-
#160 by antonioe on 02 Sep, 2007 16:25
-
Quote
antonioe - 2/9/2007 8:40 AMBTW, the individual with that signature line seems to be somebody in New Mexico NOT associated with SpaceX.
Apparently I interpreted the gentleman in question 180 degrees out of phase... he was actually cheering Minotaur... I'm getting senile...
Look, guys, we all have enough problems already... -
#161 by Chris Bergin on 02 Sep, 2007 16:30
-
Yes, that signature is homage to the film "Team America" - and positive.
Good opportunity to request posters on here keep off SpaceX if they can help it. This is about Antonio, Orbital, Pegasus etc.
We have a number of active SpaceX threads, plus Elon is a member of this site (and a really good guy) so as always, everyone please be respectful.
Carry on... -
#162 by antonioe on 02 Sep, 2007 16:37
-
Quote
Jim - 2/9/2007 10:17 AM"But you prompted me to realize that those low prices are detering potential competitiers from developing vehicles."Not true, the glut of available LV's is detering development of new ones
1-2 years ago, that would be an unqualified statement; with the demises of Titan SLV, Atlas II and now Delta II, it no longer applies to the very narrowly defined segment of "U.S. medium-class" LVs.
Also, when is a "glut" a "glut"? The maddening situation in the U.S. is that we have a glut of >10MT LVs (EELV) production capacity, but the prices do NOT come down. It's not a monopoly, it's a monopsomy!!!
Let's face it: the problem with space business is not supply, it's demand! -
#163 by Seer on 02 Sep, 2007 16:45
-
Antonio, you said earlier that you were in negotiations over a kero/lox engine - take it's not with SpaceX :laugh:
-
#164 by yinzer on 02 Sep, 2007 18:27
-
Quote
antonioe - 2/9/2007 9:37 AM
QuoteJim - 2/9/2007 10:17 AM"But you prompted me to realize that those low prices are detering potential competitiers from developing vehicles."Not true, the glut of available LV's is detering development of new ones
1-2 years ago, that would be an unqualified statement; with the demises of Titan SLV, Atlas II and now Delta II, it no longer applies to the very narrowly defined segment of "U.S. medium-class" LVs.
Also, when is a "glut" a "glut"? The maddening situation in the U.S. is that we have a glut of >10MT LVs (EELV) production capacity, but the prices do NOT come down. It's not a monopoly, it's a monopsomy!!!
Let's face it: the problem with space business is not supply, it's demand!
Everything I've read said that prices for GTO launch did indeed go way down in the late 90s and early 00s with the introduction of the EELVs and the drying up of the satellite market, but have since rebounded nicely. You, of course, would know better.
As for the ability of Boeing and LM to shake down the government with the threat of job losses and I assume the threat of making the Air Force admit that the "leverage the booming commercial market to save us lots of money" plan turned out to be a colossal mistake, well...
Also, never underestimate the sexiness of the smoke, flame, and noise involved in rocketry vs. the comparative boringness of solar panels and transponders and cameras involved in payloads. -
#165 by simonbp on 02 Sep, 2007 20:57
-
Quote
antonioe - 1/9/2007 8:14 PM
You could camp comfortably for a week inside one of them [GeoComms]. And they have to last for 15-16 years!Quoteantonioe - 2/9/2007 9:37 AM
Let's face it: the problem with space business is not supply, it's demand!
Hmmm... Ever think about increasing the demand by breaking into the bargain-basement discount space tourism industry? Just make sure they pay in advance...
Simon
-
#166 by antonioe on 02 Sep, 2007 22:22
-
Quote
Chris Bergin - 2/9/2007 11:30 AM
Oops!... I just branded myself a geek totally out of touch with Pop culture... please, oh, please don't let my children know... I'll never hear the end of it...
Yes, that signature is homage to the film "Team America" - and positive.Carry on... -
#167 by antonioe on 02 Sep, 2007 22:23
-
Quote
Seer - 2/9/2007 11:45 AM Antonio, you said earlier that you were in negotiations over a kero/lox engine - take it's not with SpaceX :laugh:
And why not?
-
#168 by antonioe on 02 Sep, 2007 22:29
-
Quote
yinzer - 2/9/2007 1:27 PM
never underestimate the sexiness of the smoke, flame, and noise involved in rocketry vs. the comparative boringness of solar panels and transponders and cameras involved in payloads.
Ahhh!... Touché!... (or, as Mike Griffin likes to say when he pretends he's a hick with no French, "Toush")
-
#169 by Seer on 02 Sep, 2007 22:40
-
Antonio, after the last few pages of this thread the price of those kestrels has just doubled! Just kidding, of course.
No, after thinking about it, an upperstage with a pair of kestrels might well make sense for that payload range, but why would Elon want to help a competitor?
Just remembered, this is a liquid first stage too. So perhaps the Merlin too? Is the Taurus 2 really a falcon 1 in disguise?
P.S my message above should've had a smiley rather than the :laugh: that is there. And now the : laugh: comes out as a smiley! -
#170 by CFE on 03 Sep, 2007 20:08
-
Antonio, are you going to comment either way on the rumors we've seen in "Space News" over the last few months? "Space News" readers should have some idea of what engine is (allegedly) under consideration, but that's not to say that "Space News" isn't firing half-cocked with rumors that may not be true.
-
#171 by antonioe on 03 Sep, 2007 22:34
-
Hmmm... "rumors"? What I remember (I may have missed something - I'm not good at reading EVERY issue of SN, Aviation Leak and all that stuff) is that DWT mentioned "a new launch vehicle" at an investor's phone call (that media is invited to listen to), and a few more comments along the line:
- Orbital is spending some of its own money doing PD on a "Delta II" replacement for a "mid 2010" IOC.
- No, we don't have a customer yet.
- We're not even sure we will go beyond PDR (I'm 80%-90% sure, though). The key hurdle is to get the development and recurring costs below certain thresholds. We know how to build a rocket. We're not so sure we know how to build a rocket
cheapinexpensively enough. We will find out around December ("we" being Orbital and its supply chain). - DWT calls it "Taurus II" but we are feverishly searching for a name (hey, guys, any ideas?) Some pundits claim that since we're trying to continue the Delta tradition, it shuld be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet... not a good choice, unfortunately.
I can tell you:
- The first stage is LOX/Kerosene with an approx diameter of 4m, as is the fairing.
- The last stage does not spin.
- Its payload/altitude/inclination performance curves match those of Delta 7920 (gosh! You can reverse-engineer the configuration from this piece of data alone!!!)
- We are designing the GSE/launch hardware at the same time as we are trading vehicle options.
- We will reuse a lot of the avionics, ordnance, etc. from OBV, Taurus, etc.
- Other than that, it will look quite plain (no wing, rotors, landing gear, universal joints or dilithium crystals). We will make public the configuration as soon as a) we know it ourselves and b) we have the necessary agreements with our partners/suppliers. Be warned! It will look boooring... (beauty is more than just skin-deep!)
The irony is that when we developed Pegasus in 1987-1990, we barely had enough money to pay for it (the first flight, all told, it cost $42M in 1990 dollars, but our partner Hercules ponyed up half of it, so we only had to raise $20M or so). Now, thanks to GeoComs, OBV's and flying coach class (even DWT flies coach! At least we don't do those horrible LAX-IAD red eyes that we used to take in the late 80's to save money) we have more money than we think should be spent on it!!! If by PDR we cannot convince ourselves that we can do it for a certain amount, we won't even try.
Here's a piece of trivia: Minotaur IV (the "orbital Peacekeeper", for which we have four real orders) is a factor of three, both in payload and mass at ignition, bigger than the first Pegasus. Taurus II (or whatever we end up calling it) will be a factor of three, roughly, bigger than Minotaur IV in both payload and ignition mass. I find that somehow symmetric.
-
#172 by tnphysics on 03 Sep, 2007 22:38
-
Does it use SRBs?
-
#173 by antonioe on 03 Sep, 2007 22:43
-
No.
Here's a Trivial Pursuit question: Orbital's HQ's address is officially 21839 Atlantic Blvd. in Dulles, VA. But there is a street that runs down the center of the campus. What is the name of the street (Orbital employees: no cheating!!! That also goes for you, aero313!!!)
-
#174 by bobthemonkey on 03 Sep, 2007 22:47
-
Would I be right in saying that while the engine being considered is of an operational family, used on a number of vehicles, it hasn't flown itself.
-
#175 by Rocket Girl on 03 Sep, 2007 22:49
-
That's an easy one, Warp Drive.
-
#176 by antonioe on 03 Sep, 2007 22:51
-
Your interest touches me, but I really should stop here; I don't want to play "forty questions". I think we should be ready to talk about the config in a few weeks.
-
#177 by antonioe on 03 Sep, 2007 22:52
-
Quote
Rocket Girl - 3/9/2007 5:49 PM That's an easy one, Warp Drive.
Darn!!! Six minutes!!! I though I could milk that one for a day or two!
-
#178 by bobthemonkey on 03 Sep, 2007 22:54
-
Quote
antonioe - 3/9/2007 11:51 PM
Your interest touches me, but I really should stop here; I don't want to play "forty questions". I think we should be ready to talk about the config in a few weeks.
Sorry about that. After I posted I realised it was getting a into the realms of the 'unable to comment.' -
#179 by antonioe on 04 Sep, 2007 00:23
-
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer" (Douglas Adams)
