-
#240 by antonioe on 13 Sep, 2007 00:05
-
Quote
Chris Bergin - 12/9/2007 5:13 PM Remember, this is the Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias thread, so let's not take it off track from actual questions.
Aw, c'mon, Chris! I'm enjoying this immensely!... It's a pure joy to see intelligent people discussing an issue close to your heart in a civilized way!
-
#241 by tnphysics on 13 Sep, 2007 00:21
-
Could Russia restart NK-33 production?
Why not a dual (or triple) RL-10 upper stage? It would lead to a 50% improvement in the LEO payload.
You get an LV with 56+%, instead of 37%, of the Atlas V payload to LEO, as well as engine out capability on the upper stage. -
#242 by antonioe on 13 Sep, 2007 00:51
-
Quote
bobthemonkey - 12/9/2007 1:19 PM Answer to the trivia question (I think). The WW1 aircraft used RR engines, as does the the Tristar which carries Pegasus.
Wow! You're right! I hadn't thought of that connection!... Mine was a little more tortuous, although much more personal. 21-year old Swiss engineer Marc Birkigt emigrated to Spain at the turn of the century (that's 1900, not 2000!) and in partnership with a series of spaniards (first La Cuadra, then Castro and finally Mateu) created three companies with names similar to "La Hispano-Suiza, Fábrica de Automóviles S.A." Just before WW 1 (pardon me... the "European War"...) Birkigt designs a gem of an aero engine which Hispano-Suiza produces in France due to the much larger industrial support base and skilled labor force available across the border. After a tumultuous lawsuit from the French government having to do with taxing a Spanish corporation doing business in France (finally arbitrated by the president of... Switzerland!) and after becoming automakers to Royalty during the 20's, Hispano-Suiza finally went bankrupt in 1946, with its remaining assets, especially a very large factory in Barcelona, going to a newly-formed state-sponsored truck manufacturer called ENASA, whose trade mark was... "Pegaso".
ENASA's Mark Birkigt was a spaniard by the name of Wifredo Ricart who as a 20-year old had been shop foreman at a Hispano dealership(!) and who, during WWII worked in Italy at Alfa Romeo where he was both colleague and competitor with an Italian about his age called Enzo Ferrari (in 1940 the Spaniard Ricart was named head of R&D at Alfa over the Italian Ferrari, who bore him a grudge all his life).
At ENASA, Ricart decided, part as a personal whim, part as P.R. (emphasizing some mythical descendance from Hispano), to develop a super sports car with a (mechanically) supercharged 2.5L V8 steel tube frame and aluminum body by prestigious coachworks like Saoutchick. A total of 125 units were manufactured between 1951 and 1957, although only 86 were completely assembled and delivered. Needless to say, today a "Pegaso" fetches around $1M on the rare car market.
In 1959 yours truly was a very impressionable 10-year old living in Madrid (although born in Galveston, TX!) and gawking at rare sightings of a Z-102 or Z-103 (pictures here).
Soo... when we started looking for a name for a winged rocket, I immediately thought of the car I had lusted after as a kid, but thought it would be rather improper for me to propose it. So when Frank Bellinger proposed it (he may not have been the only one - the association was obvious) I immediately jumped on it and told DWT: "It has to be Pegasus".
When in 1995 we sold a Pegasus to INTA, the Spanish space agency, and flew the rocket under the L-1011 first to INTA's center in Torrejon, then to Gando AFB in the Canaries for the actual launch, I tried to locate a real Pegaso car to have it pose for a photograph next to the Pegasus rocket. Unfortunately I was too busy to pursue the caper, and a historical photo was never taken...
Perhaps a little more obscure relationship than RR, but a lot more fun to tell, don't you think?
-
#243 by antonioe on 13 Sep, 2007 01:07
-
Quote
tnphysics - 12/9/2007 7:21 PM Could Russia restart NK-33 production?
Not likely, given what's happening over there. They are having touble delivering engines to Yushmash for the Zenit!!!
QuoteWhy not a dual (or triple) RL-10 upper stage? It would lead to a 50% improvement in the LEO payload. You get an LV with 56+%, instead of 37%, of the Atlas V payload to LEO, as well as engine out capability on the upper stage.
Bigger is not necessarily better, IMHO. We are looking for a Delta II replacement, not a competitor to EELV.
-
#244 by edkyle99 on 13 Sep, 2007 01:14
-
Quote
antonioe - 12/9/2007 7:02 PM
Quoteedkyle99 - 12/9/2007 12:08 PM
THERE IS ANOTHER WAY, and it just now occurred to me - a real "OMYGOSH" moment. Lets go ahead and use that liquid hydrogen upper stage. RL10 are in production for two other U.S. launch vehicle programs, which promises to minimize engine development and production cost. Put one of those terrific engines on our second stage. The stage itself will obviously cost a chunk of change, but so would any bipropellant liquid upper stage. Suddenly, the gross liftoff mass of our launch vehicle plummets, massively. Now we need ONLY ONE NK-33 on a first stage topped by only ONE upper stage. We've doubled the lifetime of the available NK-33 inventory. Perhaps it won't be necessary to build new ones, since those already built might last for a decade or more! This machine would be able to trump Delta II big time. It could weigh less than 120 tonnes at liftoff - only roughly half the liftoff mass of a Delta 7920/25. It would be a real lightweight on the ground, weighing perhaps less than 8 tonnes dry for the two stages (less than half the dry weight of an Atlas V and many times less mass to erect at the launch pad than with Delta II). All manner of possibilities. - Ed Kyle
Congratulations! - You've almost described my preferred configuration for Taurus II. Unfortunately, there are other factors that prevent me from convincing my colleagues of that config... who know, I have until Dec. 5 to change their mind...
Gosh, I hope you get to build it - or that *someone* gets to build it. It is too beautiful to ignore.
Buckminster Fuller once said: "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."
- Ed Kyle -
#245 by simonbp on 13 Sep, 2007 03:58
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 12/9/2007 10:08 AM
BUT THERE IS ANOTHER WAY, and it just now occurred to me - a real "OMYGOSH" moment.
Lets go ahead and use that liquid hydrogen upper stage. RL10 are in production for two other U.S. launch vehicle programs, which promises to minimize engine development and production cost. Put one of those terrific engines on our second stage. The stage itself will obviously cost a chunk of change, but so would any bipropellant liquid upper stage.
Hmmm....
Sounds familiar, but I just can't place it...
Simon
-
#246 by antonioe on 13 Sep, 2007 04:33
-
Q: What's wrong with this picture?
A: 2.44m diameter core, a gazillion Pegasus-sized SRB's, OOTW hammerhead ratio, low S1 core thrust. Typical "end of the line" for a noble and worthy breed.
P.S. I'm not sure an Orbital guy can criticize other's hammerhead ratio with a straight face... oh, well, do as I say, not as I do...
-
#247 by Seer on 13 Sep, 2007 13:32
-
Antonio, do you know if Orbital is going to going to compete for the new COTS contract, and if so can you give us a hint as to what it is?
-
#248 by Chris Bergin on 13 Sep, 2007 14:12
-
Quote
antonioe - 13/9/2007 1:05 AM
QuoteChris Bergin - 12/9/2007 5:13 PM Remember, this is the Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias thread, so let's not take it off track from actual questions.
Aw, c'mon, Chris! I'm enjoying this immensely!... It's a pure joy to see intelligent people discussing an issue close to your heart in a civilized way!
*Heads back to Shuttleland with his tail between his legs*
-
#249 by meiza on 13 Sep, 2007 14:46
-
There just aren't that many RP-1 engines around anymore so the design options are quite limited. Merlin is the only one in the US, and it's quite small for a first stage.
Russians have many engines but they have problems too: RD-180 is too big, RD-107/8 derivatives need hydrogen peroxide, RD-0124 as a second stage engine is even smaller than Merlin.
I'm scratching my head at what you could do. RD-191 is not yet ready, or at least has not flown and would need development money.
Maybe I'd go with RD-180 although at approximately 10 million dollars it's already a fifth of the 50 million launch price. I also don't know if they can provide enough of them, and with the current dollar course the price could be higher. With a Merlin second stage it would be almost exactly like a half Zenit. (RD-120 has double the Merlin thrust and probably higher ISP since it's a staged combustion engine.) For the GTO mission third stage you could use a pressure fed hypergolic engine. The Zenit 2 SLB (two stages) can put approximately 12 t to LEO from Tyuratam and the Zenit 3 SL 6 t to GTO from the equator, so there is plenty of performance margin to compensate for the lower ISP:s of the upper stages.
-
#250 by antonioe on 13 Sep, 2007 15:42
-
Quote
Seer - 13/9/2007 8:32 AM Antonio, do you know if Orbital is going to going to compete for the new COTS contract, and if so can you give us a hint as to what it is?
New COTS contract? What new COTS contract? You don't mean CSTS, do you?
-
#251 by sammie on 13 Sep, 2007 16:06
-
Quote
Maybe I'd go with RD-180 although at approximately 10 million dollars it's already a fifth of the 50 million launch price. I also don't know if they can provide enough of them, and with the current dollar course the price could be higher. With a Merlin second stage it would be almost exactly like a half Zenit.
What you described there is awful close to the an Atlas III or Japanese G-X (albeit different upperstage). The Atlas of course used the RL-10 while the Japanese inisited on going for LNG upperstage, causing a major headache. It does give you the wanted performance. I'm not use whether it's feasable or desirable to have an American Launch Vehicle using solely Russian engines. I'm quite impressed by the RD-0124 engine however, for RP-1/LOX engine it's quite impressive. But doubt it's of any use as an upperstage. -
#252 by Seer on 13 Sep, 2007 16:56
-
Quote
antonioe - 13/9/2007 10:42 AM
QuoteSeer - 13/9/2007 8:32 AM Antonio, do you know if Orbital is going to going to compete for the new COTS contract, and if so can you give us a hint as to what it is?
New COTS contract? What new COTS contract? You don't mean CSTS, do you?
I'm wondering whether Orbital will go after RpK's spare $175M. But what's CSTS? -
#253 by edkyle99 on 13 Sep, 2007 17:08
-
Quote
simonbp - 12/9/2007 10:58 PM
Quoteedkyle99 - 12/9/2007 10:08 AM
BUT THERE IS ANOTHER WAY, and it just now occurred to me - a real "OMYGOSH" moment.
Lets go ahead and use that liquid hydrogen upper stage. RL10 are in production for two other U.S. launch vehicle programs, which promises to minimize engine development and production cost. Put one of those terrific engines on our second stage. The stage itself will obviously cost a chunk of change, but so would any bipropellant liquid upper stage.
Hmmm....
Sounds familiar, but I just can't place it...
[shows photo of Delta 3]
Simon
Big differences though. Delta III preparation involved the erection of nearly 183 tonnes of hardware, not including payload, involving 13 or 14 major lift operations. The hypothetical "Taurus II" that we've been discussing would only involve perhaps 8-10 tonnes lifted (including payload fairing but not payload), which could be lifted in four or five operations. Delta III weighed more than 300 tonnes at liftoff, nearly three times as much as this Taurus II concept. Heck, it should be possible to erect the whole vehicle in one step, Soyuz-style, if desired.
- Ed Kyle -
#254 by edkyle99 on 13 Sep, 2007 17:26
-
Quote
antonioe - 12/9/2007 8:07 PM
[/QUOTE]Quotetnphysics - 12/9/2007 7:21 PM Could Russia restart NK-33 production?
Not likely, given what's happening over there. They are having touble delivering engines to Yushmash for the Zenit!!!
An alternative might be to use two RS-27A type engines on the first stage. It would provide nearly the same performance as the one NK-33 plus one RL10 concept. The production line would have to be restarted, however, which would entail costs that apparently were part of the reason for shutting down Delta II. And two RS-27A type engines are going to cost a lot more than one NK-33, I would guess.
- Ed Kyle -
#255 by antonioe on 13 Sep, 2007 18:10
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 13/9/2007 12:08 PM
The hypothetical "Taurus II" that we've been discussing would only involve perhaps 8-10 tonnes lifted (including payload fairing but not payload), which could be lifted in four or five operations. Delta III weighed more than 300 tonnes at liftoff, nearly three times as much as this Taurus II concept. Heck, it should be possible to erect the whole vehicle in one step, Soyuz-style, if desired. - Ed Kyle
Bingo! Or Zenit-style (3 hours from hangar to ignition, including fueling!)
-
#256 by Analyst on 13 Sep, 2007 19:17
-
If this Delta II replacement can and will be done by a US company, today, with the performance and reliability of Delta II, cost effective with only 3-4 launches per year, hats up!! I hope you will be successful, whatever the exact configuration will be.
Analyst -
#257 by antonioe on 13 Sep, 2007 21:05
-
Thanks. As you pointed out, it's not easy. We (the Taurus II Development team) have been given the funds to proceed to PDR, which will happen sometime in December. At that time we must have:
The configuration pinned down.
- Agreements with partners and suppliers ready to sign (that is the main reason we are being coy with the specifics of the configuration).
- The development plan, schedule and budget pinned down with a reasonable accuracy
- The recurring cost at the 3-4 launches/year solidly established (that, experience has shown us, is a lot harder than predicting the R&D costs)
1 is a prerequisite for 2 and 3. 2 and 3 then are combined with what we think the price could be, then the whole mess cranked through a financial analysis.
If it shows that we have a low probability of losing our shirts (notice: that is a quite different goal than trying to make a bundle of money) we will go ahead - we will make our money on the spacecraft and systems we will be able to offer based on the availability of a medium LV at the agreed-to price.
If not, we will admit we could not do it and figure out what next. Personally, I rate our chances of meeting our own standards and proceeding to CDR at about 80%.
-
#258 by vt_hokie on 13 Sep, 2007 22:33
-
I hope this isn't too far off topic, but I've been trying to dig up some information on the X-34 program. From what I can gather, there were to be three vehicles, with the first being used only for the captive carry tests with Orbital's L-1011. Were the next two vehicles already being constructed when the program was terminated?
-
#259 by simonbp on 13 Sep, 2007 23:35
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 13/9/2007 10:08 AM
Big differences though. Delta III preparation involved the erection of nearly 183 tonnes of hardware, not including payload, involving 13 or 14 major lift operations. The hypothetical "Taurus II" that we've been discussing would only involve perhaps 8-10 tonnes lifted (including payload fairing but not payload), which could be lifted in four or five operations. Delta III weighed more than 300 tonnes at liftoff, nearly three times as much as this Taurus II concept. Heck, it should be possible to erect the whole vehicle in one step, Soyuz-style, if desired.
Right, but get rid of the SRBs, lob a few feet off the first stage, and resize the tanks on the upper stage, et voila! A Delta II replacement with a cryo upper stage. The multitude of SRBs and enclosed upper stage incurred most of the assembly complexity...
It's weird to think that only four models of RP-1 engine are in production today, and one (RD-180) is a derivative of the another (RD-170)...
Simon
