How cool is the Antares rocket?

[RCgothic]

The Falcon 9.1 FT is the coolest rocket because it uses super-cryogenic propellants.

[Kryten]

Just now, RCgothic said:

The Falcon 9.1 FT is the coolest rocket because it uses super-cryogenic propellants.

It's not 'super-cryogenic' it's just below the lox boiling point. The liquid hydrogen in e.g. the Delta IV is still much colder.

[Spaceception]

55 minutes ago, fredinno said:

As in soot?

Yep.

[asmi]

1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

The Falcon 9.1 FT is the coolest rocket because it uses super-cryogenic propellants.

N-1 used that 50 years ago...

[ThiccRocketScientist]

I made a video with the Antares and Cygnus mod!

[Robotengineer]

5 hours ago, fredinno said:

As in soot?

Authentic battle damage, not 'soot'. 

[fredinno]

10 hours ago, Kryten said:

It's not 'super-cryogenic' it's just above the lox melting point. The liquid hydrogen in e.g. the Delta IV is still much colder.

Fixed. :0

[Thomassino]

Antares is only half cool, because it is semi-cryogenic. So I vote 5 

[YNM]

I'm giving it mediocre. Slightly lower than Soyuz (for it's reliability and it's stature), but higher than, say, Minotaur and way higher than (insert any Chinese/Indian/Ariane 4 rocket here). On the same level with HII. Lost to Delta and Atlas, easily lost to Ariane V. Saturn, I'll still put them on top.

Saturn V still lose to Falcon 9 because no used hardware stands around now. But even higher would be Shuttle for it's sheer size and the thought that we flew B737-sized plane to orbit.

Edited June 5, 2016 by YNM

[Hannu2]

I feel that Antares is quite a boring. It is just a tool in relatively mature phase of development. As far as I know it has no interesting technical extremities (or kerbalities) compared to other rockets. Saturn V is largest, Goddard's was first liquid propellant rocket, Falcon is (partly) reusable etc. but Antares is only intended to make money for some company instead of develop some new rocket technology or achieve spectacular scientific achievements.

Of course this is just my personal feelings and I do not think that Antares is not good in its job. It gives more room to new tech or science in space when orbital launches become "boring" routine stuff.

[ModZero]

On 4-6-2016 at 9:22 AM, fredinno said:

Honestly tho, I'm just going to liquid everyone off and say F9 is an extremely plain and boring-looking rocket.

F9 would be plain, but it's ridiculously slender, so that's something. I kinda like Antares, because it's a bit stubbier than expected (by my visual cortex, anyway). But the only thing that can contend with the R7/Soyuz family is Dnepr (because of the launch mode, of course - someone should subsidize making more of them, because there's a limited amount of those, but world would be much less fun without Dnepr launches).

[Kryten]

57 minutes ago, ModZero said:

F9 would be plain, but it's ridiculously slender, so that's something. I kinda like Antares, because it's a bit stubbier than expected (by my visual cortex, anyway). But the only thing that can contend with the R7/Soyuz family is Dnepr (because of the launch mode, of course - someone should subsidize making more of them, because there's a limited amount of those, but world would be much less fun without Dnepr launches).

How about Rockot?

And limit for Dnepr isn't the amount of launchers, it's the requirement for test launches of R36M2 missiles, 2 or 3 a year IIRC. Russian gov aren't letting Kosmotras do any more than this minimum currently due to the geopolitical situation.

[ModZero]

1 minute ago, Kryten said:

How about Rockot?

That's cool, but it lacks the explosion and (intentionally) losing bits on launch. Though the fire extinguishers and the small puff on fire at the end mostly compensate. Also, Dnepr is silver/green.

[DDE]

On ‎04‎.‎06‎.‎2016 at 7:29 AM, Robotengineer said:

Saturn V isn't everyones idea of a cool rocket

[citation needed]

21 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

Authentic battle damage, not 'soot'. 

Legs, guys. Legs.

[fredinno]

 

12 hours ago, YNM said:

I'm giving it mediocre. Slightly lower than Soyuz (for it's reliability and it's stature), but higher than, say, Minotaur and way higher than (insert any Chinese/Indian/Ariane 4 rocket here). On the same level with HII. Lost to Delta and Atlas, easily lost to Ariane V. Saturn, I'll still put them on top.

Saturn V still lose to Falcon 9 because no used hardware stands around now. But even higher would be Shuttle for it's sheer size and the thought that we flew B737-sized plane to orbit.

Wait, Soyuz isn't near the top of your list? Madness!

And Ariane 4 is pretty cool tho.

11 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

I feel that Antares is quite a boring. It is just a tool in relatively mature phase of development. As far as I know it has no interesting technical extremities (or kerbalities) compared to other rockets. Saturn V is largest, Goddard's was first liquid propellant rocket, Falcon is (partly) reusable etc. but Antares is only intended to make money for some company instead of develop some new rocket technology or achieve spectacular scientific achievements.

Of course this is just my personal feelings and I do not think that Antares is not good in its job. It gives more room to new tech or science in space when orbital launches become "boring" routine stuff.

Antares was built to be developed as fast and as cheaply as possible to make up for the time and money they lost because they were introduced so late into COTS, after Kister screwed up.

It would have probably have been a solid rocket otherwise, since it was originally proposed to be based off Minotaur tech. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/taurus2.html

On the other hand, it may have never gotten off the ground if that happened.

8 hours ago, ModZero said:

That's cool, but it lacks the explosion and (intentionally) losing bits on launch. Though the fire extinguishers and the small puff on fire at the end mostly compensate. Also, Dnepr is silver/green.

How about the Atlas or Titan Missiles? Granted, the later Peacekeeper and Minuteman missiles were more boring...

However, Minuteman could be air-launched, and road launched, so plus?

Midgetman would have been cool too, it it had been built. Who doesn't like an orbital rocket you can carry with you (granted, you needed a pretty expensive truck, but still.

Trident is awesome tho.

Just look at that stubby payload nosecone!

Edited June 6, 2016 by fredinno

[YNM]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Wait, Soyuz isn't near the top of your list? Madness!

And Ariane 4 is pretty cool tho.

Yes. I was rating it from the looks, as the OP seems to want. Seeing a Soyuz launch makes you feel you're really launching something, very, very retro.

Ariane 4, while equally looks retro, seems more like something very kerbal - strapped boosters everywhere, holy crap. HII is actually the same (many SRB's), just it's more modern and doesn't look like something you just scavenge off a war like Ariane 4.

And I'm talking newer Soyuz. Older ones, of course, goes like Ariane 4.

Edited June 6, 2016 by YNM

[fredinno]

53 minutes ago, YNM said:

Yes. I was rating it from the looks, as the OP seems to want. Seeing a Soyuz launch makes you feel you're really launching something, very, very retro.

Ariane 4, while equally looks retro, seems more like something very kerbal - strapped boosters everywhere, holy crap. HII is actually the same (many SRB's), just it's more modern and doesn't look like something you just scavenge off a war like Ariane 4.

And I'm talking newer Soyuz. Older ones, of course, goes like Ariane 4.

But the Kerbal aspect is what makes Ariane 4 awesome....

[YNM]

TBH Ariane 4 looks like some user-enhanced Kerbal X. Those segmented tubes of first stage, then the slender second stage... What did they sip when talking the aerodynamics of that rocket ?

Edited June 6, 2016 by YNM

[regex]

Soyuz is my go-to for cool.  It's from the family of rockets that put the first satellite into orbit, it has clean, interesting lines, and it's reliable as pretty much anything on the planet has a right to be, and the number of launches beats pretty much everything else out.  It's the Toyota pickup of launch vehicles with the looks of a Ferrari.

Saturn V...  Eh...  It's up there simply for the payload but it's nothing especially cool in terms of looks; I put it behind Energia.

Falcon 9 is pretty generic as far as rockets go until it's in landing mode, when it becomes uncommonly cool.

Ariane V is funky, which ups the cool factor.

The STS is pretty much the ultimate in cool until you reduce the points for being a massively terrible by-committee design that essentially wasted 75 tons of throw mass in order to look that cool.  Buran is only slightly better and that because of Energia.

Atlas, Titan, Delta, Zenit, Antares ... all that stuff gets thrown into the "it's a rocket" bin.

Edited June 6, 2016 by regex

[fredinno]

20 hours ago, regex said:

Atlas, Titan, Delta, Zenit, Antares ... all that stuff gets thrown into the "it's a rocket" bin.

Wait, so balloon tanks and engine jettison isn't cool?

On 2016-06-06 at 7:56 AM, YNM said:

TBH Ariane 4 looks like some user-enhanced Kerbal X. Those segmented tubes of first stage, then the slender second stage... What did they sip when talking the aerodynamics of that rocket ?

It was to use the same basic rocket as Ariane 1.

[regex]

9 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Wait, so balloon tanks and engine jettison isn't cool?

Actually, you're right, the original Atlas gets points for its design.

[Rune]

My personal opinion? It's a travesty built the wrong way around. Solids are great, because they have awesome TWR, and great tankage fraction. Both things you want for a first stage, but definitely not an upper stage! Then you get an engine with a very high Isp and complex cycle, and use it in the first stage. Seriously? It's only because it is powered by russian marvels and the guys at ATK/Orbital can make a solid sing arias that this thing works at all.

 

Rune. Now imagine what they could have done with a design that actually made sense.

[Kryten]

1 minute ago, Rune said:

My personal opinion? It's a travesty built the wrong way around. Solids are great, because they have awesome TWR, and great tankage fraction. Both things you want for a first stage, but definitely not an upper stage! Then you get an engine with a very high Isp and complex cycle, and use it in the first stage. Seriously? It's only because it is powered by russian marvels and the guys at ATK/Orbital can make a solid sing arias that this thing works at all.

 

Rune. Now imagine what they could have done with a design that actually made sense.

Solid upper stages aren't uncommon, and used to be extremely common. Almost all Deltas used them, a lot of early Atlas' and Titans, even the space shuttle. For Antares specifically, what matters is the relatively low fixed costs of a solid stage; there's no way they would have been able to be profitable for the relatively small flight rate of Cygnus missions off a similarly sized rocket with a liquid upper stage.

[Rune]

9 minutes ago, Kryten said:

Solid upper stages aren't uncommon, and used to be extremely common. Almost all Deltas used them, a lot of early Atlas' and Titans, even the space shuttle. For Antares specifically, what matters is the relatively low fixed costs of a solid stage; there's no way they would have been able to be profitable for the relatively small flight rate of Cygnus missions off a similarly sized rocket with a liquid upper stage.

Crap, you killed a funny post commenting on @regex's comments about Soyuz by posting just then. Well, no matter, I was almost 100% in agreement with him anyway and was just expanding on the point, plus agreeing with him and @fredinno.

As to yours! That is basically a question of ignition reliability. A solid is darned safe to fire up in a microgravity/thermally weird environment, and be sure that it will light up and fuel will "flow" to the "combustion chamber". That is the reason you see it as the final stage of so many missions, which usually involve a prolonged coast before firing said stage. None of those points apply to Antares' second stage! And sorry, but saying that it was made like it was to save money on development costs while incurring in penalties if they ever got into a high launch cadence, while 100% true, is very much not a point in favour of a LV in my book. The Antares is a travestry of a compromise on top of a rushed designed, whose only saving grace is that it showcases how Orbital can integrate anything together.

 

Rune. Sucks as a rocket.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Rune

[ModZero]

Orbital/ATK is generally cool in "Jeb's Junkyard & Spaceship Parts" way. Also, one of their orbital rockets has a recoverable crewed first stage that can also take passengers across the ocean, if need be. Eat your heart out, Elon Musk!

Edited June 7, 2016 by ModZero