'm thinking two solid stages topped by a 3rd HydroLox stage, powered by a BE-3U. The "intermediate to heavy class" part makes me think that this core could be flanked by two 1st stages as boosters for the "heavy" variant, thus making it similar to the Ariane 6 concept. But I could be off base.

They may use a combination of Ariane 6 P1B and P7C designs. Being able to dial up the performance by using strap on SRBs would allow one design to cover a range of missions from ISS cargo resupply to large GEO satellites.
 
http://aviationweek.com/awin/cnes-asi-favor-solid-rocket-design-ariane-6

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #29 on: 01/15/2016 08:34 PM »
They may use a combination of Ariane 6 P1B and P7C designs. Being able to dial up the performance by using strap on SRBs would allow one design to cover a range of missions from ISS cargo resupply to large GEO satellites.
 
http://aviationweek.com/awin/cnes-asi-favor-solid-rocket-design-ariane-6

BE-3U would be oversized for such designs though (670kn vs 180kn of Vinci). I guess it could throttle down enough, but if you have such a high-thrust engine (half of Vulcain 2) I guess you could save a solid stage (or make a bigger rocket).
« Last Edit: 01/15/2016 08:44 PM by Oli »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #30 on: 01/15/2016 08:39 PM »
So the answer is: "it depends".

Are we competing with Antares, Atlas, Vulcan, Falcon? Ariane?

The reason PPH was desirable was that you could scale modularly the solids, intended (mostly) to be one SRM used in perhaps up to 6 places (4+2). So the potential for high multiples of the same thing.

So why was this ditched for A5 redux? Because the flight frequency did not support the costing. Perhaps if you had more than Ariane 5 flight frequency, and less motor cost, you might make it work. The thorn to that is F9R (if real threat) and your minimum 2 motors.

If the point is competing with Atlas for like payloads, then the point is less about the lower two-three SRM's, and more about the US. Perhaps you'd want Centaur+ capabilities (don't forget the lower iSP of the solids it's launched from), and possibly a reusable stage, something that Tory Bruno seems to be chatting up more lately.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #31 on: 01/15/2016 10:27 PM »
Solids are often touted as being potentially low cost.  Has there been an example of a low-cost solid LV?  The Minotaurs are cheap because they are secondhand.  Titan wasn't cheap.  Shuttle SRBs aren't cheap.  Liberty's price apparently wasn't compelling.  Pegasus wasn't cheap for its capability level.  The strap-ons for Atlas and Delta don't appear to be all that cheap based on the price increments for them, and they already have more volume production than a launch vehicle would.  What shining examples am I missing?


And how ugly a statement about Orbital-ATK's confidence in the future of the current Antares does this make, to be looking to replace it with a design largely overlapping in performance?

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 470
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #32 on: 01/15/2016 11:18 PM »
Solids are often touted as being potentially low cost.  Has there been an example of a low-cost solid LV?  The Minotaurs are cheap because they are secondhand.  Titan wasn't cheap.  Shuttle SRBs aren't cheap.  Liberty's price apparently wasn't compelling.  Pegasus wasn't cheap for its capability level.  The strap-ons for Atlas and Delta don't appear to be all that cheap based on the price increments for them, and they already have more volume production than a launch vehicle would.  What shining examples am I missing?


And how ugly a statement about Orbital-ATK's confidence in the future of the current Antares does this make, to be looking to replace it with a design largely overlapping in performance?
Titan and Shuttle aren't exactly shining examples of cheap liquid engines either.

Online TrevorMonty

Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #33 on: 01/15/2016 11:45 PM »
So the answer is: "it depends".

Are we competing with Antares, Atlas, Vulcan, Falcon? Ariane?

The reason PPH was desirable was that you could scale modularly the solids, intended (mostly) to be one SRM used in perhaps up to 6 places (4+2). So the potential for high multiples of the same thing.

So why was this ditched for A5 redux? Because the flight frequency did not support the costing. Perhaps if you had more than Ariane 5 flight frequency, and less motor cost, you might make it work. The thorn to that is F9R (if real threat) and your minimum 2 motors.

If the point is competing with Atlas for like payloads, then the point is less about the lower two-three SRM's, and more about the US. Perhaps you'd want Centaur+ capabilities (don't forget the lower iSP of the solids it's launched from), and possibly a reusable stage, something that Tory Bruno seems to be chatting up more lately.

http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-spacex-win-air-force-propulsion-contracts/
The core will most likely use Common Booster Segment solid rocket motor with additional GEM63XL strap on SRBs that are being developed for Vulcan. Blue to provide BE3U powered US. The cost of GEM63XL will be considerably cheaper for OrbitalATK than ULA. ULA have to pay retail for these SRBs, while OA are getting these SRBs at cost price.  If OA can't make a competitive LV using SRBs then I doubt anybody can.

Reuse of 2nd stage will always cost performance, for some missions it would require additional SRBs. With ULA this trade is marginal at best. In OA case they would be trading internally built SRBs for an externally supplied 2nd stage, making recovery more viable.

 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12739
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3661
  • Likes Given: 732
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #34 on: 01/16/2016 02:26 AM »
Solids are often touted as being potentially low cost.  Has there been an example of a low-cost solid LV?  The Minotaurs are cheap because they are secondhand.  Titan wasn't cheap.  Shuttle SRBs aren't cheap.  Liberty's price apparently wasn't compelling.  Pegasus wasn't cheap for its capability level.  The strap-ons for Atlas and Delta don't appear to be all that cheap based on the price increments for them, and they already have more volume production than a launch vehicle would.  What shining examples am I missing?
"Wasn't cheap" compared to what?  How much would a liquid fueled first stage cost that could make 6.6 million pounds of thrust?  The last such stage (S-IC) was too costly to keep building, apparently.  What would an all-liquid Titan IV look like?  How could it cost less than the vehicle that flew?  What about the alternative to solid-augmented  Atlas 5?  Wouldn't that be an Atlas Heavy?  Surely that would cost more.

I tend to agree with TrevorMonty that we may see a big solid core stage or stages with optional GEM 63XL strap-on motors.  The big questions are whether the core will use a segmented motor or motors, and one or two or three solid motor stages, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/16/2016 02:30 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 885
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 805
  • Likes Given: 502
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #35 on: 01/16/2016 12:52 PM »

I tend to agree with TrevorMonty that we may see a big solid core stage or stages with optional GEM 63XL strap-on motors.  The big questions are whether the core will use a segmented motor or motors, and one or two or three solid motor stages, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

Assuming that they do go for a big hydrolox upper with a BE-3Uen, what would make more sense? I think that either one or two solid stages would be enough, especially if they are planning on adding a flexible amount strap-on SRMs to the core.

I'd be willing to guess one, but it seems that part of the wording in the contract does not point to that. 
« Last Edit: 01/16/2016 12:53 PM by Dante80 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12739
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3661
  • Likes Given: 732
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #36 on: 01/16/2016 03:32 PM »

I tend to agree with TrevorMonty that we may see a big solid core stage or stages with optional GEM 63XL strap-on motors.  The big questions are whether the core will use a segmented motor or motors, and one or two or three solid motor stages, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

Assuming that they do go for a big hydrolox upper with a BE-3Uen, what would make more sense? I think that either one or two solid stages would be enough, especially if they are planning on adding a flexible amount strap-on SRMs to the core.

I'd be willing to guess one, but it seems that part of the wording in the contract does not point to that. 
Two solid core stages would be better than one in terms of vehicle "balance", lowest GLOW, etc.  I think that the Ariane 6 and Stratolaunch and all-solid Antares concepts provide the template.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/16/2016 03:33 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 885
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 805
  • Likes Given: 502
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #37 on: 01/16/2016 04:14 PM »
Yes, but the addition of the GEM-63XL on the first core makes said tradeoff a little less pronounced. That's a reason for thinking one SRB core could make more sense.

Online TrevorMonty

Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #38 on: 01/16/2016 04:38 PM »
The Blue US could be up around 75t of fuel, with a150klbs (440isp?) engine this not an unreasonable size. This is comparable to F9FT at around 100t with 200klbs? (348isp) engine.

The US is likely to use IVF for pressurization and have multiple restarts. Being able to deliver satellites direct to GEO maybe an option.

« Last Edit: 01/16/2016 04:47 PM by TrevorMonty »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #39 on: 01/16/2016 07:01 PM »
The spacenews article suggests Delta Heavy class performance.

That would require some huge solids.

They might want to go for a core with BE-3Us instead of a solid second stage.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2016 07:02 PM by Oli »

Tags: