OSC Q&A

• OSC Q&A by Jim on 27 Mar, 2007 15:20
• New thread to talk about the formation OSC, and  the early products (AMS, TOS and Pegasus)
• #1 by Chris Bergin on 27 Mar, 2007 15:24
• Good call. Making it sticky.
• #2 by Jim on 27 Mar, 2007 15:26
• Quote

  Chris Bergin - 27/3/2007  11:24 AM
  
  Good call. Making it sticky.

  
  I was just going to ask you to do it
• #3 by Jim on 27 Mar, 2007 15:30
• Existing thread  Q&A: Pegasus Designer Dr. Antonio Elias
  
  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3911&start=1
• #4 by hyper_snyper on 28 Mar, 2007 00:21
• Excuse me if this was already asked in the existing Q&A, I've only just skimmed it.
  
  Was there ever a time during the early days of the Pegasus (SALVO) design where liquid fuel was considered?  Or is it just totally unfeasible for air-launch?  I'm asking because of several air-launch studies I've read recently, all of which make the point that liquid fuels require a lot of support equipment to be workable.  Something you can't readily fit in an aircraft.
• #5 by Andy L on 30 Mar, 2007 02:44
• What was Orbital's target for missions per year with Pegasus and how does it compare with the current flight schedule?
• #6 by Stowbridge on 11 May, 2007 17:45
• Does Orbital have a manifest for future launches?
• #7 by aero313 on 14 May, 2007 15:38
• Quote

  hyper_snyper - 27/3/2007  8:21 PM
  
  Excuse me if this was already asked in the existing Q&A, I've only just skimmed it.
  
  Was there ever a time during the early days of the Pegasus (SALVO) design where liquid fuel was considered?  Or is it just totally unfeasible for air-launch?  I'm asking because of several air-launch studies I've read recently, all of which make the point that liquid fuels require a lot of support equipment to be workable.  Something you can't readily fit in an aircraft.

  
  While some liquid propellants definitely do require a lot of support equipment, I'd argue that there are liquid propellant propulsion systems on GEO comm sats that survive for decades with no support equipment or human intervention.  I'll also point out that both Minuteman and Peacekeeper missiles use biprop post boost vehicles that are fueled and welded shut at the factory and require no support equipment.  Now, I'm not necessarily advocating MMH and N2O4 in an aircraft, but not all liquid systems have the same support requirements.
• #8 by William Graham on 28 Sep, 2007 20:34
• Why is the Minotaur not offered for commercial launches?
• #9 by Jim on 28 Sep, 2007 21:58
• Quote

  GW_Simulations - 28/9/2007  4:34 PM
  
  Why is the Minotaur not offered for commercial launches?

  
  It is against the law to use gov't assets to compete against commercial companies.  OSC doesn't own stage 1&2 of the Minotaur, they are GFE
• #10 by William Graham on 28 Sep, 2007 22:49
• Thanks
• #11 by William Graham on 23 Jan, 2009 21:32
• Can anyone confirm whether ST-8 will be launched by a Pegasus-XL on 28 February, or whether this information is out of date.
  
  I heard that some time ago, and I haven't heard anything since, but the launch doesn't appear on any official manifests, which indicates that it is not going to happen on that date.
  
  Can anyone clarify the situation, and what is going on with ST-8?
  
  Thanks
• #12 by infocat13 on 04 Jul, 2009 01:44
•  I remember aviation space week had a  front page cover on this program when it first kicked off.since then I have seen many variants.
  
  question
  can a government procured/designed product be commercialized through a space act agreement?
  and what are future upgrades for this launcher?
• #13 by kevin-rf on 15 Oct, 2012 17:24
• Just noticed an article that Raytheon and Rafael are offering to launch Rafael’s Blue Sparrow Ballistic Missile Targets from a convert TriStar and was wondering if it was Orbital's famous TriStar.
  
  http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raytheon-offers-rafael-sparrow-targets-for-us-missile-defence-tests-377668/