Author Topic: All Solid Motor Antares  (Read 30316 times)

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2907
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #100 on: 01/27/2016 03:54 PM »
Suppose McCain were to engineer an immediate block to RD-180 and yank ELC - wouldn't that mean a short term reliance on SX?

Would a "fast" cut-over to a solid first stage replacement to be able to loft Centaur be on the table?

How fast could this take place?

Fast enough to make an appropriations unblock (again) costly for Shelby?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4768
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1221
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #101 on: 01/28/2016 06:59 PM »
Suppose McCain were to engineer an immediate block to RD-180 and yank ELC - wouldn't that mean a short term reliance on SX?

Would a "fast" cut-over to a solid first stage replacement to be able to loft Centaur be on the table?

How fast could this take place?

Fast enough to make an appropriations unblock (again) costly for Shelby?
well theoretically and historically speaking the rapid development rate of early US rockets (ie Delta II) from paper design to launch hardware in a matter of few months compared to next gen launchers which take years to go from paper to metal.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2907
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #102 on: 01/29/2016 01:41 AM »
Suppose McCain were to engineer an immediate block to RD-180 and yank ELC - wouldn't that mean a short term reliance on SX?

Would a "fast" cut-over to a solid first stage replacement to be able to loft Centaur be on the table?

How fast could this take place?

Fast enough to make an appropriations unblock (again) costly for Shelby?
well theoretically and historically speaking the rapid development rate of early US rockets (ie Delta II) from paper design to launch hardware in a matter of few months compared to next gen launchers which take years to go from paper to metal.

So arachnitect's theory of an solid replacement / "alternative", possibly sold through ULA's board, could provide a viable short term option to a "no more" RD180 abrupt cut-off.

McCain thus can force the issue. Irrespective of Vulcan timetable or Atlas operational considerations.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4768
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1221
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #103 on: 01/29/2016 03:23 AM »
Suppose McCain were to engineer an immediate block to RD-180 and yank ELC - wouldn't that mean a short term reliance on SX?

Would a "fast" cut-over to a solid first stage replacement to be able to loft Centaur be on the table?

How fast could this take place?

Fast enough to make an appropriations unblock (again) costly for Shelby?
well theoretically and historically speaking the rapid development rate of early US rockets (ie Delta II) from paper design to launch hardware in a matter of few months compared to next gen launchers which take years to go from paper to metal.

So arachnitect's theory of an solid replacement / "alternative", possibly sold through ULA's board, could provide a viable short term option to a "no more" RD180 abrupt cut-off.

McCain thus can force the issue. Irrespective of Vulcan timetable or Atlas operational considerations.
if using the Challenger accident and the rapid creation and birth of DII (2 year from Paper to first launch) and some other rapidly developed military rockets (Thor IRBM - 50 days in paper and 1 year and 11 month to first successful flight) and short development time of Castor-30 as sources behind my answer then yes. ATK (now OA) and is currently the only example of rapid development in a very short timespan. they are currently the only one I find that does rapid prototyping and development like the old days and for all of that it was mostly private funding. Excluding the new private companies and OA, the other companies (ie ULA) and their suppliers like to use mostly government funding but unlike them in the 50s-70s they drag there feet in a slow paced mostly cost plus funding structure. This method of funding has been whacked on the head more so in the last few years and as such with fixed price or shared price contract they slow down even more.
« Last Edit: 01/29/2016 07:19 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #104 on: 01/30/2016 02:42 PM »
We already know how cheap launch can be with dumb boosters: not very.  The only hope for greatly reducing launch costs is with reusable boosters.

Dumb boosters have low performance, and performance matters for cost. Reusable boosters suffer from the same problem. I do not believe in some magic formula that will greatly reduce launch costs.

For a cost comparison of liquids/solids see for example the end of that page:
http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/en/organisation/departments/space-engineering/space-systems-engineering/expertise-areas/space-propulsion/system-design/generate-candidates/comparison-of-rockets/

From Ariane 6 thread.

If these costings in table are correct a solid Antares with BE3 US should be competitive. It is up to OA to prove it.
« Last Edit: 01/30/2016 02:43 PM by TrevorMonty »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12941
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4001
  • Likes Given: 761
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #105 on: 03/01/2016 02:01 PM »
Another aspect of a solid motor OATK vehicle that seems enticing this week is less fussy launch campaigns.  Cryos on the upper stage only.  No hang fire post-ignition cutoff aborts ever.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/01/2016 03:47 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8652
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1124
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #106 on: 03/01/2016 02:35 PM »
Outside of SpaceX I can only think of one Delta II hang fire...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Kim Keller

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 960
  • Not OldSpace, Not NewSpace - I'm ALLSpace
  • Location: Wherever the rockets are
  • Liked: 2338
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #107 on: 03/01/2016 03:26 PM »
No hang fire aborts ever.

Why would you say that? Of course you could still have a hang fire.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12941
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4001
  • Likes Given: 761
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #108 on: 03/01/2016 03:41 PM »
No hang fire aborts ever.

Why would you say that? Of course you could still have a hang fire.
You are right!  I've never heard of a big solid motor not starting (it happens with hobby rockets all the time!) but I suppose it could happen.  I was thinking about, and meant to specify, post-ignition, pre-liftoff aborts.  Cutoff aborts, or whatever they are called.  We've seen those on Falcon, Delta 2, Ariane 5, STS, etc.  Early Atlas and Titan suffered them too.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/01/2016 03:45 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8652
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1124
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #109 on: 03/01/2016 04:12 PM »
And how do you deal with a solid hang fire... You now have a solid in a completely unknown state. You wouldn't be able to pay me enough to unstack that one.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Kim Keller

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 960
  • Not OldSpace, Not NewSpace - I'm ALLSpace
  • Location: Wherever the rockets are
  • Liked: 2338
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #110 on: 03/01/2016 04:30 PM »
And how do you deal with a solid hang fire... You now have a solid in a completely unknown state. You wouldn't be able to pay me enough to unstack that one.

Upon a hang fire, rotate the safe & arm devices to 'safe' and remove electrical power from the firing chain. The vehicle should then be safe to approach.

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: All Solid Motor Antares
« Reply #111 on: 03/02/2016 09:20 PM »
Dave Thompson had a few details on their EELV-class launcher in the quarterly earnings call:
USAF funding is for early R&D.  Decision point to go to production is about a year from now.  Solid first stage, liquid upper stage.

Quote
In our Flight Systems Group, the company and the US Air Force are in the first phase of a potential four year, jointly funded development program aimed at creating a new all-domestic intermediate and large-class space launch vehicle family.

Our objective is to develop a modular vehicle system capable of launching national security payloads and what is known as the EELV or Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle as well as scientific and commercial satellites and to conduct initial launches using this new system by the end of the decade.

As part of the Defense Department's next-generation launcher program, which started last year, we are combining the world-leading solid rocket propulsion technology from our legacy ATK business with the launch vehicle systems engineering and operations experience from our heritage Orbital unit to compete in a market area that was not directly addressable by either companies prior to last year's merger.

Our investments in 2016, as well as those of the Air Force, will cover the initial phase of design and development work with a decision in the first half of 2017 concerning the remaining activity to actually build and test this new launch vehicle family.
Quote
With regard to the Flight Systems initiative, on the new launch vehicle to be developed jointly with the Air Force, if that goes forward from the decision point next year, then that has the potential to generate revenue, certainly by 2018, possibly by the end of 2017 beginning on how it is structured.

At present, during the first phase of the work, the Air Force and the company are jointly funding early-stage research and development. The Air Force is investing approximately $50 million and the company is investing about $30 million this year. The $50 million from the Air Force though does not generate revenue if it is structured as a co-operative R&D program. If that were to change in the future periods, then we could see revenue generated in that initiative by the second half of 2017, although at present, we do not plan for that to occur.
Quote
There is certainly some important carryover from Ares 1 with regard to the solid rocket propulsion. It also benefits from and in turn provides benefits to NASA's space launch system which is in a sense a descendant of the Ares 1 project and to some other NASA and Defense programs as well. So there is a fair amount of carryover from a prior work that ATK conducted back five years or longer ago.

The design of our system does include in most of its specific configurations a liquid upper stage and we have studied several - I guess, I would say, three engine alternatives for that upper stage. We have a current preferred approach and two alternatives. Again, for competitive reasons, I'd prefer not to get into those just yet. But the system does involve a liquid upper stage.

Well, there has been a great deal of discussion about launch vehicle reusability, particularly over the last six months. I think the it's still too early to say whether in the real world of launch rates and refurbishment cost and payload penalties and so on that relate do reusability, whether it's going to make economic sense to reuse some or large part of the launch vehicle. Well, it maybe intuitively appealing to make references to we don't throw [away] airplanes and so on. Our rockets and airplanes are quite different machines and a past experience with launch vehicle reusability has been mixed at best in terms of achieving sustainable cost reductions. And so, I am a skeptic with regard to many of the claims that have been made for cost reductions related to reusability and in the case of our specific program, we are designing it to be cost competitive with not only the current pricing, but even somewhat lower pricing that may emerge in the future. But, you are correct, our system does not contemplate reusability and we will have to wait and see whether that's a good judgment or not.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4768
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1221
  • Likes Given: 598

Tags: