-
#100 by jimvela on 16 Nov, 2006 18:34
-
Quote
antonioe - 16/11/2006 12:30 AM
(snip) Dan G. sees it, hits the ceiling, grabs you by the throat and swears that this country would never, never, ever fly an astronaut on an ELV again and that YOU, Doug Stanley, is doing a GREAT DISSERVICE to NASA and the space program by pushing such a foolish and unsafe idea...
Stanley: 1, Goldin: 0
Goldin: Better, faster, cheaper, and, thankfully, GONE!
-
#101 by Chris Bergin on 16 Nov, 2006 19:08
-
Quote
vt_hokie - 16/11/2006 7:07 PM
Speaking of X-34, what ever happened to the vehicle after the program was cancelled? Unlike X-33, wasn't X-34 more or less ready to fly?
Might be worth starting a new thread in Historical on that...like we did for everyone's favourite SSTO
..... http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1184&start=1
-
#102 by Doug Stanley on 17 Nov, 2006 13:00
-
Quote
antonioe - 16/11/2006 1:30 AM
Hi Doug! I see you have been grilled about the ESAS... did you tell them about your "incident" with Dan G. the day of the X-34 rollout?... you had just finished the CRV Phase I study.... you had a picture of the CRV on top of an EELV (Delta-IV - I still have the original in my office) in an exhibit inside "Stargazer"... Dan G. sees it, hits the ceiling, grabs you by the throat and swears that this country would never, never, ever fly an astronaut on an ELV again and that YOU, Doug Stanley, is doing a GREAT DISSERVICE to NASA and the space program by pushing such a foolish and unsafe idea...
Stanley: 1, Goldin: 0
No I did not share that...Many of the EELV-advocates on this site would never believe that I have advocated solutions that have humans launching on them when the requirements led me to that approach. Since the ESAS requirements led us towards a single stick, they see me as some biased, dyed-in-wool "Shuttle Hugger". You are ruining my reputation... -
#103 by Chris SF on 18 Nov, 2006 11:55
-
I'm enjoying reading the stories, and I can only imagine how cool it would be to have the three doctoreers of DS, AE and MG with the Pegasus. Mike Griffin sure gets around!
-
#104 by Carl G on 19 Nov, 2006 02:29
-
Quote
Doug Stanley - 17/11/2006 7:43 AM
Quoteantonioe - 16/11/2006 1:30 AM
Hi Doug! I see you have been grilled about the ESAS... did you tell them about your "incident" with Dan G. the day of the X-34 rollout?... you had just finished the CRV Phase I study.... you had a picture of the CRV on top of an EELV (Delta-IV - I still have the original in my office) in an exhibit inside "Stargazer"... Dan G. sees it, hits the ceiling, grabs you by the throat and swears that this country would never, never, ever fly an astronaut on an ELV again and that YOU, Doug Stanley, is doing a GREAT DISSERVICE to NASA and the space program by pushing such a foolish and unsafe idea...
Stanley: 1, Goldin: 0
No I did not share that...Many of the EELV-advocates on this site would never believe that I have advocated solutions that have humans launching on them when the requirements led me to that approach. Since the ESAS requirements led us towards a single stick, they see me as some biased, dyed-in-wool "Shuttle Hugger". You are ruining my reputation...
That is interesting about your previous work with EELV, but while no one has ever given you personally a hard time about ESAS (most think it's great, vocal minority remember) I don't think anyone could call you a Shuttle hugger, seen as Ares I keeps moving towards more of a S-IVB. So maybe a Saturn hugger, which is no bad thing to be called! -
#105 by SRBseparama on 19 Nov, 2006 02:54
-
Quote
Doug Stanley - 14/11/2006 1:15 PM
Now you all know why I decided to abandon my 12 year NASA career one sunny October morning in 1998 to go work for Antonio and Mike Griffin at Orbital...It was worth it for the entertainment value alone!!
Hi Antonio!
Doug
Wow, I had no idea Orbital had all three of you working there! Space industry is really interesting in this way as I always thought one started as say an engineer at NASA and worked your way up to the Wayne Hale level and then on to administrator.
I, probably like a lot of people on here, came here cause we liked Shuttles and then found out about ELVs and Pegasus etc. from this site. Had no idea Orbital once had the current boss of NASA and the guy that has designed our way back to the moon. How cool is that!
-
#106 by Peter NASA on 27 Nov, 2006 14:23
-
Worth bumping as an active Q and A
-
#107 by SRBseparama on 21 Dec, 2006 04:46
-
Quote
Peter NASA - 27/11/2006 9:06 AM
Worth bumping as an active Q and A
And one more time, as Dr. Antonio can't get away from us that easily If not, this is still a superb thread and a great read back.
-
#108 by FransonUK on 07 Jan, 2007 11:58
-
Maybe "one" more time
-
#109 by Andy L on 14 Feb, 2007 12:52
-
Has Pegasus ever suffered a failure, like most other vehicles appear to have?
-
#110 by Jim on 14 Feb, 2007 15:07
-
2 partial and 2-3 total failures depending on how the first X-43 flight is counted
-
#111 by antonioe on 27 Aug, 2007 03:15
-
The Pegasus story - Not over yet!
I've been a little busy lately (something to do with a Delta II replacement) so I have neglected my promise to slowly but surely tell the Pegasus story to the gentle readers of this fine forum. I hope to resume my garbled storytelling soon, but until then here is, as kind of a peace offering, a graphic sentimental souvenir: the fax from NORAD (via NASA GSFC) of the first TLE (two-line element) for the first Pegasus launch on April 5, 1990 (three days short of three years after that first sketch, according to Bob Lindberg, who was present at both events.) I mentioned the effect of receiving that fax earlier.
Here's a translation into the President's english of that FAX:
Semi major axis = 6787.70 km.
Eccentricity = 0.004892
Inclination = 94.10 deg.
RAAN = 218.81 deg.
Argument of perigee = 269.21 deg.
True anomaly = 90.906 deg.Apogee altitude = 442.77 km.
Perigee altitude = 376.35 km.
Orbit period = 92.75 min.
Mean anomaly = 90.34 deg.
Orbit number = 40631
-
#112 by Orbiter Obvious on 27 Aug, 2007 03:21
-
Quote
antonioe - 26/8/2007 10:15 PM
The Pegasus story - Not over yet!
I've been a little busy lately (something to do with a Delta II replacement) so I have neglected my promise to slowly but surely tell the Pegasus story to the gentle readers of this fine forum.
Huzzah!! Welcome back, I like your stories a lot!
Wow, three years from the sketch to the first launch. -
#113 by Davie OPF on 27 Aug, 2007 04:09
-
Welcome back sir. This is a great Q&A.
Interested to hear what you meant by a Delta II replacement? We know there's moves to Delta IVs for commonality of ULA DOD launch service contracts, but a 'new' vehicle? A beefed up Pegasus? Do tell more if you can, sounds intriguing. -
#114 by antonioe on 27 Aug, 2007 04:15
-
Oh! I forgot to mention: the handwritten notes on my copy of the Fax are Dave Steffy's.
Dave, ex-MIT XVI, ex-Hughes Space and Com, was the Vehicle Engineer on the first Pegasus. He went on to become the principal designer and Program Manager of the ORBCOMM constellation, Tech VP of Orbital's GeoComm line for several years (so, between ORBCOMMS and StarBuses he has probably built and flown more satellites - over 40 - that all of us put together), and is now the Program Director of the Delta II replacement program.
When we got the Fax Dave was the only one in the room that remembered the meaning of each field in the TLEs!!!! I don't think he remembers that today...
When Dave left Hughes in 1988 he had the choice of joining Orbital or starting his own company to produce digital electronics for sailboats. From a purely financial standpoint, he probably made the wrong choice; from a personal satisfaction standpoint... -
#115 by antonioe on 27 Aug, 2007 05:24
-
Quote
Davie OPF - 26/8/2007 11:09 PM
Orbital's US Government satellite products (NASA and some Defense/Intelligence) are slowly but steadily growing from Pegasus/Minotaur II class to the Minotaur IV/Delta II class. Orbital's market share in this class is, or was, growing.
Welcome back sir. This is a great Q&A.
Interested to hear what you meant by a Delta II replacement? We know there's moves to Delta IVs for commonality of ULA DOD launch service contracts, but a 'new' vehicle? A beefed up Pegasus? Do tell more if you can, sounds intriguing.
The demise of Delta II threatens this growth. Much like what happened to us in 1987 (we had the idea for what became ORBCOMM, but not a suitable launch option, so we decided to start what became Pegasus) we have started what could become "son of Delta II" (some pundits suggest we call it Epsilon - the next letter in the greek alphabet, but DWT nixed that for obvious reasons.) Orbital is funding this effort at risk - like with Pegasus and Taurus, we do not have any contract or sponsorship to develop it - not even a COTS agreement!
Having said all this, I expect a torrent of questions pertaining to its configuration, propulsion technology, etc. The honest answer is that we are still trading options. We are spending several megadollars to proceed to CDR late this year (and, believe me, that buys a LOT of design at Orbital!); if we pass a number of hurdles, we will proceed to CDR in the fall of 2008 for a possible first launch in mid-2010. Now, here's the rub:
Any fool can design a profitable EXPENDABLE rocket if it is guaranteed to fly 12-20 times a year (50-60 for a reusable). Any fool can design an UNprofitable rocket that flies 2-3 times a year (well, even so it's not as easy as that, but you get the point.) The hard part is to design a launch product that will BREAK EVEN at 2-3 launches/year!!!
Unfortunately, the word "launch product" here includes the industrial infrastructure required to produce all its parts, inventory vs. quantity purchases vs. Letters-of-agreement games, fixed infrastructures, perhaps in more than one location, and possibly within 500 yeards of a vicious, rust-causing salt-saturated moist air, the perhaps small but irreducible number of engineers and technicians who have to be "current" in assembly and flight operations, government permits and customers' expectations of insight and flight assurance, reliability of supply lines that may not have any other customers... OH DEAR! OH MY!! Wouldn't it be wonderful it all that mattered was specific impulse, structural mass fraction, bending modes, lift and drag, shock propagation, acoustic levels and all that?
SO: we are NOT ready to unveil a configuration; we are not even ready to assure that come December's PDR we WILL continue the program - we will only do so if we are convinced we can do it for the non-recurring and recurring costs necessary to make it work. It's not a matter of funding; as stated in another forum, Orbital has plenty of cash - more, indeed, than it would be PRUDENT to spend in this development. We are working very, very hard to make the cost numbers work; but is IS hard!
I CAN, though, say that the same people that designed, built and flow 52 Pegasus, Tauruses and Minotaurs are going to give it a hell of a try. We have been able to maintain a viable small launch vehicle product line for 17 years with an average of 3 flights/year (see enclosed chart, which only goes to 2006), so if anybody has a chance to pull this off, it's probably us.
We are targeting the same payload vs. altitude vs. inclination characteristics of the Delta 7920, it has a liquid (LOX/Kerosene) core and it has a 4 meter diameter fairing. As soon as it is prudent, I will share with you all the vehicle and operational details that ITAR would allow me to post in this forum, including sketches. No yellow ruled paper, though - we use IDEAS.
And please, PLEASE, don't call me "sir" (or "Dr.") - reminds me of my age! One of the advantages of having a name like Antonio is that you can be THE Antonio (you know, as in THE Donald?... ) so, if you call me "sir" again, YOU'RE FIRED®!!!
-----
Will design rockets for food
-
#116 by jimvela on 27 Aug, 2007 06:47
-
Quote
antonioe - 26/8/2007 11:24 PM
And please, PLEASE, don't call me "sir" (or "Dr.") - reminds me of my age! One of the advantages of having a name like Antonio is that you can be THE Antonio (you know, as in THE Donald?... ) so, if you call me "sir" again, YOU'RE FIRED®!!!Well, you can't actually fire ME, but since you've asked really, really nicely, I'll try to remember to drop the prefix "Dr.". Forgive me if I fail from time to time.
See, I've been taught to properly regard and address others with respect for the accomplishments that they've made, and that little prefix is not trivial. :bleh: I can't wait to see more details if a DII replacement vehicle comes to pass, and here's hoping that the present chaos in US Space policy doesn't kill off most robotic exploration. There's got to be room for both the serious science of the robotic missions as well as the exploration and stature of landing boots.
-
#117 by Chris Bergin on 27 Aug, 2007 12:46
-
Quote
antonioe - 27/8/2007 6:24 AM
We are targeting the same payload vs. altitude vs. inclination characteristics of the Delta 7920, it has a liquid (LOX/Kerosene) core and it has a 4 meter diameter fairing. As soon as it is prudent, I will share with you all the vehicle and operational details that ITAR would allow me to post in this forum, including sketches.
Welcome back Antonio!
Fascinating. Certainly had heard some rumors, but nothing documented, thus nothing newsworthy for media like us which work only on documented information (although you can bet some less savvy media are going to read that post and paraphrase an "according to reports, OSC are..." article *rolls eyes*).
"Will design rockets for food" :laugh: -
#118 by kevin-rf on 27 Aug, 2007 13:45
-
Welcome back.
May I be so bold as to start with a simple question or two
Is man rating for something like COTS fit into the equation or will the new Delta 7920 class vehicle G loads be to high at this point in the trades?
Is the plan an LEO only vehicle that matches the Delta 7920 or are you also talking higher orbits and maybe Mars bound payloads?
Best of luck with the trades, -
#119 by JIS on 27 Aug, 2007 15:13
-
Quote
antonioe - 27/8/2007 6:24 AM
if we pass a number of hurdles, we will proceed to CDR in the fall of 2008 for a possible first launch in mid-2010.
Interresting. It should be in the same frame as Falcon 9.
I'm sure Orbital would be able to build some resupply ship too.
We could have another COTS 2 competitor.
Is Orbital able to build LOX/kerosene engine inhouse?
..... 
