Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (Orbital ATK) thread

[_Augustus_]

Of course they had to buy engines from the swindlers at AR.......

Not much wider than Antares, if at all, and no option for a wide fairing (which might not work aerodynamically, who knows). 

Still, the Ares I lives again (sort of)!

Edited April 17, 2018 by _Augustus_

[Racescort666]

18 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Of course they had to buy engines from the swindlers at AR.......

Not much wider than Antares, if at all, and no option for a wide fairing (which might not work aerodynamically, who knows). 

Still, the Ares I lives again (sort of)!

Interesting. I don't mean to sound like I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth but they could have something here if their SRBs are low enough cost; especially given that SX, BO, and ULA (to a limited extent) are considering reuse. Although this feels really Kerbal to me. 

Regarding the RL10, this engine, though having excellent performance, seems to be the expensive crutch of the traditional launch market. Unless the RL10C is supposed to be significantly cheaper, like 1% the cost of the current RL10A.

[_Augustus_]

26 minutes ago, Racescort666 said:

Interesting. I don't mean to sound like I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth but they could have something here if their SRBs are low enough cost; especially given that SX, BO, and ULA (to a limited extent) are considering reuse. Although this feels really Kerbal to me. 

Regarding the RL10, this engine, though having excellent performance, seems to be the expensive crutch of the traditional launch market. Unless the RL10C is supposed to be significantly cheaper, like 1% the cost of the current RL10A.

They don't plan on recovery for the boosters.

RL10s are $25 million or more apiece, and the C version is already flying and not cheaper at all. They literally cost more than their weight in gold. Even if Orbital can produce the SRBs for dirt cheap, the two RL10s cost more than a Falcon 9 launch......

[tater]

Omega... because ti will be the last rocket OATK ever tries to make?

[Ultimate Steve]

Hmm, interesting name choice, will be interesting to see it fly (if it does). The RL-10 seems like an odd choice, though, given the expense... I wonder how much they could have gotten BE-3U's for.

[insert_name]

The omega rocket is designed to compete for natsec launches. The same people who have an interest in aerojet succeeding decide the budget for those launches, and these people are staunchly pro-areojet. It also allows orbital to continue manufacturing large SRMs, something USAF will need when the minuteman gets replaced. It isnt the best rocket ever designed, but it seems like something that congress would be happy to fund.

[Canopus]

Their target audience won't care if they have to pay the price for an RL-10

[_Augustus_]

8 hours ago, tater said:

Omega... because ti will be the last rocket OATK ever tries to make?

Probably. I see them going out of business once CRS2 ends and their current sat manufacturing contracts are over, TBH.

[Canopus]

48 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Probably. I see them going out of business once CRS2 ends and their current sat manufacturing contracts are over, TBH.

Orbital is a large supplier for Spacecraft buses. Probably every fourth commsat is build by ATK. TESS too for example and many more. Add to that their upcoming service for existing satellites. Even if nobody would be interested in OmegA Orbital wouldn‘t go down.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Canopus

[Racescort666]

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

Orbital is a large supplier for Spacecraft buses. Probably every fourth commsat is build by ATK. TESS too for example and many more. Add to that their upcoming service for existing satellites. Even if nobody would be interested in OmegA Orbital wouldn‘t go down.

Similar things are going on at Aerojet, they make RCS thrusters, ion thrusters, and all kinds of hardware even if their booster/upper stage engines aren't competitive.

[wumpus]

13 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

They don't plan on recovery for the boosters.

RL10s are $25 million or more apiece, and the C version is already flying and not cheaper at all. They literally cost more than their weight in gold. Even if Orbital can produce the SRBs for dirt cheap, the two RL10s cost more than a Falcon 9 launch......

Ouch!  RL10s appear to be some of the most simple liquid [turbopump] rockets ever designed, being expander cycle.  I wonder if political pressure keeps Orbital from manufacturing it themselves (I'd assume that they can get the plans from NASA and could modernize them).

[sevenperforce]

4 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Ouch!  RL10s appear to be some of the most simple liquid [turbopump] rockets ever designed, being expander cycle. 

I...would not call the RL-10 simple.

[tater]

RL-10 is one of the greatest rocket engines ever built. The problem is that due to the nature of contracting up until this point, AJ has had no reason to leave money on the table. I don't imagine it's vastly more expensive to manufacture than any other upper stage engine, but the price has been where it is so long it is simply inertia (and perhaps inefficiency on the part of AJ should they ever be put in a position where cost matters for them). It's the inevitable result of cost-plus contracting.

[monophonic]

A couple notes about the RL-10 choice I found in this article: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/orbital-sciences-corp/alpha-omega-orbital-atks-new-rocket-gains-name/

Quote

“The RL10 has an extensive flight history and provides a low-risk, affordable engine with outstanding performance,” said Mike Pinkston, Deputy General Manager of Orbital ATK’s Launch Vehicles Division via a release issued by the company. “OmegA is a robust all-American launch system with its entire design based on flight-proven technologies and common components from Orbital ATK’s diversified lineup of rockets and propulsion systems.”

Quote

OmegA will use the RL10C-5-1 version of the engine, which is derived from the RL10C-1, which has been service for about 3.5 years. While the RL10 might trace its legacy back decades, portions of it, including the engine’s injector assembly—which is produce using additive manufacturing, or as it is more commonly known, 3-D printing—were produced by and incorporate modern systems.

"Affordable" is not a word I would choose.  Unless that 3D printing and what else has given some major cost reductions - and / or AJ has cut their margins very low.

[wumpus]

22 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

I...would not call the RL-10 simple.

Compared to most other turbopump driven liquid engines, it certainly has a less complex job.  Of course, being the first hydrogen engine produced in the US, it was almost certainly over-engineered.  It also (current editions) appear to contain two RL-10s, when it "should" work better with a turbopump with multiple nozzles (it is limited by the ability to heat hydrogen to drive the turbopumps).

[Racescort666]

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

Compared to most other turbopump driven liquid engines, it certainly has a less complex job.  Of course, being the first hydrogen engine produced in the US, it was almost certainly over-engineered.  It also (current editions) appear to contain two RL-10s, when it "should" work better with a turbopump with multiple nozzles (it is limited by the ability to heat hydrogen to drive the turbopumps).

The construction of the RL-10 is probably not simple (hence the cost) but at a system level, it's not too bad for a pump fed engine. I would be interested to see a multiple nozzle expander cycle engine. The square/cube law is what limits your size but presumably this is limited to the thrust chamber and nozzle.

[tater]

 

[sevenperforce]

On 4/18/2018 at 12:49 PM, Racescort666 said:

The construction of the RL-10 is probably not simple (hence the cost) but at a system level, it's not too bad for a pump fed engine. I would be interested to see a multiple nozzle expander cycle engine. The square/cube law is what limits your size but presumably this is limited to the thrust chamber and nozzle.

Interestingly, an expander-cycle linear aerospike has no geometric limit on the nozzle area/chamber volume ratio, and so you could conceivably get a very high isp hydrolox aerospike running on an expander cycle. 

Then you just need a couple of COTS SRBs to get TWR off the pad, and there's your launch vehicle.

Edited April 24, 2018 by sevenperforce

[tater]

 

[sevenperforce]

When is the Antares static fire?

Kidding, kidding.

Let's see...this will be my very first Cygnus mission.

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[Scotius]

Per Delays Ad Astra. So, weather is uncooperative eh?

[Racescort666]

1 hour ago, tater said:

 

I guess I'm glad I didn't fly out there to watch this.

[tater]