DocM Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 The follow-on to the Antares 110 design which fails due to its 40 year old, and improperly stored, NK-33/AJ26 engines. Mass to LEO: 7,000 kg (previously 6,120 kg) With several upper stage options depending on mission requirements. Antares 200 fact sheet....(PDF) https://www.orbital.com/LaunchSystems/SpaceLaunchVehicles/Antares/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingskippy Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Surprises me that they aren't going with a common bulkhead design on S1. Also, how do they throttle the S2/S3 if it is a solid for a precision orbital insertion? Or is that left up to the satellite/cygnus propulsion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share Posted December 21, 2014 It's up to the satellite with just a solid 2nd stage or the optional solid 3rd stage. There is the option of a liquid hypergolic 3rd, fueled by MMH and NTO4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 http://itar-tass.com/en/economy/771489 MOSCOW, January 16. /TASS/. Russia's manufacturer NPO Energomash is to provide 60 new RD-181 rocket engines for US company Orbital Sciences, the Izvestia newspaper reported on Friday citing the president of RKK Energia space corporation. A contract for the delivery of 20 rocket engines has already been signed, says Vladimir Solntsev, who participated in the deal representing Energomash, as he is the executive director of the group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 Just heard that Orbital ATK isn't going to fly a qualification mission of Anatares 200. The maiden flight will be a Cygnus to ISS next March (2016) What could possibly go wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaguyGZT Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 They aren't going to bother with a qualification test? I'm trying to find information about the 181, and all I'm coming up with is that they are freshly-built 180's with very slight modifications to the manufacturing processes. If not for the fact they are fresh off the assembly line, they are indistinguishable from the 180's aside from branding and serial numbers. Oh, and they are shiny. -ish. This probably isn't going to end well, sadly. I hope I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 RD-181 is a commercial/export variant of the RD-193, which was developed as a near drop-in replacement for the NK-33. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaguyGZT Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Ahh, I see. I still think qualification testing is a good idea, though. Not saying the Russians build bad hardware or anything, because they don't ... but it's like putting a Crate Engine into a Corvette. It needs fine-tuning and tests before driving it cross-country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watkinsx2 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 You would think a qualification test would be a good idea even as a reputation rebuilding exercise. I wonder if their next launch was a commercial partner rather than NASA they'd be insisting on it. bguy_1986, BetaguyGZT and SALSN 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 SpaceX flew 2 qualification flights with Falcon 9 1.0 before flying a full ISS cargo mission, and after Falcon 9 v1.1 was introduced it didn't fly cargo to ISS until it's 4th flight. Falcon 9 v1.1 with Merlin 1D+ engines (for lack of a better name) will have flown at least once (SES-9) before it launches to ISS. If anything goes wrong there will be one helluva push-back from Congress. First at NASA for signing on to use an untested configuration on its first flight, and against Orbital's bid for the upcoming commercial cargo (COTS) round 2 contracts. BetaguyGZT 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaguyGZT Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Yep, and if something goes wrong without testing and qualification processes beforehand there's a good chance they'd lose their remaining contracts outright, and be charged penalties on top of the losses. That's not a road any smart, well-managed business should want to go down. Just do the testing, Orbital. Seriously. (Not that they'll listen to any of us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 What's also a concern is last nights news that there was more than the known engine issue with the failed Antares; the Obital ground crew may have left debris of some kind in one of its propellant tanks. No doubt we'll be hearing more about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaguyGZT Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Pretty sure at this point they'd say anything. Ground Crew neglect, Gophers nesting in the fuselage, etc. Next they'll blame children watching from the viewing area who were facing a northeasterly direction? How exactly does "debris left in a propellant tank" get there in the first place? Those are built specifically to avoid being contaminated with debris, and are inspected several times prior to being installed. Sorry, I call B.S. on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 From the Reuters report, it was crystals of dessicant (anti-moisture agent) that were not properly removed after the tank was shipped. They ended up in a turbopump full of oxygen-rich hot gas and poof! Similar to what happened to the last Avro Vulcan bomber a couple of years ago. Dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaguyGZT Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Oh. That form of "debris". In that case, it's an oversight on the part of the Assembly Crew and I agree, dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 @pbdes (Space News) Orbital ATK: We conducted 7 firings of new Antares engine between March & May; all went OK. Wallops spaceport repair should be done by Sept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggendrop Veteran Posted May 28, 2015 Veteran Share Posted May 28, 2015 @pbdes (Space News) Orbital ATK: We conducted 7 firings of new Antares engine between March & May; all went OK. Wallops spaceport repair should be done by Sept. "All went OK"...in lieu of "All went Well".....What is not being discussed/mentioned here?.....Not a confidence building statement.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 We know they've run mission length test stand firings, which are usually around 3 minutes, with no reports of a RUD*. * rapid unscheduled disassembly Draggendrop 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaguyGZT Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 That's encouraging news. Now they need to make everything right with NASA and the repair bill at Wallops, and they'll be all set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggendrop Veteran Posted May 30, 2015 Veteran Share Posted May 30, 2015 That was quite a bit of damage....I think it was almost 20 million in damages......?? no insurance?? quick article attached with a picture of damage.... http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/05/17/virginia-orbital-atk-squabble-wallops-island-repairs/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 And Orbital was one of the so-called "safe choice" NASA contractors going into the CRS contract competotion. Look who's owning them now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggendrop Veteran Posted June 2, 2015 Veteran Share Posted June 2, 2015 Looks like the first "new pair" of RD-181's are being prepped for shipment to the U.S........... The first pair of RD-181 rocket engines set to launch on Orbital ATK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaguyGZT Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Spaceflight Insider - Cygnus will use Atlas-V at the end of 2015 for ISS Resupply | Spaceflight Insider Website ULA REP: ATLAS V WILL HELP ORBITAL ATK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 The Atlas V buy happened last winter so Orbital wouldn't lose an ISS mission payment under their contract. The second Atlas V buy is in case Antares 200 with the RD-181 engines augers into the ground. This will be an Enhanced Cygnus, which means an extra 1.2 meter segment is added to increase its internal volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggendrop Veteran Posted July 31, 2015 Veteran Share Posted July 31, 2015 Orbital ATK Completing Final Report on Antares Failure The investigation focused on the failure of an AJ-26 engine, seen here undergoing testing in 2011. Credit: NASA WASHINGTON — Orbital ATK is wrapping up the final report into last October’s Antares launch failure for delivery to the Federal Aviation Administration, but has not indicated when the report will be released to the public. At a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory July 29, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said he believed Orbital ATK “is about ready” to deliver its report on theOct. 28 launch failure to the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. Orbital had led the investigation into the FAA-licensed launch of a Cygnus cargo spacecraft intended to resupply the International Space Station. “We feel pretty confident in the results” of that investigation, Bolden said, without going into detail about what the report concluded. “We think that it was very thorough and really appreciate the conclusions that were found.” Orbital ATK spokeswoman Jennifer Bowman confirmed July 30 that the company’s accident investigation board “is nearing the end of its work,” but declined to comment on its findings or give specific details about the status of the investigation. The investigation has focused on the failure of one of two AJ-26 engines, provided by Aerojet Rocketdyne, in the first stage of the Antares seconds after liftoff from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport in Virginia. Orbital said in the weeks after the accident that the engine’s turbopump failed. Speaking at the 31st Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado, April 14, Ron Grabe, then-president of Orbital ATK’s Flight Systems Group, said the failed turbopump suffered “excessive bearing wear.” He did not disclose what caused that wear, and said then that the report would be delivered to the FAA “within days.” http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-completing-final-report-on-antares-failure/ Cheers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts