-
#180 by CFE on 04 Sep, 2007 05:11
-
Space News also claims that the engine will be an NK-33 (presumably two or three.) I won't ask you to confirm or deny.
For the new rocket, I'd like to suggest the name "Leonidas," in homage to the Spartan king who led his army of 300 against the god-king Xerxes and his horde of thousands. I'm sure that Orbital felt like Leonidas during its initial push to build Pegasus and compete with the bigger aerospace firms.Quoteantonioe - 2/9/2007 4:22 PM
QuoteChris 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...
I actually have penned the lyrics to an entire Minotaur theme song, based on the earlier song from "Team America." Perhaps I'll have the song recorded and submitted to NASA PAO for the next Minotaur launch
-
#181 by antonioe on 04 Sep, 2007 11:28
-
Quote
CFE - 3/9/2007 12:11 AM Space News also claims that the engine will be an NK-33
I missed that one. Is that article on-line? If so, sould you post a reference to it?
QuoteFor the new rocket, I'd like to suggest the name "Leonidas," in homage to the Spartan king who led his army of 300 against the god-king Xerxes and his horde of thousands. I'm sure that Orbital felt like Leonidas during its initial push to build Pegasus
Good allusion, although we STILL feel that way (see message number 182483). Unfortunately, the name has too may syllables (4) - three is considered the maximum for the linguistically-challenged U.S. public :angry: . "Leonid" would match that criterion but, of course, messes up the reference.
We are also avoiding "Neptune", "Triton" and all other names that have to do with the Sea. :laugh:
Seriously, I'll submit to the team (and to DWT, who, as you can image, HAS the last word on this subject) all the names you propose, including "Leonidas".
QuoteI actually have penned the lyrics to an entire Minotaur theme song, based on the earlier song from "Team America." Perhaps I'll have the song recorded and submitted to NASA PAO for the next Minotaur launch
Never mind NASA PAO... why don't you post the mp3 on the Athena/Minotaur thread? Maybe some magic pixie could make it find its way to the next Minotaur webcast...
-
#182 by Skyrocket on 04 Sep, 2007 11:37
-
Concerning vehicle names, i have also wondered for a while, why the Pegasus-derived OBV has not got a "real" name. I think "Orbital Boost Vehicle" is a little bit misleading for a suborbital vehicle
-
#183 by meiza on 04 Sep, 2007 15:04
-
Sphinx? Griffon/Griffin/Gryphon? All animal hybrids in the Pegasus and Minotaur vein... Though the Gryphon has already been used by Rolls-Royce engines, but that didn't hurt Pegasus.
The possible small trouble with all these mythical creatures is that they have been used before in other ventures.
-
#184 by jimvela on 04 Sep, 2007 17:51
-
I could only think up one name.
I took DELTA TAURUS and looked for anagrams... Only one fell out...
How about Tetra?
Of no particular signifigance, a small sample of anagrams for DELTA TAURUS:
Dual Tetra Us
Laud Tetra Us
Dual Sat True
Ultra Sat Due
Star Tau Duel
Some odd ones:
A Dual Utters
A Salute Turd
Atlas Due Rut
Dual Treat Us
A La Turd Suet
A Tau Red Slut (!!)
-
#185 by kevin-rf on 04 Sep, 2007 19:46
-
How about something other than mythology...
... There where so many pioneers and characters bigger than life in wild west days of american history.
How about the Revere or the Tea Party or Valley Forge or John Henry or even an Indian Tribe or Chief.
When selling to the US goverment nothing says apple pie more than a good historic american name
-
#186 by meiza on 04 Sep, 2007 20:23
-
Pocahontas, since you're in Virginia? Though when googling it appears to be a name of a town there.
-
#187 by vt_hokie on 04 Sep, 2007 22:13
-
Quote
antonioe - 1/9/2007 11:14 PM
To put things in perspective, I'm enclosing a picture of our Satellite Manufacturing Facility in Dulles, VA, showing five - count 'em, five! - GeoComs in various stages of assembly; over $300M worth of satellites. They are BIG! You could camp comfortably for a week inside one of them. And they have to last for 15-16 years!
Very cool! Do you foresee more demand for smaller comm sats in the future than for the larger high power satellites? -
#188 by antonioe on 04 Sep, 2007 23:20
-
Quote
Skyrocket - 4/9/2007 6:37 AM Concerning vehicle names, i have also wondered for a while, why the Pegasus-derived OBV has not got a "real" name. I think "Orbital Boost Vehicle" is a little bit misleading for a suborbital vehicle
The "Orbital" in "OBV" refers to the company, not to the performance of the booster. The OBV was once upon a time the "alternative" or "backup" to Boeings "BV" (Boost vehicle), hence the "Orbital" BV to differentiate it from the "Official" BV.
The BV was Boeing's ONLY hardware contribution to the GMD program, and apparently (secondhand knowledge, I "wasn't there") ran into serious problems. Under pressure from MDA, Boeing set up a competition for an "alternate boost vehicle" in case the problems with the BV could not be solved. Orbital and Lockheed-Martin sumbitted proposals to Boeing. I think Orbital won, partly, due to the fact that our candidate design was a "de-rated" Space Launch Vehicle whereas Lockheed's was a "souped-up" suborbital rocket.
Then Boeing decided - wisely - to get out of the GMD hardware business entirely to concentrate on being the GMD "super prime". As a "consolation prize" Boeing gave Lockheed the doubtful privilege of building the baseline Boost Vehicle (some prize: a bag of parts and a "good luck!"). Since it was obvious that the Orbital BV had a lot more performance than the BV, L-M decided to soup it up, morphing it into the "BV Plus" - hence the name.
Orbital flew the first - flawless - demo OBV 13 months after contract award (not a very hard feat IMHO, since it is essentially a Pegasus without wings, except Boeing has spent several times that number of months trying to fix BV).
After 5 sucessful OBV launches, and since the OBV still had more performance than BV Plus (see http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.23/system_detail.asp) Boeing decided to swap roles and make OBV the prime booster and BV Plus the "risk reduction alternate". A few months ago, Boeing dropped the BV Plus alternate entirely and cancelled L-M's effort (our business is a small world indeed: the BV Plus PM is now Lockheed-Martin's COTAR for the Orbital-supplied Orion Launch Abort System - much to his credit, he does NOT bear us a grudge!!!) -
#189 by antonioe on 04 Sep, 2007 23:22
-
Quote
meiza - 4/9/2007 10:04 AMSphinx? Griffon/Griffin/Gryphon?
You are not seriously suggesting that we sell NASA a Launch Vehicle called "GRIFFIN", are you? -
#190 by antonioe on 04 Sep, 2007 23:24
-
Quote
jimvela - 4/9/2007 12:51 PMI could only think up one name.I took DELTA TAURUS and looked for anagrams... Only one fell out... How about Tetra?Of no particular signifigance, a small sample of anagrams for DELTA TAURUS:Dual Tetra UsLaud Tetra UsDual Sat TrueUltra Sat DueStar Tau DuelSome odd ones:A Dual UttersA Salute TurdAtlas Due RutDual Treat UsA La Turd SuetA Tau Red Slut (!!)
Please tell me you used a program to come up with these anagrams!!! -
#191 by antonioe on 04 Sep, 2007 23:38
-
Quote
vt_hokie - 4/9/2007 5:13 PM Very cool! Do you foresee more demand for smaller comm sats in the future than for the larger high power satellites?
We're not quite there, but coming closer every day. While the "Battlestar Galacticas" do, indeed, have economies of scale on a brute force watts-per-kilogram standpoint, the "small", under 5KW class GeoComs have some advantages (everything is relative; a 5 KW ComSat would have been considered "enormous" in the days of the good 'ol Hughes 376):
1.-Smaller "quantum" of incremental service for not-so-dense markets.
2.- Ability to pander to "specialty" markets (e.g., direct TV in a geographically small but highly populated market like Japan)
3.- Higher probability of maintaining a satellite's "full occupancy" in a changing market that can make a big satellite technically obsolete overnight
4.-Tremendous diseconomies of scale in the insurance premiums (to insure $500M costs much more than twice what it costs to insure $250M)
5.- Smaller launch risk quantum.
What is really amazing is not as much the increasing popularity of that size product, but Orbital's success in capturing essentially 50% of the market in less than 10 years, against well-established incumbents such as Hughes, Loral, Lockheed, Alenia, Marconi (now Alcatel), etc.
Quite honestly, this has taken even DWT by surprise, and he's facing the "Coca Cola President's dilemma" ("Why is Coca Cola so successful? If I, the head of Coca Cola, can't answer that question, how do I know that my product won't become a failure tomorrow?"). He's spending a lot time these days trying to quantify exactly why we are beating the competition to shreds... it's not that obvious - my guess is that it's due to not just ONE cause, but a number of them: recent technology, small industrial footprint, the fall of the dollar w.r.t the Euro, etc. etc. -
#192 by jimvela on 04 Sep, 2007 23:48
-
Quote
antonioe - 4/9/2007 5:24 PM
Please tell me you used a program to come up with these anagrams!!!
Yes, I did. :bleh:
Tetra made some sense to me as if I recall correctly you have three 'families' of orbit-capable launcher: Pegasus/Taurus/Minotaur, so this being the 4th orbit-capable launcher it is indeed Tetra. Delta II plus Taurus two equals four, etc...
I suppose that in reality Minotaur and Minotaur IV are essentially whole different vehicles given that they use 1st stages from different decommissioned ICBMs, so in reality this would be the 5th or 6th (or possibly more) iteration of your launcher family.
At any rate, I fear if you were to paint one of them red, I'd die laughing based on that last anagram on the list. :-)
And, BTW, that first Minotaur IV will be launching SBSS, so I'll be hoping for 100% success on your first go. Ball rooting for Orbital, small world indeed. :cool: -
#193 by antonioe on 05 Sep, 2007 00:34
-
Quote
jimvela - 4/9/2007 6:48 PM Tetra made some sense to me
Yeah, sombody within Orbital suggested "Tetris" for similar reasons.
Quotethat first Minotaur IV will be launching SBSS, so I'll be hoping for 100% success on your first go. Ball rooting for Orbital, small world indeed. :cool:
Glad to help. And not just with LV's!
-
#194 by guidanceisgo on 05 Sep, 2007 04:00
-
Quote
antonioe - 4/9/2007 6:20 PM
Orbital flew the first - flawless - demo OBV 13 months after contract award (not a very hard feat IMHO, since it is essentially a Pegasus without wings, except Boeing has spent several times that number of months trying to fix BV)
Antonio
Pegasus without wings is not really true. Lets see what was new on the Demo flight
1) New flight code, completely different autopilot structure, and a different flight simulation
2) New Aerodynamics
3) Stage 1 has a flex seal nozzle with TVC
just to name a few.
The actually OBV is even less like Pegasus. Of course , they share some ATK motors!
-
#195 by Skyrocket on 05 Sep, 2007 05:43
-
Quote
antonioe - 5/9/2007 1:20 AM
Orbital flew the first - flawless - demo OBV 13 months after contract award (not a very hard feat IMHO, since it is essentially a Pegasus without wings, except Boeing has spent several times that number of months trying to fix BV).
Was the Taurus launch pad used for this first demonstration launch ("Taurus-Lite")? I have not seen any on-pad photos of this vehicle, only in flight images.
-
#196 by antonioe on 05 Sep, 2007 21:53
-
Quote
guidanceisgo - 4/9/2007 11:00 PM
Quoteantonioe - 4/9/2007 6:20 PM Orbital flew the first - flawless - demo OBV 13 months after contract award (not a very hard feat IMHO, since it is essentially a Pegasus without wings, except Boeing has spent several times that number of months trying to fix BV)
Antonio Pegasus without wings is not really true. Lets see what was new on the Demo flight 1) New flight code, completely different autopilot structure, and a different flight simulation 2) New Aerodynamics 3) Stage 1 has a flex seal nozzle with TVC just to name a few. The actually OBV is even less like Pegasus. Of course , they share some ATK motors!My apologies - I did not want to diminish the accomplishments of the OBV Demo team; I was just trying to be "corporately modest".
-
#197 by NotGncDude on 06 Sep, 2007 00:52
-
Was one of your theses on a huge blimp? I think I may have looked at it.
-
#198 by Seer on 06 Sep, 2007 00:58
-
Quote
GncDude - 5/9/2007 7:52 PM
Was one of your theses on a huge blimp? I think I may have looked at it.
Sounds intriguing. Do tell. (Isn't one of those hybrid airship thingies is it?) -
#199 by antonioe on 06 Sep, 2007 06:16
-
Quote
GncDude - 5/9/2007 7:52 PM Was one of your theses on a huge blimp? I think I may have looked at it.
Ohmygod!... at first I hadn't realized what you were talking about... you must have access to the Aero&Astro library at MIT... talk about a skeleton in the closet...
Back in 1975 I was looking aimlessly for a thesis topic (I had a Research Assistanship at Draper at the time). Don Frazer had been pestered by some guys at the Navy's development center in Warmister PA that were fooling around with a concept called the "Aerocrane"... a combination BALLOON AND HELICOPTER if you think such as thing can be possible... I guess a retired Navy captain (who, if my memory serves me right, had once CO'd an aircraft carrier - at the time that impressed the daylights out of me...) was pushing it - I think he worked for Dover or some similar outfit with lighter-than-air products.
Well, Don F. conned me into looking at the controls aspect of that beast, and I fell for it - no money in it, I still had to work on the Shuttle program to pay for my R.A.
True to the adage "he who can analyzes, he who cannot simulates" (my apologies to G. Bernard Shaw) I started by attempting to build a 6-DOF sim for that beast (I'll be glad to explain how something can be a hybrid of a ballon and helicopter if you press me). Unfortunately, there were no aero coefficients - heck, there were even no equations of motion - suitable for that beast, so I started from "first principles" (ha!) and wrote a sim that essentially calculated aero forces "on the fly" :bleh: almost from f=ma.
I then realized that the beast lacked control authority - somebody (Don Frazer? Ted Edelbaum? Dick Battin? One of these three, I can't remember which one any more...) told me that decades before somebody had invented something called the "cyclogyro" and that its principle could be of use there.
So I incorporated the cyclogyro approach to provide lateral maneuvering to the beast, wrote a set of control laws for it, at had a fun time flying it through wind shear, turbulence, etc.
A minor problem was that it had a max airspeed of about 36 knots, so it had a minor problem getting anywhere in even moderate winds... (nothing to do with power - it was an "advance ratio" problem for those of you that dabble in helicopters).
Also cool was an oscilatory mode that traded altitude for rotational speed - I called it the "yo-yo" mode...
Nothing came out of that thesis (except my Masters/EAA degrees, so I should be happy after all), but I learned a lot about helicopter aerodynamics (which I had NOT studied in a class) and I gained tremendous respect for Glauert, Al Gessow (who passed away a few years ago), Mayers, Ham, and all those guys. What they were able to model analytically - no computers, thank you very much - was simply mindboggling. For a minute there I almost got the analytical bug myself by coming up with an extension of Glauert's model for flow through a rotor disk that worked for any angle of attack and flow direction (fortunately, a cold shower took care of that).
If I can find a copy of that thesis, I'll post a picture (it's OK Chris, I'm the copyright holder... plus I'm sure the copyright has more than expired since then...)
