-
#120 by Jim on 27 Aug, 2007 16:17
-
There is no mention of Orbital doing COTS
-
#121 by meiza on 27 Aug, 2007 18:16
-
How did you get your price input for the design? Ie do you aim for the same price as Delta II charges now?
-
#122 by antonioe on 27 Aug, 2007 19:16
-
Quote
kevin-rf - 27/8/2007 8:45 AM
No, the cold business numbers, unfortunately, do not support the cost of manrating it (I wish... I'd buy the first ticket...)
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?QuoteIs the plan an LEO only vehicle that matches the Delta 7920 or are you also talking higher orbits and maybe Mars bound payloads?
Notice I said "7920", not "7925" - giving a smaller payload mass a higher ΔV usually means you want to use an additional stage. Like Delta, we'll probably offer an additional stage for these missions (which, unfortunately, will increase the cost.) We are trying to avoid spinning at all costs, though. -
#123 by antonioe on 27 Aug, 2007 19:19
-
Quote
jimvela - 27/8/2007 1:47 AM
Plus, THE Donald would sue me...
Well, you can't actually fire MEQuotehere'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.
AMEN!!!! -
#124 by antonioe on 27 Aug, 2007 20:00
-
Quote
JIS - 27/8/2007 10:13 AM
Quoteantonioe - 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 don't think it's fair to SpaceX to put Falcon 9 on a first flight race with our new launcher, which at 3,000 Kg payload to 675 Km sun-synch is only a factor of 3 higher than a Taurus - operational since 1994 - whereas Falcon 9, if my numbers are right, would be 20 times the size of a Falcon 1, which is still in development.
On the other hand, SpaceX's financial flexibiliy is vastly superior to ours, since they probably don't have to show a return on Mr. Musk's investment, the $95M they must have already received from NASA on the COTS agreement, or the $100M or so they will receive before their first flight, according to the COTS Phase I Space Act Agreements (if you read that document, you will notice that RpK's payment milestones included rather demanding financial, hardware delivery and hardware test events, whereas SpaceX gets $198M before the first hardware- or test-related milestone.)
QuoteIs Orbital able to build LOX/kerosene engine inhouse?
No. -
#125 by kevin-rf on 27 Aug, 2007 20:15
-
Quote
antonioe - 27/8/2007 3:16 PM
No, the cold business numbers, unfortunately, do not support the cost of manrating it (I wish... I'd buy the first ticket...)
Now that is what I call faith in ones product... Do you get an employee discount
QuoteNotice I said "7920", not "7925" - giving a smaller payload mass a higher ?V usually means you want to use an additional stage. Like Delta, we'll probably offer an additional stage for these missions (which, unfortunately, will increase the cost.) We are trying to avoid spinning at all costs, though.
Does that imply an "extra" solid stage that has roll control? Very interesting, care to coment on roll control with solids ? -
#126 by antonioe on 27 Aug, 2007 20:26
-
Quote
meiza - 27/8/2007 1:16 PM
How did you get your price input for the design? Ie do you aim for the same price as Delta II charges now?
Actually, we're aiming for the prices Delta II charged 2-3 years ago (adjusted for inflation,) but at a much lower average flight rate (2 to 3 a year) than Delta II ever had. At that time (2004 - before the USAF and then NASA pulled their support for the program) Delta II's approximately $50M cost to a program was quite reasonable. Notice that a typical space mission has five cost components of about equal value (very roughly - don't take me too literally):- Spacecraft bus
- Instrument(s) or mission payloads
- Launch
- Ground system and mission ops
- Overall Systems Engineering/Science/Program management and other "glue"
In other words, the launch "should" be about one-fifth the cost of a "balanced" mission. This very simplistic model makes a $50M Delta II consistent with a $250M mission and a $140M Delta II (or Delta-IV Medium - they seem to be about equally priced) consistent with a $700M or so mission, which is not quite in Orbital's "sweet spot".
Also, as I pointed out in a previous posting, you have to be very careful how you define the cost; when we sell a Pegasus to NASA, we provide everything (we even pay for the range) - it's a turnkey launch service. With the USAF, on the other hand, we come close to selling just a rocket, and they provide the range, payload integration, etc. The price paid to Orbital in the latter case is lower, but the total cost to the taxpayer, IMHO, is lower in the former case.
-
#127 by antonioe on 27 Aug, 2007 20:32
-
Quote
kevin-rf - 27/8/2007 3:15 PM
Hey, why do you think I did the B-52 separation and ignition safety analysis personally? It was my ticket to the Launch Panel Operator seat on the first Pegasus drop!!!Quoteantonioe - 27/8/2007 3:16 PM
No, the cold business numbers, unfortunately, do not support the cost of manrating it (I wish... I'd buy the first ticket...)
Now that is what I call faith in ones product... Do you get an employee discountQuoteDoes that imply an "extra" solid stage that has roll control? Very interesting, care to coment on roll control with solids ?
Actually, roll control is a cinch (Pegasus does it with a simple cold gas system); it's TVC that you can avoid if you spin. Once upon a time (when the Delta II was developed) the weight of a TVC system for a small solid motor made it prohibitive from a performance standpoint. Today, the cost and mission risk associated with the spin-up turntable and separation system (not to mention the pain of having to balance the spacecraft and design it to withstand the spin) make TVC preferable.
-
#128 by simonbp on 27 Aug, 2007 22:41
-
With respect to the rolling upper stage, even spacecraft that are required to roll (like MPF, MER, MSL, Cassini, etc) roll at significantly slower rate than a spinning solid. MPF and MER used yo-yos to slown down to ~2 rpm (Corona-era tech), while MSL has roll-control thrusters...
Simon
-
#129 by meiza on 29 Aug, 2007 01:11
-
So, can you tell anything about engines then? Will they be US made? Multiple? RS-27?
-
#130 by antonioe on 29 Aug, 2007 01:23
-
Ahhh... hang on a little longer. We are in business negotiations still.
-
#131 by kevin-rf on 29 Aug, 2007 13:02
-
Would you care to elaborate on how the fixed costs for a solid based solution compare to the fixed costs differ when you have a low flight rate?
-
#132 by CFE on 29 Aug, 2007 23:22
-
How is OSC going to adapt to flying a LOX-Kerosene rocket? The transition should be interesting, because of OSC's historical involvement with solids. I don't suppose that the experience with the Pegasus HAPS is very relevant here. I'd assume that OSC would start looking to hire people with Atlas and Delta II experience if Epsilon/Taurus-2 moves ahead.
-
#133 by antonioe on 30 Aug, 2007 00:30
-
Quote
kevin-rf - 29/8/2007 8:02 AM Would you care to elaborate on how the fixed costs for a solid based solution compare to the fixed costs differ when you have a low flight rate?
Uh, could you repeat (rather, rephrase) the question?
-
#134 by antonioe on 30 Aug, 2007 00:38
-
Quote
CFE - 29/8/2007 6:22 PM How is OSC going to adapt to flying a LOX-Kerosene rocket?
Veeery carefully...
QuoteThe transition should be interesting, because of OSC's historical involvement with solids. I don't suppose that the experience with the Pegasus HAPS is very relevant here.
Not HAPS (small, monoprop), but the StarBus class GeoComs have rather large (more than 50% of the satellite mass) bipropellant systems (that have to last for 16 years). We build, integrate and test them at the Dulles SMF. Not a big stretch for a biprop upper stage or semi-stage. A lot of us at Orbital - Dave Steffy being the canonical example - have (literally) one foot in the rocket camp and the other in the satellite camp.
QuoteI'd assume that OSC would start looking to hire people with Atlas and Delta II experience if Epsilon/Taurus-2 moves ahead.
YES!!!
-
#135 by tnphysics on 30 Aug, 2007 01:00
-
If SpaceX succeeds, you're priced out of the market unless you can make a profit charging $17 million per mission.
Do you have a contingency for that case? -
#136 by antonioe on 30 Aug, 2007 01:09
-
Quote
tnphysics - 29/8/2007 8:00 PM If SpaceX succeeds, you're priced out of the market unless you can make a profit charging $17 million per mission. Do you have a contingency for that case?
I don't want to be "cute" but, how would you answer that question?
-
#137 by tnphysics on 30 Aug, 2007 01:28
-
no
-
#138 by Chris Bergin on 30 Aug, 2007 02:35
-
Quote
tnphysics - 30/8/2007 2:28 AM
no
Don't strain anything with a response like that
At least explain your reasoning behind the "no." Especially when it's on the basis of IF SpaceX is going to achieve certain milestones and IF SpaceX's quoted figures are accurate, noting that competition issues denote that's usually not always the case. -
#139 by tnphysics on 30 Aug, 2007 03:13
-
Sorry Chris,
My reasoning was that a Falcon 9 launch costs $35 million. A Pegasus launch costs about the same amount. But the Falcon 9 is much more powerful. I think that the Delta II class launcher will cost more than Pegasus. If this is correct, the conclusion follows.
